As the Teacher, So the Disciple (08/29/26)

Reading through this brief record of the Sanhedrin’s dealings with Peter and John, it is hard to miss the parallels to their dealings with Jesus.  Interestingly, while it is Paul’s companion Luke who relays these events to us, and Peter who is indicated as speaking, the parallels are much more evident in John’s gospel.  There, early on, we find notice of the reaction to Jesus, that they marveled, wondering where He had learned what He spoke, for He was not the product of rabbinical training (Jn 7:15).  And then, as things approached their climax, we have notice of the Council’s deliberations in regard to this Jesus subsequent to the restoring of Lazarus to life.  “Look!  You can see that we are getting nowhere trying to catch Him out.  The whole world has gone after Him” (Jn 12:19).  They tried argument.  They tried pressing their superior position.  Nothing was working.  It would take sterner measures.  And yet, as before, as always, there was concern for how the people, these benighted commoners, would react.  The Sanhedrin may not have had much regard for the opinions of the people (other than as it concerned respect for themselves), but they did understand what would come of provoking a riot amongst them.  The people themselves were not so much the danger, as how the Roman authorities would respond to any such outburst.  Trouble indeed, given that their power now depended on Rome’s permission.

So we have this parallel to the treatment of Jesus.  We also have something of a fulfillment of His assurance to His disciples.  Prior to those final days, He had assured them that, even having departed, “I will give you such words of wisdom as none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute” (Lk 21:15).  Surely, that is what we see happening here before the Sanhedrin.  Peter’s defense, at least as presented here, is brief, concise and to the point.  He does not hold back notice of the true state of things.  Messiah came and you crucified Him.  As noted in the last study, nothing here suggests angry display, though nothing denies the possibility either.  Still, however calmly that statement was made, it had to hit like an axe blow.  We’ll come back to that later, Lord willing.  But there is quite clearly a boldness in Peter’s defense, which we see recognized here in the observation of the confidence he and John display before this august council.

Confidence:  Speaking openly and with full assurance.  This is not arrogance.  Nor is it defiance.  But it refuses to back down from what it knows to be true.  And why?  Because Peter’s not working up a defense, not struggling to win an argument.  He is speaking what, “I will give you.”  Go back to his delivery of that defense.  “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said” (Ac 4:8).  That’s the key.  He’s not defending a theological position.  He’s not speaking from his own learning.  Neither is he standing firm by his own strength.  These two, Peter and John, and I would have to say the man they had healed as well, stand in the strength God supplies through the Holy Spirit indwelling.  For the healed man, that was a literal, physical reality.  But it was no less true of Peter and John, certainly as concerns being strengthened to deliver so challenging a defense to this, the supreme court of their nation.

They had to know, these two, just how great their danger was.  They had to know that they could not necessarily count on justice served, given that they had seen how this same council dealt with Jesus.  By human measure, that certainly hadn’t ended well.  But God…  Yet, the strengthening presence and power of God is quite evident, for in his defense, he has effectively turned this whole proceeding on its head.  The Council had gathered to pronounce judgment on these two, and their decision clearly seeks to quash any further promulgation of the idea that Jesus was Messiah, or that He was alive.  Both of these were deadly to their authority, the one as calling into question their wisdom and judgment, the other their power and truthfulness.

You might think they would have learned from how that last encounter worked out.  The words of Caiaphas must have been coming back to mind.  “You see that we are getting nowhere.”  And yet, they’re back to effectively the same playbook.  We’re in charge here, not God!  They don’t put it that bluntly, but that’s clearly the mindset.  Never mind the signs.  Never mind the evidence.  Never mind what God’s doing.  Do what we tell you.  And against this, stand Peter and John, and in so doing, they serve as a sign just as clear as the miracle of healing.  God is declaring judgment on this Council who thought to judge God’s representatives.  That was never going to go well for them, nor did it.  But God’s judgment comes in God’s time.

A Clear Sign (08/30/26)

There is something of a confession embedded in the quandary of the Sanhedrin.  “A noteworthy miracle has taken place through them.”  This was a sign, and they recognized that it was so.  It wasn’t like an act of one of some healer.  It was quite properly a sign, a miracle in the sense of having some moral purpose.  To be sure, the act of healing had been of clear, physical benefit to that one who was healed.  But that was not really the point.  It wasn’t the point of their inquiry, nor could it have been the real point of the miracle.  The healing, real as it was, was a sign, and signs are ever and always signifying something beyond the sign itself.  Zhodiates writes that a miraculous sign such as this is, “valuable not so much for what they are as for what they indicate of the grace and power of the doer or of his immediate connection with a higher spiritual world.”

And here we are met with a reason for the Council to have taken interest in the matter.  One of their chief duties was that of discernment.  The Sanhedrin felt their authority firmly lodged upon the Law of Moses, and his practice thereof.  They fashioned themselves the proper continuation of the ministry of those seventy elders Moses called to minister judgment alongside him.  Thus, their number being 71.  It strikes me, though it is very much as an aside, that there is some parallel here to the view the Roman Catholics take of the pope being the rightful successor to Peter as the apostolic authority and earthly head of the church.  But that’s not a diversion I need to invest in on this occasion.  Let’s stick with the Sanhedrin and their function.  Let it be assumed that there is more validity to their claimed authority.  On that basis, it is well to recall certain of Moses’ instructions.

I think, in this case, of a passage I have considered somewhat often; that of Deuteronomy 13:1-5.  Consider. “If a prophet or a dreamer arises giving signs and wonders which come true, the while advising, ‘Let us go serve other gods whom we have not known before,’ you shall not listen to that prophet or visionary.  The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love Him with all your heart and soul.  Him you shall follow and fear, and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.  But that prophet or dreamer shall be put to death for counseling rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, redeeming you from slavery.  He has sought to seduce you away from the way of God, so you must purge his evil from among you.”  It’s a passage worthy of a full study all on its own.  But the fundamental point is clear enough.  The miracle is not itself enough.  Signs can be counterfeited.  It had happened with the magicians who served Pharaoh, who clearly were not seeking to promote the true worship of the true God.  Yet, for Moses, those signs did confirm the validity of his service.

Go back to what Zhodiates suggests, that the miracle indicates an ‘immediate connection with a higher spiritual world.’  I note that he does not suggest a necessary connection to God in that, only something of the spiritual realm.  And that opens the possibility that the power displayed is not in fact authenticating a man of God, but could as readily be authenticating a servant of the devil.  He, after all, comes disguised as an angel of light, and his minions with the appearance of being servants of righteousness.  Deception does not come into the church announcing itself as such.  Indeed, those who come with false doctrines may be fully convinced of those doctrines, and fully convinced that they are in fact serving God, even though they act as agents of the devil.  Heresy need not imply intent to deceive on the part of the heretic.  I don’t doubt that for many it is but a scam, a means to make an easy buck off the gullible believers.  And that isn’t something reserved for the televangelists and their kindred such as are loosed upon the world via the internet in this age.  I am quite sure that many a ‘Christian’ business advertises at such not out of a true pursuit of righteousness, but as a means of establishing unwarranted trust.

I labor this just a bit because I think we can tend to judge the Sanhedrin just a bit too sharply.  I noticed this in the article I read in regard to them as preparation this time around.  I had always heard that the very fact that they held court over Jesus in the night was already a violation of protocol for them.  But it seems that where false teaching, a false prophet was involved, this was actually within bounds.  Indeed, in such a case, the usual day’s wait before pronouncing a judgment of death was waived, and could proceed immediately.  There remains plenty for which they can be criticized.  But we should at least recognize that it remains possible that they were, at least in their own view, pursuing their proper duties, even if that pursuit resulted in erroneous judgment.

The sign itself was not enough to prove the case.  It could not be.  If miracles proved holiness, then Moses’ instruction would be to no purpose, and indeed, we ought to simply go tramping off after the latest miracle worker, even if he is clearly proclaiming some deity other than God, or some reimagining of God that has nothing to do with Who He Is.  And that, I have to say, continues to be the case with many, and not just in foreign lands.  It’s happening with sad regularity here amongst us.  Just look for the churches with the LGBT flags out front, who can barely be bothered to mention Jesus, much less present Him as He truly is.  Or look to those who have made the Church an annex of political influence.  That is not to say that the Church has no business seeking to influence the course of politics towards righteous ends.  But that has never been the central function of faith.  We answer to a higher authority, and He in turn councils us to honor such earthly authorities as pertain, knowing that whatever power and authority they have comes from Him, whether they acknowledge that fact or not.  So we pray for them, that they would in fact recognize and acknowledge the full and final authority of God and seek to rule in light of His righteous reign.  That doesn’t require the imposition of a state religion, but it does require that our leaders lead in the humble realization that they shall answer to God for the nature of their leadership.  And for us, it must often suffice to recognize this same reality:  However evil that governance, they shall in due course answer to God for it.  If needs must, then we must remain content in that vengeance is and shall be His.  Never is it a matter for us to take into our own hands, certainly not by acts of rebellion.

So, then, the Sanhedrin is right to consider not so much the sign but what it seeks to signify.  Thus their question to Peter and John:  In whose name are you doing this?  Who has delegated this power to you?  Whom do you serve?  It was a question required by Moses’ instruction.  If these two were in fact promoting some other god, then the verdict of guilt must be reached, no matter how impressive the sign.  And in that they promoted Jesus of Nazareth as their authority, that question becomes more vital.  If that had been the extent of their claim, then they would perhaps have been right in declaring guilt, and even of requiring the death penalty for these two.  For in that case, they would have been seeking to divert the people of God from worshiping Him in favor of worshiping another.  But Peter makes it quite evident that this is not the extent of their claim.  This Jesus is, he insists, the Messiah appointed by God Himself for Israel, and indeed for all people (Ac 4:10-12).  Whatever the particulars of their teaching, they are not looking to draw Israel away from God, but rather to turn them towards Him.  And it’s been working!  The crowds that gathered, both yesterday, and, it seems, today, were glorifying God for what happened.

If, in fact, they were fulfilling their official duty in seeking to determine whether these men served God or some idolatrous other, there should have been further investigation into what it was they were teaching.  That they promoted Jesus as speaking for God was insufficient cause.  They, after all, were in the habit of citing this rabbi or that for their understanding of matters of religion and interpretation.  This was no crime, nor was it thought to turn aside the people from worshiping God to worshiping whichever rabbi was mentioned.  It should have caused at least some delving into the doctrinal content of their beliefs.  Was He an authoritative source?  That had never been determined by them.  Oh, they had condemned Him to death certainly, as Peter has just reminded them.

And there was the other sign that could not be readily disregarded.  God had raised Jesus from death.  Jesus had raised Lazarus from death.  For the Sadducees this had to be disturbing.  For, as with the man standing healed before them, the dead man Lazarus had walked among them, undeniable both in the physical reality of his present state, and what it must signify.  And yet.  And yet, they had rejected the sign and the Man, viewed Him solely as a threat to their authority.  They never much cared what He taught.  To the degree they had examined Him in that regard, He had ever and always demonstrated true faith in true God.  No fault had ever been found in His teaching.  But He repeatedly showed them up for the religious frauds that they ultimately were.  Their god was power, not Yahweh.  Their hunger was for their own honor not His.

I found it somewhat telling that, at least so far as the quote Luke provides, this council could not even bring itself to say His name.  “Let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name.”  Granted, Luke does indicate that it is the name of Jesus that is in view as they deliver this command to the two apostles.  But it still leaves the sense that they would not even have His name pass their lips.  But that may be reading too much into it.  It may simply be that they are applying themselves to the sense of delegated authority that applies to the case of speaking in His name.  It is by way of saying, “You are not to assign this man any religious authority nor claim any power as having come from Him.”  All well and good if you simply skip that step and appeal to Yahweh as your authority and source.  It’s that name, that claim that is the sticking point.

Why?  Because again, they had already rendered their verdict on Him, and declared Him anathema.  To now present Him as authority must by its very nature render their authority null and void.  If Jesus was Messiah, then the religious authority of Israel had failed utterly; the religious teachers stood in need of teaching, and as such, could no longer be construed as the final answer in matters of faith and life.  And that takes us right to the core of Peter’s response to their demand.  Okay, you experts on religion, tell me this:  If your council directly opposes God’s instruction, who should we heed?  Which will He account proper adherence to His commandments?

This is, as the Gospel always proves to be, a crisis for this court.  The Judge is standing in judgment, even as they pass judgment on His servants.  And that judgment, if they will not repent, is severe.  Indeed, given the prophetic tears of Jesus as He neared Jerusalem, that judgment had already been rendered.  While repentance remained at least a theoretical possibility, it seems to me that in reality, all opportunity for that had already passed.  “He who believes in Him is not judged.  He who does not has been judged already, for not believing in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn 3:18).

So we find them trapped in their own moral quandary.  Something significant has transpired, and it does appear to be from God.  It does appear that the name of Jesus is in fact authoritative.  But while it may be true, yet we will not have you telling anybody that it is.  It’s hard to imagine in some ways that these men could be so lacking in sense.  It seems like something that ought to be impossible to conclude.  And yet, if we are honest, we should probably have to find that many of our own conclusions and decisions are equally untenable on the face of it.  It’s not just something to posit in regards to those who disagree on this matter or that.  It’s the human condition, that we will reject what is evident and suppress the truth, even from ourselves if we must (Ro 1:18-19).  Only as God sees fit to clear our vision and restore our hearts can we have hope of coming to our senses.  And yet, for the nonce, we remain human and must needs take care lest we blind ourselves yet again.  Let us therefore take heed to remain in the Truth of God, to proclaim the Truth of God, and to live in light of the Truth of God, come what may.  And let us remain sufficiently teachable as to be corrected of our error.

What is Your Religion? (08/31/26-09/01/26)

There is an inherent danger for us, for me at least, when studying this book, given that it presents more as history than theological instruction.  With the epistles, there is such rich content, and they are clearly aimed at conveying significant truths for our edification.  Here, there is less of direct instruction or application, and more left to be discerned from the actions described.  So, as we observe the conclusion of this court case, it is needful to not only consider the character of those involved in the events here described, but also to consider how these same things may apply to our own present condition.  And so, I come to the first of two portions of this study which seek to do just that, asking the question, what is your religion?

This is not a question of what we claim.  For in our claims, we are rather like that Sunday School child who may not know much, but he’s pretty sure the answer to whatever question the teacher may ask is Jesus.  You know, we even have a church up this way whose name reflects that response:  Jesus Is the Answer.  And fair enough.  He is the Answer.  But it does rather require considering what the question is.  I mean, if I ask how it can be that I sin, Jesus is not the answer, at least not in any helpful way.  If I ask where evil comes from, Jesus is not the answer.  So, no, we don’t wish to over simplify to the point of reaching heretical, blasphemous conclusions.  We must needs think about what we say and why.  That school child did not answer based on knowledge of anything more than expectations.  He didn’t understand the question and he didn’t understand how his response might actually answer the question.  He just knew the obvious expectations of his setting, and acted accordingly.  He played it safe.

And that is precisely what we see happen with this gathering of the wise and well-taught leaders of Israel.  They threatened these men, bringing the considerable power of their position to bear.  But they did not in fact take action against them.  They left any such action implied, a threat hanging over the thoughts of these men.  And the question must be why?  Why did they act as they did?  We can dip back into historical background for the event, and recognize reasons for their antipathy.  After all, they had been, as Peter so bluntly observed, personally involved both in pronouncing a death sentence upon Jesus as being a false prophet, and stirring the people to near riot so as to coerce Pilate to enforce their decision when he proved reluctant.  They had put forth the cover story of this man’s body being abducted from the grave when it was found to be opened and empty in spite of the military guard posted to ensure no such disturbance could occur.  And these men proclaimed that same man to be missing from the grave because He lived.  They insisted He was no false prophet, but true Messiah.  This was all in direct conflict with their authority, their version of events.  But, if they had the power and the advantage of being the arbiters of true religion over this nation, why did they not take more direct action?  Instead, as we read it in the NLT, “The council then threatened them further, but they finally let them go because they didn't know how to punish them without starting a riot.”

They feared a riot.  They feared the opinions of man, and not merely of man, but of those whom they held in no small degree of disdain for their ignorance.  Think again of their expressed assessment of Peter and John.  They were uneducated, untrained.  This is in keeping with their general perspective on those they were supposed to be shepherding and maturing.  They were the great unwashed, better than Gentiles, of course, but still so very much inferior in matters of religion, never mind politics.  How could such a people think to discern who was a real prophet and who was not?  But it never entered their minds to consider whether, if this was so, perhaps they were not doing their job particularly well.

So, let us consider these judges briefly, but with an understanding that in examining them, we are in process of examining ourselves.  We can consider first the Sadducees who still presided over this council, and still occupied the high priestly office, even if the Pharisees had gained much in influence over the council’s deliberations.  For them, as we have seen, concerns of religion could only have meaning for this life alone.  If they concluded that there was no significant spiritual realm, and that resurrection was a non-starter, what was left?  If the grave is the final statement, the cessation of being for the one buried, then what can religion matter outside of this present life?  And so, this life became the focal point.  One’s condition in this present existence was the only thing that mattered.

This is quite clearly the majority opinion in the world around us.  People live for today, because they have lost all sense of their being a tomorrow.  The popularly held perspective of, “you only live once,” reigns, and becomes license for all manner of foolish and sinful behaviors.  And we will no doubt pronounce ourselves above such thinking.  But the question is not what we claim to believe.  The question is how do those beliefs inform our life?  How do we act?  The old adage holds.  Actions speak louder than words.  If religion is no more than theory to us, actions will demonstrate that this is the case, that actual faith is MIA.

The inevitable conclusion of a belief system that sees this life as the only life is that one becomes focused on oneself, on one’s comfort, one’s position, one’s fame, if you will. What else are we to make of the ‘influencer’ lifestyle?  What else to make of the chasing after followers on this or that app?  It’s all about me!  I should have the best I can get.  You, if you do anything to hinder me in that pursuit, should be knocked out of the way.  It is a religion of the ego, an exaltation of I.

