03.21. Appendix I

Appendix I, Page 250: St Peter’s Discourses In Acts 1:1-26, Acts 2:1-47 THE view given in the text of Peter’s discourses in the Acts puts no strain upon any of the expressions, but takes them all in their natural sense and connection. Strange liberties are resorted to by those who espouse the Jewish theory of the future, and in part also by some who adopt only the semi-Jewish. The question of the disciples to Jesus on the eve of his ascension, about restoring the kingdom to Israel, is usually made, not only to commit Jesus to the fact of such a restoration, but also to rule by its carnal sense the whole of the subsequent expressions. It is assumed, that Peter’s views of the kingdom after the descent of the Spirit, continued the same as they were before; and that, however it might be in other respects, on this subject he gained nothing in depth, spirituality or clearness of discernment. It is usually farther assumed, that in those invitations to press into the kingdom, addressed to men far and near, as many as the Lord might call, he never thought of any but Jews as having a right to the blessings of the kingdom—although the Lord had in the most explicit manner charged the apostles to include the whole world in their ministrations. They were, He said, to be “His witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth:”—a regular gradation, but only in respect to order and time; first Jerusalem, then the country around Judea; next Samaria, the kind of intermediate region between Jew and Gentile; and finally, the most remote and distant territories. Nay, the original charge, as given in Mark, Mark 16:15, was that they were to “go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature”—precisely, as in the first parable, “the field is the world.” So that if Peter and the apostles still thought only of Jews as entitled to a place in the kingdom, they must have been most strangely inattentive to their Lord’s instructions. That they did not open the door at once to the Gentiles, arose simply from their views respecting circumcision and the law; they thought these were still to remain in force, and consequently that the Gentiles must enter the Messiah’s kingdom by passing under the Jewish yoke. But this had respect merely to the mode of admission; it did not touch the fact, that the Gentiles had an equal right to enter, but simply that they had to enter as the Jews; both alike must go in by the legal door. And in this very circumstance we have an answer to the statement made by many—among others by Baumgarten—respecting the sense attached by the apostles to the expression “the restoration of the kingdom to Israel,” as necessarily meaning both with them and with Christ the revival of Israel’s external power and splendour as a nation; because “their honest and childlike minds clung to the what and the how that the prophets had written of.” The apostles no doubt did this, they did so in this matter only too long, and in respect to circumcision, as well as the kingdom; but the issue proved in the latter case, that their spirit, however honest and childlike, needed enlightenment, as the style of Peter’s future discourses showed that it had also done in respect to the other. The passage in Acts 2:30-36, seems alone quite conclusive of a change of view respecting the kingdom. In one part, there is a diversity as to the proper reading, and the two best MSS. A, B, omit the words in Acts 2:30, rendered in the common version, “According to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.” There are good reasons for supposing that these words were not in the original; so that the passage should stand thus: “Therefore [ David] being a prophet, and’ knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, of the fruit of his loins to make to sit upon his throne, foreseeing this, he spake concerning the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, whereof we all are witnesses,” etc., and, after quoting Psalms 110:1-2, he concludes, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God had made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” The passage is plain enough without the omitted words, and unless it is a piece of false logic, and the conclusion does not cohere with the premise, it explicitly affirms Christ’s present possession of the throne of David. The position from which Peter sets out is, that “God had sworn with an oath to David, of the fruit of his loins to make to sit upon his throne;” and the conclusion at which he arrives is, that that same Jesus who had been crucified and had ascended to the right hand of God “has been made both Lord and Christ.” In such a connection, what can the being made Lord and Christ mean, but sitting upon David’s throne? What other inference could the public audience Peter addressed (who had neither time nor taste for subtle ingenuities, but naturally took the words in their plain and obvious meaning) draw from the statement? They must have felt, that, according to the apostle, the word to David respecting the possession of his throne by a son had now reached its fulfilment. As contemplated by them, the being made Lord and Christ in any other sense would not have been to the point. The words uttered in common by the apostles in an address to God, as recorded in Acts 4:25-27, clearly express the same view. They quote the first verses of the second Psalm, which speak of the rulers combining and standing up “against the Lord and His Christ” (anointed); and then, applying the testimony to present times, they add, “For of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together.” In such a