6.5 Predestination in the Rest of the New Testament

This continues the discussion of Psalm 139 and Paul's letters.
__________________________
1. While Romans 9 is the passage we most associate with the question of predestination, we find strong predestination language in other parts of the New Testament as well. The question is what function this language performs. Is it a core element of New Testament theology, or is it largely rhetorical language that performs some other function?

One of the great insights of the twentieth century was that the meaning of words is a function of how they are used. [1] Meaning is far more in what words do rather than in some static content they contain. J. L. Austin used the example of saying "I do" at a wedding. [2] These words effectively marry a couple, a function that goes far beyond the simple meaning of the two words.

So, if we wish to understand predestination language in the various writings of the New Testament, we need to know what those words were doing. Was their function to make a theological statement, or was it primarily something else? For example, did that language primarily point to God being in control of everything? Was it to express the great value God places on those who follow him?

A couple more examples may be helpful. A person may say a good many words when they are afraid. The particular words themselves may not actually be the point but rather the fact that they are deeply afraid. Anyone who has participated in a marital spat might testify that things can be said that are not really meant in terms of the words themselves. Rather, their function may be to express hurt, insecurity, or anger.

2. We might begin with 1 Peter, perhaps the closest writing in time to Paul's letters of the other New Testament books. The very beginning of the letter describes its audience as "elect exiles... according to the foreknowledge of God by the sanctification of the Spirit" (1:1-2). The connection of God's foreknowledge with the exiles being chosen is reminiscent of Romans 8:29.

As a quick sidenote, there has been some debate in the history of the interpretation of 1 Peter as to whether these were literal or metaphorical exiles. For example, in his early work, John H. Elliott argued that the letter addressed individuals whom the Roman Empire had literally exiled. [3] However, most now take this language metaphorically, as did Elliott himself in his later work. [4] That is to say, calling the audience exiled is a reference to their marginalization within society.

Returning to 1 Peter 1:1-2, the question is what did God foreknow in this case? Did he foreknow that they would exist and chose them unconditionally and irresistably? Did God foreknow that they would exercise faith in Christ and thus plan for the Spirit to sanctify them? Or is foreknowledge and election language performing some other function?

The sense that the foreknowledge leads to obedience to Jesus might imply that the election according to foreknowledge had to do with their salvation. Later in the letter, 2:8 seems to imply that those Jews who rejected Christ were appointed to do so. These observations point toward individual predestination based on God's foreknowledge.

At the same time, the letter consistently urges its audience to choose to take certain moral actions. For example, they are not to use their freedom as an excuse to do evil (2:16). They are to be holy in their conduct (1:!5). They are to put away malice (2:1), stay way from the passions of the flesh (2:11), and turn away from evil (3:8). These instructions assume that they have a legitimate choice in what they do.

The tension in this language may suggest that language of election is doing something different than expressing literal determinism. Indeed, 2 Peter 1:10 exhorts its audience to be diligent to make its calling and election certain -- a seeming contradiction. [5] How can human effort confirm one's election if one's election is purely a matter of God's determination?

In 1 Peter, there may be a correlation between the alienation of the audience and election language. Groups that are marginalized and persecuted can easily develop a "remnant" theology where they view themselves as set apart by God amid a broader culture that has ostracized them. We find this same dynamic among the Dead Sea Scrolls, arguably written and preserved by marginalized Essenes. [6]

In this sense, the function of this language would in part be to affirm God's approval on a group that, from a worldly point of view, would seem to be an "out-group." Appearances would say, "This group is wrong. This group is odd. This group is weak and dishonored." Election language indicates rather that this group is chosen. This group is the truly valued. This group is honored.

Therefore, within that function of the language, normal imperatives implying freedom of choice would still be in play. The audience is chosen and elect, but they also exercise undetermined choice -- as do those who have rejected faith.

3. As we have seen, the Augustinian/Calvinist way of reconciling these two sets of imagery is to privilege the deterministic language and to make language of choice phenomenological. That is to say, we appear to have choice but we really do not. This is soft determinism. We behave as if we are making free choices even though we are not.

