The Promise of the Father [Acts 2.1-47] (8 July 2001)

Accompanying presentation (opens in a new window)

Last week we began our brief series of sermons on the Acts of the Holy Spirit. I have been using and will be using a number of slides. There is a lot of material in all of these sermons not only because there is much historical and geographical information, but also because Acts is a pivotal book in the history of God’s dealings with the world. Some of you like taking notes and I do not wish to discourage that. However, jot down only things that stick out to you that are not on the slides. If you want the information on the slides, I can email you the relevant documents. Of course, if you wish to write everything, suit yourselves.

So let us recap the salient features of the book. It was written by Luke around AD 80 and is the second longest book in the New Testament. It was addressed to Theophilus, who probably was Luke’s patron and whose name means “lover of God.” We saw that Acts happens in the Roman Empire, which extended to most Mediterranean lands. We saw that there were Jewish communities in most of the major cities of the Roman Empire.

From Acts 1 we learnt that Jesus asked the disciples to wait because there was a promise waiting to be fulfilled; because the fulfillment of the promise would usher in a new way of living; because the new way of living was essential to the task at hand; because the task at hand was a part of God’s purposes; and because God’s purposes include both the vision and the means of its fulfillment. They had to wait for the promise because the promise would bring a new vision and would provide the means for fulfilling the vision.

We also saw that we live in a new era in which we still need to learn to live in and walk in the Spirit; that Jesus calls no one without sending him or her back into the world as his ambassador; and that the life driven by the Spirit is one in which there are no strict patterns, in which what worked yesterday might not work today, and in which we are called to be ever sensitive to new ways of presenting the gospel.

Today we will learn from Acts 2 what the onset of this new life looked like, what their immersion in God’s Spirit did to the disciples, and what it meant for them and means for us.

Now the event of Pentecost is surrounded with a number of incorrect views. And unfortunately, whole theologies are based on some of these incorrect views. So, before we proceed to understanding what God is saying to us today from the story of Pentecost, let us dispel some of these errors.

First, Acts 2 does not record an occasion in which Christians experienced the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. When Paul writes about this in 1 Corinthians, he makes it clear that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues is unintelligible without the complementary gift of interpretation of tongues. The spiritual gift is that of ecstatic speech. However, in Acts 2 we have an instance of people speaking in other languages, which are readily understood by others who happen to be from various regions in which those languages were spoken. If we were to insist that this is an example of the gift of tongues, we would lose the impact—rhetorical and theological—of v. 8 where the listeners ask, “How is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?”

Second, the list of nations in vv. 9-11 does not imply that the whole of the Roman Empire, let alone the whole world, was reached at Pentecost. The nations in Acts 2 cover Asia Minor, North Africa, Mesopotamia, and Mediterranean Europe and in all of these nations there were Jewish communities. Luke’s point is not that Pentecost affected the whole world. It is well documented that the Roman Empire had trade relations with the Indian subcontinent and even China. A well educated and traveled person like Luke would have known about this. Yet neither India nor China is mentioned in Acts 2. Nor is Luke telling us that the church’s mission started at Pentecost. In fact, Luke portrays the church’s mission as an extension of Jesus’ mission. This is seen from four striking parallels between Luke’s Gospel and Acts. In the Gospel, Jesus’ ministry begins with his being baptized by John and empowered by the Holy Spirit. In Acts, the disciples’ ministry begins with their being baptized and empowered by the Holy Spirit. In the Gospel, Jesus is tempted by Satan. In Acts, the disciples are tempted to quench the Spirit by the accusation that they are drunkards. In the Gospel, Jesus’ first public act is to preach. In Acts, the disciples’ first public act is that of Peter’s preaching. In the Gospel, Jesus ministers mostly to Jews and occasionally to Gentiles. In Acts, the disciples minister first to the Jews and also to the Gentiles.

What Luke is telling us is that representatives of the entire Jewish Diaspora heard the Pentecost proclamation. We should remember that the gospel is proclaimed to the Jews first, and only subsequently to the Gentiles. This is one step toward the full proclamation of the gospel to Gentiles and we should not minimize its importance. We should certainly not neglect this point because to do so would be to make Peter’s sermon ridiculous from a Jewish perspective.

Third, Pentecost is a one-time event. There are no repeated outpourings of the Holy Spirit. If there were, it would make Peter’s use of Joel’s prophecy and Jesus’ promise in Acts 1 lack force. Some contemporary writers and teachers who talk about a second or third or final outpouring of the Spirit just do not grasp the huge point God made by pouring out his Spirit at Pentecost. We will get to that soon.

Now Jesus called this event of Pentecost “the promise of the Father.” There are two levels of interpreting the phenomenon of Pentecost. First, we can discern what the event tells us about the way things are. At this level we try to understand what the text says, trying to bring to light the salient points of the text. Second, we can ascertain what the way things are means for us. At this level we attempt to feel what those who first heard Peter’s sermon felt. This is the level at which we normally operate. For instance, when I was in Austin, one of my friends asked me, “Do you have the fourth of July in India?” The first level of interpretation would lead me to think of the specific date—July 4th. Yes, in India we don’t skip from July 3rd to July 5th. But that was not what my friend was asking me. At the second level of interpretation I would need to understand what the fourth of July meant to an American. Then I could conclude that he was not asking me about the date but about the celebration associated with it. In other words, he was asking me, “In India do you celebrate the fourth of July as Independence Day?” And so my answer would be, “No!” Independence Day in India is August 15th.

Since we operate on the second level, I will be concentrating on the second level. But in order to get there, let us briefly consider what the first level tells us. And for that we need to hear the text. I have asked Eric and Narcis to read for us the text for today.

Thanks Eric and Narcis.

Peter, though a fisherman by trade, is a very good analyst. He might have made a good scientist had he been born in our time. See how he works.

He makes three observations. He first hears visiting Jews say that they understand what the disciples are saying. He then hears the accusation that the disciples are drunk. He, of course, knows that the disciples are not drunk. 

Having made these observations, Peter begins his sermon with the assertion that the disciples are not drunk. Then he draws three points of conclusion, each following from the preceding one. First, he says that the phenomenon of Pentecost is actually a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. The Spirit has been poured out.

Here it is important to pause for two brief observations. Joel says that the pouring out of the Spirit would cause people to prophesy. In Acts 2 the disciples are reported to be proclaiming the mighty acts of God. Contrary to some strands of Christian thought that hold that prophecy is foretelling the future, Peter tells us that prophecy is a declaration of the mighty acts of God. And the mighty acts the disciples mention are the death and resurrection of Jesus—events in the past from their point of view. So prophecy, far from being a foretelling of future events, is a recollection of what God has done and is doing. Prophecy emphasizes not the future but the implications that the past has for the present. Another thing is the language of prophecy. Peter quotes the portion of Joel’s prophecy that contains cosmic signs. Peter indicates that these have been fulfilled in the event of Pentecost. Yet, the sun did not darken. Nor did the moon become blood. How then could Peter say that these aspects of Joel’s prophecy were fulfilled? Here we need to understand what such language meant in the first century to a Jewish audience. The language is highly figurative. Such language indicated not that the world had come to an end but that events had happened that had changed things at the cosmic level. The world remained but a new era had dawned. We should keep this in mind when we interpret parts of the bible that contain such language. What Peter is saying is that Pentecost is a universe-altering event. So great was the change produced by Pentecost that it might as well have been that the sun had stopped shining. We use similar imagery when we say, for instance, “Hell would freeze over before I ever took drugs.” We are pointing not to the literal meaning of the words but to the mind-boggling change that would have to occur prior to my taking drugs.

So let us get back to Peter. Having concluded that the Spirit had been poured out, Peter remembered that Jesus had promised to pour out the Spirit. So he further concludes that this meant that God had exalted Jesus and had given him the Spirit. In other words, Jesus had become king.

With Jesus as king, the final conclusion Peter makes is almost self-evident. If Jesus is king, then the kingdom of God had begun in the reign of Jesus. In Peter’s words, “God has made Jesus both Lord and Messiah.”

