Let the Text Speak

Acts 6:1-7

2010-12-21T20:53:00.012-07:00

What could be interpreted as an 'idyllic' beginning in the church, is now disrupted with a sense of 'realism'. From a Christian perspective this entails affirmation of a world infested with, and broken by, sin. This intrusion into God's creation fragments our humanity, causing divisions that ordinarily would be celebrated as diversifying beauty. Difference would complement not threaten, strengthen not weaken, and build up not tear down. What is clear from Luke's writing is that while he is definitely an apologist for the premise that Jesus is the Christ and that those who follow him are the true people of God, he is striving to give an accurate accounting, and so he includes both the positives, e.g., the covenant fulfillment of THE spirit-filled community, e.g., Deut 15:4, but also, not only external threats, but internal as well, e.g., deceit (5:1-11) and probably prejudice and discrimination (6:1-7).

Perspective makes no small contribution to one's understanding of the text. By 'perspective' I mean less than an over-arching worldview, than I do a kind of 'hermeneutic of suspicion' e.g., Paul Ricoeur, deconstructionism, et. al. According to those who readily find place for a deep suspicion of the authors of Scripture, the text is filled with ideologies that need to be identified and stripped away, both for the author and listener of the text. As an example, many believe a lack of information by Luke (acknowledged by conservatives too), e.g., what really was the problem, i.e., murmuring or prejudice? How did the appointment of the seven, practically effect a solution? And what lurks behind the supposed duty of the seven, i.e., serving tables, and the lengthy text devoted to their preaching, which seems to contradict the apostles reason for creating the group, i.e., so 'they' could be devoted to the ministry of the word? What use is the mention of "a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith"? Was there a doctrinal war emerging that finally gets resolved in Acts 15? All of this 'lack of detail' points those who are strongly suspicious toward hidden issues that the text may try to hide. From the beginning, then, this approach is very open to viewing the goal of the writers of the text with ideological suspicion, which translates into fabricating history for the purpose of that very ideology. In this sense, Luke's desire to show the NT church as fulfilment of old covenant promises, could yield an almost a dream-like description of the early church (compare Deut 15:4 with Acts 4:34). The job of the interpreter then is to 'deconstruct' the text to get at the hidden meaning; needless to say, beginning points are pivotal when it comes to interpretation.

As an Evangelical person committed to the Reformation, my view of the text does NOT entail looking for hidden meanings, conscious or not, by the authors. Not to sound overly fundamentalistic, but "how the text is received" reveals as much, if not more, than "doing the text." While I share some of the aforementioned questions put forth by those who are more liberally inclined, I am not driven by a suspicion that assumes ulterior motives and therefore see the text of Scripture as inundated with ideologies that necessarily discourage a straight forward reading of the text. To the contrary, I see no harm in taking the text at face-value, given proper historical, cultural, textual, and linguistical endeavors. I do believe many valuable gleanings are to be had with post-critical scholarship. Theologically, however, I am more committed to a hermeneutic of suspicion regarding us as readers, i.e., we do not want God to speak authoritatively, than those who wrote!

So this is the long way of stating I'm not sure what to make of the text regarding the complaint vs. grumbling. Arguments can be put forth on each end. For instance, the very verbiage of "grumbling," yields possible association with the Israelites who grumbled about the lack of food (), which if Acts 4:34 yields a fulfillment of Deut 15:4, then it would not be a stretch to see a connection also with the grumbling, i.e., Acts 6:1 and Ex 16:7-12; especially sense the LXX is mimicked so closely regarding the growth of the church in the new covenant compared with Israel in the old covenant (compare Ex. 1:7 with Acts 6:7) where the same verbiage is used to describe the increase in numbers, i.e., God's people were sojourners in the OT and in the NT (Heb 11:13); likewise, they grew in the beginning, and so the church grew in the beginning. Luke's intentional about his use of language so the reader makes the connection, and 'sees' that the followers of Jesus are really the continuation of the people of God on earth. The close verbal association would also suggest that maybe the apostolic leadership is coming under criticism, like that of Moses's day; further making the tie between God's people of the OT and that of the NT, stronger. That's why it is hard to come down hard on the sinful grumbling option vs. the legitimate complaint option; perhaps it is both. Certainly the text does not 'strongly' suggest sinful murmuring as the exclusive or even the major issue.

So is there a major point to this text, a grand theme? If one can be identified, I would say - love; that is, our fulfillment of the divine imperative to love one another. The text opened with 'increase' (v. 1) and the passage closes with a string of adverbs celebrating the same (v. 7). Sandwiched in the middle is the conflict. It was resolved, in all probability, by staffing the group in charge with those who complained, which accounted for only one-fifth of the entire community. This move was brilliant in itself. However the real point of the passage is the reason for success. The passage is clear, "And the word of God continued to increase...", it was the resolution of the complaint, or the fulfillment of love, that was responsible for the continued growth, coupled with the apostolic devotion to the ministry of the word. The main lesson is to ensure that love for one another reigns. Ortho-praxy, or right-ordered behavior toward one another, is every bit as important as ortho-doxy, or right ordered belief. Divine causation stemmed from fulfillment of the royal law. As Reformed folk correctly uphold the sovereignty of God in all things, we must never let go of the 'TENSION' in the relationship of divine/human causality. It is in and through the fulfillment of God's imperatives that God's will comes about. Such means are no less divine causality at work, than his direct action. From our vantage point, then, there is tremendous 'conditionality' to God's reign, for it calls upon our faithful response to bring it about. As Augustine correctly prayed, "Command what you will, O Lord, and will what you command." There is something very necessary and beautiful to our response. We musn't hide under the rubric of divine sovereignty. We must accept the tension and strive for obedience, knowing full well our response is called upon to bring about God's sovereign purposes!

Acts 3:22-26

2010-09-29T08:51:00.021-06:00

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)

Acts 3:1-10

2010-09-01T12:45:00.003-06:00

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!!!

Luke 1:9-14

2010-06-24T08:53:00.042-06:00

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

2010-06-17T09:56:00.001-06:00

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

2010-06-11T22:12:00.008-06:00

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!

Luke 22:21-30

2010-01-21T14:00:00.009-07:00

Last evening we looked at 1) the betrayal of our Lord (vv. 21-23), and 2) the concept of greatness (vv. 24-27), and 3) the concept of kingdom-judgment (vv. 28-30). Below we will focus only on our Lord's betrayal, for it is all we have space and time for.

A Christological insight

Christology is simply the study of ‘the person of Jesus’. How are we to understand his humanity, his divinity? With brief summary, the Councils of Nicea, in 325 A.D. and Constantinople, 381 A.D. gave us summaries of Christ’s divinity, e.g., his pre-existence, while the Councils of Ephesus, 431 A.D. and Chalcedon, 451 A.D. gave us summaries of his humanity; in particular, how the human nature was related to his divine nature. Councils are often a response to error. The Council of Ephesus responded to the view of those (Nestorian) who held that there were two persons within Christ, one divine and the other human. While the Council of Chalcedon responded to the view (Eutychian) that held that Christ only had one nature, a kind of merging of the two into one. The end result was the famous confession – filled with tension – of the two natures. It states that the two natures (human and divine) exist in Christ, “…without confusion, without change, without division and without separation.”

HOLDING ONTO THE TENSION OF HIS HUMANITY AND DIVINITY

If we don’t affirm two natures within Christ, then we are pressed to understand how he can be “fully human” or “fully divine,” both of which are extremely important. I mention this because our text makes subtle use of this tension. Jesus opens with the phrase (v. 21):

“But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.”

We can easily gloss over this too quickly and conclude this is a figure of speech that merely affirms his divinity, i.e., Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed before it happened. A metonymy is definitely present, i.e., something is presented which represents something or someone (the hand), without explicitly identifying something or someone (Judas). So Jesus’ future knowledge of Judas’s betrayal, i.e., his divine omniscience, is certainly in view. Judas’s betrayal was traitorous, and therefore was an act of treason; he betrayed the divine Christ and his kingly reign. But I believe there is something more; something humanly beautiful yet tragic.

While the “hand of him” represents something tragically schemed against our Lord, such tragedy cannot be fully appreciated without grasping the beautiful connotations embedded in “the hand” phraseology elsewhere in Scripture. In Genesis 21:18 the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, regarding her son, Ishmael, “Lift the boy up and take him ‘by the hand’ for I will make him into a great nation.” Now obviously, this is a figure of speech, an idiom, which means - come alongside him - journey with him - help him – befriend him – nurture him, and we could go on. Making Ishmael a nation was not to happen that day, but rather, “taking him by the hand” meant that she was to be in relationship with him. This is the 'positive' dimension of 'hand'. We find this dimension fleshed out in Psalm 41:9 where we see the betrayal predicted long before Christ's birth:

“Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”

Here we see a glimpse of the pain involved. Betrayal involves ‘trust’ and ‘friendship’, and such experiences bespeak ‘transparency’ and ‘vulnerability’ between two people. This verse points backward to Ge 3:15 where the serpent was prophesied to ‘strike the heel’ of the woman’s offspring, i.e., Christ, and also points forward to our text, where its fulfillment commences with Judas’s betrayal and climaxes in his Jesus’ crucifixion. The heel of the woman is struck implying a kind of defeat, i.e., Jesus is crucified; whereas the serpent’s head is struck, implying ultimate defeat, i.e., Jesus is raised to life. But we need to hold ‘the tension’ and see both the divine & human dimension. To be sure, here is glorious theology saturated with redemption, but this redemption comes at a heavy ‘human’ price - that of deep betrayal of a trusted friend. Lifting up the heel implies an attack of great deception, an ambush (Josh 8:13), a ploy, and a trap (Job 18:9), and Jesus felt all the emotions and consternation that accompanies such an act (DOTE, vol 3, p. 504). In other words, depth of wound directly parallels depth of relationship, and our Lord’s devotion to his disciples was second-to-none; he was, is, and will ever remain, our truest friend; and therefore his wounds went deep.

In summary, we as image-bearers of the divine, have significance. No one can take it away, and it doesn’t fluctuate; it’s a constant. We also, however, have a desire for our significance to be affirmed, by which its objective reality is experienced as something beautiful. Yes, this can be twisted and categorized as sinful, but it need not be, and here it is not. The desire for the affirmation of our significance is quite natural, normal and healthy. Having a friend is a rich experience of our significance. He or she affirms our personhood as a unique individual; that’s what having and being a friend partly means. When Jesus says “the hand of him,” I believe we are witnessing the human grief of betrayal and all the deep hurt this entails, but such hurt necessarily rides the coattails of human intimacy within the context of human friendship. It pained Jesus to undergo this friend’s betrayal; it hurt, just as it hurts us when someone close betrays our confidence; we are inwardly violated and wounded. We know our Lord’s response however – he gives himself for the good of his enemies – he bears their sins and defeats our great enemy – death itself, and he now calls us to behave in the same manner (Luke 6). (I am elaborating on the insight obtained from Marshall 1978, p. 808, mentioned by Bock 1996, p. 1733)

HOLDING ONTO THE TENSION OF DIVINE CAUSATION

We not only see tension within our Lord’s humanity and divinity in his friendship with Judas, but we also see tension as to the event in terms of causation. Jesus says:

“For the Son of a Man goes as it has been determined…” (v. 22a, ESV).

Luke is fond of this divine causation (Ac 2:23; 10:42; 17:26, 31). This is nothing other than God’s will set in motion, being determined by his good pleasure (Ep 1:11c). But back to back with what some describe overall as God’s sovereignty, we have human responsibility:

“…but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (v. 22b, ESV)

This is not the setting to delve into various theological/philosophical diatribes, e.g., divine middle knowledge, congruism, or the mystery of secondary causes, et al. (a profitable journey in themselves), but we must receive the tension which rides the surface; it’s what Luke wants us to receive. Humans act and are accountable, not in lieu of, but in light of, God’s all-controlling providence. They are both sandwiched together, and I believe for the purpose of creating an awe-inspired fearful reverence for God. He exists in a category all to himself; no one is like him. He is to be feared and worshipped. We cry out, “How can this be!?” As creature we are simply caught in the mystery of it all and can only cry out, with Paul, in doxological praise:

“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Luke 22:7-20

2010-01-13T22:39:00.018-07:00

Last evening we looked at 1) preparation of the Last Supper (vv. 7-12), and 2) the celebration of the Last Supper (vv. 13-20).

How are we to understand the preparations of the Passover?

While the instructions are clear and detailed, a level of ambiguity quickly enters. First, after the inquiry by the apostles, Jesus responds by saying, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, and say to the owner of the house, ‘The teacher asks: Where is the guest room…He will show you a large upper room, all furnished.” Perhaps you’re like me wondering, “Is this a miracle, or did Jesus make these plans and arrangements ahead of time?” I don’t think the text says, but we are drawn into the possibility. Perhaps we are to compare and contrast the birth of Jesus, where a room could not be obtained, but here, the Lord’s redemptive purposes are backed by the providence of God, and arrangements are not in doubt. Soon we will find that Jesus knows the future events of betrayal down to the detail of who will break the trust. He will tell Peter to his face, while leaving the act that leads to the crucifixion somewhat mysteriously hanging – creating a climate of introspection by all.

