Luke 1:9-14

Last week we looked at that pivotal verse (v 8) where Jesus said, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons...", and we saw how one interprets this verse might reveal the 'theological' direction  how one construes THE KINGDOM.  If a simple TIMING ELEMENT was Jesus' focus, then  national and geographic Israel - a kingdom state on earth, is still what Jesus has in mind for national Israel before the final consummation when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in; however, if Jesus was re-directing their carnal focus away from a geographic, political and military concept, to a SPIRITUAL SENSE OF RESTORATION, then the shadows of the old covenant, which reflected the power structures of this world, were to give way to the power structures of the gospel.  Instead of a simple 'timing issue' then,  the apostles' question reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the KINGDOM.  They mistook a THIS-WORLDLY POWER rule and reign for a SPIRITUAL POWER rule and reign.  The interpretive issues are complex. We do know that the following verse (v 9) reflects Luke's motif of a GREAT REVERSAL in that Jerusalem is not the magnetic hub where gentiles are expected to come, but rather a place where Israel is to go out from so that gentiles can hear and participate in God's great redemptive restoration of all things.  That much is clear. 

One challenge is to keep before us two questions.  First, what are the shadows in the OT in which we find corresponding and fulfillment realities in the NT?  And the second question is: how far do we take them?  We do not want to spiritualize a text when the intention of the author is for us to take it literal, nor do we want to literalize when the intention of the author is for us to see spiritual fulfillment.  One example will suffice.  We know Luke sees Jesus' atoning death as a NEW EXODUS (see Beale & Carson, CNTOT, p. 525 where the Exodus motif is declared "well-founded.").  During Jesus' transfiguration (Luke 9:31), Luke describes Jesus' upcoming death as his "departure," and in that text we find the Greek term EXODUS.  Admittedly, Luke does not stop and ponder this, but the verbiage leads not a few to affirm that Luke joins in with the old covenant writers who see the COMING RESTORATION as a NEW WORK/EXODUS (Here it is important to review Isaiah 43:16-20).  So in looking at the NEW EXODUS as having fulfilled the OLD (the old being a type and shadow of the new) we notice the following possible  relationships: slavery and bondage (Egypt-OT/sin-NT); prophetic leadership (Moses-OT/Jesus-NT); saving water (Red Sea-OT/baptism-NT); and a dangerous journey (dessert wilderness-OT/our place as pilgrims in the world-NT); and a promise land with its new leader (Joshua/Canaan-OT & Jesus/world-NT); and a new kind of warfare (physical-OT vs. spiritual-NT), and a new kind of criteria for blessing (physical lack/suffering as an occasion for curse-OT vs. physical lack/suffering as an occasion for blessing-NT), and a new kind of victory (defeat & obliteration of the enemy vs. loving  & doing good toward our enemy), which means, as with Jesus - suffering must proceed glory (Luke 9:21-22).  Now these are general tendencies and must not be taken as an absolute contrast between OT/NT.  Instructively, 1st Peter 2:21 has this apostolic injunction:

    For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

The shadowy types are most certainly present with even a cursory examination of Scripture.  The question is: 'How far' do these shadows/realities or types/anti-types extend?  One writer put it this way: "For some scholars Luke is mimicking the geographical program of Joshua.  As Israel entered Canaan, conquered it, and brought into being its own national life, so in Acts the Church enters not Canaan but the world making a similar claim on it on behalf of Christ's kingdom" (Burge).

We will have to see whether this eclipses Israel's national significance, in terms of an ethnic people and geographic locale.  It all goes to show, or at least it SHOULD, just how important theology is to our beliefs, and how relevant hermeneutics is to the task of bible interpretation.  Having said that, what also is obvious is for Christians to cultivate humility.  Gone by the wayside should be the notion that I or we have the correct system.  The fact of the matter is - interpretive options exist, and are defensible on good hermeneutical grounds.  I am often thankful to be a part of the EPC for this very reason, i.e., in essentials/unity; in non-essentials/liberty; in all things/charity.  We must learn to agree to disagree - all the while holding our convictions in love with an eye to the unity of the body of Christ.

Subtle points need multiple attestation in order to substantiate a claim as viable, and I think we have that with our next point.  As Elijah was 'taken up' (2 Kings 2:9-22) so in our text (Acts 1:9) Jesus is 'taken up' into heaven.  Both are passives and suggest that this is definitely a divine work.  Both are 'taken up' in order to have the divine plan go forward; and the plan goes forward when the prophetic task of one (Elijah & Jesus) is handed off to another (Elisha & apostles).  I as your pastor operate not with one motif, e.g., the exodus, but multiple motifs all connected with one grand strand - CHRIST!

Next, as supported by the context, I believe we have a soft rebuke.  Angels appear, challenging the apostles' focus, "Why are you standing here gazing up?"  Suggestive is the notion that their gazing up at Jesus, with their 'this worldly' kingdom notion, is counterproductive with the mission given in v. 8 to be 'witnesses'.  The current restoration of all things begins with taking up the prophetic mantle and becoming witnesses for the restoration of all things in Jesus Christ.  URGENCY and PRIORITY are what come to mind.  Again, the church is not called to missions as much as it is the nature of the church TO BE MISSIONAL!

So IF the historical Exodus out of Egypt is a shadow and as such finds fulfillment in the Cross, whereby we are delivered by God out of our Egypt, i.e., sin, and IF Moses hands the prophetic mantle to Joshua, then maybe Jesus hands the prophetic mantle to the apostles and his call TO BE missional is to correspond to the CONQUEST OF LAND by Joshua.  But what is the land?  Well, the land is no longer just Canaan, but is the entire world, and our weaponry is not swords and military might, but prayer, so as to empower us to live-out the radical call to love our enemies, expounded by our Lord in both Matthew and Luke.  This is what the cross exemplified; this is what we, mystically united to Christ, are to continue.  God loves his enemies, as the cross so wondrously displays, and we must accept our call to join him in revealing his heart, if we are to be faithful followers of Jesus.  This means ‘suffering’ in all its various forms is somewhat normative – how else can we reflect love of enemy?  But common suffering in a ruptured world also has its place.  Ultimately, God alone is our source of joy and contentment, and being content in the midst of such common suffering displays the sufficiency of God to a lost and dying world.  So how do you hear the gospel?  Do you hear it with the values of middle-class America, and grovel in discontent, or do you let Scripture form your pursuit and see yourself primarily as a person called to be content in a discontented world? 

Acts 1:6-8

Last Tuesday night we found that Luke packed a lot into these three verses.  We saw there are some things God wanted the apostles to know, i.e., that they would receive 'power' when the Holy Spirit came upon them, and other things God did not, i.e., knowing the times and seasons that the Father has fixed. which was Jesus' answer to the apostles' question, "will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

Some bible interpreters say that Jesus, in refusing to answer, actually "re-directed" the gist of their question so as to "de-carnalize" their sensibilities.  What I mean by that is Jesus in effect said, "there is no coming political reign in this age; rather, it is the presence of the Spirit that constitutes my reign, i.e., kingdom.  As much as I have leanings toward the amillennial position, I find this reading somewhat forced.  There is disjunction, if not a slight rebuke, by Jesus (it is set up by the Greek - men...de/on the one hand, but on the other hand).  A simpler, upfront reading of the text would take his rebuke in terms of the words Jesus spoke.  Jesus simply said the time and seasons of the restoration of the kingdom is not for them to know; rather, they need to focus on promise of the Father, i.e., the coming of the Spirit, because they absolutely need this to accomplish what God wants from them at this time, i.e., to be his witnesses - leaving the timing of Israel's restoration to God himself.  If the rebuke was 'carnalization' the point is subtle.  What is commonly accepted is that the apostles saw NO GAP between the inauguration of the kingdom and its consummation.  They were expecting an immediate and completed kingdom, a rule and reign of God that had no interm whereby they would be witnesses through the empowered Spirit.  They missed this entirely.  Jesus' rebuke was in essence, "You guys have missed the boat on this; get your mind off the coming end and completion and onto the task before you.
 
The next thing for us to look at is what the focus is to be on - divine enablement.  Various phrases are used for this: promise of the Father (v. 4c); baptism of the Holy Spirit (v. 5b); and the Holy Spirit will come upon you (v. 8b).   What is this event that is coming?  Given the time and space Luke utilizes, and its old covenant roots, I think it is safe to say that it is no mere momentary enablement; to the contrary, something HUGE is taking place within the history of redemption.  Some of the OT promises concerning a new covenant, e.g., Isaiah 32; Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 11; and Joel 2, suggest as much:

"...until the spirit is poured out upon us..." (Is 32:15)
and
"Behold the days are coming\, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant..." (Jer 31:31)
and
"And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them..." (Ez 11:19)
and
"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit..." (Joel 2: 28)

So the HUGE thing that God does through A NEW COVENANT is he SENDS HIS SPIRIT into the hearts of his people.  But didn't the spirit already exist?  Wasn't David filled with the spirit?  Yes, the spirit existed, and, yes, David was filled with the spirit.  I think the answer to this apparent dilemma has to do with THE EXTENT and PERMANENCE of the spirit.  What God did to a select few, he now does to all those within the covenant; we are the new temple; we possess the spirit and so WE BECOME HIS WITNESSES!  There seems to be some contextual support for affirming the definitive and non-repeatability of this event - at least in its grand public display.  When Luke writes, "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you," he uses the aorist tense.  The aorist tense often has in mind a definitive/punctiliar occurrence; meaning, the event is completed in a moment or act.  The context (remember a verse without a context becomes a pretext!) must be our guide.  Given all that we have said so far: 1) promise of a new covenant, correlated with 2) the outpouring of the Spirit, I believe the context supports a non-repeatable event, i.e., this is the INAUGURATION of the NEW COVENANT, and as such, does not repeat.  But some things are repeatable - and I would argue necessary - one being > the reception of the spirit; if one does not possess the Spirit, one is not part of the new covenant community, i.e., a Christian.  So the baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, and therefore must occur with salvation, e.g., 1 Cor 12:13.  What we will find ourselves grappling with throughout Acts, is what, if any, secondary characteristics cease as the Spirit is given to the new covenant community, e.g., must one speak in tongues to give proof of the spirit's presence?  If not, then why did everyone in Luke?  These and other questions will be dealt with as we journey along together.
 
Now as to the promises of land and restoration of Israel, I don't think this text is definitive.  What is left dangling are those promises that seem to address Israel as a nation, distinct from all others.  Are there promises to Israel - as such - that will yet be fulfilled in God's own time?  The answers we give to these and other similar questions place us either in the pre-millenial camp (where the promises are taken more literalistically) or the a-millinial camp (where the promises are more typological and spiritual).  Where we end up should not be seen as AN ESSENTIAL to the faith.  We can fellowship, worship, and certainly love each other as brothers and sisters, even though we take different positions.  We must jealously guard the unity of the body of Christ.

Lastly, it is very interesting and noteworthy to see that Luke structures 'The Acts of the Apostles' around this verses; indeed, it is verse 8b that gives the entire book a broad outline.  The verse says: "...you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." So when we look at Acts and compare it with this verse, we find the interesting outlay:

1) Jerusalem (chapters 2-7)
2) All Judea and Samaria (chapters 8-12)
3) end of the earth (chapters 13-28)

So one of Luke's primary purposes is to show how this new emphasis, i.e., the inclusion of all into salvation, is played out in the early history of the church.  God has a GRAND REVERSAL in mind; instead of gentiles coming to Jerusalem; Jerusalem goes to the gentiles.  This new plan of God only 'begins' in Jerusalem.  Now they must 'go' and bring this good news to all the world.  One quote is noteworthy for us, and it comes from NT scholar Darrell Bock, who paraphrases Robinson and Wall, "...the church does not have a mission;...it is a mission."  We do not have the option of enjoying each others presence as we gather to worship, and simply pray that others will come; to the contrary - we must go to them; we must prayerfully strategize and energetically engage; we must sacrificially give our time, talents and treasures toward this end, or we are disobedient to our heavenly calling.  May this never happen at Arvada Community Church!

Acts 1:1-5

On Tuesday evening we plunged into Luke's second book - The Acts of the Apostles. Again he addresses it to Theophilus. In Luke's gospel, it was "most excellent" (ESV) Theophilus; and this, in conjunction with other documents of the time point to a real, historical, and perhaps an imminently important, person.

Luke seems to be summarizing his previous book, and his opening paragraph could extend to vs 11, or even possibly to vs. 14. Many scholars believe an inclusio [otherwise known as 'bracketing'] is present. This is a literary device to bring focused attention on what is 'sandwiched' in-between, but its primary and climactic purpose is on the two phrases/ideas that do the sandwiching - in this case v. 2 and v. 11. These two verses have something in common; they both refer to the ascension.

We might ask the question, "Why is Luke so concerned with ascension?" This is not only a fair question, it is necessary to understand what Luke wants his readers to understand. One prominent theologian said that Acts ought to have been called, not the acts of the apostles, but The Acts of the Holy Spirit, because the apostles do what they do - only because they become EMPOWERED. They operated with a power that was not their own; it was a supernatural empowerment from on high.

The ascension was necessary to complete the coronation of Jesus as king; now, with that completed, his reign begins! The verses in-between the ascension verses (3-10), shed much light as to what his reign consists of, and without doubt a fair conclusion is that Jesus' reign entails empowering men and women to become his witnesses. If the resurrection was the vindication of Jesus' claims to be king, then the ascension is the implementation of his reign. The one who was fully endowed with the Spirit (Luke 4:1), now becomes the one who pours out the Spirit . In doing so, he begins to exercise his reign as the king of the new Israel of God! Just as Moses rose to a mountain in order to give God's people the commandments, so too does this prophet "like unto Moses" (Deut 18:15) give something; indeed, the text of Acts (v.2) even calls what he had given them a commandment, but the commandment is to wait, and they will receive the very spirit of God. This alone reflects the superiority of the new covenant; the law could not impart life; only the spirit can impart life.

It is God's desire to give the Spirit to those who ask him (Luke 11:13). He loves his creation and desires to have his gifts showered upon it. The greatest gift he can give us ... is Himself! As the bed chambers are filled with love-making ambiance, so too does God act in such a way as to invite us and woo us into his presence. Scripture says "the kindness" of God leads us to repentance (Rom 2:4). With the existence of the two ages side by side (i.e., kingdom of heaven and kingdom of this world) the activity of this reign is seen primarily through - the revelation and exercise of his tender mercy (Lu. 1:77-78). He brought his reigning kingdom into this world, but the world did not recognize him - a suffering messiah was an oxymoron; it went against their expectations. But now we see the great stoop of God; he comes into our world, suffers and dies the sinners' death. He stands the gap; bears the wrath; defeats our arch enemy - death, and imparts his spirit, making us adopted sons! Praise God!