Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 9)

These heralding words from the letter to the Ephesians, and more importantly for purposes of this study, the heralding words that are employed in the first letter to Timothy, are so much more than words that a client would use in honor of his patron.  They are words, as already indicated, that would be reserved for the honoring of the world’s patron (the patron of patrons), who was Caesar.  It serves as yet another indication to an alert listener or reader, that Paul, and those communities being formed around the claims of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord), stand in opposition to much of the prevailing culture of the day and are intended to be a transformative element within that culture. 

This transformation will not occur through denouncing the surrounding culture as hell-bound, perverse, or any number of adjectives that do much to polarize and little to effect change.  While there is certainly a mystical power in the pronouncement that Jesus is Lord, one can certainly agree that the power is magnified if the life of the speaker accords with the claim.  This goes well beyond the avoidance of things that are determined to be “sins” or that which is to be avoided by Christians, having much more to do with an active engagement with the culture that demonstrates the Lordship of Jesus over every area of life. 

The pronouncement of condemnation on anything and everything that does not align with one’s personal viewpoint is hardly effective, and the condoning of such activities would have to be read into the Scriptures in a way that lacks context or coherence.  This approach would probably fail to take into account the historical movement of Scripture, the over-arching meta-narrative of exile and exodus by which the Scriptures ask to be read, and the covenant and covenant-people framework on offer throughout the whole of the Bible that defines the people of the Creator God and that God’s mission in and for His world. 

Attempts to use Jesus’ harsh words against the leaders of the people, His actions in the Temple, or the sharp words of the prophets and the apostles as justification for harshness or ugliness that is merely cloaked in the veil of a pseudo-love, would be to abuse and misuse those words and actions, especially considering the fact that the harshness is so often directed to the covenant God’s covenant people.  Though one can look through the prophets and certainly find words of the Creator God’s condemnation directed towards the nations that surrounded and often mistreated Israel, not only is there a need to remember that such words were subsequent to the Creator God’s judgment of His people, but also to remember that this God’s taking up of human flesh and going to a cross in order to die for His enemies (after telling His people to pray for and love their enemies) pretty much changes everything.   

Distance from the text, both historically and culturally, especially for those in the western world, should lead away from dogmatism in engagement with respective cultures, and towards a compassionate, inquisitive, and mercy-tinged engagement that recognizes shortcomings and a lack of complete knowledge.  When one looks at the New Testament, what must be seen behind the text are communities that are struggling to come to terms with what is implied by the life of Jesus and the kingdom of the Creator God that has been inaugurated by His Resurrection, especially considering that said kingdom has been inaugurated in a way that was completely unexpected. 

This struggle, which can be seen in the New Testament and in the records and writings of the early church, encouragingly informs those that care to see that there has never been a monolithic “orthodoxy” at any point in time in the history of Christianity.  Therefore, any believer’s struggles, in attempting come to terms with the message of Jesus and His kingdom so that it might be possible to effectively, correctly, and faithfully engage the cultures in which the believers finds himself immersed, should inspire humility and a compassion for others, as the believers both depends upon and attempts to reflect the compassion of their covenant God as embodied by the Christ.     

Corinth's Communion (part 9)

If personal concerns are at the fore when one participates in the communion table, then attempts taken to determine what it would mean to take the elements in an unworthy manner, along with an examination of self, juxtaposed with the irrelevant notion of examining oneself to see if one is in the faith, then this would most likely devolve into an idea that sins must be confessed before taking communion so that the participant will then be worthy to receive the symbols of the body and blood. 

Conversely, some would declare that this type of self-examination is precisely not what is to take place, as it puts the focus on one’s own self rather than on Jesus, and that Paul is indicating that the focus must be on Jesus, with the bread and the cup acting as useful symbols that allow such a focus to be maintained.  Therefore, in a strange twist, it is declared that confession of personal sins in order to become worthy is that which makes one unworthy, as doing so is nothing more than part and parcel of an attempt to work towards one’s salvation and is therefore a denial of grace, which is ultimately taken to be a denial of Jesus. 

Beyond that, semantics and grammar are brought into play, and it is declared that proper understanding is had when one sees that “unworthy” is not the word that is used, but rather “unworthily,” which is then what makes all the difference in the world, with a determination as to whether the word in question is meant to be taken as modifying the noun or the verb.  Now, this is not the place to delve into whether or not the proper word is the adjective unworthy or the adverb unworthily, and basing an entire communion methodology upon what is implied by the differences between the two. 

Getting focused on such a thing would seem to miss the point either way, as determining if one is supposed to be focusing on self and sins as opposed to Jesus and His sacrifice, may be an unwarranted flight into a disconnected and individualized spiritualization in the realm of personal concern and the final destination of one’s eternal soul.  This would be another instance of losing focus on the larger movement of the letter itself and the kingdom community, of forgetting the environment into which Paul writes and the concerns that he is raising and addressing within this entire section that runs as one unit from at least the seventeenth verse through the thirty-fourth verse, while also failing to consider the fact that there is a very real and known situation that would be readily identified by Paul’s intended hearers. 

Quite frankly, though the thoughts and actions of individual persons are in view here, it seems clear, at least based on the way that Paul has introduced the specific topic of communion as well as what follows (verses twenty-seven through thirty-four), that it is the actions of this church as a group---as a body---when they are coming together for what they are erroneously referring to as the Lord’s Supper (their actions making it an erroneous application) that is the concern, and the demand is placed upon the reader to see, hear, and understand the situation in this way.  

Experts In The Law (part 1)

They devour widows property, and as a show make long prayers… - Luke 20:47a  (NET)

In the forty-fifth verse of chapter twenty of his Gospel, Luke informs his audience that Jesus was speaking specifically to His disciples, but that “all the people were listening.”  As these two groups of people were listening to Jesus, they heard Him say “Beware of the experts in the law” (20:46a).  This phrase, “experts in the law,” is an oft-recurring phrase in all of the Gospel accounts.  At this point in Luke’s narrative, this phrase has already been used a number of times, thus creating an expectation on the part of those that are hearing this Gospel record read aloud (most likely in a performance fashion) in a single sitting. 

The first time this phrase is heard is in the fifth chapter.  There, Jesus has healed a paralyzed man, while also informing him that his sins were forgiven (5:20).  Without going in to all of the nuances of what was connoted by talk of the forgiveness of sins in first century Jewish thought, Jesus’ statement prompts a response on the parts of the “experts in the law and the Pharisees” (5:21a), as they “began to think to themselves, ‘Who is this man who is uttering blasphemies?  Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (5:21b) 

To that thought must be added the fact that the Temple in Jerusalem, with its attendant priesthood, was understood to be the place of the Creator God’s mediation of the forgiveness of sins.  Therefore, Luke is communicating through his record of Jesus’ words and actions (with this record coming post-crucifixion and Resurrection) , that Jesus is seemingly offering implicit information about His own mission and the way that He perceives Himself. 

As a presumed forgiver of sins, Jesus is blatantly (and purposely) usurping the role of the Temple and the priests (Luke’s record indicates that Jesus will have much to say about the Temple and its leaders), while becoming a threat to the livelihood of those who managed the Temple.  This usurpation is also a commentary on the legitimacy and need for the Temple.  Thus, the reaction of the experts in the law and the Pharisees cannot be disconnected from this commentary on the Temple, which these two groups, in many ways, served and legitimated.  By calling the Temple itself into question through His actions and His mediation of forgiveness, Jesus is calling into question the roles of the experts in the law and the Pharisees as well.  This creates a charged situation and introduces a new dynamic into the culture. 

Now, just in case His words and actions of healing and forgiveness were not quite explicit enough, and just in case the challenge that He was offering to the Temple (which would have been well understood by Luke’s Jewish hearers) was not overt enough, Jesus adds “so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (5:24a).  So not only is Jesus acting in a messianic fashion, stoking hopes of rebellion and revolution and the overthrow of Rome that will bring an end to the occupation of Israel and thus making Himself a target for the empire, Jesus is making Himself a target for the Temple regime as well. 

In This Is Love (part 8)

From viewing Israel as son of God, one then moves on to the next explicit revelation of a son of God, which is to be found in Israel’s king, Solomon.  After Solomon’s father David had settled into his role as king of Israel, the Creator God is reported to have spoken to him and given him a promise.  That promise was related to David’s dynasty in general, and more specifically to his immediate successor on the throne.  The God of Israel told David: “When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed  you, and I will establish his kingdom.  He will build a house for My name, and I will make his dynasty permanent” (2 Samuel 7:12-13). 

More importantly, at least for purposes of this study, to this was added “I will become his father and he will become My son” (7:14a).  Now, while one can certainly use this promise as a looking forward to Jesus and the true kingdom and truly permanent dynasty, one can also undoubtedly know that this refers to Solomon.  The Creator goes on to insist that “When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings” (7:14b).  Though the second part of this statement can eventually be applied to Jesus, it would be difficult to make the first part do the same, so it is appropriate to almost assuredly assert divine reference to Solomon, and view him as yet another revelation of the son of God. 

With what has been spoken by the Creator God, it becomes possible to recognize that this title of the son of God, though it is here being applied specifically to Solomon, can also be applied to the kings of Israel.  This can be said in the context of the concept of the king of Israel as representative of the people, which is also of dreadful importance to a proper Christology, if one hopes to rightly understand what was accomplished by the covenant God in and through the Christ.  If Israel is the son of God that is revealed and tasked to destroy the works of the devil, then it is only appropriate that the king, if also called the son, engage in this revealed role as well. 

Additionally, as the Creator God promised to correct Israel if it entered into unrighteousness (failing to live up to its covenant) and provided a rather detailed list of calamities that would be visited upon His people (which are found in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28), so also does the promise come in connection with the king that is directly referenced by the Creator God as being His son.  As has already been seen, the God of Israel speaks of correction to come to Solomon if he is to violate His covenant responsibilities and fall into unrighteousness, as reference is made to the rods of men and the infliction of wounds. 

As the story of the Creator God’s elect people began with such high hopes, so also does much hope adjoin the commencement of the record of Solomon’s rule.  His kingdom was established, and this is said of His kingdom in much the same way that it is said that Israel was able to make an entrance into the land of promise.  Solomon, firmly entrenched in the kingship (1 Kings 2:46), is said to have thrown himself upon the mercy of his God, asking for discernment so as to justly rule that God’s people.  He is reported to have demonstrated wisdom, gained wealth and fame, and achieved peace on all sides.  Along with that, remembering that the Creator Himself is understood to have built Himself a Temple (the Genesis account), Solomon goes on to build the Temple of the Lord (as the Creator God has promised David would happen).  

In This Is Love (part 2)

To talk of the Father’s love and becoming children of the Creator God is added: “Dear friends, we are God’s children now” (3:2a), which the author of the letter insists is the case even while admitting that there is a mystery to the purpose of being the children of that God, as he writes “what we will be has not yet been revealed” (3:2b).  From here, though confessing that he does not know the precise reason that he and others are have become the children of God or what exactly it will look like when they are functioning as the children of God, he goes on to write that “We know that whenever it (or He) is revealed we will be like Him” (3:2c). 

Furthermore, the author goes on to insist that “Jesus was revealed to take away sins” (3:5a).  Is it not of the utmost interest that the practice of righteousness (faithfulness to the requirements of the covenant---a right standing) is connected to being fathered by the covenant God and to being His children, with this immediately connected to that which is “revealed”?  “Revealed” is used three times in relatively rapid succession before the author makes his grand claim that “the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.”  This, of course, is the devil who it has been said has been sinning from the beginning.  

So here the term “righteousness” or “covenant faithfulness” is now connected to the children of God.  Righteousness is ascribed to Jesus, as the author wants all to know that He is faithful to the covenant.  The Son of God, who presumably also operates in righteousness (meeting all covenant requirements), is revealed and sent to destroy the works of the devil, and this seems to be roughly equated, by the author, with being an atoning sacrifice for sins as part of the activity of the love of the Creator God.  As has been said, the devil has been operating outside the bounds of the covenant---in covenant unfaithfulness---since the beginning.  This, presumably, is what necessitated the revelation of the Son of God, so that such work could be destroyed.  This then is the mission of the Son of God. 

Inevitably, proper consideration of authorial intent drives one back to the beginning (since the beginning is mentioned), so for the purpose of gaining a more in-depth understanding, one is forced to look to the book of Genesis (the beginning) and to the first revelation of the Son of God.  Demonstrating that such is necessary and proper when considering Jesus, it is worth noting in the Gospel of Luke, as the narrative recounts the genealogy of Jesus, traces that lineage back to Adam.  In that presentation, Adam is referred to as the son of God.  If Adam is the son of God, then he was placed in this world (or revealed) to destroy the works of the devil. 

This forces the reader into the realm of cosmology, to look at the beginning of the beginning as far as one with an Israelite worldview is concerned, where one finds that the God of Israel created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).  Somehow and for some reason, without going to deeply into this and thereby getting dramatically off-topic, the earth became “without shape and empty” (1:2), or traditionally, “without form, and void.”  The Hebrew words used in this passage, “tohu” and “bohu,” are often taken to imply that this is a new situation far afield from what had been intended by the Creator when He brought the cosmos into existence.  

Nebuchadnezzar's Fall (part 1)

It is you, O king!  For you have become great and strong.  Your greatness is such that it reaches to heaven, and your authority to the ends of the earth. – Daniel 4:22  (NET)

In the prophetic and apocalyptic work of Daniel, it is said that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had been “frightened badly” (4:5) by a dream.  He would come to recount the dream to Daniel, and Daniel proceeded to inform him as to the meaning and interpretation of that dream.  It is said that Nebuchadnezzar had been frightened by his dream, whereas Daniel was upset and alarmed at what it was that he was going to have to tell the king, going so far as to say “if only the dream were for your enemies and its interpretation applied to your adversaries” (4:19).  One should take a moment to imagine what it would be like to hear such words from somebody that has proven to be reliable in their interpretation of dreams. 

The king had dreamed about a tree “whose top reached to the sky, and which could be seen in all the land, whose foliage was attractive and its fruit plentiful, and from which there was food available for all” (4:20b-21a).  This, Daniel said, represented Nebuchadnezzar.  However, the command came to “Chop down the tree and destroy it, but leave its taproot in the ground, with a band of iron and bronze around it, surrounded by the grass of the field.  Let it become damp with the dew of the sky, and let it live with the wild animals, until seven periods of time go by for him” (4:23b). 

Before going any further, it should be pointed out that just before Nebuchadnezzar tells his dream to Daniel, he had made the proclamation to the whole of his empire, in regards to Daniel and Israel’s God: “How great are His signs!  How mighty are His wonders!  His kingdom will last forever, and his authority continues from one generation to the next” (4:3).  Interestingly, within seconds it seems (at least as far as the Biblical narrative stands, though it could have been a much longer period of time between the two events), Nebuchadnezzar is being given a dream which, as he will hear, has him being cut down and temporarily removed from his place of power. 

Having informed the king that it is he that is the tree of his dream, Daniel tells him that “It is the decision of the Most High that this has happened to my lord the king.  You will be driven from human society, and you will live with the wild animals.  You will be fed grass like oxen, and you will become damp with the dew of the sky.  Seven periods of time will pass by for you, before you understand that the Most High is ruler over human kingdoms and gives them to whomever he wishes” (4:24b-25).  This must have certainly been a bit befuddling to the king, especially when viewed in the light of his grand proclamation concerning this very same God.  Also, this is the same Nebuchadnezzar that the Creator God has raised up, and who seems to realize that he has been raised up, to bring that God’s judgment upon and against His covenant people that had failed to live up to their covenant obligation to be a light to all nations and reflect His glory into the world. 

However, Daniel does not leave Nebuchadnezzar without hope.  He continues his explanation of the dream, saying “They said to leave the taproot of the tree, for your kingdom will be restored to you when you come to understand that heaven rules” (4:26).  Daniel’s prescription to Nebuchadnezzar, in light of his pending problem, was to “Break away from your sins by doing what is right, and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor” (4:27b).  The narrative informs the reader that just twelve months later “all of this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar” (4:28). 

Fleshly Desires & Despising Authority (part 1 of 3)

…especially those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority. – 2 Peter 2:10  (NET)       

How should one go about interpreting and understanding what it is that is being communicated in this second chapter of the second epistle of Peter?  When one reads about the indulgence of fleshly desires and the despising of authority, there is most likely a temptation, owning to the almost thorough inculcation by modern-day Western Christendom, to understand this according to “spiritual” things.  In so doing, “fleshly desires” become those “sins” in which one desires to partake, while “despise authority” comes to be understood as rebellion against pastors and church leaders that are attempting to get their congregants to live “holy lives.” 

However, as one looks through this chapter, is it not possible to see traces of that first-century revolutionary fervor and messianic expectation and ongoing desire for rebellion against Rome that was so incredibly rampant?  Might it be possible to place this writing in a historical context, and thereby gain a better understanding of the message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord and King)?  Let’s find out.

The author writes, “But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you” (2:1a).  Simple enough so far, as past is prelude to present for the author’s audience.  It is said that “These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies” (2:1b), which is what false teachers are generally in the habit of doing, “even to the point of denying the Master Who bought them” (2:1c).  Clearly, the “Master” here should be understood to be Jesus.  What is the denial of Jesus?  Naturally, it is the denial that He is the Messiah.  If one denies that Jesus is the Messiah, the natural corollary is to continue looking for and pointing to potential messianic figures that could eventually be counted on to rise up to overthrow Rome through a gathered military might.  Ongoing evidence of this way of thinking can be observed for over one hundred years after the death and Resurrection of Jesus.  By extension then, denying that Jesus is the Messiah includes the denial of His way of going about bringing in the kingdom of God.

Just as there were messianic claimants and attempted revolutions before Jesus, so too there were messianic claimants and attempted revolutions after Jesus.  The re-subjugation of Palestine between 66 and 70AD, which included the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, was the result of these continued messianic movements.  Owing to this, one could certainly speak of “destructive heresies,” with this destruction being of a very real sort.  Going on then, one indeed finds “As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves” (2:1d).  This is both prophetic and eminently practical in its application.  Because by all estimates, the four hundred ninety years of Daniel had come and gone without any discernible actions that would demonstrate that God had vindicated His people by placing Israel, under their messiah, as the head of all nations, a denial that Jesus was the Messiah would only lead to furious and fervent actions on the part of His people (Israel) to take it upon themselves to prove their God’s covenant faithfulness, doing so by taking up arms against their oppressors in the tradition of the Maccabees of old (2nd century BC).

The reader/hearer then goes on to find, “And many will follow their debauched lifestyles.  Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered” (2:2).  Remember, this false teaching is predicated on denying the Master, which includes, at the very least, the denial of Jesus’ Messianic claims, status, and ways.  Certainly, one could say that denying Jesus, which would also entail the denial of His Resurrection as His vindication, would be a slandering of the way of truth.  

Hezekiah's Prayer (part 3 of 3)

Hezekiah goes on to exclaim, “Look, the grief I experienced was for my benefit.  You delivered me from the Pit of oblivion.  For You removed all my sins from Your sight” (38:17).  Apparently, Hezekiah was made to be thankful for both the sickness and the deliverance.  Not only that, but by connecting his sickness with sin (failure to rightly bear the divine image), Hezekiah demonstrated that he understood that the sickness that he carried resulted from his violations of the divine covenant.  Not only was sickness understood to be a curse that entered into the world with man’s fall, but sickness was also associated with Israel’s failure to keep covenant with their God.  The Creator God had promised sickness to His people , while also promising that if they repented from their failure to keep covenant, He would remove the associated curses. 

As it applied to the whole of God’s covenant people, so it also applied to the king.  Hezekiah, as the representative of the people, linked the removal of his sickness with the removal of sins.  Furthermore, because being conquered by a foreign people was part of the Creator God’s curse that would be directed toward His people if they were to completely disregard His covenant, and as this recovery from sickness and its attendant prayer follows closely on the heels of the expulsion of Assyria from Judah when it looked as if they were about to suffer the same fate as the northern kingdom of Israel, the removal of his sins (forgiveness), as evidenced by his healing, is also closely linked to the covenant God’s removal of the sins of His people (forgiveness), as evidenced by God Himself by the narrative that presents their God Himself intervening and defeating the Assyrians and sending them away.

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the kings of Israel and Judah were the representatives of God’s people.  When David numbered the people, though this was his action alone, the people suffered.  When Manasseh brought Judah to the pinnacle of its idolatry, it was in conjunction with this that their God declared, with no reversal (though the judgment would be briefly stayed), that Judah would be conquered and sent into captivity (the promised curse would come).  In addition, Israel also held to the idea of a vicarious sacrifice for the removal of sins, which can be seen in the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.  One sees the representative principle at work here with Hezekiah, and it is in this narrative context that the prayer of Hezekiah can be heard on the lips of Jesus in the garden prior to His passion. 

Jesus could quite easily say that “the grief (or illness) I experienced was for My benefit,” as He could reflect on the suffering servant prophecy of Isaiah fifty-three, fully convinced that His suffering would benefit not only His people, but Himself as well.  Though He knew Himself to be walking the path of death (not only in the time leading up to the crucifixion, but throughout His revolutionary ministry), it is quite easy to hear Jesus say, with a faith like that which was exhibited by Abraham when he confidently declared that both he and Isaac would return from the mountain of sacrifice, that “You delivered Me from the Pit of oblivion.” 

However, it would only be as Israel’s King---as Israel’s representative and as the representative of all of those that would come to call Him King, in substitution for His people, that Jesus could say “You removed all My sins from Your sight.”  This could only occur through God’s King bearing God’s cursing on behalf of God’s people, though Jesus Himself is understood to have never failed to rightly bear the divine image (thus, without sin).  It is because of this execution of faithfulness that Hezekiah could say, “The living person, the living person, he gives you thanks, as I do today” (38:19a).  Those that share in the blessed and vital union with the Christ join with him in such a prayer.  

Repentance, Baptism, Forgiveness & A Gift

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” – Acts 2:38  (ESV)

Peter followed up this call for repentance and subsequent baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit by saying “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord or God calls to Himself” (2:39).  His insistence on repentance and baptism followed his statement, about Jesus, “that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom you crucified” (2:36b).  This caused his hearers to be “cut to the heart” (2:37b).  What does all of this mean?  What is being implied?

The call for repentance and baptism, hearkens back to the initial words that we hear from both John the Baptist and Jesus.  In Matthew, John says, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3:2).  He adds, “I baptize you with water for repentance” (3:11a), adding that Jesus will also baptize, but “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (3:11c).  In Mark, the first words that we hear from Jesus are “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel” (1:15).  The use of “gospel” was closely connected with “kingdom” in that day, because “gospel” had to do with proclamations concerning the Caesar.  Seeing these things about John and Jesus, it should not be surprising to us to hear Peter speaking in this way in what is sometimes referred to as the first “Christian sermon.”  Repentance and baptism and forgiveness would be familiar themes.  However, we must be careful to not project our own, modern ideas on to Peter’s words, but to carefully understand what they meant in context, so as to be able to accurately comprehend and apply them to our lives and work in this day. 

Peter’s purposeful statement about Jesus being made both Lord and Christ would have provided the foundation for his hearers to understand the point that he was making.  By this, he was making it clear that Jesus was, in fact, the anointed One that had been sent by Israel’s God to usher in and inaugurate the promised kingdom.  He was both Lord and Christ, that is, He was Lord of all, having faithfully fulfilled the role of Israel’s Messiah (the Christ), and now ruler of all things, as was the understood intention and ultimate destiny of that Messiah.  This then leads to the statement about repentance, and its connection to John and Jesus.  The call to repentance was not a call to repent from poor or immoral behavior.  Such a call was not going to get either John or Jesus killed.  The call to repentance was for Israel to repent from the way it had been acting, specifically in abrogation of its role to be a light to the nations, and instead, replacing that role with an almost constantly acted upon revolutionary fervor to drive the oppressive Gentiles from their land.  Israel had kept itself in strict isolation from the Gentiles, refusing to meet God’s intention for them, especially as we see that intention in the life and ministry of Jesus, as we constantly find Him in fellowship with Gentiles and with those that were looked down upon by Israel. 

In accordance with this, we must bear in mind that forgiveness of sins, in that day, was connected, not with personal piety and holiness, but to the much larger context of exile from the promises of God.  Forgiveness of sins, for a member of the nation of Israel in the first century, meant the forgiveness of God that would bring about a return to the land of promise and an end to the exile that was begun by the Babylonian conquest of Judah, and as they saw it, still continuing to that day with the Roman domination of the land of their forefathers.  Forgiveness of sins referred to the establishment of the kingdom of Israel, which was the kingdom of God, being brought into that land of covenant, with exile being brought to an end.  This is how we ought to understand forgiveness of sins as well.  Connected to Messianic expectations of the day, this establishment of the kingdom of God meant that Israel, or God’s covenant people, were now going to be established as a kingdom that ruled over all nations, with Israel’s Messiah as its King, with this going forth as the message of the Gospel.

Peter seizes upon all of this understanding, ties it together with the words and actions of Jesus, and tells the people that this has indeed taken place.  They simply needed to recognize that this kingdom extended beyond Israel, and that they needed to repent from their long-held and fervent belief and desire that this be restricted to ethnic Israel alone.  Baptism would be the mark of their attestation to this, as the passing through the water would symbolize a new Exodus, as God then brought them into the land of the new covenant that He had prepared for them, bringing His people into the life that He desired for them.  Now we can rightly understand why he goes on to say that “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself” (2:39).  Here, Peter is presenting the fact of a new covenant people of God, a people for His kingdom, that would include members from all nations---near and far, Jew and Gentile---those whom God had chosen for Himself.  Because this involved the elimination of enmity, distrust, and even hatred that had been stoked during years of Gentile oppression, whether perceived or real, (much like the enmity man holds toward God) the repentance and the subsequent love and acceptance that would be needed in order for this kingdom to be effectively established and extended, would come only through the operation of the Holy Spirit, gifting faith and repentance to all that were being called to this kingdom.

Cornelius & The Mission Of God (part 2 of 4)

Peter adds “you know what happened through Judea,” thus reiterating Cornelius’ previous knowledge and building from his use of “Lord” in reference to Jesus, “beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John announced; with respect to Jesus from Nazareth, that God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power” (10:37-38a).  A bit later, after mention of the Resurrection, Peter adds “He commanded us to preach to the people and to warn them that He is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead” (10:42).  Conversely, this is not Caesar’s role.  Furthermore, “About Him all the prophets testify, that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (10:43).  Forgiveness of sins, for the prophets, was firstly a gift of God to Israel, and was to be equated with exodus from exile or rescue from foreign subjugation (as proof of God had forgiven them for failing to rightly bear His image in and for the world).  In the name of Jesus, or by acting on behalf of His kingdom because of the confession of Jesus as Lord of all, all are able to receive this gift that had been promised to the covenant people of God. 

To demonstrate the thoughts that were in the air in the first century, if the talk of the “pouring out of the Holy Spirit” that was to be found in the story that the church told about itself, part of which found its way into the Acts of the Apostles (much like Israel’s story was told through the Hebrew Scriptures), was in Paul’s mind when he was penning the fifth chapter of his letter to Rome, then we can reasonably suggest that so too was Peter’s insistence that “everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness through His name” was in mind while Paul composed what would eventually be designated as chapter ten, as he says much the same thing about believing in Him. 

With Peter having pulled the Gentiles into the story of Israel (the story that began with Abraham) via talk of belief and forgiveness of sins, which are distinct covenant terms, the story receives its climax as Luke reports “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message” (10:44).  This metaphorical falling had witnesses.  Indeed, “The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles” (10:45).  Luke’s construction of this passage inside the narrative is obvious, as the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, here linked to Peter and his preaching, also links back to the second chapter of Acts and Peter’s explanation of the strange events that caused Peter to call to mind the prophet Joel and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit that was to accompany the last days. 

This clues us in to the fact that Peter and Luke, along with Paul (because he seizes on these metaphors), believed that the last days (the eschaton) had begun with the Resurrection of Jesus and was being carried forward into the world via the activity of the Holy Spirit.  Likewise, this is as a reminder that the original community of Jesus believers, employing a Jewish eschatology that would have been shared by Jesus Himself, did not view the “last days” as an end-of-the-world conflagration in which the world would cease to exist.  Rather, they viewed the “last days” as the time when the loving reign of the Creator God over His creation would be implemented.  They believed that this state of affairs had sprung into factuality in the resurrected Christ and in His church, with this being the natural accompaniment of Jesus’ repeated declaration that, in His presence and person, the kingdom of God was at hand. 

Highlighting the connection to the second chapter of Acts and to the events of Pentecost (there is a story being told in Acts, after all), not only do we have the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, but we also have the fact that the circumcised believers heard the Gentile believers “speaking in tongues and praising God” (10:46).  This had been the experience of those that composed the assembly of believers in chapters two and four.  With this, Gentiles were now experiencing the power of God via the Spirit.  As far as Israel’s story was concerned, this experience of being empowered by the Spirit of God had been the exclusive domain of the specially chosen people of God.  So when it comes to the story of the operation of God’s covenant, what is here reported to have taken place is groundbreaking.