The Atonement in Lukan Theology by John Kimbell

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Atonement in Lukan Theology by John Kimbell Linda M. Maloney john kimbell, The Atonement in Lukan Theology (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014). Pp. xi + 199. £39.99. It is the obligation of a doctoral dissertation to state and defend a thesis. In The Atonement in Lukan Theology, which John Kimbell wrote under the direction of Thomas R. Schreiner for the faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (2009), this duty is fulfilled in workmanlike fashion. K. states as his thesis that “Luke presents the death of [End Page 143] Jesus as an atoning death that brings about the forgiveness of sins” (p. 3) and proceeds through five chapters to leave no text unexamined in his quest to support that thesis. After the introduction, he writes in chap. 2 of “The New Covenant Sacrifice,” concentrating on the disputed Luke 22:19b–20 (“This is my body, which is given for you. . . . This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”). K. favors the disputed text, which he believes supports his thesis. (This chapter was previously published as “Jesus’ Death in Luke-Acts: The New Covenant Sacrifice,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16 [2012] 28–48.) There follow two more chapters on specific passages: chap. 3 treats Luke’s account of Jesus’ passion as affirmative of the atonement thesis; chap. 4 deals with the Isaian “Servant Song” and traces all appearances of the attribution of “servant” status to Jesus in Luke’s Gospel. The fifth chapter is a kind of catchall for “Additional Narrative Indicators,” including passages from both Luke and Acts on the need for and nature of salvation, Jesus’ proclamation on sin and forgiveness, what K. characterizes as “historical instances in Acts” and the preaching of the apostles as given there, baptism and baptism “with fire,” and texts about being “delivered into the hands of . . .” and being “hung on a tree.” In a brief conclusion, K. summarizes the findings and asserts that “it seems warranted to conclude that Luke’s theology of atonement is more robust and integral to his narrative than scholars have generally affirmed.” K. is certainly aware that he is in the minority in opting to find a theologia crucis in Luke’s Gospel and Acts rather than, or dominant over, a theologia gloriae; the latter is antithetical to his theological tradition, as he tacitly admits when he continues: “While it may be true that Luke uniquely emphasizes the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as essential to the salvation of God’s people, it is also true that his narrative highlights the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death.” Echoing his opening, he writes that “Luke presents the death of Jesus as an atonement that provides for the forgiveness of sins, removes God’s wrath against his people, and restores them to fellowship with him” (quotations in this paragraph from p. 161). Thesis defended. There are some weak points in the exposition. For example, K. seems fixated on a one-to-one comparison between Jesus and the Isaianic “Servant,” touching not at all on the collective nature of that figure as posited by many modern scholars (and in fact repeatedly referring to that figure as an “individual”). Similarly, he dismisses in a footnote “the general claim by Joel Green and Mark Baker that ‘[t]he theory of penal substitutionary atonement allows a cultural norm particular to modern Western society, rather than the biblical narrative, to determine God’s nature and actions’” (p. 146 n. 30, quoting their Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000] 169). K. does so “on the basis of the above survey,” but his is a determinedly text-oriented examination that takes almost no account of changing cultural backgrounds. That is not the only instance in which potentially challenging arguments by contemporary scholars are relegated to the footnotes and dismissed without much comment. Kimbell writes at one point that “while Jewish Christians may have followed Mosaic customs through their participation in the temple cult, Luke does not draw attention to this” (really not? in Acts in particular?), “and it would be inconsistent with his narrative...