Essays in Honor of LEANDER E. KECK The Future of Christology Edited by ABRAHAM J. MALHERBE and WAYNE A. MEEKS FORTRESS PRESS MINNEAPOLISJesus as the “Prophetic Messiah” in Luke’s Gospel a _ JACK DEAN KINGSBURY In a paper delivered in 1985, Leander Keck calls for the renewal of New Testament Christology.’ In surveying this century’s legacy of research on Christology, Keck warns against the scholarly preoccupation with christo- logical titles.? His point is that to concentrate on titles is to run the risk of missing the forest for the trees. Although Keck makes this point with considerable force, he also tempers it at one juncture by noting that “obviously they [titles] cannot be ignored.”3 If I may appeal to Keck’s latter remark as justification for this chapter, T should like to focus on Luke's use of the terms “Messiah” and, especially, “prophet” as designations for Jesus. What prompts me to focus on these designations is the recognition that the question of Jesus’ identity consti- tutes one of the central themes not only of the infancy narrative but also of the major section to follow (3:1—9:50).¢ Significantly, the chief way in which Luke deals with this question is precisely through the use of titles. Be that as it may, it is my privilege and pleasure to offer this essay for inclusion in this Festschrift so as to convey my profound respect and deep 1, This paper, which Keck gave at the 40th General Meeting of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in ‘Trondheim, Norway, bore the title “Toward the Renewal of New ‘Testament Christology” and was subsequently published in NTS 32 (1986) 362-77. 2. Ibid., 368-70. 3. Ibid., 368. 4, See, ©.g., J. D. Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 48-49, 2930 JACK DEAN KINGSBURY esteem for the honoree. Through his sharp wit, keen insight, and many contributions, Lee Keck has placed all of us who know him in his debt and has greatly enriched both church and guild. In the ongoing attempt to discern Luke’s understanding of Jesus, the term “prophet” has sparked no little debate. A glance at the literature suggests that, for the most part, scholars have advanced three contrasting positions relative to this term. One position, which has largely fallen into disfavor today, holds that “prophet” is a wholly inadequate designation for Jesus5 A second position, which currently appears to be in the ascendency, takes the opposite view. Seemingly, this position owes much of its inspira- tion to an article by C. F. Evans. After reviewing seriatim the pericopes that make up the central section of Luke's Gospel,” Evans contends that Luke has selected and arranged the material to identify Jesus as “the prophet like unto Moses.”® With Evans's contention as catalyst, scholars have subsequently elevated “prophet” to the status of a christological title and advanced the sweeping claim that Luke presents Jesus in his Gospel as “the Prophet.” In addition to these two positions, there is a third, 5. The German word for “inadequate” is “unzukinglich,” which is H._ Schiirmann’s description for “prophet” (Das Lukasevangelium: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1—9,50 [HTKNT 3; Freiburg: Herder, 1969] 1.403). Other scholars who share SchGirmann’s assessment are, €.g., U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und Traditionsgeschicbiliche Untersuchungen (WMANT 5; Neukirchen-Viuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961) 102-6; M. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie ides Lukas (SNT 1; Giitersloh; Gerd Mohn, 1969) 206; K. H. Schelkle, “Jesus—Lehrer und Prophet,” Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker (Festschrift Josef ‘Schmid; ed. P. Hoffmann; Freiburg: Herder, 1973) 303-7; J. Wanke, “. . . wie sie in beim Brotbrechen erkannten’: Zur Auslegung der Em- mauserzihlung Lk 24, 13-35," BZ 18 (1974) 188-89; idem, Die Emmauserzdblung: Eirie redaktionsgeschichiliche Untersuchung zu Lk 24, 13-35 (Erfurter Theologische Studien 31; Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1973) 60-64; E. Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975) 67-69; E. Ellis, “The Composition of Luke 9 and the Sources of Its Christology,” Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (In Honor of Merrill C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Wm. B, Eerdmans, 1975) 122; and J. A. Fitemyer, “The Composition of Luke, Chapter 9,” Perspectives on Luke-Acts (ed. C. H. Talbert; Perspectives in Religious Studies 5; Danville, Va: Association of Baptist Professors of ‘Religion, 1978) 145. Apparently, G. Voss (Die Christologie der lukanischen Schrifien in Grundziigen (StudNeot 2; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1965] 169) also agrees with Schirmann’s assessment of “prophet” in the sense that he believes Luke has subsumed the “office of prophet” under the title of “Messiah.” 