When we read the conflict between the Apostles and the Jewish authority in the Acts, we have to bear in mind that it was written in favour of the Apostles. Therefore, we should be very cautious in drawing any conclusion against the Jewish authority. They were not given a "fair hearing", so to speak. They might not be "bad" people at all. Perhaps like Saul before his conversion, they sincerely thought that Christians were heretics and heretics had to be stamped out in any religion, including Christianity.
Why were Christians heretics in the eyes of the Jewish authority? They were heretics simply because they believed in one more God, Jesus, within Judaism. Later, they even admitted Gentiles to dilute their Jewish identity. This was totally unacceptable. They should be expelled and cursed. With this background in mind, let us read how Peter challenged them.
What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is manifest to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it.
But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any one in this name (Acts 4:16-17).
This was unrealistic. Peter and John had already been arrested in the Temple. They would be unable to spread the news in custody. It was the crowd who spread the news and it was impossible to make so many people shut up. Moreover, it was not a rumour which they could deny and the news would not die down. So what else could the Jewish authority do? They could only direct their prohibition to a manageable unit, Peter and John.
So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18).
Again, this was an unrealistic demand because the Jewish authority did not understand the essence of Christianity. To proclaim the good news in the name of Jesus is the sole mission of Christians. It is the raison d'être of being Christians. Not to do so disqualifies Christians from being Christians. The Jewish authority did not understand that they were asking for the impossible. The only logical response is a categorical no.
But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to any one in this name (Acts 4:16-17).
This was unrealistic. Peter and John had already been arrested in the Temple. They would be unable to spread the news in custody. It was the crowd who spread the news and it was impossible to make so many people shut up. Moreover, it was not a rumour which they could deny and the news would not die down. So what else could the Jewish authority do? They could only direct their prohibition to a manageable unit, Peter and John.
So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18).
Again, this was an unrealistic demand because the Jewish authority did not understand the essence of Christianity. To proclaim the good news in the name of Jesus is the sole mission of Christians. It is the raison d'être of being Christians. Not to do so disqualifies Christians from being Christians. The Jewish authority did not understand that they were asking for the impossible. The only logical response is a categorical no.
But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge;
for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)
Here, instead of a straightforward no, Peter counter-attacked. Firstly, he put God on the table and then explained the raison d'être of being Christians. At first sight, I did not like the tactic of Peter. He appealed to God to oppress the Jewish authority. It wasn't fair. But let us take another angle.
Peter was trying to seek a common ground for dialogue. Both the Jewish authority and the Apostles believed in God and obeyed God. They were on equal footing. They were equal before God. The Jewish authority should not impose their will on the Apostles. Peter was trying to assert a new and equal authority which the Jewish authority did not and would never acknowledge. This time, it was Peter who was being unrealistic in trying to establish a rapport with the Jewish authority.
And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people; for all men praised God for what had happened (Acts 4:21).
The Apostles won the first round of contest hands down. They had the truth and the crowd on their side.
for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)
Here, instead of a straightforward no, Peter counter-attacked. Firstly, he put God on the table and then explained the raison d'être of being Christians. At first sight, I did not like the tactic of Peter. He appealed to God to oppress the Jewish authority. It wasn't fair. But let us take another angle.
Peter was trying to seek a common ground for dialogue. Both the Jewish authority and the Apostles believed in God and obeyed God. They were on equal footing. They were equal before God. The Jewish authority should not impose their will on the Apostles. Peter was trying to assert a new and equal authority which the Jewish authority did not and would never acknowledge. This time, it was Peter who was being unrealistic in trying to establish a rapport with the Jewish authority.
And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people; for all men praised God for what had happened (Acts 4:21).
The Apostles won the first round of contest hands down. They had the truth and the crowd on their side.
Dear Lord, we have nothing to fear when You are on our side. Keep us in You. Do not let us wander off course. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment