Eschatology in Luke-Acts: Some bibliographical Notes

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

24 August 2010

Online we find a bibliography of the role of eschatology in the thinking of Luke in his Gospel and the book of Acts. There is a list of publications on the subject for the last three decades at least. In 1973, eschatology in the book of Luke created a storm among scholars since it appeared that Luke 21:20 with the invasion of Jerusalem in mind, was a purported attempt by Luke to rewrite the eschatology of Jesus from a distant future to a present reality in their own day. Nothing is further from the truth and we need to point out here the fallacy of this approach. It is expected that all the authors in the bibliography below, followed this pseudo analysis in their methodology and ended up with strange ideas and concepts.

Luke-Acts: Eschatology

Bauckham, Richard. “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts.” Pages 435-487 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott.  Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Bayer, H. F. “Christ-Centered Eschatology in Acts 3:17-26.” Pages 236-50 in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Edited by J. B. Green and M. Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.,  1994.

Bayer is correct here that Eschatology is Christ centered. Notice how the prophets predicted that Christ should suffer and die on the cross in 31 CE (Daniel 9:24-27; see Acts 3:19) and Christ was send to them to live with them as predicted for three and a half years (Daniel 9:24-27; see Acts 3:20) and He entered through the first veil in a heavenly appointed ministry as our High Priest and Advocate in the Heavenly Temple or Sanctuary before the throne of God (see the book of Hebrews and here Acts 3:21). This was predicted from ancient times and can be seen in Daniel 7 with the Son of Man before the Ancient of Days (compare Acts 3:21). Moses predicted it in Deuteronomy 18:15 in 1448-1410 BCE as Acts 3:22 indicates. Christ the Prophet Moses foresaw was essential to heed since the consequences are utter destruction in the Eschaton predicted as the Lord's Day (see Amos and other prophets). From Samuel onwards even John the Baptist as the second Elijah (see Maleachi 4) announced Christ as the Prophet to come (Acts 3:24). Christ was the one chosen by God to come to the Jews first and call them to repentance and preparation for His First coming (see Acts 3:25-26). The Day of the Lord and salvation activities and dealing with the wicked in wrath are all one continuous dealing through the ministry of Christ as Creator, Law Giver, Protector, Old Testament Warrior as type of what is to come [Flood in 2521 BCE] and Savior in 31 CE, and Advocate in the Heavenly Sanctuary on our behalf before the throne of God.

Beale, G. K. “The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part 1: The Clearest Evidence.” Tyndale Bulletin 56, no. 1 (2005): 73-102.

It is highly unlikely that the Old Testament predictions of Zion as a future space to live with God in the eschaton, or the Future Temple existence suggested will find fulfillment at Pentacost with the coming of the Spirit of God in the form of a dove. Christ entered beyond the first veil in 31 CE to function a continuous salvivic ministry on our behalf (book of Hebrews) and that is in Heaven before the throne of God. To use the already but not yet mode is not going to solve the issue since the walking of God with men happened with Adam and Eve before the fall and even with Henoch later. The already was already then and not when the Spirit descended.

Beale, Gregory. “Eschatology of Acts, Hebrews, the General Epistles and Revelation.” Pages electronic ed. in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments. Edited  by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity., 2000.

The book of Acts was completed before 64 CE since Luke, who was following Paul everywhere and almost served as a kind of diary writer, do not mention the death of Peter and Paul. He must have died before Peter and Paul and thus the book of Acts stopped suddenly in mid-air, almost incomplete. To call the book of Acts or the book of Hebrew by Paul, who died in 64 CE, the "Later New Testament" will be a gross mistake.

Bloomquist, L. Gregory. “Rhetorical Argumentation and the Culture of Apocalyptic: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of Luke 21.” Pages 173-209 in The Rhetorical Interpretation of  Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 180. Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Look died shortly before or after the arrest of Paul. The book of Acts stopped suddenly and that in the early 60's. The gospel of Luke must have been completed before that time as well. Luke did his research well in the writing of his gospel. It appears that the witnesses and anecdotes of the disciples were jotted down on fragments during the days with Jesus or shortly after His death in 31 CE. Diaries, memos, notes, dictations of Jesus sermons, verbatim memories of what He said and did were all on scraps of fragments in the collection of someone, of which Luke was lucky enough to get access to. He went through the corpus and arranged the fragments in a continuous story so that he could relate the Gospel as the research allow him to do. He kept strictly to what was reported by these witnesses in order to avoid falsification. There is thus no rhetorical device used by Luke to say what did not happen and to emphasize what he wanted to emphasize beyond the reality of the events. There is no rhetorical misplacement of Christ's words or events. When the disciples point to the temple and Christ said that not a stone will be left and furthermore, break it down and in three days He will erect it again, we have a prophecy to the reality of the 70 destruction and in the same vein the role and function of Christ as Mediator in the Heavenly Sanctuary. He died and three days later was able to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary. Of course He came back the same Sunday night so that they could touch Him. But He returned later to carry on with His work of Mediation in the Heavenly Sanctuary on our behalf. We have to be very careful that we do not place the focus of the reality of the event on rhetorical tricks of the author and that we claim Luke did not write it but someone who later used his name to authenticate his own concoction. This is nonsense and has no place in New Testament Theological investigation.

Bridge, Steven L. ‘Where the Eagles are Gathered’: the Deliverance of the Elect in Lukan Eschatology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.

Luke is writing down the information very carefully from the notes, memos, diaries on Jesus that were kept on His sermons to the people in the Temple. Luke said that Jesus slept on the Mount of Olives during the night but taught in the temple during the day (Luke 21:37). The destruction of Jerusalem indicated in Luke 21:20 definitely indicate 70-73 CE but there is a trap in interpretation here. To ad hoc see similar phraseology in Mark 13 and Matthew 24 at this point, and to equalize all of them as speaking about the same things, is irresponsible. What happened here is that Jesus was repeating Himself in a parallelism of phraseology but with two different time periods in mind, a destruction of Jerusalem in 70-73 CE at first, but immediately repeated in a similar phraseology but different time period, a destruction later in history. Both are touched upon by Daniel 9:24-27 but also there, two different periods were in mind. Christ is not inconsistent with Daniel and Daniel is not saying something different than what Jesus said. Mark and Matthew only reported the second later time event and Luke reported only the first time event. In actuality both were said together. So the Eschatological deliverance of Luke is still in the distant eschaton, the Pella escapees of Christians in 70 CE, does not fall under this fulfillment scenario of scholars where they want to squeeze Luke into. Notice that Luke 21:27 talks about the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven and this is the Second Advent in the distant future, nothing to do with the 70 CE escapes of the Christians to Pella. 

Bruce, F. F. “Eschatology in Acts.” Pages 51-63 in Eschatology and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of G. R. Beasley-Murray. Edited by W. H. Gloer. Peabody: Hendriksen,  1988.

Buzzard, A. “Acts 1:6 and the Eclipse of the Biblical Kingdom.” Evangelical Quarterly 66 (1994): 197-215.

Notice that when the disciples asked Jesus whether His Kingdom is going to be actualized after His resurrection, He said actually no, but in words that they are not to understand the prophetic time periods of Daniel 8:14, 7:25, 9:24-27 and 12:11-13; see Acts 1:7. The Lamb of God came but not the Lion of Judah. Christ would come as the Lion of Judah at His second coming when He comes to resurrect and take the remnant with Him to heaven. The Kingdom was going to be set up in future when Christ come again.

Cadbury, H. J. “Acts and Eschatology.” Pages 300-321 in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: Studies in Honour of C. H. Dodd. Edited by W. D. Davies and D.  Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956.

Carroll, John T. Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Anyone arguing that Luke is speaking of Luke 21:20 about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and that all eschatology of the book of Daniel 7 and 9 find their fulfillment around this date, did not read the synoptics with care. Luke was not conflating the events of the situation in 70 CE with eschatology of the Old Testament or eschatology of Jesus. Luke was reporting carefully from the scraps of fragments of the sayings of Jesus and what we have are all important up to the minute detail. The end of history inaugurates the eschaton and that principle is in the teaching of Jesus, in the synoptics, in Luke, in the works of Paul and all the other disciples until John.

Carroll, John T. “The Parousia of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.” Pages 5-45 in The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity. Edited by John T. Carroll. Peabody:  Hendrickson, 2000.

There is no conflict between the view of the parousia in the synoptic gospels or the view of the parousia in the book of Acts. Luke wrote the gospel and he wrote the book of Acts. In both he carefully wrote down the exact words people spoke or the exact information that he gathered around the events. He acted almost like a biographer, who does not want to misplace any data.

Carroll, John T. “The God of Israel and the Salvation of the Nations: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.” Pages 91-106 in The Forgotten God: Perspectives in  Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Paul J. Achtmeier on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Edited by A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera. Louisville,2002.

Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982 [1961]. Reprint of Die Mitte Der Zeit. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1953.

Denova, Rebecca I. The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 14.  Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Here we must be very careful. When there is a return of the phrase "the things accomplished among us" it refers solely to the soteriology or salvation events of Christ on our behalf. It does not include the eschatological understanding of the Old Testament or the New Testament. Luke made it very clear that Jesus said to His disciples that a clear understanding of the long periods in prophecy as we have it in Daniel 8:14 with the 2300 years prophecy or the 1290 or 1335 years of Daniel 12, was not meant to be understood by them (Acts 1:7).

Dupont, J. “L’Après-mort dans l’oeuvre de Luc.” Revue théologique de Louvain 3 (1972): 3-21.

Ellis, E. E. Eschatology in Luke. Facet Books, Biblical Series 30. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Farrow, Douglas. Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

The ascension of Christ inaugurated His heavenly ministry. The Heavenly ministry of Christ (as outlined in the book of Hebrews) is just as important as is His work of earth and on the cross. Ecclessiology does not exist without a proper understanding of the Meditorial Work of Christ on our behalf in the Sanctuary in Heaven. This earth will carry on as a space for Satan and his angels to carry on their tragic displays, but at the Second Advent, the remnant will be resurrected and taken from this earth to a safe place in the New Jerusalem in Heaven. An ecclessiology without this understanding is in deep trouble.

Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

Francis, F. O. “Eschatology and History in Luke-Acts.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion (1969): 49-63.

Franklin, E. “The Ascension and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts.” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1979): 191-200.

Fuller, Michael E. The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die  neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 138. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006.

Gaventa, B. R. “Eschatology of Luke-Acts Revisited.” Encounter 43 (1982): 27-42.

Giles, K. “Eschatology in the Book of Acts (I).” Reformed Theological Review 40 (1981): 65-71.

Giles, K. “Eschatology in the Book of Acts (II).” Reformed Theological Review 41 (1982): 11-18.

Green, Joel B. The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Hahn, Scott W. “Kingdom and Church in Luke-Acts: From Davidic Christology to Kingdom Ecclesiology.” Pages 294-326 in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation.  Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew, Joel B. Green, and Anthony C. Thiselton. Scripture and Hermeneutics 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

There is a false trap that scholar may think that Luke 21:20 talks about 70 CE (and it does) but that the eschatological jargon of Daniel 7, 9:24-27 are all to be parked also in 70 CE so that Christ's arrival as savior is then misinterpreted by scholars as the end of His Davidic Christology and the beginning of the Kingdom of the church. This is false. There is no kingdom of the church in the Bible. Kingdom Ecclessiology does not exist in the Bible. The Kingdom of Christ lies in His grace and mercy and what He is currently doing for us as Mediator in the Heavenly Sanctuary as the book of Hebrews explains. It will become the literal physical Kingdom of God at His second coming. Not before that. Political-religious structures, called ecclesia, would love to take control of Christ's Kingdom on earth, appointing themselves, but the Bible does not support that position.

Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. New York: Harper Collins, 1996.

Hiers, R. H. “The Problem of the Delay of the Parousia in Luke-Acts.” Pages 145-155 in New Testament Studies. Edited by., 1974.

The parousia is not seen as a problem in the books of Luke. Luke is well aware of the words of Jesus to His disciples in Acts 1:7 that God does not want them to know the long periods of prophecy that is still in need of fulfillment before Christ will come again. That information God opened up for later interpreters of the Bible since they were living closer to the end of history. The theology of the delay is already in the Old Testament and to notice it in the New Testament is normal. We are experiencing a feeling of delay but notice that the New Testament writers did not consider it a delay (see Peter for example). Luke associated very closely with both Paul and Peter and these thoughts of Peter should have been known to Luke very vividly. So, a problem it was not. A delay actually not, if one understands the long time periods of prophecy predicted in Daniel properly.

Howard., G. “Eschatology in the Period Between the Testaments.” Pages 60-73 in The Last Things: Essays Presented to W. B. West Jr. Edited by J.P. Lewis. Austin, TX: Sweet,  1972.

This is a very important point, since the three wise men from the east knew the exact year (4 BCE) when Christ was born and Christ was born exactly according to time predicted in Daniel 9:24-27. That is why the parousia expectations were so high in the events surrounding the birth of Christ and also surrounding the baptism of Christ since Daniel spoke explicitly about this, if we use the year-day principle to interpret the prophecy of Daniel.

Jervell, Jacob. “The Future of the Past: Luke’s Vision of Salvation History and Its Bearing on His Writing of History.” Pages 104-26 in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts.  Edited by Ben Witherington III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

What Jervell is getting at here is not clear. Luke was describing events very faithful according to his sources. There were no inventions, no accommodations of data, no reinterpretations. He did not reinterpreted Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 in Luke 21:20 as eschatology [future] happening in 70 CE [his future] but our past. Luke did not live to see the destruction of the temple since he ended the book of Acts when Paul was arrested but not with his death in 64 CE. Salvation history did not conflate or overshadowed eschatology in any way. It did not adapt it. It did not change it. Acts 1:7 in the words by Jesus, it is not canceled. It is still a future plan of God.

Just, Arthur A. Jr. The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical, 1993.

Kaestli, J. D. L’Eschatologie dans l’oeuvre de Luc: Ses caractéristiques et sa place dans le développment du christianism primitif. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1969.

Kinman, Brent Rogers. “Lucan Eschatology and the Missing Fig Tree.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113, no. 4 (1994): 669-678.

Kinman, Brent. Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem: In the Context of Lukan Theology and the Politics of His Day. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums  28. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

This study may suffer from the misunderstanding that we have outlined supra, namely that Jesus made two similar statements on that day but that the witnesses could remember only half of the two statements, so that Mark and Matthew remembered the second part while Luke's witness remembered the first part only. There were two period in mind separated by long interval. It is the same in Daniel 9:26-27. If one makes a pseudo judgement here about this issue, it will affect the analysis of Luke in Luke 24, and it will also affect one's conclusions overall of Luke's Theology and Politics of his day. It is expected that this article will have to be rewritten. Critical caution is called for.

Kurz, W. S. “3:19-26 as a Test of the Role of Eschatology in Lukan Christology.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1977): 309-23.

Marshall, I. Howard and David Peterson, eds. Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Marshall, I. Howard. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998 [1970].

Marshall, I. Howard. “Political and Eschatological Language in Luke.” Pages 157-177 in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew,  Joel B. Green, and Anthony C. Thiselton. Scripture and Hermeneutics 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

If Marshall thought that Luke used the political event of 70 CE to reshape the words of Christ on eschatology and that of Daniel as source, he is wrong. If he interpreted Luke 21:20 in that way, the article will have to be critically viewed and will have to be rewritten.