6. C. F. Evans, “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel,” Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (ed. D. E. Nineham; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957) 37-53. 7. For Evans, the central section of Luke’s Gospel extends from 9:51 to 18:14 Gbid., 40), 8. Ibid., 50. 9. See, e.g., L. T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 39; Missoula, Mont.’ Scholars Press, 1977), chap. 2; R. J. Dillon, From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke’ 24 (AnBib 82; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978) 117; U. Busse, Das Nazareth-Manifest Jesu: Eine Einfubrung in das lukanische Jesus nach th 4.1630 BS 91; Suga: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978) 75-76; D. L. Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); D. P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 46-47; D.A.S. Ravens, "The Setting of Luke's Account of the Anointing: Luke 7.2—8,3,” NTS 34 (1988) 282-92; idem, “Luke 9.7-62 and the Prophetic Role of Jesus,” NTS 36 (1990)' 119-29. For his part, D. L. Bock apparently takes a more cautious position: while he is willing to say that Luke depicts Jesus as “the prophet (like Moses),” he regards this christological strain as being “alongside and encompassed within” Luke's messi- anic portrait of Jesus (Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Chris- tology SNTSS 12; Sheffield: JSOT, 19871 115, 121, 194).i Jesus as the “Prophetic Messiah” in Luke’s Gospel 31 mediating position that has more recently been proposed. Like the second position it, too, construes “prophet” as a title. Nevertheless, it also con- cedes, in echo of the first position, that those in Luke who speak of Jesus as a prophet “may not understand him completely.”"° I should like to argue here for still a different position. It consists of two parts and may be stated thusly: On the one hand, Luke does not use “prophet” as a christological title; on the other hand, he does cast the ministry of Jesus in a “prophetic” mold. If this position is correct, it follows that whereas it is misleading to claim that Luke identifies Jesus as “the Prophet,” Jesus’ ministry in Luke is nonetheless “prophetic” in character. In Luke's gospel-story, therefore, Jesus is the “prophetic Messiah.”!! I Luke employs the “beginning” of his gospel-story, or infancy narrative (4:5—2:52), to prepare the auditor to comprehend and experience the idle” (3:1—21:38) and the “end” (22:1—24:53). In the story world he fashions, Luke ascribes normative status to God’s understanding of reality. He also establishes the auditor as privileged: except perhaps for Jesus, the auditor is better informed about the action taking place than any human character. One significant way in which Luke privileges the auditor is by pre- senting John and Jesus in the infancy narrative from God's point of view. Thus, angels from God or individuals inspired by the Holy Spirit describe John as prophet of the Highest (1:76) and Jesus as the Davidic Son of God, Messiah, Lord, and Savior? Correlatively, Luke depicts Jesus as already being aware as a boy (pais) that he is God’s Son and Servant and that divine necessity governs his life (2:43, 49). Conspicuous by its absence from the infancy narrative is any statement to the effect that Jesus is either “a prophet” or “the Prophet.” Once Luke concludes the infancy narrative, the only characters who do not disappear from the story are John, Jesus, and Mary; and of Mary it is said that she “kept all these things in her heart.” In other words, the divine revelation that the chayacters in the infancy narrative either convey or receive is not so much intended to propel the plot of Luke's story forward as, again, to privilege the auditor. In a real sense, therefore, plot 10. R. Tannebill, The Gospel according to Luke, vol. 1 of The Narrative Unity of Luke- Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 97. 11, The term “prophetic Messiah” is also used occasionally by Johnson (Possessions in Luke-Acts, 84-85 n. 2, 95). In contrast to the position I am taking, however, he views “the Prophet” as a christological title and as best capturing Luke's understanding of Jesus. 12. See Luke 1:31-35, 43, 69; 2:11; also 2:25, 26, 38. 