A Critique of the Legitimacy of the Roman State in Revelation & Luke-Acts

1

Richard Truss

With reference to at least two books of the New Testament critically explore the literary genre and theological assertions that form a critique of the political legitimacy of the Roman Empire.

Introduction

“Every text intimates by its very conventions the way it is to

be consumed, encodes within itself its own ideology of how, by

whom and for whom it was produced.”1 So Terry Eagleton highlights

the self-sufficiency of each text and the need to interpret it

within its own self-understanding. In other words, when it comes

to the New Testament we are looking at various texts without the

assumption that they are of the same genre or dealing with the

subject in compatible ways. My aim is to look at two distinct

texts, Luke-Acts (which I will treat as two volumes of a single

work) and the Book of Revelation, and argue that though

apparently their approach to the hegemony of the Roman Empire

could not be more different, and though in Eagleton’s phrase they

may seem to ‘encode very different ideologies’, in fact they are

not so far apart. For the more rooted author of Luke-Acts the

Empire is at least a fact of life and to be lived and engaged

with, whereas for the seer of Revelation, Rome’s place sub

aeternitas is temporary and doomed. Yet it does not follow that

Luke-Acts is seeking to accommodate the Christian faith to Rome.

I will argue on the contrary, that it is not an apologia to Rome 1 Terry Eagleton Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory New York, Schoken 1976 p.48

2

at all, but a work to inspire Christians to stand up to the state

when necessary and to maintain their faith in the way of Christ,

and thus it matches the central aim of Revelation. Though Luke-

Acts and Revelation belong to different literary genres,

nevertheless I aim to show that they can both be read as having a

similar purpose and a shared ideology.

Luke-Acts as a pro-Roman apologia

One ongoing debate on Luke-Acts is the question of how far is it

a deliberate apologetic for Christianity in the Roman world. The

classic form of this theory is that Luke wished to show Rome that

it had nothing to fear from Christianity, with the recipient

Theophilus representing the sympathetic Roman outsider. Hans

Conzelmann, for instance, championed this view. 2 In evidence he

and others have cited Joseph’s conformity to the Roman census at

the beginning of the Gospel (Luke 2:4) 3, and the seemingly

obvious meaning of the story of the tribute money, where giving

to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s suggests a

modus vivendi between church and state (20:20-26), and the passion

story itself where Pilate seems to do all he could to exonerate

Jesus, and where you could read the subsequent story of the

crucifixion without realizing that it was a Roman punishment at

all (23 passim). Similarly in Acts, writers such as Lawrence

Wills, have argued that this pro-Roman stance is even more

apparent, with Roman officials commenting favourably on 2 Conzelmann, Hans The Theology of Saint Luke London, Faber and Faber 19603 All biblical references from NRSV

3

Christianity and handing down decisions in its favour

(22:6ff,23:26-30,24:22f, 25:4ff,26:31) , with philosophers

willing to entertain Paul’s speeches in Athens, and Paul in some

ways depicted as an imitator of Socrates (17:16ff.), with a

spirit of orderly citizenship pervading the activities of

Christians, and with Paul’s own apparent loyalty to Roman law:

“If I have committed something for which I deserve to die, am not

trying to escape death” (25:11). Wills also cites the extent to

which Acts seems to go out of its way to contrast the Church with

the Jewish communities, extending the blame heaped on the Jewish

leadership in the gospel to Jews in general. Throughout Acts,

Jews rather than Christians are portrayed as the threat to the

Roman order. In contrast, the Christian movement is no such

threat and Christians live peacefully under Roman rule. Even when

individual Christians are brought to trial, they are there under

false accusations brought by the Jews (13:50; 14:19; 17:5; 21:27;

23:20). Though not all Roman officials are presented in a

positive light, Wills has shown how those very same officials

(Felix and Festus) were not remembered fondly by the Romans

either.4 On the other hand, those who appear positively in Acts

have positive reputations in imperial sources. If this evidence

points to Luke-Acts being a pro-Roman apologia, it indeed stands

4 “Felix is condemned by Tacitus for his ignoble birth and his tyrannical abuse of power (Histories 5:9; Annals 12:54) …. Festus’ brother was dismissed by Claudius, and was not viewed positively by class-conscious historians (Suetonius:Claudius 28)” Lawrence M.Wills The Depiction of the Jews in Acts: Journal of Biblical Literature 110/4 1991 pp.651-2

4

in total contrast to the viewpoint of Revelation, but in fact it

can be contested.

