Acts 5.27-32; Rev 1.4-8; Jn 20.19-31
The lectionary post Easter readings from Acts instead of an OT passage emphasize the effects of the resurrection upon the believers. Throughout Acts, over and over the author emphasizes “resurrection” as such and “the resurrection of Jesus” as the fundamental issue between the Jews who follow the Way of Jesus and those who reject it. Acts also highlights the great transformation, turning cowardly disciples into bold witnesses, accusers of their accusers.
The first arrest and trial occurred precisely because the mainly Sadducean religious authorities were annoyed that Peter and John were “proclaiming that in Jesus there is resurrection of the dead” (4.2). Today’s sequel occurs because the disciples continue to teach in the name of Jesus and persist in charging the Jewish authorities with the crime of killing Jesus. Peter’s response, “It’s necessary to obey God rather than men,” has often been cited by zealots willing to defy authority. One should take great care when choosing an issue for defiance--the church in Indianapolis which refused to comply with IRS regulations about withholding taxes from employees’ paychecks hardly seems the equivalent of our passage for today. Protests against the School of the Americas and other USA national policies aiding violence and exploitation as currently in Colombia would seem more appropriate.
In this pericope we see evidence of Luke’s tendency to place blame on the Jewish rather than Roman authorities. “You killed Jesus,” Peter charges, using a verb [diacheirizo] which implies laying violent hands on one, “and hanged him on a gibbet,” again implying a personal, direct participation in the deed, which belies the actual case.
This Jesus, says Peter, is the one whom God raised up as leader and savior for Israel, like the judges/saviors of old. “Leader” [archegon] is one who is source or origin of victory and salvation, but who also leads followers into full participation. The same word occurs in Acts 3.15 where Peter accuses the crowd on Pentecost Day: “You killed the Author [archegon] of life.” God’s purpose in raising Jesus is “to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (5.31). In our modern tendency to emphasize individualism, we may overlook the significance of this corporate aspect of God’s gracious dealing with Israel, God’s people, whom he has not rejected. We should focus on this aspect of the text, and play down the anti-Jewish aspects of the accusations which Luke has placed in the mouth of Peter. See also below on John 20.19-23.
The apostles’ boldness under extreme pressure rests upon: 1] Their personal experience: “we are witnesses to these things.” The expression “These things” [ton hrematon touton]. Literally, [hrema] most commonly means “saying” or “word” (65x in NT vs 4x for “thing”)-- like Heb [dabar]. In Lk/Acts the qualification for an apostle was to have personally accompanied Jesus from the time of JoBap and witnessed the resurrection (1.21-22). Others, however, including those in Luke’s community, can also be “witnesses” concerning the testimony or word of others concerning the affair. 2] The gift of the Holy Spirit, the divine indwelling and empowering, which is available to *all* who obey, eye witnesses or not. This note of obedience makes an inclusio for Peter’s speech which begins with “it’s necessary to obey God.”
I wish to recommend most highly these commentaries: M. Eugene Boring (Interpretation Commentary, John Knox Press 1989) and G. B. Caird (Black’s NT Commentaries, London 1966) for their help in understanding and properly interpreting the bizarre symbolism of the later chapters.
Boring (pp 74-80) says the epistolary opening follows the Pauline model, combining “grace” [charis] from the usual Greek greeting, and “peace” [shalom] from the Hebrew, both with enhanced meaning because of Jesus. The benediction from God, Spirit, and Jesus Christ is not the full Trinitarian theology of later church doctrine. Description of God as “the One who was and who is and who is to come” also evinces double roots. Gentiles could stress the deity’s eternity and immutability, like, e.g., Pausanias’ “Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus will be.” The Greek translation (LXX) of Ex 3.14 likewise stresses deity’s *being* by translating YHWH/I Am Who I Am by [ho on] -- “The Being.” But Rev is truer to Hebrew concepts of divine action and involvement, by adding “who is to come.” Further, Boring writes:
- "John ascribes to Jesus a combination of traditional and innovative christological titles: “Christ” was already traditional, but “the faithful witness,” “the first-born of the dead,” and “the ruler of kings on earth” are new. The church continued to develop its understanding of the significance of Jesus afar his death and resurrection. The post-Easter church’s increased christological insight included the attribution of titles to Jesus he had never used of himself. This is certainly true of the last three titles used in 1.5, and may be true of the first, “Christ,” as well. . . .Christian prophets such as John played an important role in this process, for they not only spoke about Jesus, they spoke in the first person in his name, so that after Easter the risen Jesus continued, through his prophets, to make new christological claims, including the use of new titles." (p74)
Caird (pp 16-17) writes concerning this verse: "By two small adjustments he has given a profoundly Christian application to the words of scripture. It is in virtue of his death and resurrection that the Messiah has entered on his promised reign; and so for him *firstborn*, instead of being an honorific title, is the guarantee that others will pass with him through death to kingship. . . . ." "[John] has learned from Christ that the omnipotence of God is not the power of unlimited coercion but the power of invincible love." (p. 19)
Through his shed blood (Boring: blood = life) Christ has brought believers into relationship with him in such a way that all Christians participate in Christ’s offices of prophet, priest, and king. The church through its witness even unto death prepares for the time when “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail” (1.7). Although the immediate context is not explicit, based on other texts and the general theology of Rev, Caird takes this as strong intimation that the wailing or mourning will indicate final recognition of their part in the death of Christ which will lead to reconciliation (p 18). I myself am so persuaded. See also on forgiveness in John 20.19-23 below.
Rather than rehash the Thomas scene and the closing verse stating the purpose of the entire fourth gospel, I wish to focus on the few events of Jesus’ first appearance to the disciples as told in the fourth gospel.
They have gathered behind locked doors “for fear of the Jews.” Presumably they had already heard Jesus’ message sent to them by Mary Magdalene (“the apostle to the apostles”), but they still fear. Given the fate of their master, how could they expect any better treatment at the hands of the authorities? To this still doubting, cowardly, fearful group Jesus suddenly “stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’” Luke reports (24.37) “they were startled and terrified” as well they might be. John says “they rejoiced” yet reports that Jesus again said, “Peace be with you.” Just that. No accusation for Peter’s denial or the abandonment by the others; no criticism for their lack of faith. Nothing about their apologies, their confession, their repentance, their begging forgiveness. Nothing. “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” *This* Jesus commissions *this* crew to be his representatives, as he has been the representative of his Father.
To equip them for this commission, Jesus breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” This is the Johannean equivalent of Pentecost. And as their first function, he gives them the same power he has just exercised toward them, the free forgiveness of sins. “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them;” but he adds, “if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In the course of church history, those who achieved control over the levers of power in the organized church have tended to arrogate this power to themselves and to use it to punish or reward whom they will, but in my view without dominical authority. The biblical text at this point does not name nor number nor describe in any detail who or what these people were to whom this gift was given. They’re just “disciples” who have but a minute ago received free forgiveness for the worst possible sin, denying their master. This function is for every disciple, for every believer, for every Christian.
What does it mean in actual practice? I accept as most reasonable and understandable the interpretation suggested by my friend and colleague Grayson Tucker. If we truly forgive others’ their sins, those sins are gone; they can cause no more trouble. But if we refuse to forgive others, those sins remain and rankle and grow and fester and accomplish the devil’s work. Is that not true, not only in the church but in every human relationship?
And so finally I say, this commission and function given by Jesus to his disciples really is meant for every person on earth, whatever be your religion or whatever be your station in life. This is for you: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
(Comments to Arch at arch.taylor@ecunet.org.)