13. See Luke 2:31; also 2:19.32 JACK DEAN KINGSBURY development begins in Luke's gospel-story in the first part of the middle (3:1—9:50), which is the section of particular interest to us. In this section, Luke tells of the ministry of John (:1-20) and of the first phase of Jesus’ ministry (3:21—9:50). One of the principal themes is precisely that of the identity of Jesus. This theme, in fact, runs like a red thread from the beginning of this section to the end.'4 Such emphasis on this theme raises the question of why Luke, after having just highlighted this selfsame theme in the infancy narrative, should return to it again in this section of his gospel-story. The answer is that Luke’s concern in this section is to show the auditor how characters within the body of the gospel-story deal with the issue of Jesus’ identity. Luke broaches the theme of Jesus’ identity in the first part of the middle of his story (3:1—9:50) already in the pericope on the ministry of John the Baptist (3:1-20). Aware that the people ponder whether he is not “the Messiah,” John redirects their ruminations by pointing them to the Coming, mightier One (3:15-17).!5 In so doing, John effectively becomes the instrument by which Luke leads the auditor to anticipate that human characters in his gospel-story will also wonder and speculate about Jesus’ identity. ‘As the immediate backdrop for human query concerning Jesus’ identity, Luke again dwells on the way in which supernatural beings—and himself as narrator—view Jesus’ identity. In the baptismal episode (3:21-22), God himself declares that Jesus is “my Son”, as one of the titles bestowed on Jesus by God, “Son of God” thus becomes a norm for understanding Jesus’ identity. In the genealogy (3:23-38), Luke as narrator provides the auditor with a “historical” record of Jesus’ pedigree: Jesus is the “son of Joseph” only in the sense that people “suppose” him to be such (3:23); in other respects, he is the “Son of David” (3:31) and the “Son of God” (3:38). In the temptation (4:1-13), Satan appropriates God's under- standing of Jesus and approaches Jesus as the “Son of God,” even if only to entice him to break faith with God. And to round things out, Luke informs the auditor a bit later that, like God and Satan, demons, too, know Jesus to be the “Son of God” (4:41). Following baptism, genealogy, and temptation, Luke depicts Jesus as 14, While it is not uncommon for scholars to observe that the question of Jesus’ identity stands out prominently in Luke 9 (see, e-g., Fitzmyer, “Composition of Luke, Chapter 9"), I am not aware that scholars have taken note of the fact that Luke actually pursues this, question throughout the whole of 3:19:50. Pursuant to this, see Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke, 48-50; idem, The Christology of Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 177. 15. Although it is not obvious from 3:15-17, Luke bases the messianic designation “the Coming One,” which becomes prominent later in his gospel-story, on the words John utters in 3:16 ("but he who is mightier than I is coming”; see 7:19-20; 13:35; 19:38).Jesus as the “Prophetic Messiah” in Luke’s Gospel 33 embarking on his public ministry in Israel (4:14-15). From this point on, it is almost exclusively humans who wonder about Jesus’ identity or state who they believe he is or is not. The long series of questions and statements begins with the villagers of Nazareth; it does not end until Peter declares how the disciples view Jesus, and God declares for a second time, in the presence of three disciples at the transfiguration, his understanding of Jesus’ identity. Thus, at 4:22 the villagers of Nazareth, although they marvel at Jesus’ reading of Isaiah and his pronouncement of the fulfillment of this reading in their hearing, nonetheless ask themselves, “Is not this the son of Joseph?” At 4:36, the people in the synagogue of Capernaum, after having witnessed Jesus expel a demon, query one another about his identity by asking about the authority of his speech: “What is this word?” they ask. “For with authority and power he com- mands the unclean spirits, and they come out!” At 5:21, the scribes and Pharisees, taking offense at Jesus for having forgiven the paralytic his sins, question in their hearts, “Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?” At 7:16, the people, after having seen Jesus raise the young man of Nain from the dead, exclaim in awe as they glorify God, “A great prophet has arisen among us! God has visited his people!” At 7:19, John the Baptist, who wrongly believed that the Coming, mightier One would, upon his appearance, usher in the final judgment (3:16-17), inquires of Jesus through two disciples, “Are you the Coming One, or shall we look for another?” At 7:39, Simon the Pharisee, observing that Jesus has permitted himself to be touched by a sinful woman and aware that Jesus has been publicly acclaimed by the crowd as a prophet,}® denies Jesus such public acclaim as he mutters to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” At 7.49, the guests of Simon the Pharisee, having heard Jesus forgive the wayward woman her sins, take offense at this and wonder