An analysis of the apostolic gospel as presented in the Book of Acts lends itself to a categorization of core information into five constituents, all of which are centered upon Jesus. These involve Jesus' identity, his first and second comings, his fulfillment of ancient prophecies, and his call for a radical response to himself. Having covered the first two, we now move on to a preliminary consideration of the third constituent.
The apostolic preaching of Jesus' second coming focuses on the future historical consummation of his mission, even as their preaching of his first coming focused on its historical inauguration. Several of the accounts of public witness in Acts reference this consummation by focusing at various times on four of its major components. These include Jesus' eventual physical return to earth from heaven, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of the living and the dead, and the full establishment and reign of the kingdom of God upon earth.
However, an exclusive reading of Acts apart from other Scripture does not render a clear, coherent picture of the historical consummation of Jesus' mission. This is because most of the references to the various components are relatively brief and are not combined in a comprehensive manner. Given that Acts is the second part of Luke's historical-apologetic work, the reading of Luke's Gospel is necessary to remove the ambiguity that arises from such an exclusive reading. This of course is not problematic since the intended recipient(s) of Acts is the same as that of his Gospel. Thus, Luke's Gospel serves as an appropriate presuppositional source of information to the reading and interpretation of Acts (cf. "The Apostolic Gospel: Core Content (Excursus)").
Of particular interest is the fact that Luke's Gospel explicitly identifies Jesus as the Messiah numerous times. As has been pointed out earlier, the various beliefs extant among Jews in the first century concerning a Messiah shared a common constellation of eschatological beliefs and hopes, whether that Messiah was understood to be a singular historical figure or a figurative metaphor for the corporate people of God. Resurrection from the dead, God's judgment on the nations, the ultimate vindication of Israel (God's people), the outpouring of God's Spirit and the abiding presence of God, and the full establishment of God's kingdom through the reign of a Davidic king were central to these Messianic beliefs and hopes, being derived from their sacred prophetic texts. In Luke's Gospel, Jesus himself teaches about all of these themes by placing them in direct relationship to himself, identifying himself as the precipitous cause and agent through whom they would take place. It is important to note that many of these themes appear in the apostolic preaching recorded in Acts.
Luke's identification of Jesus as the Messiah is also implicitly underscored by Jesus' own self-identification. It is interesting to observe that Jesus preferred to call himself the "Son of Man" over any other term. This is true not only in Luke's account, but also in the Gospels as a whole. The term, Son of Man, is derived from three Old Testament sources (Ezk 2:1ff.; Psa 80:17; Dan 7:13-14) and connotes two primary meanings, which involve his humanity and his Messianic identity.
The prophet Ezekiel is referred to by Yahweh with the same title approximately ninety-three times, beginning with his divine call to prophetic ministry (2:1), wherein his humanity and his common human bond with the rebellious Israelites is placed in contradistinction to the glory and majesty of God which were revealed to him in a vision (ch. 1). Thus, "Son of Man" connotes Jesus' humanity and his identification with the fallen human race (albeit exclusive of any existential or ontological participation in its sinfulness).
As a side note, this designation of Ezekiel which contrasts his humanity with God's glory is not without a peculiar, subtle comparison. The vision which Ezekiel saw included a divine figure "like that of a man," who "looked like glowing metal," full of fire and surrounded by brilliant light. After describing him, Ezekiel states, "This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh" (1:26-28). It is immediately after this vision that Yahweh calls Ezekiel "son of man," drawing an interesting comparison between the divine figure and Ezekiel, and calling to mind the fact that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. This is not without significance, particularly in light of Jesus' incarnation (Lk 1-2) and transfiguration (Lk 9:28-36). Jesus' adoption of the term "Son of Man" includes within it this reference to the divine figure of Ezekiel's vision.
In the prophetic oracles that ensue, Ezekiel goes on to prophesy about many, if not all, of the major eschatological themes that came to be associated with the Jewish Messianic hopes and expectations of the next several centuries. Jesus' identification with Ezekiel as the "Son of Man" thus also includes his association (as evidenced by his own preaching and teaching) with these Messianic themes.
The second Old Testament source for the term "Son of Man," which Jesus adopted for himself, is Psalm 80:17. This text appeals to God for a Davidic ruler to serve as God's agent to bring about deliverance for oppressed Israel: "Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of man you have raised up for yourself." Again, the Messianic implications are clear.