However, this approach to harmonizing the two sets of language seems anachronistic. It is nowhere expressed in the text itself. It is a philosophical solution to the puzzle that is imposed on the text.

Yet we might say the same thing of the Arminian approach that says, "God foreknows our choice and predestines us accordingly." This also seems to fill in blanks that the text does not. It seems yet another philosophical solution that is imposed on the text.

4. The books of Luke-Acts also seem to live in this tension, although they do not share 1 Peter's sense of social alienation. Acts 13:48 is a good starting point for the theology of Luke-Acts on predestination: As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. [7] Acts is referring to those Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch who end up believing. The perfect tense is used in this verb construction, suggesting that they were appointed at some point in the past and remain appointed to the present.

Certainly on a surface level, this statement sounds like determinism. Some believed. Some did not. What made the difference? Some were appointed to believe and others were not.

Yet we also find language in Luke-Acts that could be taken to indicate the contrary. Just two verses before the verse we just quoted, Paul tells the Jews who do not believe that they have "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" (13:46). It at least sounds like they used their agency to reject the word of the Lord -- they did it themselves.

Similarly, in Stephen's sermon in Acts 7, he indicts the leaders of Jerusalem by saying that they "always resist the Holy Spirit" (7:51). If God was determining what they chose, then this verse would be saying that God caused them to resist the Holy Spirit. This does not seem to be what Luke was saying here. The Jerusalem leaders thus seem to have agency in their rejection of the movement of the Holy Spirit.

How can we reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements in a way that would have made sense in the first century?

5. One option again is to suppose that deterministic language is expressing something other than literal predeterminism. Deterministic language was a feature of much ancient culture. We find it expressed, for example, in the Oedipus story. Oedipus' father is told that he will be murdered by his son, who will then marry his mother. Horrified, the king has his son exposed and left for dead.

But of course Oedipus grows up and hears the prophecy himself. In horror, he flees what he thinks is his hometown and, without knowing it is his true father, kills him in an encounter. He then unknowingly goes to Thebes, where he ends up marrying his mother.

Everyone in this story seems to exercise freedom of choice, and yet the end result is exactly that which is fated. Presumably, the ancients lived within this paradox of freedom that results in fate. The Stoics also believed that you could resist your fate even though it was inevitable.

While we philosophically note the apparent contradiction, the ancients apparently could use deterministic language and language of free choice without seeing the two as exclusive. If the author of Luke-Acts approached election in this way, then he may not have seen a conflict between a sense that those who came to Christ were predestined to do so and yet that they did so of their own free will.

6. Of all the Gospels, the Gospel of John has the strongest sense of determinism. Here we might consider the possibility that different New Testament authors may have had varying senses of determinism. The community that the Gospel of John first addressed may very well have been a marginalized sect within early Christianity. For example, 1 John 2:19 suggests that they were those left after a split, with the departing group possibly being more affluent (3:17).

The social conditions of John may thus be similar to those of 1 Peter with the audience feeling ostracized and marginalized -- even within the broader Christian community. We see dynamics of ostracism throughout John. For example, John 6:66 pictures many of Jesus' initial followers abandoning him. It is probably no coincidence that in the same chapter Jesus says that no one can come to him unless God first draws them (6:44). 

John 9:22 likely reflects the situation at the time the Gospel was written, where those who confessed Jesus as the Christ could be expelled from the mainstream Jewish synagogue. These social pressures seem to lie not far beneath the surface of John on the whole. Like 1 Peter, they correlate well with a strong sense of election in John.

In John 12, God blinds the eyes of certain Jews and hardens the hearts of Jesus' opponents (12:37-40). Only Jesus' sheep hear his voice (10:26-29). These are those whom God has given Jesus out of the world (17:9).

Nevertheless, we also find significant language of freedom of choice in John. John 3:16 says that "whoever" believes in him will not perish -- an apparent invitation to everyone. John 8:31-32 leaves open the possibility that someone might walk away from Jesus. John 15:6 suggests that our choices can result in God cutting us off of the vine.

Once again, we find conflicting language. Warnings indicate that we have choices to make. But there is also this overarching language of determinism. 

