Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 2)

One may wonder why this is so.  However, any wondering is blunted when one considers the joint-authorship of both Luke and Acts, with Acts forming the second half of what is effectively a single discourse.  As Acts is a record of the earliest activities of the apostles of Jesus, and because table fellowship was an important and unfortunately contentious issue in some of the earliest church communities (witness the confrontation between Peter and Paul in Antioch over the subject of table fellowship, as recorded in Paul’s letter to the Galatian church), it is understandable to find Luke more inclined to share more table stories, and to create a narratival construct that will make the record of meals and Jesus’ participation and teaching at these meals, a more prominent feature of his biographical and theological presentation of Jesus.  

If taken within the context of meals---a context which has been arranged by Jesus’ reference to the eating and drinking in which both He and John are said to engage, then one can hear Jesus speaking of Himself within the long-standing wisdom tradition within Israel that is associated with the Messiah.  Though it is the Gospel of John that makes a more prevalent use of the highly-developed wisdom tradition, there is no reason to preclude Luke from making use of it as well, as he makes his report on Jesus’ words and deeds.  If the messiah-associated wisdom tradition is in play here, then it is conceivable that there are messianic banquet considerations to be taken from the words of Jesus. 

Is this a bit of a stretch to hear Jesus making messiah and messianic banquet references in this short little statement?  Probably not, especially in light of His making mention of eating and drinking, and then Luke’s transition to Jesus’ presence at the dinner at the house of a Pharisee.  The use of “wisdom” as a clearly self-referential statement at this point in the narrative, when both Jesus’ hearers and Luke’s readers have been thrust into a meal-related mindset, clearly ushers us into a messianic context.  With thoughts of both messiah and meal at play, along with talk of vindication (an incredibly important concept for Israel especially in relation to messiah), it would not be difficult to find Jesus’ hearers associating words such as “all her children,” when used in this context, entertaining thoughts of the great messianic banquet. 

What is provided here is a glimpse into Jesus’ mindset as it relates to this banquet in Matthew, when He is heard to say “I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Luke 8:11-12).  Clearly, if one ever finds himself thinking that any of the Gospel authors are offering up anything less than complex theological constructs in narrative and biographical form based upon the fact of a resurrected Christ that demanded their full allegiance, then a tremendous disservice has been done to them.  

Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 4)

This leads into the report that “Now the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy” (Acts 5:17).  Why were they filled with jealousy?  Was it the performance of miraculous signs and wonders?  No.  Was it the growing crowds and the people gathering from all over?  Not directly.  So what was it?  It was the “high honor” being accorded to the disciples, which was evidenced by the behavior of the people.  Public honor was a limited good.  The growth of the honor of one necessarily led to the diminishing of the honor of another.  Yes, they still had their power, but they were losing their honor.  If enough honor slipped from their hands, their power would ultimately go with it. 

Though it comes from John’s Gospel (composed after Acts), the eleventh chapter contains a story that sheds light on this way of thinking: “So the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, ‘What are we doing?  For this man is performing many miraculous signs.  If we allow Him to go on this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.’” (John 11:47-48)  As seen in Acts, these are concerns about honor and power, and they are prefaced with mention of miraculous signs and a growing number of followers.

What was the response of the high priest and his cohorts in Acts?  “They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail” (5:18).  They attempted to shame and humiliate the apostles, doing so publicly in an attempt to diminish their public honor and increase their public shame.  Consequently, the high priest would not suffer the further loss of honor.  This backfires on the council, as the disciples are honored, with Luke indicating that the honoring is accomplished by the Creator God Himself (somewhat indirectly), as “during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said, ‘Go and stand in the Temple courts,’” the place that symbolized the public honor of those who had jailed them, “and proclaim to the people all the words of this life.’” (5:19-20).  “This life” would have been the life of the way of the kingdom of the Creator God.  “This life” would have the been the resurrected life of Jesus.  “This life” would have been the promise of the general resurrection to come.

The response of the opposition is predictable.  The disciples, who have done precisely what the angel has instructed them to do, are re-arrested and taken before the council.  “When they had brought them, they stood them before the council, and the high priest questioned them, saying ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name.  Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood on us!’” (5:27-28)  Proclaiming Jesus would be an indirect challenge to the high priest and associates, as they, having delivered up Jesus to the provincial government, were complicit in the execution of Jesus as a state criminal.  Thus, via these continued challenges and the associated accusations that they had acted unjustly based upon the verdict of Israel’s God as indicated by the Resurrection and the reversal of that shaming, shame continues to come their way. 

In response, Peter piles on, saying “We must obey God rather than people” (5:29a).  This, in itself, is an interesting public-honor-diminishing statement, as the high priest was presumed to speak for the covenant God.  Peter makes it clear that the high priest and the council do not in fact speak for Israel’s God, with the primary evidence of that fact being the stand that they had taken against Jesus (the personal revelation of their God).  He continues: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree” (5:30). 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 17)

Despite what could be viewed as the short-sightedness of the disciples with their statements about the ministry of the word of God and praying, and their setting that against their own taking up of the role of slaves at the church’s meal tables, the church prospered.  Luke writes that “The proposal pleased the entire group” (Acts 6:5a).  Seven men were chosen as deacons (diakonous in the Greek, which means “servants”).  “They stood these men before the apostles, who prayed and placed their hands upon them” (6:6).

Not surprisingly then, with service at the root of the church’s witness, and men chosen specifically to serve food to widows (and all who came to the table, with no distinctions or divisions), “The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith” (6:7).  With this success in mind, and this success much owing to the counter-cultural witness of servanthood by the ambassadors of the kingdom of the Creator God, it is possible to step back and wonder if it is possible to imagine Jesus creating this division of labor.  While believers stand in the stream of that Spirit-led success, can they dream about the church that may have developed had the very men that were looked to as the pillars and foundation of the church, been the ones that had served all, in full equality, at the church’s meal table?  What divisions may have been avoided had the church of the Christ had this example from which to draw?

Luke moves directly from the ordination of the group that came to be referred to as deacons, to the particular story of one of those men---a man by the name of Stephen.  Stephen, who is said to be “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (6:5b), which was one of the requirements as suggested by the disciples, served admirably.  One goes on to read that “Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people” (6:8).

As this performance of wonders and signs was undoubtedly linked to the fact of his service at the church’s meal table, and as it was owing to the covenant God’s special attention to widows as revealed by the Hebrew Scriptures, his service to widows must figure prominently in the Spirit’s growing presence in his ministry.  Might it also be presumed that the people wondered at what they were seeing from Stephen, which was his willful service to the least, eschewing both honor and shame?

While many are transfixed on signs and wonders, looking to such things as the evidence of the Spirit’s working, the working of the Spirit is just as present and just as powerful when a widow is served.  When that widow is served in a way that stands in sharp distinction from the way that she would normally be treated by her culture, with somebody sacrificing their own honor and prestige in order to see to it that she is served, then that is just as great a wonder and sign of the in-breaking kingdom of the Creator God as would be someone being raised from the dead.

However, rather than receiving honor and praise, Stephen would come to be accused of blasphemy, of speaking against the Temple and Moses, and was ultimately sentenced to death, experiencing the pain and shame of stoning.  This was the honor that one could come to expect from being a deacon---a servant of the church’s table.  This is the example that Paul, if indeed he is the author of this letter, would have in mind when writing to Timothy concerning deacons.

Speaking In Tongues (part 33)

Closing out his treatment of the religious exercise of speaking in tongues as it was being practiced by the Corinthian church, Paul, with a strenuous focus on the need for unity, sharing, preferring of others, and service to the body, begins his conclusion with “If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command” (1 Corinthians 14:37).  Here, based on the remote possibility that his message has not been duly received, and with a precise placement in the stream of thought that has been at least partially constructed by the need for mutual subjection (14:32), Paul seems to direct his words to those that either look upon themselves or are looked upon as spiritually superior, emphasizing their subjection to him and to the Lord. 

If the idea of subjection to Paul is on offer, then it is incumbent upon an observer to see how that fits within the movement of the letter, as Paul would most certainly not go to these lengths to emphasize unity within an egalitarian assembly (no divisions, no stratifications, no authoritarian structures based on the prevalent honor code), and then at the last second turn the tables and attempt to place himself in the seat of honor.  An effective guide becomes what Paul has written about himself in the fourth chapter. 

Beginning in verse nine there Paul writes: “For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to die, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to people.  We are fools for Christ, but you are wise in Christ!  We are weak, but you are strong!  You are distinguished, but we are dishonored!  To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, brutally treated, and without a roof over our heads.  We do hard work, toiling with our own hands.  When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner.  We are the world’s dirt and scum, even now” (4:9-13). 