to one another, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” At 8:25, the disciples, for whom Jesus has just calmed wind and wave, ask one another in fear and astonishment, “Who then is this, that he commands even wind and water, and they obey him?” At 9:7-9, a perplexed Herod Antipas, having heard of the happenings surrounding Jesus’ ministry and noting that the people surmise that Jesus is a prophet of some kind, wonders in his own mind, *. . . who is this about whom I hear such things?” At 9:18-20, Jesus himself, after first asking the Twelve 16, Narratively, the background for Simon's remark at Luke 7:39 is the crowd's acclama- tion of Jesus as a “great prophet” in Luke 7:16. On the interpretation of 7:16, see below, 37-40,34 JACK DEAN KINGSBURY who the people think he is, pointedly asks them who they think he is; in reply to Jesus’ question, Peter declares on behalf of all, “You are the Messiah of God!” And at 9:35, God announces from a cloud to Peter, John, and James atop the mount of transfiguration that Jesus “is my chosen Son” and enjoins them to “hear him!” If one examines this series of questions and statements, one quickly discovers that apart from the people’s inquiry about John’s identity (3:15), the entire series, which concerns Jesus’ identity, is bracketed by God's declarations in the baptismal episode (3:22) and at the transfiguration (9:35). In addition, one notes that just as, at the beginning of the series, God’s baptismal declaration (3:22) is appropriated by Jesus as he com- mences his public ministry at Nazareth (4:18), so, at the end of the series, Peter's confession (9:20) is followed by God's declaration at the trans- figuration (9:35). In the baptismal episode, God “anoints” Jesus with the Spirit and declares him to be “my Son” (3:22). At Nazareth, Jesus declares that God!7 has “anointed” him with the Spirit (4:18). In Lukan thought, behind the notion that God has “anointed” Jesus with the Spirit lies the notion that Jesus is the “Messiah” (Acts 4:26-27; 10:36-38). Indeed, the “Messiah” in Luke is none other than the “Son” whom God has “anointed” with the Spirit, so that “Son of God” and “Messiah” prove to be comple- mentary titles (4:41). Be that as it may, in declaring at Nazareth that God has anointed him with the Spirit, Jesus affirms that he is God’s Messiah (4:18), With these observations in mind, we return to the series of questions and statements concerning Jesus’ identity. A glance at the beginning and end of this series reveals that a chiastic pattern exists according to which Jesus is said—by God, Jesus himself, Peter, and God—to be “God’s Son” (3:22), “God's Messiah” (4:18), “God's Messiah” (9:20), and “God's Son” (9:35). Peter’s confession that Jesus is “God’s Messiah” at the end of the series tallies with Jesus’ presentation of himself as “God’s Messiah" (“Anointed”) at the beginning of the series. And just as Jesus appropriates God's baptismal affirmation of him as “Son” in presenting himself at Nazareth as “Messiah” (“Anointed”), so God's affirmation of Jesus as “Son” at the transfiguration confirms Peter's confession of Jesus as “Messiah.” Consequently, Luke invites the auditor at the close of the first part of the middle of his gospel-story to adjudge Peter’s confession of Jesus as “God's 17. Specifically, Jesus, in quoting from Isa 61:1-2 (LXX), refers to God in Luke 4:18 as ‘Lord.”Jesus as the “Prophetic Messiah” in Luke’s Gospel 35 Messiah” (9:20) to be not only fully valid but also the correct way to view Jesus relative to all the questions and statements concerning his identity that humans have posed or made throughout this part.!® st Embedded in this long series of questions and statements concerning Jesus’ identity is also a trajectory devoted to the term “prophet.” At 4:24, Jesus, at Nazareth, applies to himself a proverb featuring the term “prophet.” At 7:16, the crowd, having witnessed Jesus raise the young man at Nain, exclaims, “A great prophet has arisen among us! God has visited his people!” At 7:39, Simon the Pharisee discloses in his remark to himself that he will not even so much as entertain the public perception that Jesus is a prophet, These latter two passages, in turn, pave the way for Luke’s narrative comment at 9:7-8 to the effect that Herod Antipas hears about the words and deeds of Jesus and his disciples and is perplexed by the opinions that the Jewish public holds of Jesus: whereas some consider Jesus to be John the Baptist raised from the dead, others think that he is Elijah who has reappeared, and still others regard him as one of the ancient prophets who has arisen.!? And last, this episode featuring Herod Antipas sets the stage for the climactic pericope in this mini-trajectory, the confession of Peter (9:18-22).