7. Like Luke and 1 Peter, John does not reconcile this conflicting imagery. The two sets of language do not cohere very well. Perhaps the best option, rather than forcing a harmonization philosophically, is first to accept that the ancients at this time did not see a fatal contradiction between the two sets of language. However, on a practical level, all these texts assume that we as individuals must make choices and decisions. 

Against this backdrop, deterministic language seems to perform a different function than prediction. In fact, it is "after the fact" language. How do we know whether someone was predestined? By the choices they make. The language thus affirms divine belonging and value far more than predeterminism.

[1] This insight was especially brought out by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), captured in his posthumous Philosophical Investigations.

[2] J. L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words, 2nd ed. (Harvard University, 1975).

[3] John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Fortress, 1976), 34-38. 

[4] John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (Anchor Yale Bible, 2000), 109–118.

[5] It should be noted that perhaps the majority of New Testament scholars believe that 2 Peter comes from a different author than 1 Peter, meaning that election language in 2 Peter may or may not be used similarly to the way it is used in 1 Peter.

[6] E.g., 1QH 7.25-27

[7] I had a seminary professor, Dr. Joseph Wang, who ingeniously suggested that this might be a middle voice instead of a passive -- "as many as appointed themselves." However, this seems to be a case of "special pleading," using your intellect to find a way to defend the position you want to be true rather than what is actually the most likely interpretation.

Through the Bible -- Acts 1

Since next Sunday is Pentecost, I thought I'd shift from Mark to Acts.  

_____________________
1. Acts is volume 2 of Luke. It was written for the same person as the Gospel of Luke, someone named Theophilus (Acts 1:1). He is called "most excellent Theophilus" in Luke 1:3, making many wonder if he was a Roman governor (cf. Acts 24:2). 

The name "Theophilus" means "lover of God," making some think the name is a literary device and that Acts was written for anyone who loves God. As such, it would be addressed to all lovers of God. It is also possible that Theophilus was a Christian name given to a Roman governor at baptism. We know of at least one Roman governor who becomes a believer in Acts 13, Sergius Paulus. 

In the end, it seems likely Theophilus was a real person, maybe even a patron who sponsored the writing of Luke-Acts.

2. The Gospel of Luke was about "everything that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1). In Acts, Jesus continues to teach through his Spirit in the apostles and his church. Luke 24 ended with Jesus' ascension, and Acts will pick up the story at that point. 

There is one key difference. A straightforward reading of Luke 24 would easily give us the impression that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended on the same day. [1] Yet in Acts 1 we hear that there was a forty day period between the resurrection and the ascension (Acts 1:3). From one standpoint, therefore, Luke 24 "telescopes" Acts 1.

The comparison shows that Luke used some artistic freedom in his presentation, which was perfectly acceptable at the time. It also means, however, that we are not likely getting a videotape or transcript of the events. Luke has arranged and told the events in a way that brings out truths about the Way. [2] That was his priority, the message. 

Jesus tells them to wait in Jerusalem. John the Baptist had foretold that Jesus would baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5). That will happen in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. They are getting in the stalls at the Kentucky Derby. The race of the church will begin in Acts 2. [3]

3. The final question the disciples ask Jesus is whether he will now restore the kingdom to Israel. This is very revealing. It reflects that their expectations of Jesus as Messiah have always been military and political. They were not expecting Jesus to die, as the Gospel of Mark so clearly shows (e.g., Mark 8:31-32). Then they clearly were not expecting him to rise either (cf. Luke 24:21-24).

So now they are wondering, "Are we back on for kicking the Romans out of Jerusalem and taking the kingdom back for Israel?"

Jesus does not contradict their expectation in itself. After all, Luke 21 points to a "times of the Gentiles" when Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Romans (21:24), an allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem that would happen forty years later. Presumably, after the times of the Gentiles were over, the kingdom of God would come and an expanded Israel would inherit the earth.

But they do not understand the timing. Just as they did not anticipate Jesus death and resurrection, they did not anticipate Jesus' ascension. Jesus is taken out of their sight into heaven. Luke-Acts is the only place where Jesus' ascension is explicitly told, although Hebrews may allude to it. [4]

Heaven is not likely straight up, although that is the way they thought of it in their worldview. From what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:2, they likely pictured a universe where you went straight up through layers of sky to the highest sky where God's throne was. It is an illustration of the fact that God reveals himself in our categories so that we can picture and grasp his point in our language and peripheral frameworks.

