What is popular is not always accurate or true. This maxim holds for the church as well as for human society at large. Consequently, it is helpful and even necessary at times to reexamine one's knowledge and beliefs, particularly in regard to foundational matters. In terms of the Christian faith, popularly held understandings of the gospel are not always consistent with the biblical witness.
As mentioned earlier, this inquiry into the apostolic gospel was precipitated by a disappointing and troubling television presentation by an enormously popular American preacher that was enthusiastically billed as the preaching of the gospel. Since others can be observed to sincerely hold to erroneous notions of the fundamental Christian message, I thought it best to reexamine the Scriptures themselves in order to reevaluate my own understanding.
One of the primary questions that drove my inquiry was, "What was the core content of the gospel proclaimed by the apostles in the divinely inspired record of the Book of Acts?" In surveying Acts, I identified twelve accounts which especially presented information specifically relevant to my inquiry. These are as follows: 2:14-41; 3:12-4:2; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 7:1-60; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 14:8-18; 17:2-3; 17:16-31; 26:1-29; 28:17-31. The answer to the question regarding the core content of the apostolic gospel can be summed up in a single name: Jesus.
With one exception, all of the accounts of apostolic preaching center explicitly upon Jesus. An analysis of the various texts reveals five primary categories of information regarding or related to Jesus that comprised the core content of the message proclaimed. These concern: (1) the identity of Jesus, (2) the historical reality and ministry of Jesus' first coming, (3) the promise of Jesus' second coming, (4) Jesus' fulfillment of ancient Israelite prophecies, and finally, (5) a call for a radical response to Jesus. Imbued throughout all of these categories is the critically important theme (sometimes explicit, often implicit) of the kingdom of God.
Perhaps it should be said that Jesus is not merely central to the apostolic message, but that he is the gospel; that is, the good news. Given Luke's framing of the material found in his Gospel and in Acts, this is of course not surprising. After presenting Jesus as the savior of humanity, the friend of sinners who offers salvation to all, even to the socially marginalized, he closes with the following quotation from Jesus about himself: "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things" (Lk 24:46-48).
This charge to the disciples to carry on a global apostolic witness centers on himself, the Messiah. Luke quotes him in the opening of Acts, reiterating this same charge: "(Y)ou will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Ac 1:8). The disciples are to be his witnesses, which means they are to serve him by giving witness to him. Peter understood this as evidenced in the criteria he laid out for the selection of an apostolic replacement for Jesus' traitor, Judas. Luke quotes him as follows: "(I)t is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection" (Ac 1:21-22).
All of this makes clear that Jesus as witnessed to in the biblical record must be central to any contemporary proclamation of the gospel. If he is not, we may indeed be elucidating or proclaiming various biblical truths and principles, but we should not make the mistake of thinking we are proclaiming the apostolic gospel. The problem with too much contemporary preaching, especially American, is that it has lost sight of the apostolic gospel and replaced it with a focus on producing and/or receiving the positive fruit or benefits of the gospel. In some cases Jesus becomes a talisman to ward off physical and material evil and to acquire our definition of blessedness in this life. In other cases, he becomes a functional elucidator of spiritual principles, which when faithfully believed and diligently applied produce success as we would have it. While there is a kernel of truth in each of these misconstrued understandings of Jesus, they are nevertheless corruptions of the apostolic gospel.
If we wish to know and experience God in similar fashion to that of the early church as described in Acts, we must encounter through repentance and faith the Jesus known and proclaimed by the apostles. The charge given by Jesus to his first disciples to be his witnesses throughout this world has passed from generation to generation, and now rests with great solemnity and responsibility upon us, even those who believe. It is our duty and privilege to know accurately the original good news, to live by his grace in response to it, and to communicate it to all who live in this world. If we are to please the Holy Spirit, we must become faithful witnesses of this gospel. Therefore, to a study of the elements of its core content we shall turn next.
fidworks.blogspot.com
29 July, 2010
24 July, 2010
The Apostolic Gospel: Narrative (2)
Having determined that narrative was the primary communicative form employed by the apostles for the proclamation of the gospel as evidenced in the Book of Acts (see "The Apostolic Gospel: Narrative (1)"), a few more comments regarding the importance of narrative are worth consideration.
Narrative is the most natural way by which to communicate history. The fact that the Bible anchors God's revelation in historical persons and events, with the apex of revelation being an historical person (Jesus Christ) experiencing an historical event (the crucifixion and resurrection), automatically necessitates the communication of divinely interpreted history in order to properly understand God's revelation. Indeed, a basic understanding and belief in the divinely interpreted story concerning Jesus constitutes the basis for the reception of God's gracious salvation in its inceptive stage. Thus, it is no surprise that the apostles employed narrative in the communication of the good news.
Too often the Bible itself is inadequately understood in terms of its narrative coherence. Creation, the Fall, the providential formation and history of Israel, the incarnation, crucifixion, and ascension of the Son of God, the outpouring of God's Spirit, the expansion of the church, Jesus' promised return, the resurrection, the renewal of creation, and the final judgment--all of these together constitute the major elements of a coherent metanarrative. The various particulars of scripture are not a random collection of disparate revelations. Rather, they individually and collectively fit into the grand story of God's purposes vis-a-vis humanity and the cosmos in which we live. This is significant and underscores the importance of presenting the good news of reconciliation with God into its broader storied context.
Furthermore, from a sociological perspective narrative is fundamental to the formation of worldview, which is "the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world." Joel B. Green's comments in his article, "Narrative Theology," in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (2005), are helpful.
A proper presentation of the apostolic gospel with its salvific aim should challenge the worldview of its recipients and call for a decision. If the overall story of Jesus Christ is true, it demands not merely the abandonment of personal sin and the embrace of faith in a "personal" savior, but also implicitly the abandonment (or perhaps radical modification) of one's worldview and the embrace of the divinely revealed metanarrative found in scripture and embodied in Jesus. In other words, Christian conversion should involve the supplanting of a person's former worldview with the biblical metanarrative of creation, fall, and redemption, whose apex is the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, this change of worldview occurs as a process.
Popular gospel presentations which focus on propositional truths devoid of narrative typically contain the following vital biblical truths: (1) God is loving, yet holy and just. (2) Humanity is sinful, guilty, and unable to extricate itself from its sinfulness. Consequently, humanity is subject to death and eternal separation from God. (3) Jesus, God's Son incarnate, died for our sins and rose again. Consequently, we can be forgiven and reconciled to God, and receive eternal life. (4) To benefit from what Jesus has done, we must receive him as Lord and Savior by faith.
All of these truths are necessary and sufficient for inceptive salvation; that is, to initially experience reconciliation with God. But apart from their storied context, they fail to convey an adequate understanding of God's grand purposes for humanity in this world. On the other hand, the conveyance of these truths in storied form begs the important existential question, "Where do I fit in this story?" Story embedded with propositional truths begets richer meaning than merely the truths themselves.
This completes a preliminary consideration of the mood and form of the apostolic gospel, along with the presuppositions of monotheism and human sinfulness. The core content of that gospel will be considered next.
Narrative is the most natural way by which to communicate history. The fact that the Bible anchors God's revelation in historical persons and events, with the apex of revelation being an historical person (Jesus Christ) experiencing an historical event (the crucifixion and resurrection), automatically necessitates the communication of divinely interpreted history in order to properly understand God's revelation. Indeed, a basic understanding and belief in the divinely interpreted story concerning Jesus constitutes the basis for the reception of God's gracious salvation in its inceptive stage. Thus, it is no surprise that the apostles employed narrative in the communication of the good news.
