What Shall We Do?: Eschatology and Ethics in Luke-Acts

What Shall We Do?

Eschatology and Ethics in Luke–Acts

Joseph M. Lear

What Shall We Do?

Eschatology and Ethics in Luke–Acts

Copyright © 2018 Joseph M. Lear. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-1820-8

hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-4357-5

ebook isbn: 978-1-4982-4356-8

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Names: Lear, Joseph M.

Title: What shall we do? : eschatology and ethics in Luke–Acts / Joseph M. Lear

Description: Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2018 | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: isbn 978-1-5326-1820-8 (paperback) | isbn 978-1-4982-4357-5 (hardcover) | isbn 978-1-4982-4356-8 (ebook).

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Luke—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Acts—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Eschatology | Bible. New Testament—Ethics | Ethics in the Bible.

Classification: bs2589 l42 2018 (print) | bs2589 (ebook).

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 02/12/18

Table of Contents

Title Page

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: John the Baptist and Jesus

Chapter 3: Received and Rejected in Luke

Chapter 4: Sharing in the Last Days

Chapter 5: Received and Rejected in Acts

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Bibliography

For Holly Lear—

my breadwinner, prayer partner, and merry-maker

Abbreviations

Ancient Sources

Abbreviations for ancient sources from The SBL Handbook for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Hendrickson, 1999). All translations of ancient texts are my own unless otherwise noted.

1QM War Scroll

Abraham Philo, On the Life of Abraham

Ant. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities

CD Damascus Document

Jub. Jubilees

J.W. Josephus, Jewish War

T. Benj Testament of Benjamin

T. Levi Testament of Levi

T. Naph Testament of Naphtali

Modern Works

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992

BDAG Walter Bauer, Fredrick W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements

NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

1

Introduction

Justification for this Study

Ministry begins in Luke’s Gospel with John the Baptist. He is the voice in the wilderness from Isa 40 (Luke 3 : 4 – 6 ) proclaiming that the way of the Lord ( τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου ) must be prepared. ¹ Crooked (τὰ σκολιὰ) paths must and will be made straight so that all flesh will be able to see the salvation of God (τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:5–6). When the crowds come to hear and be baptized, John asks them who told them to flee the wrath that is about to be (τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς, 3:7). John the Baptist’s eschatological proclamation is not unique to Luke. All of the canonical Gospels identify John the Baptist as the voice of Isa 40. ² Matthew moreover puts verbatim the same eschatological announcement about the coming wrath on John the Baptist’s lips (Matt 3:7). ³ But what follows immediately upon eschatological proclamation in Luke is unique among the Gospel writers. Luke says that the crowds respond with a question, what shall we do? (τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν; 3:10). John the Baptist answers with a short series of ethical exhortations: people should share their food and clothing with those who have none; tax collectors and soldiers should cease corruption (3:11–14). The coming wrath, evidently, necessitates sharing possessions.

Acts begins on a similar note. The Holy Spirit is poured out, which occasions another appeal to the Prophets. Peter announces through the prophet Joel that the outpouring means that it is the last days (ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, Acts 2:17).⁴ After Peter explains that the last days are here because of Jesus’ resurrection, Luke says that the Pentecost crowd responds to Peter’s announcement with the same question with which the crowd responded to John the Baptist: what shall we do? (τί ποιήσωμεν, 2:37). Peter tells everyone to be baptized (2:38). But Luke then adds that Peter continued to urge the crowd to be saved (σώθητε) from the present crooked generation (τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς). Peter’s words concerning salvation and crookedness recall the Isa 40 quotation about John the Baptist in Luke 3. The first summary statement of Acts immediately follows the conclusion of Peter’s sermon: a new community is formed around shared possessions (2:42–47). The last days, evidently, occasion the sharing of possessions.⁵

The present investigation was prompted by my observation that the anonymous author we know as Luke⁶ brings together the announcement of eschatological fulfillment with an emphasis on the sharing of possessions near the beginning of both of his books (the shorthand eschatology and ethics, respectively, will be used to refer to these two matters throughout this study).⁷ Because eschatology and ethics have an apparent relationship near the beginning of both of Luke’s books, it seemed important to investigate whether this relationship shows up elsewhere and, if so, what that might mean for the study of this major New Testament text.⁸

Aims of this Study

As I will demonstrate in the coming chapters, not only do eschatology and ethics continue to appear at key moments in Luke’s two volumes,⁹ but where eschatological proclamation and shared possessions do appear, those passages often, like the beginning of Acts, recall John the Baptist’s preaching. So the first aim of this study is simply to demonstrate this linkage of eschatology and ethics throughout Luke’s two volumes and thereby to show that sharing possessions in the last days appears to be one of Luke’s major theological concerns.

But there is also a second aim. While demonstrating that eschatology and ethics are both central to Luke’s theology, I shall at the same time ask why? Why does Luke think that an ethic of shared possessions is necessary in the last days? I resist a singular, systematic answer to this question. Luke wrote a narrative because a narrative—as opposed to any other category of literature—was the best way to say what he wanted say, and narratives as a genre resist tidy summarization.¹⁰ But there is nevertheless one recurring matter that appears to be part of the connective tissue throughout the passages addressed in this study.

That matter, in sum, is the identification of God’s people. When John the Baptist exhorts the crowd to share food and clothing, the injunction comes on the cusp of his telling them not to say to themselves that they have Abraham as a father (Luke 3:8). In Luke 16, Jesus tells his audience to make friends with unrighteous mammon (16:9). At the beginning of Acts, it is a community of people that is formed around shared possessions (Acts 2:42–47). And, finally, it is in part through sharing possessions that the Gentiles demonstrate their inclusion in the people of God (e.g., Acts 10:2). As I shall demonstrate, these diverse passages seem to indicate that the identification of the people of God is sometimes called into question, sometimes suggested, and sometimes confirmed all around the matter of possessions. Moreover, the identification of people of God appears from the outset of Luke’s narrative to be an eschatological question. In the opening scene we are told that John the Baptist will prepare a people for the Lord (ἑτοιμάσαι κυρίῳ λαὸν κατεσκευασμένον, 1:17). When he begins his public ministry, he tells the crowds to prepare in order that they might escape the coming wrath.

Before I turn to exegesis, a few more remarks are in order. First, I give a short survey of Lukan studies to show where I hope to make a contribution with this inquiry. Second, I make some remarks about my interpretive method.

Survey of Scholarship

Scholars have consistently recognized the importance of eschatology in early Christian ethics. There is an easily observable relationship throughout the NT. In 1 Cor 7, for example, Paul suggests that the unmarried should stay as they are because of the present distress (διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην, 7:26) and because the time is drawing close (ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν, 7:29). Elsewhere in Rom 13, Paul says that his audience should observe the time, that the hour has come for them to rise from sleep (εἰδότες τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι ὥρα ἤδη ὑμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγερθῆναι, 13:11), and that they should therefore (οὖν, 13:12) walk properly (εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν), not in orgies, drunkenness, sexual immorality, sensuality, strife, and jealousy (13:13). Passages such as these are what lead Richard Hays to suggest that Paul’s moral vision is intelligible only when his apocalyptic perspective is kept clearly in mind.¹¹ Similarly, Richard Burridge says about Jesus’ ethics that it "like all his teaching is to be understood in light of the eschaton."¹² The centrality of eschatology in early Christian ethical reflection is why both Hays and Burridge in their comprehensive studies on NT ethics consider each NT author’s eschatology before considering his ethics.¹³

Scholars recognize the importance of eschatology for early Christian ethics, yet there is to my knowledge no monograph addressing eschatology and ethics in Luke–Acts. One motivation for this study is therefore simply that such an investigation might add to our understanding both of Lukan writings and to their relationship to other early Christian documents. But this study is also occasioned by scholars’ acknowledgment of the importance of Luke’s eschatological outlook for his ethical concerns. This acknowledgement is what I shall presently detail. Scholarly recognition of eschatology and ethics in Luke–Acts is a complicated story, for eschatology and ethics have both individually been matters of debate.

Debates about Luke’s eschatology and debates about his ethics will be identified in the following short survey. But scholars have typically addressed either only eschatology or ethics in Luke–Acts, though they acknowledge the importance of one for the other. Because eschatology and ethics have typically only been discussed separately, that is how I proceed in this review. I look first at scholars’ discussion of Lukan eschatology and their acknowledgment of its relatedness to Lukan ethics. Thereafter, I look at scholars’ discussion of Lukan ethics and their acknowledgment of its relatedness to Lukan eschatology.