Finally, the term is used to identify a mysterious figure seen by Daniel in a vision. "...(T)here before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed" (7:13-14). This vision follows sequentially upon another that beholds a session of the heavenly court with the Ancient of Days in attendance, at which divine, permanent judgment is rendered against a monstrous human empire which had oppressed the people of God. The ensuing result of the fulfillment of these two visions is that "the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him" (7:27). It's worth noting that Stephen's apologia in Acts 7 identifies Jesus as the "Son of Man" exalted to the "right hand of God" (7:55-56). The implications are, once again, clear.
Taken together, these three Old Testament sources for the term "Son of Man" provide strong eschatological overtones to Jesus' choice for self-identification. Jesus embraced not only his own humanity through his use of the term, but also his Messianic mission to deliver the people of God and establish the everlasting reign of God's kingdom upon the earth. This is clearly evident throughout Luke's Gospel, which provides the interpretive backdrop for the apostolic speeches recorded in Acts.
Having provided a preliminary sketch of Luke's identification of Jesus as the Messiah/Son of Man who will consummate God's plan of redemption, we will next turn to a consideration of the four major components associated with that consummation which appear both in Luke's Gospel and in the apostolic preaching recorded in Acts. Jesus' return to earth, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of the nations, and the full establishment and reign of God's kingdom on earth will be reviewed in light of Luke's Gospel, which provides the informational foundation necessary to grasp a clear picture of the apostolic preaching as it touches upon the historical consummation of Jesus' Messianic mission.
Textual References
Messiah - Luke 2:11, 26; 3:15; 4:41; 9:20; 20:41; 22:67; 23:2, 35, 39; 24:26, 46
Son of Man - Luke 5:24; 6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22-26, 44, 58; 11:30; 12:8-10, 40; 17:22-30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69; 24:7; (cf., Ezk 2:1ff; Psa 80:17; Dan 7:13-14)
3 comments:
Interesting. Of course, the Jews thought the "holy people of the Most High" referred to their nation alone. I wonder to what extent their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah had to do with the fact, not just that he refused to overthrow Rome and set himself up as their earthly king, but that his disciples began to insist that he was not just their Messiah, but everyone's Messiah?
Hi Kristen,
Jewish beliefs were never entirely homogeneous, especially during the first century. Scripturally and historically Israel had a complex relationship and attitude toward Gentiles. On the one hand they were to categorically avoid any corrupting pagan influences, while on the other hand they were called to be God's means of blessing upon the nations. This latter point was not lost upon their consciousness and actually embedded itself quite strongly into both their worldview and eschatological beliefs.
However, the destruction of the northern and southern kingdoms, and the ensuing Babylonian exile were understood prophetically to have occurred as divine judgment for their having embraced the corruption of the surrounding Gentile nations. This contributed toward a more negative view of the Gentiles, and was further compounded by the experiences of the intertestamental period, which were marked by corrupting Hellenistic influences and Roman oppression. By the time of the first century, many Jews had adopted a harsh view of Gentiles. Even so, many nevertheless still held to an eschatological belief that the nations would ultimately experience God's blessing as they came under the dominion of his rule exercised through a restored kingdom of Israel.
The rejection of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah seems to be complex. Initially, there was the issue of the threat he posed to vested religious, political, and economic interests on the one hand, and his unwillingness to come in the image of a Judas Maccabees to violently overthrow Roman oppression on the other hand. The expansion of the gospel to the Gentiles was only taken up reluctantly by the apostles, albeit dramatically once they understood God's design. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the Gentiles in God's salvation was not necessarily antithetical to the Jews' prior eschatological beliefs, as I pointed out earlier. Instead, they simply assumed that such Gentiles as would be saved would necessarily come under the rule of the Jewish Messiah, which ipso facto meant that they would embrace all of the Jewish cultural identifiers, including circumcision, diet, etc.
The real point of departure between Jews and the claims of the early Church vis-a-vis Jesus as the Messiah came with the inclusion of the Gentiles in God's salvation sans "Jewish conversion," the identification of the Church as the new people of God and as the inheritor of Abraham's and Israel's promises, and the destruction of the Jewish temple. This latter event drove the Jewish community, which was already at odds with the Church, toward a survival mode, in which it sought to clearly distinguish itself from the Church, which had been viewed by many outsiders as merely another Jewish sect.
Bruce,
That succinct analysis really helps me synthesize all the different ideas I've been picking up about Jewish attitudes towards Gentiles in the days of Christ and after, in my various readings. Thanks for the summary!
Post a Comment