We have thus far looked at what Peter said in his sermon. However, what did the Jewish audience think and feel when they heard this sermon? In other words, what is the second level of interpretation?

What implications did Peter’s sermon have for Jews? When Peter quoted Joel’s prophecy, what were the Jews expecting to hear? What were they accustomed to hearing in the context of this prophecy?

Joel’s prophecy is a last-days prophecy. The arrival of the kingdom of God would be marked with the pouring out of God’s Spirit. But when did the Jews expect this to happen?

In attempting to answer this question we must first remember that much of Old Testament theology is situated in the context of oppression—as in Genesis, Exodus, and Judges—or exile—as in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. It is here in the context of the loss of freedom that the visions of freedom were given to the prophets.

How would this freedom be accomplished? If one were being held captive, freedom—lasting freedom—would entail the defeat of one’s captor. But there is not much a slave can do to obtain freedom from an oppressive master. Hence, the Jewish people rightly expected that their freedom would come through their Messiah—that the Messiah would subdue their enemies, who also were God’s enemies. Following this the Messiah would inaugurate God’s messianic kingdom on earth. After this would come the resurrection, at which time God would raise righteous Jews to eternal life and unrighteous Jews to eternal damnation. This would reconstitute Israel as it was meant to be—full of righteous Jews obedient to the Messiah. God would then pour out his Spirit on Israel. Israel would naturally become a light to the Gentiles, on account of which righteous Gentiles would be gathered into God’s kingdom. This briefly was the Jewish timeline for the kingdom of God.

Incidentally, this is the timeline for most of the stories we know—fictional and non-fictional. Consider the story that fueled the Allied war effort in World War II. The evil Nazis were oppressing weak nations and weak people. There was nothing the victims could do. So they needed help from outside. The Allies provided just such help and succeeded in vanquishing the German forces. The Allies restored peace in Western Europe. Western Europe would then rise from the ashes and become economically prosperous. Eastern Europe, being communist, would remain impoverished. In other words, the spirit of capitalism would reign in the world. So Western Europe would appeal to Eastern Europe. Some East European nations would reject communism and be included in the world market. Other nations would be ignored or explicitly excluded. Very similar to the Jewish expectation, isn’t it?

But this is not what Peter preaches! The timeline he preached looks like this. We begin once again with oppression. But, rather than subdue the Romans, the Messiah is rejected and killed by God’s people. God, however, vindicates the Messiah and raises him from the dead. The Messiah ascends into heaven and begins his reign. He then pours out the Spirit as the power that fuels the spread of God’s kingdom. Peter does not go further with the timeline in this sermon. However, the rest of the New Testament tells us that there are two steps remaining. First, the outpouring of the Spirit implies that the gospel can be preached to the Gentiles. The Gentiles can be gathered into God’s kingdom. Second, Jesus’ resurrection is the first fruits of the general resurrection that will happen at the end of time.

The message Peter preaches contains two remarkable differences from the expected timeline. And these two differences were as important when Peter spoke at Pentecost as they are today.

The first difference is that the Messiah is rejected and killed by his own people rather than being accepted and then leading a violent revolt against Israel’s then primary political enemy—Rome. The second difference is that the resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit happen while Israel still remains under foreign rule.

How do you think the Jewish listeners would have felt hearing that they had allowed their Messiah to be crucified by the very enemies from whom they expected him to deliver them? The fictional character that can understand this is Obi Wan Kenobi. As a youthful Jedi, he takes Anakin Skywalker to be his apprentice. This he does because he believes that Anakin would be the one to restore balance to the force. Yet, in the episodes that follow The Phantom Menace Obi Wan will watch as his deliverer, Anakin, sells his soul to Senator Palpatine. And all Obi Wan will be able to say to Anakin’s son, Luke, is that Anakin had died and become Darth Vader. Obi Wan had allowed his deliverer to be destroyed by his enemy. He had shot himself in the foot.

I’m sure Peter’s Jewish audience felt the same way. If indeed Jesus was their Messiah, then, by their own treachery, they had dashed all hopes for their salvation.

But then Peter also says that Jesus had been raised. What would this have done to the audience? It could only have meant that God had overturned the verdict to crucify Jesus. Jesus had been sentenced unjustly and the injustice had to be reversed. That is what we expect from a just God. It is much like the case when the U.S. President pardons a person found guilty by the Supreme Court. Such a pardon, whether one acknowledges it or not, undermines the authority of the Supreme Court. In Jesus’ case, so grave was the injustice, that resurrection, which was supposed to happen only at the end of the age, had happened while the present age was still underway. Jesus’ resurrection indicates a divine reversal of the sentence to kill Jesus. Does this not mean that God had defeated his enemies? After all, their harshest sentence against God—here the crucifixion of Jesus—could not stick.

But if resurrection, which was to be the hallmark of the age to come, had happened to even one person during this present age, it meant that we are in a period of unprecedented conflict. The age to come is pressing in on the present age.

So what does this mean for us today?

How many of you believe that, when Jesus saves us, he gives us his resurrection life? How many of you believe that, when a person becomes a Christian, old habits give way to new ones? How many of you believe that, when the Holy Spirit moves into a person’s life, that person is transformed?

We speak a lot about resurrection life. Unfortunately, when it comes to defining resurrection life, we come up short. We are unaware of the content with which to fill the phrase. But see how Peter’s audience responds. They hear that the resurrection has started and they realize that what this means is that the new age of God’s reign has begun even though the old age is still around. They realize that this means things have to change. Or, as Luke puts it, they were cut to the heart. But since only one person—namely Jesus—has been raised, only he knows what this raised life is like. So Peter’s audience asks, “What should we do?” In other words, “How do we enter into this new age you speak about?”

Peter answers that entrance into this new age is through repentance. Now it is not some abstract repentance that Peter speaks of. Later he says, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation”—from this era defined by corruption, from this age that has been superceded by Jesus’ resurrection. So repentance is not simply a confession of personal sins but a rejection of the corrupt ways in which this present age works.

This is because resurrection life is the same as life in the Spirit. Such a life is characterized by a way of living that demonstrates that death has been defeated, that God’s new era is pressing in on this present era. So to live in this new era is to undermine all the values of this present era that are not in accordance with God’s character. And to turn from following the dictates of the era that is passing to following the dictates of the era God is birthing is repentance.

So if this era is characterized by lies, repentance will be to tell the truth. If this era promotes alienation, repentance would be to be in community. If it is defined by pride, repentance will be to be humble. If it operates on self-aggrandizement, repentance would be self-sacrifice. If it tells you to hate your enemies, repentance will be to love your enemies. If it convinces us that violence is necessary, repentance would be to act non-violently. If it denies and fears death, repentance would be to accept and embrace death. After all, if resurrection awaits us, death does not have the final say.

Such is the life to which Jesus invites people. Some of us have already accepted that invitation. But for many of us, repentance was not really defined or it was left at the level of personal sins when in fact it is a complete renunciation of the agenda of this age. Knowing this, it might be that God is leading you to redefine your commitment to Jesus.

Some of us were led to believe that repentance is only a matter of the heart, having no bearing on external acts. But to believe that death does not have the final say is to act as though death does not have the final say. Knowing that repentance is a public act, it might be that God is leading you to a new level in your commitment to Jesus.

And there may be others here who have not repented yet, who have not taken the step of trusting Jesus and of living in the resurrection life he gives. If you are wondering why you have heard this message and what you need to do, you are in good company. The people who heard Peter’s message also felt the same way. Then understand this. You have heard this message because God is reaching out to you, inviting you into his kingdom, offering you new life in the name of Jesus. This is the promise of the Father—that everyone who trusts Jesus will be saved from captivity to the darkness of this era and saved for the wonderful life in which Jesus reigns supreme, in which the Holy Spirit leads, in which God relates to us as though we were his children, in which death has lost his sting. If you wish to appropriate this promise I invite you in the name of Jesus to come forward. There are people here who will pray for and with you so that you too will receive the promised Spirit. Come, therefore, to the open arms of the lovesick heavenly Father.

