156. Ripples of Res. in the Triune Life of God-Luke 24

7/30/2019 156. Ripples of Res. in the Triune Life of God-Luke 24

1/24

87

RIPPLES OF THE RESURRECTION IN

THE TRIUNE LIFE OF GOD:

READING LUKE 24 WITH ESCHATOLOGICAL

AND TRINITARIAN EYES1

ANDY JOHNSON

[email protected] Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO 64131

. Introduction

In the lead essay of Between Two Horizons: Spanning New

Testament Studies & Systematic Theology, Max Turner and JoelGreen begin by asking: "What effects should an interest in theologyproduce in the reading of Scripture?"' This paper is one experiment in

the "spanning" so to speak? Refining the terms of Turner and Green,'\ ,

'An earlier version of a portion thispaper was presented to the WesleyanTheologicalSocietyin March 2000. I amgratefulto Jonathan Case who carefullyread several draftsof the paper and edited the sectiondealingwithmy use ofPannenberg's Trinitarianpro-

'

posal. I alsowish to thank Joel Green who read an earlier draft of this paper and madenumeroushelpfulsuggestions,many of which I have incorporated into the text.

'Max Turner and Joel B. Green, "New Testament Commentary and SystematicTheology:Strangersor Friends?"in Between TwoHorizons: Spanning New Testamentt .

Studies & Systematic Theology (ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2000), 1.

'

'Hence, from the biblicalside, the followingis an attempt to contribute to the emerg-ing project ofdeveloping"a hermeneutic and a corresponding exegetical practice ori-ented towardstheologicalquestions"(FrancisWatson, Text, Church and World: BiblicalInterpretation in Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 221).Other examples exemplifyingthe concerns ofthis projectwould include:idem, Text andTruth: Redefining BiblicalTheology (Edinburgh:T&T Clark;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1997);Stephen E. Fowl, ed., The TheologicalInterpretation ofScripture: Classic andContemporary Readings (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997); idem, Engaging Scripture: AModel for Theological Interpretation (Oxford:Blackwell,1998); Christopher R. Seitz,Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1998).


2/24

88

I intend to lay out some of the effects that an interest in both eschatol-'

ogy4 and Trinitarian theology' produces in the reading of Luke 24.

To say that the Nicene homoousion conceptuality is not explicitlypresent in the NT in so many words is true to the point of being trite.

However, in agreement with Richard Bauckham's recent proposal withregard to the nature of Jewish monotheism in the first century, I will

argue that Luke 24 begins the process (and Acts furthers it6) of

including "Jesus in the unique divine identity as Jewish monotheism

understood it. "' And with the aid of Pannenberg's notion of mutualityor reciprocity among the Triune relations I will argue in more deliber-

ately Trinitarian language that, "the Nicene homoousion...describes

41am primarilyinterested in the surplusoftheological meaning (alaPaul Ricoeur)thatarises from Luke 24 when it is approached with eschatologicalquestionsin mind. WhatLuke's Gospel explicitly says about some eschatologicalmatters willinform our readingof Luke 24, but is not the focus here.

'At firstglance, appealingto Luke to engender reflectionon the Trinitymay not seemto be a verypromisingendeavorsince manywouldargue that Luke-Actshas some ofthemost primitivechristologyin the NT (e.g., no explicitincarnation,preexistence,wisdomspeculation,etc.). In addition,although he transmits a varietyof traditions and conceptshe does so in a somewhat ambiguous way that leads to a certain lack ofuniformitybetween traditions and concepts even when they stand very close together in his text.See a concise statement of the problem in H. DouglasBuckwalter,The Character andPurpose ofLuke's Christology (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress, 1996), 3-5.As I willargue below, however, some ofthis ambiguity may in fact be part of Luke'srhetoricalpoint.

"On which see my. "Resurrection, Ascension,and the DevelopingPortrait of the Godof Israel in Acts," SJT, forthcoming.

'Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the NewTestament (GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 1999), 26. For a valuablesurveyof recent treat-ments of Jewish monotheism in the first century, see Larry W. Hurtado, "What Do WeMeanby 'First-CenturyJewish Monotheism'?" SBL Seminar Papers, 1993 (SBLSP32;Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1993), 348-68.

8Myuse ofPannenberg is an attempt to engage in the kind ofinterdisciplinaritywhere,in the words of Joel Green, "the concerns of...systematic theology actually shape theways in which biblicalstudies is conducted" ("Modernity, History, and the TheologicalInterpretationof the Bible,"SJT 54 [2001}:309). Pannenberg's christologicalreflectionsleading to his Trinitarian formulations are primarilybased on historical-criticalrecon-structions.However,most of these reflections can be transferred into a more narrativebased framework that understands the finished Gospel narratives as providing theprimary imageryfor christologicaland Trinitarian reflection. See Watson's similar com-ments in Text, Church and World, 313, n. 1.


3/24

89

a pattern ofjudgements present i n the texts, in the texture of scripturaldiscourse concerning Jesus and the God of Israel. "9 With Barth, I do

not believe that this particular "pattern ofjudgements" is accidental or

that it discloses only the way God has revealed God's self in the econ-

omy of salvation. For Barth, our Scripture-based analogies (ormetaphors, images, narrative patterns, rhetorical strategies etc.) do

apply to God's being in itself by virtue of God's gracious activity of

revelation.10 "'God's true revelation,' Barth wrote, 'comes from out of

itself to meet what we can say with our human words and makes a

selection from among them to which we have to attach ourselves in

obedience. "'11 We are therefore bound to the orientation and direc-

tion established by the images that are unfolded in the narrative

patterns and intratextual analogies of Scripture. This is because it is

precisely in these that God has chosen to reveal God's essential iden-

tity "not improperly but properly, not equivocally but analogically, and

therefore in reality and truth."" Construing the mode of reference of

the biblical texts as "analogical" leaves room for the referent's abiding

mystery while obligating the interpreter to the perspicuous orientation

and direction of the scriptural images graciously provided by the divine

self-unveiling.l3

'David S. Yeago,"The New Testamentand the Nicene Dogma:A Contributionto theRecovery ofTheological Exegesis," in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture:Classic and Contemporary Readings (ed. Stephen E. Fowl;Oxford:Blackwell,1997),

88.'oGeorge Hunsinger, "Beyond Literalism and Expressivism: Karl Barth's

HermeneuticalRealism,"Modern Theology 3 (1987): 209-23. See this contention onpp. 212-13. The languagefor the above sentence comes from 221, n. 18.

"Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. II, part 1 (Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1957), 267cited in Hunsinger,215.

This is Hunsinger'sparaphrase ofBarth, not Barth's exact words.

have modifiedHunsinger'swording from 218 to bring out the significanceof thewords "orientation and direction" since this phrase willbe important throughout thepaper.


4/24

90

In what follows I will attend to the orientation and direction estab-

lished by the scriptural images as they are unfolded in the narrative of

Luke 24. In effect, I am after a Trinitarian reading of the resurrection

that is informed by the eschatological and cosmological issues raised by

the way Luke narrates it. What do these episodes mean for our con-ception of the eschaton and in turn, for the life of God? By focusingon the surplus of theological meaning" that is generated by the

orientation and direction of the images employed in Luke 24, I intend

to: (1) clarify how these images ought to shape an audience's eschato-

logical imagination;" (2) show that an incipiently Triune portrait of

Yahweh, the God of Israel begins to unfold; and (3) briefly indicate how

a Trinitarian reader's imagination is enlarged with regard to the nature

of the Triune life of God when that imagination is stimulated by the

portrait of the embodied risen Son in this narrative unfolding. Since in

the narrative, eschatological and Trinitarian considerations overlap and

mutuallyinform each other, these three tasks are not strictly sequential.

Hence, such demonstrations will emerge through a reading of the storyas it unfolds.

'4PaulRicoeur's hermeneutical theory provides much of the philosophicalunderpin-ning of what follows. See primarily his Interpretation Theory: Discourse and theSurplus ofMeaning (Fortworth,TX: Texas ChristianUniversityPress, 1976). However,my unapologetic theological modificationof it is indebted more to Barth. For a com-parison and contrast of the hermeneutics ofRicoeur and Barth, see Mark I. Wallace,TheSecond Naivet6: Barth, Ricoeur, and the New Yale Theology (StABH 6; Macon GA:

Mercer UniversityPress, 1990).15WhenI use the language of "imagination," or "shaping the imagination," I am

dependent on the theoretical articulationofDavidJ. Bryant,Faith And The Play OfTheimagination; On the Role of Imagination in Religion (StABH5; Macon, GA: MercerUniversityPress, 1989). To be specific,when I speak of Luke's "shaping the imagina-tion" of his audience,I am referringto the rhetorical means he uses to present new andilluminatingcombinations of forms which are meant to become the new meaningful .forms throughwhich the audience understandsthe eschaton and the identity/deityof theone God. Any power these meaningfulforms have to disclosetruths about the nature ofthe Triune life of God is not inherent in the forms themselvesbut is only there becauseGod has graciouslychosen them as a means to reveal God's essential identity.


5/24

91

Luke's Portrayal of the Risen Son: A First Glance

Ever since 3:21, Luke's spotlight has been on Jesus, and both the

characters in the story and the audience have been able to "follow" his

movement from place to place. However, beginning with thediscoveryof the absence of the embodied "Lord Jesus" 6 from the tomb in 24:3,

this is no longer the case. Unlike the women, for whom an empty tomb

initially yields only perplexity, for the audience paying attention to the

prior promises of Jesus, it generates some, hope that he has indeed

been raised. But where does one who has been raised from the dead

go when the tomb they were buried in is found empty? In w. 1-8 the

narrator gives the audience nothing more to go on than what the char-

acters have as clues for imagining a location for the missing body of

the risen Son." The announcement of the angels that "he is not here,but he has been raised," is not connected with "location" words as theyare. in Mark and Matthew. Here, the women are told to remember what

Jesus said while he was still in Galilee (v. 6), but not that he was going .there ahead of the disciples (as in Mark 16:7 and Matt 28:7).18

'6AlthoughJesus has been called Kuptocnumerous times in the narrative,this is thefirst time he is referred to with the phrase "the Lord Jesus." It is not necessarilythat theabsence ofhis bodyin the tomb signalsthat the risen Son has "become" Lord since thelast time the audience caught sight of him. Already at Jesus' birth the narrator couldplace the term on the lips ofvarious characters in reference to him (e.g., Elizabethin1:43 and an angel in 2:11). In fact, in 2:11 it is interestingto note that the languageofK?ipto;is beginningto blur a bit in that Jesus is called xvpto5 by the very angel who issaid to have the gloryof the xirpto5shiningaround him in 2:9.

"One might say that the obviousanswer that Jesus himselfgives in the story is thathe has moved "to paradise"(23:43). Anotherpossiblecluemight be that he commitshis

"spirit"into the Father's hands and so at least his "spirit" is somehow with the Father.But neither of these suggestionsis quite to the point with regard to the location of thefleshly body of the risen Son missingfrom the tomb, the second one obviouslyso sinceit refers only to Jesus' spirit. With regard to the reference to "paradise," one's earthlybody of flesh, transformed or not, does not accompanyone "to paradise"even ifone'sexistencein "paradise"is portrayed usingsome form of embodiment language.

lgThisapparent editorialchange is ofcourse readilyexplainablefrom Luke'sempha-sis on the importanceof Jerusalem for Jesus and the early Church. But because ofthischange in the way Luke has ordered his narrative, the narrative itselfshapes the imagi-nation of its audience withregard to the location of the risen Son in a differentwaythaneither Mark or Matthew.


6/24

92

Even though the audience has some hope that Jesus' promise of

resurrection has been fulfilled, the gap in their imagination as to the

location of the missing embodied risen Son remains open until Luke

portrays two characters intensely discussing "the things concerning

Jesus of Nazareth" on their way to Emmaus (w. 13-14). During theirconversation, the narrative spotlight is switched on the fully embodied

risen Son. But whence he comes, the audience is not told. Luke simplyhas "Jesus, h i msel f came near and began walking along with. them"

(v. 15). Once again, the audience is able to "follow" the fully embodied

risen Son.

Evidently to head off the unpardonable sin of viewing Jesus as sim-

ply a revived corpse," some interpreters play up the non-recognitionmotif here. That is, they seem to think that the narrative logic is that

the two disciples don't recognize the risen Son because of the trans-

formation that has happened to him.20 This strategy often allows the

interpretersome relief from the "crass"

continuitythe narrative

por-trays between the body of Jesus that was buried and the embodied

(transformed) risen Son. Luke is certainly not portraying Jesus as a

revived corpse and, as the subsequent narrative makes clear, there is no

question that a genuine transformation has indeed taken place. But

Luke informs the audience that when Jesus began walking along with

them, "their eyes were prevented from recognizing him." God is the

subject of the action presented in the passive voice2' with the obvious

- -

"A "sin"that seems alwaysto be stronglycautionedagainst, particularlyby those con-cerned with reconstructingthe traditionhistoryofthe resurrection narratives, but whichnever actuallyseems to be committedby any serious scholar of which I am aware. See

the similar comments of Stephen Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of theResurrection (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 45-6.

2115eefor example the representative comments ofRaymond Brown, The VirginalConception & BodilyResurrection ofJesus (NewYork:Paulist, 1973), 89, 111.