With this rhetorical deployment, Paul takes up the language of a slave---of one possessive of no rights and no honor---applying it to himself.  Indeed, in an ironic twist, this is confirmed by what follows, which is “I am not writing these things to shame you, but to correct you as my dear children” (4:14).  Paul presents himself as a person that sits at the “shame” end of the honor and shame spectrum.  This then, returning to the fourteenth chapter, is the one to whom those considered by themselves to be spiritually superior (prophets or spiritual persons) are to submit. 

Naturally, Paul points beyond himself to the presumptive Lord of this church---to the One that experienced the ultimate shame as the One to whom subjection is owed.  Accepting these words from Paul is akin to hearing them from the crucified One, who not only experienced the place and act of ultimate shame in that day, but who went there willingly and purposefully, to create a people that would follow the leading example of what they understood to be true of both His manner of life and His manner of death (with the attendant honor and shame related sensibilities at play throughout). 

Calling His Disciples (part 10)

In this area, Luke’s record is similar while also being different.  Like Matthew, Luke does not editorialize here, as does Mark, and so does not offer up the reasoning behind the calling and appointment of the twelve, which Mark says was “so that they could be with Him and He could send them to preach” (Mark 3:14b).  He takes Matthew’s route of relying upon the Abrahamic covenant context and communicating that similarity by reporting that “Jesus called the twelve together” (9:1a).  As was said for Matthew, this is equivalent to Mark’s “being with Him,” while also communicating the appropriate Abraham-related ideas. 

Luke’s “sending” of the disciples also differs from that of Matthew, in that there is no national, ethnic, or geographic restriction to Israel in their exemplification of divine blessing when “He gave them power over all demons and to cure diseases” (9:1b).  That said, it is worthwhile to take the time to notice that Matthew’s and Luke’s record operate on a dual level.  At one level, as they report the instructions of Jesus, they are also provide information as to what it was that these disciples were going to go out and do.  There is no reason to believe that they did not go out and follow these instructions, and indeed Luke, ever the historian in his own way, moves from Jesus’ instructions to mentioning that “Then they departed and went throughout the villages, proclaiming the good news and healing people everywhere” (9:6). 

Shortly thereafter, again playing the historian, Luke reports that “When the apostles returned, they told Jesus everything they had done” (9:10).  Luke even expands upon this in relation to the time that Jesus, at the beginning of the tenth chapter, appoints and sends out a much larger group of His disciples with nearly identical instructions as that which was given to the twelve (either seventy or seventy-two disciples, depending on the early manuscripts in use---seventy is more likely to be the correct number as it would fit with Israel’s historical narrative and Moses’ appointment of seventy elders, though the translation in use for this study uses seventy-two), informing his audience that “the seventy-two returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name!” (10:17)  Though the analogy is not precise, if the Abrahamic covenant is foundational, then the twelve can be looked upon in a way as Abraham, while the seventy-two can be looked upon as Israel.  At the second level, the instructions to the disciples are something of an elaboration on the words that had been spoken to Abraham by the Creator God.  When Matthew and Luke are heard recounting Jesus’ instructions to His disciples, can one not also hear “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing”? (Genesis 12:2) 

Luke rounds out Jesus’ instructions very quickly.  For Luke’s purposes in this setting, Jesus is done speaking at the fifth verse of his ninth chapter, concluding His remarks with the “shaking of dust.”  Matthew, on the other hand, extends this time of instruction all the way to the close of that which would eventually come to be recognized as the tenth chapter of his Gospel.  In fact, the eleventh chapter of Matthew opens by informing the reader that “When Jesus had finished instructing His twelve disciples, He went on from there to teach and preach in their towns” (11:1).  Though the fact that the disciples acted on Jesus’ instructions is implied by Matthew’s presentation, Luke seizes upon the opportunity to make it explicit.  Though Matthew certainly implies that the disciples fulfilled the Abrahamic call to exemplify divine blessing, Luke wants to be sure that his audience knows that this is indeed what took place.     

Joshua's Battles (part 3)

The questions here posed are legitimate.  The same questions existed shortly after Jesus’ day, as His apostles were carrying the message of His paradoxical all-conquering victory via death and Resurrection into the world.  To wit, in the second letter of Peter, one is able to read questioning words like “Where is His promised return?  For ever since our ancestors died, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). 