Martin, T. W. “Eschatology, History and mission in the Social Experience of Lucan Christians. A Sociological Study of the Relationship between Ideas and Social Realities in  Luke-Acts.” PhD diss., Oxford University, 1986.

Martin may have also fallen trap to the Lukan mention of the 70 CE invasion of Romans in Jerusalem and as such may have thought that Luke is reinterpreting the words of Jesus for eschatology and Daniel as found in Mark and Matthew, but that would not be correct. If he did, as we expect, then he would read the Pella Christians escape from Jerusalem in 70 CE as the template for understanding Luke's words and this false identification will lead to a host of misunderstandings regarding the sociology of Luke and the Lucan Christians. Caution is required here too.

Mattill, A. J. Jr. Luke and the Last Things. Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina University Press, 1979.

It will be pseudo-interpretation if he also see Luke as a reinterpreter of Mark 13 and Matthew 24 in Luke 21:20.

Newman, Carey C., ed. Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999.

Nielsen, A. E. “Purpose of the Lukan Writings with Particular Reference to Eschatology.” Pages 76-93 in Luke-Acts. Edited by P. Luomanen. Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical  Society, 1991.

The main thing is that scholars must not see Luke as reinterpreting the eschatological statements of Jesus from Daniel 7 and 9 in Luke 21:20, as taking something in the distant future to be applicable in their own day in 70 CE.

Nielsen, Anders E. Until it is Fulfilled: Lukan Eschatology according to Luke 22 and Acts 2. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 126. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,  2000.

The institution of the Lord Supper, Jesus said that He will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. What this means, is not the Kingdom of God fulfilled on earth, but that the Kingdom of God is given to Jesus after the fulfillment of His Meditorial work in the Heavenly Sanctuary on our behalf. Thus, at the Second Coming. Only after that, until then, when all prophecies and long periods are fulfilled, then He would eat it again with His disciples and all the saved.

Nolland, John. “Salvation-History and Eschatology.” Pages 63-81 in Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

The main point to remember here is that the scholar should not suggest that salvation-history is overshadowing eschatology in the works of Luke. This will not be correct. Luke did realize fully the importance of salvation history since he followed Paul and Peter, as we can see in the book of Acts, and thus he is completely up to date with both aspects, so as not to change any part.

Osei-Bonsu, J. “Intermediate State in Luke-Acts.” Irish Biblical Studies 9 (1987): 115-30.

If Osei-Bonsu understands intermediate state as Luke's attempt to rework eschatology into Jesus soteriology and then focus on the role of the church until the distant eschaton, he is not correct.

Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Parsons, Mikeal C. The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press,  1987.

Pryor, N. “Expectations in the Old Testament Prophets.” Pages 32-59 in The Last Things: Essays Presented to W. B. West Jr. Edited by J.P. Lewis. Austin, TX: Sweet, 1972.

Räisänen, Heikki. “The Redemption of Israel: A Salvation-Historical Problem in Luke-Acts.” Pages 61-81 in Challenges to Biblical Interpretation: Collected Essays 1991-2001.  Biblical Interpretation Series 59. Leiden: Brill, 2001[1991].

It is not correct to say that the redemption of Israel is a salvation historical problem in Luke and Acts. Luke was following Paul and Peter as we learn from the book of Acts, and Paul preached about this topic many times in his books, especially in Romans 11, 5 and 6. The role of Israel as a possibility to be brought back as the people of God remained open for Paul and it will be the same for Luke.

Ravens, David. Luke and the Restoration of Israel. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 119. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press., 1995.

This topic was discussed by Paul in depth to the Gentile Christians of Rome in Romans 11. He warned them not to be arrogant to think that Jews cannot be saved, since they can be brought back when they repent. Luke knew about this topic of Paul since he accompanied him everywhere.

Robinson, W. C. “Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Study in the Christian Doctrine of Hope.” Encounter 22 (1961): 37-51.

The eschatology of the book of Hebrews should get more attention since this book describes the role and function of Christ after His ascension until the closing of the door of mercy shortly before His second coming.

Sabourin, L. “The Eschatology of Luke.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 12 (1982): 73-76.

Schwartz, Daniel R. “The End of the Age (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision?.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105, no. 4 (1986): 669-676.

The translation is not reading the end of the age but the end of the earth. The geographical references before that actually clarify this that it refers to a geographical zone and not a time.

Seccombe, David. “The New People of God.” Pages 349-372 in Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1998.

Strauss, Mark L. Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Talbert, C. H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 20. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974.

Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986-1990.

Taylor, N. H. “Stephen, the Temple, and Early Christian Eschatology.” Revue Biblique 110, no. 62-85 (2003).

The topics that Taylor mentioned here are interesting. Stephen's martyrship was actually predicted in Daniel 9:24-27. It would have been in 34 CE. It was. The role of the temple here is important since the veil was torn in two when Christ died on the cross in 31 CE, since Chirst took over in His body, as the lamb of God the priestly function of the temple in the Heavenly Sanctuary on our behalf. The book of Hebrews are clear on this. Chist functioned since 31 CE before the throne of God and that is where Stephen saw Christ. The function of Christ on our behalf in the Heavenly Sanctuary is just as important as His salvation for us on the cross.

Tiede, David L. “The Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1.” Pages 367-375 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1985. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 24.  Atlanta/Chico, Calif: Scholars Press, 1985.

van Unnik, W. C. “Luke-Acts, A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship.” Pages 92-110 in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. Van Unnik. Edited by. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 29. Leiden: Brill, 1973. [Originally in Studies in Luke-Acts, Essays Presented in Honour of Paul Schubert, edited by L.E. Keck and J.L. Martyn, (Nashville  1966), 15-32.]

The only storm that will be important to mention here is the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Luke 21:20 which is definitely applicable to 70 CE, as that Luke reinterpreted the words of Jesus in Mark and Matthew 24 as not eschatological in distant future, but despite the use of the book of Daniel, that it refers to 70 CE and therefore, Daniel needs to be reinterpreted historically earlier also including the Antiochus Epiphanes statements. These scholars may have affected the theology of Desmond Ford in those years and the storm spiraled up also in Adventist Theological circles.

van Unnik, W. C. Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. Van Unnik. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 29. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

van Zyl, Hermie C. “The Soteriology of Acts: Restoration to Life.” Pages 133-160 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt.  Supplements to Novum Testamentum 121. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Vena, Osvaldo D. The Parousia and Its Rereadings: The Development of the Eschatological Consciousness in the Writing of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Literature 27. New  York: Peter Lang, 2001.

It is very important not to think that Luke is rereading the eschatological statements of Jesus in Mark 13 and Matthew 24 on the basis of Daniel 7 and 9:24-27 by reinterpreting it to the events of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Supra we have indicated what is at stake here and any other attempt will lead to a serious pseudo position that will affect the whole system of beliefs.

Walasky, P. W. As So We Came to Rome: The Political Perspective of St. Luke. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 1983.

When Paul went to Rome Luke suddenly stopped to report in Acts and we assume that he became ill and died.

Walton, Steve. “Acts: Many Questions, Many Answers.” Pages 229-250 in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by Scot McKnight and Grant R.  Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Wilson, S. G. “Lukan Eschatology.” New Testament Studies 16 (1970): 330-347.

Wolter, Michael. “Israel’s Future and the Delay of the Parousia, according to Luke.” Pages 307- in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s  Legacy. Edited by David P. Moessner. Harriburg, Pa: Trinity Press International, 1999.

From a human perspective and from a point of view of even the Old Testament, there is a theology of delay in the sense that the whole creation is waiting for the event to happen and ask the question, until when? But, as Peter stated in his book, there is no delay with God. God has a structured plan and everything is happening according to plan.

Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Zwiep, A. W. The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 87. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Source:

http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/bibliographies/luke-acts-eschatology/