21TakingKp


7/24

93

implication that, had God not intervened, they would have recognizedhim precisely in his transformed state.22 Even here the text resists inter-

pretive efforts to downplay the significant element of continuity the

narrative portrays between the body of Jesus that was buried and the

embodied (transformed) risen Son.While he walks unrecognized by the characters, Luke trains the

narrative spotlight on the risen Son for the audience as he interprets

Scripture for his fellow travelers and then serves as host of a meal that

will be a revelatory moment for them. And it is while the risen Son is

reclining there handing them bread that God opensZ3 their eyes to

recognize that the hands distributing the bread are the crucifixion-

marked hands of the one who had been killed but is now alive?' But at

that same revelatory moment, he vanishes both from their sight and

the sight of the audience. Once again, the embodied risen Son cannot. be followed with the narrative spotlight. But this time, the disciples who

have encountered him are "able to articulate the reality of the divine

presence among them, transforming them, as they had the Scripturesinterpreted to them during the journey. "25

this climacticchapter Luke uses these divinepassivesin order to portray God as creat-ing the necessary space within the Emmausjourney for a new narrative world to beforged for the characters. Such narrativespace is necessaryfor the risen one to forge acontext in which the travelers' eyes, once opened, could have a larger backgroundagainstwhich to coherently bring into proper focusa crucifiedand resurrected messiah.Hence, by bracketingthe arrivaland departure of the risenone withdivinepassives,LukesubtlyportraysGod as active in finally breaking through their ownfailure to grasp thenew worldorder determined by God's reign.

'So also B. P. Robinson, "The Place of the Emmaus Story in Luke-Acts,"NTS 30(1984): 484. Whilethey may have recognized who he was, they would have had no

larger context for makingsense of a crucifiedand resurrected messiah."On taking \TJvoix6rloavas a divinepassive,see n. 21.

2'RichardThompson suggested this reading to me based on Jesus' invitation in w.39-40 for the disciplesto handle his obviouslycrucifixion-markedhands and feet.

'Green, Gospel, 850. Green suggests this language because of the possibilityof"burning"(v. 32) connotingthe divinepresence as it does in several OT texts. As a pas- .

siveparticiple, JaX1.o?vTJmightindeed connote the activepresence of God. And ifso, itwould corroborate my claim below that the narrative movestowardhavingits charactersand audience associate the very eschatologicalpresence ofYahweh with the fleshly,embodied,risen Son.


8/24

94

While the eleven are proclaiming that the Lord has been raised and

has appeared to Simon, the two travelers are narrating their encounterwith this same risen Lord on the road and how this risen Lord "wasmade known" to them, evidently by God (w. 33-35).26 There are two

things to note here. First there is the phrase, "The Lord has beenraised." This is the only place in the entire NT that this particular

phrase is used. It is interesting in that the term, 6 Kp1.0,the term

most often used in the LXX to translate Yahweh, is the one who is

receiving the action of a divine passive verb. Luke could have chosen

to word the phrase differently but this way of naming the one raised

begins to identify him with, yet distinguish him from, the one who

raised him. That this is somewhat ambiguous is certainly true. But the

very ambiguity of this way of naming the risen one may in fact be part

of Luke's rhetorical strategy, i.e., his way of doing theology or shap-

ing the theological imagination of his audience. Second, contrary to

what some interpreters say, Luke does not portray the risen Christ as

walking through a door or a wall. The narrative spotlight does not have

Jesus coming "from somewhere offstage" as the language of "walk-

ing through a door or wall" might imply. Rather, he simply stands in

their midst with no narration of his coming to them. Here again, Luke

does not make explicit the location of the risen Son between appear-ances. As we will see in a moment however, v. 26 has already giventhe discerning audience an implicit clue as to his whereabouts when the

narrative spotlight is not on him.

In the following verses, Luke magnifies the quite physical/material

aspects of the risen Son. He focuses directly on the physical propertiesof the body of the risen Son in order to indicate his corporeal conti-

nuity with the crucified and buried Jesus." The extreme physicality of

'Taking yvwo6ras a divinepassive wouldbe consistent with the presence ofotherdivinepassivesreferred to above.

"Brown is typicalofcertain traditionhistory approaches that agree that while the fin-ished narrative of Luke might imply a rather physical understanding of what hasoccurred, its main interest is not reallythe physicalproperties of the body as such butrather "emphasizingthe corporeal continuitybetween the earthly and risen Jesus" (89).Lukecertainlydoes want to emphasizethe corporeal continuitybetween the earthlyandrisen Jesus, but he is mainlyinterested in doingso by focusing on the physical proper-ties of the body as such.


9/24

95

this passage is quite remarkable. Jesus invites his disciples to look at his

hands and feet evidently because the crucifixion wounds are still visible

(v. invites them to "handle" him (v. claims to have "flesh

and bones" unlike a xv86ya (v. 39c), shows them his hands and feet (v.

40), and then eats a piece of fish in their presence (w. 4143).30In order to understand Luke's way of doing theology and how this

text might have been heard, it will be helpful to sketch briefly some

general cultural assumptions regarding life after death and cosmologyin the ancient Mediterranean world 31 It was the tendency of an earlier

generation of scholars to portray beliefs about life after death in the

ancient world with an oversimplified dichotomy, i.e., "the" Jewish view

(resurrection of the body) vs. "the" Greek view (immortality of the

soul) . However, it has become increasingly clear that there was neither

one single orthodox Jewish view nor one unitary Greek conception of

'This seems to be the reason he follows his invitation to look at his hands and feetwith the emphatic words, "becauseI, myself,am he" (t1.eyw eiy

29'fhe verb here is which indicates more than a mere invitation to"touch." It has the connotationof "handle me" or "put your hands all over me" (BDAG;cf. 1 John 1:1; Gen. 27:12, 21, 22 LXX).

is common to argue that allthis is simplypart of an overall Lukantendencytowardsemphasizingthe physical/materialwith Luke's purpose here being to providean apolo-getic for the "reality"of the resurrection. For hermeneutical reasons the importanceofsuch an argument is minimalsince it is the orientationand direction of the finished nar-rative that ought to shape our theologicalreflection rather than a hypotheticalrecon-struction of the earliest traditions. I alsobelieve, however,that the argument ought to berejected for historicalreasons. Cf. the comments of N. T. Wright, "EarlyTraditionsandthe OriginofChristianity,"STReu41 (1998): 133-35.

"The indicationsare that Lukeexpected his work to circulatewidelyamong churchesthroughout the world of his day (Richard Bauckham, "For Whom Were GospelsWritten?," in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences [ed.R. Bauckham;Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1998], 11). I am, therefore, purposelypaintingthe historical/culturalbackgroundon a large canvas. Sketching this historical/culturalbackgroundindicatesmy agreement with Green's insistence that in order to bring bibli-cal studies and systematic theologyinto conversation we must resist any conceptualiza-tion that requires the segregation of history and theology in the interpretive task("Modernity,History,and the TheologicalInterpretation of the Bible," 321).

classicexampleis Oscar Cullmann's,Immortality ofthe Soul or Resurrectionofthe Dead? (London:Epworth, 1958).