Scholars on Lukan Eschatology (and Ethics)

Hans Conzelmann’s 1953 publication on Lukan theology is seminal in the field.¹⁴ His account of Lukan eschatology not only received much attention in the years following, but also set the terms of the debate.¹⁵ He claims that history necessitated that early Christians revisit their expectations of an imminent eschaton. Jesus had not come back when the earliest Christian communities thought he would. Paul said in 1 Cor 15:51 that we will not all sleep. The first generation of Christians evidently thought that some of them would still be alive when Christ returned. But the first generation of Christians had come and gone. Luke’s generation, Conzelmann suggests, had to deal with the problem of delay. 2 Peter had his own response. He simply reasserted imminence in the face of disappointment.¹⁶ But Luke had a different answer; he found a new departure, which, Conzelmann claims, was his great achievement.¹⁷ In the face of delay, rather than denying it Luke embraced it, deliberately eliminating from his theology any hope for an imminent return of Christ.¹⁸ Luke accomplished his great theological achievement by integrating his theology into his sources, schematizing history into three stages. Jesus’ words in Luke 16:16, Conzelmann says, signify this division. The Law and the Prophets were until John, Jesus says, and from then the kingdom of God is proclaimed as good news (Luke 16:16). John the Baptist closed the first period and Jesus’ ministry formed the second.¹⁹ The third is the indefinite, long-term period of the church.

The first passage Conzelmann turns to in order to demonstrate Luke’s new departure in Christian eschatology is John the Baptist’s preaching (Luke 3:1ff). There he notices that Luke adds a series of ethical exhortations that are not in his sources (Luke 3:10–14; cf. Mark ad loc). This new material, according to Conzelmann, indicates that the Lukan John the Baptist is no longer proclaiming an eschatological call to repentance, as he was (presumably) in Mark. Rather, he preaches timeless ethical exhortation.²⁰ Ethics, in other words, replaces imminent eschatology. Conzelmann does not ignore John the Baptist’s words about the coming wrath (Luke 3:7). Indeed, he admits that John threatens judgment. But he nevertheless suggests that the threat of judgment is now independent of the time when the judgment will take place. The Lukan John does not declare that judgment is near.²¹

Conzelmann has little else to say about Lukan ethics in his monograph. But what he does say is that by inserting ethical exhortations into John the Baptist’s preaching, Luke creates a pattern of preaching which can be seen in other passages as well . . . John’s preaching as a whole provides the basis for the preaching of the ‘Gospel’, of ‘the kingdom of God’.²² Conzelmann’s analysis of John the Baptist’s preaching, in other words, implies that Luke’s eschatology occasions his ethics.

Conzelmann’s work received some initial criticism.²³ Nevertheless, whatever disputes scholars had with Conzelmann’s account, scholars through the 1970s generally seemed to be convinced that, at the very least, Conzelmann was correct to see that Luke makes a shift in Christian eschatology.²⁴ Joseph Fitzmyer is representative. In the introduction of his respected 1981 commentary on Luke, Fitzmyer says that, though he thinks some modifications . . . are necessary, the tripartite division of Lukan salvation-history presented by Conzelmann is correct.²⁵ By way of modification, he says that while Luke obviously coped with the delay of the parousia, which puzzled the early Christians, he nevertheless has not completely abandoned the belief in an early expectation of the end-time as Conzelmann had suggested.²⁶ Fitzmyer thus insists that a more nuanced account of Lukan eschatology is necessary than Conzelmann allowed. But, again, Fitzmyer agrees most fundamentally with Conzelmann that a shift in eschatological expectation takes place in Lukan thought. The change that Fitzmyer sees is one of emphasis: Luke wishes "to shift the emphasis in many of Jesus’ sayings from the eschaton to the sēmeron to show that they are still valid guides for conduct in his generation. This shift, he says, directs Christians to see Jesus’ conduct as an inspiration and guide for Christian life. Thus, he concludes, Luke has dulled the eschatological edge of some of the sayings of Jesus to make of them a hortatory device for everyday Christian living."²⁷ Similarly to Conzelmann, then, Fitzmyer concludes that Lukan eschatology occasions ethics.