Beyond the Wait [Acts 1.1-26] (1 July 2001)

Accompanying Presentation (opens in a new window)

Like the Gospels, Acts is an anonymous book. No author is mentioned, though church tradition has ascribed authorship to the Luke who is mentioned in some of Paul’s letters. For a variety of reasons, which I will not mention, no serious objection has been raised concerning this tradition.

The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts form a two-volume work as seen from the prologue of Acts. Luke’s Gospel, probably written around AD 75, is the longest book in the New Testament. As seen in the first slide, Acts, authored around AD 80, is the second longest book in the New Testament.

The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are both addressed to Theophilus. This was a common Greek name meaning “lover of God.” It is not certain if Luke had in mind a specific person with that name or was merely addressing a generic Christian as being one who loves God. However, there are many parts of both Luke and Acts that seem to require knowledge of the functioning of the higher classes of Greek and Roman culture. This seems to indicate that Luke was addressing a specific person, most probably a cultured Greek who served as Luke’s patron—that is, the person who sponsored the production of such books as Luke would have written, including the Gospel and Acts.

Now in order to understand Acts, we must place ourselves as much as possible in the cultural milieu within which it was written. Let me make four brief observations. First, all the action in Acts happens within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. This is important to keep in mind, especially when we consider the spread of the Gospel that Luke records in Acts. As can be seen in the next slide, in the first century AD the Roman Empire extended to almost all the Mediterranean lands.

Second, many of these lands contained Jewish communities. This is seen in the next slide. The purple regions are those in which there were Jewish communities in the first century AD. These Jewish communities played an important role in the spread of the Gospel for, in almost all the places to which Luke takes us in Acts, the Christians went first to the synagogue and only later to Gentiles.

Third, the majority of the action in Acts 1-12 happens in the land of Israel-Palestine. As seen in the next slide, the Romans had divided the land into a number of regions over which they placed three vassal kings known as Tetrarchs. Archelaus ruled the blue region that included Judea and Samaria. Herod Antipas ruled the purple regions—Galilee in the North and Perea in the South. Philip ruled the orange region known as Iturea. The rest of the regions were controlled directly by Roman governors. Because of the almost arbitrary division of the land, a significant amount of political rivalry comes into play in the Gospels and in Acts.

Fourth, apart from the first eleven verses of chapter 1, the first seven chapters of Acts are situated exclusively in Jerusalem. The next slide shows a map of Jerusalem during the first century AD. Many of the places mentioned in the first seven chapters of Acts are on this map and we will come back to it as and when necessary.

So now let us go to the first chapter of Acts. The action begins on the Mount of Olives, seen on the next slide. It is from the Mount of Olives that Jesus ascends. From there, as I mentioned earlier, the disciples go to Jerusalem, seen on the next slide. In Luke 19, Jesus had wept over Jerusalem because the city had rejected him. However, in Acts he sends his disciples back to the same city. Later in Acts 1 we read about the famous apostolic-lot-casting scene. The next slide shows us a typical Jewish die that the apostles might have used, though they could well have used two simple stones.

Having briefly touched on some background issues, we might ask, “What does God have to say to us today?” In order to answer that question, I have asked Lauren to read for us the Scripture for today.

Thanks Lauren.

I recently came across a tract—actually from the size of it I should call it a manual! I still have a copy. It contains all sorts of instructions. For example it insists that believers should be baptized head forward rather than head backward. And it permits infants to be baptized. One need only wonder how we can baptize an infant with his or her head forward without causing permanent hydrophobia. Anyway, there are other wonderful practices—all of which have a bunch of scripture references that supposedly support the position. After going through it, I had to conclude that some sort of cult was behind this tract. Far from portraying a life this side of the resurrection, it made people all the more slaves to rules and regulations, denying them the freedom Jesus purchased at so high a price.

As an aside I must confess that I had come across real tracts—you know, the small pocket sized ones—printed by the same cult. That was a few months back and I disposed them all in a trashcan in the hope that these enslaving practices would not ensnare people. During the course of the sermon judge for yourselves if I did right or wrong.

