Paradox of Salvation: Luke's Theology of the Cross, The

The Paradox of Salvation: Luke's Theology of the Cross. By Peter Doble. Cambridge, SNTSMS 87, 1996. 272 pp. $59.00 (cloth).

One of the complaints still heard against Luke is that he has no theology of the cross. Doble refutes this by showing how he has a distinctive outlook which embraces the cross to give it a determining place in his theology. Luke's theologia crucis though not Paul's is a real theology. Doble homes in on the centurion's witness to Jesus on the cross. To render it as 'innocent' fails to capture the significance Luke sees in dikaios. Jesus rather is 'righteous' though not in the sense that he is messiah or the servant of DeuteroIsaiah. Cullmann is rebutted and the content of the term is found in the righteous man of Wisdom 2-5. Avoidance of synonyms, the use, as in Acts 6, of dikaios rather than pais, and the presence of it as a substantive in Wisdom 28:7-9 makes the righteous man of Wisdom its source and also enables him to use it of others in his gospel. Wisdom's figure of the righteous man informs Luke's Passion Narrative, influencing his presentation of the way of Jesus, his testings, the theme of ignorance, Jesus' demeanour and his vindication.

If the figure of Wisdom's righteous man, supported by the more diffuse picture of the Psalmists, shapes Luke's presentation of Jesus at his passion, it also implies its own theology of the cross. Pointing to the scandal of a shameful death and setting it in the context of persecution, it promises the vindication of him by God. It roots Jesus' suffering and death firmly in scripture and in the plan of God and enables Jesus to summon others to follow in his way. God is shown to have kept his promise in Jesus and those who follow in his way can expect vindication also. `The essence of Luke's theologia crucis is that Jesus' life of commitment to God was crystallised in the manner of his suffering and dying.' Christians are called to follow in his way and so to receive a share in his sonship and resurrection.

All this is well worked out. Theology rather than political apologetic is seen to control Luke's passion narrative: those who see the centurion as witnessing to Jesus' innocence and so to Luke's theological naivete are well seen off. Luke has a differently nuanced theology of the cross which deserves to be heard and which is none the worse for avoiding a penal or a substitutionary dimension. Though not separating out the cross, he does see it as central, as focussing and enabling the whole of God's work. Embracing it allows the disciple to enter into the sphere of the risen Lord and so to recreate its way for oneself. This is a theology and it is real. My one real complaint is that I found Doble's attempt to interpret dikaios and pais without any reference to Isaiah's ebed Yahweh artificial. Against it is of course Luke's avoidance of any sacrificial connotations that such a reference might suggest. But Doble allows the Psalms, so why not Deutero-Isaiah? It would have questioned his Acts exegesis for surely chapter three should be exegeted before Chapter seven. Luke after all is writing a narrative. It would have done more than Wisdom for his eschatological concern and would have made room for the many 0. T. figures whom Luke says were fulfilled in Jesus. This would not have altered, but would certainly have firmed up, his account of Luke's theology of the Cross.

ERIC FRANKLIN

St. Stephen's House

Oxford, Great Britain

Copyright Anglican Theological Review, Inc. Spring 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved