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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You made a point Tuesday that we need to discern what in Acts is “prescriptive” (an example or instruction for US to follow TODAY) versus merely “descriptive” (narrative about what happened to the first disciples in the early church -- but not something that we are to emulate or expect to happen today – ie. cessasionist viewpoint). While I agree with the importance of recognizing this distinction where/if present, my default view is that Acts contains a lot of guidance for the church for ALL HISTORY.
ReplyDeleteI want to be careful to not require absolute certainty that a text is prescriptive before I apply it practically and literally in my own life. I think there is a lot LESS to lose in getting my interpretation wrong (ie. viewing too much of the Scripture as prescriptive instruction for me) than in being DISOBEDIENT to God’s instruction and missing out on all that He has for me and my family in our Christian walk.
So, when looking at how to apply this passage, one practical point was Jesus COMMAND to the disciples to wait “for the gift my Father promised” … “the Holy Spirit”. In verse 8, this gift is also to be accompanied by POWER through this same Holy Spirit. I believe that it is consistent with other New Testament texts that this promise was not just for the Eleven, or the hundred of Jesus’ followers at the time of His ascension. In John 14::16, Jesus says “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor [the Holy Spirit] to be with you forever.”
If the Holy Spirit and his power is God’s promised gift for his disciples forever, then as followers of Jesus we should see some evidence of the Spirit’s power in our lives. But, is His power exhibited in me? Can you, my brothers and sisters, challenge me in this? Am I always aware of his presence and his power? Or am I ignoring his voice? Have I trained my spirit to turn off and turn on the flow of the Holy Spirit through me? Maybe I even deny his power sometimes – either by my words, actions, or LACK thereof.
The gift of the Holy Spirit and His power has already been given on Pentecost. Have we, the church, put this gift away in some closet and forgotten about it? Or are we enjoying this good gift from the Father?
I see and support what you are saying, David. I especially like your 'safety valve' of "I believe it is consistent with other New Testament texts." This is an excellent principle and will help keep us from making a descriptive/prescriptive error in judgment.
ReplyDeleteThough you didn't use the phrases, I also agree that both the "baptism of" and the "infilling of" are of utmost importance and have continued relevance for the church. That being said, I believe the analogy of scripture, i.e., your above safety value, would suggest a distinction between baptism and infilling; both still important; both still relevant for us today. Only those who 'possess' the spirit can receive the imperative to 'be filled' with the spirit.
I think you are also correct to emphasize the experiential. If we look at the source of the "pouring the spirit upon you" (Is 32 I believe), then we see the results are metaphorically shocking. The spirit will take the dry parched land and turn it into a fertile rain saturated blessing; this is nothing short of the personal & abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives - divine presence, divine empowerment & divine intimacy. Without which there is no church!
David you continue to be a great blessing to us, and thank you for helping see more clearly the text before us!