° Noteworthy in this pericope on Peter's confession is that Luke in effect juxtaposes “prophet” and “Messiah” to each other (9:18-20). In v. 19, the disciples report to Jesus what Herod Antipas, too, has heard of him: that the crowds, or Jewish public, think of him as being John the Bapt Elijah, or one of the ancient prophets. As is commonly acknowledged, these three views are at bottom variants of the single perception that Jesus 18. The command to silence that Jesus gives the disciples immediately following Peter's confession (9:21) does not mitigate this statement. Luke shows retrospectively, after Jesus has delivered his second passion prediction, that the reason Jesus commands the disciples to silence at 9:21 is that although they know at this point “who he is,” they will not compre- hend the predictions he will make concerning his passion and resurrection (9:45; also 18:34). Until the disciples comprehend the Jatter, however, they cannot become “witnesses” of Jesus (24;44-49). 19. Interestingly, Luke apparently invites the auditor to construe Herod Antipas himself as discounting the rumor that Jesus could be John the Baptist: Luke himself has depicted John as preaching but never as performing miracles; and Herod, after observing that he himself has done away with John, yet goes on to ask, “But who is this about whom I hear things?” (9:9). Seemingly, Herod’s perplexed thoughts run something like this: Because know that this man Jesus can't be John the Baptist, who in fact is he? 20. Cf. Luke 9:7-8 with 9:19.36 JACK DEAN KINGSBURY is some prophet of great note who has returned from the other world.” Since these three public views prove to be variants of a single notion, the key question becomes this: How does the notion in v. 19 that Jesus is “prophet” John, Elijah, or one of the ancient prophets) relate to Peter's declaration in v, 20 that Jesus is “Messiah”? On this score, three positions presently seem to be in vogue. One position posits continuity between what the crowds surmise about Jesus’ identity and what Peter asserts, to wit: the three variant views of the crowds are to be seen as “building” toward Peter’s confession that Jesus is God’s Messiah.?? A second position holds that the variant views of the crowds contrast with Peter’s view so that Peter is to be judged as right and the crowds wrong. Still, the crowds are wrong only insofar as they identify Jesus with some specific personage such as John, Elijah, or one of the ancient prophets.” In reality, Jesus is not merely a particular prophet come back to earth or life; instead, he is the realization of “God’s Prophet,” that is to say, he is the “great Prophet.” And the third position, which also postulates contrast between the variant views of the crowds and Peter's declaration, insists that whereas Peter is right, the crowds are fundamentally wrong.5 if To assess these three positions, the first one, which posits continuity between “prophet” and “Messiah,” is untenable. The reason is that the three views of Jesus espoused by the crowds, or Jewish public, prove themselves, on formal and especially material grounds, to be not only not partially correct, but incorrect. Formally, the plural pronoun “you” in 9:20, . which refers to the disciples (9:18), occupies a position of stress. As such, it suggests that the disciples’ perception of Jesus, as articulated by Peter - (9:20), stands not in continuity, but in contrast to the variant views of the crowds (9:18-19). Materially, it is apparent from even the briefest reading of Luke's gospel-story that Jesus cannot be John the Baptist come back to life, for Luke has presented John as a distinct character who can be contrasted with Jesus (Luke 1-2) and who discharges his own ministry (3:1-20) and suffers his own fate (9:9). Indeed, John himself differentiates sharply between himself and Jesus (3:15-17). But if Jesus is most assuredly not John the Baptist come back to life, neither is he Elijah who has reap- peared or one of the ancient prophets who has arisen. Twice the auditor 21, See, e.g., Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium 1.506-7; Dillon, Eye-Witnesses, 121 n. 154. 22, So Dillon, Eye- Witnesses, 121 n. 154. 23, Johnson, Possessions in Luke-Acts, 96. 