In World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age, Kavin Rowe examines Luke's depiction of the Gentile world. He begins with accounts of Christian mission at Lystra, Philippi, Athens and Ephesus, concluding that these episodes ‘display narratively the collision between two different ways of life . . . [They] tell the story of a profound incommensurability between the life-shape of Christianity in the Graeco-Roman world and the larger pattern of pagan religiousness’ (p. 50). Rowe then turns to the question of Luke's stance towards Rome, in which he finds that ‘the Christian mission as narrated by Luke is not counter-state’ (p. 87). The pithy summation Rowe offers is: ‘New culture, yes – coup, no’ (p. 91).

Neither of these points (there is a full-on clash with pagan life; there is no intent to overthrow Rome) is particularly novel. The real contribution comes when Rowe asks what it is in Luke's understanding of the Gospel which generates this particular tension. In short, his answer is ‘the apocalypse of God’. Living into the confession that Jesus is ‘Lord of all’ generates the response of ‘universal mission’ (p. 116) as well as the visible gathering of Christians into community. The Lukan ‘vision’ is that of ‘an alternative total way of life’ (p. 140), not because Christians are overthrowing Caesar but because God is shaking heaven and earth.

The final chapter reflects on Luke's universal claims in the context of contemporary arguments about tolerance and diversity. Acknowledging that Acts is ‘replete with claims to universal truth’ (p. 169), does that mean that Acts leads inexorably to intolerance, even violence? Here Rowe criticises some current treatments of Graeco-Roman religion (non-Jewish or Christian religion, that is) which pit their supposed pluralism and tolerance over against the absolute claims of Judaism and Christianity. While underscoring the character of Luke's claims to truth, Rowe argues that Acts has no room for coercion of ‘the other’. Nevertheless, the narrative of Acts cannot simply be ‘tolerated’, because it confronts its readers with claims about the universal lordship of Jesus which must be accepted or rejected. Rowe also reflects on the irony of approaches to New Testament studies which attempt to catalogue Luke's content without reckoning with his truth claims.

Foremost among Rowe's contributions is his practice of taking seriously the complexity which constitutes the narrative of Acts. The scholarly tradition is littered with simplistic formulations which cannot produce readings which do justice to the textured story Luke has to tell. In this sense, Rowe stands on the shoulders of several unnamed predecessors, including Robert Tannehill, Scott Spencer and Rob Wall. A second major contribution comes with Rowe's serious discussion of the attention Luke gives to Gentiles. We are a long way here, not just from Dibelius, Conzelmann and Haenchen, but also from Jacob Jervell's insistence that the Gentiles who become part of the church in Acts are all God-fearers and that no missionary speech addresses only Gentiles. A third welcome contribution comes with Rowe's insistence on the priority given to God in Acts.

The major shortcoming of the book concerns the need to contextualise more carefully Luke's depiction of Gentiles and the turning ‘upside down’ of Gentile culture. In the first place, Gentile culture is not always overturned; on Malta Paul is (after some initial confusion) received hospitably and even given necessities for his eventual journey to Rome. In addition, it is not just Gentile culture which collides with the Gospel. If some Gentiles reject the ‘light’ intended for them, it is also true that in Acts some Jews do not welcome the ‘glory’ intended for them (Luke 2:32). And, although Luke may insist that Paul is only preaching the fulfilment of God's promises to Israel, the narrative shows that part of Israel does not recognise Jesus as the fulfilment of those promises. A third way in which the argument needs contextualisation concerns the church.

Rowe emphasises the church's practice of theological knowledge without taking into account the numerous shortcomings of the church in Acts. Luke often presents the church itself as at least in need of correction by (if not in direct collision with?) God's apocalypse. To take only the most prominent examples, the conflict in Acts 6 between the Hellenists and the Hebrews comes about because widows were being neglected, a point which would not be missed by readers familiar with Israel's scriptures. Both Peter and the Jerusalem community repeatedly resist God's intention that the Gospel be extended to Gentiles (10:1–11,18; 15:1–21). Contextualising the Gospel's collision with Gentile culture in this way should help us arrive at a stance of interpretative charity towards Gentile culture.

Rowe's final chapter explores the implications of Luke's absolute claims about God's apocalypse, largely in the context of recent academic discussion about tolerance in Luke's religious context and also in the light of study of the New Testament which wishes merely to catalogue knowledge about its content without grappling with its truth claims. I find problematic the way in which the people Rowe criticises here are all scholars who work from a religious studies perspective (as distinct from theological studies). Although I agree entirely that Luke's claims are provocative, that Luke's story presses for a response that is ‘yes’ or ‘no’, it is possible to conclude from this chapter that the only people who have not heard Luke's story rightly are scholars in religious studies. Yet in Acts the light of God's apocalypse is one which is an equal-opportunity ‘distressor’. So: truth claims, yes; truth claims resisted only by ‘outsiders’, no.

All of these comments are intended to press towards an even larger understanding of God's apocalypse in the Book of Acts. Kavin Rowe rightly sees the rich texture of Luke's second volume, and I hope his work will be joined by others that point in the same direction.