Acts 5:27-32 (NRSV)
27 When they had brought them, they had them stand
before the council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We
gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled
Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood
on us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God
rather than any human authority. 30 The God of our ancestors raised
up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God
exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give
repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are
witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to
those who obey him.”
Year C
Second Sunday after Easter
April 3, 2016
Cross~Wind
Title: Easter People and a Time to Obey God
Our prayer vigil showed that many
members of this congregation have concern for the nation and world. I am
hopeful that what I share now can help us pray and act in a way that reflects
our desire to be disciples of Jesus in the midst of such concerns.
I want to take you back to a
different time, to April 1963, and see if we can learn some things about human
authority, God, and Christians differing when confronted with differing
political choices.
If you were a leader of the clergy
in Alabama in April 1963, you would have received a strongly worded letter from
the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. On April 16, King issued his Letter
from Birmingham Jail. By the way, in August of the same year, he would
deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. In November of that year, Oswald
would kill President John F. Kennedy.
Authorities locked up the freedom
movement leader in the city jail after arresting him for his part in the
Birmingham campaign.
So why did King write the letter?
Eight white Alabama clergymen --
four bishops, three pastors and one rabbi -- had written a statement known as “A Call
for Unity.” It said that while they understood the “natural impatience”,
King's efforts of direct action on the streets were "unwise and
untimely." They agreed that racial segregation was a problem, but that
religious leaders should pursue change through negotiation and judicial action.
They thought that although Dr. King espoused nonviolence, his direct action had
incited violence, which has no sanction within the religious tradition. These
religious leaders rebuked King for being an outsider causing trouble in
Birmingham.
We commend the community as a whole,
and the local news media and law enforcement in particular, on the calm manner
in which these demonstrations have been handled.
Of course, King, who had personal experience with the police
department of Bull Connor, disagreed with their assessment. They concluded with
a message of hope: “We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when
extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.” One can see that what the
Alabama clergy saw was quite different from what Dr. King saw. They saw that
the defeat of “Bull” Connor in the recent election meant the possibility of a
new day for the city. Dr. King saw that the problem of segregation was not just
one man, no matter how much of a symbol of racism he had become. Of course,
calling Dr. King’s non-violent demonstrations “extreme measures” does seem odd,
in light of the Black Nationalist movements then and now.
Among the bishops were two Methodist
bishops. What struck me though was that King referred to them as “men of
genuine good will” and that they sent forth their criticism “sincerely.” Yet,
he also suggests that such “white moderates,” who agree with the goals but not
the methods, may be the greatest hindrance to advances by the Black people.
King responded to the open letter
with his own admittedly long letter. He said he was not an outsider because, as
he beautifully put it, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality,
tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all
indirectly.”
King agreed that the open
demonstrations were unfortunate, but said, "It is even more unfortunate
that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no
alternative."
As to the question of the timing of
the demonstrations, King responded that those who have never felt the stinging
darts of segregation could easily tell others to wait. He offers a long list of
the abuses of segregation. He refers to lynching, hate-filled officers of the
law, violence, poverty, blocking entrance to public places, inferiority, hatred
within black children for white people, and called disrespectfully “nigger” and
“boy.” The “cup of endurance” has reached its limit. For blacks in the United States,
the word "wait" had meant "never." They had already been
waiting 340 years for their "constitutional and God-given rights."
That is too long to wait. King was
sick and tired of waiting for human authorities to act.
It was time to obey God.
If you think you must disobey an
immoral law, King says to do so openly and lovingly.
However, how did he know that he
was hearing the voice of God? After all, the clergy of Birmingham believed that
they were obeying God. King said there were just and unjust laws. As to how we
can tell the difference, unjust laws alienate human beings from each other,
which segregation laws obviously do, and just laws uplift humanity.
King refers to the deep connection
between America and the African-American.
We will reach the goal
of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America
is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with
the destiny of America.
King expresses his disappointment
in the church, represented by “A Call for Unity” letter, especially since he
has led a nonviolent form of direct action.
We can look brilliant this long
after April 1963. Dr. King looks quite prophetic while the others in whom he
expressed disappointment look morally and spiritually dull. It was time for
segregation and all that it represented to end. Yet, they at least tried to
treat each other respectfully. Sadly, today, I do not find much effort at
mutual regard and respect in the midst of important differences.
Application
We could easily label the story of
Peter and the apostles, "Letter from Jerusalem Jail." Let us look at
this message from the apostles from that perspective.
First, the apostles disobeyed the
religious authority in Jerusalem openly
and lovingly.
On the day of the trial of the
apostles, the temple police arrested them again and brought them to stand
before the Jewish council. The high priest questioned them, saying,
"We gave you strict orders not to teach in [the name of Jesus], yet here
you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring
this man's blood on us" (5:27-28).
In other words, in the view of the
Council, the efforts of the apostles were "unwise and untimely."
Second, the apostles discerned the
time and took their stand.
"We must obey God rather than any human authority. (Acts 5:29)
They take a bold stance. Most of
us, I hope, agree. After all, it should be obvious that the church is here to please and serve God above all. We need to remember that a
witness for Christ, is always beautiful and honorable, but is especially so
when, in the presence of opposition, we kindly and humbly share what Christ and
the church mean to us. The possibility of opposition is not a time to be
silent.
At some level, most Americans can appreciate thumbing our noses at
authority. The challenge comes when we ponder whether our resistance to
authority is simply a matter of personal agendas. The devil's song is the I, the
discordant sound of a million voices all singing their own song, and thus, only
a collection of solos. Human authority, in other words, still has its proper
place.
We live in a time when various human authorities seek to silence
opposition. We have an entire realm of cultural “authorities” that will seek to
intimidate others into silence. We need to resist the “election infection” as
some have termed it over the next few months. Our temptation will be to do the
works of the flesh rather than produce the fruit of the Spirit. Read Galatians
5 if you are not sure what I mean here.
Third, the apostles made an
uplifting witness through the Holy Spirit.
The
God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a
tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give
repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these
things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him"
(5:30-32).
The Holy Spirit, the giver of life,
was an intimate part in the resurrection of Jesus. The God of Israel, whom
Jesus called “Father,” raised Jesus to new life. In all of this, we rely upon
human testimony. As incredible at it sounds, we take our stand with these first
witnesses, or we reject their witness.
Remember, a just and moral law will
lift people up rather than alienate them. Think of it this way.
Peter and the apostles point out
that the "God of our ancestors raised up Jesus." Uplifting!
"God exalted him at his right
hand as Leader and Savior." Uplifting!
"That he might give repentance
to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Uplifting!
"And we are witnesses to these
things, and so is the Holy Spirit." Uplifting!
Peter and the apostles believe that
those who obey God will bring an uplifting perspective to every position they
take.
In contrast, of course, the Jewish
leaders of Jerusalem killed Jesus "by
hanging him on a tree." This act degrades humanity making it an unjust
law.
Just laws uplift and unjust laws
degrade.
Conclusion
What was true in Jerusalem was also
true in Birmingham in 1963. Think of the jailing of Peter, the death of
Stephen, and the persecution of the church we find in the book of Acts and in
later history. If you pick a place to stand, opposition will come. I think this
especially true as the culture intentionally distances itself from the values
of the church. Those of us who follow Jesus will have to be willing to do so in
the midst of opposition. Yet, if you can face that opposition openly and
lovingly, producing fruit rather than doing the works of the flesh, you may
well provide a powerful witness for Christ, even in the midst of our concerns
for the church, the nation, and the world.
Garrison Keillor, in “On the Meaning of Life,”[1] wrote of how difficult it
can be to keep focused when times are tough. Of course, we are to know and
serve God, or to use the imagery of this passage, of course, we are to obey God
rather than humans. Such a truth is obvious as the nose on your face. He next
gets into some imagery I like. The country may seem as if it is going to the
dogs, so cats must learn to be circumspect, walk on fences, sleep in trees, and
have faith that all the woofing is not the last word. If we are fortunate, the “last
word” is still gentleness, showing consideration and courage, openness and
love, non-violence, and the fruit of the Spirit.
Going deeper
The theme of Acts 5:26-32 is the
message of Peter. In context, the authorities arrested the apostles for
performing numerous healings and for telling the story of Jesus. Their time in
jail did not last long, however, because an angel opened the prison doors and
brought them out to continue their teaching (Acts 5:12-21).