A critique

Despite the attractiveness of the Roman-apologia theory, one

single word change in Luke from his Marcan source serves to open

the floodgates for seeing the whole oeuvre very differently, and

that is Luke’s substitution, in his list of Jesus’ disciples of

Simon “the Cananaean” in his Marcan source, with Simon “the

Zealot” (6:15). Cassidy argues that that the term “Zealot” was a

red rag to the Romans, and so for a true pro-Roman Jewish

apologist like Josephus, the Zealots were to be disowned. Richard

Bauckham has pointed out the zealotry that Luke had in mind when

applied to Simon may have been one aimed at fellow Jews rather

than Rome, and therefore have no subversive intent, but it still

remains odd that Luke should alter his source in this way if he

wished for Roman sympathy. 5

5 […] It is now widely recognized that, since a specific political party with the nameZealots does not appear in our sources until after the outbreak of the Jewish revolt in 66 CE, the term applied to Simon here must have the broader sense, current in this period, of “zealot for the law” (cf. Acts 21:20; 22:3, 19), often implying that such aperson would take violent action to punish flagrant violation of the Torah. Such violence, however, would normally be aimed against fellow Jews rather than the Romans.We should probably presume that Simon already bore this nickname before becoming a disciple of Jesus. Meir points out that “the only instance in pre-rabbinic Judaism of an individual Israelite bearing the additional name of ‘the Zealot’  is found in 4 Macc 18:12, where Phinehas (the grandson of Aaron) is called ‘the Zealot of Phinehas’ .Perhaps Simon’s nickname amounts to calling him “a new Phinehas.” However, although Phinehas was indeed, for Jews of this period, the archetypal “zealot,” the usage in 4 Maccabees 18:12 is probably a description rather than strictly a nickname. (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony Grand Rapids William B.Eerdmans,2006 pp104-05.)

5

Once we acknowledge a subversive intent here, it is possible to

see veiled anti-Roman references throughout. So, for instance

Joel Green, taking a passage peculiar to Luke, the birth

narratives, contrasts the angelic message of universal peace

(Luke 2:14) with the militarily imposed Pax Romana.6 Or Richard

Cassidy takes the temptation story (4:1ff) and concludes that

‘Satan’s boast that he orchestrates the power of all kingdoms

implies the claim that he directs and manipulates the Roman

authorities.’ 7

Luke also retains the story of Legion (8:26ff.), with its imagery

reminding us of the Roman occupation of Palestine. Legion can

only mean a detachment of Roman troops, the word “herd” used

inappropriately of the pigs, was often used to refer to a band of

military recruits. 8

However, the key text is that about the tribute money, ‘Is it

lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?’ (Luke 20:21f.) as it

overtly brings up the issue of Roman authority and Jesus’

approach to it. Cassidy concludes that, despite the more obvious

interpretation, Jesus was identifying two parallel obligations.9

6 Joel B.Green The Gospel of Luke. Edited by Gordon D. Fee. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997 p.1227 Richard J.Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel (New York, Orbis Books) 1978 p.388 Ched Myers Binding the Strong Man New York Orbis Books 2008 p.1919 Lawrence M.Wills The Depiction of the Jews in Acts Journal of Biblical Literature 110/4 1991 pp.631-654 JStor

6

Jesus could be saying that all obligations come under God;

everything finally belongs to God. Thus ‘Jesus was indicating how

the Roman social order was to be critically evaluated. It was not

to be supported and submitted to simply because it was firmly

established and because the Romans possessed a high degree of

military power and political organization. On the contrary, its

policies and practices were to be evaluated and responded to from

the standpoint of the social patterns that God desired.’ 10

Cassidy’s argument is echoed by Horsley: ‘Jesus… avoids saying

explicitly that the people should not pay tribute. But everyone

knew what he meant… What belonged to God? Everything. To Caesar?

Nothing.’11

Much of the Roman apologia thesis rests on Luke’s treatment of

the Jews who are blamed for almost everything and which serves by

contrast to show the Roman state and its officials in a positive

light. But one does not follow from the other. Luke’s treatment

of the Jews has its own rationale, without implications for the

way he views Rome. Luke faces the question which preoccupied

Paul, why was it that God’s own people rejected the Messiah, and

he does so by a staged approach. First the opposition to Jesus is

confined to the Jewish priestly and scribal leadership, but then,

after what Gerhard Lohfink has called a “Jewish springtime”

lasting till Stephen’s death in Acts, Jews in general are

10 Richard J.Cassidy, op cit. p.59

11 Richard A. Horsley Jesus and Empire Atlas p.64

7

portrayed as hostile both to the church and a menace to the

empire.12 By Acts 17, crowds are stirred up by Jewish instigators

and Rome is right to be fearful of them (17:5-9;

13;18:1219:32;21:27). For Luke the rejection by the Jews of the

Christian message is final, Jerusalem has itself fallen, and we

are now in the time of the new Christian Israel (13:46-7).As

Sanders says, ‘Luke has written the Jews off.’ 13

None of this however means that the Romans are seen by Luke as

allies of the Christian cause. Though they may not be as

troublesome as the Jews, Christians are hardly represented as

being harmless as doves. Paul, for instance, is the instigator

of controversy, and is shown standing up to Lysias and to Felix

(Acts 24:10ff). Would the Romans have been impressed with one who

lectured them on justice, self-control and future judgement?14

Both in the gospel and in Acts, Rome’s policies and practices

were to be evaluated and responded to from the standpoint of the

social patterns that God desired. So Cassidy argues that the

whole gospel, and Acts too, advocate a way of life that runs

counter to that of the Empire. ‘By espousing radically new social

patterns and by refusing to defer to the existing political

authorities, Jesus pointed the way to a social order in which

12 Gerhard Lohfink Lukas als hellenistischer shriftsteller Gottingen, Vadenhoeck and Ruprecht 1972 p.25, quoted in Lawrence M.Wills op cit p.63613 Jack Sanders The Jews in Luke-Acts London SCM Press 1987 p.4114 Cassidy asks, ‘How could a Roman official reading Acts not have been startled when instead of indicating to Lysias that he was a Roman citizen, Paul volunteers with considerable pride, that he is a citizen of Tarsus.’ Richard Cassidy Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles New York, Orbis Books p.150

8

neither the Romans nor any other oppressing group would be able

to hold sway.’15

Luke may be a pragmatist in that the overall impression of his

narrative is that Christian communities had at least to enter

into some form of modus vivendi with an inescapable fact of life,

the Roman state. But it did not follow that engaging with Graeco-

Roman culture meant that it had to be swallowed whole. The

speeches in Acts, especially Paul’s on the Areopagus (17:22-31),

but also in Paul’s appearances before the Roman proconsuls

((24:10-21; 26:2-23), demonstrate the author’s belief in

engagement and apologetics. After all there would be no point in

a speech if there were no hearer and no common ground. But this

need not suggest that he sees the Christian mission and the Roman

Empire as compatible.

The Book of Revelation

In Luke-Acts the narrative is pierced at crucial times by the

divine, so angels hail Jesus’ birth, the Spirit descends at the

baptism (3:21f), when the seventy return from their mission Jesus

sees Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning (10:18),

Jesus is transfigured on the mountain (9:28ff par.Mk.9), the

Spirit descends as wind and fire on the day of Pentecost (Acts

2:2 ff.), Stephen ‘sees the heavens opened and the Son of Man

standing at the right hand of God’ ( 7:56), Peter is released 15 Richard Cassidy op cit. p.79

9

from prison by an angel (12:7), Paul experiences the light from

heaven on the road to Damascus (9:3 par.22:6ff, 25:12ff), as

Peter sees heaven opened in his trance at Cornelius’s house

(10:9ff; 11:5ff). The repetition of the latter two incidents

shows not only their paradigmic role, but also the crucial place

of direct divine revelation in the narrative.

