Review: Crowe's 'The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles'.
Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020),
Summary of the Book’s Content
In the opening chapter of The Hope of Israel, Crowe argues “that the resurrection of Christ is one of the major emphases of Acts, which unifies and provides coherence for the theology of Luke’s second volume… [He] presents the resurrection of Christ as a singular turning point in the accomplishment of salvation that ushers in the age of the exalted Messiah… [hence, b]y focusing on the resurrection message of Acts, we are thus able to perceive with greater clarity the purpose(s) of Acts, and we are also better able to wrestle with questions related to the newness and contiguity of the gospel message with what has come before.”[1] By understanding the magnitude of the Messiah’s resurrection, he is then able to explore its centrality and importance in the book of Acts a whole. This is not only explored through explicit references to the event, but equally important, to the influence and understanding it had on early believer and emerging community of redeemed Jewish and Gentile believers.
In Chapter 1, Crowe highlights the centrality of the resurrection in the book of Acts, for he is “persuaded that so much in Acts hinges on the resurrection of Christ… [and w]e fail to do justice to the theological message of Acts if we give less attention to the resurrection than Luke himself does.”[2] After surveying the seemingly meagre handful of works that have contended similar thinking, Crowe highlights that “[t]hree aspects of the theology of Acts, in particular, reveal the centrality of the resurrection: the divine necessity of the resurrection, the kingdom framework of Acts, and the role of the apostles as resurrection spokesmen.”[3]
Chapter 2 begins with an exploration of the resurrection and its relation to the life and teaching of the apostle Peter. Crowe does well to show the direct correlation with the Holy Spirit and the event of the resurrection, followed by an exegetical overview of the apostle Peter’s sermon on the resurrection to the nation of Israel, his interactions with the (resurrection-denying) Sadducees and later Cornelius, ending with his role in the Jerusalem Council. We see in each instance, how the resurrected Messiah and the reality of his life, suffering and lordship are crucial to the new believer. Crowe ensures that his readers understand how the resurrection impacted Peter.
In Chapter 3, Crowe explores the resurrection and its relation to the life and teaching of the apostle Paul. Crowe summarises “it is the risen Christ who confronts Paul on the road to Damascus, and this encounter is subsequently emphasized by Paul in two of his defenses… Paul’s synagogue sermon at Pisidian Antioch and other speeches (such as the Areopagus speech) manifest a keen interest in the resurrection, which is often portrayed as the fulfillment of [Hebrew] Scriptures… the resurrection is consistently the fulcrum on which Paul’s argument hinges in his defenses [and] even identifies the resurrection as the reason he is on trial (23:6; 24:21).”[4] This section is by far, the most comprehensive of his studies.
In Chapter 4, Crowe explores how other characters in Acts explicitly or implicitly refer to the resurrection, from disciples James, Stephen and Philip, to others. The strongest of these is his commentary on James, in light of his familial relationship to the Messiah and his exploration of the Messiah’s resurrection as it relates to Joel’s prophecy and the Davidic Covenant.
In Chapter 5, Crowe shifts direction and seeks to “synthesize the exegetical insights from [the first four chapters] to draw out more systematically what Luke sets forth in narrative form… [for] the resurrection marks the denouement of the coming of the kingdom, in anticipation of the kingdom’s ultimate consummation (cf. Acts 1:11).”[5] His emphasis here is to stress that the resurrection is the defining turning point in salvation history (“historia salutis”) and how it clarified and centralised the importance of the Messiah’s death.
In Chapter 6, Crowe explores the order of salvation (“ordo salutis”), the role of forgiveness of sin and justification, followed by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, all of which are a result of the Messiah’s resurrection. He remarks “[t]he resurrection not only is the great fulcrum of historia salutis, which ensures the realities of ordo salutis; it also pre-eminently demonstrates the veracity of the Old Testament Scriptures.”[6]
In Chapter 7, Crowe’s focus is how “one of Luke’s primary aims in Acts is to present an apologia pro scriptura (“defense of Scripture”), and one of the main ways he does this is by his frequent, scriptural appeals to the necessity of the resurrection of Christ.”[7] He begins by exploring how Peter, Paul, Stephen, James, and others depend heavily on “Old Testament” (Hebrew Scriptures) passages to source and expand their teachings on the importance of the Messiah, particularly as it relates to the resurrection. Hence, the doctrine of the resurrection is consistent with the earlier Scriptures and affirm their prophetical nature by its fulfilment by the Messiah.
Finally, in Chapter 8, Crowe highlights the consistent role and foundational place the book of Acts had in the emerging “New Testament” (Greek Scriptures) canon, being a testament to its contents, namely, the believing individual and their community in light of the resurrected Messiah. He notes the “[r]ole of Acts in relation to major corpora of the New Testament, noting the resurrection as a key ligament”[8] so to solidify how the book of Acts shapes the canon itself.