The two disciples whom Jesus sent (Peter and John) to make preparations had the responsibility of obtaining five items: 1) securing a room, 2) get the lamb slain at the temple, 3) purchase the unleavened bread, and 4) obtain the bitter herbs, and 5) get the wine. Without doubt, whether by miracle or prearrangement, the entire account has an “air of expectation and drama” (Bock), yielding a sense of heightened importance.

What is the Passover?

Its source is from the Hebrew people, and is a celebration centered around a meal, of their deliverance by God from Egyptian bondage.

⁶ "Therefore, say to the Israelites: 'I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. ⁷ I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. ⁸ And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the LORD.' " (Ex 6:6-8)

Note the promises in this announcement by God of his intervention: 1) I will bring you out & free you, 2) redeem you, 3) take you as my own, 4) I will bring you to the land, and 5) I will give it to you. On the eve of their deliverance the Passover meal is instituted (Ex 12). They were to slay a lamb (vv. 3-6), obtain bitter herbs and bread without yeast (v. 8), and sprinkle its blood on the doorframes of their own homes (v. 7), so that when the Lord comes across the land in judgment, and kills all the firstborn, the homes covered by blood will be passed over in judgment (vv.12-13). This feast was to be a lasting ordinance for generations to come (14). Technically, the Passover was an event on one day, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week duration, but loosely the two were often equated (Luke 22:1).

How did the meal unfold, and what did the various elements represent? The event started with a blessing pronounced over those in the household, then everyone would drink wine from their own cup; this is when the first cup of wine was drunk. The youngest among them would then ask this question, “Why is this night different from other nights?” The father, or host, would then recount the deliverance from Egypt (Deut 26:5-9), and explain the symbolism:

Passover lamb – the blood of the sacrificial lamb that protected the people of Israel from the angel of death; unleavened bread – the quickness of God’s deliverance; bowl of salt water – the tears shed in bondage and in crossing the Red Sea; bitter herbs – the bitterness of captivity; four cups of wine – the four promises of Exod. 6:6-7. (Stein)

Participants then would collectively recall the promises made to Abraham, and subsequently renewed with Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Upon completion of such glorious deliverance, they sang the Hallel Psalms during which a second cup of wine was drunk; this would also mark the beginning of the meal itself. After the meal, or very near its end, came the unleavened bread and bitter herbs. This was the third cup. Then the remainder of the Hallel Psalms were then sung. This was around midnight, and upon reaching this segment, a fourth cup of wine was drunk, thus marking the end.

What cup was the first cup mentioned in v. 17? Some think it was the first, some the third; and yet others, that Jesus ushered in a separate cup to speak of a New Covenant. All are perhaps interesting, but not theologically significant. It is debated whether Jesus drank all cups or stopped at some point; little significance is there as well.

What did Jesus mean when he said: “I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God”?

We have the same issue in v. 18 concerning the wine, but with a slightly different twist. There Jesus says he will not drink, “until the kingdom of God comes.” So I think it is safe to assume that fulfillment comes when the kingdom comes. That’s the easy part!

Jesus is going to partake of the Passover meal again in the kingdom of God? First, and minimally, we can say that since the Passover meal in the old covenant was but a shadow, then it will be celebrated ‘differently’ when the kingdom arrives. Some say the difference is with regard to the banquet itself; it is an eschatological banquet (see Luke 13:28-29). Second, the question as to ‘when’ this kingdom comes, or when the eschatological banquet is, needs to be addressed. Some say it must be future, the consummation (Bock. et. al.). Others see perhaps fulfillment residing in the Lord’s Supper of the NT church, while yet others attempt to split it saying vv.15-18 refer to the parousia, and vv. 19-20 refer to the Lord’s Supper (Jeremias, Ellis, et. al.). Those who deny any reference to the Lord’s supper seem to be driven more by their dislike of any prominence of the Supper, a fear of some ‘sacramentalism’ whereby something not only conveys, but actually confers salvation. I do believe the church has long too obsessed with the WHAT and HOW of his presencem e.g., transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc. I believe one NT scholar, Arthur Just, hit the nail on the head when he unpacked the timing of the kingdom of God/banquet from the perspective of the New Testament. Regarding fulfillment of the Passover, Just says:

This fulfillment occurs progressively, in a succession of events. The kingdom of God was present (in a more preliminary way) in the OT era through the patriarchs, Moses, the theocracy, the Davidic (messianic) monarchy, and the ministries of the prophets and priests. The OT Pasover will be fulfilled when Jesus, the Passover Lamb, is slain. The kingdom of God will come as the Messiah gives up his life for the world and is raised again. Then Jesus will eat and drink again with the disciples after he rises from the dead prior to his ascension (Lk. 24:30, 41-43; Jn 21:9-14; Acts 10:41). Jesus will also be with his disciples during the era of the church when they celebrate the Passover anew in the Lord’s Supper and receive his body and blood (e.g., Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:17-34). However, the complete, manifest, and final fulfillment of the Passover and of this verse will be in the eschaton (e.g., Rev 19:6-9). That is why the church still petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, “Let your kingdom come” (Lk 11:2). Only in the eschaton will the meaning and significance of the Passover be fully revealed to all. Until then, the saving power of the cross and the grace and forgiveness given in the Lord’s Supper are veiled, hidden from the eyes of the unbelieving world and “visible” only to eyes of faith.” (emphasis mine).

So like we found out with "the coming of the son of man" phraseology, here too we find elasticity. Obviously Jesus' eating, though in some sense future, will certainly not be regressive, i.e., he will not re-institute the Passover of the old covenant, so the eating will be a heavenly banquet kingdom eating, and is probably best seen as incremental levels of disclosure leading to fulfillment. That is the essential meaning of the 'New Covenant' - Christ is the lamb! This means of course that we have a certain level of eating with Christ NOW. So do you? Do you take advantage of this and eat with our Lord? In faith do you actually mesh with him, fellowship with him, enjoy him??????

What are we to glean?

