Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 5 of 5)

Peter has no qualms about making reference to the presumed shameful cursing undergone by Jesus because of the honor that came to be bestowed upon Him, which is indicated by what comes next, which is that “God exalted Him to His right hand as Leader and Savior” (Acts 5:31a).  These terms, “Leader” and “Savior,” were terms applied to Caesar, with this serving as yet another reminder that these leaders of the people that were currently addressing the disciples of the Christ had colluded with the Roman authorities, even going so far as (at least according to portions of the Jesus tradition) to have claimed that to not execute Jesus as a traitor was itself an act of treason against Caesar, while simultaneously stirring up the crowds to claim that they had no king but Caesar.  Cunningly and boldly, Peter co-opts these titles and applies them to Jesus.

Having been reminded of their guilt, “they became furious and wanted to execute them” (5:33b), but a man named Gamaliel interjected, reminding the council of previous instances of revolutionary activities (which serves as a reminder that the Jesus movement was more than just a religious movement, and that it encompassed all of life---social, political, economic, etc…) that had sparked, flamed, and burnt out in time.  With a wider scope of vision suggested, Gamaliel insists that “in this case… stay away from these men and leave them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking originates with people, it will come to nothing, but if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them, or you may even be found fighting against God” (5:38-39a).  It is said that by these words, “He convinced them” (5:39b). 

The disciples, having been temporarily removed from the presence of the council during the course of deliberations, were then re-summoned.  Though the members of the council been convinced to not fight against the disciples, they were still concerned about their public honor and its associated power.  Always mindful of that, and seeking to rob the disciples of any honor that may have accrued to them, while simultaneously attempting to shame them further, they “had them beaten” (5:40b). 

Beyond that, and desirous of protecting their own public reputations, “they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them” (5:40c).  The disciples, who were no longer concerned with their own honor or shame, being concerned only with increasing the public honor of Jesus through embracing what was supposed to have been the source of greatest shame---His crucifixion (especially at the expense of those who had attempted to shame Him and who were still attempting to shame Him), “left the council rejoicing because,” like Jesus and His cross, “they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name” (5:41). 

In complete disregard of the council, attending only to gaining Jesus the honor that was due to him, and completely unconcerned with the jealousy of those that sought to preserve their own honor and power, “every day both in the Temple courts,” which had been the place of their arrest and of Jesus’ most significant public activity, “and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus was the Christ” (5:42).    

Stephen's Trial & Death (part 2)

Sure there was a pernicious and damaging rumor making its rounds that Jesus had been raised from the dead; and though this was of some concern to the council in Jerusalem (which is demonstrated by the fact that Stephen was brought before the council in the first place), the leaders of the people remained quite confident that Jesus had not been the “Righteous One” of whom Stephen spoke.  This position was reinforced by the fact that He had been crucified by the Romans (rather than overthrowing and driving out the Romans), with things in Israel continuing as they had for quite some time. 

Now, one such as Stephen could have certainly argued that Jesus did not have the opportunity to drive out the Romans (though this had clearly not been His goal) because He had been sent to His death by the very men who would now claim that He could not have been the messiah because He was crucified by the Romans, dying at their hands rather than driving them out.  Such an argument, however, would be viewed as somewhat beside the point of the proceedings, and rejected out of hand. 

Had this Jesus truly been the messiah---the long awaited Righteous One and embodiment of Israel’s God---He would not have allowed Himself to be crucified, so the fact that He was, regardless of who instigated the proceedings that resulted in crucifixion, clearly demonstrated that He was not the messiah.  Even if He had been raised from the dead, the thinking would go, His death by crucifixion and the fact that Rome was still in power over the land and people of the Creator God would trump that fact, and thus readily continuing to prove that He was, in fact, not the messiah.  Yes, such thinking could very well have been much self-delusion, as an ongoing attempt to justify themselves and excuse their having brought about the death of the man that might very well have been the messiah, but at this point, there could be no back-tracking. 

Yet with all that under consideration, the anger was there and it was real and it resulted in Stephen’s death.  Indeed, this was not the first time that somebody had spoken to the council in such a way, and it was not the first time that such speaking had resulted in the speaker’s death, as shall be seen.    