Too often the Bible itself is inadequately understood in terms of its narrative coherence. Creation, the Fall, the providential formation and history of Israel, the incarnation, crucifixion, and ascension of the Son of God, the outpouring of God's Spirit, the expansion of the church, Jesus' promised return, the resurrection, the renewal of creation, and the final judgment--all of these together constitute the major elements of a coherent metanarrative. The various particulars of scripture are not a random collection of disparate revelations. Rather, they individually and collectively fit into the grand story of God's purposes vis-a-vis humanity and the cosmos in which we live. This is significant and underscores the importance of presenting the good news of reconciliation with God into its broader storied context.
Furthermore, from a sociological perspective narrative is fundamental to the formation of worldview, which is "the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world." Joel B. Green's comments in his article, "Narrative Theology," in the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (2005), are helpful.
- (N)arrative is central to identity formation; indeed recent work in neurobiology emphasizes the capacity for and drive toward making storied sense of our experienced world as a distinguishing characteristic of the human family. We typically explain our behaviors through the historical narratives by which we collaborate to create a sense of ourselves as persons and as a people. The story we embrace serves as an interpretive scheme that is at once conceptual (a way of seeing things), conative (a set of beliefs and values to which a group and its members are deeply attached), and action-guiding (we seek to live according to its terms)...
A proper presentation of the apostolic gospel with its salvific aim should challenge the worldview of its recipients and call for a decision. If the overall story of Jesus Christ is true, it demands not merely the abandonment of personal sin and the embrace of faith in a "personal" savior, but also implicitly the abandonment (or perhaps radical modification) of one's worldview and the embrace of the divinely revealed metanarrative found in scripture and embodied in Jesus. In other words, Christian conversion should involve the supplanting of a person's former worldview with the biblical metanarrative of creation, fall, and redemption, whose apex is the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, this change of worldview occurs as a process.
Popular gospel presentations which focus on propositional truths devoid of narrative typically contain the following vital biblical truths: (1) God is loving, yet holy and just. (2) Humanity is sinful, guilty, and unable to extricate itself from its sinfulness. Consequently, humanity is subject to death and eternal separation from God. (3) Jesus, God's Son incarnate, died for our sins and rose again. Consequently, we can be forgiven and reconciled to God, and receive eternal life. (4) To benefit from what Jesus has done, we must receive him as Lord and Savior by faith.
All of these truths are necessary and sufficient for inceptive salvation; that is, to initially experience reconciliation with God. But apart from their storied context, they fail to convey an adequate understanding of God's grand purposes for humanity in this world. On the other hand, the conveyance of these truths in storied form begs the important existential question, "Where do I fit in this story?" Story embedded with propositional truths begets richer meaning than merely the truths themselves.
This completes a preliminary consideration of the mood and form of the apostolic gospel, along with the presuppositions of monotheism and human sinfulness. The core content of that gospel will be considered next.
19 July, 2010
The Apostolic Gospel: Narrative (1)
Thus far the following has been reviewed: the mood or tenor of the gospel preached by the apostles, along with two of its key presuppositions, monotheism and human sinfulness. Before moving on to the study of the core content of the apostolic gospel, there remains one further preliminary consideration. This concerns the communicative form which the apostles employed in their gospel proclamations as recorded in the Book of Acts. A survey of twelve identifiable gospel presentation accounts (2:14-41; 3:12-4:2; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 7:1-60; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 14:8-18; 17:2-3; 17:16-31; 26:1-29; 28:17-31) clearly reveals that there was one primary form of verbal communication. This form was simply historical and prophetic narrative.
Fundamentally, the apostolic gospel concerned an historical figure who was alive, dead, and was now alive again. The message centered on Jesus and what God had done, is doing, and will do through him. In addition, this Jesus was often demonstrated to lie in continuity with what God had done in the past, whether in relation to Israel or in relation to humanity as a whole. Furthermore, the apostles also spoke of what God was yet going to accomplish through him in the future, particularly in terms of his return and God's eschatological judgment through him. This they derived both from Jesus' own teaching concerning himself as well as from the ancient enscripturated Israelite prophecies concerning the Messiah. Consequently, it is no surprise that historical and prophetic narrative was employed by the apostles as the natural communicative form for proclaiming the good news. God had acted decisively in the person of Jesus, and the apostles were commissioned to tell his story in relation to humanity's past, present, and future.
With one partial exception, the apostles did not lay out an impersonal systematized "set of propositional truths that referred directly to objective transcendent realities" (T. Harvey). Rather, they resorted to the telling of God's story as revealed in Jesus. This is not to say that the story they told was ambiguously open to multiple interpretations and meanings, as though narrative was intrinsically diametrically juxtaposed to propositional truth. On the contrary, the apostolic gospel in its narrative form was imbued with propositional truth.
The explanation is simple. God had acted and spoken, and had also explained his actions. The entire record of scripture up to the time of the apostles underscored this maxim. The God of the Hebrews chose to reveal himself above all by acting and speaking historically in the life of various individuals and families, and in the life of Israel. This revelation was not comprised merely of the divine acts themselves, but also included the divine interpretation of the meaning and significance of the acts. Consequently, propositional truth was embedded in God's actions and was made known through the interpretation of God's acts by means of the inspiration of God's Spirit given to the prophets of ancient Israel. This, together with God's direct speech, formed the historical basis of God's enscripturated revelation.
The coming of Jesus brought greater clarification to the divine overarching narrative (metanarrative) which comprised all that God had done and said in and through Israel, and that which he was yet to do in regard to humanity as a whole. Jesus' teaching claimed that he himself was the culmination of all God's actions and words, and that the future of God's eternal purpose vis-a-vis humanity and this creation centered on him. God has a mission and its revelation is to be found not merely in the identity of Jesus, but also in Jesus' words and actions in this world, for his words and actions were declared to be God's words and actions.
Consequently, it is the telling of the story of Jesus given in its broader context of past and future, together with its divinely interpreted meaning that constitutes the gospel. Or again, the gospel is presented as God acting and speaking with coherent purpose in and through Jesus. Even though it is not presented as an abstract set of propositional truths referring directly to transcendent realities, these truths are inherent in the telling of the story since the story is given its meaning by its divinely inspired interpretation given us by the Holy Spirit through the apostles.
Nevertheless, we do have one example of the overt preaching of abstract propositional truth: the apostle Paul's address to the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31). But this appears to have been necessary to lay the presupposition of monotheism as a foundation upon which he could proclaim the good news of God's story concerning Jesus. Two contextual items are significant, however. First, the circumstances which precipitated Paul's summons to address the Areopagus were his "preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts 17:18), which, given the rest of Luke's accounts of Paul's preaching, indicates Paul was communicating about Jesus by means of narrative. Second, Paul actually wove the overt communication of abstract propositional truth with narrative in his Areopagus address, particularly as he recounted God's general actions in human history and proclaimed God's eschatological judgment through Jesus, whom God had raised from the dead.
Having determined that narrative was the primary communicative form employed by the apostles for the proclamation of the gospel, we will next consider some additional reasons for communicating the apostolic gospel in a narrative form.
Fundamentally, the apostolic gospel concerned an historical figure who was alive, dead, and was now alive again. The message centered on Jesus and what God had done, is doing, and will do through him. In addition, this Jesus was often demonstrated to lie in continuity with what God had done in the past, whether in relation to Israel or in relation to humanity as a whole. Furthermore, the apostles also spoke of what God was yet going to accomplish through him in the future, particularly in terms of his return and God's eschatological judgment through him. This they derived both from Jesus' own teaching concerning himself as well as from the ancient enscripturated Israelite prophecies concerning the Messiah. Consequently, it is no surprise that historical and prophetic narrative was employed by the apostles as the natural communicative form for proclaiming the good news. God had acted decisively in the person of Jesus, and the apostles were commissioned to tell his story in relation to humanity's past, present, and future.
With one partial exception, the apostles did not lay out an impersonal systematized "set of propositional truths that referred directly to objective transcendent realities" (T. Harvey). Rather, they resorted to the telling of God's story as revealed in Jesus. This is not to say that the story they told was ambiguously open to multiple interpretations and meanings, as though narrative was intrinsically diametrically juxtaposed to propositional truth. On the contrary, the apostolic gospel in its narrative form was imbued with propositional truth.
The explanation is simple. God had acted and spoken, and had also explained his actions. The entire record of scripture up to the time of the apostles underscored this maxim. The God of the Hebrews chose to reveal himself above all by acting and speaking historically in the life of various individuals and families, and in the life of Israel. This revelation was not comprised merely of the divine acts themselves, but also included the divine interpretation of the meaning and significance of the acts. Consequently, propositional truth was embedded in God's actions and was made known through the interpretation of God's acts by means of the inspiration of God's Spirit given to the prophets of ancient Israel. This, together with God's direct speech, formed the historical basis of God's enscripturated revelation.
The coming of Jesus brought greater clarification to the divine overarching narrative (metanarrative) which comprised all that God had done and said in and through Israel, and that which he was yet to do in regard to humanity as a whole. Jesus' teaching claimed that he himself was the culmination of all God's actions and words, and that the future of God's eternal purpose vis-a-vis humanity and this creation centered on him. God has a mission and its revelation is to be found not merely in the identity of Jesus, but also in Jesus' words and actions in this world, for his words and actions were declared to be God's words and actions.
Consequently, it is the telling of the story of Jesus given in its broader context of past and future, together with its divinely interpreted meaning that constitutes the gospel. Or again, the gospel is presented as God acting and speaking with coherent purpose in and through Jesus. Even though it is not presented as an abstract set of propositional truths referring directly to transcendent realities, these truths are inherent in the telling of the story since the story is given its meaning by its divinely inspired interpretation given us by the Holy Spirit through the apostles.
Nevertheless, we do have one example of the overt preaching of abstract propositional truth: the apostle Paul's address to the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31). But this appears to have been necessary to lay the presupposition of monotheism as a foundation upon which he could proclaim the good news of God's story concerning Jesus. Two contextual items are significant, however. First, the circumstances which precipitated Paul's summons to address the Areopagus were his "preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts 17:18), which, given the rest of Luke's accounts of Paul's preaching, indicates Paul was communicating about Jesus by means of narrative. Second, Paul actually wove the overt communication of abstract propositional truth with narrative in his Areopagus address, particularly as he recounted God's general actions in human history and proclaimed God's eschatological judgment through Jesus, whom God had raised from the dead.
Having determined that narrative was the primary communicative form employed by the apostles for the proclamation of the gospel, we will next consider some additional reasons for communicating the apostolic gospel in a narrative form.
17 July, 2010
The Apostolic Gospel: Sinfulness
To review, the mood of the apostolic gospel as recorded in the Book of Acts consists of the Creator's goodness in calling sinful humans to gracious reconciliation with himself. Underlying this message are two fundamental presuppositions: monotheism and human sinfulness. The latter shall now be considered.
In harmony and continuity with the Jewish prophets of antiquity, Jesus and his apostles after him assumed the moral accountability of humanity to the one and only holy, almighty Creator, and the universal sinfulness of humanity. The Book of Acts explicitly includes the sin problem in nearly all of the gospel proclamations by means of various kinds of calls to repentance, warnings of judgment, and promises of forgiveness. Of the twelve instances I have identified in Acts which specifically record the content of the gospel proclaimed by the apostles, only two have no overt reference to human sinfulness as indicated by the aforementioned calls, warnings, and promises.
Nevertheless, I am persuaded that sinfulness was also addressed in each of these two instances. In the case of Paul's meeting with the local Roman Jewish leaders (Acts 28:17-28), several items raised by Paul clearly suggest that human sinfulness was an underlying theme in his communication of the gospel. These items include the kingdom of God, the law of Moses, and the concept of salvation. In the instance of Paul's proclamation in Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3), the absence of an overt reference to human sinfulness is surely due to the brevity of the account given by Luke. Given that Paul was "explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead," it is to my mind inconceivable that this would not include the implicit subject of human sinfulness, especially in light of the evidence given in the other accounts of his gospel proclamations.
In addition, it's worthwhile to consider the cultural-religious milieu in which the apostles communicated the gospel. In their first century context two types of “guilt” and corresponding “sin” consciousness were generally prevalent among the people to whom the gospel was preached. The Jews of course were well aware of the concepts of personal and corporate sin against a holy God and the corollary of human guilt. Since the gospel arose among the Jewish people in the first place, there was no major breach of categorical thought to be surmounted concerning these issues when the gospel was communicated to them.
It’s the Greco-Roman peoples however that generally had a different kind of “guilt” and "sin" consciousness. Their polytheistic worldview held to a pantheon of capricious gods whose intermittent displeasure with humans resulted in various kinds of human suffering. But such divine displeasure was not necessarily tied to human violations of some moral code or of some human failure to conform their inner character and/or external conduct to some form of divine righteousness. The challenge for the Greco-Roman peoples from their point of view was to discover how to avoid the displeasure and curry the favor of such unpredictable gods. Thus, they had a concept of “guilt” and "sin," but in a typically different sense from that of the Jews.
Exactly how the apostles breached this gulf in understanding of human sinfulness is not entirely apparent, yet there are clues. Luke’s summaries of Paul’s preaching in the various Greco-Roman cities focus more on the failure of the peoples to honor God in terms of true monotheistic worship and the general concept of doing what pleases him, rather than their failure to conform to specific elements of the Mosaic code. This is especially true in the two instances where it appears that the entire audiences were comprised of Greco-Romans to the exclusion of Jews (Ac 14:8-18; 17:16-34). Although Paul did enumerate behavioral "sin lists" in his epistles, these are directed to those who already believe the gospel as he seeks to help them understand what pleasing God looks like.
It appears that Paul, and quite likely the other apostles, focused more on the forgiveness that was readily available through Jesus to a people who regularly lived in fear of displeasing the gods, than on elucidating a litany of specific Mosaic laws which the people were breaking. This is not surprising given that Greco-Roman peoples lived with the pervasive belief that they were regularly in some way potentially guilty of offending some deity and that such offenses were typically tied up with a failure to render proper worship to the deity.
Human sinfulness was an essential element of the apostolic gospel, but in terms of its articulation in first century preaching to the Gentiles it may have been a bit more nuanced than its typical current Evangelical formulation. To a contemporary biblically literate audience or one that is at least still strongly imbued with a Judeo-Christian worldview and corresponding concepts of guilt and sin, an understanding of sinfulness can be assumed and addressed in a similar manner as the apostles did when addressing the Jews. But to a people who are ignorant of an accurate understanding of such concepts, careful thought must be given to how to address human sinfulness when the gospel is proclaimed. Exegeting the recipient's moral-ethical-religious worldview, assessing how receptive it is to the implicit gospel concepts of sin and guilt, and determining how to breach any significant gap in understanding is essential to effective gospel communication. This is certainly becoming more of a critical issue in the Western world, which is to varying degrees becoming more and more post-modern and post-Christian in its worldview.
Next to be considered will be the communicative form by which the apostolic gospel was proclaimed.
16 July, 2010
The Apostolic Gospel: Monotheism
As previously mentioned, the mood of the apostolic gospel as recorded in the Book of Acts consists of the Creator's goodness in calling sinful humans to gracious reconciliation with himself. Implicit throughout these presentations of good news are two fundamental presuppositions. The first is that there is one and only one almighty creator. The second is that humanity is morally accountable to God and is universally and individually sinful. Monotheism will be addressed below.
It is interesting to note that in the two instances recorded in Acts where monotheism is explicitly raised, it is simply proclaimed and not philosophically debated. The first of these is recorded in Acts 14:8-18, when Paul sought to dissuade the people of Lystra from offering sacrifices to Barnabas and himself because they had presumed them to be Zeus and Hermes due to a miraculous healing performed by Paul. Paul took the same approach when he spoke to the Areopagus in Athens, having been summoned there by a number of philosophers who wished a formal inquiry into the message Paul had been publicly proclaiming concerning Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17:16-34). Once again Paul simply proclaims monotheism. There is no record of his having entered into a philosophical debate regarding this presuppositional truth to the gospel.
All of the other explicit presentations of the gospel recorded in Acts merely presume the reality of monotheism. This is most likely due to the collective knowledge base of the various recipients involved. I have identified ten such instances, all of which involved either Jews, who of course would have been raised in a monotheistic ethos, or Gentiles who were closely associated with Jews, either by way of geographic residence or by association with a local synagogue. Consequently, there was no need to directly address the issue of monotheism to these recipients.
Since the majority of the Roman empire's inhabitants were polytheistic, and often syncretistic, it is reasonable to assume that much of the apostolic preaching conducted throughout the first century, but not recorded in Acts, did involve explicit proclamation of the truth of monotheism. This would have been a necessary backdrop to the communication of the core content of the gospel, which centers on Jesus. However, as I will argue later on, the record of the apostolic preaching makes clear that the apostles never deviated from the core content, but remained focused on communicating it to any and all audiences. Thus, monotheism was explicitly raised for the specific purpose of facilitating the recipients' understanding of the gospel.
This then provides us with a helpful lesson for contemporary communication of the gospel, which is elucidated by the following list of pertinent points.
It is interesting to note that in the two instances recorded in Acts where monotheism is explicitly raised, it is simply proclaimed and not philosophically debated. The first of these is recorded in Acts 14:8-18, when Paul sought to dissuade the people of Lystra from offering sacrifices to Barnabas and himself because they had presumed them to be Zeus and Hermes due to a miraculous healing performed by Paul. Paul took the same approach when he spoke to the Areopagus in Athens, having been summoned there by a number of philosophers who wished a formal inquiry into the message Paul had been publicly proclaiming concerning Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17:16-34). Once again Paul simply proclaims monotheism. There is no record of his having entered into a philosophical debate regarding this presuppositional truth to the gospel.
All of the other explicit presentations of the gospel recorded in Acts merely presume the reality of monotheism. This is most likely due to the collective knowledge base of the various recipients involved. I have identified ten such instances, all of which involved either Jews, who of course would have been raised in a monotheistic ethos, or Gentiles who were closely associated with Jews, either by way of geographic residence or by association with a local synagogue. Consequently, there was no need to directly address the issue of monotheism to these recipients.
Since the majority of the Roman empire's inhabitants were polytheistic, and often syncretistic, it is reasonable to assume that much of the apostolic preaching conducted throughout the first century, but not recorded in Acts, did involve explicit proclamation of the truth of monotheism. This would have been a necessary backdrop to the communication of the core content of the gospel, which centers on Jesus. However, as I will argue later on, the record of the apostolic preaching makes clear that the apostles never deviated from the core content, but remained focused on communicating it to any and all audiences. Thus, monotheism was explicitly raised for the specific purpose of facilitating the recipients' understanding of the gospel.
This then provides us with a helpful lesson for contemporary communication of the gospel, which is elucidated by the following list of pertinent points.
- It is necessary to identify the core content of the gospel.
- It is necessary to assess the religious worldview and knowledge base of the intended recipients.
- It is necessary to discern the intended recipients' ability to understand the core content of the gospel in light of their religious worldview and knowledge base.
- If necessary, presuppositional truths relevant to the gospel and necessary for it to be understood must be included in the proclamation to the intended recipients.
09 July, 2010
The Apostolic Gospel: Mood
Before addressing the core content of the apostolic gospel, two key overarching characteristics of the gospel will first be considered. The first of these concerns the mood or tone of the gospel proclamations found in the Book of Acts, along with two fundamental presuppositions underlying the good news. The second involves the communicative form in which it was expressed. Subsequent to these preliminary considerations, the core content of the gospel will be identified, followed by a review of the responses generated by the apostolic gospel.
In terms of the mood, it is significant that the term "gospel" itself means good news. Throughout the Book of Acts the apostolic gospel emphasized the Creator's goodness in calling sinful humans to gracious reconciliation with himself. Even in the first public proclamation of the gospel which occurred on the day of Pentecost, Peter, when speaking to the Temple crowd which had been complicit in the recent unjust torture and crucifixion of Jesus, does not adopt a hostile posture or employ combative rhetoric as he unflinchingly testifies to their culpability. Instead, he focuses on the greatness and goodness of God manifested in Jesus and concludes with the wonderful promises of forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit offered to his hearers provided they repent and be baptized (Ac 2:14-40). This first sermon is in many ways prototypical of most of the ensuing accounts of gospel proclamation found in Acts, particularly with respect to the general tone in which it was communicated. Indeed, The term "gospel" was no misnomer to describe the message the apostles preached; it was indeed good news.
The exception to this general tone is found in the addresses to the religious authorities who were aggressively seeking to suppress the proclamation of the gospel. Although they of all people should have known better and recognized the Messiah, they obstinately and perniciously sought to stamp out any and all apostolic preaching concerning Jesus Christ. The strongest example of a shift in tone is found in Acts 7:51-53 (TNIV) which records some of Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin: “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” Nevertheless, even as he was being stoned to death to become the first Christian martyr, Stephen prayed for his persecutors' forgiveness.
Similarly, the accounts of the apostles providing a defense for their public proclamation of the gospel also include strong language spoken to the persecuting religious authorities, yet not without salvation and forgiveness of sins being mentioned (Ac 4:8-12; 5:29-32). Thus, even though an evil, obdurate audience of religious authorities called for strong words to be spoken in witness of the truth, it was not without an ultimate emphasis on the good news being offered to anyone who would receive it. Had the message been exclusively antagonistic, the eventual conversion of a large number of priests would never have taken place (Ac 6:7).
Next to be addressed will be two key presuppositions underlying the apostolic gospel.
In terms of the mood, it is significant that the term "gospel" itself means good news. Throughout the Book of Acts the apostolic gospel emphasized the Creator's goodness in calling sinful humans to gracious reconciliation with himself. Even in the first public proclamation of the gospel which occurred on the day of Pentecost, Peter, when speaking to the Temple crowd which had been complicit in the recent unjust torture and crucifixion of Jesus, does not adopt a hostile posture or employ combative rhetoric as he unflinchingly testifies to their culpability. Instead, he focuses on the greatness and goodness of God manifested in Jesus and concludes with the wonderful promises of forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit offered to his hearers provided they repent and be baptized (Ac 2:14-40). This first sermon is in many ways prototypical of most of the ensuing accounts of gospel proclamation found in Acts, particularly with respect to the general tone in which it was communicated. Indeed, The term "gospel" was no misnomer to describe the message the apostles preached; it was indeed good news.
The exception to this general tone is found in the addresses to the religious authorities who were aggressively seeking to suppress the proclamation of the gospel. Although they of all people should have known better and recognized the Messiah, they obstinately and perniciously sought to stamp out any and all apostolic preaching concerning Jesus Christ. The strongest example of a shift in tone is found in Acts 7:51-53 (TNIV) which records some of Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin: “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” Nevertheless, even as he was being stoned to death to become the first Christian martyr, Stephen prayed for his persecutors' forgiveness.
- [Although Stephen was not technically an apostle, his ministry grew to the point that it included activity that otherwise is found being done by the apostles; namely, publicly proclaiming the gospel and performing signs and wonders (Ac 6:8-10).]
Similarly, the accounts of the apostles providing a defense for their public proclamation of the gospel also include strong language spoken to the persecuting religious authorities, yet not without salvation and forgiveness of sins being mentioned (Ac 4:8-12; 5:29-32). Thus, even though an evil, obdurate audience of religious authorities called for strong words to be spoken in witness of the truth, it was not without an ultimate emphasis on the good news being offered to anyone who would receive it. Had the message been exclusively antagonistic, the eventual conversion of a large number of priests would never have taken place (Ac 6:7).
Next to be addressed will be two key presuppositions underlying the apostolic gospel.
The Apostolic Gospel: Introduction
A few months ago I viewed a television broadcast of a popular American religious speaker who has at times been criticized for a lack of faithfulness to the Christian message. So I was excited when a member of his organization introduced a video of the speaker by saying that he had recently preached the gospel to an enormously large crowd in a sports stadium. He repeatedly emphasized the point that the gospel had been preached. As I listened to the message, however, I was deeply saddened and troubled by its overall thrust, which essentially boiled down to the following themes: God wants you to be happy, successful, and fulfilled, and He wants you to do good things to other people. Perhaps I wasn't paying adequate attention, but I never heard the core elements of the historic gospel as presented to us in the record of the New Testament.
Not long afterwards I decided to do a thorough study of the apostolic preaching of the gospel as recorded in Acts. I chose Acts because the epistles are primarily written to existing first century believers and the Gospels present Jesus as the protagonist doing the speaking and acting. Acts on the other hand presents his followers proclaiming the good news about him to Jewish and Gentile audiences in various locations throughout the Roman empire. The results of my study were personally invigorating and in some cases surprising.
Several questions drove my inquiry: (1) What message did the apostles publicly proclaim? (2) Or again, what message did God anoint so as to produce conviction in the recipients' hearts and to confirm by way of signs and wonders? (3) What was its emphasis, and what are its elements? The presupposition behind this inquiry is that the gospel we preach today should be evaluated in light of the scriptural witness, which is to have authority over our beliefs and conduct.
This then leads to several more questions: (1) Are we preaching the apostolic gospel in its entirety, or are we leaving important elements out of our communication? (2) Are we including elements in our gospel presentation that had no place in the apostolic gospel, and consequently at best are distracting our recipients from the core message and at worst are undermining core elements of the historic faith? (3) Are we misplacing the emphasis of the apostles' message by focusing on things that may be biblically true, but were not considered central by the apostles to their public preaching?
In what follows I will attempt to answer the first set of questions, but anyone reading my material will have to answer the second set for themselves based on their evaluation of my study, the scriptural evidence, and their own gospel proclamation or that of others (although I'll make a few comments myself).
For those that may be interested, a brief summary of my findings were presented in a sermon entitled, "The Apostolic Gospel, the Original Good News." (The churches where I spoke were Every Nation Church Seattle, and Bethel World Outreach Center. The better of the two presentations can be heard here or downloaded here as an mp3 file. The sermon notes can be accessed here.)
Not long afterwards I decided to do a thorough study of the apostolic preaching of the gospel as recorded in Acts. I chose Acts because the epistles are primarily written to existing first century believers and the Gospels present Jesus as the protagonist doing the speaking and acting. Acts on the other hand presents his followers proclaiming the good news about him to Jewish and Gentile audiences in various locations throughout the Roman empire. The results of my study were personally invigorating and in some cases surprising.
Several questions drove my inquiry: (1) What message did the apostles publicly proclaim? (2) Or again, what message did God anoint so as to produce conviction in the recipients' hearts and to confirm by way of signs and wonders? (3) What was its emphasis, and what are its elements? The presupposition behind this inquiry is that the gospel we preach today should be evaluated in light of the scriptural witness, which is to have authority over our beliefs and conduct.
This then leads to several more questions: (1) Are we preaching the apostolic gospel in its entirety, or are we leaving important elements out of our communication? (2) Are we including elements in our gospel presentation that had no place in the apostolic gospel, and consequently at best are distracting our recipients from the core message and at worst are undermining core elements of the historic faith? (3) Are we misplacing the emphasis of the apostles' message by focusing on things that may be biblically true, but were not considered central by the apostles to their public preaching?
In what follows I will attempt to answer the first set of questions, but anyone reading my material will have to answer the second set for themselves based on their evaluation of my study, the scriptural evidence, and their own gospel proclamation or that of others (although I'll make a few comments myself).
For those that may be interested, a brief summary of my findings were presented in a sermon entitled, "The Apostolic Gospel, the Original Good News." (The churches where I spoke were Every Nation Church Seattle, and Bethel World Outreach Center. The better of the two presentations can be heard here or downloaded here as an mp3 file. The sermon notes can be accessed here.)
Jesus' Healing Ministry: Fulfillment of Isaiah 53
My last post, "Healing & the Sermon on the Mount," looked at the link between Jesus' teaching on righteousness and his healing ministry as exemplified by the literary connections between the Sermon on the Mount and the transitional texts immediately preceding and following it. This post will briefly consider Matthew's declaration that Jesus' healing ministry was the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4. Following his account of the healings of the leper, the Centurion's servant, and Peter's mother-in-law, which led to the deliverance of many who were demonized and the healing of all who were sick in her town, Matthew states, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 'He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases'" (8:17).
In a short article I wrote focusing on the contextual use of the the word "healed" found in Isaiah 53:5, I argue that the well-known phrase, "by his wound we are healed," is employed by the prophet in a metaphorical sense to speak of the spiritual restoration of God's people, and that the references to "infirmities" and "diseases" in 53:4 (which is quoted by Matthew) is a metaphorical reference to spiritual idolatry, self-reliance, and other sins. (The article can be viewed here: "Word Study on Healed in Isaiah 53:5.") If this is correct as the biblical evidence clearly suggests, then how is it that Matthew cites Isaiah 53:4 as being fulfilled in the healing ministry of Jesus?
As believers in the apostolic gospel concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, we of course understand the entire Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah 53 to speak of Christ's atonement for our sins, accomplished through his incarnation, sinless life, sufferings, and death. He was indeed physically wounded unto death in order that we might be spiritually healed. Yet the redemption which he procured on our behalf has as its aim the restoration of the entire person, material and immaterial, as evidenced by his own physical resurrection. Not only are we brought to spiritual life through his atoning death, but we shall also be physically raised from the dead because of his resurrection. It follows then that Jesus' healing ministry served as a foretaste of the ultimate healing yet to be experienced by all who belong to him, which of course is the resurrection of the body.
A careful reading of Matthew's Gospel leads to the conclusion that he clearly understands Jesus' healing ministry as a sign pointing to the fullness of God's great salvation, the restoration of the entire person. Consequently, it is no surprise that he cites Isaiah 53:4, a text about spiritual restoration accomplished by a suffering Messiah, as being fulfilled in Jesus' healing ministry.
Since God still directly heals people today through the power and person of the Holy Spirit, it behooves everyone who understands these truths to make the most of such opportunities to communicate the apostolic gospel concerning the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation he has procured for all who repent and believe. We are to explain the sign by proclaiming the gospel!
In a short article I wrote focusing on the contextual use of the the word "healed" found in Isaiah 53:5, I argue that the well-known phrase, "by his wound we are healed," is employed by the prophet in a metaphorical sense to speak of the spiritual restoration of God's people, and that the references to "infirmities" and "diseases" in 53:4 (which is quoted by Matthew) is a metaphorical reference to spiritual idolatry, self-reliance, and other sins. (The article can be viewed here: "Word Study on Healed in Isaiah 53:5.") If this is correct as the biblical evidence clearly suggests, then how is it that Matthew cites Isaiah 53:4 as being fulfilled in the healing ministry of Jesus?
As believers in the apostolic gospel concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, we of course understand the entire Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah 53 to speak of Christ's atonement for our sins, accomplished through his incarnation, sinless life, sufferings, and death. He was indeed physically wounded unto death in order that we might be spiritually healed. Yet the redemption which he procured on our behalf has as its aim the restoration of the entire person, material and immaterial, as evidenced by his own physical resurrection. Not only are we brought to spiritual life through his atoning death, but we shall also be physically raised from the dead because of his resurrection. It follows then that Jesus' healing ministry served as a foretaste of the ultimate healing yet to be experienced by all who belong to him, which of course is the resurrection of the body.
A careful reading of Matthew's Gospel leads to the conclusion that he clearly understands Jesus' healing ministry as a sign pointing to the fullness of God's great salvation, the restoration of the entire person. Consequently, it is no surprise that he cites Isaiah 53:4, a text about spiritual restoration accomplished by a suffering Messiah, as being fulfilled in Jesus' healing ministry.
Since God still directly heals people today through the power and person of the Holy Spirit, it behooves everyone who understands these truths to make the most of such opportunities to communicate the apostolic gospel concerning the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation he has procured for all who repent and believe. We are to explain the sign by proclaiming the gospel!
Healing & the Sermon on the Mount
Literary context is of course a critical element to doing sound biblical interpretation. It's interesting to note then that the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is sandwiched by healing accounts. It's commonly recognized that Matthew is arranged with five major panels of Jesus' teaching alternating with accounts of his deeds. It's not surprising then to consider that the transitions between these various sections also can provide insight into the literary thrust given by the Holy Spirit through the inspired author.
Just prior to the Sermon on the Mount and just after the inception of his public ministry, Jesus is described as teaching, preaching, and "healing every disease and sickness among the people" throughout Galilee (4:23-24). Immediately after the Sermon on the Mount Matthew recounts the healings of three individuals: a man with leprosy (8:1-4), a Centurion's servant (8:5-13), and Peter's mother-in-law (8:14-16), the latter of which then leads to the driving out of many demons and the healing of all the sick in her town. This arrangement of material is not by chance, but is pregnant with meaning.
The Sermon itself concentrates primarily on the topic of righteousness, contrasting popular conceptions of righteousness derived from Pharisaical teachings regarding the application of the Mosaic Law with Jesus' insight into the true meaning of the Law. Corrupt literalist interpretations are overthrown by the One who understood the spirit or intent of the sacred text. Manifested righteousness then, according to Jesus, is particularly measured by love for God and for one's neighbor. The mere external observance of the Law which fails to capture and express the inner spirit of the Law, which is love, is bankrupt and is of no eternal profit. But the one who through his or her humble relationship with Jesus goes on to express the intent of the Law through good deeds done unto God and others from the motive of love, has indeed expressed a righteousness that "surpasses the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law" and pleases God. Righteousness, then, is especially expressed by doing good to others out of love.
In light of this we can say that the healings on either side of the Sermon serve to illustrate righteousness in the life of Jesus, which in turn serves as an example to all who become his disciples. Or we can say that the Sermon serves to spiritually clarify Jesus' mighty deeds of healing and deliverance. Both statements are true. Just as Jesus had compassion on human suffering and did not sit idly by, but instead took action to alleviate suffering and bring restoration and wholeness to the afflicted, so also we are to do the same to the degree that we are able in terms of both our own resources and those of the Holy Spirit granted to us by faith. Such righteous deeds are directed to the entire person, not merely their immaterial soul even though that dimension of the human is of paramount importance.
A final observation concerns the three specific individuals healed in the accounts that immediately follow the Sermon. Why are these particular three mentioned? I believe they were chosen to serve as symbols of God's compassion for all people. Notice that they are a leper, a Centurion's servant, and a woman. Given the historical-cultural context all of these are at best "second-class" citizens in the eyes of first century Jews. The leper was a cultic outcast, the Centurion and those of his household were undesirable Gentiles, and the woman simply was not the equal of a man. Since Matthew is understood to have been written primarily to a Jewish Christian audience, the message is clear. Jesus, who revealed the Father, demonstrates that God's compassion expressed through healing extends to all persons equally. Righteousness in action is impartial and without prejudice. Those who are Christ's disciples are to go and do likewise.
Just prior to the Sermon on the Mount and just after the inception of his public ministry, Jesus is described as teaching, preaching, and "healing every disease and sickness among the people" throughout Galilee (4:23-24). Immediately after the Sermon on the Mount Matthew recounts the healings of three individuals: a man with leprosy (8:1-4), a Centurion's servant (8:5-13), and Peter's mother-in-law (8:14-16), the latter of which then leads to the driving out of many demons and the healing of all the sick in her town. This arrangement of material is not by chance, but is pregnant with meaning.
The Sermon itself concentrates primarily on the topic of righteousness, contrasting popular conceptions of righteousness derived from Pharisaical teachings regarding the application of the Mosaic Law with Jesus' insight into the true meaning of the Law. Corrupt literalist interpretations are overthrown by the One who understood the spirit or intent of the sacred text. Manifested righteousness then, according to Jesus, is particularly measured by love for God and for one's neighbor. The mere external observance of the Law which fails to capture and express the inner spirit of the Law, which is love, is bankrupt and is of no eternal profit. But the one who through his or her humble relationship with Jesus goes on to express the intent of the Law through good deeds done unto God and others from the motive of love, has indeed expressed a righteousness that "surpasses the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law" and pleases God. Righteousness, then, is especially expressed by doing good to others out of love.
In light of this we can say that the healings on either side of the Sermon serve to illustrate righteousness in the life of Jesus, which in turn serves as an example to all who become his disciples. Or we can say that the Sermon serves to spiritually clarify Jesus' mighty deeds of healing and deliverance. Both statements are true. Just as Jesus had compassion on human suffering and did not sit idly by, but instead took action to alleviate suffering and bring restoration and wholeness to the afflicted, so also we are to do the same to the degree that we are able in terms of both our own resources and those of the Holy Spirit granted to us by faith. Such righteous deeds are directed to the entire person, not merely their immaterial soul even though that dimension of the human is of paramount importance.
A final observation concerns the three specific individuals healed in the accounts that immediately follow the Sermon. Why are these particular three mentioned? I believe they were chosen to serve as symbols of God's compassion for all people. Notice that they are a leper, a Centurion's servant, and a woman. Given the historical-cultural context all of these are at best "second-class" citizens in the eyes of first century Jews. The leper was a cultic outcast, the Centurion and those of his household were undesirable Gentiles, and the woman simply was not the equal of a man. Since Matthew is understood to have been written primarily to a Jewish Christian audience, the message is clear. Jesus, who revealed the Father, demonstrates that God's compassion expressed through healing extends to all persons equally. Righteousness in action is impartial and without prejudice. Those who are Christ's disciples are to go and do likewise.
Citizenship in Heaven
Citizenship in heaven (Php 3:20) does not involve abandonment of the earth or humanity's cultures. Rather, the citizenship metaphor is employed by Paul to contrast the identity and consequent motivation and desires of the believers with those who derive their identity solely from this fallen world. Indeed, these "enemies of the cross of Christ" have their mind set on "earthly things." But Paul's pejorative use of "earthly" in contrast to "heaven(ly)" should not be construed in a Gnostic manner that regards the material world to be intrinsically evil. If that were the case, why did the Son of God incarnate and why would Paul's heart beat so passionately with the hope of the transformation of the human corpus into one of immortality at the resurrection. It is sin and human adherence to it that is to be disdained, not the creation itself. It is a major mistake to equate the "earthly-heavenly" contrast to mean anything more than an ultimate juxtaposition between the fallenness of humanity and the righteousness of God.
It should also be kept in mind that Paul's metaphor regarding citizenship was written to believers who were Philippians, members of a Roman colony located in Greece whose citizens were endowed by law with full Roman citizenship with all its rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Even as the general citizenry of Philippi derived their civil identity from Rome, so the believers were to derive their spiritual identity from the exalted Christ. These recipients of Paul's letter would have clearly understood his exhortation to mean that they should live in a manner worthy of the honor with which they had been graciously bestowed, not as an implicit abandonment of their local responsibilities. Indeed, that is the overall thrust of the passage in which the phrase "citizenship...in heaven" appears.