When I think of Luther, the most cherished notion comes from his frequent use of the Latin phrase pro nobis which means “for me.” Fundamentally, for Luther, being a Christian is being persuaded that in the cross of Christ I find, meet, and encounter, a God who is truly for me. Jesus said in v. 19, “This is my body given for you.” And when he spoke of the wine, he said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” I said earlier, the church has focused too much on the 'what' and the 'how'; the focus should be on the fact of "on your behalf." To be sure this points to divine substitution for our sins, but what drives it? Is it an act that just floats in some black hole deep in the universe, or does it fundamentally reflect something within the being of God? I think our answer is found in Luke 1:78, where it speaks of forgiveness of sins springing forth from “the tender mercy of our God.” God’s kindness is manifested in this proleptic, i.e., calling the future into the present) event, and it is here we must pause, ponder, and wonder - that God truly loves – me!

Luke 21:5-38

2010-01-07T11:12:00.037-07:00

Last evening we looked at Jesus’ prophesy with regard to the destruction of Jerusalem and also, perhaps, the beginning of the end of the world. This is the culmination of Israel’s rejection in the midst of Jesus’ compassionate plea to bring forth the fruit of repentance. He called; he warned; he wept, and now with their resistance settled, our Lord renders a prophecy of judgment.

How do we understand a God whose patience is limited and who will judge those who resist his reign?

First, God is king. He is free to enter into relationship with humanity and dictate its parameters and demand compliance, i.e., a covenant. It is his divine right. While he sets all the parameters, one should know that they are designed for our complete and total happiness, as the second century apologist, Irenaeus, put it: “The image of God in man is man fully alive!”

Second, God is patient because in some sense, God himself would have it be otherwise. He says in Ezekiel, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?...Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ez 18:23). Jesus did not feign his weeping over Jerusalem (Lu 13:34), nor is God the Father insincere when he says that he takes “no delight” in the death of the wicked; rather, God is patient and longsuffering and does not ‘desire’ that any perish, but that all come to repentance” (2 Pe 3:9).

Third, perhaps the notion that God’s patience should ‘run out’ is a surprise to some; it might even imply to others that he is less than perfect, since God should not ‘run out’ of anything – much less patience. Scripture does say that God is “the God of patience” (Ro 15:5) – but it also declares it has limits. Paul rhetorically asks, “…do you think you will escape God’s judgment,” should you to choose to “show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance, and patience?” (Ro 2:3-4). Implied in this rhetorical device of Paul is ‘personhood’ and therefore ‘choice’. To be sure, obedience to the covenant is not optional, but it is ‘relational’, and judgment is rendered only to those who display a settled and defiant stance against that covenant relationship.

Are there two events, two judgments – one in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the other at the end of the world?
Most see Jesus addressing two - Jerusalem’s destruction (vv. 5-24) and the world’s (vv.25-36). While I agree with the first judgment, I’m less persuaded of the latter. First, if Luke is talking about the end of the world, it is the only place in the entire gospel where the historical events are unfolded. Second, there is no clear demarcation…no in-the-face indicator that Jesus has gone from discussing temple/city destruction to world-wide/destruction – no change in audience, location, or time. I believe the majority of scholars point to the prophecy concerning the coming of the Son of Man as their chief reason why they believe the end of the world is what Jesus is addressing.

What does the phrase: “the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” mean?

First, let’s acknowledge that point/counterpoint is doable in just about everything that follows, and this is not the format for ‘delving’ into the subject with detail. Second, I am going to ‘present’ an alternate view with regard to the phrase “the son of man coming,” but one that is gaining adherents among contemporary bible scholars. I myself am unsure, and will continue to ponder. The phrase “the son of man coming” is found in Daniel 7:13. RT France, an eminent NT scholar, has noted there is nothing in the context of Daniel to support the use of the phrase, as though the son of man were coming to us on earth; rather, the son of man was coming to God in heaven, which leads him to question the assumption that the phrase in the NT refers to ‘the second coming’ of Jesus. France believes in the second coming, but states there has been an unexamined assumption that the two are interchangeable. He believes, in Daniel’s context, the son of man comes to God in heaven, and therefore the phrase refers to a heavenly enthronement, after a period of suffering. In the case of the NT, then, such enthronement refers to, “the vindication and empowering of the Son of Man after his earthly rejection and suffering, when God will turn the tables on those who thought they had him in their power.” In Greek, the technical term for Jesus’ return, (parousia, which means presence, coming, advent) is used only four times in the gospels – all in Matthew, and all in chapter 24 (vv. 3, 27, 37, and 39). This is significant because at the time of Matthew’s writing (early 60s is still a minority view, but is gaining) the term ‘parousia’ was established as a formal referent for Christ’s second coming. It is noteworthy, that in Daniel, and in the NT where the Daniel passage is referred to, a very common term for coming is used, reflecting further perhaps, that the son of man passages do not necessarily refer to the second coming.

When was Jesus vindicated and empowered?

When you examine the phrase and its use in Matthew (10:23; 16:27-28; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64; 28:18) it is difficult, if not impossible, to always equate "the coming of the son of man" with Christ’s second coming. For example, take the first instance (Matt 10:23), where Jesus is speaking to his twelve apostles, and he says, “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Is Jesus referring to the second coming here? Doubtful. In its most natural sense it refers to the apostles mission, which their Lord had laid out for them previously (vv. 5-16), i.e., he limits their mission to “the house of Israel.” Now we know that mission changed to include the whole world (Mat. 28:19), and in the verse immediately preceding the inclusion of all nations, we find this phrase, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Here the Son of Man operates as king – already vindicated and empowered! Also noteworthy, is Luke 22:69 where Jesus responds to the chief priests and teachers of the law, “But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” Here he proclaims enthronement even before his death, which would lead us to take his comments in a proleptic sense, i.e., treating a future act as though it were already present.

Lastly, we need to say that since his vindication and empowerment have been referred to ‘before’ his crucifixion (Lu 22:69) and ‘after’ his crucifixion (Matt 10:23), then maybe a strict temporal placement is not what Jesus intended. But these various time-frames merely mean that the phrase should be seen as an evocative pronouncement that can be applied within various historical time-frames, and that the ultimate fulfillment is realized and recognized at the consummation of the ages – in eschatogical judgment (Matt 25:31) and/or with an emphasis on the eschatological renewal of all things (Matt 19:28).

Who is the referent in vs. 32 when Jesus says, "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened"?