Who was that other person to have spoken words to the council that resulted in death?  Well it was Jesus, of course.  In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus is placed before the Sanhedrin and there was an attempt “to find false testimony against Jesus so that they could put Him to death” (26:59b), Jesus was instructed to “under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (26:63b).  Jesus replied by saying, “You have said it yourself.  But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (26:64).  When pressed by the council, Stephen, echoing the words of Jesus, said “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56) 

Upon hearing the words from Jesus, it is said that “the high priest tore his clothes and declared, ‘He has blasphemed!... Now you have heard His blasphemy!  What is your verdict?’” (26:65a,c,66a)  The council answered with “He is guilty and deserves death” (26:66b).  Mark and Luke both provide a similar record, though Luke omits the high priest’s tearing of his clothes.  The beastly response that Stephen’s words received has already been noted, so it does not need to be rehearsed here, but it will suffice to say that it was also determined that he had blasphemed and was deserving of death.  Both Jesus and Stephen, according to the record of Scripture, were ultimately driven outside of the city, whereupon the prescribed sentence was set upon them. 

Stephen's Trial & Death (part 1)

“Look,” he said.  “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” – Acts 7:56  (NET)

With these words, Stephen fell into a high degree of disfavor with the men to whom he was speaking.  Stephen, of course, the man often referred to as the first Christian martyr, was speaking to the Jerusalem council.  He had been arrested because some men, who “were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke” (6:10), convinced others to accuse Stephen of “speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God” (6:11b).  With this, they are said to have “incited the people, the elders, and the experts in the law” (6:12a), so he was seized and brought before the council.  It would seem to be clear that there was a desire for Stephen to suffer a fate similar to the Jesus of whom he spoke. 

When asked by the council to answer the charges against him, Stephen, in the grand tradition of the prophets of old, recounted the history of Israel beginning with Abraham.  In what would have been a recognizable fashion to the assembled hearers, Stephen retraced the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the exodus, the golden calf, Joshua, David, and Solomon, demonstrating the supreme importance of Israel’s historically-based self-understanding of themselves as the covenant people of the Creator God. 

He then closed his dissertation by saying “You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears!  You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did!  Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute?  They killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become!  You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it” (7:51-53). 

Not unexpectedly (at least in what would have been the understanding of the recipient of the book of Acts, which was the second part of the Luke/Acts series), “When they heard these things, they became furious and ground their teeth at him” (7:54).  As Luke tells this story, it is almost as if he wants to give the reader the impression that these men were responding to the words of Stephen in the manner of beasts.  Then, Stephen, having “looked intently toward heaven” where he insists that he “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (7:55), went ahead and made an addendum to his dissertation by saying “Look, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” 

This further enraged his hearers, so much so that, in the previously implied manner of wild animals, “they covered their ears, shouting out with a loud voice, and rushed at him with one intent” (7:57).  That one intent, of course, was slaughter, which is made clear by the following verse, which reports that “When they had driven him out of the city, they began to stone him” (7:58a), with this ultimately resulting in his death. 

Why did they respond with such reportedly beastly fury?  What was it that Stephen had said that could cause them to respond in such a way?  Certainly, this was not the first time that somebody had been critical of the council.  Were they upset because he had referred to them as murderers and betrayers?  Not likely.  In their minds, in his reference to Jesus, Stephen was merely referring to a blasphemer with whom they had summarily and properly dealt and who had been rightfully executed as a state criminal and challenger to the power of Rome, so they were not inclined to consider themselves to have been murderers and betrayers.  

Only Son (part 5)

Before one can attempt to delve into what Nicodemus is supposed to think when he hears Jesus say “This is the way God loved the world…” (John 3:16a), it is necessary to examine other parts of the conversation, as this is a building process.  Jesus does not just make this lone statement, but gets there over the course of a relationship and a conversation (of which we have only a glimpse).  In the Gospel record, Nicodemus has already spoken to Jesus about the signs that He is doing, with an indication of an assent on his own part that Jesus “has come from God” (3:2b).  Again, it cannot be said enough that this was a time of great expectation.  Israel is expecting their God to act on their behalf.  They are expecting some type of a messiah to make his presence felt. 

A widely-held (though certainly not exclusive) understanding about the messiah was that he would somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God.  When Nicodemus speaks of Jesus as coming from God, Nicodemus speaks from within this expectation.  Nicodemus seems to be making a rather subtle inquiry as to whether or not Jesus was (or at least thought He was) the messiah.  His own words about the Creator God of Israel being with Jesus would seem to indicate that he believes that this is a strong possibility. 