The Book of Revelation however turns this on its head. Here

everything is seen from a divine perspective which shines a

piercing light onto the contemporary Roman world and its small

Christian communities, exposing everything in its true colours

especially the delusions of empire. Whereas in Luke-Acts, Roman

officials are viewed as sometimes weak, sometimes well-meaning,

sometimes out of their depth, in Revelation the portrait of the

Roman Empire is of unmitigated evil from which the church must

separate itself, not physically but spiritually. Revelation is

not a call into a Christian equivalent of the Qumran community,

but to realize that separation in the world.

Revelation can be seen, as Bauckham puts it, as a ‘prophetic

apocalypse or an apocalyptic prophecy.’16 Although purportedly a

vision (Rev.1:10, 10:1) ), in its final form it is most certainly

not a spontaneous work, but a carefully constructed piece in

which the seer draws down imagery from both Jewish and Christian

traditions, as well as from the Roman imperial cult. The text has

16 Richard Bauckham The Theology of the Book of Revelation Cambridge CUP 1993 p.6

10

been divided in various ways. There are two distinct but parallel

parts, first from chapters 1 to 9, where his critique of Rome is

more general, and secondly from chapter 10, from that moment when

the main content of the prophetic revelation, the scroll, is

given to the angel (10:1-2) and in which, through the veil of

apocalyptic form, the denunciation of Rome becomes more direct

and particular.17 Throughout the book the author, significantly

writing from the separateness of an island (1:9) and with his

imagery drawn largely from the mythology of one of the most

troublesome parts of the empire, presents a clear alternative to

the all-embracing dominance of Roman power and culture. His use

of striking, even shocking imagery, compressed together from

various sources, serves to give weight and authority to his

alternative view of the world, combining an overwhelming

affirmation of the distinctiveness of Christian discipleship with

a subversion of the dominant Roman narrative. As Friesen says,

‘Revelation can be considered a form of religious resistance

literature.’18

17 ‘Once these two blocks of material have been identified, the function of chapters 10-11 as a bridge between both blocks becomes apparent, that is, as atransition – the culmination of the earlier part (the seventh trumpet) and theannouncement of the new part now beginning (the little book that is eaten).’ Leon Estructura del Apocalipsis de Juan in Estudios Biblicos 43, 1985 P.134, quoted in Christopher R.Smith Novum Testamentum Vol.36 Oct.1994 p.388 http://jstor.org/stable/156096218Steven J Friesen Myth and Resistance in Revelation 13 in Journal of Biblical Literature

Vol.123, No.2 2004, p.313

11

Among the multiplicity of subversive images in Revelation,

pivotal is that of the Lamb (5:1-14), with its antithesis the

Beast, both of which have deliberate Jewish and Christian echoes

as well as reference to the imperial cult and with both leading

on to further related images. So the Lamb evokes the exodus and

the Passover lamb (Exodus 12), the lamb who is led to the

slaughter (Isaiah 53:7), as well as having direct reference to

Jesus, hailed as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the

world (John 1:29) who died as the Passover sacrifice (Jn13:1).

However, though lamb-like, he is seen with seven horns and seven

eyes (Rev.5:6) beside the throne, not that of the Roman emperor,

but of the only one worthy of worship (4:11). In contrast the

seeming overwhelming might of Rome is nothing but a parody of the

true power of God and the Lamb. Rome too is portrayed in the

guise of a lamb, with two horns, but in fact with the voice of a

dragon (13:11). So Rome and the imperial cult may ape true

worship, but only listen to its voice and it proves a sham. The

ever-present danger for the churches was to be seduced by this

and so be led astray, whilst those who are true disciples of the

Lamb ‘follow him wherever he goes’ (14:4).