If God created the universe out of nothing, then God's essence is not in this universe. His "throne room," a metaphor in itself, is "somewhere else." I have always thought of heaven and hell as being in another dimension, but that is simply a picture that works for me in our time.

So Jesus "stoops to their weakness," as the hymn says, meeting them in terms they understand. [5] He ascends until he is out of sight. Then presumably he transports to wherever heaven is. 

4. We might view Acts 1:8 as the key verse of Acts. It gives us a generalization of the whole book in a nutshell. 

For example, "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you." The book of Acts is a recurring series of events where believers receive the Holy Spirit, and power is an immediate consequence. I grew up in a tradition that emphasized purity as what comes with the Spirit, and we do find that idea at least once in Acts (15:9), the purification of sins.

However, power is the key manifestation of the Spirit in Acts. We find the power to perform miracles (e.g., Acts 3). There is the power of boldness (e.g. 4:31). They receive the power to speak in languages they have not learned (2:6).

With this power, they testify to the resurrection. "You will be my witnesses." They were disciples. In Acts 2 they become apostles -- individuals sent with a commission. The specific commission is to witness to Jesus' resurrection. According to Paul, this is a central part of what it means to be an apostle (1 Corinthians 9:1). There are no apostles of this sort today because Jesus has not appeared to anyone today the way he appeared to them. Paul was the last (1 Cor. 15:8).

So they will become apostles in Acts 2 and will be sent with the commission to testify to the resurrection. These initial apostles included more than just the Twelve. Paul was one of them. Barnabas likely witnessed the risen Jesus as well (1 Cor. 9:6). A husband-wife pair called Andronicus and Junia may also have been in this number (Rom. 16:7). 

They will witness to the resurrection in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and the ends of the earth. This is a kind of map to the book of Acts. Acts 1-7 are in Jerusalem. Then Acts 8-12 are in Judea and Samaria. Finally, Acts 13-28 are to the ends of the earth, remembering that Rome was the end of the earth in the geographical paradigm of Jesus' day.

5. The remainder of Acts 1 deals with the replacement of Judas (1:12-26). The number twelve was important because it symbolized the tribes of Israel. The twelve apostles point to the restoration of Israel. 

First, Luke tells us who the eleven remaining disciples are. Peter seems to be the leader, and we remember that is the first man to whom Jesus appeared (Luke 24:34). In the Gospels we have, Peter is the lead apostle, although Jesus' brother James will seemingly become the leader of the Jerusalem church.

There are others there beyond the Twelve -- Acts 1:15 says 120. The women who had supported Jesus are mentioned, as now is Jesus' mother Mary and his brothers (1:14). Luke does not indicate that Jesus' mother or family were present at his crucifixion. John is unique in that regard. Mention of the presence of the women reminds us that Luke more than any of the Gospels features the presence and participation of women in the early church and its ministry.

Peter feels led to call for the replacement of Judas. He quotes Scripture -- Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. The early Christians likely meditated on these psalms as they thought about the sufferings of Jesus -- especially Psalm 69 since several of its verses are referenced in the New Testament in relation to Jesus. They are psalms of lament, where the psalmist asks God for rescue in suffering. They are even more specifically imprecatory psalms that call for God to vindicate the psalmist in the face of his enemies.

Reading these verses spiritually, Peter understands the Spirit to be telling them to replace Judas' "office" among the twelve. The criteria for the replacement include that it must be someone who has been with them since the time of John the Baptist. Interestingly, the apostle Paul would not qualify. It is often suggested that Paul was the real replacement for Judas, but he would not have qualified according to Acts. 

Paul and Barnabas were in a second tier of apostles. There were the Twelve, the first tier. Then there was a second tier to whom Jesus also appeared, but they were not among the Twelve. We see this two tier sense of the apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8.