24, Thi. 25. See, e.g,, Schirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.530-32.Jesus as the “Prophetic Messiah” in Luke’s Gospel 37 learns that Jesus is perceived by segments of the Jewish public as being ‘one of these three figures (9:7-8, 19). Each time the three are mentioned, it is as persons who are placed in parallel positions on the same plane. What this means rhetorically is that if the auditor knows for certain that Jesus is not to be identified with one of these figures (e.g., John), then he or she can infer with equal certainty that neither is Jesus to be identified with either of the other figures (e.g., Elijah or one of the ancient proph- ets). To reiterate, in Luke’s purview it is not partially correct but, rather, incorrect to view Jesus as John, Elijah, or one of the ancient prophets. But should it be incorrect to view Jesus as one of these three figures, it is difficult to see that viewing him as a prophetic figure at all can be said to build toward Peter's confession that he is God’s Messiah. In favor of the second position is the fact that unlike this first one, it does posit contrast between the crowds’ views of Jesus (9:18-19) and Peter's declaration (9:20). Where it falters, however, is in postulating that the difference between Jesus, on the one hand, and John, Elijah, or one of the ancient prophets, on the other, is not one of kind but merely of emphasis: Jesus surpasses the three because, as the realization of the “great Prophet,” he surpasses any specific prophet. There are two reasons why the postulate that “great Prophet” func- tions in effect as a christological title in Luke’s gospel-story is dubious. The first is that the character whom Luke himself has most obviously chosen to describe as the “great Prophet” is not Jesus but John the Baptist. In the infancy narrative, which, as we have seen, is crucial for grasping the way in which Luke would introduce John and Jesus, one does indeed find the notion of “great prophet.” Moreover, this notion, because it constitutes God’s evaluative point of view, has normative status. Still, it is not Jesus but John who becomes the bearer of this identity. When the angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah and announces John’s birth, he pre- dicts that John will be “great” (1:15); and when Zechariah is suddenly filled with the Spirit and prophesies, he designates John as the “prophet of the Highest” (1:76). In Luke’s gospel-story, therefore, “great prophet” may quite rightly be said to be a designation God bestows and to connote a role to be filled, but this designation and this role are given, again, not to Jesus but to John. The second reason one must be skeptical of the postulate that “great Prophet” functions in Luke's gospel-story as a christological title is that it compels one to construe Luke as using the “crowd(s)” as a primary instrument for imparting nonironical “divine revelation” concerning Jesus’ identity (see 7:16). Such use of the crowds, however, does not square with Luke’s characterization of them. As Luke describes them, the crowds,38 JACK DEAN KINGSBURY although they can be well-disposed toward Jesus (e.g., 5:26; 13:17), are nonetheless without faith in him. In being without faith in Jesus, the crowds contrast with the disciples (e.g., 8:9-10) and do not hesitate to attack Jesus. Once when Jesus expels a demon, some in the crowds charge him with performing this miracle in collusion with Beelzebul, and others of them demand of him a sign from heaven (11:14-16). For his part, Jesus castigates the crowds as an “evil generation” (11:29), assails them as “hypocrites” who can discern the weather but not the decisive importance of the present time (12:54-56), and summons them to repentance.” In Luke's gospel-story, the crowds do not become God's instrument for revealing “who Jesus is,” and they do not perceive the mystery of his identity. As for the interpretation of 7:16, we shall return to this below. In our examination of the pericope on Peter’s confession (9:18-22), we have concluded thus far that the first two positions mentioned above cannot be sustained: the auditor is not invited to regard as partially correct the views of the Jewish public according to which Jesus is some prophet of note and to build toward Peter’s declaration; and neither is the auditor led to construe “great Prophet” as a christological title. Consequently, the best interpretation of Luke’s juxtaposition of the crowds’ views of Jesus (9:18-19) to Peter's declaration (9:20) is the third one: whereas the crowds are fundamentally wrong in looking upon Jesus as a “prophet,” Peter is correct in confessing him to be God's “Messiah.” To assert this, however, is to raise two interrelated questions. Why, in Lukan perspective, is the notion that Jesus is prophet incorrect? And is there some way to determine how Luke would assess “prophet” in rela- tion to “Messiah”? The answer to these questions can be found, I believe, in a passage that scholars have apparently ignored in considering Luke's understanding of “prophet” and “Messiah,” namely, 3:15-17. This passage, we recall, introduces the long series of questions and statements concerning Jesus’ identity that can be found throughout Luke 3:1—9:50 by leading the auditor to anticipate that just as John is asked about his identity, so Jesus will be asked about his. Significantly, a comparison of 3:15-17 with the pericope containing Peter's confession (9:18-20) indicates that the two passages are virtually the converse of each other. In 3:15-17, John is asked by the people whether he is the “Messiah,” and he effectively replies in the negative by describing himself as being “incomparably less” than the Messiah. In 9:18-20, Jesus is told that people think of him as a “prophet,” 26. On Luke's characterization of the “people,” see Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke, 28-31. 