Within a few years of the completion of Fitzmyer’s commentary on Luke’s Gospel, John T. Carroll’s monograph on Lukan eschatology was published.²⁸ His study, he reports, was occasioned in part by the prevailing confusion about the nature of Lukan eschatology.²⁹ As others said, Carroll claims there is evidence of a shift in Lukan eschatology from his early Christian predecessors. But despite a shift toward delay, Carroll also sees evidence of hope for an imminent end. Carroll’s observations, in other words, are not far from Fitzmyer’s, though Carroll wishes to lay more stress on imminent expectation than Fitzmyer would allow. In order to reconcile evidence for delay with that for early expectation, Carroll offered a thesis different from Fitzmyer’s: he claimed that Luke added to and adjusted his source material in order to recognize and account for delay (in e.g., Luke 17:20–21),³⁰ but at the same time maintains an expectation of an imminent parousia to his own audience.³¹ Carroll thus makes distinction between the literary and social setting of Luke’s writings. Conzelmann was correct, he says, to the extent that he recognized delay in Luke’s handling of his sources.³² But Luke nevertheless wanted to maintain imminent hope in his current social setting. Indeed, Carroll claims that Luke had to adjust his sources in order to maintain credibility about the hope of an imminent end. He had to demonstrate that delay and duration were the orders of the day throughout the narrative.³³ Doing that, he could claim that Jesus and the apostles had foreseen delay and that his audience should now therefore believe in an imminent end. On his account, delay does not oppose but undergirds expectation of an imminent End in Luke’s own situation.³⁴

Carroll concludes his monograph by claiming that the reason Luke proclaimed an imminent end is because of a practical problem in his community. Complacency had taken root, and he needed to motivate his audience to action. For Carroll, in other words, Luke’s ethics occasions his eschatology.³⁵ He claims that only because Luke continues to expect a sudden return of Jesus (and soon!) does his appeal for an alert, faithful manner of living have motivating force.³⁶

In his 2005 revised edition of Luke the Theologian, François Bovon claims that scholars have been fatigued by the question of Lukan eschatology. Luke, he says, is now considered to be less original concerning eschatology than first thought.³⁷ And this is, according to Bovon, a good development for, according to the evangelist, this question should not preoccupy us.³⁸ Now, he says, scholars have more appropriately focused on, among other things, the moral life of the community.³⁹

Nevertheless, questions about Lukan eschatology have not completely disappeared,⁴⁰ though they often come in a different guise.⁴¹ Outi Lehtipuu’s monograph, for example, explores Luke’s theology of the afterlife.⁴² She does not shy away from venturing an analysis of Lukan eschatology (or lack thereof) as a whole: eschatological teaching and its coherence is not of primary interest to Luke or the key for understanding the purpose of his writing but it serves other, more practical aims.⁴³ Luke’s practical aims, she goes on, are paraenetic ones.⁴⁴ Similarly to Carroll, then, Lehtipuu suggests that Lukan ethics occasions his eschatology.⁴⁵

Whether scholars who have written on Lukan eschatology suggest that in general eschatology occasions ethics in Luke’s works or that ethics occasions eschatology, there is a general agreement that the two are related. Moreover, the scholars considered here generally agree that eschatology and ethics are central to Lukan thought. For Conzelmann, John the Baptist’s preaching is the pattern throughout Luke’s works. For Fitzmyer, Luke’s shift from eschaton to the sēmeron can be seen from Jesus’ first public announcement in Nazareth (Luke 4:21).⁴⁶ For Carroll, Luke’s community had become lax and needed eschatological motivation for action. This study intends to affirm, at the very least, the shared assumption of these scholars that there is a link between eschatology and ethics.

Scholars on Lukan Ethics (and Eschatology)

The nature of Lukan ethics, like Lukan eschatology, has been a matter of perennial debate. The discussion at least since the 1960s has centered on whether Luke has a consistent ethics. Why does Luke on the one hand require complete divesture of one’s possessions to be a follower of Jesus, but on the other does not require it of all people? Jesus says to the crowd before him that they are not able to be his disciples unless they renounce all their possessions (Luke 14:33). Yet Zacchaeus gives only half of his possessions to the poor and Jesus declares him a son of Abraham (19:8–9). In what follows, I briefly consider some of the ways in which scholars have answered this question. While eschatology does not feature in many of these studies, scholars in recent decades have recognized that eschatological expectation does seem to be linked in some way to Luke’s ethics. Yet even where eschatology’s influence is recognized, it is never addressed in a substantial way.