Well that all depends. If verse 27 and its over-all context point to an end-times situation, then "this generation" could be: 1) a timeless evil generation, 2) the Jewish people, 3) all humanity 4) the generation in which these signs appear, or 5) the contemporary generation, which if true, then Jesus got it wrong. If, however, the assumed event of v. 27 is not the second coming, but a regal coronation or something similar, and if, as we have already seen that 'in principle' it has been applied to pre & post resurrection situations, e.g., expanded mission of the apostles, the exchange with Israel’s leadership, eschatological judgment, and eschatological renewal, then we are free to take "this generation" in its most natural sense, i.e., the generation which Jesus was speaking to when he spoke. Are there any problems with this option? Some claim the language after verse 25 is apocalyptic and strongly lends itself to an end-time scenario.

The apocalyptic language of vv. 25-26, where the natural order seems to come undone, says: “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars…the heavenly bodies will be shaken," and this also points many to seeing this as 'end-times'. But are we 'hearing' the text presumptuously? The eminent NT scholar, N.T. Wright, summarizes such language this way:

They do not speak of the collapse or end of the space-time universe. They are…typical Jewish imagery for events within the present order that are felt or perceived as ‘cosmic’ or, as we should say, ‘earth-shattering’. More particularly, they are regular Jewish imagery for events that bring the story of Israel to its appointed climax. The days of Jerusalem’s destruction would be looked upon as days of cosmic catastrophe (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 362).

So certainly it is possible that Luke doesn’t address the end-times at all. Understanding these words metaphorically isn't being liberal; rather, it is understanding the type of text before us, i.e., apocalyptic, and therefore we must interpret this as it is 'intended' to be taken. An apriori literalism is not a biblically faithful approach; rather, a text must be approached on its own merits. When Jesus talks about 'this generation', he seems to be speaking in a straight-forward historical manner. On the other hand, when he speaks of "the son of man coming," and its context of where he pulled the text does not refer to a 'going to earth', but its opposite, - a going to heaven - then we need to be careful of ascribing something 'new' to the text. In verse 32, it seems most natural to take it in a straight-forward historical sense. Any futuristic end-times sense, e.g., a wicked generation, an unbelieving generation, the Jews living when Christ returns, et. al., all seem to go against the imperatives that immediately follow, which Jesus clearly addresses to those who are listening (vv. 34-36). So historically, some of the ones listening would still be alive when the destruction of Jerusalem took place. But we must look at yet another issue before we wrap this up.

How does the temple/city destruction vindicate the Son of Man?

Remember the son of man in Daniel is one who –after his suffering – comes to God in heaven for vindication over his enemies. So when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple (his body) and I will raise it again in three days” (Jn 2:19), the resurrection – after his suffering – became the onset of vindication for the Son of Man; indeed, our resurrection continues his vindication! (Jn 6:39-40), since our resurrection is the creation of the new temple! (Eph 2:21).

Keep in mind the temple was the focal point of all Jewish worship; in itself a mere shadow, the temple was the presence of God among his people. Jesus attacked the religious system that ran the temple, and claimed over and over again that it had abdicated its responsibility, and lost its right to lead the people (Lu 11:46-52; 12:35-48; 13:34-35; 14:15-24; 15:11-32; 19:11-27; 20:9-19), and for this critique of Israel's leadership, he was killed. In not being able to discern the times (Lu 11:29-32; 12:54-56) they failed to see the fulfillment of the temple's primary meaning, i.e., presence, was always to be in the Christ, the Son of Man/Son of God. They missed the moment/event where the shadow gave way to reality. The destruction of the earthly temple in A.D. 70, which really was symbolized at the death of Jesus, when the curtain ripped in two (Mat 27:51) was vindication of the son of man, who was given all power and authority at the resurrection. The temple was gutted of its place within redemptive history; and thus Jesus and all his teachings were vindicated! Any post A.D. 70 re-creation of the temple is therefore without redemptive historical significance. In the book of Revelation, there is no temple in the new Jerusalem, because God and the lamb are its temple (Re 21:22-23). The church being joined with Christ is so unionized with him (Luther calls us 'one-cake'), that we are not even mentioned - obviously nothing can harm us, for nothing can harm "the Christ - the Son of God!" He is the temple; he is the city's light (so no need for sun or moon); indeed, in Him is the light of men!

Luke 20:41 - 21:4

2009-12-23T09:07:00.009-07:00

Last evening we looked at Jesus’ fifth of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The second was over Jesus’ prophetic parable concerning the upcoming change in leadership (vv. 9-19). The third was over paying taxes (vv. 20-26). The forth was over the resurrection, and this, the fifth controversy, is over the interpretation of Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44).

What does “Messiah” mean?

The term, as such, is actually a Greek transliteration (literally substituting a letter from one language to another) from the Aramaic (the mother language of Hebrew), which has led some to conclude the word 'Messiah' isn't in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament); rather, what sounds like messiah in Hebrew (mashiah), because it is so similar to Aramaic, should always be translated as "an anointed one." The Hebrew noun “mashiah” derives from the verb “masah” which means “to anoint, smear with oil.” Theologically it is very rich in meaning and implies: a setting apart for divine use (Gen 31:13); special status (2 Sam 23:1); divine protection (1 Sam 2:10; 2 Sam 22:51; 1 Chron 16:22; 2 Chron 6:4; Ps 2:2; 105:5; Hab 3:13); divine spirit-empowerment (Is 61:1), and not to be overlooked - divine election (Is 45:1). It was applied primarily to kings (1 Sam 2:35), priests (Lev. 4:3), and with lesser frequency, prophets (1 Ki. 19:16; Ps. 105:15). In classical Greek the verb chrio simply meant to rub/anoint. Ironically, the verbal adjective christos when used of people, was not a word of honor, but tended toward dishonor. So the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiah, is christos, which means "an anointed one," but it never carried the negative connotations of classical Greek. As Paul evangelized it might have brought some puzzlement to the Greeks, but after explaining its Hebrew meaning, it would have been all cleared up. The above positive sense of anointing was applied to Jesus, and the association was so strong it acquired the character of a proper name; thus, we get Jesus Christ. From the New Testament perspective, it is essential that the term be understood as a title, e.g., His Christ, i.e., God’s anointed elect one (Rev 11:15 ), and the Christ, i.e., the anointed one of God (Acts 18:5, 28). First and foremost, then, Christ is a designation of the holy-anointed, spirit-empowered, and elect one of God, and it is in this sense that we must understand what later became associated with the proper name, Jesus Christ.

