Our reading from Acts has transported us in imagination to those tumultuous days of the first Pentecost. There in the Temple and precincts were Jews from all over the world, many no doubt had but newly arrived in Jerusalem. Perhaps to such the events of the previous Passover were strange rumors that they sought to know more about. To some the happenings of so many weeks before were of little interest as news or gossip. But one thing they all had in common was a desire to worship at the Temple in accordance with the Law.
It was to them that the Apostle spoke, exercising for the first time their newly received gift of tongues. Yet in spite of this evidence of the diversity of their birthplaces Peter addressed them as “Ye men of Israel.” Now while he went on speaking of the work of Jesus as set in their midst and would seemed to have had in mind particularly the Jews dwelling in the land there seems to be no distinction in his plea to his hearers which eventually brought three thousand of them to baptism. He seemed in fact to emphasize that it was impossible for any of them to say they were not concerned when he cried “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.”
Earlier in his speech he had accused his hearers of being responsible for the death of Christ saying “Ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” Yet one would think that the mob that howled before Pilate did not include many of those pious men who had travelled so far to worship in the Temple. But the words hit home and they cried “Men and brethren what shall we do ?” But, although Peter had charged them collectively, when they responded as a community he advised them as individuals “Repent, and be baptized even every one of you.”
The same community of responsibility with an individual response to the Gospel is evident in the next chapter. “Ye denied the Holy one . . . and killed the Prince of Life.” Their responsibility was not to be cloaked by putting the blame on the Rulers, both groups are included in the explanation “And now brethren, I wot that in ignorance ye did it as did also your Rulers.” But when he turns to the purpose of the Gospel it becomes a personal matter though it arises from their association as a community. “Unto you, first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”
From these passages it would appear that the members of a community, are jointly responsible for some things that are done by a section of the community, and that the individual must personally accept the responsibility of the consequences of the community’s action. Immediately the question arises whether it is possible for an individual member of the community to divest himself of responsibility for the acts of the community.
Joseph of Arimathea is an example of a person involved in a community responsibility. John tells of him first coming to Jesus by night and then of him being a disciple, but secretly for fear of the Jews. So he really had responsibilities to two communities —the Jews and the disciples. Mark records how he went boldly to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus, a seemingly tremendous change in a secret disciple. Is the key to that change to be found in Luke’s assertion that he “Consented not unto the Counsel and the Deed of them.” While this may be a description o Joseph’s convictions it may be that it really describes his action in the Council. Did he both speak and vote against the decision to condemn Jesus and send him to Pilate for sentence ? His subsequent actions show that he was no longer accepting the decision of the majority. Their decision was not his.
Familiarity with the workings of democracy makes it easy for us to understand collective responsibility and the way to avoid it should the need arise, but it makes it difficult to appreciate the opposite —namely the group’s responsibility for one of its individuals. Yet Manasseh is blamed time after time for the iniquity of Judah and is cited at the cause of their punishment. The writer of Kings after reciting the coming of Nebuchadnezzar and the invasions of the Chaldean’s, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites says “Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did . . . which the Lord would not pardon.” (2 Kings 24:3-4) Elsewhere he speaks of Manasseh’s sins “Wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the
Lord.” It was the climate of public opinion that enabled Manasseh to do what he did, for the same writer, after mentioning the blessings promised if they would be obedient and observe the law that Moses commanded, went on to say “But they hearkened not ; and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel.” Evidently a corrupt people found a corrupt monarch to their liking and willingly followed his example.
The writer of Chronicles wrote “And the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his people, but they would not hear.” In consequence punishment came upon them all, but, and herein is the wonder of the grace of God, Manasseh repented and prayed to God “And he was entreated of him and heard his supplication and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom.” (II Chron. 33:13). Here the chief architect of the nation’s depravity is enabled to avoid the direct consequences of that behavior, and as it were, contract out of the corporate responsibility of the nation.
Another example of perhaps the opposite kind of a similar situation is that of Lot in Sodom. God told Abraham of his intention of punishing the wickedness of the inhabitants of the city and Abraham attempted to prevent the obvious injustice of the righteous being overthrown with the wicked, but he reaches a lower limit of ten. Why he stopped at ten we do not know. While in theory all would say it was unjust to punish one good man along with the wicked. in practice many would say he had only himself to blame for keeping bad company. To the human eye the agreement is more apparent than the distinction, but in Lot’s case it seems from the rude retort of the Sodomites to Lot’s
remonstrance that he had never quite become one of them. So Peter’s comment that he “vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds” does depict a man who was never fully assimilated into his surroundings and so was not to be condemned to the same fate. God did deliver him in spite of himself and demonstrated the superiority of his justice over that of Abraham, who !would have left him to his fate.
It is to the same God that Jesus prayed on behalf of his disciples that He would not take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil that is in the world. This involves a spiritual but not a physical separation from the evil world during a period when there is no overt manifestation of God’s judgments. But we must not lose sight of the possible effect of the principle that Abraham had sought to have upheld —that the presence of a sufficient body of righteous people will prevent the punishment of the wicked. In a much smaller social group the Apostle saw the predominating power of righteousness when he saw children sanctified because one of their parents believed, and he even went so far as to ask the question as if he half expected a favorable answer “How knowest thou, wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband.” (1 Cor 7:16)
These are, of course, but illustrations of the fact that Christ sanctifies the Church, not for its virtue but by his own.
We meet to remember our Lord and his sacrifice which has done as much for us. In those words of Paul to the Corinthians wherein he describes the institution of this feast we find the same corporate and individual responsibilities. Together “Ye show forth the Lord’s death” but to each of us he says “let man examine himself.”
Here we are in our corporate capacity witnessing to the death of our Lord in sharing this bread and wine, but where do we each stand— we can be at one with the mob which howled “Not this man but Barabbas,” and be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord just as much as they were, or we can be with Thomas before a risen Jesus saying “My Lord and My God.”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One