27. Cf. Luke 13:3, 5 with 12:54a.Jesus as the “Prophetic Messiah” in Luke’s Gospel 39 and he elicits from Peter the declaration that, in reality, he is “incom- parably greater” than a prophet because he is the Messiah. Now Luke's normative understanding of John, we know, is that he is the “great prophet.” Accordingly, in that John, the “great prophet,” denies in 3:15-17 that he is the Messiah and compares himself with that Coming, mightier One* so Luke has John himself apprise the auditor of the “absolute difference” that exists between himself as “prophet” and the Coming One as “Messiah.” John describes this absolute difference along three lines. First, the Coming One is so much mightier than he that he is not even worthy to loose the thong of his sandals, that is, to perform for the Coming One the most menial task that can fall to a gentile slave (3:16). Second, whereas he baptizes with water, the Coming One will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (3:16). In Luke's narrative, these words of John come true on Pentecost, when the exalted Jesus pours out the Spirit upon the disciples (Acts 1:5; 2:33; 11:16). And third, the Coming One will utterly surpass anything that he, John, has done in his ministry because he is destined to carry out the final judgment (3:17; Acts 10:42; 17:31). Accordingly, as Luke attests through the witness of the “great prophet” John, the difference that exists between “prophet” and “Messiah” is as absolute as the difference that exists between the one who baptizes with water and the one who is destined to be exalted to heaven and to come at the end of time as Judge of all. To Luke’s way of thinking, to look upon Jesus as prophet is not to perceive who he is, for in being Messiah, he is infinitely more than prophet. Together, the pericope on Peter's confession (especially 9:18-20) and the passage concerning John’s identity (3:15-17) constitute the hermeneut- ical key for discerning Luke’s understanding of “prophet” in relation to “Messiah.” In light of these two texts, we can review key passages not yet discussed in which “prophet” is associated with Jesus and note their meaning. Thus, at 4:24, Jesus, at Nazareth, utters a proverb that features the word “prophet,” to wit: “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown.” In Lukan perspective, the purpose this proverb serves is to enable Jesus to describe his own experience in Nazareth as being typical of prophetic experience in general; just as no prophet is acceptable in his own hometown, so Jesus is not acceptable in Nazareth. Again, at 7:16, the crowd witnesses Jesus raise the young man of Nain and extols him as a “great prophet”: “A great prophet has been raised up 28. To stress a point made earlier, although it is not apparent here in 3:16, Luke reveals retrospectively that John’s name for the Messiah (to whom John refers as he declares that “he who is mightier than I is coming”) is the “Coming One” (see Luke 7:19-20; also 13:35; 19:38).40 JACK DEAN KINGSBURY among us! God has visited his people!” To the credit of the crowd in this scene, it perceives that Jesus has indeed performed this awesome miracle as an agent of God and that in it God is acting graciously toward his people. Still, in that the crowd extols Jesus as a great prophet, the auditor knows that the crowd's perception of Jesus is exactly the same as Luke's characterization of John the Baptist. In his own right, John, too, is a unique agent of God (3:3-6); yet, as John himself affirmed, he is “incom- parably less” than the Messiah (3:15-17). Consequently, the crowd at Nain is not to be seen as disclosing the identity of Jesus. This notwithstanding, the crowd’s exclamation does influence further developments in Luke’s gospel-story: it introduces two pericopes—an exchange between the disci- ples of John and Jesus, and Jesus’ words to the crowds about John—that have to do with the identities and ministries of both Jesus and John (7:18-35); it induces Simon the Pharisee to want to contest the crowd's, or the public’s, perception that Jesus could be so much as a prophet (7:39); and it paves the way for the rumors that reach Herod