Of course, such a religion, when met with others who, in pursuit of the same sort of religion pursue their own fame and fortune, must eventually be met with such opposition as will threaten its throne.  That’s where the Sadducees find themselves.  If the fools outside riot, and they are found to be at cause, then they will lose their office.  Rome will come down on them like a ton of bricks, and all that prestige and power and wealth that they enjoy currently will be brought to nothing.  This life will have been ruined, and there is no other.  So, of course, they act for self-preservation.  What mattered to them was this life alone, and their actions reflect that belief.

What of us?  We would no doubt account ourselves far superior to these Sadducees.  We, after all, acknowledge Jesus as Lord.  We confess to a hope of eternal life in a place far superior to this present order.  But how do we live?  Here in the West, the enticements of comfortable living, of affluence and ready provision, will tend to buffet and constrain our claimed beliefs.  We may find ourselves, like Martha confronted with resurrection, holding fast to the theory, but finding no real world application for it.  “Do you believe this?”  That is a question that has resonated with me since first I explored the events leading to the resurrection of Lazarus.  It’s not a question of opinion.  It’s not a question of doctrinal orthodoxy.  It’s a question of whether this truth has been fully internalized, become an integral part of your life and character.  Do you live like you know you’ll be resurrected?  Does it lend a greater vitality to your trust in God, your willingness to risk all for the sake of Christ, knowing that as He said, even of you die, yet you will live (Jn 11:25)?  But before you jump up and tell me that of course, you believe this, ask yourself this.  How readily do you present the gospel to those around you?  How willing have you been to represent Jesus to those in the neighborhood who show no signs of knowing Him?  How about to those Hindus and Moslems across the street?  Or the Buddhist converts?  The JWs?  Look.  That describes the world within two blocks of me.  These are people I encounter almost daily, if I get out and walk.  Granted, such is the way of things that few are actually outside to be encountered.  And such is the way of New England life that even where these are met, a polite nod is about the extent of the normal encounter.  Yes, I acknowledge that you are alive and visible before me.  You likewise acknowledge my existence.  We can move on with our lives now.  That is the standard depth of engagement.  Why?

I would posit that a larger part of this than I would prefer to admit is because personal repute matters more to me than divine glory.  God is all well and good, and I am assuredly quite glad to know there is a place for me in heaven.  And I am fully convinced of this.  It is not a matter that is in doubt.  And yet, in my daily actions, in my typical encounters with unbelievers, I am clearly far more interested in acceptance by them than with their acceptance by God.  And this, beloved, ought not to be so.  If I am so fully assured that whatever comes of this current life in the physical plane, there remains a more complete and fully eternal life to come, then what does it matter whether I am accepted by these or not?  What is my comfort compared to their eternal condition?  Yet, this mindset eludes me in practice.

I will, naturally, posit that there ought to be a relationship established from which to launch into discussion of faith.  And I do believe this matters.  I look at Paul in Ephesus, and find that there is some evidence of such an approach.  His friends among the Asiarchs, who presided over the religious festivities in that city, whose counsel he accepted, staying clear of the amphitheater where the supporters of Artemis were causing a stir against him (Ac 19:31).  They were accounted friends.  That indicates established relationship.  One doesn’t get there by hammering people over the head with doctrine and a demand for conversion from first contact.  But this is New England, and establishing relationship can be challenging.  We are private people, and I all the more so.  I think, by and large, I could happily hole up here in my back room, pursuing my own interests, and leave the world to itself.  But that is not the call, is it?  That is not the life of one whose treasures are stored up in heaven.  That is the life of one to whom the comfort and stability of this life have become too much an idol.

I need think no farther than how my dreams and desires lean towards finding a house far from busy streets and neighbors and their noise.  Just give me a reliable electrical supply, fast internet, and privacy.  But, you know, keep the grocery store and such within easy reach, just far enough away that I needn’t be bothered by the noise of it.  Give me a studio space, and the time and energy to create my music, and I could pretty readily toss everything else.  And what happens, dear boy, when the effects of aging render musical pursuits painful or even impossible?  What, when the comforts and stability and predictability of the present give way?  Can it be that my true religion consists solely of this life, even as it did the Sadducees?  I fear there is more validity to this charge than I should like to admit.

Let me turn to the Pharisees who made up a large part of the Sanhedrin.  They did not share the Sadducee’s perspective that religion could apply only to this present life.  They accepted the reality of spiritual realms, and they accepted the eventual resurrection of the dead.  Did they connect this with the coming of their Messiah?  That’s unclear.  But if not with Messiah, I’m not sure what else they would have associated it with.  I don’t know as they had this concept of a greater kingdom to come.  That, it seems to me, was something confined to the Christian perspective, but I may be wrong.  If we go back to the roots of Pharisaism, it begins on what seems like a good footing, a holy footing, even.  They saw the clear boundaries set by the Law as Moses gave it, and sought means to ensure they would never violate that Law, even by accident.  So they devised warning tracks, if you will, additional rules for life that would, they hoped, pull them up short long before they could be at risk of crossing the true line demarking sin.  The problem was that they came to assign their additional rules equal weight with Mosaic Law, and thus, construed violation of their tenets as already having slipped into sin.

There was another, and greater, issue with their efforts.  It left them feeling that holiness was attainable by mere human effort, leaving God out of it, except as final judge.  That error, in time, gave rise to prideful confidence that they were indeed such as had attained holiness, which inevitably led to an equal and opposite disregard for those who did not ascribe to their ways.  And the thing is, their outward appearance of great attention to holiness lent them a certain air of honored regard amongst those amongst whom they walked.  Oh, you could just look at them and tell they were ever so devoted to God and godliness.  Why, look how loudly prayed!  Look how they displayed their tassels.  See how scrupulously they observed the Sabbath.  Oh yes.  Jesus had carefully observed all these deeds.  And He saw them for what they were, preening pride hiding away the true sinfulness of the practitioner.  And He called them on it, which was a large part of their antagonism towards Him.  Not only did He call them on it, He put their hypocrisy on display for all to see.  And now, we arrive at the root issue of the Pharisee.  For all his great exercise of perceived piety, his god was not the God of Abraham, but rather, his own reputation.  He felt himself deserving of the seat of honor.  He expected adulation, perhaps not outright worship, but something close to it.  And in the end, it became evident that for these men the glory of God came in a distant second to their own personal standing in the opinions of man.

