Reviewed by: The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles by Brandon D. Crowe David M. Miller brandon d. crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020). Pp. xvi + 239. Paper $29.99. In The Hope of Israel, Brandon D. Crowe establishes the centrality of the resurrection in Acts and explains how this major theme functions “as a powerful theological adhesive that contributes to the theological unity of Acts” (p. 5). C. acknowledges, and his richly documented footnotes confirm, that the resurrection of Jesus is already widely regarded as central to Acts and a unifying theme. The justification for yet another detailed treatment of the resurrection in Acts (apart from its sheer importance) is, C. contends, that few studies “have provided a sustained and integrated consideration of Luke’s contribution in light of the scope of biblical and systematic theology” (p. 14). The book is divided into two four-chapter sections. Part 1 identifies references to the resurrection, explores how they function within their narrative context, and highlights recurring emphases. After a review of “The State of the Question” that introduces the book as a whole and prepares for the exegesis in the rest of part 1, Peter and Paul receive dedicated chapters of their own; more minor characters are treated in chap. 4. In addition to speeches, C. considers events that may echo the resurrection of Jesus, including Paul’s conversion, Peter’s miraculous escape from prison, and the restoration of Eutychus to life. Because egeirō and anistēmi are frequently employed in connection with the “raising up” of Jesus from the dead, these common Greek verbs become freighted with significance, perhaps unduly so. C. detects references to Jesus’s resurrection not only in the “raising up” of a prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22–26) and in the “raising up” of David as king over Israel (Acts 13:22) but also in the “raising” of lame men from the ground (Acts 3:7; 14:10), in the “arising” of Paul after he was left for dead outside of Lystra (Acts 14:20), in the “raising” of Judas the Galilean, who appears in ironic contrast with Jesus the risen Messiah (Acts 5:37), and in the “arising” of Gamaliel, the resurrection-believing Pharisee, who stood up (anastas) to speak in the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34). Part 2 takes a more systematic approach, synthesizing and expanding on some of the emphases noted in part 1, and considering the implications of the resurrection for other theological topics in Acts. In chap. 5, “The Resurrection and the Accomplishment of Salvation,” C. asks what changed with this “turning point” in salvation history. In the first place, he argues that the resurrection is presented in Acts as the vindication of Jesus’s perfect obedience and sacrificial death. Here one observes a marked increase in C.’s citations from other biblical texts and from systematic theologians in the Reformed tradition to support the limited evidence he can muster from Acts. Readers who do not share C.’s systematic impulse are unlikely to be persuaded that this is a significant emphasis within Luke-Acts [End Page 334] itself. According to C., the resurrection in Acts also inaugurates the Davidic Messiah’s reign, signals a “new experience” in Jesus’s Lordship, enables the gift of the Spirit, and relativizes traditional Jewish institutions and practices. In chap. 6, C. emphasizes continuity between pre-and postresurrection experiences of “salvation,” understood in terms of forgiveness of sins and justification. According to C., Luke held that believers before the resurrection experienced forgiveness, justification, and the Holy Spirit on the basis of the future death and resurrection of Jesus. (The possibility that salvation, for Luke, was a broader concept than justification and forgiveness of sins is not considered.) In chap. 7, C. proposes that Luke wrote Acts partly as an apologia pro scriptura, confirming the truthfulness of Scripture by insisting that the resurrection fulfills Scripture. This seems backwards. More likely, Luke appealed to Scripture because his audience took its truthfulness for granted. The final chapter turns from the content of Acts to the place...