So for those scholars who say “messiah” does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is true only in a technical sense, i.e., because the word is actually a Greek transliteration from the Aramaic, and not a translation from Hebrew. So whether one uses 'anointed one' or 'messiah', as time progressed, a significant portion of the Jewish community was expecting "someone" from God; and this person was both 'historical' (a real person) and 'eschatological' (a truly new era); both concepts were merged together with varying degrees of meaning; it's just that a singular person had not been unambiguously identified. What's clear, is that some of the promises associated with the Messianic hope had not been fully realized, and so Israel began to look for its fulfillment after her 'anointed' kings failed to deliver (Jer. 33; Is 9 and 11; Dan. 9; Micah 5:2; Zech 9 and 12).

Who was the Messiah according to the Jews?

This is similar to asking “What is the economic philosophy of American economists?” It is simply too varied to answer in the singular. In the intertestamental period alone (the time between the completion of the writing of Malachi around 400 B.C.to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem A.D. 70) some scholars have summarized six views: 1) doing away with a literal Messiah, 2) two separate types of Messiahs – kingly and priestly, 3) a substantial number viewed the messiah as a warrior-king type who would free them from Roman rule, 4) an apocalyptic Davidic king who was considered the ‘elect one’ and ‘Son of Man’, 5) the Samaritan view which is an expectation of a prophet like Moses who would restore mainly through teaching, and lastly 6) a teacher or sage (Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, p. 410, (1997)).

Did Jesus consider himself to be the Messiah?

There is considerable debate within the academic community, and it all has to do with the agreed upon fact that Jesus did not ‘push nor promote’ himself as the messiah in any overt sense. This notable fact has been captured with the phrase “the Messianic Secret.” What to do with the silence of Jesus is where the debate begins. On the far left, the silence of Jesus reflects the church’s attempt to ‘explain’ how Jesus can be something he didn’t claim for himself, i.e., the messiah, and that the church fabricated the few claims, which Jesus was suppose to have said. In other words, the church deceived the world by claiming Jesus viewed himself as the messiah. The more conservative, and less cynical, say that Jesus’ silence was normal given the volatility of the prevalent view that the messiah was a warrior-king who would overthrow Rome. Timing of his acknowledgement had to be planned accordingly, so that his death would happen according to God’s timing. In other words, Jesus implemented a strategy in light of the imminent detention and execution that would follow. One’s view primarily reflects prior suppositions, and is another topic for another time.

Did Jesus consider Ps 110 to be a Messianic Psalm, and if not, what was Jesus’ point?

In one sense it doesn’t matter. If we restrict the Psalm to a kingly notion (which has over-lap with a messianic sense), Jesus is content to claim that a mere human king is NOT what David had in view; indeed, I believe Jesus’ argument is even stronger - a mere human successor is ‘impossible’. When Jesus cites the verse of Ps. 110:1 (“The Lord said to my Lord…”), he argues for a Davidic context (which his hearers probably agreed with) and believes this proves his point, i.e., that a mere human lineage cannot be what David meant. Underlying Jesus’ argument is a working premise (again which the audience agreed with) that David would not have called his human son lord. Another working assumption of Jesus is that the notion of ‘Lord’ is so impregnated with divinity that no mere human descent could ‘flip the bill’ so to speak. Interestingly, we will see later on (Luke 22:67-70) that Jesus does view Psalm 110 as messianic and claims that he indeed is the Christ of God. Here Jesus seems content to show the impossibility of mere human descent of the Davidic Kingship, alluding of course to some divine/human necessity concerning the Messiah’s identity.

Once again Jesus’ person becomes the focus, and then Jesus follows with a critique of Israel’s leadership and worship ( Luke 20: 45-47) which abuses the most vulnerable within Jewish society, i.e., widows, and focuses on the outward appearance - as well as a positive affirmation (and perhaps with tinge of poetic justice) that true worship consists of inward devotion to God; again, exemplified by the most vulnerable within Jewish society, i.e., a widow (Luke 21:1-4).

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!- for the God-man Messiah of God has appeared to bear the sins of the world!

Luke 20:27-40

2009-12-16T15:18:00.005-07:00

Last evening we looked at Jesus’ fourth of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The second was over Jesus’ prophetic parable concerning the upcoming change in leadership (vv. 9-19). The third was over paying taxes (vv. 20-26). The fifth controversy is the interpretation over Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44), and this, the fourth, is over the resurrection (vv. 27-40).

Who were the Sadducees?

Essentially they were aristocrats; they were wealthy land owners whose influence was mostly seen within and around Jerusalem. Their date of origin is usually set between 160-134 B.C. Ever since their beginnings they have had an ongoing power struggle with the Pharisees. They regained considerable power when Judea became a Roman province in A.D. 6. After that date they dominated the Sanhedrin (though some Pharisees were present too), the Scribal circles (though some Pharisees were scribes as well), and the chief & high priestly ranks (Acts 5:17 - though some Pharisees reached those levels too); in other words, they dominated the temple life within Israel. Their domination stemmed from wealth, and were considered “rigidly conservative” (ISBE, p.279) at least in two respects. First, they did not like change. Coupled with money and positions of power they much preferred ‘the status quo’; it benefited them immensely. Second, they held to a restricted source of authority, tenaciously clinging to the Torah – the first five books of Moses. They rejected as binding authority, the oral law tradition, which the Pharisees readily embraced (the Pharisees claimed oral tradition went back to Moses), and some of the early church Fathers (Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome) said the Sadducees did not recognize the prophetic books within their canon. But this claim is questionable at best, as between the testaments there was wide-spread consensus that the writings of the prophets were indeed Scripture. Furthermore, the sources which give us the history of the Sadducees (Jerome and Talmudic) were written from the Pharisaic perspective, and the latter written after the demise of the Sadducees. So conclusions must be held with caution. Conservative though they were, they were not well liked by the people. They were seen as aloof and detached, and viewed as reaping the benefits of the status quo. For all of the reasons above, they were favored by Rome, who cherished social stability. Theologically, they rejected the resurrection of the body (Lu 20:27-40; Acts 4:12; 23:80); indeed, Josephus said they didn’t believe in existence after death (Ant. XVIII.l.4[16]), and they denied the existence of angels and spirits (Acts 23:8).

The Sadducees attempt to show why a resurrection is absurd

Here they seek to show the utter absurdity of a resurrection. A woman through Levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10) had seven husbands (all from the brothers of her first husband), and each husband died without impregnating her, thus leaving her childless. Finally, the woman dies. Sarcastically they ask Jesus (Luke 20: 33), “Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Jesus refutes the Sadducees by contrasting the ‘two ages’

Jesus refutes their position – not by denying the absurdity (to the contrary, Jesus affirms it!), but by denying the premise, i.e., all things remain the same.

