In Acts 4: 5-6, we find a list of those aligned against the early Christian community in Jerusalem. 5 The next day their rulers, elders (πρεσβυτέρους) and scribes assembled in Jerusalem. The council consisted of 71 persons. The use of “their” shows the strained relations between the emergent Christian communities and the Jewish communities from which the Christians emerged. Luke is showing the distance between them with such language. It emphasizes the widening gulf between those who believe in the gospel of Jesus and those who do not. Elders played an important leadership role throughout the history of the biblical text, both in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, although that role naturally assumed different shapes in changing historical circumstances. Derived from the pre-monarchic tribal structure of ancient Israel (and the ancient Near East in general), elders were rulers of extended families (Exodus 12:21) who exercised domestic, judiciary, military, religious and representative functions. Even in urban settings, where people adapted the means of livelihood and social configurations from agrarian patterns, people still recognized elders were and they continued to provide essential leadership services. By the time of the New Testament writings, which authors composed in urban settings, the role of elder had become somewhat specialized. It functioned in concert with other religious and civil authorities. The Greek term presbyteros occurs frequently in the gospels (e.g., Mark 15:1 and parallels), Acts (e.g., 5:21; 22:5), and the Pastoral Epistles (e.g., 1 Timothy 5:1). It does not occur in the undisputed Pauline writings, but the significance of this absence is uncertain, as there is evidence of the presence of elders in the churches with which Paul had dealings (e.g., Antioch, Jerusalem, and Ephesus). The present passage mentioned the elders along with the rulers and scribes to designate that group of Jewish leaders who bore responsibility for having ignorantly led the common people away from the gospel (see Acts 3:17). Scribes were an important professional class throughout the ancient world, and the Jewish scribes were responsible not only for transmitting the written religious tradition of ancient Israel, but, more important, for interpreting it as well (see Mark 1:22). The role of the scribes took on special importance during the diaspora, when the interpretation of the written religious tradition became highly specialized and technical due to the variety of social, geographical, and political situations in which Jews found themselves. Such new settings did not allow for the determination of what was religiously proper and what was not to blend naturally into legal affairs, especially since the classical world did not make as pronounced a distinction between religious and secular laws as the modern world does. Therefore, the scribes commonly functioned as (religious) lawyers (see Jeremiah 32:12-15). In the New Testament writings, especially in the gospels, authors often classed scribes with the Pharisees (e.g., Matthew 5:20; 15:1; Mark 2:16; 7:5; Luke 5:21; John 8:3) and denounced by Jesus in Matthew’s gospel as hypocrites for their excessive attention to the minutiae of the legal corpus (Matthew 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). In the book of Acts, Luke continues to associate scribes with the party of the Pharisees (23:9), although in the present context he can also associate scribes with the Sadducees (4:1). They assembled along 6 with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. True to form, Luke names some historical persons in the list of authorities. We know nothing of John or Alexander. P. Sulpicius Quirinius appointed Annas high priest in ca 6 or 7 AD. Quirinius was the governor of Syria under whom a census was ordered at the time of the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:2; cf Acts 5:37). Valerius Gratus deposed him in 15 AD. His tenure as high priest predated the events reported here. Five of his sons become high priest. Caiaphas was his son-in-law (according to John 18:13). He served as high priest at the trial of Jesus. He received his appointment in ca 18 until his removal by the procurator Vitellius in about 36 or 37. The chronology of the ruling high priest during the New Testament period is very confused (to the point that John records both Annas and Caiaphas as high priests simultaneously, John 18:22, 24, contrary to Jewish practice). 7 When they had made the prisoners stand in their midst, they inquired, "By what power or by what name did you do this?" The question refers to the healing of the lame man. The power of that action and its effect in bringing about believers (5,000, Acts 4:4) appears to be the central concern to these religious authorities. The question of the source of the power or name by which Peter performed the miracle is not a casual one, as the significance of names in general in the ancient world was profound. They understood names to have symbolic significance by partaking directly in the essence of a thing (see, e.g., Genesis 3:20; Exodus 3:14; Matthew 1:21, 23). Therefore, to grant something its name was to exercise considerable power over it (e.g., Genesis 2:19). In time, this understanding of the name of God developed into a theological motif especially prominent among the Deuteronomistic theologians of the Hebrew Bible (see, e.g., Deuteronomy 5:11; 10:8; 12:5; 12:21; 14:23; 16:6, etc.). The importance of the divine name continued into the New Testament period, especially in the book of Acts (2:38; 3:6; 4:18; 5:40, and especially 8:12; see also, e.g., John 17:26). The power of the name is the basis of the question here and the reason for Peter’s formulaic announcement of the divine name of Jesus both prior to healing the lame man (3:6b) and in defense of his actions (4:10; see also Acts 16:18). 8 Then Peter, filled (πλησθεὶς) with the Holy Spirit (ΠνεύματοςἉγίου), a phrase often appearing before prominent speeches in Acts. Jesus told them that when their politically powerful enemies persecuted them, they would speak under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In this spirit-filled state, Peter rehearses the kerygma. Therefore, Peter said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if you question us today because of a good deed done to someone who was sick and you ask how this man has received healing, 10 let all of you know this, as well as all the people of Israel. The man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you as Jewish authorities crucified through the agency of Roman law, but whom God raised from the dead. Luke points us to the event nature of revelation, summing up as briefly as one can the chief event in the relationship between God and humanity, as Christianity understands it, in the revelation of the God of Israel in Jesus of Nazareth. For Christian faith, it matters who it was that God raised from the dead, namely, the Crucified, Jesus of Nazareth.[1] The council could now bring up the charge of false doctrine, but they could hardly object to the healing of the lame man. 11 This Jesus is, referring to Psalm 11i:22, "the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.' Here is a clear polemic against the Jewish leaders, taking on the pointed conviction of guilt in the discussion of the death of Jesus. The Psalm became part of early Christian apologetic, as we can see in Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; 1 Peter 2:7. The Old Testament text applies to Israel, but as often, the New Testament applies it to Jesus. Salvation is not through Judaism but through Jesus. Peter aptly calls the council builders, for religious and civil government depended on them. In Matthew 21:42, Christ had already applied the words to himself and to the way Jewish leaders rejected him. However, the rejected one is precisely the one God has exalted to the most important one.12 There is salvation (σωτηρία, rescue or safety) in no one else, since this kerygmatic event is so unique and universal, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved (σωθῆναι, receive healing, rescue, preservation, deliverance, or protection)." The cure of the lame man is a sign of the power of salvation through Christ. The emphasis is on the one name that God has given in revelation rather than on any other that God has not given in revelation. We should understand that Luke is explaining how the church can depend on the unwavering and faithful presence and power of God. The theology of the divine name continues with this declaration. Peter articulates a sentiment that was rapidly becoming a central tenet of early Christianity. Namely, those who embrace Jesus define the limit of salvation. Such proclamation differed from the proclamation of the rule of God on which Jesus centered his preaching (cf Acts 8:12). Such preaching no longer included, for instance, the chosen people, the Jews (compare John 4:22 and 14:6). In the New Testament period, to embrace Jesus meant far more than simply acknowledging a name. The radical nature of the life of the One in whose name new Christians received baptism was one the Holy Spirit transmitted to new devotees, by virtue of their receiving baptism in his name (Acts 8:16; 10:48). The modern severing of a name from the essence of its bearer has had incalculable ramifications for latter-day followers of Jesus Christ. For Luke's church the name of Jesus meant salvation. Luke's narrative reveals that the mere mention of the name brought about healing. However, more than this for Luke, being in the name of Jesus meant residing within the community of the saved. While today some church traditions might seek to temper this rhetoric as triumphalist, one must see Luke primarily in this rhetoric as promising his church the unwavering and dependable presence and power of God.
Many people in our secular culture no longer believe the question dealt with in this passage is a relevant one. It has scientific basis. Millennia from now, the universe will fade to black. It will simply cease movement. It will die. The same is true of us. We will cease moving. We will fade to black. Nothing can save us from this destiny. We are the ones who will give any healing and saving that exists in human life. We cannot expect safety, protection, or deliverance from outside the actions of human beings.
Even if in a secular culture we believe in God, we have so many options.
"All roads lead to God."
People have been saying this for years, often thinking themselves to be open-minded and freethinking. Moreover, some who embrace this mantra are self-confessed skeptics who think no one who believes in God is mentally well. Frankly, it may well testify to a truthful experience some people have of this world. Yet, objectively, we must admit that such a testimony is hardly the universal experience of human beings. I must say that the statement does not represent my experience well at all.
However, whether uttered in sarcasm or sincerity, it is a claim that most Christians have at least thought about, especially when confronted by Acts 4:12. One can have salvation in no other way than Jesus. Alternatively, we also read, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). The point is that the New Testament witnesses to the unique and universal nature of this event, the revelation of the God of Israel in Jesus of Nazareth, the one crucified by Jew and Gentile and yet, the one whom God raised from the dead. We rightly wrestle with what this means in our global setting today.