In the face of the message that Jesus had conquered death, hearers in that day were no less able than “astute observers” today (who always think that they are the first to notice that there is evil all around them), to take in their surroundings and see violence, death, and inexplicable destruction, and say “Nothing much has changed.  Things pretty much look the same way that they have always looked.”  It’s a legitimate observation, so how is the question to be answered? 

Naturally, this is a difficult issue that has plagued all that have ever posited a God of love and a victorious Messiah.  As they fought to take possession of that which they believed had been promised to them, Israel would have been tempted to pose the same type of statement and its implied question to their God.  They could easily cast a collective gaze upwards and say, “Lord, You promised this land to our ancestors and to us.  You brought us out of Egypt.  You directed us to cross the Jordan and to re-claim that which you said is ours.  Why don’t these people know this?  You brought plagues on Egypt, parted the Red Sea, destroyed the Egyptian army, and gave us food and water in the wilderness, so why not just drive these people from the land with the obvious mighty power of your outstretched arm?  Would that not be easier?  Would that not be a greater demonstration of your power than us having to carry out these campaigns?” 

One could even imagine the covenant people attempting to employ some reverse psychology on the Creator God by saying, “Seriously, Lord, if you just drive them out, then you will get all the glory.  If we have to do battle against these people and these rulers, then we might get some of the glory too.  We don’t want that.  You don’t really want that, do you?” 

How might the God of Israel be disposed to respond to such thinking?  After all (and putting aside the potential ploy at reverse psychology), based on the reported experience of Israel in their journey out of and from Egypt, these are legitimate points.  Returning then to the eleventh chapter of Joshua so as to pick up where this study left off, and in response to the concerns of the covenant people of the Creator God, it is said that “the Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel.  He wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy, as He had instructed Moses” (11:20). 

Without getting sidetracked by the thought that this, in isolation, paints the picture of something less than a loving God, one finds that though the land had been given to Israel, and though the people of the land had been handed over to Israel, the Creator God wanted His people to annihilate them (though some could certainly see such reports as after-the-fact justification).  Regardless, the narrative suggests that Israel’s God did in fact desire that His people have a hand in the battle. 

Indeed, Scripture seems to suggest that the Creator God wanted to work through His people and empower His people to come alongside Him and work with Him to deal with and overcome that which despoiled, defaced, and decimated their land of promise---that first part of the creation that was to be redeemed through the care and stewardship of His covenant people.  In the end then, Israel should have been compelled to point to their God, and the power of their promise-making God, as the means by which they emerged victorious. 

In My Father's House (part 8 of 9)

Not finding Him, “they returned to Jerusalem to look for Him” (Luke 2:45b).  As an attempt is made to continue to connect the events surrounding Jesus at the age of twelve with the always-looked-to “Christ-event,” one can here begin to think of the women that came to the tomb of Jesus.  Naturally, they were not going to look for Jesus, nor were they expecting to find anything but a dead body, as there was no expectation of His Resurrection though He is said to have spoken of it many times.  Rather, they were going to anoint His body with spices, in accordance with standard burial custom and practices, so that they could later collect His bones and place them in an ossuary. 

When did the women go to the tomb?  Luke says that it was after three days.  What is known from Luke about the search conducted by Jesus’ parents?  It was “After three days they found Him in the Temple courts” (2:46a).  To this was added that He was “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions” (2:46b).  With this, one is compelled to consider the scene at Jesus’ empty tomb, where “two men…in dazzling attire” (24:4) spoke to the women who had come there, saying “Why do you look for the living among the dead?  He is not here, but has been raised!  Remember how He told you, while He was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again” (24:5b-7). 

It would be safe to presume that the women were astonished at this turn of events.  When Jesus was lost to His parents, as they were certainly prone to a very natural fear, it is reasonable to suggest that they considered the possibility that He was dead.  This turned out to not be the case.  Not only was He not dead, and not only had no harm at all come to Him, but they found Him in the Temple courts.  Effectively then, He was raised from the dead right before their eyes. 