connection to call Jesus the person, whom God had anointed, could only mean, what is more fully expressed in Psalms 2:1-12, by being anointed as king and set on his holy hill of Zion. In any other sense the application of the terms must have been irrelevant, and fitted to mislead; unless, indeed (for that is the only means of escape from the conclusion), the apostles acted on the rationalistic principle, and merely accommodated the words of David to Jesus, on account of certain resemblances between the two cases. The other passage referred to in the text, Acts 3:19-21, is the only one in those addresses of Peter, which distinctly points to the future. Here the correct rendering undoubtedly is: “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, for the blotting out of your sins; in order that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Christ Jesus, who was before appointed to you (or, the Christ before appointed to you—Jesus); whom the heavens, indeed, must receive, till the times of the restitution (ἀποκαταστάσεως) of all things, of which God hath spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets from the beginning of His world.” Such persons as can see nothing here but Israelitish prospects, and nothing more in the restitution of all things than what was meant to be expressed at Acts 1:6, by the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, must be swayed by other reasons than are furnished by a natural exposition of the apostle’s words; and they do him, besides, the manifest injustice of making his views, before the descent of the Spirit, rule and determine those which he entertained afterwards. Discharging all preconceived notions, and taking the passage in its most obvious meaning, it seems plainly to indicate a series of progressive stages: first, a present duty in order to a present blessing (repenting and being converted for the sake of obtaining forgiveness of sin); then, on the ground of this repentance and forgiveness, the just expectation of seasons of refreshing—seasons like that of Pentecost, which those only who have become forgiven and accepted in the Beloved, can rightfully expect, but which they may confidently look for. These, however, are not the ultimate things of redemption—there is a stage higher and better still, for which they but tend to prepare the way and hasten forward the consummation. This is denoted by the sending of Christ Jesus from heaven, and the times of the restitution of all things; for though, did the sense absolutely require it, the seasons of refreshing (καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως), in Acts 3:20, might be identified with the times of the restitution of all things (χρόνοι ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων) in Acts 3:21, yet the natural supposition is, that they point to different epochs, as they also seem to indicate different results. Times of refreshing may come from the Lord’s presence, while the Lord Himself is not visibly manifest; and in no proper sense can they be called, when they do come, complete restitution-periods; they arc rather the occasional showers of blessing sent to invigorate the strength and cheer the hearts of faithful labourers before the final harvest. That harvest is a nobler thing—not something sent from the Lord merely, but the sending of the Lord himself—not a present refreshment, but an ultimate and universal restitution—a restitution which has been spoken of, not by the peculiar prophets of Israel alone, but by all prophetic men from the foundation of the world. Such a restitution, and so spoken of, must transcend every thing local and temporary; it can be nothing less than that bringing back of all to the order and perfection of God, which from the first, has been the great purpose of Divine grace, and the hope it has awakened in the heart of faith. Formally this restitution comprises the whole burden of prophecy, but not really; for the bringing back to what was, carries in its train an indefinite elevation. It involves the rise of all to another and higher sphere of being; for He who stands at the head of it is the Lord from heaven; and while He restores, He at the same time refines and glorifies. Why should not this thought also be extended to the other expectation, and determine what should be understood by the restoration of the kingdom to Israel! This restoration, too, may still be spoken of; but if so, it should be as connected with a glorious elevation. In Christ, David’s throne has become allied with Godhead, and the kingdom assumes of necessity a far loftier position and embraces an immensely wider domain. It becomes, indeed, co-extensive with the world; and hence the two points, when rightly understood, coalesce; the final re-adjusting and ordering of the affairs of Christ’s divine government shall be at once the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, and the restitution of all things to the world. Hence also, what in the prophets generally, who spoke in the midst of Israel, and from the Israelitish point of view, is predicted under the aspect of the full and perfect re-establishment of David’s kingdom, appears in Daniel, who by his position was led to contemplate the matter in its broader relationship to the world at large, as the setting up of the kingdom of heaven in the hands of one like a Son of Man. They are but different modes of exhibiting the same great truth; intimating that the kingdom, which belongs to Christ as Son of Man or Son of David, when conducted to its final issues, shall bring along with it the restitution of every thing on earth to perfect order and blessedness.