How does Jesus respond to what Nicodemus says?  He responds by making reference to the Jewish, messianic hope that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was certainly going to fulfill His promise and establish His kingdom.  Keeping things simple, this would entail firstly the removal of Roman oppression, and secondly the subjugation of Rome to Israel, as Israel was to be elevated above all nations, with its messiah installed and recognized as king.  Jesus, presumably, is fully aware of the Jewish hope and would have shared in that hope.  Indeed, by His own words that are to come, one can see that He believes that He is fulfilling the Jewish hope of kingdom. 

In demonstration of this awareness of the kingdom hopes harbored by Himself and by His people, Jesus says to Nicodemus: “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).  After a response from Nicodemus which serves to reveal just how truly puzzling this statement was, with its inclusion of being “born from above,” Jesus continues and says, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (3:5). 

Clearly, Nicodemus is confused by Jesus’ speech here, and one would have to imagine that he would not be alone in his confusion.  Even Jesus’ own disciples, though they are with Him all the time and had the chance to hear Him speak (and likely expound on His thoughts) on a regular basis, as He likely made similar intriguing and potentially confusing statements on that same regular basis, were routinely perplexed by what He had to say and found themselves in need of private explanations. 

Granted, as a Pharisee and an esteemed member of the Jewish ruling council, Nicodemus was no doubt part of the elite and educated citizens of Israel.  It is unlikely that he was an intellectual and theological slouch.  However, the Gospels report that Jesus routinely stumped even the most elite with His statements and His questions.  As he hears the words of Jesus, one can surely envision the confused expression that rested upon Nicodemus’ face, prompting Jesus to say “Do not be amazed” (3:7a) at these things that I have said to you. 

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.”  

Moses & Jesus (part 1 of 3)

This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.” – Acts 7:37  (ESV)

The person speaking in this verse is Stephen, who is historically recorded as the first Christian martyr, though the first martyr, in terms of the laying down of a life for the sake of the message of the Gospel, was Jesus Himself.  Stephen was one of the first “deacons” or “servants” of the church, and was said to be “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:5b).  This Stephen, who was also said to be “full of grace and power,” and by this grace and power “was doing great wonders and signs among the people” (5:8), found himself in a dispute with some people of a particular synagogue that disagreed with the message that he was preaching.  That message, naturally, was the root of the message of the Gospel, which was that Jesus was the Messiah.  The author reports that, finding themselves unable to “withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (5:10), “they secretly instigated men who said, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God” (5:11).  Due to that accusation, Stephen was brought before the council.

The verse above is taken from the speech that Stephen made, in his own defense, before the council.  This man that was accused of uttering blasphemies against Moses and God, interestingly enough, spent a great deal of time talking about Moses, culminating in quoting Moses saying “God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.”  So this begs the question: Did this happen?  Was this an accurate statement on the part of Moses (or, at least, on the part of the biographer of Moses)?  Obviously, this is what Stephen is said to have believed, which informs us that this was a belief held by the earliest of believers.  Concordantly, it can also be reasonably believed to be so. 

Thus, believers in Jesus as the Messiah hold that this statement was brought about in the person of Jesus, and that He is ultimately the referent of Moses’ statement.  Thus, in ascertaining the full scope of Stephen’s mindset (and therefore that of the earliest believers and the author of the text, who was Luke), it is quite worthwhile to take a look into what Stephen said as a precursor to the statement of our Scriptural text. 

Stephen says that when Moses “was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel” (7:23).  Moses made this decision from his position as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, having been raised in the house of the ruler of Egypt.  Essentially, Moses divests himself of his position.  Jesus also, at a certain time (and as was said of Him very early in the history of Christianity) “made Himself nothing,” took “the form of a servant” and was “born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).  The one known as the Son of God left His eternal throne to visit the people of God’s covenant, which was Israel.  In addition to that, we know that Jesus began His ministry at a specific age (around the age of thirty); and in that ministry, as He traveled throughout the length and breadth of Israel, He most certainly visited His brothers, the children of Israel. 

Stephen continues on about Moses and says, “And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian” (7:24).  Can we not see this, in a manner of speaking, in the life of Jesus as well?  Though Jesus did not strike down any individual, just as Moses struck down an oppressor of His people, seeing his brother being wronged, whenever Jesus encountered sickness, disease, demon possession, and sometimes even death, He sprung into compassionate action on behalf of the one being wronged, and struck down the oppressive affliction.