And again I must ask, what about us?  To what degree is our practice of faith about being seen?  To what degree is our reticence to engage in evangelical presentation of the gospel to our friends and neighbors evidence that we are more concerned for our own reputation than the glory of God?  I think this is more of an issue for us than we like to believe.  For myself, I am quite confident that my desire to see God glorified, and particularly in whatever part He may give me to play in the outworking of His will, is very much real.  But I also know myself well enough to recognize that I have great concern for my reputation as well, and not merely that it ought to reflect well on Him.  I mean, there is something to that.  Paul does not remind his readers that, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” for nothing (Ro 2:24).  Nor was he just throwing out his own opinion there.  He draws, at least conceptually, from the prophets, from Isaiah and Ezekiel.

I must accept that in my own life and practice, the leaven of the Pharisees, and the pragmatism of the Sadducees are present in larger degree than I should care to admit.  I don’t think I have that hunger for power that drove the Sadducees, but I do see that I tend to face the world in many ways as if the spiritual realm was of no significance.  It’s not the conscious conclusion of that idea, for I have known too much of the spiritual to be able to conclude it doesn’t pertain.  But as concerns daily practice?  As concerns how I live my life?  It often retreats into the realm of the theoretical, the nifty idea to think about, but having no bearing on actions or decisions.  And what does Scripture say?  Seek first the kingdom of God – the true spiritual realm – and all the needs of this life shall be added to you (Mt 6:33).  And let us not leave out, and seek His righteousness.  His righteousness.  There is the added component to guard us against the prideful display of the Pharisee.  It’s not about me somehow dragging myself across the mark of the finish line.  It’s not about me displaying my righteousness.  It’s about His righteousness, clearly active in and through me.  It’s about a mindset tuned to Him, a life lived in submitted regard for Him.  It’s about not only calling Him, “Lord, Lord!” but actually living as one under His Lordship.

Too often, I’m busy being the captain of my own ship.  I am far too concerned with doing my thing my way.  I have my routine, and if anything should disrupt it, it puts me off.  I have my way of coding things as concerns my employment, and any code that is not as I would have it annoys me.  What is that?  It’s pride.  It’s self-interest.  It’s the assertion that my way is right, and that should end the discussion, thank you very much.  You loaded the dishwasher wrong.  There is a right way.  One right way.  Really?  No.  But for whatever reason, perhaps merely the abiding sense of inconsequentiality, I want to be in charge, at least in regard to my personal space and such things as impinge upon it.  But I’m not in charge.  I am a servant.  That applies not only to actions undertaken in the course of gathered worship.  It applies not only in such other activities as connect to church life.  It applies across the board.  It applies in how I attend to the needs of others.  It applies to how I interact with coworkers, with family, with neighbors, with strangers in the stores.  It applies with those drivers who make me so impatient when I drive.

If, then, I ask what ought to be done about this, what answer can there be but to pray God that He might continue to work His will in me such that I become a fit vessel for the Holy Spirit indwelling?  What answer can there be but that I throw myself again upon His mercy, seek His forgiveness and His intervention?

Even so, Lord, come.  Come and revise this work that is me, in order that I may in fact be delivered from my devotion to my agenda, and delivered into devotion to Yours.  It is all around me these days.  You know it.  So much is disrupted.  So much is uncertain.  So many days I hit that moment, and far too early, of feeling I’m hitting yet another day in hell.  No. This isn’t hell, although it is trying in the extreme.  But to the degree it’s a foretaste, grant that I may take heed and change my ways, lest it become my reality.  Attune my eyes to heaven, and to You, heaven’s King.  Attune my life to Your ways.  Help me, for I am indeed hard pressed on every side.  Comfort has, in large part been removed from me, and too much of my energy is going into trying to reclaim it, rather than seeking You.  Let me sense Your presence this day.  Let me cease from trying to minister, whether at church or at home, in my own strength and to learn to live submitted to Your will, dependent on Your power, submitted to Your commands.

Delegated Authority (09/02/26)

The Sanhedrin reaches its conclusion.  One suspects that they had reached their conclusion before ever they came together in session.  What had been a matter for discussion was not the accepting or rejecting of these men as preaching from God.  What had been up for discussion was what to do about it.  They would not abide the authority of Jesus.  The authoritative nature of what these two were teaching, and the clearly evident sign of God’s approval of same, really didn’t figure into their accounting.  These men, as Peter had just done to their faces, claimed authority in Jesus.  They assigned to Him the title of Messiah.  Indeed, they attributed to Him such things as must set Him on par with God, even as He had declared to them.  And this, as it directly opposed their own claims and actions, could not be permitted to stand.

It comes to this.  The Sanhedrin, for all their pride and power, were in fact functioning as delegated authorities.  Arguably, in this period that was twice true.  In their proper function, they stood as representatives of God’s authority.  That, after all, was their primary purpose; to render judgment on God’s behalf, and particularly as it applied to matters of religion, both in its tenets and in its practices and applications to life.  These two before them had been asked on whose authority they spoke and acted, and Peter had answered in no uncertain terms.  It is in and by the name, the authority of Jesus Messiah, the man from Nazareth whom you crucified, and whom God resurrected to life, that we speak and act (Ac 4:10).  Not only has Peter identified the source of his and John’s own delegated authority.  He has simultaneously, by the purpose and presence of the Holy Spirit, called their own authority into question.  How could he not?  After all, the One he proclaimed as Messiah, actively alive and able to exert such powers as were necessary to the performance of this miraculous healing, they claimed to have killed, and insisted was very much dead.  His life was the exposure of their lies.  And if they lied in the pursuit of their official capacities, how could they be said to act as subjects of God’s authority?  How could they claim to represent True God if they were false?

And so, when they deliver their cautious but insistent ruling, that these two must cease to preach Jesus or so much as speak His name to others, Peter’s response drives the final nail into their claimed authorization.  To take it from the God’s Word Translation, “Decide for yourselves whether God wants people to listen to you rather than to him.”  And that, of course, is followed by the assured conviction that, “For our part, we’ve already decided.”  God wins.  Here is a fundamental reality to any delegated authority.  When that delegate acts in direct contradiction to the commands of the one who delegates, their delegated authority is null and void.  We can have discussions as to whether such nullification of authority is temporary, lasting only so long as the conflict remains, only in regards to that point of conflict, or whether it is abdication.  That’s a hard question to answer.  In this case, it seems that the continued opposition of the Sanhedrin to the growing church of Christ answers for itself.  The conflict never dissipated, ergo authority was permanently lost.  And that became only too evident with the destruction of Jerusalem which Jesus Himself had prophesied.

God had spoken.  That was the clear and certain conclusion for Peter and John.  And the miracle of this man’s healing gave reason to accept their conclusion.  The sound scriptural defense Peter had made before them gave further reason to accept their conclusion.  As Jesus had promised, as they spoke by the Spirit of God Himself, their statements left no opportunity for rebuttal.  There could be no refuting of the claims.

Here is bedrock truth for us.  We must obey God.  Period, end of discussion.  Whatever other relationships we may have, whatever other forms of authority we may be required to honor in life, obedience to Him trumps them all.  The husband who insists his wife act contrary to the clear commandments of God has, in doing so, exceeded his authority, and as we have been saying, abdicated that authority which had been delegated to him.  Likewise, the wife who counsels what runs contrary to Scripture is not to be heeded, even though husband and wife ought, by the nature of the relationship, to submit to one another.  There are limits.  The government which insists we participate in acts which are directly contrary to the commandments of God has likewise exceeded and thereby relinquished such authority as was delegated to them.  For, as Scripture teaches us, all authority is from God.  All earthly authority is delegated, and answers, in the final analysis, to God directly.  There comes a point, or there can come a point, where authority is no longer present, even though the office continues.

The question then becomes twofold.  First, has that line been crossed?  Second, if it has, how are we to respond?  Well, we must first and foremost understand the nature of that line.  That a government permits that which is contrary to God’s law is insufficient cause.  Rome certainly advocated what was contrary to God.  They were, for all their insistence on justice and peace, a highly permissive society, and it would only become more corrupt as time marched on – not unlike our own present condition here in the West.  We may see glimmers of hope.  We may find certain trends which encourage.  But the overall trajectory continues downward.  Thus far, as much as we may rightly detest the encouragement and support for abortion that pervades civil law, it has not become a demand for participation in that act.  I suppose to the degree that our tax dollars go to support such things, however indirectly, we might make an argument that it has.  But I don’t think we could make it firmly enough to justify disregard for civil governance.  We can as yet avail ourselves of legal means of addressing the issue and seeking corrective actions.  It may or may not prove effective, but that is the proper response.

I think, particularly as concerns matters of civil governance, we might do well to take young David as our test, and as our answer.  He had clear commission from God, through the prophet Samuel, to be the right and proper king of Israel.  Only one problem.  There was already a king, also appointed by God, though he had, by his direct violation of God’s clearly established boundaries between the king’s role and the priest’s, lost his authority.  Yet, he was still king.  He still occupied the throne, and as David fully understood, if he remained on the throne, it was by God’s determination that it was so.  If David was to ascend to the throne, and he surely would, for God had anointed him, it would be by the means and at the time that God decided.  Far be it from him to take matters into his own hands.  One suspects he had learned from Abraham’s example, and the example of Jacob, just what a mess could result from trying to force one’s way into God’s promised outcomes.  After all, a large part of Israel’s troubles in his day resulted from exactly such things.  A large part of Israel’s troubles to this very day continue to be the result of those things Abraham and Jacob had done to ‘help God along.’

My point is this:  We must recognize that even when authority has been lost, respect for the office itself should remain.  I think Peter’s response here, though it may come right up to the line, manages not to cross it.  He doesn’t tell the Sanhedrin to pound sand.  He does, however, challenge them to consider what they are saying.  God has commanded us to speak.  You have commanded us not to do so.  You figure it out for yourselves which command we ought to obey, which one God would have us to obey.  We already know the answer.  And I’m sure you do, too.  This is not rebellion against established authority.  This is not contempt of court.  This is, in its own way, yet one more call to repentance, one more opportunity to turn their mess around.

We must heed God, yield obedience to Him, even when that obedience sets us on a collision course with those He has set in authority over us.  We must do so even when it’s the official authority of the Church.  That’s hard!  That’s likely to prove dangerous.  And yet, we must.  But here, given our fallen nature, significant cautions are needful.

Too often, we will take this boldness of Peter and make of it an excuse for us to buck authority for not further reason than we don’t like their decisions.  It becomes a claimed reason to disregard whatever correction may be attempted in regard to our beliefs.  Here’s the problem for us.  Our beliefs may very well be wrong.  We are none of us perfect, not us, not our leaders.  We pray, or at least we ought to do so, that our leaders, particularly those in the church, will pursue godly counsel, and lead, guide, and judge according to His Spirit.  But we also have the Holy Spirit indwelling.  And so, we can come to suppose that every little idea that pops into our heads must bear the full authority of the Spirit as well.  Such thinking will swiftly turn to John for authorization.  “The anointing you received from Him abides in you.  You have no need for teachers, for His anointing teaches you all things truly, and does not lie, and just as He has taught, so you abide in Him” (1Jn 2:27).  I am paraphrasing slightly so as to capture the way this is heard by those seeking to justify their rejection of all godly correction.  I have an anointing!  It’s like this is thought to be some sort of get out of jail free card.  I’ve got my license to believe as I do, and you can’t tell me otherwise.

Similarly, seeing that promise upon which Peter is acting, that the Holy Spirit will give us such words to speak as none can refute, those who stand rebellious, insisting on some errant belief, will be convinced that the failure to take up an argument with them is proof  that they indeed speak by the Holy Spirit.  Yet, as often as not, it comes down to either politeness on the part of the one they are accosting with their views, who are seeking to preserve amicable relations, or a recognition that any discussion with them would be wasted breath.  One who recognizes in you an opinion held so firmly as to refuse any counter-argument, however well-reasoned, however true, may opt to heed the scriptural advice to shun ‘foolish controversies, genealogies, and strife, and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless’ (Ti 3:9).  Of course, that is followed by instruction to, “Reject the fractious man after a first and second warning, knowing he is perverted and sinning, thus, self-condemned” (Ti 3:10).

So, a word of warning:  If you find yourself appealing to this stance of Peter’s, be very careful.  If you have become so convinced of the divine inspiration of the voices in your head that no man of God can speak contrary and be accounted by you a man of God, be very careful.  Not every spirit is from God, and the proper test of whether that spirit speaking within you is the Holy Spirit or some other lying spirit is not that they agree with you.  Neither, in the end, is it that they identify with Jesus.  I know well enough the test John sets forth in his letter.  “By this you know the Spirit of God:  Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; every spirit that does not is the spirit of antichrist” (1Jn 4:2-3).  But that’s not supplying a secret code word by which we can determine friend or foe.  This was a specific test for a specific issue prevalent at the time.  The church was troubled by nascent forms of Gnosticism which denied the reality of the Incarnate Son of God.  That is why John opens his letter with that expansive, marvelous piling on of eye-witness claims.  He was always existent, though not in human form.  We touched Him.  We sat and listened to Him.  We saw Him grow and die and we saw Him resurrected to life.  This is rock-solid truth, and any claimant to divine inspiration, whether a teacher come to you, or a voice whispering in your head, which claims His physical aspect was no more than a figment of imagination is wrong.  If it is wrong, it plainly cannot be the Spirit of God who is True, now can it?

This, of course, is one of the most fundamental arguments against the continuation of the ‘revelatory gifts,’ as Reformed theologians will refer to them.  If they are revelatory, then by God’s own nature and God’s own exposition in Scripture, they must be true.  If they are ever inaccurate, or let us speak more bluntly, wrong, they are lies and the one who claims to be God’s prophet lies.  Pay him no mind.  This is not something for which one may practice, and be making mistakes until he gets better at it.  Either you hear from God and speak for Him, or you hear your own vain imaginations and seek to lend them credence by stealing His glory and applying it to your own thoughts.  God does not take kindly to theft of His glory.

So, yes, at that point, the one who prophesies, or otherwise proclaims some new message from God must be found claiming to speak with an authority equal to Scripture.  And that presents a problem, because the canon of Scripture is closed.  I would, for whatever value it may have, make a distinction between ‘revelatory’ exercise of such gifts as prophecy and tongues, and that which is merely expository.  I have no issue with a prophetic message which, as was so often the case in the Old Testament, serves only to reinforce that which Scripture already teaches.  It is not revelatory, in that it does not seek to establish any new doctrine or to dismiss any old doctrine.  It applies that which is true to the present situation, and other than the spontaneity of it, doesn’t really differ all that much from preaching.  Likewise, an exercise of the gift of tongues which does no more than to deliver the truth of the Gospel in a language understandable to some foreign national is not revelatory in nature, but useful for edification, even as Paul indicates is right and proper for such gifts.  That’s not to say that these gifts aren’t abused.  They are.  More often than not, I think, the use of them is, if not entirely manufactured or ‘worked up,’ then inappropriately pursued.  And too many are ready to take the claims of the prophetic gift at face value.  I’ve seen too often that the church will shout amen to the prophetic word without so much as a moment’s consideration, and then amen a directly conflicting prophetic word with equal vigor.  Brothers, these things ought not to be!  But I do believe there remains a real exercise of these gifts, however rare.  The point, as John makes clear, and as Paul makes clear, is to measure the message by what is revealed in Scripture.  If it accords, well and good.  If it does not?  Pay the man no mind.

Nowhere is it more necessary to test and assess, and nowhere more difficult, than when it comes to those convictions and beliefs we hold within our own thinking.  The heart, as we know, is deceptively wicked, and not to be trusted.  It is, Jeremiah tells us, “more deceitful than all else, and desperately sick” (Jer 17:9).  Oh, but God has given me a new heart!  Yes, He has.  Yet the old man of flesh remains, and rises up early and often.  You know it.  If you don’t, then pray harder that self-deception might be removed from you.  The mind is terrifyingly adept at believing whatever falsehoods it has devised, no matter the evidence to the contrary.  The opinion, once formed, is difficult to dislodge, and all the more so if we feel it comes with spiritual backing.  And yet, have we not been wrong in our doctrines before?  Have we not repeatedly discovered ourselves in need of correction, in need of recalling to our senses?

All of this points to the heightened need for certainty before ever we think to disregard or discredit those who are set over us as undershepherds by God’s appointment.  This is not to suggest that we must blindly heed whatever they may instruct.  But it ought to be expected to be a distinct rarity that we should find it necessary to reject or refute them.  And, I should have to say, if we do find it necessary to do so, we ought to feel it as much a conviction as to our own failure as theirs.  After all, we ought to be praying for godly leaders to lead us in godly fashion.  Insofar as our various denominations assign us a role in the electing of such leaders, we ought to be deeply prayerful as to who we place in office.  And, I suppose I could add that, given the many churches available to us in our local communities, we ought to take it as our responsibility as well to have selected a church well-grounded in the Truth of God and devoted to remaining faithful.  If the leadership of our church seems to us to have taken the church off course, then this again speaks to our own care and prayerfulness in having become part of that church at least as much as it speaks to their leadership.

Let us, then, cease from finding excuses not to heed proper religious leadership, and seek instead to honestly assess our own beliefs and actions, submitting willingly to the assessment God Himself makes, and devoting ourselves to such corrective actions as He advises and empowers.  Yes, there may come a point where the claimed authorities of religion must be rejected.  But we ought to be, I believe, worshipfully fearful of concluding that we have arrived at such a point, and all the more prayerful for direction and wisdom if we conclude that we have.  Let us leave room for correction of ourselves.  Let us leave room for loving, hopeful confrontation where it is needful.  Let us leave room for God to move, such that repentance comes where it is needful, and His kingdom grows, rather than being torn apart.

What of Us? (09/03/26)

There really was nothing that the Sanhedrin could say to these two by way of judgment.  They found no cause for punishment because nothing that Peter and John were teaching sought to promote some other God, or to turn the people away from God.  Now, I have to say that in what they have spoken of Jesus the possibility does arise.  The Council could have discerned that in declaring Jesus as the authority and power, they were positing Him as God, and then there would be room for charges, if it could be shown that He was not.  But, while he has put forth Jesus as the sole agent of salvation among men, Peter has not spoken of Jesus enthroned in heaven.  The wisdom of the Holy Spirit has caused him to leave that point aside in his defense.

I want to give the Sanhedrin every possible benefit of the doubt in these proceedings.  We can tend to simply assume the worst when we hear them mentioned.  But for all that they got wrong, their concerns were, at base, right.  If in fact Jesus or the Apostles had been promulgating false doctrine, then it was their duty to address the issue and to do so in no uncertain terms.  They were tasked with the shepherding of the flock of Israel, and it is to their credit that they are doing that very thing.  They don’t just take the wonders at face value, but test the teaching that accompanies it.  We would do well to act likewise, so far as that goes.  The issue arises elsewhere, in that concern for pride and power overruled concerns for the potential correction of their own beliefs and practices.  That’s the problem here.  Both with Jesus, and with the Apostles, the judges were being judged, or if not judged, at least urged to take corrective action.  And they would not.

But while we can no doubt find ourselves in the actions of this Council in some regards, I am far more interested in finding ourselves spoken to by the example of these two Apostles.  They are faced with some serious intimidation here.  They are faced with the weight of years of religious and societal training as regarded the respect and obedience due these men.  I suspect that in many ways they had the same considerations as to their qualifications as the Sanhedrin did.  We’ve had no particular rabbinical training, except as we may count our time with Jesus.  We’ve not been trained in the study of Scripture, apart from that crash course with Jesus after His resurrection.  No.  As I write that, I must conclude that in fact they were not uneducated and untrained.  They just hadn’t gone to the right schools, as these men saw it.  It’s rather like they had graduated community college and face a panel of ivy leaguers.  Who’s attained the better understanding is not determined by credentials, but by the understanding attained.

And Peter and John have grasped that truth.  Whether it had arisen in their own understanding or whether it represents the power of the Holy Spirit at work in them, they stand up.  That final statement of Peter’s, something we will hear again later, is potent in the extreme.  “We cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard.”  There’s something of an echo here, in that ‘we cannot.’  The Sanhedrin had concluded, “We cannot deny this miracle happened.”  It is not possible.  We have not the power to overcome the evidence.  That’s the literal translation.  We have not the power.  Never mind the propriety of taking such a course of action.  It wouldn’t work.  It stood no chance.  Peter’s conclusion here takes up the same phrase, but adds one more term.  We have not the power not to.  So, where the Sadducees stopped at ou dunametha, Peter moves to ou dunametha me.  We have then that absolute negation of ou me.  There is a distinction drawn out by Thayer.  Where ou denies the capability, me denies the very thought of the thing.  We couldn’t think of stopping.

Consider where these men stood.  Consider the threat implied in the command just given them.  Consider that they had already witnessed the potential harm that could come of making enemies of these men.  Consider that a ban pronounced by this group would effectively excise them from the whole of Israeli society.  And still, they stand.  And still, they speak.  And in speaking, they assure these men that by no means will they be obeying that command.  They can’t.  It’s not rebellion.  It’s not thumbing their nose at the authorities.  It is, as Peter expressly states, a matter of obeying the greater authority.  God says do, you say don’t.  You figure out for yourselves who’s right.  We already have.  Sorry, but no.

So, here is our own moment of crisis.  What of us?  If you would find a statement of law in this passage, it must surely be this:  We must testify of what we know about Christ.  Look again at the strength of Peter’s statement.  It’s unthinkable that we would not do so!  Speaking that, he must have sensed at least the possibility that this could result in continued incarceration or worse.  His words convey the truth of the conviction he speaks.  I can’t but tell you that I can’t but tell others.  Paul knew the same necessity.  “I preach the gospel as one under compulsion.  I have to.  Woe is me if I do not!” (1Co 9:16).  It is a duty, and a duty such as will not admit of refusal.  And again I ask, what of us?  Are we any less obliged?  Oh, you may say, I am not a pastor or a teacher.  I don’t have the training.  Neither did these two.  It’s not about office or training.  It’s about what you have seen and heard.  You don’t need to be expert in all the intricacies of theology.  You need to know Jesus.  You need to have fellowship with Him.  And you need to make that fellowship, that with which you are familiar, known to others in keeping with what you know He has tasked you to do.  You call Him Lord, and He has commanded.  What, then, stops you?

If it is not evident, I am largely talking to myself here.  After all, for all that I post these studies up to the web, it’s not at all evident that anybody ever reads them.  Perhaps my daughter will find cause to read some of these musings when I’m gone.  I don’t know.  Probably not.  But that’s a huge question, or at least a serious concern.  What stops me?  God has commanded.  My Lord has said, “Testify.”  And what do I do?  I hem, I haw, I excuse myself on the basis that this isn’t really my gifting.  I’m more equipped to disciple, perhaps, to teach those already come to faith.  And to be sure, that’s needful.  And it’s certainly more comfortable duty.  But is it obedience?

The lesson before me is clear.  God gives power and grace to those who serve Him.  If, in fact, the command is to testify of Him to those who have not as yet accepted Him as Lord and Savior, then I need to be confident that He will in fact supply both the backbone and the message.  He will give me the right thing to say at the right time.  But I, for my part, must be willing to step into that duty, rather than trying to skirt it and find something else to talk about.  Here is a place where I find myself in wonder at the boldness of my wife.  I may question her presentation.  There is much about her approach that I suspect drives away rather than draws in.  But she will not hesitate.  She will gladly turn most any conversation to gospel purpose.  And once more the question.  What stops me?  Pride?  Yeah, probably.  Desire to be accepted and appreciated?  Most certainly.  Fear of rejection?  Maybe.  It kind of goes hand in hand with wanting acceptance, doesn’t it?  But why?  Friendship with the world is enmity with God, right?  It’s a place I know I need work, and it’s a place I know I don’t really want to put in the work.  Surely there’s something else You’d rather have me doing.  But I must trust God.  I must remain in Him, allow Him to guide and provide.  And I must submit.  It ought to be unthinkable for me that I would not.  Woe is me that I find it is not so. 

Lord, help.  What more can I say?  Help, or I am stuck.  I know I am Yours.  I know You are with me.  And yet, I so very often just go my own way, do my own thing.  Help me.  Keep me attuned to You even as I go through this day ahead.  Use me as You will, and please so work within me as to make me willing to Your use.