Furthermore, the immediate context of the phrase states that as citizens of heaven believers "eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ." When we read all of the various letters traditionally ascribed to Paul, we understand this expectation to involve the resurrection of the dead and the renewal of creation. It is the time when, as Jesus put it, "the meek shall inherit the earth" and Christ will consummate the establishment of his kingdom on earth so that God's will might be fully done here as it is in heaven.
Let us therefore live, labor, and pray for Christ's return as honorable citizens of heaven seeking to be transformative salt and light in a world of fallen humanity.
It should also be kept in mind that Paul's metaphor regarding citizenship was written to believers who were Philippians, members of a Roman colony located in Greece whose citizens were endowed by law with full Roman citizenship with all its rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Even as the general citizenry of Philippi derived their civil identity from Rome, so the believers were to derive their spiritual identity from the exalted Christ. These recipients of Paul's letter would have clearly understood his exhortation to mean that they should live in a manner worthy of the honor with which they had been graciously bestowed, not as an implicit abandonment of their local responsibilities. Indeed, that is the overall thrust of the passage in which the phrase "citizenship...in heaven" appears.
Furthermore, the immediate context of the phrase states that as citizens of heaven believers "eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ." When we read all of the various letters traditionally ascribed to Paul, we understand this expectation to involve the resurrection of the dead and the renewal of creation. It is the time when, as Jesus put it, "the meek shall inherit the earth" and Christ will consummate the establishment of his kingdom on earth so that God's will might be fully done here as it is in heaven.
Let us therefore live, labor, and pray for Christ's return as honorable citizens of heaven seeking to be transformative salt and light in a world of fallen humanity.
Healings Initiated by Jesus
There are several instances in the Gospels in which Jesus initiates the healing of a person without any attestation to having been first entreated to do so. Perhaps the most remarkable instance is that of the raising from the dead of a widow's only son, which can be regarded as an extreme healing since healing ultimately points to the resurrection anyway. Below is listed in order of appearance the instances which I have identified as evidence for the claim made above.
However, it should be noted that the absence of attestation to Jesus' having been entreated to heal someone does not in every instance preclude the possibility that someone had actually done so. This is illustrated in the accounts given of Jesus' healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Matthew 8:14-17 seems to indicate that Jesus initiated the healing without any outside entreaty to do so. However, Mark 1:29-31 relates that the disciples mentioned her to Jesus with the implication that they expected him to heal her. Luke 4:38 goes further in reporting, "They asked Jesus to help her."
Nevertheless, based on the contextual readings of the instances listed below, I am persuaded that most if not all of these are indeed indicative of divinely initiated healings; i.e., Jesus took the initiative to do good to these people without any direct verbal request to do so. Herewith follows the list.
Matthew 12:9-13. Although the Pharisees are reported as calling attention to a man with a crippled hand, there is no record that they or the man asked Jesus to heal him. Rather, the Pharisees seem to expect Jesus to take such action and seek to accuse him of being a lawbreaker based on their belief that the Sabbath prohibited such "work."
Mark 3:1-6 is a parallel account of the healing mentioned in Matthew 12:9-13. In this report, Jesus is presented as the one who draws attention to the crippled man by posing the question regarding what is lawful to be done on the Sabbath. As in Matthew's account, however, no one is attested to having requested Jesus to heal the man. Rather, Mark even more so than Matthew seems to imply that Jesus took the initiative to do so.
Luke 6:6-11 is yet one more parallel account of the healing of a man with a crippled hand. Luke's account is nearly identical to Mark's.
Luke 7:11-17, to my mind, is the most touching story of any healing performed by Jesus as recorded in Scripture, being underscored by its having been solely initiated by him. As Jesus is entering a small town, he encounters a funeral procession for a widow's only son. "When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her...," Luke tells us. Entirely on his own initiative he speaks words of comfort to her and then proceeds to raise her son from the dead. The story is a poignant window into the heart of Jesus when one considers the hardships widows faced in the ancient world. These would have been compounded now that the only other male in her immediate family, her only son, had just died.
Luke 13:10-17 records the healing of a woman who had been crippled for 18 years. Once again Luke indicates that Jesus took the initiative. "When Jesus saw her, he called her forward," and spoke words of freedom to her and then healed her.
Luke 14:1-6 documents another instance in which Jesus stands in tension with the Pharisees over whether healing is lawful on the Sabbath. Once again Jesus is presented as raising the issue by calling attention to a man who is present and suffers from abnormal swelling of his body. He then proceeds to heal him without any prior request to do so.
John 5:1-15 relates the story of Jesus healing an invalid who had suffered for 38 years. Once again the language used clearly implies that Jesus took the sole initiative to heal the man. "When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, 'Do you want to get well?'" John goes on to tell us that the man did not even know who it was who healed him!
John 9:1-7 records the healing of the man born blind. Once again the language employed suggests that Jesus took the initiative. "As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth." His disciples assumed his condition must have been due to either his own or his parents' sin, and asked Jesus about this. After denying the validity of their assumption, he then proceeded to engage the man, giving him instructions, which after they were followed resulted in the man's miraculous healing.
It should be pointed out that these should not be thought of as an exhaustive list of all the healings which Jesus himself initiated. As with all his other deeds and words recorded in the Gospels, they are a divinely selected sample representative of his prolific public ministry. As John put it, if everything Jesus did were written down, "I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
There are two points I wish to underscore by having cited these various incidences. First, it is wrong to teach that God will only heal someone if they have enough faith. Faith certainly pleases God, but it is not an absolute prerequisite for someone to receive blessing from God. Jesus himself taught that "(Y)our Father in heaven...causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Of course faith is emphasized in Scripture as honoring God, and unbelief is flatly judged to be sin. Yet it cannot be accurately taught that unless one has faith, God will never bless you. True, ordinarily one should not expect to receive specifically requested blessings from God, if one does not have faith. However, the absence or weakness of faith does not preclude God from sovereignly exercising his power out of goodness and mercy to bless us in spite of ourselves. On the other hand, faith is clearly necessary to access God's grace which saves us from our sin and grants to us all the privileges and benefits of God's salvation procured for us in Christ.
The second point is simply that God is incredibly gracious and good. Although one could instead criticize God for his apparent failure to act on behalf of all who suffer, the one who has faith sees in the texts cited above the love of God manifested in the person of his Son, through whom he has provided for our eventual full redemption. Although this world is marked by suffering and many sorrows, yet we see in Jesus' self-initiated healings a glimpse of God's goodness, compassion, and mercy, as well as a sign which ultimately points to God's promise to renew creation and restore all things. This will be accomplished when Jesus returns to earth from heaven. For that day let us labor, live, and pray.
However, it should be noted that the absence of attestation to Jesus' having been entreated to heal someone does not in every instance preclude the possibility that someone had actually done so. This is illustrated in the accounts given of Jesus' healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Matthew 8:14-17 seems to indicate that Jesus initiated the healing without any outside entreaty to do so. However, Mark 1:29-31 relates that the disciples mentioned her to Jesus with the implication that they expected him to heal her. Luke 4:38 goes further in reporting, "They asked Jesus to help her."
Nevertheless, based on the contextual readings of the instances listed below, I am persuaded that most if not all of these are indeed indicative of divinely initiated healings; i.e., Jesus took the initiative to do good to these people without any direct verbal request to do so. Herewith follows the list.
Matthew 12:9-13. Although the Pharisees are reported as calling attention to a man with a crippled hand, there is no record that they or the man asked Jesus to heal him. Rather, the Pharisees seem to expect Jesus to take such action and seek to accuse him of being a lawbreaker based on their belief that the Sabbath prohibited such "work."
Mark 3:1-6 is a parallel account of the healing mentioned in Matthew 12:9-13. In this report, Jesus is presented as the one who draws attention to the crippled man by posing the question regarding what is lawful to be done on the Sabbath. As in Matthew's account, however, no one is attested to having requested Jesus to heal the man. Rather, Mark even more so than Matthew seems to imply that Jesus took the initiative to do so.
