[N.b. As stated in part I, this series of posts was inspired as the result of a dialogue with my friend, Mike V. The substance of the posts is taken from several lectures given by Dr. Gaffin at WTS in a New Testament course focusing on Acts and selected epistles of St. Paul. Thus, the tenor of the posts is more conversational and less polished given that they are for the most part the notes that I took from Gaffin’s lectures].
***
***
Though there is a central place of the Spirit at Pentecost, this should not cause us to overlook the important involvement of the Father and the Son. In other words, we must recognize Pentecost as a fully Trinitarian event. On the day of Pentecost, Peter preaches an exceedingly Christocentric sermon. He notes the remarkable events that have just happened and connects this to the promise of the Spirit, but this material functions as the introduction to the sermon, as the main theme is Christ and his resurrection and ascension/exaltation (Acts 2:24-33). In verse 33, we read of the outpouring of the Spirit and the intricate connection between this event and Christ’s exaltation—the outpouring of the Spirit is the inevitable result of the exaltation. Moreover, verse 33 indicates that Christ is the active one at Pentecost, particularly in his action with regard to the Holy Spirit. Though Christ Himself in His exaltation has just climactically received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the result of His ascension, Christ is the one who is doing the outpouring, the baptizing (with the Holy Spirit and fire), just as John the Baptist had proclaimed! Hence, from the sermon preached on day the of Pentecost we see that there is never to be a pneumatology independent from Christology. Christology and pneumatolgoy must be carried on together and cannot be separated. Turning again to verse 33, we read, “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,” some that the first clause is a reference to Christ’s ascension, whereas the second clause looks back to the Jordan event. Gaffin, however, rejects this interpretation, arguing that what is in view is a reception of the Spirit by God’s people that is attendant on Christ’s ascension-reception of the Holy Spirit. In other words, what is expressed here is that idea that Christ has such a permanent and complete possession of the Spirit (as one of the climax points in the redemptive drama), and as a result, He has been so transformed and eschatologically indwelt by the Spirit, that St. Paul go so far as to say that Christ as the last Adam has become the Spirit. Before anyone shouts “heresy,” we must draw a distinction between an ontological identity and an economic identity. Gaffin’s claim is that the incarnate Christ and the Spirit are equated in their redemptive function (economic function). He reiterates that this has nothing to do with a confusion of the ontological status of Trinity. The Son and Spirit are equated functionally; there is an economic oneness—not an ontological oneness. By making this qualification, Gaffin is staving off any charges of a kind of modalism. Viewed from this perspective, when on the day of Pentecost Jesus baptizes we may say that He baptizes with Himself—He baptizes with His own indwelling presence. At Pentecost the exalted Jesus sends the promise of the Father in the presence of the Spirit by coming Himself in the demonstrable power and presence of the Spirit.
Gaffin goes on to make the following connection. In the closing sanction of the Great Commission in Matt 28:20 where we have the resurrected Jesus, who is on the verge of ascension, giving the promise, “I am with you always until the end of the age.” As Gaffin points out, this is a statement that is not merely to be understood in terms of referring to the divine omnipresence of Jesus, but rather it is an affirmation to be understood in terms of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit. There is a parousia aspect at Pentecost—a return of Christ at Pentecost. We can reinforce this if we look outside of the Luke/Acts material to other material (e.g., John 14:18-19, 28; also 16:7; here Jesus stresses the advantage for the disciples of His departure and the coming of the Spirit. So in giving this promise that the Spirit will come, the disciples are assured that they will not be left as orphans. With this said, Jesus adds, “I will come to you” (John 14:18). Then in verse 19, He says, “Yet a little while and the world will see (θεωρεῖ) me no more, but you will see (θεωρεῖτε) me.” Here the present tense is being used for an impending future which is reflected in the ESV translation above. The passage continues, "In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." (John 14:20-23, ESV). So Jesus’ promises to be present with his disciples are tagged temporally, and this raises the question of how we are to understand the force of these adverbial expressions (“for a while,” “in that day” etc.). That is, how do we understand their temporal reference? We can say that what is not in view is a reference to the second coming. This is the case even though in 14:2-3, Jesus’ talk of preparing a place for his disciples does in fact refer to second coming. Why? Because in 14:19 we are told that the world is going to be excluded from beholding the coming of which Jesus is speaking. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the second coming is said to be visible and evident to all (Rev. 1:7). Nor do we have in mind the proposal of Jesus’ post resurrection appearances prior to ascension. For the problem then would be how can these temporal appearances be described in terms of the mutual indwelling of believers? Thus, Gaffin argues that what is in view here is not the second coming, but rather the resurrection, ascension and Pentecost complex.
0 comments:
Post a Comment