The June 2011 issue of the Gospel Advocate has an article considering J. W. McGarvey’s analysis of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, by Brandon Renfroe. Well, I just posted an analysis of the same sermon, and I thought it might be useful to compare the two approaches.
Now, I’m not trying to criticize Brandon’s article. I pretty much agree with everything he says. Any disagreements we might have would be at the level of nuance, and I’m not here to nitpick.
Rather, the point is to point out how our traditional teaching — in both conservative and more progressive congregations — overlooks some key elements because of the cultural bias that has crept into our understanding of the text. And McGarvey’s approach to the sermon typifies much Church of Christ teaching. And not just Church of Christ teaching.
And while I’m no preacher, I think taking a close look at our cultural biases may open new ways to explain and understand the text that are both truer to the scriptures and more responsive to the yearnings of the lost to whom we preach.
Reading the Bible through Greek Eyes
Here’s a summary of Acts 2:22-24 taken from J. W. McGarvey’s commentary on Acts —
1st. That Jesus had been approved by God among them, by miracles and wonders and signs which God had done by him. 2d. That they, themselves, knew this to be so. 3d. That it was not from impotence on his part, but in accordance with the purpose and foreknowledge of God, that he was yielded up to them. 4th. That when thus yielded up they had put him to death, by the torture of crucifixion. 5th. That they had done this with wicked hands. 6th. That God had raised him from the dead. 7th. That it was not possible that death should hold him.
And I think McGarvey is correct in what he says. Brandon concludes,
Something to know, feel and so. In a day when knowledge is often repudiated, emotion either neglected or else abused, and giving the plan the salvation seen as quaint, it is good to revisit the initial sermon of the Christian era and be instructed thereby. It was orderly, yet powerful; simple, yet sublime. It touched hearts 2,000 years ago and will move men even today.
And, yet, the presentation is missing something. You can’t read Peter’s sermon and then read McGarvey’s analysis and not feel that something is lost in translation. I mean, Peter was doing more than communicating knowledge, that is, abstract propositions such as those found by McGarvey.
What’s missing is the story. You see, the gist of Peter’s sermon is to tell the readers where they are in God’s story and what they must do in response to that.
Peter begins my explaining that the miracle the crowd was witnessing was the very thing that Joel had prophesied —
(Act 2:15-16 ESV) 15 “For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel …”
Now, Peter wasn’t trying to persuade the crowd that Joel was inspired or that God can see the future. They already knew that! Peter’s point is that his listeners are now at the moment when the Exile comes to an end and the Kingdom dawns! And that means they’re at the time when the Messiah has claimed the throne of David.
He then demonstrates that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, building up to —
(Act 2:33 ESV) 33 “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.”
God himself is acting. He is not just revealing propositional truths, he is moving in history. God sent his Messiah and God is now sending his Spirit. God is at work among us and the listeners need only pay attention to the obvious to see it!
(Act 2:36 ESV) 36 “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
The King has come to earth to claim his throne and he’s been rejected! No wonder the Jews cried out, “What shall we do?” It wasn’t just that they felt the sting of sin, but they desperately wanted to enter the Kingdom. All their lives they’d prayed for the Kingdom — and they dare not miss it! God is moving, and his actions demand a response!
(Act 2:38-39 ESV) 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
Jesus is King
So what does “repent” mean in this context? We teach that “repent” means something like “stop sinning, attend church three times a week, and engage in five acts of worship.” That is, to many in the Churches of Christ, repentance is moral and ecclessiological: be a good person and get the pattern of worship and church organization right.
But when we look beyond the abstractions and return to the story, we see that “repent” means something very different in this passage. In this passage, “repent” means something more like: “Submit to Jesus as the king placed on the throne of the Universe by God Almighty.” Yes, there are moral and ecclessiological elements, but it begins with understanding where we are in God’s story and how we therefore relate to God.
You see, Peter was preaching to observant Jews. Many had traveled thousands of miles to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem. They didn’t need to become moral. They were already scrupulous moralists. What was necessary was for them to submit to Jesus as king.
Read the Kingdom parables. Read the Sermon on the Mount. It’s about more than being good and nice. It’s about a whole new way of living and understanding God and his world.
It’s about being restored to the image of God — whose very image is found in Jesus. If you don’t believe in Jesus, you can’t be restored to God’s image — because that image is Jesus.
And it’s about service to those in need. You can be profoundly moral, never hurt a fly, and yet make no difference in this world. You can’t be like Jesus, however, unless you learn to care about the things that matter to God and to sacrifice yourself for others
Now, these sorts of lessons aren’t obviously in Acts 2 unless you’ve also read the Law and the Prophets, not to mention the Gospels. But when you place Acts 2 in the context of the Story of God, rather than merely trying to abstract a plan of salvation out of it, you get a glimpse of what Peter’s audience heard and understood.
We all tend to read passages like this from the perspective of the issues at hand in our own experience. We see different things because we live in a different context. I think it would be quite possible to map what McGarvey saw in the passage directly and specifically to the struggles he faced in the church of his era. And similarly, I think what Brandon saw, and what Jay sees, can be mapped directly to the things Brandon and Jay spend their time thinking about in their own churches. I guess that’s how it should be.
BTW, as a tangent, for some reason the terminology “God’s story” makes my skin crawl. To my ears it diminishes the truth by making it a “story” that I can choose to accept, or not. It makes it sound imaginary, fictional, optional. Instead I think of the message of scripture as a description of reality. We live in it whether we admit it or not. We can’t avoid it. It’s not a story, it’s reality. Sooner or later we will have to face it. So I see Peter’s sermon as a wakeup call to a group of Jews who were clueless about who Jesus was and about what they had just done.
Alan,
Jay’s whole point was that these Jews were clueless because they had not seen Jesus in connection with all that the prophets from Abraham on had said about Him.
By the way, does singing the song, “Tell me the Story of Jesus” make your skin crawl? “Story” is simply a narrative. It does not imply fiction.
Jerry
Jay,
(1) Sometimes i feel very disconnected from scripture just because of this very point. i see the point about narrative and God writing history. And all Peter’s hearers and the church at that time were clearly in the midst of God putting pen to paper about the fate of nations and ethnic divisions. It’s hard to see how we’re still a part of that story when it seems like the ‘chapter’ hasn’t changed in far longer than it took any other chapter to change (depending on how you divvy them up i guess). No disagreement here, just stating a disenchanting experience.
(2) i’ve suspected for some time that “last days” in this passage refers not to the last epoch of all time before Christ returns, but the end of the Jewish nation or covenant. –that it’s about the ‘last days’ of Israel in some sense. What do you think?
–guy
Jerry, I know Jay doesn’t mean “fiction” when he says “story”. I’m just saying how it comes across to some people. That should be helpful input to someone who wants to communicate clearly with a diverse audience.
Jay, I think that by quoting Joel, Peter was helping the Jews to identify Jesus as a Jewish concept. They saw Him as a heretic and blasphemous person. Peter connected the Jews to Jesus…Sometimes, even today we read about THEM…and we should see the US in the story…
Facts tell, stories sell….
I see Alan’s point…depends on how your definitions work…but I see a “story” as putting the facts into an experience that one can relate to… the whole sermon by Peter was one of personal involvement… Thus the question, what must WE do…not what must THEY do…
how funny fact and fiction as a definition of narrative there are root meanings that go to cultural biases.
that inhibit our understanding of love.
or another way to put down this intrinsic definition of the fathers (trinity’s)is the restoration of god’s very good creative act.
and his long suffering with the creation in showing and exposing this very character through giving, men a reason to believe.
and at the very time men, gods chosen, were so perverse in their ways because of traditional theology.
they killed god .
NOW WHY ARE WE DIFFERENT
THAT IS THE QUESTION.
I think when doctor Luke mentioned that they were devout men(eulabés), he was stressing their outward conformity to stipulation. Not to their heartfelt sincerity. In this case, observing the feast of Pentecost.
How they rejected John’s and Christ preaching and maliciously(though ignorantly) cried out for his blood. And now some are even calling these Galileans drunkards doesn’t sound well-meaning to me.
But I do agree they were touched that day(even pierced), These man-slaying hypocrites were now truly devout from the heart!
They believed and demonstrated that faith through through baptism where God met them!
I agree 100% it’s all about reversing the curse!
R.J.
You need to recognize that there were differences in the crowd that assembled that day. There were the Jerusalem Jews who led in the crucifixion of Jesus. There were also the devout Jews from the entire Roman world (including proselytes). Presumably there would also have been some who had feted Jesus in the triumphant entry into Jerusalem. These, probably, had little to do with crucifying Jesus. It was only a portion of the crowd who mockingly accused the apostles of being drunk on new wine.
Yet Peter’s sermon appeared to pierce all of this diverse group – though not likely every individual present. Someone observed that following all of the mighty works of Jesus (which many of these present had seen) and the power of Peter’s sermon – the surprising thing was that only 3,000 responded that day.
Jerry
Guy,
(1) My perspective is very different. Yes, this chapter of the story has been continuing since AD 33 or so. But as a student of history, I can see God’s hand moving powerfully throughout the last 2,000 years. God didn’t stop his work at Pentecost. Rather, that’s when he became even more involved — as powerfully suggested by the prophets’ language about the Spirit being outpoured. Our God He is Is Alive — and active.
(YouTube is from the Diana singing in Tennessee — a favorite event of mine growing up in North Alabama.)
Think about it this. What would the history of Europe and America have been like if Jesus hadn’t come? Well — how did things go in other parts of the world where Jesus was unknown during that time?
(2) We are living in the last days, I’m confident.
(2Ti 3:1-5 ESV) But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
(2Pe 3:1-3 ESV) his is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.
(Act 2:17-18 ESV) 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
In Acts 2, Peter is saying that the coming of the Spirit — very obvious to that crowd — was a sign that the last days had finally arrived, that is, the final age before the end of time.
Guy,
PS — I’m working up a post where I give more detail on (1). Well, I haven’t written anything yet, but I thought about it in the shower this morning, and it seemed like a good idea at the time. So no promises. Not every shower idea makes into electronic print.
Alan and all,
“Story” gives some people the willies because it sounds like fiction.
“Narrative” gives some people the willies because it sounds Postmodern.
“Account” sounds too much like bare facts without plot, conflict, and resolution. My checkbook is an account.
Thesaurus.com offers as synonyms for “story” —
I’m open to suggestions.
PS. In the first post of this series (/2011/03/real-restoration-introducing-the-story-of-the-bible), I wrote —
I guess I could say that more often.
Jay, it sounds as if when you say “story” you’re really talking about context — time, place, preceding events, history, etc. That idea fits better to me and doesn’t carry the imaginary connotations that ‘story’ carries.
Jay,
(1) Eh, maybe. i don’t see how i could possibly know about specific events in the last 2000 years being the result of God’s activity on par with things in Acts unless i had special revelation that told me so. The apostles did have such revelation. It also appears that God worked in special circumstances, and there’s no indication that the church at large knew about it at the time. i’m not saying God’s not active, i’m making a point about whether i’d necessarily ever know it to be the case without special revelation.
(2) None of these passages are inconsistent with what i’m suggesting. Even if the “last days” refers to the last days of the nation of Israel and God’s special relationship with them, that could still be the time during which there would be great difficulty, when scoffers scoff, and when God pours out His Spirit on all flesh.
–guy
Guy,
(1) You don’t have to be able to know everything to know some things.
(Mat 16:1-3 ESV) And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.
Jesus told them that seeing God’s movement in history is like predicting the weather — an imperfect science even today but still a valuable skill.