Analysis of its Strengths and Weaknesses
Strength wise, The Hope of Israel is an easy read. Crowe is not overtly technical. In regards to weaknesses, I find that there are challenges with the book. Rather than providing every point,[9] a few will suffice. When discussing the apostle Paul’s Pisidian Antioch Speech, Crowe writes that “Luke may be indicating that the gentile mission is under way because of Jesus’s resurrection… [t]he apostolic preaching in Acts consistently emphasizes the resurrection, and this message—rooted in the Old Testament Scriptures—is for gentiles as well.”[10] I would disagree with this, for the Gentile mission was initiated at the giving of the Abrahamic Covenant. It would be better to state that the resurrection was the catalyst by which Gentile ingrafting into the ecclesia of God was magnified. The often-neglected view of the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) being missional in nature, was debunked by Kaiser’s Jr. in his important work, Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nation. He rightly notes that in reading Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6 and “seeing that servant is a corporate term here, then it is clear that Israel is being addressed and encouraged by the Lord to be that witness to the Gentiles[; ] Yahweh will take hold of that remnant of Israel by the hand to guide them in this work of witnessing, just as certainly as he called them in righteousness.”[11] The point to be made here, is that Israel itself shared the gospel to the Gentile nations as attested by those who came to accept YHWH as Lord and Savior and live according to His Torah. They believed that one “law [Torah] shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you” (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:15-16,29; Isaiah 56:6-8).
Next, Crowe intriguingly writes that “[t]he language of “rebuild” instead of “raise” is not decisive against this view, since the metaphor used by James in Acts lends itself well to “rebuilding” language….[hence,] Jesus’s resurrection is the means by which the fallen tent of David is restored.”[12] It is intriguing as this might be closer to the view that I hold which understands that the Messiah’s quote to “build the church” is about restoration and expansion of an already existing ecclesia, rather than an entirely new creation. The Greek word for build in Matthew 16:18 can equally be translated as extension as opposed to brand new, i.e., enlarged. Hegg affirms that saved Gentiles are grafted directly into the saved Jewish remnant (“spiritual Israel”), stating that “[f]or Paul, the believing remnant of Israel is the best representation of Israel as a whole, as he teaches in his “Olive Tree” metaphor (Rom 11)”.[13] I mention this, as Crowe’s language appears to contradict the mainstream view that the Church today was a new creation in the first century (and separate to the boy of believers prior to the incarnation of Messiah). Related to this, in reading Acts and James’ citation of Joel’s prophecy, he concludes that “the tent of David is best taken as a reference to the restored Davidic kingdom, which comes by means of the resurrection of Jesus Christ…. [furthermore, t]his restoration entails many blessings for the people of God, including the inclusion of the gentiles.”[14] While I agree that the resurrection initiated the Davidic Covenant, which will be fulfilled in full during the literal Millennium, I would phrase this so to acknowledge the unique establishment of a community, an ecclesia, of both redeemed Jew and Gentile because of Messiah Yeshua’s death and resurrection. That the language here, infers that this “tent” is synonymous with the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) cannot be overstated.
In conclusion, Crowe’s The Hope of Israel is a safe and engaging read that does well to explore the impact of the Messiah’s resurrection in the early first century among the redeemed Jewish and Gentile community of believers. Whether it is as profound a commentary on what he perceives as a sorely neglected area of biblical studies, remains to be seen. The resurrection of Messiah is clearly a prominent feature of the book of Acts and one that should certainly be integrated into all future commentaries of Luke, however, further discussion of how the resurrection ushered in of the Holy Spirit and enlarged the ecclesiology was a lacking feature which needs to be explored in a subsequent revision. Furthermore, at times, Crowe does stretch the implicit nature of his studied topic and must ensure that one does not disproportionately eclipse the other acts, roles and ministry of the Messiah so to uplift his thesis on the importance of the resurrection in Acts.
[1] Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 5.
[2] Ibid.,6.
[3] Ibid., 15.
[4] Ibid., 86.
[5] Ibid., 105.
[6] Ibid., 147.
[7] Ibid., 149.
[8] Ibid., 188.
[9] So much could be said regarding his commentary on Sabbath, dietary laws, and circumcision (120-124), but space permits such a response. Furthermore, pending on one’s eschatology, the reinstitution of a Temple and appointed festivals in the Millennium, discredits much of his sweeping commentary on the resurrection’s intention.
[10] Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 65.
[11] Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 61.
[12] Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 91.
[13] Hegg, Tim. I Will Build My Ekklesia: An Introduction to Ecclesiology (Tacoma, WA: Torah Resource, 2009), 35.
[14] Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 93-94.