Jesus says, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage (v. 34).” The phrase ‘this age’ can refer to an over-all value judgment of God against the world as evil (Gal 1:4), or it can refer to every source of knowledge outside the message of the cross (1 Cor 3:18ff), and even still, it can refer simply to the age which believers partake of along with unbelievers (Luke 18:29-30). It is the latter meaning, I believe, that is present in this text. Marriage is a common arrangement for both believer and unbeliever alike.

Jesus juxtaposes those of ‘this’ age with those of that age …[who] "will neither marry nor be given in marriage" (v. 35). While Scripture says we don’t know what our resurrected bodies will be like (1Cor 15:35ff); here, it says we will be “equal” to the angels. Such equality, however, is delimited by the phrase “for they cannot die.” We mustn’t see support here for androgynous existence. The connective ‘for’ explains equality in terms of ‘not dying’. Angels do not procreate because they do not die; likewise, when we no longer are subjected to death, then there will be no need to procreate.[1] Marriage, then, will cease to exist, and that makes the Sadducee’s point moot. In the resurrection ‘the natural earthy body’ of this age gives way to a ‘spiritual heavenly body’ of the age to come. The two ages operate on two very different levels of being. What does that mean? I don’t know and neither did Paul. He was simply left with contrasts, e.g., natural, earthly, perishable, and mortal vs. spiritual, heavenly, imperishable and immortal! Beyond this we dare not go.

Jesus refutes the Sadducees by deducing resurrection from God’s exchange with Moses.

Next, Jesus turns to the Sadducee’s recognized authority, the Torah. He cites God’s exchange with Moses (Ex 3:6) wherein God says, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” and concludes by saying, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him” (v. 38). Luke’s added phrase (neither Matt nor Mark have it) “for all live to him,” would seem to point toward God as a being who promotes a culture of life rather than death, e.g., Acts 3:15; 17:28; Col. 1:16; 3:3-4; 11:36.

Furthermore, the phrase “God of” means that God is the savior, protector, and deliverer of those whom he declares to be in covenant with, e.g., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, et al. And while if one lived a good long life, and was blessed with many offspring, no one in the Jewish culture would have deemed God as having failed as savior, protector, and deliverer, e.g., the Sadducees, but as God’s revelation progressed in history, faith reached for higher provisions of these promises, and so death itself was looked upon as an enemy that needed to be defeated (Dreyfus as delineated by Nolland). But I think there’s even more. I don’t think we need ‘increased expectation’ to explain the belief of a resurrection; to the contrary, Abraham himself was given ‘promises’, and Abraham must ‘see them’ realized (Heb. 11:13-16); otherwise, the promises would lack extensive realization, and as great as God is, such a lack would be incompatible with God as savior, protector, and deliverer. It delights him to no-end for Abraham and all his children to see the promises realized, and therefore, there is a resurrection! So don't be a Saduccee, for the are (sad-you-see) because they deny the resurrection!

In our blessed hope,

Nate

[1] Any sex in heaven? Probably not. This has troubled many modern commentators, for it seems to suggest sex was for but one solitary purpose: procreation (even Roman Catholicism advocates a dual purpose within sexual intimacy – both a creative and a unitive aspect. The unitive is distinguishable yet not separable from openness to the creative). One may wonder why the ‘unitive’ aspect of sexual intimacy could not continue; or for that matter, one may wonder why ‘no more people’ follows from 'no more death'? Such does not logically follow by any necessity that I can detect. Some have said that what disappears in heaven, though proper and needed in this life, is the 'exclusivity' of the marriage relationship (Wiles (Theol 60 [1957] 500-502) in Nolland). At the risk of being accused of being neo-platonic, my best take would be to say that sexual intimacy in this life points to a grandeur intimacy, and so love-making as we now know it (earthy and of this age), yields to its corresponding and consummate reality (heavenly and of the age to come) of which sexual intimacy pointed to all along (Eph 5:25ff).

Luke 20:20-26

2009-12-09T11:15:00.002-07:00

Last week we looked at Jesus’ second of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The second was over Jesus’ prophetic parable concerning the upcoming change in leadership (vv. 9-19). The fourth is resurrection and marriage (vv. 27-39). The fifth controversy is the interpretation over Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44), and this, the third, is paying taxes (vv. 20-26).

On a literary level (because Luke is selecting which events to cover), and on an historical one (because these events actually occurred), we are witnessing a little ‘poetic justice’. The leadership is attempting to do to Jesus, what Jesus had earlier done to them, but it backfires, and once again they are left speechless. Earlier when Jesus asked, “Was John’s baptism from God or men?” he, in effect, presented them with a ‘no win’ situation. They could not answer ‘from God’ as it would beg the question why they didn’t submit to John’s message and be baptized. Nor could they answer ‘from men’ or the people might stone them. They were forced into silence; they simply were ‘out strategized’ by our Lord. Now it’s pay-back time. They figure one good turn deserves another, and they are willing to sacrifice a bishop (or a rook or even a queen?) in their little game of chess with Jesus. What they implicitly denied earlier by questioning his authority, i.e. that he was from God and spoke the truth, they now all but affirm with the words, “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right…” Since the text says the leadership was hoping to ‘catch’ Jesus in saying something that was condemnable, we are free to summarize by saying: What they couldn’t accomplish with direct communication, they now try with flattery. We all know that a stroked ego is susceptible to its own aggrandizement; nothing produces over-confidence quite like success!

Now a three-fold cord of anything is hard to deal with (Ec. 4:12), let alone flattery, and we should ponder a bit just how much they are willing ‘to give’ Jesus in order to bring him down. They acknowledge that Jesus 1) teaches what is right, 2) is impartial, and 3) teaches ‘the way’ in accordance with the truth. But are they just engaging in lip-homage, or does their cajolery reflect a deeper entrapment scheme? We must exercise caution here, but it seems that Israel’s leadership (including the apostles) expected the kingdom to arrive in a single all-encompassing event. So now, if Jesus is going to speak candidly (which they now admit he does); if he perceives the time is ‘at hand’ (which he has proclaimed), then at some point the allegiance to Rome (exemplified by paying taxes) must be replaced with non-compromising allegiance to the God of Israel! They know the Scriptures; God’s kingdom does not tolerate divided loyalties! They know and believe this is what Scripture teaches, so in effect they might be presenting Jesus with an allegiance challenge – “which kingdom, Jesus > God’s or Caesar’s?”

