Last evening we wrapped up chapter three. As we looked at the text we noticed that in the previous section there was emphasis on the POSITIVE dimension of embracing Jesus, i.e., "that times of refreshing may come..." Here, we see the NEGATIVE side. If you do not listen to this prophet whom God has raised up, you "shall be destroyed from the people" (v. 23). In other words, God's justice comes to bear on OUR RESPONSE to the coming of Jesus the Christ.
It is for this reason I shy away from the position taken by some, e.g., Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century, St Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century, et. al., who see in verse 21 textual evidence that God will eventually redeem all (known historically as "apocatastasis" which comes from the Greek verb found in verse 21, and is rendered by some English translations as "restoration" of all things). Peter's claim that God will restore all things cannot yield the quick conclusion of universalism. It's difficult for me to see universalism in v. 21, when verse 23 follows quickly on its heels. There, the strongest possible language of separation is used for those who do not listen to the prophet like-Moses, i.e., exolethreuthesetai "completely cut off" (NIV). As the lexicons (our modern notion of dictionary) clearly state, the verb depicts utter destruction (BAGD 276; BDAG 351). Admittedly, one might take this portrayal somewhat shadowy, i.e., the end result of such utter destruction is one's redemption, because it is not the person, but one's sinful rebellion that is utterly destroyed by the purifying fire of God's judgment. But this type of logic seems to run counter to Jesus' indictment of Judas, in which Jesus says that it were better for him "not to have been born" (Matt 26:24). If Paul can say no amount of suffering can be compared to our future glory (Ro 8:18), how can Jesus even come close to saying that it were better for Judas not to have been born? Wouldn't the blissful state of eternal fellowship with God over-ride even Judas' act of betraying our Lord? To me, Scripture would favor an affirmative answer to this question. Jesus, then, can only be referring to the regrettable state of eternal punishment.
But if we press Jesus' statement in the other direction, it would seem that hell for everyone (except Judas) - isn't so bad as to lead to the regret of having been born. It would seem that the enjoyment of a moment on the time continuum outweighs eternal torment, but this too seems to teeter on the preposterous - are we to assume that an eternity of suffering would not lend itself to the regret of having been born and existed on a time-line that all but disappears when compared to eternity? Is the temporary vapor of our existence in a fallen world that satisfying to over-ride such regret? Perhaps Jesus is not using language here in such an exact fashion. Perhaps what is true for Judas is especially true for him, because of the horrendous punishment that awaits him - true for all to be sure, but 'really' true for Judas. In the end, I do not have a satisfying answer, and am left with a conundrum of sorts. Not exactly where I want to be, when it comes to these kinds of questions, but until I am provided with a more satisfying answer, it is where I am at the moment.
Might there, then, be some sort of surprise at the end; some sort of terminus to the judgment of God which over-rides what seems to be the logic of Jesus with regard to Judas? For me, the text does not support any positive and unequivocal position that would affirm the redemption for all; it is simply too tenuous, at best, and seems to run counter to the overall witness of Scripture. Having said this, no emotionally healthy believer can stare hell down without cringing at the prospect of eternal separation coupled with endless punishment - especially when our loved ones are considered. Just look at Paul's inner state where he expresses desire to trade places with some of the non-elect Jews who seem bound to hell! (Ro 9:3). Lament seems inevitable even with but a glance at such possibilities. Our hope must come from God's act in Christ, in which the revelation of God's tender loving mercy pulsates with a singularity that alone can comfort the sinner's heart (Luke 1:79). Along with such mercy toward a lost and dying world, we must remember that he too cried with lament at the sinner's lack of response (Matt 23:37), assuring us of the fact that God hears our cries in the night where our souls feel ripped and torn by things we do not fully understand; his heart too was torn by things beyond his comprehension - clearly depicted in his cry of dereliction "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Other things to note with regard to being "utterly cut off from the people of God," is that this word, while present only here in the entire NT, is found throughout the OT. One very interesting place (Leviticus 23:29) such verbiage 'utterly cut off from the people' is in the context of The Day of Atonement. Refusal to "humble oneself" (Lev 23:27, 29) and comply with its observance, results in the indictment of "being utterly cut off from the people." This would seem to allow us to see Jesus as typologically fulfilling the Day of Atonement when he died on the cross. Refusal, then, to hear God's voice through the cross, whereby he announces the forgiveness of sins, yields the terrible outcome of "being utterly cut off." Earlier the Jews may have crucified the Son of God in/with/under some morphed ignorance (Acts 3:17), but now God has publicly demonstrated that Jesus is THE PROPHET by raising him from the dead. Refusing him, is now equated with refusing the imperative to humble oneself on the Day of Atonement and offering sacrifice for one's sins. One's response to the claims of Jesus, vindicated by his resurrection, has eternal repercussions. God has raised up a prophet like unto Moses and - "it is to him you shall listen" (Deut 18:15). May we continue to "take heed how we hear" and humble ourselves under God's great work of redemption! There is no other name; there is no other way to escape the coming wrath of God:
Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" (Rev 6:15-17)
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Acts 3:1-10
Last evening we covered the healing of a lame man. What is obvious, is that Peter, through God's power, healed the man who had been lame from birth. We noted some possible meanings of the text.