6. Acts 1:18-19 is where we find out the fate of Judas. Luke's account is a little different from the other Gospels. All the Gospels except John indicate that Judas received money for betraying Jesus. In Matthew he returns the money and then hangs himself. Then the priests buy a field with it (Matt. 27:7-8). In Acts 1, Judas buys the field and dies there "falling headlong" (Acts 1:19).

At least on a surface level, these two accounts are not precisely reconcilable. In Matthew the priests buy the field. In Acts, Judas does. The mode of death also seems to differ. Some have found it very important to find a historical reconciliation on the level of detail. For example, perhaps Judas tried to hang himself and the rope broke, causing him to fall headlong.

These attempts at harmonization are well-intentioned but probably unncessary. Ancient history writing could involve some creative license. Also, the agreement on the core event with difference in detail actually points to the historicity of the event. It is exactly what we would expect with oral tradition. Both accounts agree that the money was used to buy a field and that the field was called "Akeldama," "field of blood." They both agree that Jesus died soon after Jesus' death.

7. They cast lots and Matthias is chosen. We never hear of him -- or the majority of the disciples -- ever again. There are some traditions about what befell them, but they are not in Scripture.

On the surface, throwing dice does not seem the best method of choosing a leader, but in their worldview, God was understood to direct the way the lot fell. Presumably, God met them in their expectation within their framework of understanding. That it was a cultural practice is clear because the Roman soldiers cast lots to decide who would get Jesus' clothing (e.g., Matt. 27:35). This is the only time in the New Testament when believers cast lots to make a decision.

It is perhaps a reminder that "description is not prescription." That is to say, the Bible narrates a lot of events. We are not meant to emulate all of them (for example, Judas hanging himself). Sometimes the Bible describes what they did without prescribing that we do it the same way.

8. They bathe this decision in prayer (Acts 1:24). Prayer is another one of the key themes of Luke-Acts. The followers of the Way prayed regularly in community (2:42). They prayed for God's guidance. They prayed for the power of the Spirit. Although it is not explicitly mentioned before the Day of Pentecost, we should assume that, as mentioned here at the end of Acts 1, they were praying in the upper room when the Holy Spirit comes upon them.

[1] The angels appear to the women at the tomb on Easter morning. "The same day," two men meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13). When they realize it's Jesus, they head back to Jerusalem "that same hour" (24:33). When they arrive back, Jesus has already appeared to Peter and then suddenly appears to all of them (24:36). Then he leads them out to Bethany and is taken to heaven (24:50).

Clearly, this is a syncopated version. For example, Matthew and Mark have all the appearances to the main apostles in Galilee, and it is in Galilee that Jesus gives the Great Commission. Luke 24 has no room for any appearances in Galilee, even though he surely knows about them. 

[2] "The Way" is how Luke refers to the Jesus movement several times in Acts (e.g., Acts 9:2; 19:23).

[3] Some have suggested that the Day of Pentecost was a second Spirit event in the life of the apostles since Jesus breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22. However, the story world of Luke-Acts is a self-contained one. In it, the Day of Pentecost is the fulfillment of the promise of John the Baptist. John has a different story world, and Acts does not include it. You might argue that John 20:22 is John's allusion to or version of Pentecost.

[4] E.g., Hebrews 4:14.

[5] From the hymn, "Spirit of God, descend upon my heart."

Jesus' Mission Accomplished 1

The Story in Progress...
Acts is the second volume of Luke.  The Gospel of Luke was about the things Jesus began to do and teach while he was on earth (Acts 1:1).  The book of Acts picks up where Luke left off.

That is not to say that the ending of Luke and the beginning of Acts are exactly the same--more on that later.  However, it is to say that Acts presumes the story of Jesus as it is told in Luke. The special emphases and themes of Luke are more or less the same emphases in Acts.  At the same time, Acts does not necessarily assume the special features of Jesus' story in Matthew, Mark, or John.

What was Luke's presentation of Jesus like? [1] Luke of course shares the basic content of Mark in common with Matthew.  Jesus preaches the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43).  He heals people and casts out demons.  He calls twelve disciples and trains them to fish for people. He gets into conflict with religious leaders and eventually is crucified before rising from the dead.