10/24

96

life after death in the period in question.33 Contrary to what one often

hears, the notion of a resurrected body was not something that would

have been incomprehensible outside the Jewish milieu in the wider

ancient Mediterranean world -' In fact, the popularity of various stories

of dead bodies being raised again to continue earthly life indicatesthat the notion was at least not incomprehensible to some, most prob-

ably the uneducated masses. It is also inaccurate to paint popular .Greco-Roman conceptions of the dead in the afterlife as "non-bodily"since the images most often used in the sources to describe afterlife,while certainly dualistic, are bod i l y images. In fact, most often the

souls of the dead were portrayed as having a material body, usuallymade up of very fine light moterial, but not a body composed of the

heavy type of fleshly material that makes up the present human

'For detailed treatments of the Jewish background, see George NickelsburgResurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26;Cambridge:Harvard UniversityPress, 1972) and H. C. C. Cavallin,Life After Death:Paul's Argument for the Resurrection ofthe Dead in 1 Cor I5; Part 1: An Enquiryinto the Jewish Background (ConBNT7:1; Lund: Gleerup,1974). For recent surveysofthe Jewish background,see Gregory J. Riley,Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomasand John in Controversy (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1995), 10-23 and RichardBauckham,"Life,Death, and the Afterlifein SecondTempleJudaism,"in Life in the Face ofDeath:The Resurrection Message ofthe New Testament (ed.Richard N. Longenecker;GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 80-94. For recent surveysof the Greco-Romanbackground,see Peter Bolt, "Life, Death, and the Afterlifein the Greco-RomanWorld,"in Life in theFace of Death, 51-79; Riley,23-68; Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress, 1995), 108-20. For a good overview focused specificallyonJewish and Greco-Romanunderstandingsof the term "resurrection" and its cognates,

see A. J. M Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theologyagainst its Greco-RomanBackground (Tubingen:Mohr-Siebeck,1987), 164-211.

"WhileStanleyPorter may go too far, he argues that assumptionsabout resurrectionin the Greco-Roman world might have actuallyinfluencedJewish thinking to move inthat direction ("Resurrection,The Greeks, and the New Testament" in Resurrection[JSNTSup186; ed. S. Porter, et al. ;Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress, 19991, 52-81).

'Martin, The Corinthian Body, 110-12. Wedderburn,Baptism and Resurrection,181-83.

'In fact, even though the fleshlybody is gone, the survivingsoul typicallybears theimage of it and at times can even be portrayed as participatingin what can only bedescribed as "physical"activities(Riley,Resurrection Reconsidered, 44-58).


11/24

97

body. 17As Martin points out, among the more educated familiar with

popular Hellenistic philosophy, this present fleshly body composed of

heavy elements at the bottom of what amounted to a cosmological

hierarchy had no place in the afterlife.38 There were, however, a privi-

leged few who were said to have been translated bodily to the realm ofthe gods (e.g., some emperors) apparently bypassing death in the

process. A very few heroes of the legendary past are revived after

death, restored to bodily existence, and then exist in a godlike state

forever

The upshot of all of this is that there are partial parallels to Luke's

portrayal of the risen Son prevalent in the wider culture. But his

extremely physical portrayal of a figure of the recent past who did not

bypass death but was raised permanently from the dead with a bodyof transformed f lesh would have challenged general cultural assump-tions regarding life after death in the ancient Mediterranean world."

Hence, it is not Luke's insistence on Jesus' bodily or material exis-

tence per se that would have been a cause of offense, particularly

among the more educated in Luke's audience. Rather, it is his narra-

tion of the raising of the f lesh ly body of one recen tly crucified to

eternal life 41 The way he orders this narrative would have called for

'''Hence, this was neither a bodilyvs. non-bodilydualismnor a materialvs. immaterialCartesiandualism,but a relegationofthe flesh to a lowerstatus on a hierarchicalspec-trum (Martin,The Corinthian Body, 113-17).

116.'

"But as Wedderburn notes about these individuals,later thought tended to portray

them as "sloughingoff theirbodiesand continuingexistence as souls alone..." (Baptismand Resurrection, 190).'Porter givesno examplesofthis conception of "resurrection" in his survey.

"Hence, Luke's understandingof salvation as a reversal of social status (see JoelGreen, The Theologyofthe Gospel ofLuke [Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1995], 77-101) has its corollaryhere. That is, his unabashed portrayalof Jesus' resur-rection as concrete and fleshlyextends this understandingof salvation as status reversalinto the cosmological/physiologicalhierarchyassumed in much popular Hellenisticphi-losophy. On an honor/shame scale, it is precisely the flesh whose shameful status isreversed and infused with honor (66M when the risen one enters into his glorySee below for more on this.


12/24

98

(calls for) a reorienting of their (our) assumptions about the very natureof the cosmos itself and about the God who acts "in the flesh and forthe flesh. " 42

Luke's portrayal becomes even more disorienting when we return to

v. 26 and note its implications. In that verse, it is important to pointout that the risen Son who encounters the characters and the audiencehas already "entered into his glory" (eiq 66gav auiov)43 as the

eternally reigning Messiah. Carey Newman makes a persuasive argu-ment that the 66?x of Yahweh had come to function as a sign for the

eschatological presence of Yahweh himself and that the resurrection

provided the narrative, historical, and theological trigger for the earli-

"zT'hisphrase comes from Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On theSignificance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and ChristianCosmology(GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 1999), 13.

43Whileit is grammaticallypossiblethat the imperfect e 8 eonly refers to the sufferinghaving clearly taken place, the most natural reading of it is to take it as referring toMessiah's having already "entered into glory"as well (so Joseph Fitzmyer,The GospelAccording to Luke X-XXIV[AB; New York: Doubleday, 1985], 1538-39; GerhardSchneider,Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Kapitel 11-24 [OTK;GUtersloh:GutersloherVerlagshaus Mohn; Wiirzburg:Echter Verlag, 1992], 507; contra John Nolland,Luke18:35-24:53 [WBC;Dallas:Word, 1993], 1204-5). The verse is most naturallytrans-lated by taking as a neuter plural subjectofthe singularverb "Weren't thesethings necessary:that (1)the Messiah should sufferand (2) that he should enter into his

glory?"As Gerhard Lohfink

pointed out,the

grammaticalstructure of this verse reflects

a typical pattern elsewhere in Luke-Acts(Luke 24:46 and Acts 17:3 are the clearestexamples)wherethe second member of a clauserefers to a past event (DieHimmel fahrtJesu. Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts-und Erhdhungstexten bei Lukas [SANT26; Milnchen: Kosel, 1971], 236-9, cited by A. W. Zwiep, The Ascension of theMessiah in Lukan Christology [NovTSup87; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 152). This sort ofreading leads some commentatorsto implicitlyidentifyJesus' "entering into glory," i.e.,his exaltation, with his resurrection (e.g., Walter Schmithals, Das Evangelium nachLukas [ZB;Zurich :TheologischerVerlag,1980], 234; Jacob Kremer,Lukasevangelium[NEchtB;Wirzburg:EchterVerlag,1988], 240). However,as I argue belowthis readingof e8ei does not necessarilycommit one to seeing no distinction between Jesus' resur-rection and his exaltation.


13/24

99

est Christians understanding Jesus as the 66ga of Yahweh." Earlier in

the Gospel, this same "glory" language is used to describe the tempo-

rary "glory" that comes upon the one God calls "my son" at the trans-

figuration (9:32), a "glory" caused, not surprisingly if Newman is cor-

rect, by the very presence of Yahweh in the cloud as at Sinai. It is thenused to describe the Son of Man's return in the eschaton

(Luke 9:26; 21:27) presumably from "the right hand of the power of

God" where he will be sitting (Luke 22:69). In Newman's words, "Jesus.

will come shrouded, draped, and encompassed by Yahweh's presence,his Glory."" In light of this, Luke's portrayal of the resurrected Messiah

as has having already "entered into his glory" prior to any of his appear-'

ances has implications both for eschatology and for Trinitarian theology.

Luke's Portrayal of the Risen Son: Eschatological Implications

The eschatological implications of Luke's portrayal thus far arise. from the recognition that throughout this chapter he is portraying the

risen Son as having already experienced the transformation that fits

him for the eschaton.46 More specifically, all the appearances in Luke

24 are appearances of a risen human being who has been eschato-

logically transformed and has already been exalted to the righthand of God as Lord and begun to reign. The exaltation/enthrone-ment at God's right hand (promised by Jesus in 22:69 and explicitly

"Carey C. Newman,"Resurrectionas Glory:DivinePresence and ChristianOrigins,""in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection ofJesus

'

(ed. Stephen Davis,DanielKendall,Gerald O'Collins;Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress,1997), 59-89. Keeping in mind the close connections between early Christian commu-nities (again see Bauckham, The Gospel for All Christians), if the earliest Christiansunderstood Jesus in the terms Newmansuggests, it would not be at all surprisingifLuke

'

made these kindsofconnections and expected his audience to make them as well.

'Newman, "Resurrection,"73.

46Theresurrectionappearances are not what Lukewas referringto in 9:26 and 21:27,but in light of these passages, to say that the Messiah has "entered his glory" wouldsuggest that he has been transformed into that state in which he willultimatelyreturn.


14/24

100

referred to in Acts 2:33) is triggered by the resurrection and confirmed

visibly at the ascension" Let me be very clear here. I am not sayingthat Luke (or any other early Christian) was incapable of distinguishingbetween resurrection and exaltation as though the former was a later

development of the latter in the history of the tradition. Speaking ofsomeone's resurrection would not have necessarily implied their exal-

tation to a position where glory/honor was due them. But because

Luke is speaking of one who was unexpectedly crucified as a Davidic

messiah whose very function is understood to be kingly rule, God's

resurrecting him as Messiah would quite naturally suggest his enthrone-

ment to that kingly rule. Luke's narration of the resurrection of a kinglymessiah led him, via Scriptures such as Psalm 2, to imply his enthrone-

ment/exaltation as a result of his resurrection. Hence, the former is

triggered by the latter but occurs so closely on its heels that Luke can

portray the resurrected Messiah as having already "entered his glory"

and can telescope his resurrection and enthronement/exaltation intoone movement in Acts 2:33.48

One recurring objection to this is something like the following: "But

he is just not portrayed as transformed enough in these physical/material appearance accounts for him to be the eschatologically

'By this I do not mean to implythat the ascension is an objectificationof the earlyChurch's exaltationkerygma(seee.g., Schneider,Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 506-7).Luke presents the ascension as an actual event (and I see no a priori reason for doubt-ing him here) that functions at the end of the Gospel to confirm his exaltationvisibly.

Unlike Farrow (21-22), however,I do not think it is necessary to view the ascension asthe initial moment of exaltation in Luke-Actsin order to maintain a robust theologyofthe ascension. See my "Resurrection,Ascension."

"


15/24

101

transformed, already reigning, Messiah and Lord. "49 But why work witha predefined notion of "eschatological transformation" or even exalta-

tion ? Why imagine that one who has undergone eschatological trans-formation and exaltation into the presence of God is simply not a good

candidate for physical/material embodiment? Why can't we imaginetransformed physicality/materiolity as one result of eschatological'transformation? Rather than coming to this text with a predefinednotion of what constitutes eschatological transformation and exalta-

tion, perhaps we should allow the orientation and direction of the

scriptural images to define them for us.

Luke's portrayal of the risen Son in this chapter, then, has significant

implications for our understanding of eschatology. Robert Jenson's

language along these lines is instructive:

The appearance stories plainly do not suppose that the risen .

Jesus had returned to inhabit the witnesses' time and space.'Although the witnesses saw something visible and tangible in their

'

world, between appearances the risen Jesus had no such loca-tion-he was not thought to be lodging with Mary and Martha or

staying at the Jerusalem caravansary. He appeared when and ashe would and then "vanished from their sight" or "withdrew fromthem"-neither "walked away" nor "disappeared" would be quitethe right phrase. Nor were his appearings subject to the regulari-

"See for example the comment of Eric Franklin(Christ The Lord: A Study in thePurpose and TheologyofLuke-Acts [Philadelphia:Westminster,19751):"Luke's resur-rection appearances are devoid ofany hint ofglorification"(31). In tradition historyapproaches that attempt to nail down the originalnature of the appearances one oftensees a

reference to the "apologeticallymotivated, crass, physical/material appearancesin Luke and John" as opposed to the more "spiritual understanding" of Paul in 1Corinthians 15 (e.g., see the comments ofReginaldH. Fullerin The Formation oftheResurrection Narratives [NewYork:The MacmillanCompany, 197 1],56-7, 115, 130,138-9, 172-3). In turn, from the systematicside, these kindsofconclusionsfrom bibli-cal scholars are oftensimplyassumedand used to dismissthe more concrete appearanceaccounts ofLuke and John as late and "apologetic"(e.g. Peter Carnley, The StructureofResurrection Belief[Oxford:Clarendon, 1987], 234-49 and passim).CertainlyPaul'sstatement in 1 Cor 15:50, "fleshand blood cannot inherit the reign ofGod," must betaken into account in any intracanonicalconversationon these matters. However,prop-erly understood, Paul's phrase is an idiom that refers simplyto untransformedhumanbeings(on which see my "On Removinga Trump Card Flesh and Bloodand the ReignofGod," BBR, forthcoming.).