At the start of Acts, Luke takes us to the top of the Mount of Olives. Jesus has gathered his disciples there for a final meeting before his ascension. Jesus commands the disciples to return to Jerusalem and wait.

Quite naturally the disciples probably asked themselves, “Why wait?” To this perpetual question, Acts 1 provides a challenging, yet encouraging answer.

Jesus doesn’t just tell his disciples to wait but to wait for the promise of the Father, which he equates with the baptism with the Spirit. They are to wait because a promise is about to be fulfilled.

It is like being in the period between engagement and wedding. There is a promise waiting to be fulfilled but neither the woman nor the man should pressure the other to make the fulfillment come sooner because coercion is counter-productive to love.

The disciples hear Jesus mention the promise and immediately conjure images of a messianic kingdom in which they would hold prestigious offices. They ask Jesus if he were now going to restore Israel’s kingdom.

That was a valid question—but for an era that had closed. For the era that was about to begin, it was invalid. Not only was the time frame for God’s plan not their concern, as Jesus indicates; but also they had to learn that the new phase in God’s plan required some changes. Rather than sitting on thrones and lording it over others in some messianic kingdom, they were to be witnesses to Jesus and his resurrection, not only in Jerusalem, but also in wider Judea, hated Samaria, and the distant ends of the earth. Was Jesus a king? Assuredly! Did he have a kingdom? Every legitimate king has a kingdom. And so did Jesus. However, his kingdom was going to work differently. His high-ranking men would not sit on thrones. Rather, like their king himself, they would go out to bring the message of his reign to the ends of the earth. And his reign would also be different. Yes, there was a promise waiting to be fulfilled. But the fulfillment of the promise would usher in a new way of living.

It is like the day after the wedding. You realize that you are single no more; that now you have to share the bathroom; that—for crying out loud—there’s a beautiful woman lying next to you. Life is not the same again. And one would be a fool to want or even hope that things would remain unchanged. No! As Paul would say of a different context, “the old has passed away, behold everything is new!” Yes indeed, there is a new way of living.

A new way of living? Just saying that implies there was an old way of living. What was the old way? The Old Testament gives us a glimpse into this in many places. Since here in Acts the immediate issue is one of decision-making concerning Judas’ replacement, let us consider the issue of decision-making in the Old Testament. One example is Numbers 27.21 where God says about Joshua, “He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the decision of the Urim before the Lord.” Decision-making was left to the casting of lots because of the conviction that, as Proverbs 16.33 puts it, “the lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is the Lord’s alone.”

If this was the old way of making decisions, what was the new going to be like? There was no way of knowing. The disciples could have tried to guess. But they could only guess from their experience. And so they cast lots to choose between Barsabbas and Matthias. Peter names one overarching qualification Judas’ replacement had to have: the person had to have been a companion of Jesus during the entirety of his ministry. Sounds quite prudent. After all, we don’t want some new upstart who knows nothing about what the real Jesus was like to be an apostle! But here Peter and the other ten apostles made two grave mistakes: first, they presumed that it was up to them to choose Judas’ replacement when right from the start Jesus had been the one doing the choosing; second, they relied on the old way of making decisions.

Now Jesus wasn’t around to make decisions. So the apostles were justified in thinking that he would choose Judas’ replacement through humans. However, they had not glimpsed what the new way was going to be like. So they did not know exactly how Jesus would choose this twelfth apostle. Nor could they entertain the thought that Jesus could possibly choose a man who had never encountered Jesus prior to his death and resurrection. How would this person know what the real Jesus was like? Ah! But to answer that would be to jump ahead of the story.

So Peter and the ten apostles cast lots and chose Matthias. And we hear no more of him in the entire bible. In fact, even the Roman Catholics, who are so thorough about traditions concerning the apostles and other saints, only have the tradition that Matthias went to Armenia—a tradition that is also ascribed to Matthew, albeit with greater vigor. This leads to the conclusion that the tradition about Matthias developed because of the similarity between his name and Matthew’s. Indeed, Matthias is mentioned in Acts only to be placed in the sidelines because Luke wants to show Theophilus that there is a twelfth apostle—but he is not Matthias. And this twelfth apostle is essential to the task of Jesus’ church. So Jesus’ apostles had to learn—and they learnt through an arduous process—that there was a promise waiting to be fulfilled and that the fulfillment of the promise would usher in a new way of living and that the new way of living was essential to the task at hand.

