1 See the excellent survey of views in Bovon, F., Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950–2005) (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006 ²) 183–90Google Scholar.

2 Creed's, J. M. claim that Luke has ‘no theologia crucis beyond the affirmation that the Christ must suffer, since so the prophetic scriptures had foretold’ (The Gospel According to St Luke: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (London: Macmillan, 1930)Google Scholar lxxii) is often cited. Similarly, see Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke (trans. Buswell, ‘G.; London: Faber and Faber, 1961) 201 Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and its Development (London: 1936) 25 Google Scholar; Parsons, M. C. and Pervo, R. I., Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 113 Google Scholar; Vielhauer, P., ‘On the “Paulinism” of Acts’, Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L.; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1966) 33–50 Google Scholar, at 36–7, 42–3, 45 (originally published as ‘Zum “Paulinismus” der Apostelgeschichte’, EvTh 10 (1950/1) 1–15 Google Scholar).

3 R. J. Karris, for example, argues that Luke does not depict Jesus' death as an expiation for sins because he wants to show instead how Jesus' total faithfulness and obedience to God reveals God's commitment not to abandon creation even in experiences such as the unjust killing of the innocent ( Luke: Artist and Theologian. Luke's Passion Account as Literature (New York: Paulist, 1985) 80 Google Scholar, 115). In Luke, in other words, Jesus shows that God does not separate himself from things that are polluted and unclean (as a sacrificial logic might imply), but determines instead to forgive and to remain with creation (ibid., esp. 121–2). In the context of Luke's larger narrative, the resurrection/exaltation of Jesus signifies the full extent to which God was with Jesus even through death, and to which God affirms and vindicates the outcasts and those who faithfully suffer injustice as Jesus did (ibid., 98–9, 101, 108–9, 115). Similarly, J. Neyrey argues that Jesus' death is shown to be salvific by being depicted as the primary act of Jesus' exemplary faith in and obedience to the God who saves. Thus, although Luke ‘does not favor sacrificial metaphors’ when he reflects on Jesus' death ( Neyrey, J., The Passion According to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke's Soteriology (New York: Paulist, 1985) 158 Google Scholar), by highlighting Jesus' exemplary faith in the God who can raise the dead, Luke portrays Jesus as the ‘Saved Savior’ on the cross who has become the example and source of salvation, even a new Adam, for others (ibid., 129–92). Cf. Zehnle, R., ‘The Salvific Character of Jesus' Death in Lucan Soteriology’, TS 30 (1969) 420–44Google Scholar.

4 The longer reading of both Luke 22.19–20 and Acts 20.28 appears to invoke sacrificial categories. The language of ‘blood’ in these texts is usually assumed to be a metonymy for Jesus' death. Here, then, Luke at least hints at the sacrificial implications of Jesus' death (so e.g. C. K. Barrett, who finds ‘the barest hint (Acts 20:28) of an atoning death’ in Luke's theology ( Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth, 1961) 47 Google Scholar, cf. 23, 59); Fuller, R. H., ‘Luke and the Theologia Crucis’, Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit: Commemorating the Fiftieth Year of The Liturgical Press (ed. Durken, Daniel; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1979) 214–20Google Scholar; Jervell, J., The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 98 Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Christology of Acts’, Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L.; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1966) 159–85Google Scholar, at 171, 173). Some argue, however, that these two texts are so liturgical and even Pauline in flavour that they are unlikely to represent Luke's own perspective (e.g. J. Kodell, ‘Luke's Theology of the Death of Jesus’, Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit, 221–30, at 223; Zehnle, ‘Salvific Character of Jesus' Death’, 439–40).

5 U. Mittman-Richert argues that the role of the ‘servant’ in the so-called fourth servant song of Isa 52–3 underlies the soteriological significance of Jesus' death and exaltation in Luke. This, she thinks, allows one to recognise the sacrificial dimensions of Jesus' death, particularly as this initiates a new covenant as stated in the Eucharist pericope of Luke 22.14–38 ( Der Sühnetod des Gottesknechts: Jesaja 53 im Lukasevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008)Google Scholar esp. 54–85).