16/24

102

ties of this age: "Although the doors were shut," Jesus yet "cameand stood among them...." If we ask where Jesus was--so to

speak-resident during the days of the appearances, the immedi-

ately available answer is that he was in the heaven of the

apocalypses, that is, in God's final future, from which he showedhimself---or the Spirit showed him-to the chosen

If Jenson is right, it would be appropriate to argue that when therisen Son appears here, his appearances bring a foretaste of God's

final future (i.e., the eschaton) from which he comes. And if so, sincethere is no narration of him changing forms in any of his comingsand goings in this chapter (including his ascension) we ought to imag-ine that final future as characterized by transformed physical/material,even fleshly, embodiment 51 Hence, the eschatological transformationof the one who will shortly be taken up visibly into the life of God atthe ascension "does not erase the physical but overwhelms it, drench-

ingit with

significance. "52That

is,this

eschatological transformationdoes not erase the physical marks of the crucifixion; the exalted oneremains the crucified one. "It is this resurrection," as Craig Keen argues,"that is the hallowing of the flesh.

"53

'Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (NewYork: Oxford UniversityPress,1997), 197. As is clear from contemporaryJewish literature(e.g., 2 Bar 4:6-7), the con-ceptualityof what will be at the end time existingnow in heaven was "in the air" inLuke's day (SeeAndrewT. Lincoln,Paradise Now and Not Yet:Studies in the Role ofthe Heauenly Dimension in Paul's Thought with Special Reference to HisEschatology [SNTSMS43; Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1 98 1]).

s'Notsurprisingly

this transformation does notkeep

him fromparticipating

in theveryphysicaland socialactivityofeating sinceeating is an activitythat the prior narrative has

indicated is quite appropriate for the coming reign ofGod/eschaton (22:16-18). On thefrequent correlation Luke makes between resurrection/resuscitationand hunger/eating,and his portrayalof the eschaton itself as a banquet, see Joel Green, "'Witnesses ofHis .Resurrection': Resurrection, Salvation, Discipleship,and Mission in the Acts of theApostles," in Life in the Face ofDeath, 242.

521have taken these words from Graham Ward and used them a bit differentlythan heuses them in "The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ," in Radical Orthodoxy: A NewTheology (eds.J. Milbank,et al.; Oxford:Blackwell,1999), 170.

'Craig Keen, "The Transgression of the Integrity of God: The Trinity and theHallowingof the Flesh," WesleyanTheologicalJournal 36 (2001): 84.


17/24

103

Luke's Portrayal of the Risen Son: Trinitarian Implications

Overlapping these eschatological implications, Trinitarian implica-tions begin to emerge as well from Luke's portrayal of the risen Son as

having alreadyentered his glory. This is because Jesus'

appearancesare not only appearances of one who has been eschatologically trans-

formed, but of one who has already been exalted to the right hand

of God as Lord and begun his reign, one who signs the eschatolog-ical presence of Yahweh himself.

This is highlighted by the way Luke concludes his Gospel. With the

narrative spotlight still on him Jesus leads his followers out to Bethanywhere he ascends into heaven.' This has the effect of giving the

characters and the audience the ultimate assurance as to the con-

vincing nature of Luke's presentation/interpretation, i.e., as to its

as promised in 1 :4. It functions to confirm that the narra-

tive's redefinition of both messiah and of Yahweh's 86?a has been

divinely given. As the embodied risen Son gradually fades from the nar-rative spotlight and becomes unfollowable once again, our last image is

.

one of a transformed, yet fleshly embodied, human being ascendinginto the abode of God using his crucifixion-marked hands to pronouncedivine favor on his followers.56 Such a portrait continues Luke's processof forging in the imagination of his audience a cosmology that breaks

'4For recent treatments of the ascension texts in Luke and Acts, see Mikeal C.Parsons, The Departure ofJesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratiues in Context(JSNTSup21; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1987) and Zwiep,Ascension. For the difficulttext-

criticalissuessurroundingthe ascension narratives, see A. W. Zwiep, "The Text of theAscensionNarratives(Luke24.50-3; Acts 1.1-2, 9-11)," NTS 42 (1996): 219-44. Mydecision to includeboth the reference to their "worship"ofJesus and to his being "car-ried into heaven" is in agreement with Zwiep's persuasive critique of those who preferthe shorter Westerntext (e.g.,Parsons in the work citedabove)and reflectswhatappearsto be a scholarlyconsensus (e.g., see Green, Gospel of Luke, 859; Holland,Luke18:35-24:53, 1224; Schneider,Das Euangelium nach Lukas, 505).

'For this understandingof see Green, Gospel ofLuke, 45.

56Therhetorical effect of the imperfect verb, vtcj>ptto,is to stretch out the scenein a way that givesLuke'sdescriptionofthe risen Son a certain permanence/stabilityinthe imaginationof his audience (c.f.Acts 1:10).


18/24

104

the bounds of the popular understanding of the place of human flesh

in the cosmos. It uncompromisingly sews together the light, airy, eter-

nal world above with the "crass, heavy physical/material stuff" of the

temporal world below. And in this process, Luke is presenting his audi-

ence with new and illuminating combinations of forms that are meantto become the new meaningful forms through which the audience

understands the identity/deity of the one God of Israel. In fact after the

one who now embodies Yahweh's eschatological glory/presence can

no longer be followed by the narrative spotlight, the disciples quite

appropriately "worship" him." This is something that in Luke-Acts,and in first century Judaism as a whole, is typically reserved for God

alone.58 The story of the risen Son then closes by dovetailing into the

story of Yahweh. That is, it closes on an entirely theocentric note

where the disciples, who have just worshiped the risen Son, are por-

trayed as being in the temple of Yahweh "blessing God" (8e6v is liter-

ally the last word in Luke's Gospel). This strategy of closure is one ofcircularity that brings the audience right back to the way the narrative

opens, i.e., "with the pious people of God blessing him in his house."59

While there is a sense of closure to the narrative here, there is also

a certain amount of openness with numerous links tying this story

together with the story of Acts. More to the point for our purposes is

that the literary strategy of circularity, which gives the entire narrative

5'The word here is 1tpoOlC\)vfoavnwhichtypicallymeans "to prostrate oneself as anact of veneration" but here carries the stronger connotation of "to worship." So alsoJoseph Plevnik, "The Eyewitnessesof the Risen Jesus in Luke 24," CBQ 49 (1987):102. Here Luke portrays the disciplesas givingdue honor to the risen Son, aroyal messiah who has "entered his glory" and as a result now embodiesYahweh'seschatologicalglory/presence.

