(avg. read time: 7–14 mins.)
Part 2: Acts
Part 4: Hebrews and the General Epistles
I will save a comprehensive review of the many gospel proclamations in Acts for another time. What I want to focus on here is how the three-stage gospel narrative, in whole or in part, manifests in these gospel proclamations and in other parts of Acts. Of course, Acts makes a point of how, after Jesus’s death and resurrection, he appeared to his disciples and spoke to them about the kingdom of God (1:3), preparing them for their own task in proclaiming the gospel from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (1:8). His ascension, the physical representation of his exaltation, is then narrated in 1:9–11, which sets the rest of the Acts narrative in motion, from the finding of a replacement for Judas to the coming of the Holy Spirit.
A particularly noteworthy framing text is 1:22. The context is that the apostles are looking for another to replace Judas to complete the Twelve while continuing Jesus’s message of the kingdom of God in the gospel they proclaim. As many have observed, the layout of Acts is the tracing of the fulfillment of Jesus’s command to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth (1:8). Jesus’s own understanding of what it would mean for them to be witnesses is informed by his teaching concerning the kingdom of God. That is, they are to be witnesses to the coming of the kingdom of God in the events of the gospel (as well as the promises of what is yet to come). When Peter gives his expression of what it means for them to be witnesses in v. 22, he says it is concerning Jesus’s resurrection. In other words, Peter and the other disciples understood resurrection and the kingdom of God to go hand-in-hand. What that link is comes to fuller expression in the rest of Acts and the NT. That it is present here is further evidenced by Peter’s qualification for the apostle who will replace Judas among the Twelve, which is a parallelism of 1:21: that they should be someone who has been with them from John’s baptism to Jesus’s ascension. Why is this qualification necessary given that the purpose of the role is to be a witness with rest of the apostles of Jesus’s resurrection? Would not being a witness of the resurrection appearances be sufficient? Rather, it seems that Peter has packed in more meaning to “his resurrection” than only Jesus’s resurrection. If the replacement must have been with the rest of the apostles since John’s baptism of Jesus, that would make them more qualified to speak on the full range of Jesus’s life and teaching, which was focused on the kingdom of God, and how the resurrection—the center member of the three-stage narrative, thus entailing both his previous death and subsequent ascension/exaltation—brought his message to fruition.
The other major consequence of Jesus’s ascension is the coming of the Holy Spirit, who empowers the disciples to carry out Jesus’s task for the proclamation of the gospel. His coming upon the disciples manifests in speaking in tongues (2:1–13), which Peter’s subsequent Pentecost sermon connects to the gospel events by noting that both were in fulfillment of Scripture (2:14–36). I have written much on this sermon that I will share another time. For now, it is important to note that Peter, much like John in his own way, has stressed how it was ultimately part of God’s purpose to take the human action of crucifying Jesus, which amounted to defiance of God, and make it the means of exalting Jesus as Lord and Messiah, fulfilling Scripture, and bringing to completion his salvific will (2:23, 36). This is signified particularly by the “But God” statement in 2:24, that God overturned the decision of those who wanted Jesus dead by raising him from the dead, for it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. To support this claim of necessity, Peter turns to Ps 16:8–11, a text I have discussed before. This text shows that David was speaking as a prophet, for he spoke not about himself, but about the Messiah who died but did not see decay before God raised him to life. In fulfillment of the function of the apostle in 1:22, Peter attests that he and his fellows are witnesses of the fact that God raised Jesus from the dead.
In 2:33, Peter then references Jesus’s exaltation, the reason for which the Holy Spirit has been poured out and the sign of the speaking in tongues has been manifested. The exaltation, too, was in fulfillment of Scripture, as Peter notes here with reference to Ps 110:1 (2:34–35), a text that was a crucial reference point for the description of Jesus sitting at God’s right hand (also see Matt 22:43–45 // Mark 12:35–37 // Luke 20:41–44; Matt 26:64 // Mark 14:62 // Luke 22:69; Mark 16:19; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20–22; Col 3:1; Heb 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22). We thus see in this speech that resurrection and exaltation are as inextricably linked as death and resurrection in the narrative of gospel events, for all contribute to God making Jesus Lord and Messiah (2:36; cf. 3:18–21; 4:33; 5:42; 8:5; 9:22, 28; 10:36, 38; 11:17, 20; 13:32–37; 17:3, 6–7, 31; 18:5, 28; 26:23; 28:31). Luke and Luke’s speakers often use the resurrection in connection with other post-resurrection events or as a way to evoke the whole of them, including Jesus’s exaltation (Acts 1:3, 22; 3:15, 20–21; 4:10–12, 33; 5:30–31; 10:40–42; 13:30–37; 17:31; 26:23). Jesus’s rise from the dead thus bears tremendous theological weight and has multiple layers of meaning by association, including heavenly accession and the confirmation of Jesus’s status as Lord and Messiah. The key outcomes of Jesus’s resurrection that Peter emphasizes are Jesus’s exaltation and resultant provision of salvation, especially the gift of the Holy Spirit (vv. 33, 38–39). Jesus is able to provide such benefits to his followers precisely because of his position in the heavenly throne room and heavenly sanctuary.
The next notable speech is Peter’s proclamation at Solomon’s Porch (and not the one in Wilmore, KY) in ch. 3. After Peter had healed a lame beggar, a crowd gathered and Peter made a speech explaining that the display of power they saw was not of themselves, but of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who has glorified (i.e., exalted) Jesus, in whose name the man was healed (3:6–13). Once again, he declares that, though he was handed over to be killed, being disowned even though he was the Holy and Righteous One, God raised him from the dead (another “but God” statement, 3:14–15). Peter and his fellow proclaimers (such as John, who was there with him) are witnesses of the fact that God raised him. It is because God has raised him with resurrection life, because he has exalted him, that healing can come in his name (3:16), being a mere pittance of God’s resurrecting power in him. God thus took what was intended to be a death sentence for his Messiah and made his death the means of exalting Jesus and executing his salvific purposes (3:17–20). Jesus must reside in heaven for the time being until the time comes that no one else knows, the promised time when God restores everything (3:21; cf., e.g., Isa 11; 65–66; Ezek 36–48; Dan 12).
It is interesting to note the response to Peter’s speech from the Jewish leaders in 4:2 and the synopsis of the whole speech the text provides. The most basic point that the priests, the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees take away from Peter’s speech is that it is about the resurrection of the dead in Jesus (more specifically, the resurrection of the righteous, “the resurrection that is out of the dead”). They certainly understood the eschatological import of what Peter said, but why was this point the focus? Was it central to the actual speech of which this text is a summary? Was it simply because the Sadducees objected to the resurrection and thus singled it out? I think it is a combination of both and it illustrates how outsiders saw the resurrection as central to the Christian message, just as earlier chapters demonstrated that the Christians themselves had that view. Given the reference to the restoration of everything, it is likely that the actual speech, rather than summary provided, also included reference to the resurrection of the dead, particularly using texts such as Ezek 37 and Dan 12 as examples of what God promised long ago through his holy prophets. As such, Peter and John were not only proclaiming the resurrection of Christ, as central as that was to their proclamation, but they were also proclaiming the resurrection that is out of the dead in him, relating the eschatological resurrection to his resurrection, as Paul will do in 1 Cor 15.
When Peter and John are brought before the Jewish leaders, they again summarize their message, and the reason for which the man was healed, as the crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus Christ (4:10–12), particularly by reference to Ps 118:22 (which I noted in my previous entry and about which I have written much that I will share another time). His name is the only name by which salvation is given and received because of what God has accomplished in him through the gospel events. When the apostles must appear again before the authorities, facing the prospect of punishment over defying the authorities’ ban on proclaiming the gospel, they again summarize their message as that God raised Jesus from the dead, whom these rebellious ones killed by hanging him on a cross, and that God instead exalted him to his right hand, using that death sentence as a means to achieve his salvific purposes in bringing repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel (5:30–31).
In a similarly antagonistic context is Stephen’s encounter with the Jewish authorities in ch. 7. Stephen’s speech does not seem to qualify as a gospel proclamation, but functions more as a prophetic condemnation. He completes his summary of Israel’s history with a note of how they have resisted the Holy Spirit most egregiously by betraying and murdering the Messiah (7:51–52). However, while the speech itself does not function as a gospel proclamation, Stephen still invokes the gospel events when he says that he sees the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (7:55–56). The parallels of Stephen’s trial and execution with those of Jesus have been often noted, and thus this first martyr of the Church demonstrates in a most dramatic fashion how he has made the gospel story his own story in his actions. Of course, he has also done it in his words, including by using language that links Dan 7 and Ps 110, as Jesus had done in his trial (as noted in the last entry). But unlike that case, where Jesus describes himself as seated at the right hand of God, Jesus is here seen standing at God’s right hand. On the one hand, this makes sense for the legal setting, as witnesses and judges could stand for a verdict, and so the sense here is one of the Son of Man and God the Father vindicating Stephen over and against the verdict of the human court.