In those courts, it was said that “all who heard Jesus were astonished at His understanding and His answers” (2:47) and that “His parents…were overwhelmed” (2:48a).  Returning to the story of the empty tomb then, having heard the words of the two men, the women “told these things to the apostles” (24:10b).  The women were met with a rightful skepticism and incredulity, which is more than understandable.  Certainly, as had likely been the case with the women, Jesus’ disciples were astonished at this story these women were telling, reporting a Resurrection.  Because such a thing simply did not take place under normal circumstances, just like the idea of a twelve-year-old boy being allowed to speak with the teachers in the Temple courts, the understandable reaction was that “these words seemed like pure nonsense to them” (24:11a). 

Furthermore, having heard these nonsensical words, “they (the disciples) did not believe them” (24:11b).  However, “Peter got up and ran to the tomb.  He bent down and saw only the strips of linen cloth; then He went home, wondering what had happened” (24:12).  Peter found himself even more astonished, and though wondering what had happened, the way the story unfolds suggests that he was inclined to begin believing the reports of the women.  Like Jesus’ parents after the conclusion of the ordeal of their missing child, Peter, as he began to consider the possibility that Jesus was alive, might very well have been “overwhelmed.”  Because of Jesus actions in allowing Himself to be tortured and crucified, of His putting Peter in the position to deny his Lord, and causing all of His close followers to cower in fear over what was going to happen to them, Peter may very well have been wondering, again like Jesus’ parents, “why have You treated us like this?” (2:28b) 

This Man's Blood (part 2 of 2)

As Acts reports, the disciples having been instructed by the angel of the Lord in association with their being freed from the jail, these appointed apostles of Christ were said to have “entered the temple courts at daybreak and began teaching” (Acts 5:21b).  This was in obvious contradiction to the directive that had been given to them by the council.  The apostles are reminded that “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name” (5:28a).  That is followed by the declaration of “Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us” (5:28b).

Peter and the others responded to this statement by saying “We must obey God rather than people” (5:30a).  Then, taking every opportunity to preach Christ and His Resurrection, the response continues with “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, Whom you seized and killed by hanging Him on a tree.  God exalted Him to His right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (5:30b-31).  Most importantly, they added “we are witnesses of these events” (5:32a).  Not only were they literal witnesses of these events, but they were called to be witnesses to these events---giving their lives (in life or death) to proclaim these things. 

Peter and the apostles were accused of attempting or intending to bring the blood of Jesus upon those whom were accused of putting Jesus to death.  When these “blood-bringing” words are read, the mind should be catapulted to Matthew’s Gospel and the scene of Jesus’ trial.  Standing before the people, Pilate says, “What should I do with Jesus Who is called the Christ (the Messiah)?” (27:22a)  The response was “Crucify Him!” (27:22b).  Pilate’s rejoinder was “Why?  What wrong has He done?” (27:23a).  However, “they shouted more insistently, ‘Crucify Him!’” (27:23b)  “When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd and said, ‘I am innocent of this Man’s blood.  You take care of it yourselves!’” (27:24).  How did the people reply to this act and statement of Pilate?  They said, “Let His blood be on us and our children!” (27:25b)  Clearly then, Luke (the author of Acts), was aware of the Matthean narrative of the trial of Jesus. 

So in both the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Acts, this statement about blood being upon them carries the same connotation.  In both cases, there is the implication of guilt, with either a willingness to bear it or a desire to escape it.  In Matthew, the people effectively say, “If we’re wrong about this, we’ll bear the responsibility.”  In Acts, the council seems to be saying, “We don’t want to bear this responsibility, but you are attempting to assign blame to us where none exists.”  Ironically however, when the council declares that “you intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us,” we can understand that as precisely what Peter and the apostles intended to do. 

The apostles, who are shown to be effectively spurred on by the Holy Spirit as witnesses, wanted to bring the men of the council under the blood.  They did not want to condemn them, or even get them to admit that they had made a huge mistake by condemning Jesus to death and allowing Him to be crucified.  They wanted the council to believe that this Jesus, who had been crucified, was now raised and exalted.  If they were to come under this blood themselves, by confessing Jesus as Lord and Leader and Savior, then the fact that they had been participants in His crucifixion would become irrelevant.  This belief and confession would be the mark of repentance from their opposition to the ways of God that had been espoused and pronounced by Jesus Himself.  This belief and confession would represent forgiveness of sins (an important concept for Israel), thus bringing to an end the exile from God’s blessings, because they were not in line with the new covenant requirement---believing in Jesus---in which these men found themselves. 