We can look at the flow of history and ask whether we see God’s hand. It’s something our secular schools teach us to ignore — and our Christian schools rarely get outside the box of secular education. But the signs are all there.
i agree with your premise, i just don’t think it’s at all that simple.
Protestants might interpret the Reformation as God finally slapping Catholics for being so wrong or God finally raising up leaders to teach the ‘truth.’
Catholics might see God’s hand in the Reformation as purging out some of the heretics. Or even as a testing by God to make the Catholic church even more zealous for its own system and creedal tenets.
Anabaptists may interpret Constantine’s involvement in the church as a dark time, a departure from the truth, perhaps a wake up call by God for ‘true’ Christians to quit being so comfortable.
Catholics probably see Constantine’s involvement in the church as the establishment of something good and right and a victory for the church in general.
All these people and more see God’s hand moving in all sorts of historical events, but have conflicting and incompatible accounts about which people were especially spotlighted, what events matter, and what God’s purpose was in the matter. What makes the glasses through which they interpret God’s workings in history better or worse than mine? Or yours?
(And i’m afraid undue fixation on this sort of thing leads to all the left-behind-series nonsense where every headline in every day’s paper has something to do with some particular bit of Isaiah or Daniel.)
Is God working? Sure. Is God working in some special way in this or that event? i don’t know. i don’t know how i’d know unless He told me specifically what He was doing and why. (Which the people to whom Jesus was speaking in Matt 16 *did* have such revelation available to them in their own prophets. But i don’t think i have any such revelation regarding America or the Reformation or Alexander Campbell being born, etc.) If God is doing something special here or there, good! But my job will still be exactly the same, won’t it? Love God, love neighbor.
–guy
Guy,
Israel exists as a nation NOW. Do you think God might be involved in that?
Hesed,
Randall
Everyone seems to be painting God’s “Story” in a broad and large type… as though God only does great big things and shouts more than whispers. I see our story with God as less overwhelming and much more personal although I ackownledge that God is certainly capable of writing His story in large capital letters and screaming headlines if He feels the need. I see God’s story being written in terms of the jail inmate that I knelt and prayed with last Wednesday night. A man who acknowleged that He had committed grievious sins but who now came to me after our meeting had ended and with tears in his ears told me that he wanted to accept Jesus as Lord. I think God’s story is being written eveyday in our lives, even if we fail Him from time to time. It takes hindsight to see His handwriting sometimes but if we take the time to look, we’ll see the words He wrote in all of our lives. Usually, in my life, the words are very small and at the time aren’t noticed at all but then those small words resulted in big changes in my life. The story of me and God is still being written… I wonder what He’ll write today?
Randall,
i wasn’t talking about mere existence as a nation. Egypt still exists. But i don’t think that’s because God has especially intervened on their behalf in some way. i meant to reference the special relationship they occupied with God–a relationship not had by any other nation.
–guy
Hi Guy,
Are you familiar with this passage from Romans 11? It is from the ESV on line:
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: [4] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Perhaps God is not finished with Israel.
Hesed,
Randall
Hi Doug,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I think it is clear that God is at work every day in so very many “small” ways to accomplish His will in my life and the lives of all those who love Him. Indeed, it was Him working in my life that brought me to love Him. I also agree that we frequently only see God’s hand in hindsight.
The “big” acts may simply be mentioned b/c it takes a little more effort to deny God caused them to happen. Still, many people will deny their significance.
Hesed,
Randall
Of course. But they are not (and will not be) saved on the basis of Law. Ask a typical practicing Jew on what basis his sins will be forgiven, and you’ll get a blank stare. It matters not who controls the promised land and Jerusalem. Until each individual makes Jesus Lord that individual is cut off from Israel regardless of the status of the political nation of Israel. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father any other way.