One, is the fulfillment of John 14:12, which informs us that we will do 'greater works' than Jesus, because he goes to the Father. This would point us to what some have coined 'power evangelism', demonstrated by greater numeric displays of signs and wonders than Jesus had previously performed. Peter now begins the "greater works" announced by our Lord (Jn 14:12).
Another road, instead of an ostensible display of 'more and greater miracles', what we have here is an affirmation of Christian service. Peter replied to the lame man who was begging for donations, by saying, "I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you..." (Acts 3:6) So the lesson becomes some sort of spiritual stewardship. We are not to focus on what we don't have, but rather, on what we do have!
I think both merit discussion of significance, but both, in my opinion, miss the mark as to the MEANING of the text. In an earlier study we found that Ephesians 2:20 was capable of being rendered "apostles WHO ARE prophets," rather than "apostles and prophets." The significance is the clarity by which Jesus explains the 'authority transfer' from himself, who has left the earth, to his apostles, who now remain. Jesus was the greatest prophet, surpassing Moses, who had been up to this time, the greatest. God spoke to Moses "mouth to mouth" and not through visions & dreams (Nu 12:6-8). Now the prophet whom Moses foretold (Deut 18:15ff) has arrived in the person of Jesus, and he transfers this power to his apostles. That is the essential meaning of Pentecost.
Since prophets bring God's living word, i.e., a direct message from God, then after Jesus' ascension, the business of the apostles is to proclaim the teachings of Jesus the Christ. As prophets, their task is to, "call God's people to account and to reinforce the prescribed boundaries of the community while reestablishing or reinforcing the divine-human relationship" (Witherington). This is precisely what we find going on in Acts: event followed by apostolic interpretation and then a call to respond. There's even a sort of rhythm to it all: event (Acts 2:1-13) apostolic interpretation (Acts 2:14-21), and a call to respond (Acts 2:22-41). Chapter three continues with this same rhythm: event (3:1-10) apostolic interpretation (3:11-18), and a call to respond (3:19-26).
Given this pattern: event > interpretation > call to respond, the meaning of this text will be found in the apostolic interpretation that follows (3:12-13), which says the miracle ATTESTS to the person of Jesus and his glorified reign (3:12-13). This kind of hermeneutic is what theologians have called "Christocentric." Scriptures proclaim Christ - his person - his work - and his reign. So while Luke does not make specific mention of further possible meanings, Luke's summary; i.e., "The God of Abraham ... has glorified his servant, Jesus,... (3:13), enables us to search the old testament to unearth further possible meanings.
Many are confused by the rules and regulations found in the Old Testament. One in particular is that of Lev 21 where Moses is given instructions that any son of Aaron (where priests must come from) cannot be a priest if he has a defect, e.g., a LAME person, injured foot or hand, sight problems, itching disease, a dwarf, et. al. (Lev 21:16-24). Why? Not exactly in keeping with the American Disabilities Act; in fact, it seems downright cruel. The answer of course lies in the holiness of God; defection cannot be allowed because God is holy and sin cannot be present. So the healing of the lame man in Acts demonstrates that the 'defect' problem has now been resolved. Hebrews tells us, "We have ... a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf..." (Hebrews 6:19-20). We were LAME in our sin; we all possess a DEFECT that does not allow entrance into God's presence, but now because of Jesus' person and work, we have access to THE INNER PLACE BEHIND THE CURTAIN! The very presence of God is ours, which is what makes the transference of Jesus' authority to us possible; the spirit of Holiness now rests on us! As children by adoption, we now can be assured of his love and divine presence each and every day!
Hallelujah!!!
One, is the fulfillment of John 14:12, which informs us that we will do 'greater works' than Jesus, because he goes to the Father. This would point us to what some have coined 'power evangelism', demonstrated by greater numeric displays of signs and wonders than Jesus had previously performed. Peter now begins the "greater works" announced by our Lord (Jn 14:12).
Another road, instead of an ostensible display of 'more and greater miracles', what we have here is an affirmation of Christian service. Peter replied to the lame man who was begging for donations, by saying, "I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you..." (Acts 3:6) So the lesson becomes some sort of spiritual stewardship. We are not to focus on what we don't have, but rather, on what we do have!
I think both merit discussion of significance, but both, in my opinion, miss the mark as to the MEANING of the text. In an earlier study we found that Ephesians 2:20 was capable of being rendered "apostles WHO ARE prophets," rather than "apostles and prophets." The significance is the clarity by which Jesus explains the 'authority transfer' from himself, who has left the earth, to his apostles, who now remain. Jesus was the greatest prophet, surpassing Moses, who had been up to this time, the greatest. God spoke to Moses "mouth to mouth" and not through visions & dreams (Nu 12:6-8). Now the prophet whom Moses foretold (Deut 18:15ff) has arrived in the person of Jesus, and he transfers this power to his apostles. That is the essential meaning of Pentecost.
Since prophets bring God's living word, i.e., a direct message from God, then after Jesus' ascension, the business of the apostles is to proclaim the teachings of Jesus the Christ. As prophets, their task is to, "call God's people to account and to reinforce the prescribed boundaries of the community while reestablishing or reinforcing the divine-human relationship" (Witherington). This is precisely what we find going on in Acts: event followed by apostolic interpretation and then a call to respond. There's even a sort of rhythm to it all: event (Acts 2:1-13) apostolic interpretation (Acts 2:14-21), and a call to respond (Acts 2:22-41). Chapter three continues with this same rhythm: event (3:1-10) apostolic interpretation (3:11-18), and a call to respond (3:19-26).
Given this pattern: event > interpretation > call to respond, the meaning of this text will be found in the apostolic interpretation that follows (3:12-13), which says the miracle ATTESTS to the person of Jesus and his glorified reign (3:12-13). This kind of hermeneutic is what theologians have called "Christocentric." Scriptures proclaim Christ - his person - his work - and his reign. So while Luke does not make specific mention of further possible meanings, Luke's summary; i.e., "The God of Abraham ... has glorified his servant, Jesus,... (3:13), enables us to search the old testament to unearth further possible meanings.
Many are confused by the rules and regulations found in the Old Testament. One in particular is that of Lev 21 where Moses is given instructions that any son of Aaron (where priests must come from) cannot be a priest if he has a defect, e.g., a LAME person, injured foot or hand, sight problems, itching disease, a dwarf, et. al. (Lev 21:16-24). Why? Not exactly in keeping with the American Disabilities Act; in fact, it seems downright cruel. The answer of course lies in the holiness of God; defection cannot be allowed because God is holy and sin cannot be present. So the healing of the lame man in Acts demonstrates that the 'defect' problem has now been resolved. Hebrews tells us, "We have ... a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf..." (Hebrews 6:19-20). We were LAME in our sin; we all possess a DEFECT that does not allow entrance into God's presence, but now because of Jesus' person and work, we have access to THE INNER PLACE BEHIND THE CURTAIN! The very presence of God is ours, which is what makes the transference of Jesus' authority to us possible; the spirit of Holiness now rests on us! As children by adoption, we now can be assured of his love and divine presence each and every day!
Hallelujah!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