Acts 5:27-32 (NRSV)
27 When they had brought them, they had them stand before the
council. [Luke was probably unaware that the
Temple police consisted of Levites. The
Jewish Council has brought them a second time to an official hearing.
Obviously, the Council did not appreciate the message they preach in the midst
of the city. This Jewish Court had recently judged Jesus. Now, the apostles are
in the presence of the same court to receive judgment. This court held the
reins of religious power in Jerusalem and therefore of much of Judaism. For
Peter and John, this is round two. For
the rest of the apostles, this is their first experience standing before the
Council. The high
priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders [Human
authority is at work. It seeks to silence that which it no longer wants to
hear. The
primary accusation was they had disobeyed the "strict orders." Here is the primary accusation against
them, though they told only Peter and John not to preach,
the command applies to all the apostles.
The implication is that the apostles are the only ones who teach and
that their teaching has spread throughout the city.] not to teach in this name,
yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching [the first accusation against the
apostles] and you are determined to bring this man’s
blood on us[the
second accusation against the apostles].” [At
their first confrontation with Jesus' followers, these Sadducean priests had
professed strong theological differences with the apostles. As Sadducees, they
rejected all notions of resurrection (4:1-2), which of course was the crux of
the apostles' good news. What alarms
them most is the continued use of the name of Jesus -- a name that reminds all
listeners of the slippery political slope these religious leaders had descended
in order to deal with that problematic rabbi. Oblivious to the power of a
resurrected Christ, the council priests have further concerns with the possible
political fallout that might occur if the crucified Jesus remains a topic of
discussion and a familiar name on the street. Instead of hearing the Good News
of the Resurrection, the authorities only hear continued attempts to pin the
blame for Jesus' death on their own actions and behaviors. The
reference in 4:10 to their crucifixion of Jesus suggests to the High Priest that
they seek divine retribution for the killing of Jesus.] 29 But Peter [Peter again takes up his new role
as voice of the apostles and articulator of their faith] and the
apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority. [Peter begins by
forcing the religious leaders to see the choice the apostles confront. Barth
says that genuine Christian confession occurs as an act of defiance and
opposition, pointing here as an example. True, private faith is honorable and
beautiful, but it does not reach full Christian confession until it occurs in
the context of opposition. He also stresses that this passage says that we
should obey God more than people, and not instead of people. People have an
honorable and dutiful obedience to others.[2]
Note Socrates in Plato's "Apology" 29D, "I must obey God rather
than you," which Luke may have used as a model. Thus, the first response
of Peter to the accusations of the high priest testifies to his own innate
Jewishness. How can a religious body like the Jewish council take issue with a
fellow Jew who claims he must "obey God rather than any human authority?"
If any theological concept united a first-century Judaism struggling to
maintain its identity within the Roman political machine, it was their claim to
recognize only the one God as their Lord and ruler.]
30 The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, [Peter's
next statement even more intimately unites the apostles and their message to
the roots of Judaic history. First, he
asserts that it was within the power and unity of the one God, the "God of
our ancestors," to raise Jesus from the dead. The God Peter knows is the
God of Israel, the God who specially loved and chose Israel over all other
nations. Followers of Jesus need to recognize this deep bond with the Jewish
people and Israel. Their common Jewish tradition leads Peter to describe the
wrongful crucifixion of Jesus the way he does.] whom you had
killed by hanging him on a tree. [Not only does Peter again assert
that these Jewish leaders killed Jesus, but that they killed him by
"hanging him on a tree," based on Deuteronomy 21:23. However,
having clearly established his common ground with the council, Peter goes on to
detail their differences by invoking the name of Jesus and denouncing the
council's participation in Jesus' degrading death. Yet, Peter continues to make
this an "in-house" problem.]
31 God exalted
him at his right hand as Leader [uncommon
term applied to Jesus as the prince, captain, and even author, sometimes “first
cause” or originator] and Savior that he might
give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. [We see here that Peter is
concerned more with testifying about the wondrous good news of the Savior than
he is in fixing blame for Jesus’ death. The great truth that Peter now offers this
Council is that even they must seek Jesus as their Savior if they want to
experience the repentance and forgiveness God would offer Israel. The Jewish leadership that he now faces is
members of his own faith family. Peter condemns the wicked actions that
resulted in Jesus' crucifixion while keeping open the door to redemption that
the crucifixion and resurrection now make possible especially for the Jews.
Despite
their despicable behavior, then, Peter continues to offer these most elite, and
arguably most duplicitous members of the Jewish establishment, the gift of
Christ's salvation.
Nevertheless, Peter reveals there are
some genuine theological revelations that his listeners must accept in order to
receive this gift. Peter describes the relationship between God and the risen
Christ as one of shared authority and lordship. Jesus is at the right hand of
God through God exalting him to that position. Peter suggests that Jesus
himself is now one with God -- working to dispense divine forgiveness and
acting with divine authority.] 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit
whom God has given to those who obey him.” [Peter
stands as an example of the Holy Spirit's ability to act as a witness for
Christ. The apostle who had so often
spoken without thinking, acted without consideration, and even run away without
hesitation, has now twice stood before the power and authority of the Sanhedrin
without once misspeaking. Israel
now has the opportunity to repent and win forgiveness. This point is part of the kerygma. The witnesses are the apostles and the Holy
Spirit, whom God bestows on every believer. Pannenberg points
to the significance of the resurrection of Jesus, one of which is that if God
has raised Jesus, this can only confirm the pre-Easter history of Jesus. That which
was ambiguous has become clear. He also offers reasons for maintaining the
unity of Jesus with God. One such reason is the facticity of the resurrection
of Jesus as the Christian message proclaims it. The basis of the message is the
primitive Christian testimonies to the appearances of the risen Lord to the
disciples, along with the discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem.
His point is that we as modern people cannot accept such testimony blindly because
of authority. Rather, we might do so only after considering whether the
testimony holds it up by testing other reported facts. In this context, he
considers that the oldest New Testament witness to the resurrection and
ascension of Jesus form a single event, which he sees as the point here in
verses 30-32. For him, this suggests that the account of the appearance of the
risen Lord “from heaven” to Paul in Galatians 1:6 is an indication of what is
behind the Gospel stories of the appearances as well.[3]]
[I
would like to say a word about Peter. Think of the transformation that took
place. Just a few weeks prior, this council had judged Jesus worthy of
crucifixion. Peter, confronted with a question from some guards and even a
servant girl, denied he knew Jesus. Along with the rest of the disciples, he
abandoned Jesus on that fateful night and went into hiding. However, in this
incident, Jesus is a bold witness for Jesus. Something has happened to him and
to the others in prison with him. I believe the “something” is precisely what
they claim, namely, they saw Jesus risen from the dead, receiving new life from
the God of Israel, the one whom he called “Father.” The Holy Spirit, the giver
of life, gave new life to Jesus, so that he could be the Originator and Savior
who could offer forgiveness of sin to the very people who judged him worthy of
crucifixion.]
[The bold declaration by Peter is the early reflection upon what a few
hundred years later the church would call the Trinity. Father, Son, and Spirit
cooperate to bring salvation and forgiveness of sin to Israel and ultimately to
the world. Despite Peter's insistence that God's miraculous redemptive act --
the gift of Jesus Christ -- was for Israel's salvation, the high priest and the
council are "enraged" and "wanted to kill them" (v.33).
Although the apostolic witness grows, the rift between their Jewish audience
and the newly formed Christian churches continues to widen throughout the book
of Acts. After Pentecost, the apostles
had quickly established themselves as a vocal and continually annoying presence
in the midst of Jerusalem. Far from confirming the status quo and the
establishment, the resurrection is a disruptive, counter cultural
experience. In case we thought the resurrection was an event that happened to Jesus
at the cemetery, something private and weirdly out of this world, think again. Resurrection keeps on happening, and the
authorities do not like it a bit. What
is happening among these "poor and ignorant" people is God's victory
of life over death.]
[Here is how some scholars consider
the history contained in this passage. Part of the early polemic against the
view that Jesus was the Messiah was whether the Messiah could be
crucified. This would have included a
reference to Dt. 21:22-23. This may help
explain Paul's emphasis on the cross.
{(If a man guilty of a capital offence
is to be put to death, and you hang him from a tree, his body must not remain
on the tree overnight; you must bury him the same day, since anyone hanged is a
curse of God, and you must not bring pollution on the soil ...) 30 ... whom you
executed by hanging on a tree.}
No comments:
Post a Comment