Yes, in effect, the Creator God wanted the blood of Christ to come upon them.  Here, one could borrow language from Ezekiel and hear God, through His witnesses, saying to these men, “I will make you pass under the shepherd’s staff; and I will bring you into the bond of covenant” (Ezekiel 20:37).  If one calls upon Christ as shepherd, and looks to His cross as His staff, then when His blood comes upon that person, the God of Israel brings that individual into the bond of His new covenant.

So yes, the apostles intended that the blood of Jesus come upon all people, be that the council, or the people of Jerusalem, or Judea, or Samaria, or the ends of the earth.  This would be accomplished in one way, which would be the power of the Creator God’s Spirit working transformation in hearts and minds, bringing people into alignment with His kingdom program, through “teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus was the Christ” (5:42b). 

This Man's Blood (part 1 of 2)

Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us! – Acts 5:28b  (NET)

As the book of Acts tells it, the statement above was ostensibly provoked by the fact that “many miraculous signs and wonders came about among the people through the hands of the apostles” (5:12).  In the very city in which Jesus was crucified, in which there would have been hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses to the fact of His crucifixion, “More and more believers in the Lord were added to their number, crowds of both men and women” (5:14).  This is remarkable indeed!  The man that had been crucified, which was always the sure sign of failure when it came to messianic hopes, continued to have those that came to believe in Him as the Messiah.  Accordingly then, there must have been some type of tremendous and monumental evidence at hand to account for the fact that Jews in great numbers were coming to believe this thing, especially in light of the fact that, as Israel’s history repeatedly showed, the mark of a failed and illegitimate messiah was death at the hands of the enemies of the people of the Creator God. 

Consequently, this seems to clearly point in the direction of the fact that there had been a Resurrection from the dead; and thus, though it was well known that Jesus had been condemned by both the Jewish authorities (for the blasphemy that accompanied His messianic claims) as well as the Roman authorities (for confessing Himself as a King and therefore as a rival to Caesar and potential threat to the pax Romana), and had been executed as a result of the sentence of condemnation passed by both parties, the Resurrection served as His vindication.  Among other things, the Resurrection demonstrated that the God of Israel, by raising Him from the dead, had reversed the judicial decrees that had come down against Him. 

The reasonable conclusion to be made, therefore, was that since Jesus had openly confessed these things concerning His Messiah-ship and His King-ship, it was not a matter of Him being cleared from the guilt of the charges that had been leveled against Him.  Quite the opposite, in fact, as the Resurrection seems to have proven that what He had said about Himself was true.  According to Acts, it was the preaching of the Resurrection (following the ignoble crucifixion) that brought about the belief in Jesus, as the disciples of Christ “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the Word of God courageously” (4:31b).  The preaching of the Gospel---declaring that Jesus was the crucified and resurrected Messiah of Israel and Lord of the world---by the Holy Spirit, was and is the showing forth of the very power of God that manifests itself in faith’s confession of allegiance to Jesus and belief in His claims and way of bringing about the kingdom of God.

The apostles were jailed for making these claims.  Previously, they had been warned “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (4:18b).  Interestingly, we find that “the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy.  They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail” (5:17-18).  There is a depth of detail that asked to be noticed here, in that the apostles were obviously preaching the Resurrection of the dead, and it was the Sadducees “who say there is no resurrection” (Matthew 22:23b), that had them jailed. 

In stark contrast to their being placed in jail for preaching Jesus and His Resurrection (for without a Resurrection, His teaching did not matter, as He would have been just another failed messianic pretender in a long line of failed messianic hopefuls), “during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said, ‘Go and stand in the temple courts and proclaim to the people all the words of this life’.” (5:19-20)  They were specifically instructed to preach the words of this life, meaning, in all contextual probability, the fact that Jesus was alive, though the way of life presented by Jesus could certainly be indicated here as well.  They were not instructed to go and tell people about living a “Christian life,” but to preach the Gospel (Jesus is Lord), which is rooted and given its substance in the Resurrection of Jesus.          

Leader & Savior

God exalted Him at His right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. – Acts 5:31  (ESV)

Thus Peter spoke before the council of the elders in Jerusalem.  Hearkening back to what we find in the fourth chapter of Acts, when Peter and John were first brought before the council, Peter is reminded of their previous decision and its accompanying order, saying “We strictly charged you not to teach in this Name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (5:28).  Ironically, Peter and the rest of the Apostles did, in fact, intend to bring the blood of Jesus upon them, as an efficacious sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but this was not the way that the council supposed.

