Jerusalem in Acts
Here's a quick thought for the day from Mark Kinzer from his breathtakingly amazing book Postmissionary Messianic Judaism (seriously - it is currently my top book of the decade so if nothing better comes along before the end of the year it wins the Robin's best read 2000-2009 award!)
So here's the brief thought. It is often said that there is a geographical movement in Acts away from Jerusalem: From Jerusalem, to Judea, then Samaria, then the ends of the earth. This move is invested with theological freight (Acts starts in Jerusalem and ends in Rome - a move away from a Jewish-shaped faith).
Kinzer argues that the movement in Acts is actually complicated. "It does not begin in Jerusalem and then progressively and steadily radiate outward. Instead, the story continually reverts back to Jerusalem" (Acts 9:26-29; 11:2, 27-30; 15:2; 18:22; 21:17-23:11).
He suggests that the Acts 1:6-12 leads the reader to extect a narrative arc starting and ending in Jerusalem. "The drama would not reach its satisfying conclusion until the arc was again completed and the narrative returned to Jerusalem. Thus Luke deliberately composed an unsatisfying ending [Acts 28 is an odd end] so that we would know that it was not really the ending."
I think that this is a really interesting suggestion and my reading of Luke-Acts (which is not based on scholarly research but is based on lots of readings) inclines me to think that he is right.
So here's the brief thought. It is often said that there is a geographical movement in Acts away from Jerusalem: From Jerusalem, to Judea, then Samaria, then the ends of the earth. This move is invested with theological freight (Acts starts in Jerusalem and ends in Rome - a move away from a Jewish-shaped faith).
Kinzer argues that the movement in Acts is actually complicated. "It does not begin in Jerusalem and then progressively and steadily radiate outward. Instead, the story continually reverts back to Jerusalem" (Acts 9:26-29; 11:2, 27-30; 15:2; 18:22; 21:17-23:11).
He suggests that the Acts 1:6-12 leads the reader to extect a narrative arc starting and ending in Jerusalem. "The drama would not reach its satisfying conclusion until the arc was again completed and the narrative returned to Jerusalem. Thus Luke deliberately composed an unsatisfying ending [Acts 28 is an odd end] so that we would know that it was not really the ending."
I think that this is a really interesting suggestion and my reading of Luke-Acts (which is not based on scholarly research but is based on lots of readings) inclines me to think that he is right.
Comments
What do you think, is this fair?
ie that the New Jerusalem will be the true consumation. Another return to Jerusalem!
Thanks. If it is blindingly obvious I am thrilled. I guess that I am used to reading supersessionist interpretations of Acts in which the book is fitted into a theological system that requires an away-from-Judaism movement. There is a lot of people who read the book that way still around (honest). And some of them are certainly scholars too. For instance, I might be mistaken but I think that Tom Wright sees the book that way (apologies to NTW if I have misrepresented him on the basis of my memories of material read many years ago).
So I am very encouraged to hear a solid Acts scholar saying that this is obvious. FAB!
Robin
correction "there are a lot"