On the other hand, this standing could refer to his heavenly priestly ministry. One must remember that God’s throne is biblically linked with God’s sanctuary, both in the heavenly reality and the earthly counterpart (particularly in the ark of the covenant and its mercy seat; cf. Pss 11:4; 96; Isa 6:1; 66:1–2; Jer 3:16–17; Ezek 10; 37:24–28; 43:1–12; Zech 14:9, 16–21; Rev 7:15). As noted already, Ps 110 further upholds the imagery of the priestly king, as the Lord who sits at the right hand of the Lord is also said to be a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek (the priestly king). The Israelite king could also function in a priestly capacity, as seen in 2 Sam 6:14, 17–18; 8:18; 1 Kgs 8:14, 55, 62–64. This image could also reflect either Zech 6:13 or the basic idea conveyed in it of the priest standing beside the throne in harmony with the king, albeit now in the heavenly court. More importantly, a priestly sense to this standing action fits with what we have seen to this point of the salvific effects of Jesus’s exaltation, of his conveyance to heaven. But these are points to which we will need to return another time for fuller exploration. All that needs to be noted for now is how Stephen articulates his hope in terms of how he has seen the gospel events play out in Jesus’s exaltation.
In Peter’s proclamation of the gospel to Cornelius in ch. 10 he summarizes the gospel by reference to the cross (10:39), the resurrection (another “but God” statement in 10:40–41), and the exaltation, this time by referring to God’s appointment of Jesus as the judge of the living and the dead (10:42). In line with what we have already noted at several points now, these things fulfill Scripture and provide promised salvific benefits, such as forgiveness of sins (10:43).
Likewise, Paul in Pisidian Antioch follows a similar structure in his articulation of the gospel narrative in ch. 13. He describes the crucifixion in terms of that which fulfilled Scripture and God’s salvific will, despite the human intentions at work (13:27–28). In another “but God” statement, Paul tells his audience that God raised Jesus from the dead after his burial and that he appeared to those who traveled with him who are now his witnesses as proclaimers of the gospel (13:29–31). He also makes the argument—referring to Ps 2; Isa 55; and Ps 16 again—that God has fulfilled promises of Scripture in raising Jesus from the dead (13:32–37). The exaltation is not highlighted in this proclamation, but it may be implied by reference to the forgiveness of sins (13:38–39), given how Luke has elsewhere quoted Peter (and other apostles) linking this benefit to Jesus’s exaltation.
We also see the elements of this three-stage narrative in Paul’s gospel proclamations in ch. 17. On the one hand, he proclaims in Thessalonica that it was necessary, according to the Scriptures, for the Messiah to suffer and rise from the dead (17:3). In the process, his proclamation implies Jesus’s exaltation through proclaiming him as the Messiah. This is indeed how he was construed among those who accused him of defying Caesar by proclaiming another king named Jesus (17:6–7). On the other hand, in Athens Jesus’s death is only implicit in the summary, where he builds to the climax of declaring Jesus’s resurrection to the same hearers who mistook the reference to resurrection (anastasis or anastasia) as a reference to another god alongside Jesus (17:18, 31). Here he also implies Jesus’s exaltation by saying that God appointed him for the judgment of the world and that this exalted status is attested by God in the resurrection (17:31).
Finally, throughout Paul’s trials near the end of the book, his summaries of his message are noteworthy. As in chs. 3 and 4, a connection is drawn between Jesus’s resurrection and the general resurrection, so that Paul can exploit debates among the Jewish leaders about the resurrection in summarizing his own message as being about the resurrection of the dead in accordance with Scripture (23:6; 24:5, 21; 26:6–8, 22–23). Indeed, Festus mentions to Herod Agrippa II that the message at the center of the dispute between Paul and the Jewish leaders concerns the dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed to be alive (25:19). When Paul summarizes his own commission and message to Agrippa, he implies the exaltation of Jesus through the reference to the forgiveness of sins, as well as the fact that he is what he is by faith in Jesus that forgiveness and sanctification will be received (26:18). He also describes Jesus as fulfilling Scripture in what he suffered and in being the first out of the resurrection of the dead (26:22–23). The latter argument is related to one he will pursue in 1 Cor 15, which will be part of our analysis next time.