Antipas (9:7-8) and, through the disciples, Jesus himself (9:17-18) to the effect that Jesus is some prophet who has returned to earth from the other world. Third, at 13:33, Jesus, on his way to Jerusalem, delivers the following maxim to some Pharisees, “. . . for it cannot be,” he asserts, “that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.” As a word of Jesus, the intention of his maxim is clear, to align the fate of Jesus with that of the prophets: just as it cannot be that a prophet should die outside Jerusalem, so divine necessity dictates that Jesus journey to Jerusalem and * there die. Fourth, in 24:19-21, the Emmaus disciples, unaware that the person who has joined them as they depart Jerusalem is the risen Jesus, describe Jesus to himself as “prophet.” As one weighs this scene, the thing to observe is that the Emmaus disciples, in referring to Jesus as “prophet,” are portraying him as the Jewish public, or the whole of Jerusalem, knew him (24:18-19a). This public view of Jesus, however, is one with which the auditor is already thoroughly familiar? In contrast, when the Emmaus disciples speak of the hope that they themselves had held, they describe Jesus as the one who was to “redeem Israel.” In other words, the disciples themselves had looked upon Jesus not as prophet, but as Messiah.2? Finally, two further passages to be considered are Acts 3:22 and 7:37. In them, Peter and Stephen, respectively, associate the expression “prophet 29. See Luke 7:16; 9:7-8, 18-19. 30. Cf. Luke 24:21 with 1:68-75; 2:38; also 9:20, See further, S. Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke (AnBib 36; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969) 75; Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy, 86.Jesus as the “Prophetic Messiah” in Luke’s Gospel 41 like me [= Moses}” with Jesus. As one assesses the weight of these passages for determining whether “prophet” is a christological title, it is crucial to note that “prophet like me” is ascribed to Jesus neither by Luke himself as narrator nor by Peter or Stephen. Instead, “prophet like me” occurs exclusively as part of a prediction that Moses himself is depicted as having once made. Luke writes: “Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet . . . like me (Acts 3:22); “This is the Moses who said... , God will raise up for you a prophet . . . like me’ (Acts 7:37). From Luke’s standpoint, Moses’ prediction has of course reached fulfill- ment, in the coming of Jesus. Yet, as Peter makes clear in his speech, this Jesus who has come in fulfillment of Moses’ prediction is not heralded as the “prophet like Moses,” but as God's “Messiah,” the one who not only has come but also will come again (Acts 3:18-21). To Luke’s way of thinking, therefore, the one to whom Moses once referred as the “prophet like me” is in fact Jesus, “Messiah” (and “Lord”) (Acts 2:36). TL The argument I have pursued here is that a careful reading of Luke's gospel-story reveals that this story by no means supports the current scholarly trend according to which “prophet” is elevated to the status of a christological title and Jesus is regarded as “the Prophet” par excellence. As Luke insists in both his works, the Jesus he features in his gospel-story is, as God himself makes known in the infancy narrative through angels and inspired persons, the Davidic Messiah and Son of God, Lord and Savior. This is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is that despite Luke’s refusal to interpret Jesus’ identity in terms of prophet, he goes to great lengths to show that Jesus’ ministry is “prophetic” in character. Scholars have long noted this On this score, Luke is especially fond of showing that Jesus stands in the train of Moses and Elijah. Overall, however, what Luke gains by coloring Jesus’ ministry in prophetic hues is continuity: like the prophets before him but also the apostles and Paul after him, Jesus is at once authoritative in deed and word, yet rejected by Israels! The point to be made, how- ever, is that Luke himself does not authorize the interpreter to infer from the strongly prophetic character of Jesus’ ministry that Jesus is therefore “the Prophet.” On his own view, the reason that Luke shows, in such passages as those concerning John’s identity (3:15-17) and Peter's confes- sion (9:18-20) that Jesus is not prophet but God’s Messiah, is that Luke is 31. On this point, see, e.g., Tannehill, Gospel according to Luke, 96-99.42 JACK DEAN KINGSBURY concerned to stress not only salvation-historical continuity but also the absolute uniqueness of Jesus. To capture both emphases—salvation- historical continuity and the absolute uniqueness of Jesus—Luke, I con- tend, chose to present the Jesus of his gospel-story as the “prophetic Messiah.”