Hans-Joachim Degenhardt’s 1965 study not only set the terms of debate about Lukan ethics by bringing the issue of consistency to the forefront, but also influenced the way in which studies attempted to resolve the problem.⁴⁷ There is no contradiction in Luke’s ethics, he suggests, if one has a proper appreciation for the diversity Luke’s audience. Luke had at least two groups of people in mind. There were on the one hand disciples (μαθηταὶ), who correspond to office holders in the church in Luke’s own day who were required to give all, and on the other hand there was another general group of people (λαός) who did not have the same demands placed upon them.⁴⁸ Subsequent studies similarly attempt to account for Luke’s inconsistencies by supplying an audience that would not see the inconsistencies in the narrative as such.

Degenhardt’s study, however, does not focus solely on dealing with apparent ethical contradictions. He also investigates the motives for charity (die Wohltätigkeit) in Luke’s works.⁴⁹ On this matter, Degenhardt considers the possibility of eschatological influence and explicitly rejects it precisely because Lukas eine eschatologische Naherwartung nicht unterstützt.⁵⁰ Rather, Degenhardt sees der Wille Gottes and die Worte Jesu among others as the primary motivations for sharing possessions.⁵¹ Here again we can see Conzelmann’s influence.

Robert Karris’s article, "Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben," just over a decade after Degenhardt’s study also seeks to give an account of Luke’s audience in order to resolve ethical inconsistencies.⁵² He concludes that Luke is primarily taken up with the rich members, their concerns, and the problems which they pose for the community. The rich members’ concerns, he says, revolve around the question: do our possessions prevent us from being genuine Christians? Jesus’ answer is that riches are not an infallible sign of God’s favor and that the rich should therefore repent before they lose their invitation to the heavenly banquet.⁵³ Karris’s conclusions imply that eschatological concerns influence Luke’s ethics, but he says nothing more about it.⁵⁴ Karris’s article represents a starting point of what Thomas E. Phillips calls an emerging consensus in studies of Lukan ethics.⁵⁵ Numerous scholars after Karris in the 1980s and 1990s have also concluded that Luke was directing his ethics to rich members of his congregation.⁵⁶

While solutions to the apparent inconsistency in Lukan ethics has largely been influenced by Degenhardt’s attempt to reconstruct Luke’s audience, there are some notable exceptions to this trend. Luke Timothy Johnson’s study, for example, suggests a literary solution.⁵⁷ He argues that in order to deal with contradictions in the text, one must place the passage within the dramatic flow of the narrative, recognizing that there is in all probability a good literary reason for one passage containing the injunctions that it does in the place in the story in which it appears.⁵⁸ He concludes his study not by suggesting a Sitz im Leben of Luke’s audience, but by arguing that possessions are for Luke an indication, a symbol of a person’s interior disposition.⁵⁹

Thomas E. Schmidt represents another exception. While he does not propose a literary solution to inconsistent ethical material in Luke, he nevertheless agrees with Johnson that it is unfruitful to search for a Lukan Sitz im Leben: we observe little evidence . . . of the socio-economic circumstances of Luke’s audience or of the situation described.⁶⁰ Rather, he suggests that Luke’s works indicate only "Luke’s active interest in communicating, in a consistent manner, dispossession of wealth as a way of expressing Gottvertrauen."⁶¹

In the studies considered so far eschatology plays almost no role in configuring the nature, consistency, and logic of Luke’s ethics. But even around the time that Karris wrote his article about the link between Luke’s audience and his ethics George W. E. Nickelsburg recognized the importance of eschatology for Luke’s ethics. Nickelsburg’s short study, Riches, Rich, and God’s Judgment in 1 Enoch 92–105 and the Gospel according to Luke, is not an exploration of Lukan ethics as such, but about the possibility that Luke was influenced by 1 Enoch.⁶² Nevertheless, the point upon which Nickelsburg considers such a possible dependence is the link between judgment and riches that he sees both in 1 Enoch and in Luke. He concludes that in Luke as in 1 Enoch the accumulation and holding of riches and possession are inversely related to the possibility of salvation. Riches and possessions, he continues, are consistently mentioned in the context of judgment or salvation.⁶³