Randall,
http://www.postost.net/2011/06/gentiles-are-saved-salvation-israel
http://www.postost.net/2011/06/pauls-argument-about-atonement-israel-romans-3-4
http://www.postost.net/lexicon/atonement-without-theoretical-nonsense
i’ve found these three pieces particularly enlightening recently.
–guy
The author of those three articles seems to think that God is primarily interested in Israel, and that including the Gentiles was almost an afterthought — incidental to the main purpose. I strongly disagree. God told Abraham that through his seed all nations would be blessed. Not only was Jesus’ sacrifice planned from the beginning, but the original plan was to provide salvation to all nations. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. Even the OT Jews knew that. The mystery kept secret for ages, but decreed from the beginning, was that the Gentiles would be included, and that God would provide a sacrifice to bring both Jew and Gentile into a restored relationship with himself. The nation of Israel was merely a tool God used to bring about that larger purpose. Eph 1:9-10 etc.
Alan,
That’s not how i read the author. i didn’t understand him to be saying that the salvation of the Gentiles was an afterthought in God’s mind. Only that the method or track by which that was accomplished was through the Jews, and not to the Gentiles in a direct way. i thought his point was that salvation is not individualistic in nature where God just wants to make sure you personally stay out of hell–it’s far more corporate in nature than that. And what has been granted to the Gentiles was contingent on Israel’s special role, not just in the OT, but even in the atonement.
–guy
I agree with the historical connection of Gentile atonement to Israel. I’m not sure what you mean by being “far more corporate in nature than that.” Salvation occurs individually. We’re not saved by being part of the right group. That’s as true for Jews as for Gentiles. Both are saved, or not saved, based on the same things. There is no separate path to salvation for a Jew.
Hi Guy,
Please don’t assume I believe anything more about Israel than what I have stated. I do not believe that God is finished with Israel. That does not mean I am a dispensationalist – especially as taught at Dallas Theo. Seminary. I have as many issues/problems with dispensational theology as I have with covenant theology. Also, I do not beleive the scriptures teach that there is salvation apart from faith in Jesus
I do suspect that the holocaust and the emergence of modern day Israel are part of God’s plan and not an accident. The notion that this (or anything) happened behind His back while he wasn’t looking is hard to accept – and I do not mean to imply that you believe that. I’ll let you speak for yourself.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall,
My apologies, i didn’t mean to sound presumptuous at all. Our conversation just happened to remind me of those articles.
i’m not sure i think that anything at all ever happens “behind His back while he wasn’t looking.” But being “part of God’s plan” doesn’t which part and for what purpose. i think anything at all is part of God’s plan in the sense that His plan encompasses all of history and creation. The controversy arises when we try to specify precisely what role and purpose has been assigned to a particular event or bit of creation.
–guy
Hi Guy,
I don’t pretend to know precisely what God is doing or why He chooses to do it that way. I am convinced that He is doing exactly what He wants to do and exactly how he wants to do it. If I ever get privy to all the inside details I don’t know if I would pass them on to everyone else as I am rather skeptical of those who claim to have all the inside details.
Hesed,
Randall
Doug,
Thanks for reminding us that’s God’s story comes in all sizes.
Jay said “ We teach that “repent” means something like “stop sinning, attend church three times a week, and engage in five acts of worship.” That is, to many in the Churches of Christ, repentance is moral and ecclessiological: be a good person and get the pattern of worship and church organization right.” Is this a Joke? I am a church of Christ and I have learned the biblical meaning of Repentance which is from the Greek word metanoia , which mean a change of mind. Those who repent change their mind regarding the course they have been pursing and the attitudes and disposition formerly characterized them,. It does not involve sorrow for sin ( Acts 2:37,38), though is is produced by it, and it does not include reformation of life, though it leads to it. Sorrow for sin causes a person to repent, and repentance prompts to reformation of life; sorrow for sin is the cause; reformation of life, the effect. This distinction in an important one, though often beclouded and obscured in the minds of many today. The parable of the two sons provides an excellent demonstration of this analysis of repentance. (Matt. 21:28-30).