Consider the situation when the French sent a warship to the Sandwich Islands to force the local government to repeal a tax on French brandy that was imposed to reduce drunkenness among the citizens of the Sandwich Islands. Faced with the prospect of war with a then super power and the task of saving his people, the king of the small colony… ah, but let’s read a contemporary report that begins after the captain of the warship gave the government a few hours within which to do away with the tax.

[Here read Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers 252-253. The book can be purchased from Amazon outside India or from Flipkart inside India]

The task of saving his people drove the king to employ new tactics—here nonviolence instead of violent retaliation. As Walter Wink comments, “If the Sandwich Islanders had been in possession of an army of one hundred thousand men, they could have mounted no better defense, with fewer casualties (which were zero) or less damage (which was only to a fort they proved they no longer needed).”

Coming back to Acts we may ask, “What in the world was the task at hand?” In response to the disciples’ question, “Is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus tells them that they are to be his witnesses to the end of the earth. In the Old Testament, worshippers of Yahweh had to make their pilgrimages to the Temple in Jerusalem. Here the disciples would need to go to the ends of the earth rather than stay in Jerusalem. But how would they know that they are bringing with them the very presence of the living God? Again the answer lies in the new way of living. When Jesus’ disciples live in this new way, Jesus, the new temple, goes with his followers to the ends of the earth. Here is a marked reversal of what we could call the old time religion.

Another marked difference is the focus. While the gospel is still proclaimed to the Jew first, it is not for the Jews only. No! God has rather purposed that the Gentiles would also believe in his Jewish Messiah. God has purposed that the Gentiles would also come to recognize the immense depth of God’s love. And God has purposed that the Gentiles would also be counted among those who return that love.

Going to the ends of the earth would necessitate coming in contact with Gentiles. And some of the Gentiles would want to know more about this Jesus who is proclaimed to have been killed by humans and to have been raised by God. But this is not to be a cause for worry because God has purposed that Gentiles would also be saved.

The disciples knew there was a promise waiting to be fulfilled. But they did not know that the fulfillment of the promise would usher in a new way of living and that the new way of living was essential to the task at hand and that the task at hand was a part of God’s purposes.

This brings to mind a colorful character from the Old Testament: Gideon. An angel appears to him and gives to him the task of freeing the Israelites from the Midianites. There was no doubt of the task at hand or of God’s approval. Yet Gideon had to ask for three signs before he was convinced. But that’s not where I’d like us to focus. Once he is convinced, he gathers thirty-two thousand men. God says that these are too many. So Gideon orders those who are faint-hearted to leave. When they do, he is left with ten thousand people—still too many for God. So God has the ten thousand demonstrate their water drinking skills. All but three hundred kneel and drink by cupping one hand. That is how humans would drink from a stream. The three hundred, however, lap at the water like dogs. Can you imagine it? See how ridiculous it looks? So inconvenient! In order to choose this way of drinking, these men would have to have had extremely bad coordination! And God chooses the three hundred who are so badly coordinated that they choose to drink water in a strange way. Then God arms them with trumpets, jars, and torches—which would require three hands, mind you. In other words, God chooses a handful of uncoordinated men and gives them way too much to handle. And the Midianites were defeated.

What this tells us is that God’s purposes include both the vision and the means of its fulfillment. The means may seem utterly strange to us—as it must surely seem in the case of Gideon I have just cited—but that is no excuse for going with what is tried and trusted. Not after Jesus’ resurrection! The task at hand for the disciples was to be witnesses of Jesus to the ends of the earth. They may not have seen how this would be possible. But it was God’s purpose and their job was to trust he would provide the means for its fulfillment.

Now Gideon is best known for putting out fleeces. It is another example of making decisions by casting lots. That was okay for Gideon because he was not the recipient of the promise Jesus made to his disciples. For the disciples, having received the promise of being baptized with the Spirit, and having received Jesus’ command to wait for it, casting lots was not a sign of faith but a regression to a familiar habit that had no place in the new life of the Spirit. And because of this regression the Twelve, as they are called in the Gospels, in Acts, and in some of Paul’s letters, could not easily accept Jesus’ legitimate twelfth apostle once he had been revealed. And this is one reason why the divide between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity grew, as it need not and indeed should not have.

We see the same thing in the life of Abraham. Rather than rely on the creative powers of God—as he certainly does later—he initially relied on the then common and accepted practice of concubinage. And to this day—as the bible foresees—there is enmity between the descendents of Ishmael and those of Isaac. Abraham and the apostles failed because they were unable to imagine a new way and because the wait was excruciating. But waiting is the true measure of faith. For to wait implies a willingness to give God the time to act in the manner he chooses.

So what in the world does this mean for us? We are no longer in the situation of waiting for the promise, for the Holy Spirit has already been poured out on us. How do we make decisions beyond the wait of Acts 1?

We can certainly rely on old ways that have stood the test but by doing so we might only be severing the possibility of the Spirit’s leading us along new paths. In other words, we still need to learn to live in and walk in the Spirit.

In the early sixties Bob Dylan wrote a song “The Times They Are A-Changin’”. Last year he wrote “Things Have Changed.” And indeed, for bearers of the message of the gospel, things have changed. Some of us may bemoan the rise of relativism and postmodernism. But we are faced with the fact that people think and act from a commitment to relativism or postmodernism. Ignoring this fact will be to behave like an ostrich that sinks its head into a hole. However, once we acknowledge this fact, we are faced with the task of changing. We do not change our message. But we change the way we present our message.

We are living in a world that is much different from the one in which our parents grew up. Human nature has not changed but possibilities open to humans and expressions of human nature have changed. And we are even more distant from the world of the apostles.

For instance, in the LA area, life is rushed. People barely have the time to have a meaningful conversation. It would seem then that quick evangelistic methods that rely on tracts would be most appropriate. However, sociological studies show that people are increasingly craving deep friendships and not finding them. In fact, many such studies indicate that the rise of gang membership among youth is related to the need to have friends and meaningful relationships in a society that elevates individualism above everything else. In such an atmosphere presenting the gospel in a few minutes will be to consign the persons concerned to the fragmented, friendless, relationship-less hell they are already suffering. Rather, we should find out what it is about gangs that attracts youth to them despite the inherent dangers. Then we need to design strategies to reach youth—strategies that provide meaningful relationships without diminishing the fact, which we ourselves have perhaps forgotten, that being a bearer of the gospel is dangerous business.

This is why we are seriously thinking of ways to reach the people in this community and your suggestions are welcome. And your collaboration in this task to which Jesus has called NUPC is invaluable. Remember, Jesus calls no one without sending him or her back into the world as his ambassador. As he told his disciples “you will be my witnesses” so he tells us.

Now you may find this application too vague. “Give me something concrete” may be the cry of your heart. But I cannot give blanket applications because Jesus sends each of us with a different task—though the tasks may overlap. In fact, if I were to give you a handful of application points, I would be denying each of you the joy of spending time with God and waiting for his Spirit to prod you in the direction he wills. I am certainly willing to spend time with you before God to unearth the wonderful treasure that is his will for you. Indeed we cannot accurately understand God’s will without the assistance of other Christians. But that means that each of us needs to be willing to bare ourselves before God and in that soul-searching nakedness to find the path the treading of which would lead us to the warmest embrace God has for us.

We still are living in that new era ushered in by Jesus when he poured out his Spirit. It is the same Spirit that was poured out on the apostles that is now poured out on us. But, as we will see in the weeks to come, the life driven by the Spirit is one in which there are no strict patterns; in which what worked yesterday might not work today; and in which we are called to be ever sensitive to new ways of presenting the gospel—the one message that there is salvation only in the name of Jesus.

With that intense commitment to listening to the Spirit, let us prepare ourselves for communion. Let the eating of the bread and the drinking of the juice be, for all of us, a celebration of the new life for which Jesus as saved us.