6 Robbins, V. K., ‘Priestly Discourse in Luke and Acts’, Jesus and Mary Reimagined in Early Christian Literature (ed. Robbins, V. K. and Potter, J. M.; Atlanta: SBL, 2015) 13–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 33, cf. 38–9.

7 Jervell, J., The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 98 Google Scholar. Similarly, I. H. Marshall explains that in Acts ‘[t]he atoning significance of the death of Jesus is not altogether absent …, but it is not the aspect which Luke has chosen to stress. His presentation of the saving work of Jesus is consequently one-sided. But it is going too far to say that he has no rationale of salvation. He demonstrates quite clearly that salvation is bestowed by Jesus in virtue of His position as the Lord and Messiah. What is lacking is rather a full understanding of the significance of the cross as the means of salvation’ ( Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 175 Google Scholar). J. A. Fitzmyer argues that Luke does have a theologia crucis, but that its logic can only be fully understood in light of Jesus' transferal to the glory of paradise, which is closely collocated with the crucifixion in the earliest traditions. According to Fitzmyer's understanding of Luke 24.43, Jesus' entry into paradise/his glory – his exaltation – on the day of his death is what brings the soteriological benefits of the Christ event to humanity ( Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching (New York: Paulist, 1989) 210–22Google Scholar).

8 So e.g. Marshall, Luke, 169–75, esp.174. Tyson, J. B., The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1986) 170 Google Scholar writes that Luke ‘seems uninterested in piercing through to an understanding of the theological reason for the death [of Jesus] or in analysing what it was intended to accomplish. The benefits of forgiveness of sins and the Spirit are more closely connected with the resurrection than the death.’

9 I assume the longer, ‘non-Western’ form of these texts as printed in NA²⁸. Obviously Luke's emphasis on the ascension of Jesus is blunted if one adopts the shorter ‘Western’ readings, which are among the so-called ‘Western non-interpolations’. Even if, however, one accepts the shorter form of these passages in Luke-Acts, this would not greatly impact the larger claims of the argument advanced here.

10 Cf. the use of the cognate ἐπαίρω in Acts 1.9.

11 Käsemann, E., ‘Ministry and Community in the New Testament’, Essays on New Testament Themes (trans. Montague, W. J.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 63–94 Google Scholar, at 92–3.

12 It is possible that Luke did not recognise the sacrificial nuances present in the traditional conception of Jesus' exaltation that he had received. Thus he could be unwittingly passing on an account that suggests links between Jesus' heavenly position and sacrificial categories. This might explain why these categories are not more explicitly developed. M. Wolter's argument, however, that Luke has not highlighted sacrificial concepts because of his missional or outsider orientation seems more plausible (‘Jesu Tod und Sündenvergebung bei Lukas und Paulus’, Reception of Paulinism in Acts (ed. Marguerat, D.; Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 15–35 Google Scholar). Wolter's understanding of sacrifice differs from the one presented here, but the possibility that Luke knew that his Gentile readers would not grasp the particulars of Jewish sacrificial rituals, especially insofar as these differed in significant ways from those of their own socio-religious context, still applies.

13 So e.g. Eberhart, C. A., Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: Die Signifikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen (WMANT 94; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002)Google Scholar; id., The Sacrifice of Jesus: Understanding Atonement Biblically (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011)Google Scholar; Gane, R. E., Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005)Google Scholar; Milgrom, J., Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991)Google Scholar, esp. 133–489.

14 See esp. Gane's detailed discussion and explanation of this larger point (Cult and Character, 3–24).

15 E.g. Eberhart, Sacrifice of Jesus, 85; Gane, Cult and Character, esp. 67.

16 Gane defines ‘sacrifice’ as ‘a religious ritual in which something of value is ritually transferred to the sacred realm for utilization by the deity’ (Cult and Character, 16).

17 See e.g. Lev 1.4; 5.6, 10, 16, 18; 6.7; 7.7; 9.7; 12.7–8; 14.18–20, 30–1; 15.15, 30; 16.6, 11, 24, 30–4; 19.22; 23.28. Cf. Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 925), who notes that the verb often used to denote the act of offering (עשׂה) refers at times to the entire process of sacrifice.

