Of course, the stories recorded in Acts were written from the Christian perspective. Therefore, the Jewish side might not be given sufficient coverage. We can only have a partial, lopsided picture of the whole situation.
The apostles were released by an angel at night and in the morning, they began teaching in the Temple. When the Jewish Council, which had arrested them and put them in prison the day before, discovered this, they sent some officers to bring them back for interrogation without violence. Luke explained that they were afraid of being stoned by the people (Acts 5:26). I think it was unlikely. Luke had imperceptibly added his own interpretation on the situation, hinting that the officers, and thus the Jewish Council, were wrong.
How could the officers be wrong in maintaining order and security of the Temple? They were simply carrying out their assignment. If the apostles were a gang of criminals, of course the officers would resort to violence. If they arrested the apostles without violence, it only showed that the apostles were very cooperative. They did not put up any resistance. Furthermore, they were inside the Temple. I don't think there were stones lying around for the people to pick up to throw at the officers. The Temple was a house of prayer, not a battle field.
If the officers applied excessive violence, of course they were wrong. Now that they did not use violence but Luke hinted that they were also wrong. That is not unfair!
In the Council, the High Priest began to interrogate the apostles.
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." (Acts 5:28).
"... have filled Jerusalem with your teaching ..." is understandably an exaggeration. It only serves to show how successful the evangelization work of the apostles had been. Luke had lost track of the membership in the Jerusalem church. But at least, roughly one twelfth of the Jerusalem population had been converted within a couple of months. At such a growth rate, the whole Jerusalem would be converted to Christianity within ten years. It was phenomenal and the Jewish Council could not afford to be complacent.
"... and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us." is no doubt true from the Christian perspective. Peter had pointed the finger at them in his public speeches (Acts 2:22-23, 3:13, 4:10). John also mentioned that Caiaphas suggested Jesus should die for the whole people (John 18:14). Matthew reported that the Jewish crowd madly yelled before Pilate that Jesus' blood be on them and their children (Matthew 27:25). Jewish voice was drowned in these Christian documents. Probably, we will never be able to find out what exactly the Jews had said. It is rather difficult to imagine a people, whose laws required them to redeem their brothers (Leviticus 25:25), to hand Jesus over to Gentiles to be crucified. But such is the fact of history.
Peter, the head Christian, remained defiant. Again, he conjured up God to defend his actions.
But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29).
Once more, Peter's claim remained unchallenged. It was possible that the Jewish Council did challenge Peter's claim. But Luke did not record it for us. Luke did not see the need to do so because the miracles performed by the apostles had clearly demonstrated that God was on their side. If the Jewish Council really wanted to challenge Peter's claim, they had to prove that all those miracles were no miracles at all. No, in the Christian world of Luke, this is impossible. The Holy Spirit was with them to enable them to speak in tongues and to heal diseases.
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him (Acts 5:32).
Dear Lord, I pray for the Jews of whom You were one. They deserve a hearing. I pray that more and more of them will confess You their Saviour and Lord. Grant me Your Spirit so that I may bear witness for You. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment