Of course, stories like the last one ARE the exception, and the writer of Acts is quick to make that point. The very next record in Acts 5 (vv. 12–16) goes on to record the miraculous signs the apostles were performing:
The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed.
It seems like a simple enough passage, an innocent record of the things the followers of Jesus were engaged in. Of course, a skeptical reader might find this record a little dubious. In fact, if one takes a second look at the passage, they too might feel as though the details are a little over the top. Is this really what happened? Does the writer of Acts really need to tell the story this way? It seems like the record of some cheap magic tricks.
People are bringing the sick into the streets so shadows might fall on them?
I mean, even Jesus didn’t seem to go around doing miracles with this level of Jedi mastery. The picture that’s given seems to be one where the disciples are wandering through Jerusalem, minding their own business, and their shadows are magically healing people like a moving relic.
It seems, just as it used to appear in Genesis and all throughout our study, like I have some problems in the Text where the author is begging me to look again and start digging. It isn’t quite right, like there are details in the story that don’t need to be there. Peter’s shadow? Why Peter’s shadow? Is he the lead magician who has more supernatural powers than the others? And why do the details to push up against the boundaries of our common sense? Is there more going on here?
Well, let’s head out on a brief tangent about the messiah.
One of the areas where New Testament Christianity seems to have a misunderstanding of Judaism is the realm of the messiah. First, as we’ve pointed out in other places in this series, the prophecies we often associate with “messianic prophecies” are often not primarily messianic at all; they could (and often should!) be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Second, the Jewish faith is, generally speaking, not looking for a messiah in the sense that we understand messiah or talk about Jesus. In most of Jewish history, the idea of one messianic character who would come and rescue the Jewish people was not a prevalent idea and was often considered quite fringe and fundamentalist.
During the first century, this idea of a messiah was much more prevalent than it was at almost any other time in Jewish history. The writing of the book of Daniel and its commentary on the Roman Empire was certainly a major discussion in the rabbinical circles, but it’s worth noting they often didn’t interact with the idea of messiah in the way we think they did. As a side note, we should also remind ourselves that the concept of the messiah being God in the flesh simply did not exist at this point in Jewish history. They were not expecting the arrival of God in human form, and the idea of the Incarnation is still considered blasphemous on a lot of levels. (This is not to suggest that it is wrong at all; I have a deep love for the doctrine of the Incarnation. I simply find it helpful to remind myself that the Jewish people were not looking for the arrival of God in the flesh.)
Even in the discussions we’ve had surrounding the “Son of Man” and the coming of Righteous Abel or the judgment of Elijah, there was much discussion about whether these people would be literal persons or symbolic of other leaders. The eyes of the Jewish faith were not fixed on the coming of a person so much as the coming of an age. This was much more of a concern than the arrival of just one person; if there was going to be a person, he/she was simply going to help usher in the age. But the era of the olam haba and the “age to come” was the point. The messiah figure would simply be a passing detail.
Passages all throughout the Tanakh spoke of how the world would be in the age to come. For example, Isaiah 32:
See, a king will reign in righteousness and rulers will rule with justice.Each one will be like a shelter from the wind and a refuge from the storm,like streams of water in the desert and the shadow of a great rock in a thirsty land.
This passage speaks of a day when all things will be made right, when things will be as they ought to be. If you look at the passage closely (even in the Hebrew), you will notice a few things. First, there is a king (singular) who will reign in righteousness. Second, there will be rulers (plural) who will rule in justice…
Wait… plural?
WE are the rulers. It is not the messiah in this prophecy who offers shelter and shade, refuge from the storm, and water in a dry desert. No, but each one (ref. “rulers”) will be a shelter from the wind. Each one will be a refuge from the storm. Each one will be a stream of water in the desert. Each one will be shade in a thirsty land.
I have a friend who is a Rabbi and a shop-owner in Jerusalem. His name is Moshe. Whenever you ask Moshe questions about Messiah, he will very lovingly remind you that he’s not looking for a messiah. But he will also admit that he could be wrong — he might have missed him/her. But he will say in his brilliant Jewish tenor, “But the Scriptures tell me what it will be like! If Messiah is here, there should be the healing of the nations! If Messiah is here, there should be peace brought to chaos! If Messiah is here, then the Kingdom of God should be here! Where is it? WHERE IS IT!? I don’t see it! So how could Messiah have come?”
Sometimes I think we get so hung up on trying to prove Jesus fulfilled prophecy that we forget there is prophecy left for YOU AND I to fulfill.
And the writer of the book of Acts knows this. We said earlier the book of Acts is like the epilogue to the narrative of God where we see the people of God grasp their calling to bring the Kingdom of God crashing into earth — to make the will of God done on earth as it is in heaven.
And so the writer speaks in very poetic words of the people bringing the sick into the streets so that even Peter’s shadow might fall on them.
Why? Because Isaiah 32 is being fulfilled. Because the people of God are ushering in the messianic age. Because olam haba has come, “rulers are ruling with mishpat,” and they are setting things right. Jesus has brought a whole new reality and announced that the Kingdom of God is, in fact, right under our noses and we have been invited to partner with God in making the world right.
And the sick and the marginalized are longing to sit in their shade, to find refuge from their storms, and to drink water in a parched desert.
“Why Peter’s shadow?” we had asked.
Well, with tongue-in-cheek, I see Luke mouthing the words to Isaiah 32 as he records Acts 5:
“…and the shadow of a great rock…”
“I will call you Peter (petros; ‘rock, stone’),” Jesus had said, “and on this rock I will build my church.”
May we take up the call to fulfill prophecy and be a kingdom of priests who remind the world the Kingdom of God has arrived.
No comments:
Post a Comment