Peter, fully aware of what had been told to him in the wake of the healing of a crippled man, answered that “We must obey God rather than men” (5:29).  He adds “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, Whom you killed by hanging Him on a tree” (5:30).  It was in this raising that Jesus was then exalted as “Leader and Savior”.  That is, Jesus was exalted as “archegon kai sotera.”  This is something at which the council would have cringed.  This was the crux of the matter.  This was what had the leaders of the people so gravely concerned, the continuing proclamation of this Jesus fellow in such ways.  This was the type of talk that would bring about the very thing that they feared the most, which we find in the eleventh chapter of John.  Surely, just as they had thought about Jesus and His preaching, they now thought about Peter and his preaching, saying “If we let him (Peter) go on like this, everyone will believe in Him (Jesus), and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:48). 

Now, why would Peter’s statement about Jesus as “Leader and Savior,” or “archegon kai sotera” cause such a reaction?  It is because these were titles reserved in that day for Caesar.  Caesar was the “archos.”  He was the leader, master, ruler, and authority.  Along with that, it was Ceasar that was referred to as “soter.”  Caesar was the savior of mankind.  It was Caesar that secured peace on earth.  It was Caesar that set things right and established justice; and it was Caesar, through the kingdom and power of Rome, that was dragging the world out of darkness and barbarism.  Now this was being said of Jesus, and that it was Him and His kingdom that was pre-eminent, and that it was Jesus, through His Kingdom, that was dragging the world out of its darkness, through the power of His Resurrection. 

This was dangerous speech that must be controlled, which is the primary and fundamental reason why Peter had been ordered not to speak in such ways about Jesus.  Rome, through its local governors, would not long tolerate such things, but would swiftly deal with such pretenders to rule and challenges to Ceasar’s absolute authority.  If the movement behind a particular revolutionary became too large, and the people became overly pestilent, Rome would simply take steps to put down the whole group of people, regardless of who was or was not involved.  They would come and take away both place and nation, thereby solving the problem permanently. 

Previously, Peter had declared Jesus as the “cornerstone,” the source of “salvation,” and “that there is no other Name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12).  Peter spoke of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, together with everything implied by that title.  One of the primary implications was that Jesus was the King of Israel, and by extension, King of all, making the claims of Him as “Leader and Savior” both counter-imperial and revolutionary.  These imperial claims on behalf of Jesus were well-understood by Jesus’ disciples and those that came to believe in their word about Him, as we read about them lifting up their voices and saying, “Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?  The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His Anointed” (Acts 4:25b-26). 

Kings and rulers generally only set themselves against those that oppose their power.  In their calling Him “Anointed,” and in referring to Him as “Leader and Savior,” they were affirming all that was to be true of Israel’s Messiah.  This was the last thing with which the Jerusalem council thought they would be dealing, having made sure that Jesus had been put to death by the Romans, in a way, that being the cross, that was reserved for those who challenged the power of Caesar.   

We are able to better understand the message of Jesus, and why it engendered such fear in the leaders of Israel and such persecution from both Israel and the Romans, when we place it in its proper context.  Yes, there is a massive spiritual component to it, but there is a temporal component as well.  Jesus declared Himself to be King, as did His followers.  They declared Jesus as the ruler of the world, with all other powers and authorities in subjection to Him, even Caesar.  So, are we correct in looking at these passages in Acts through this lens?  Well, what follows Peter’s statements about Jesus here in the fifth chapter of Acts?  “A Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher…held in honor by all the people, stood up” (5:34a).  Having stood up, did he begin denouncing Peter’s claims? 

Did he preach against Jesus?  Did he defend the truth of Judaism?  No, he did not.  Rather, he spoke of revolution.  He talked about “Theudas,” who “rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men…joined him.  He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing” (5:36).  He then went on to talk about “Judas the Galilean,” who “rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him.  He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered” (5:37).  Having said these things---having talked about men who were revolutionaries, who had risen up to overthrow Caesar and to throw off the pagan, Roman yoke---he suggested leaving these men (the followers of Jesus) alone, suggesting that if it was of man, it would fail and come to nothing, but that “if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them” and they “might even be found opposing God” (5:39).

Is it of God?  From that day, “and every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (5:42), and nor do we.  He is, most assuredly, “Leader and Savior.”