Luke also shares a significant amount of Jesus' teaching that it shares with Matthew alone. Luke's Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6) has a lot of the same material that is in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), including some Beatitudes, teaching on loving one's enemies, not judging, and building wising on rock. Luke has a lot of the teaching unique to Matthew's other sermons too.

But Luke has its own unique material as well.  Luke alone tells us about the parents of John the Baptist and about Gabriel's appearance to Mary before Jesus was born. Indeed, one of the special features of Luke and Acts is the greater attention paid to the role women played in the Jesus story. In Luke we see it in stories about Mary and Martha and the Parable of the Persistent Widow.  In Acts we will see it in Lydia and Priscilla, not to mention the way Peter's Pentecost sermon highlights how women as well as men will prophesy in the age of the Spirit (e.g., Acts 2:17).

Luke chose to begin the story of Jesus' ministry with Jesus reading Isaiah 61 in his home synagogue. This is the passage where Jesus connects his earthly mission to his message of good news for the poor. Luke more than any other gospel highlights Jesus ministry to the poor and gives his harshest words to the wealthy. Acts will continue this special emphasis with its picture of the early church sharing its possessions in common.

Some of the themes that we only catch a glimpse of in Luke become full blown in Acts. So Luke gives us clear hints that the gospel is for the whole world (e.g., Luke 2:32), but Acts will show this them in full bloom. In Luke we get a hint that Christians are not truly troublemakers, even if trouble follows them (Luke 23:14). Acts will make this point over and over again in its presentation of the early church.

Both Luke and Acts feature the centrality of prayer both to Jesus and his followers.  Finally, while Luke predicts that the Spirit will come in force after the resurrection, Acts shows the fulfillment of the promise.  If Luke gives us all the things Jesus began to do on earth, Acts gives us the things he continues to do through the Holy Spirit...

[1] For more details, see my book, Jesus: Portraits from the Gospels (Indianapolis: Wesleyan Publishing, 2013) **.

Luke-Acts and Anti-Judaism.

Next installment of Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament.  For previous summaries:

Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism

Today is Luke-Acts and, once again, Donaldson does not disappoint in terms of giving us an excellent "lay of the land."  Once again, he captures three basic perspectives:

1. Israel rejected and replaced by the church.
Luke does not have a verse like Matthew 27:25, but the book of Acts does end with a very strong turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles.  Coming as it does at the climax of Acts, one could (and many have) easily argued that Luke-Acts is a story of a definitive rejection of Jesus by the Jews with a definitive turning away from Israel thereafter.

In this reading, Luke starts full of hope.  Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon--they all looked to the consolation of Israel and the redemption of Jerusalem.   But alas, Ernst Haenchen argued that by the end of Acts, Luke has written off the Jews in favor of the Gentiles.  Luke-Acts taken in its totality pictures God as done with Israel.

2. Purged Israel joined by the Gentile church
The moderating view is that, following Jacob Jervell, the mission to Israel is a success and then the mission moves on to the Gentiles.  Sure, not all Israel ends up saved, but those who are to be saved within Israel are.  "The picture that Luke presents, then, is not of Israel's rejection but of its division" (65).  A purged and repentant Israel thus fulfill the expectations of people like Zechariah and Simeon.  Now the mission can continue to the Gentiles.

3. Israel and church in tension
I'm not sure that I like this way of titling the third option, but it is the one that I favor.  In this interpretation, Luke-Acts looks to some future time for the fulfillment of some predictions.

[As an aside, I do not form this conclusion as a dispensationalist.  I form it on the basis of inductive Bible study.  I do enjoy the fact that, at least on one score, it vindicates the lowly Dallas types over the haughty WTS types]

Jesus answer to his disciples in Acts 1:6 is not, "You're wrong to think some earthly kingdom is still coming to Israel."  His answer is, "in God's time."  Similarly, mention of a "times of the Gentiles until..." in Luke 21:24.  The implication is that, at the end of time, God will restore political Israel and the nation will turn to Christ.  The turning away at the end of Acts signals the full advent of the times of the Gentiles, not a permanent abandonment.  This interpretation, by the way, fits very well with Paul in Romans 11 as well.