Luke 6:6-11 is yet one more parallel account of the healing of a man with a crippled hand. Luke's account is nearly identical to Mark's.
Luke 7:11-17, to my mind, is the most touching story of any healing performed by Jesus as recorded in Scripture, being underscored by its having been solely initiated by him. As Jesus is entering a small town, he encounters a funeral procession for a widow's only son. "When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her...," Luke tells us. Entirely on his own initiative he speaks words of comfort to her and then proceeds to raise her son from the dead. The story is a poignant window into the heart of Jesus when one considers the hardships widows faced in the ancient world. These would have been compounded now that the only other male in her immediate family, her only son, had just died.
Luke 13:10-17 records the healing of a woman who had been crippled for 18 years. Once again Luke indicates that Jesus took the initiative. "When Jesus saw her, he called her forward," and spoke words of freedom to her and then healed her.
Luke 14:1-6 documents another instance in which Jesus stands in tension with the Pharisees over whether healing is lawful on the Sabbath. Once again Jesus is presented as raising the issue by calling attention to a man who is present and suffers from abnormal swelling of his body. He then proceeds to heal him without any prior request to do so.
John 5:1-15 relates the story of Jesus healing an invalid who had suffered for 38 years. Once again the language used clearly implies that Jesus took the sole initiative to heal the man. "When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, 'Do you want to get well?'" John goes on to tell us that the man did not even know who it was who healed him!
John 9:1-7 records the healing of the man born blind. Once again the language employed suggests that Jesus took the initiative. "As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth." His disciples assumed his condition must have been due to either his own or his parents' sin, and asked Jesus about this. After denying the validity of their assumption, he then proceeded to engage the man, giving him instructions, which after they were followed resulted in the man's miraculous healing.
It should be pointed out that these should not be thought of as an exhaustive list of all the healings which Jesus himself initiated. As with all his other deeds and words recorded in the Gospels, they are a divinely selected sample representative of his prolific public ministry. As John put it, if everything Jesus did were written down, "I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
There are two points I wish to underscore by having cited these various incidences. First, it is wrong to teach that God will only heal someone if they have enough faith. Faith certainly pleases God, but it is not an absolute prerequisite for someone to receive blessing from God. Jesus himself taught that "(Y)our Father in heaven...causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Of course faith is emphasized in Scripture as honoring God, and unbelief is flatly judged to be sin. Yet it cannot be accurately taught that unless one has faith, God will never bless you. True, ordinarily one should not expect to receive specifically requested blessings from God, if one does not have faith. However, the absence or weakness of faith does not preclude God from sovereignly exercising his power out of goodness and mercy to bless us in spite of ourselves. On the other hand, faith is clearly necessary to access God's grace which saves us from our sin and grants to us all the privileges and benefits of God's salvation procured for us in Christ.
The second point is simply that God is incredibly gracious and good. Although one could instead criticize God for his apparent failure to act on behalf of all who suffer, the one who has faith sees in the texts cited above the love of God manifested in the person of his Son, through whom he has provided for our eventual full redemption. Although this world is marked by suffering and many sorrows, yet we see in Jesus' self-initiated healings a glimpse of God's goodness, compassion, and mercy, as well as a sign which ultimately points to God's promise to renew creation and restore all things. This will be accomplished when Jesus returns to earth from heaven. For that day let us labor, live, and pray.
Healings in the Gospels - A Brief Summary
This post will list a brief summary of some of the more salient points regarding the significance of healing as presented in the Gospels. To my mind there are dozens more that could also be listed, but the ones that follow are those that particularly stand out to me.
1. At its most basic level healing is a demonstration of care and concern by God for the human condition, which in turn serves as a moral example of divine love in action instructing us to also actively care for our fellow humans.
2. Healing functions as a sign and metaphor for salvation, indicating God's intent to restore and make whole again humanity. Just as healing was offered freely and given to all who called upon Jesus during his earthly ministry, so is salvation offered and given to all who call upon Jesus today.
3. Healing is indicative of the divine-human exchange brought about through Jesus Christ wherein righteousness and immortality are exchanged for sin and death between Christ and repentant, believing humanity. Healing serves to underscore the divine exchange that takes place in the atonement.
4. Healing is a sign confirming Jesus' divine identity, power, and authority, including his right and privilege to forgive sins and reconcile sinners to God.
5. Healing is a call to repentance and faith in Jesus, and thus when experienced or witnessed necessarily entails moral accountability to divine justice. (This may not at first seem apparent, but the lesson is drawn out from Jesus' indictment of those towns in which many of his healing miracles took place but failed to repent.)
6. Healing is an underscoring of the goodness of the material creation, the diginity of the human body, and God's love for the entire human. The fact that healing came via the incarnated Son of God serves doubly to make this point.
7. Healing is especially a sign pointing to the resurrection of the righteous, which is the ultimate healing. It serves to inspire hope in God's promise to restore all things and to imbue us with incorruptibility, glory, and immortality.
It is this final point which most excites me, and about which I hope to write at further length in another post. Remember, heaven is good, but the resurrection is better!
1. At its most basic level healing is a demonstration of care and concern by God for the human condition, which in turn serves as a moral example of divine love in action instructing us to also actively care for our fellow humans.
2. Healing functions as a sign and metaphor for salvation, indicating God's intent to restore and make whole again humanity. Just as healing was offered freely and given to all who called upon Jesus during his earthly ministry, so is salvation offered and given to all who call upon Jesus today.
3. Healing is indicative of the divine-human exchange brought about through Jesus Christ wherein righteousness and immortality are exchanged for sin and death between Christ and repentant, believing humanity. Healing serves to underscore the divine exchange that takes place in the atonement.
4. Healing is a sign confirming Jesus' divine identity, power, and authority, including his right and privilege to forgive sins and reconcile sinners to God.
5. Healing is a call to repentance and faith in Jesus, and thus when experienced or witnessed necessarily entails moral accountability to divine justice. (This may not at first seem apparent, but the lesson is drawn out from Jesus' indictment of those towns in which many of his healing miracles took place but failed to repent.)
6. Healing is an underscoring of the goodness of the material creation, the diginity of the human body, and God's love for the entire human. The fact that healing came via the incarnated Son of God serves doubly to make this point.
7. Healing is especially a sign pointing to the resurrection of the righteous, which is the ultimate healing. It serves to inspire hope in God's promise to restore all things and to imbue us with incorruptibility, glory, and immortality.
It is this final point which most excites me, and about which I hope to write at further length in another post. Remember, heaven is good, but the resurrection is better!
Healing
Because of some personal health issues that began many months ago I decided to read through the Gospels and Acts looking at texts which addressed the subject of healing in some fashion. My primary interest was not to seek some new insight into receiving healing for myself, but rather to look at the contextualized significance of healing as presented in the biblical text itself.
It's my intention to pass on some of the information and insights I gleaned from this exercise. Thus, many of my subsequent posts in the near future will likely focus in on this topic. I hope that some of you will find them helpful.
It's my intention to pass on some of the information and insights I gleaned from this exercise. Thus, many of my subsequent posts in the near future will likely focus in on this topic. I hope that some of you will find them helpful.
Welcome
Welcome! As can be seen from the subtitle under my name in the header above, my purpose for starting this blog is to comment on various biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical topics which I hope will be of interest to thoughtful Christians, especially those whom I've had the privilege to serve beside over the years.
Thus begins my latest foray into blogging. I hope you find it helpful in some respect, even if you don't agree with me.
Special thanks to Ian Chursky for the custom graphic.
Thought for the day, everyday: Heaven is good, but the Resurrection is better!
Bruce
Thus begins my latest foray into blogging. I hope you find it helpful in some respect, even if you don't agree with me.
Special thanks to Ian Chursky for the custom graphic.
Thought for the day, everyday: Heaven is good, but the Resurrection is better!
Bruce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)