'"[Worship in the Jewish tradition is recognitionof the unique divine identity.It isaccorded to God especiallyas the sole creator of all thingsand as sole Ruler of allthings.It most obviouslyputs into religiouspractice the distinction Jewish monotheism drewbetween the one God and all other reality"(Bauckham,God Crucified, 34-35). See alsoHurtado's similar, but somewhat weaker, claim ("First-CenturyJewish Monotheism,"366).

"Mikael C. Parsons, "NarrativeClosureand Openness in the Plot of the Third Gospel:The Sense ofan Endingin Luke 24:50-53," SBL Seminar Papers, 1986 (SBLSP25;Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1986), 207.


19/24

105

a theocentric frame, leaves open an important question raised by the

orientation and direction of the Gospel narrative and its images. That

is, what are we to imagine when we hear the term "theocentric"? My

argument so far has moved more explicitly toward a portrait of Yahweh

as characterized by a "biunity" of Father and risen Son. But Luke'snarrative has begun to move its audience beyond even this. By the time

we reach the end of the Gospel, Luke has begun to reorient the imag-ination of his audience in such a way that "theocentric" begins to mean

discourse focused on an incipiently Triune.portrait of Yahweh, the God

of Israel.

To begin to flesh out and support this assertion with reference to the

whole of Luke's Gospel, one might make productive use of Wolfhart

Pannenberg's notion of mutuality or reciprocity among the Triune rela-

tions.' Pannenberg develops this notion first in conjunction with Jesus'

relation to the Father, as this relation can be construed in the former's

proclamation of the in-breaking lordship/reign of God. Jesus does not

merely represent the rule of God, rather "he executes it. He is theholder of lordship. "6' And in Luke's narrative, he proclaims and exe-

cutes God's rule only by depending on the power of the Spirit who

comes from the Father62 The Father has thus made his kingdom

>

60Lackofspace prohibitsall but the briefest sketch here. See Pannenberg's discussionin Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (trans. G. Bromiley;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991),

308-14.6iIbid. ,312. Luke's narrativehas ample evidenceof this claim(e.g., 5:21-24; 10 :21-

22a ; cf., Acts 10:36).'In fact, it is the comingofthe Spirit that both certifies Jesus' sonship in 3:22 and

that in the temptation scene makes his total obedience/submissionto the Father possi-ble (cf. the comments ofGreen, Gospel ofLuke, 184). It is only after this incident thathe beginshispublicproclamationand execution of the reign of God (4:43).Althoughhedoes not use the language of"dependence" to describe it, for the close connectionbetween God's rule,Jesus' kingship,and his empowermentwith God's Spiritin Luke seeMaxTurner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel's Restoration and Witness inLuke-Acts(JSPTSup9; Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress, 1996), 290-94.


20/24

106

dependent'3 upon Jesus whose self-distinction from, and subordina-tion to,64 the Father is paradoxically the very basis of his unity with theFather. In this way Pannenberg has inserted a certain relativity into thenotion of divine Fatherhood, based on the Father's dependency on the

Son that functions as the basis for a "true reciprocity in the Trinitarianrelations."' Hence, he contends that God's lordship/reign (i.e., God's

deity) is made dependent upon the fate of Jesus and therefore, God'sown deity is disputed in the cross of Jesus.' As a result, Jesus' basic

message of the dawning reign of God needed nothing less than "con-

firmation by the intimated event itself"6'-which is given in the resur-

rection. For by raising Jesus from the dead, the Father shows that the

kingdom has indeed dawned since a particular instance of one of itsconstitutive events (i.e., the resurrection of the dead) has taken place.68

63InLuke's narrativealthough God's purpose is "dependent" on the "submission" of

various characters in the story (e.g., Maryin Luke 1), this does not necessarilylead to theimplicationthat they are somehow taken up into the life of God. But these other char-acters never have the same kind of claims made for them as Jesus has made for him. Noone else is called"my Son" by God; no one else is said to be executingGod's rule; noone else is said to be involvedin sending/commissioningthe very Spirit ofGod; no oneelse ascends into the abode of God and has "worship"directedtowardhim. Hence God'spurpose in Luke "depends"on the Son in a way that is qualitatively different from theway that God's purpose "depends" on the partnership of other characters in the story.

"That Lukeconsciouslystresses Jesus' subordinationto God throughout his narrative(e.g., 3:21-22; 23-38; 4:8; 18:18-19; 23:46) has broad support among NT scholars,although there remain great differences as to what to make of it (cf. the comments ofBuckwalter,Luke's Christology, 9-10).

"Pannenberg Systematic Theology, 1.312.

'Pannenberg, acknowledginghis debt to such figuresas Athanasiusand Barth, argues

that it is axiomaticthat the rule of God is not so external to God's deity that God couldbe God apart from it. Whilethe world's existenceper se may not be necessary to divinelordship-after all, God may have chosen to not create-once there is creation, God'sdeity is not compatiblewith it apart from God's lordshipover it (ibid., 313).

6'WolfhartPannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (trans. G. Bromiley; GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 1994), 337.

68Hence,by ending the Gospelwith appearances of the risen Son, Luke provideshisaudience with a certain amount ofnarrativeclosure,but at the same time leavesopen animportant question.That is, he leavesthe truth of God's in-breakinglordship(i.e., God'sdeity),as confirmedbythe resurrection,in questionin the very public arena where it wasdisputed. In the "theocentric" narrative ofActs, Luke addresses this issue by narrating


21/24

107

And as I argued above, in Luke, the resurrection triggers the enthrone-

ment of a human being, the risen Son, at the right hand of the Father

from whence he exercises the very divine rule he proclaimed 69At the end of the Gospel mutuality among the Triune relations is

implicitly presentin v.

49,the last words the audience hears from the

mouth of the risen Son: "I myself am going to send the promise of myFather upon you. Stay in the city until you are clothed with power from

on high." As a reference to the Spirit of God, this is unprecedented

language. In the OT only God gives the Spirit of God and there is no

explicit anticipation in pre-Christian Judaism that messiah would be

involved in conferring the Spirit of God.' Such language has the effect

of including "Jesus in the unique divine identity as Jewish monotheism

understood it. 1171Here, the Father is dependent on the sending/com-

missioning activity of the Son. At the same time, the Son would have

"nothing" to send were it not for his dependence on the Father's

making of a prior promise. The Spirit is dependent on both the

"making" activity of the Father and the "sending" activity of the risenSon. And throughout the narrative it has been the Spirit upon whom

the one who makes this promise has relied in the proclamation and

God's publicrestoration ofIsrael(see Turner,Power from on High, 290-315). I take upthis issue in "Resurrection,Ascension."