18 See e.g. Lev 4.20, 26, 31, 35; 5.13; 6.30; 8.15; 17.11.

19 See esp. the discussions in Gane, Cult and Character, 60; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 154. According to Josephus (Ant. 3.226) the practice of male worshipers slaughtering at least some of their sacrifices was still in place in the late Second Temple period. See the discussion of this practice and the opposing evidence in Philo in Sanders, E. P., Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 bce–66 ce (London: SCM, 1992) 106–7Google Scholar, 109.

20 The only animals slaughtered at the altar are birds. Even these, though, are not killed on the altar. Their necks are wrung by the priest as he stands at the altar and, unlike animals from the flock and herd, their blood is applied directly to the altar rather than being first collected in a bowl and then manipulated and poured out by the priest (cf. Sanders, Judaism, 110).

21 While the goat is not said here to make atonement, a comparison of the summary statement in Lev 16.10 with the detailed description of the ritual in 16.20–2 suggests this conclusion (cf. Kiuchi, N., The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and function (JSOTSS 56; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 149–51Google Scholar; Schwartz, B., ‘The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature’, Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. Wright, D. P., et al. ; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 3–21 Google Scholar; Sklar, J., Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions (HBM 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005) 96–7Google Scholar).

22 Gane puts the point well stating: ‘In Hebrew, the idea of “sacrifice” in general is conveyed by the noun qorban … The meaning of qorban is associated with that of the Hiphil verb from the same root qrb (lit. “cause to come near”), which can refer not only to preliminary conveyance of offering material to the ritual location (e.g., [Lev] 1:3), but also to formal ritual presentation to the Lord (e.g., [Lev] 1:5, 13). This formal presentation transfers something to the holy God for his utilization. So a qorban (“sacrifice, sacrificial offering”) makes something holy by giving it over to the holy domain of God’ ( Gane, R. E., Leviticus, Numbers (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) 78 Google Scholar, emphasis original). Cf. Eberhart, Sacrifice of Jesus, 71; Klawans, J., Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 69 Google Scholar.

23 E.g. Maccoby, H., Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and its Place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 11, 27, 47, 170.

24 Klawans, J., Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality.

25 See Maccoby's critique of Milgrom (Ritual and Morality, esp. 32, 49–50, 207–8).

26 Gane, Cult and Character, 112–23; Kuichi, Purification Offering, 53–9.

27 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26–7; Sklar, Sin, esp. 42–3.

28 See esp. Sklar, Sin, 154–9.

29 Sklar, Sin, 181–7.

30 Esp. Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 68–72. Cf. Exod 29.37–46.

31 Schwartz, ‘Bearing Sin’, 6–7, 17.

32 This is not at all to diminish the importance of the people's need to rest from work and to afflict themselves (Lev 16.31) as vital elements of the process. See esp. Schwarz, ‘Bearing Sin’, 20–1.

33 That grain sacrifices could be used to effect purification and forgiveness in some cases further suggests that slaughter is not the definitive event in Jewish purification/sin sacrifices (cf. Eberhart, Sacrifice of Jesus, 99–101).

34 The same logic holds for all the other elements of the process as well – none of them, that is, can stand alone. To cite Gane again, ‘Like systems in general, rituals are structured hierarchically, with smaller systems constituting wholes embedded in larger systems. At each level, a “whole possesses distinctive emergent properties – properties not possessed by the parts comprising the whole.” In the Israelite system of rituals the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. A ritual or ritual complex achieves its goal only if it is performed in its entirety, with its activities in the proper order’ (Cult and Character, 19–20).

35 See in this regard the clear emphasis on the priests approaching God and offering him blood and fat in Ezek 44.15–16.

36 See, for a few examples, Dibelius, M., ‘The Conversion of Cornelius’, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Greeven, H.; trans. Ling, M. and Schubert, P.; New York: Scribner's Sons, 1956) 109–22Google Scholar; Nave, G. D., The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts (SBLAB 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) 208–17Google Scholar; Soards, M. L., The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 70–9Google Scholar; Wilson, S. G., The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 23; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 172–8Google Scholar, 191–4; Witherup, R. D., ‘Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: “Functional Redundancy” in the Acts of the Apostles’, JSNT 49 (1993) 45–66 Google Scholar.

37 To call something ‘common’ is another way to speak of impurity. Thus there seems to be no real distinction between the terms here (e.g. Keener, C. S., Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012–15)Google Scholar ii.1772.