Reason would dictate that Jesus is in no position to lead a revolution, yet their idea of the kingdom entails getting out from under Roman rule. Some think that the leadership might have been alluding to Is. 44:5 where in eschatological fashion God speaks of inscribing God’s name on those who are a part of such a revolution. So if Jesus’ over-inflated ego aligns himself with some end-times fulfillment (and obviously he did) then perhaps evidence of ‘political insubordination’ will give them just what they need to hand him over to the authorities. In giving away what they earlier chose not to acknowledge, i.e., he teaches correctly and his authority is from God, they expect high dividends, and feel quite strongly that this is their moment. If Jesus cowers, then the fanaticism with which the people had been surrounding him might quickly deflate; on the other hand, if he rises to the occasion, then they’ve got him for insubordination to Rome! Jesus appears to be in the exact position he placed Israel’s leadership in earlier – a no-win situation. We need to keep in mind that the leadership’s move is hypocritical. They truly want Rome over-thrown, but when it serves their purposes, they will lean on Rome to do their bidding. They demonstrate they can feign honor as easily as they can feign ignorance.

What Israel’s leadership presented as an either/or, Jesus responded with a both/and – an absolutely brilliant maneuver! In typical Messianic fashion, “he perceived” their crafty entrapment, and dealt with it accordingly; he boldly asserted that to honor God means to honor the state. So instead of Jesus and his movement being deflated, the question itself deflates! Poetic justice indeed! What the donkey-riding king did successfully - posing a no-win situation with an either/or question - the well establish money-infested leadership of Israel was unable to do; rather, their mimetic strategy fritters into oblivion. This is seen from their response, “…marveling at his answer, they became silent.” Luke keeps this motif of grand reversal on many levels and implements many literary devices, e.g., paradox, irony, and poetic justice (as seen above); here, it operates on the level of paradox. God’s control and authority are somewhat hidden, but for the leadership of Israel, it rises in the most unfortunate of circumstances and at the most inopportune moments. God’s chosen one > the God-man, whom God chose to present as a non-accredited and humble prophet rising out of obscurity – literally dismantles the highest accredited leadership of Israel, one exchange after another – truly a divine work of art! Simeon’s earlier prophesy that Jesus would be responsible “for the rising and fall of many in Israel (Luke 2:34), is happening before their very eyes, but Jesus is from Nazareth – a non-credentialed person from a no-name locale! What’s not evident, but should be recognized, is divine humor, i.e., stripping the corrupt authority structures of their hubris; and it is to be seen even in the presence of the imminent and ominous event of the cross. Ironically, based on their own assumptions, the very coins they have in their pockets and present to Jesus, give evidence of their corrupt loyalties, for it is evidence that taxation and profits flow freely within their midst! Furthermore, we will see that allegiance is foremost a heart matter, and though Jesus just approved of two spheres/kingdoms, corruption is still possible, as was seen earlier by means of the money changers (Lu 19:45) and what we will see when Jesus discusses robes and widows (Lu 20: 46-47). Paradox is heightened beyond imagination when this victorious, non-checkmated, donkey-ridding king is put to death; his kingdom seems doomed. But we’ll have to wait for Luke to masterfully show us how Jesus truly ushered in a divine coup d’état! To be sure, at this point, even his followers are a bit perplexed as well: Is Jesus advocating two spheres, or even more, two separate kingdoms? What happens when there’s conflict between these legitimate spheres/kingdoms and the allegiance due? Sorry, for the moment, we can only go where Jesus takes us, and he doesn’t go there.

Nate

Luke 20:9-19

2009-12-08T17:40:00.000-07:00

Last evening we took a look at the second of five ‘controversies’ with Israel’s leadership after entering Jerusalem. The first controversy was over the authority of Jesus (vv. 1-8). The third is paying taxes (vv. 20-26). The fourth is resurrection and marriage (vv. 27-39). The fifth controversy is the interpretation over Psalm 110 (vv. 41-44), and this, the second, is Israel’s rejection of God’s messengers and its consequences (vv. 9-19).

This parable is definitely an allegorical parable.(1) Allegory has been used and abused in the history of Christian interpretation; indeed, it was so abused perhaps we could say that the Reformation was as much a hermeneutical revolution as it was a doctrinal revolution. Luther was blunt and adamant (not that he was always consistent), and incisive when he said, “What is theology, but grammar applied to the text?” By that, of course, Luther meant that the correct way of understanding Scripture is in its plain, literal, and historic sense, not in some fanciful deeper mystery. And while that emphasis was much needed during Luther’s time, it was a ‘corrective’(2) against abuse; allegory is undeniably present in many texts, including this one. But what is allegory? Some say it is an “extended metaphor.” A metaphor, as its etymology states, is a “transference” of meaning from one thing to another. When we say “God is my rock,” we do not mean that God is literally a rock, but rather the solidity of ‘rockness’ brings out God’s strength and dependability; likewise, an allegory functions in a similar, yet extended manner. We could say that a metaphor functions implicitly in its transference of meaning whereas allegory functions explicitly. Perhaps an oxymoron is needed. Dare we say that an allegory is more concretely symbolic in its representation?!

One word of caution: Don’t over-interpret the symbolism. Such interpretive activity can easily get fanciful, e.g., perhaps the most famous parable, The Prodigal Son, the ring given to the prodigal by the father was said to possibly ‘represent’ Christian baptism and the banquet, the Lord’s Supper (Tertullian). So again, we must exercise caution. One sound principle reflecting Christian humility is that - if there are a variety of interpretations as to the symbolism of a given item, then we should be cautious in affirming its significance.

Having cleared that all up :), what are the concrete transfers within our text, and what do they mean? Most who acknowledge allegory see at least three principle players: 1) vineyard owner = God, 2) original tenants = Israel’s leadership, and 3) new tenants = a new leadership, i.e., within or without Israel. Others see more: 4) the son is Jesus, 5) the servants are the prophets, and 6) the vineyard is people of Israel, or the kingdom.

vineyard owner

servants?
son?
vineyard?
new tenants original tenants

(1) For an excellent summary of all the issues, applied to Jesus’ parables, see: Interpreting the Parables, by Craig Blomberg
(2) Corrective measures often over-reach. In our text, the story so matches God’s relationship with Israel (Is 5:1-7), and therefore its allegorical intent is almost undeniable, that many modern scholars deny that Jesus spoke it, and some even go so far as to say that the presence of allegory ‘means’ someone, i.e., most often the Christian church, added these as a way of ‘re-writing history’.

Nate