"

"Not only is the notion ofa human being executingYHWH's lordshipin the presentunique in first centuryJudaism, Bauckhamargues that the common notion of a singleprincipalangel, "a sort ofgrand vizieror plenipotentiary,to whom God delegates thewholeofhis rule over the cosmos" is mistakenlymanufacturedthrough a lessthan care-

ful reading ofthe relevant texts (God Crucified, 18). He does admit, however,that hisargumentswillhave to be substantiatedin a more detailed workto follow.

?"7Jhere is simply NO analogy for an exalted human (or any other creature)becoming so integrated with God that such a person may be said to 'commission'God's Spirit, and through that to extend that exalted person's own 'presence' andactiuity to people on earth. For the Jew, such relationshipto, and activityin or through,the Spirit appears to be necessarily,inalienably,and so distinctively,God's" (MaxTurner,"The Spirit of Christand 'Divine'Christology,"in Jesus ofNazareth: Lord and Christ:Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology [ed.Joel B. Green andMaxTurner; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994], 423; his emphasis).

"Bauckham, God Crucified, 26.


22/24

108

execution of the reign/deity of the Father.'2 Hence, Pannenberg'snotion of mutuality/reciprocity among the Triune relations enables usto see more clearly the direction Luke's narrative is heading. The lastwords we hear from the lips of the risen Son who embodies Yahweh's

eschatological glory/presence are words that are consistent with thedirection of the whole narrative as it begins to move its audiencetowards an incipiently Triune portrait of Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Conclusion

By the end of his Gospel the eschatological and Trinitarian implica-tions of Luke's portrait of the risen Son begin to overlap and mutuallyinform each other. On the one hand his portrait has begun to stretch

the theological imagination of his audience in the direction of an incip-

iently Triune portrait of Yahweh.73 Indeed, Yeago's language is apropos

of Luke's narrative: "the Nicene homoousion...describes a pattern ofjudgements present in the texts, in the texture of scriptural discourse

concerning Jesus and the God of Israel."74 On the other hand, Luke's

portrait has also begun to affect the eschatological imagination of the

audience by offering us a glimpse of God's final future that is charac-

terized by transformed physical/material, even fleshly, embodiment.

'ZHence, we are not thereby necessarilycommitted to affirmingthe filioque. See

Pannenberg's discussionin Systematic Theology, 1.317-19.7JChristologically"the inclusionof Jesus in the identityof God means the inclusionin

God of the interpersonal relationshipbetween Jesus and his Father. No longer can thedivineidentitybe purely and simply portrayed by analogy with a singlehuman subject"(Bauckham,God Crucified, 75). In more specificallyTrinitarianterms, the unfoldingdirection of the narrative seems consistent with Pannenberg's assertion with regard tothe unityof the divinelife: "If the Trinitarianrelationsamong Father, Son, and Spirithavethe form of mutual self-distinction,they must be understood not merely as differentmodes ofbeing of the one divinesubjectbut as livingrealizationsofseparate centers ofaction" (Systematic Theology, 1.319).

"Yeago, "The NewTestamentand the NiceneDogma," 88.


23/24

109

And as the risen Son ascends into the life of God in eschatologicatly

transformed flesh, no cosmology, ancient or modern, that portraysthe gap that needs overcoming between God and humanity ontologi-

cally rather harmatiologically can be allowed to stand?5 This is because

one of the effects of the resurrection is the Spirit's decisivereclaimingand renewing of all of creation, including human flesh itself, for God's

reign/lordship!" This is concretely portrayed when Luke ends his

Gospel with the ascension of this fleshly embodied Jesus, showing that

the effects of the resurrection permanently ripple right into the

Trinitarian life of God with a sense of permanence that was lackingbefore his narration of it!' Hence, the way Luke narrates this story of

the particular Jew from Nazareth (i.e., his Christology) shapes and

(re)orients the theology, eschatology, and even the cosmology of his

audience.

?5Thatis, no cosmologythat locatesthe problemin creaturelyexistenceand material-ityper se (i.e., any form ofgnosticism,ancient or modern)rather than in the corruptionthat has entered into the whole material created order through sin can claimallegiancefrom those whose allegianceis to the one whose very flesh was raised and exaltedintothe Triune life of God (c.f. Farrow,Ascension and Ecclesia, 49, 55, 61 and passim).

'6None of what I am arguingshouldbe construed as a claim that the biologicalaspectof the human person is the most important aspect ofpersonhood/identity(c.f., the sim-ilar comments ofFarrow, Ascension and Ecciesia, 268-70). But Luke unambiguouslyportrays what happens to the dead Jew from Nazarethas happening to the entiretyofhis person, includinghis very fleshly,materialbody.Thisdoes not mean that there is any-thing inherent in the material created order that maintains some possibilityfor life to

emerge. It simplymeans that God remains faithfulto his creation, not choosingto startcompletelyover, but redeeming it in its entirety. The theologicalupshot of this is thatGod the Spirit beginsthe reclamationand new creationby reclaimingthe entirety of thatpart of the creation with which the Spirit starts, namely, the fleshlybody of the deadJesus. That this raises difficultmetaphysicaland cosmologicalquestionsfor us cannot bedenied but it would have also raised difficultquestionsfor Luke who attempts to use hisChristologyto (re)orientour eschatologyand cosmology.

"This is not the end of the theologicalsignificanceofthe ascension for Luke.The wayLuke(re)narratesit in Acts functions to delineate and perichoreticallyjoin, without con-fusion, the identitiesof the risen Son and the Holy Spiritof Yahweh whom he "receives"and "pours out" on the Church. For more on this see my "Resurrection,Ascension."

"


24/24

110

In the end, Luke's portrayal enlarges a Trinitarian reader's imagina-tion with regard to the very nature of the Triune life of God. His

narrative leads us finally to the confession that the resurrection/exaltation of this transformed, fleshly human being inevitably alters the

lifeof God, effecting something quite new

whichmust, as signaled bythe way Luke narrates the ascension, permanently alter the material

content in our understanding of what the "life of God" Granted,this side of the eschaton we may not be able to give a technicallyexhaustive account of how the divine life is altered and what this holds

for us-perhaps the old eucharistic debates need indeed to be

reopened79-but the alternative to such a confession is likely to be a

stale demythologizing that finally forces us to explain how this storymeans the opposite of what it says.

"'This is a variation on the words ofT. F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 129. For a recent attempt to clarify some of theTrinitarianimplicationsof this sentence from the side ofsystematictheology, see Keen,"The Transgressionof the IntegrityofGod," 84-98.

'9Withan eye to ecclesiologyand the sacraments, Farrow givesa sustained treatmentofsome ofthe most intractablequestions raisedby this kind ofreading (e.g., "Where isthis fleshlyJesus now?"; "How do we speak coherentlyofboth the risen one's presenceand absence?").

Documents

156. Ripples of Res. in the Triune Life of God-Luke 24