Two places not to go: First, do not get comfortable with the idea that since not all the religions can be equally true, that therefore probably none of them is true. Most of us will agree that it was not helpful for Christians to claim an absolute corner on truth. It led to the arrogance and abuse of power that would divide the church between East and West and eventually to the split in the West between Protestant and Roman Catholic. Within the church itself, we sometimes question some of our own doctrines, and certainly, the church has modified some of its beliefs over the centuries. All religions may have a unique testimony regarding their experience of beauty, truth, and goodness. Atheism has its witness to its truth. Atheism will always be a valid response to human experience of this world, given the ambiguity presented by our search for the wholeness of truth, the nature of goodness, and the extent of beauty. Further, the depth of suffering in nature, human history, and in our lives, creates enough problems for belief in God. In other words, the atheist may be firm in this conviction, but also needs to have some openness to the witness contained in each religion. Multiple witnesses to truth-claims do not nullify the possibility that one of them is true.[2]
Second, the other destination at which we ought not to settle is the notion that since many faiths, at least when we understand them correctly, promote peace and good will, then it really does not matter which one you follow. In the end, they may all lead to the same place. The problem here is that if we listen to religions with integrity, they have competing claims to what is true, good, and beautiful. Your life will look differently when you take the inner claim to truth each religion has seriously. Yes, we can find many paths that lead to Chicago. Yet, we may be talking about differing cities. If we are, then we need to reflect upon which city we want our lives to look like. Each religion is more like the varying cultures of a city. The point, then, is the destination as well as the journey.
For centuries, faithful Christians have struggled with Peter's claim that salvation comes only through Jesus. They have asked, "What about those who have never heard the gospel? What about those who are faithful participants in other religions?" In addition, in attempts to answer those questions, various Christians have produced no less than six different positions, all of which are speculative:
- Restrictivism: There is no hope of salvation apart from hearing the gospel and having faith in Christ before death.
- Radical pluralism: Christ is one of many ways to God.
- Universalism: Salvation is through Christ, but ultimately God will save all persons through Christ.
- Universal evangelization before death: God ensures that everyone who seeks God will in fact hear the gospel.
- Eschatological evangelization: All who did not respond in this life will receive an opportunity to respond after death.
- Inclusivism: People who have never heard the gospel may obtain salvation if they respond to the light they have.
In terms of this list, Billy Graham, for example, would be an inclusivist. Speaking on Robert Schuller's "Hour of Power" program some years ago, Graham said that the body of Christ consists of people who may not be conscious of their love for Christ. God has called them out of the world and into the Body of Christ, even if they do not know the name of Jesus. They know they need something that they do not have. They turn toward the light they presently have. They receive the gift of salvation and enjoy the hope of eternity with those who embrace Jesus specifically and consciously.
If Billy Graham is right, it helps make some sense of what Peter says here. It preserves the event nature of the act of faith, for all persons will have light they reject or embrace. Such a view is consistent with the final judgment scene is Matthew 25, where some people have no idea they were serving Jesus when they fed the hungry or visited a prisoner. Yet, Jesus welcomes them into the rule of God. Yet, since salvation concerns far more than eternal destiny, we have the responsibility to give people the opportunity to embrace Jesus, here in this life, for salvation affects the quality of life one has here. Christians care about the experience their friends and neighbors have of human flourishing. The immediate question concerns their happiness, meaning, and purpose in this life. We can affirm readily and easily, then, certain truths.
That Christ came for all,
That God acting in Christ makes Christ a valid path to God,
That some light of God resides in all religions and cultures,
That God will judge people based upon one how they have responded to the light they had,
That embracing Christ in any way changes and enriches our lives here.
In the end, it is not about which road is the right road. Christianity is not the only road on which people find hope and courage and even satisfaction, and we need to be respectful about the rights of others to live according to the best light they have perceived.
Still, we can and should give heartfelt testimony about our experiences of what God has done in Christ. We do so, not attempting to shove Christ down somebody's throat, but sharing good news with those who live in dryness apart from him. It is not up to us what others decide about that good news. It is up to us to live faithfully by the great light we have received in Jesus Christ, the Light of the World.
In fact, C.S Lewis wrote, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." The best we can say is that Christ, Christianity, and the church offer a way of seeing or a lens through which to see the world. Each of us needs a faith robust and complex enough to bear the weight of the messy world in which we live. We need a faith that empowers us to live in exquisite, terrible humility before reality (Richard Rohr). Such a faith is not thin or one-dimensional. The God who embraces me in Christ embraces me in a deep, mysterious, and high place. Such an approach to faith requires from me patience and alertness. It requires a longer gaze.[3]
Such a view assumes that all human beings are in the business of shopping for the rule of God. They share gullibility, questionable taste, and proneness to buy what is in the store rather than wait for that which they are looking. Yet, they are shopping, quite willing to put their money down (make a commitment to) where they think they will find the fulfillment of the desire of their hearts.[4]
[1] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 344.
[2] Nevertheless, while absolute truth is beyond any human claim, there is this basic truthfulness in the inner experience of Christianity: If through Christ, God comes to you, then that is a true phenomenon. The fact that some other religions may also have some truth-testifying experiences does not deny the truth that is in ours.
[3] --Debie Thomas, "A Light to See By," Journey with Jesus for August 6, 2017. journeywithjesus.net. Retrieved October 12, 2017.
[4] Robert Farrar Capon, The Parables of the Kingdom (Eerdmans, 1985), 143-44.
No comments:
Post a Comment