38 E.g. Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1971) 362–3Google Scholar. Cf. Tyson, J. B., ‘The Gentile Mission and the Authority of Scripture in Acts’, NTS 33 (1987) 619–31Google Scholar, esp. 629–30.

39 Wilson, Gentiles, 177.

40 E.g. Keener, Acts, i.801–4. Cf. Chance, J. B., Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988) 42–3Google Scholar.

41 Menzies, G., ‘Pre-Lucan Occurrences of the Phrase “Tongues of Fire”’, Pneuma 22 (2000) 27–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 41.

42 Green, J., ‘“Salvation to the End of the Earth” (Acts 13:47): God as Saviour in the Acts of the Apostles’, Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. Marshall, I. H. and Peterson, D.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 83–106 Google Scholar, at 97.

43 Green, ‘Salvation’, 97.

44 Cf. John 16.7.

45 Cf. Marshall, Luke, 178.

46 See e.g. Lev 16.2; Pss 80.1; 99.1; 2 Kgs 19.15; Isa 6.1–4; 37.16; Ezek 10.1–5; 43.6–7; Heb 8.1–2 (cf. 4.16 and 10.19–22); 1 En. 14.8–20; T. Levi 3.4–5; 5.1.

47 E.g. Exod 40.34–5; 1 Kgs 8.11; 2 Chr 5.14; 7.1–2; Ezek 10.4.

48 L. T. Johnson is one of the few to include the suggestion that Jesus adopts a cultic posture, though he does not definitively endorse this view or develop it (The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5; Collegville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992) 139). Jones, C. P. M. is more confident (‘The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Lucan Writings’, Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (ed. Nineham, D. E.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1955) 113–43Google Scholar, esp. 128). The argument of this article suggests one more member among the ‘family resemblances’ between Luke-Acts and Hebrews that Jones attempts to identify. For discussions of other possible explanations, see e.g. Bock, D. L., Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 311–12Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Book of the Acts (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn 1988) 155–6Google Scholar.

49 Other early Christians conceptualised Jesus' presence at God's right hand in high-priestly terms. This is suggested by the allusions to Ps 110.1 in Rom 8.34 and Hebrews, esp. Heb 1.3; 7.25; 8.1–2; 9.11–12, 24; 10.12–13 (cf. also 1 John 1.8–2.2; Rev 1.12–13; 5.6–7).

50 Keener also notes the possibility that this imagery might imply Jesus' status as the heavenly high priest but deems the idea ‘more conspicuous in Luke-Acts by its absence’ (Acts, ii.1441 n. 1408). The larger argument advanced here, however, greatly increases the plausibility of such an interpretation.

51 It may be objected that Luke also links these benefits with the resurrection of Jesus (e.g. Luke 24.46–9; Acts 13.26–39). Limitations of space preclude a full discussion of these texts. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that while Luke distinguishes between Jesus' resurrection and exaltation, they are closely linked (esp. Chance, Jerusalem, 64–5).

52 A similar pattern occurs in John's Gospel (cf. John 16.7 and 20.17–23). Here, too, Jesus' resurrection and ascension precede the disciples' reception of the Spirit.

53 To speak about a sacrificial death is not necessarily the same thing as to speak about death as a sacrifice. When an animal is slaughtered as a sin-offering that death is clearly sacrificial (unlike, say, slaughtering an animal in an agricultural setting). As demonstrated in section 2 above, however, the slaughter/death of the animal is not the definition or sum total of sacrifice. Indeed, what is actually offered as the sacrifice is not the death of the animal, but its blood/life and bodily material.

54 That Ps 110.4 already informed their understanding and application of Ps 110.1 to Jesus also seems highly likely.

55 This explanation does not intend to reduce early Christian thinking about Jesus' death only to retrospective reflection. A confluence of other factors must also be considered (e.g., Jesus' ransom saying, martyr traditions, etc.). Rather, I am here suggesting that the fact of Jesus' absence and the correlated experience of the Spirit were crucial for clarifying and helping to develop and clarify sacrificial conceptions of Jesus' work precisely because they allow for a strong analogy between key elements in the Christ event and the larger logic and practice of sacrifice.