Peter David Seccombe also recognizes that eschatology plays a role in Luke’s ethics. As others did before him, Seccombe concludes in his 1982 study that Luke does in fact have a consistent ethic. Luke is not an ascetic demanding that all divest themselves of all their possessions. Rather, he sees Luke demanding positive engagement with possessions: money is to be used positively to good effect in accordance with the values of the Kingdom.⁶⁴ And as Degehardt and others also suggested, Seccombe says that Luke’s ethics correlates with the Sitz im Leben of his audience. Luke’s ethics is evidence that his readers were most likely well-to-do Hellenistic God-fearers who were attracted to the Christian movement, but feared what it might cost them socially and economically for them to join Christianity.⁶⁵

One of the key elements in Luke’s consistent ethics, Seccombe says, is Luke’s eschatological outlook. Luke’s ethics is determined at every point by the reality and imminence not only of the judgment, but also of the age to come.⁶⁶ Seccombe sees the eschatological determination of Luke’s ethics, for example, in the summary statements at the beginning of Acts (2:42–47; 4:32–37). Though he admits that the summary statements do not state it explicitly, he suggests that they nevertheless indicate that the salvation of the eschatological future is embodied in the present through the common life of the community. They represent a pattern of societal activity which is congruent with, and in some ways anticipates, the life of the age to come.⁶⁷ On Seccombe’s account, in other words, Luke’s eschatology informs his ethics.⁶⁸

Just over a decade after Seccombe, Kyoung-Jin Kim offered another explanation of the underlying unity of Luke’s ethical passages. He suggests that the category of discipleship on which scholars have typically focused is insufficient to provide a complete picture of Luke’s concern about wealth.⁶⁹ A new paradigm, he says, needs to be offered, the category stewardship.⁷⁰ This supplementary paradigm, he suggests, emerges from several parables in Luke’s Gospel such as the Parable of the Faithful and Wise servant (12:42–48), the Parable of the Unjust Steward (16:1–13), and the Parable of the Ten Minas (19:11–27). In his focus on these parables Kim indicates that eschatological expectation is linked with Luke’s ethics.

According to Kim there are three characteristic elements in Luke’s stewardship parables: first, the steward does not own what he is managing; second, the steward can be summoned for an account at any time; and finally, there is a guaranteed judgment of his work.⁷¹ It is both with the imminence of giving an account and with the guarantee of judgment that Kim indicates that eschatological expectation is a central element in what he calls Luke’s paradigm of stewardship. But despite acknowledging that eschatological expectation is central in these parables, he discusses Lukan eschatology at no length. This is perhaps because Kim assumes that "the parousia is also . . . delayed in Luke’s Gospel so as to highlight a concern with the daily life of Christians.⁷² Indeed, he suggests that one of the main reasons Luke wrote was not eschatological concern, but the more immediate concern of dealing with present-time matters such as famines: with increased numbers of οἱ πτωχοὶ in [his] society rich Christians needed appropriate ethical teachings on how to deal with wealth."⁷³ While Kim never says it, his argument nevertheless suggests what Conzelmann argued, namely that eschatological delay occasions ethics.

Finally, there is C. Hays’s recent systematic analysis of Luke’s ethics.⁷⁴ As others before him, Hays has no extended discussion of Lukan eschatology and its relationship to Lukan ethics, but he does suggest that there is a relationship. He claims that in the apocalyptic discourse of Luke 17:22–37 the second coming of Christ is a terrifying stimulus to a proper use of wealth.⁷⁵ The passage is eschatologically motivated ethical teaching for the period between the crucifixion and the return of the Son of Man. Luke, he adds, is consistent with other NT writers on this point.⁷⁶ Hays also sees an eschatological aspect to ethical teaching in the Parable of the Unjust Steward (16:1–13). There, the beneficiaries of charity become, not clients of the rich, but their eschatological patrons.⁷⁷ But these are only a few comments interspersed throughout a wider study in which Hays attempts to discover an underlying ethic behind Luke’s various and apparently contradictory teachings. He attempts to demonstrate that discipleship is at the core of Lukan ethics and that Luke 14:33, in which Jesus commands the rejection of all possessions by his disciples, is worked out in different ways for Luke’s audience throughout his two volumes.⁷⁸

Scholars of Lukan ethics have thus recognized