[Again, I say this as a Bible-head, not as a modern prophecy teacher.  Any attempt to equate modern Israel with the Israel of these texts is problematic because modern Israel does not accept Jesus as messiah.]

Some of the question of tone then has to do with the social location of "Luke" and his audience (remembering that the work never identifies its author).  It is generally accepted that the author was a Gentile (although even here I think the case is not as clear as often assumed).  It is generally accepted that the author is writing after the fall of Jerusalem, perhaps 80's.

As far as rhetorical features, Donaldson mentions a number, including that Luke-Acts is apologetic history, that it is favorable to the Romans, that it stresses continuity with Israel.  Donaldson does not, however, give a conclusion on whether it aimed at outsiders or insiders.  Is Theophilus a patron?  A potential convert?  A symbolic name?  A Roman official?

As for me, I do think Acts has a tendency to blame "the Jews" for the trouble that followed early Christians like Paul, but at the same time it is very positive toward Christian Jews like James.  Indeed, Luke-Acts favors a more "conservative" form of Christianity in relation to Judaism than Paul, in my opinion.  I do not think anti-Judaism is an appropriate term, especially since the kingdom will be restored to Israel in the final time.

The Dating of Luke-Acts

I was giving feedback on a seminary assignment and thought I would copy some of what I wrote here.
____________
I believe Luke-Acts was written after the destruction of the temple in AD70 because:

1. Almost all experts have concluded that Luke drew on Mark as a major source, and most experts date Mark either to the late 60s or the early 70s. Luke-Acts would thus have to date later.

There's a whole lot of thinking just behind that preliminary paragraph. For example, there is the synoptic question, the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so similar on a verbal level (although sometimes with minor variations) that it is a virtually unanimous position that the three stand in some relationship of literary dependence. Most think Mark was first with the others later. A minority think Matthew was first and the others later (I reject this position because Matthew's text is grammatically smoother than Mark, and it makes no sense that Mark would "rough up" Matthew's). But I know of no one who thinks Luke was first.

I'll leave it at that. One thing I'd like to push here is that most pastors have no idea how much minute examination of the biblical texts has led to these sorts of conclusions--or how much support they command among those who have done the homework. It is a disconnect seminary would ideally connect, while letting you come to your own conclusions. In any case, if Mark reached its final form not long after the destruction of Jerusalem (as I think) or even if it was written in the late 60s (as others think), it would place Luke-Acts later, likely after the destruction of the temple.

2. One example of the kind of painstaking and detailed work is when you compare the readings of the individual gospels and look for signs of how the theology of a particular gospel writer impacted the way they edited their sources. For example, when we compare Mark 13:14 with Luke 21:20, we see some clear signs of Luke's editing. Mark and Matthew both have the very ambiguous, "When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it should not be..." Luke's version is quite different, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you know that its desolation is near."

Could Jesus have said both? Sure. Not likely. This is not a parable Jesus told over and over again. It is an explanation at a particular place and time. And when you have compared the gospels over and over again, you inevitably come to grips with the fact they are using each other and you accept that this is overwhelmingly likely to be Luke editing Mark. Again, there's no substitute for the long, painstaking comparison of the gospels if you really want to understand how this sort of thing works.

So notice how different Luke's inspired "Message" translation of Mark is. In Daniel 11, where the abomination language comes from, we would think it is the temple being desecrated. Matthew and Mark can easily be interpreted this way. The abomination is standing somewhere--in the temple in Daniel. To see it as armies surrounding Jerusalem is not what we would have expected.

In short, Luke's editing has all the marks of an explanation of the prophecy with the insight that comes from being after the events, after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Mind you, I think Matthew is post-70 as well and it doesn't make these changes. But making such edits is part and parcel of the way the NT interprets the OT. Again, long, detailed examination of these patterns leaves us with this sort of strong impression.

In short, I find it very difficult to think of any open-minded way of arguing for a pre-70 date for Luke-Acts. Certainly if one is determined to argue for something, it is almost always possible to do so. In my mind, however, a true scholar of the Bible is someone who looks for what is most probable, not someone who applies their intellect to defend the possible but more convenient!

My opinions. You are welcome to disagree!