For the seer the Lamb is both a symbol of self-sacrificing and

redemptive love, and also the bearer of wrath (6:16) and the one

in whose blood his followers ‘have conquered’ the Devil and

Satan. (12:11). This is no military victory but one gained

through dying, though ‘they will make war on the Lamb …. the Lamb

12

will conquer them,’( 17:14), and the final outcome is a universal

one in which the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their

shepherd (7:17). In the final chapters of Revelation the blessed

‘ are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb’

(19:9) with ‘the New Jerusalem as bride for her husband’ (21:2),

thus evoking the marriage imagery of the New Testament, such as

the marriage of Cana (Jn.2), the question to Jesus about fasting

whilst the bridegroom is with them (Mtt.9:15) the parable of the

wedding banquet (Mtt.22) , the wise and foolish virgins at the

wedding feast (Mtt.25:1ff) and to Jesus as bridegroom to the

church (Eph.5:25ff).

Also, as in Stephen’s speech in Acts and its denunciation of the

Jerusalem temple (Acts 7:47ff), for the seer there is no need for

a temple in the New Jerusalem for ‘its temple is the Lord God the

Almighty and the Lamb’ (21:22). Yet, perhaps the temples more in

mind are those of the Roman empire and the imperial cult.

The same compression of images from various sources can be seen

in the seer’s treatment of the antithesis of the Lamb, the Beast

(13 passim), and the related bestiary including the four beasts

of Daniel 7, particularly that of the fourth beast with its

‘great iron teeth’ and its horn ‘speaking arrogantly” (Dan.7:7-

8), Leviathan, the sea monster (Job 41:1), the dragon, with

associations with Pharaoh (Rev.12: 3-9 cf.Ezekiel 29:3) and the

serpent ‘who is the Devil and Satan’ (12:9; 20:2) taking the

reader back to Eden. Each related image embodies a thinly

13

disguised reference to Rome, the new Egypt of Pharaoh and the new

Babylon and the epitome of opposition to God. ‘God is to Satan as

the Lamb is to the beast, as the faithful in the churches are to

those who deceive and mislead, and as the Christian minority is

to the larger Roman world.’19 The power of Rome is unmasked in

its total contrariness to the kingdom of God.

With these pivotal images are a whole host of others, each with

much wider allusions, and seen together, reinforcing his

alternative world view. It is not just the content but the method

itself which is subversive, for he engages an identical strategy

to that used by the Roman imperial cults in which mythologies

surrounding one particular shrine were appropriated to support

Roman imperialism, and ‘narratives of the exploits of the

emperors were elevated to the status of mythology and established

myths were retold in ways that supported Roman authority.’20

Significantly of the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3, five

had imperial priests and altars, and six had imperial temples. A

Christian of Asia Minor could not avoid the imperial cult, but at

the same time for the seer you could not serve God and Caesar. A

fundamental choice had to be made, or as Peter Berger puts it,

the counter-community of the cognitive minority becomes ‘a

“fellowship of all the saints” in a world rampant with devils.’21

19 Leonard L.Thompson The Book of Revelation New York OUP 1990 p.18720 Freisen op.cit. p 30221 Peter L.Berger. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion New York Doubleday 1967

14

Critique and comparisons with Luke-Acts

Because Revelation comes from the divine vantage point, it has

moral clarity. Even the more earthed elements, in particular the

letters to the seven churches, have the same message, to keep

everything connected with the empire at arm’s length. Though

often cryptically expressed, the issues which concern the seer in

the churches are all ones which concern assimilation to the

surrounding culture, and praise is given to those who, like the

churches in Philadelphia and Smyrna, have stayed firm and

resisted both the enticements and what he sees as the moral and

social blackmail of that culture to conform ( 3:7-13; 2:8-11) .

Luke-Acts may seem a long way from this, with a far more nuanced

and pragmatic approach to Rome, but this is deceptive. For the

gulf between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdoms of this world

in Revelation, is echoed throughout Luke’s work. Sometimes indeed

we can see what appear to be deliberate cross-references. For

instance in Luke’s version of Mark’s “little apocalypse”(Mk.13),

the additions and amendments stress the woes and the wrath, and a

wider historical perspective, with the trampling of Jerusalem by

the gentiles, and the fulfilment of the time of the gentiles

(Luke 21), the latter, incidentally, a remark which Rome would

not have been pleased to hear. There are echoes here of the woes

of Revelation 11, and the time of God’s wrath (Rev.11).

15

Earlier I noted Luke’s reference to Jesus’ reference to Satan

falling from heaven following the mission of the seventy, which

echoes the passage about Michael throwing Satan, the deceiver of

the whole world, down to earth (Lke.10:18 cf.Rev.12:9), a veiled

reference to Rome. Again as there is an eclipse marking Jesus’

death (23:44 par.Mk.15:33; Mtt.27:45), so there is an eclipse at

the trumpet call of the fourth angel marking out both as having

implications for the ultimate fate of Rome (Rev.8:12).

Christopher Rowland has drawn attention to the parallel between

the binding of Satan and the binding of Legion. In Luke’s version

of this he uses the word “abyss”, instead of Mark’s “sea”

(cf.8:11 cf.Mk.5:13) and the very same word that is used in

Revelation 8:32. ‘Such links are a pointed reminder of the cosmic

struggle against the powers of this age and the evil they

embody.’ 22

Another parallel lies in Luke’s version of the beatitudes (6:20-

26). Here the blessings to the poor, the hungry, the weepers and

the reviled are matched by woes on the rich, the full, the

laughers and those who are spoken well of . With its Deuteronomic

reference it also is echoed by the blessings and woes in

Revelation (Rev.11; 22:14). Both set the way of Christ in clear

contrast to the way of the world and of imperial power.

22 Christopher Rowland Revelation| London, Epworth Press 1993 p.151

16

For both Luke-Acts and Revelation the place of the witness-

martyr is central. In the gospel, the witness of Jesus is

proclaimed in his opening sermon in Nazareth, in his whole

ministry and in his death. In Acts, “witness” comes again and

again in the “speeches” of Peter and Paul and in the martyrdom of

Stephen (Acts 2:32;3:15;5:32;10:39;22:15). In Revelation Jesus is

‘the faithful witness’ (Rev.1:5), ‘the faithful and true witness’

(Rev.3:14). In both it is a witness which may have to be given in

a court hearing before Roman officials, and in imprisonment and

death. Luke-Acts could be interpreted in this way as a guide book

on what to do when ‘brought before kings and governors because of

my name’(Lke. 21:12).

Such treatment is to be expected because, for both Revelation

and Luke-Acts, the church is in the time of waiting. Luke’s

narrative faces the vexed question for the early church of the

delay of the parousia. He does this by in effect proposing an age

of the Spirit allowing the faith to spread ‘to the ends of the

earth’ (Acts1:8; 13:47). For Revelation this is expressed more

cryptically in his “time, times, and half a time” (Rev.12:14).

For the individual Christian that pre-parousia period is a time

of ambiguity and of choices which certainly in Luke’s narrative

world, may not always seem clear (Acts 1:7). Hence the ambiguity

of his approach to Roman officialdom, partly no doubt reflecting

the historical facts, but also a practical approach that Rome at

17

times could aid the infant church at least by refraining from

persecution and letting it be.

For Luke such practicalities are only pro tem, and his underlying

thesis is remarkably similar to that of Revelation. Though Luke

is more nuanced and can sometimes seem to be echoing the Pauline

view of the Roman Empire that ‘those authorities that exist have

been instituted by God’ (Rom.13:1), as for instance in his

concern to see its officials as at least guarantors of peace and

stability for the small immature Christian communities, a closer

reading of Luke-Acts reveals an overriding concern with the way

of Christ, and as with Revelation an unstoppable Christian

mission. For both the seer and Luke the power of the Holy Spirit

is that critical factor, against which the likes of the Roman

Empire can never prevail. The seer was “in the spirit on the

Lord’s day” when given the divine revelation (Rev.1:10), and for

Luke the Holy Spirit is the protagonist of both the gospel and

Acts, leading from Jesus’ baptism in the Spirit to Paul’s arrival

and teaching in Rome. For both, the Holy Spirit is the church’s

guarantor of the final outcome.

Conclusion

I began by quoting Terry Eagleton on genre and ideology and I

have tried to show that, though Luke-Acts and Revelation are of

distinct genres, ideologically their difference is becomes less

clear as we see their similarities, including cross-references

18

between them, especially in their view of the Roman Empire.

Neither Luke nor the seer regard the empire with its claim to

total allegiance and its cult of the emperor, as being ultimately

compatible with the demands of God’s kingdom, though Luke is more

circumspect in his treatment, seeing the need to live with its

reality for the time being.

There are eschatological differences between Luke-Acts and

Revelation. For Revelation an imminent end is devoutly hoped for,

whereas the impression from Luke is that the parousia is

indefinitely delayed. For the latter the kingdom is already

“among you” (Luke 17:21) and the power of the Holy Spirit,

promised for the last days has been poured out on all flesh at

Pentecost (Acts 2:17ff). As the kingdom has already dawned and is

becoming increasingly evident through the working of the Holy

Spirit, the actual parousia may be of less significance.

But again, the difference between the two works may be more

apparent than real. For all Revelation’s insistence that the Lord

is coming soon (22:20), and the seeming shortness of the ‘ten

days’(1:10) and ‘the forty-two months’ of the beast (13:5) and

the ‘time and times, and half a time’ (12:14), Revelation in fact

countenances a period of waiting in which Christians need to

separate themselves from their surrounding culture and especially

from the imperial cult, and witness and, if needs be, suffer for

it. This same challenge is there in Luke-Acts, with the

19

protagonists, Jesus himself, Stephen, Peter and Paul all

exemplars of how a Christian should witness before ‘kings and

governors’ (Lke. 21:12).

For both Revelation and Luke-Acts the Roman Empire is for the

time being an inescapable fact of life, but it is one which for

the seer is already subverted and finally defeated by the victory

of the Lamb, and Luke’s approach is neatly summed up in the

words he gives to Gamaliel, ‘… if this plan is of human origin it

will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow

them – in that case you may even be found fighting against God!’

(Acts 5:38f.).

Bibliography

Baulkham, Richard Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

Grand Rapids William B.Eerdmans,2006

Bauckham, Richard The Theology of the Book of Revelation Cambridge CUP 1993

Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion New

York, Doubleday 1967

Burton, Ernest de Witt The Purpose and Plan of the Gospel of Luke Chicago,

University of Chicago Press, The Biblical World, Vol.6 No.4 (Oct.

1900) pp.248-258

Caird George B The Gospel of Saint Luke London, Penguin Books 1963

20

Cassidy, Richard J. Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study of Luke’s Gospel New York,

Orbis Books 1978

Casssidy, Richard J. Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles New York, Orbis

Books 1987

Conzelmann, Hans The Theology of Saint Luke London, Faber and Faber 1960

Dulk, Matthias den The Promises to the Comquerors in the Book of Revelation in

Biblica Vol.87 No.4 2006 http:/www.stor.org/stable/4264710

Ehrhardt, Arnold The Acts of the Apostles Manchester, Manchester University

Press 1969

Eusebius, The History of the Church London, Penguin Classics 1965

Farrer, Austen The Revelation of St.John the Divine Oxford OUP 1964

Friesen, Steven J. Myth and Resistance in Revelation 13 in Journal of Biblical

Literature Vol.123, No.2 2004Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Edited by Gordon D. Fee. The New International

Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1997.

Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and Empire Minneapolis, Fortress Press 2003

Myers, Ched Binding the Strong Man: A Political reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus New

York, Orbis Books 2008

Prevost , Jean-Pierre How to Read the Apocalypse London SCM Press 1993

Price S.R.F Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor Cambridge CUP

1984

Rowland, Christopher Revelation London, Epworth Press 1993

Sanders, Jack T. The Jews in Luke-Acts London SCM Press 1987

Smith, Christopher R. Novum Testamentum Vol.36 Oct.1994 p.388

http://jstor.org/stable/1560962

Sweet, John Revelation London SCM Press 1979

Thompson, Leonard J. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire New York,

Oxford University Press 1997

21

Wills Lawrence M.The Depiction of the Jews in Acts Journal of Biblical

Literature 110/4 1991 pp.631-654 JStor