Sermon from November 9, 2003

"In May 2001 (American Jewish Committee) AJC leaders invited (President) Bush to their annual meeting. The president told an attentive audience about his faith in Christ, his intolerance of religious bigotry, and his faith-based foreign policy. One AJC leader observed, 'The wellspring of Bush's decency is his faith," (CT, October, 2003, 19).

In June of this year "the AJC board informed staff members that relations with evangelicals were to be freer and more open - not cautious and defensive. 'These people [evangelicals] are my neighbors and friends,' one board member said. 'I won't insult them with reserve and caution,'" (ibid).

Three years ago, a distinguised interdenominational group of Jewish scholars published a major Jewish statement on Christians and Christianity. The document consisted of "eight brief statements about how Jews and Christians may relate to one another," ("Dabru Emet," The Sun, September 10, 2000, 29A).

Here is one dramatic example of what they had to say. "Before the rise of Christianity, Jews were the only worshippers of the God of Israel. But Christians also worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; creator of heaven and earth. While Christian worship is not a viable religious choice for Jews, as Jewish theologians we rejoice that, through Christianity hundreds of millions of people have entered into relationship with the God os Israel," (ibid).

On the Christian side, I have been able over the past several years to read some of the deliberate efforts of Christians to eliminate the contempt for Jews that has characterized too many Christians far too long. One practical effect those efforts have had on me has been to send me back to the Gospels to reread the story of Jesus through Jewish eyes, insofar as that is possible for a goy like me to do. The brilliant English scholar, N. T. Wright, now Bishop of Durham, has given me and many others invaluable tools to do such a rereading.

The upshot of my efforts has been to understand that official opposition to Jesus was not simply irrational malice. Yes, there was unbelief, but there were also reasons of state. Jewish officials found themselves in a most difficult position. Certainly, there was unattractive, personal animus against Jesus that clouded their judgment, but that is a common, human failing. It is not especially Jewish.

Acts 5 affords an occasion for us to read together a Christian account of the clash between the same Jewish leaders that opposed Jesus and the fledgling Church that was led by Jesus' prominent disciples and was making a name for itself right in the Jewish capital, Jerusalem.

I propose that we make our way through this exciting story of the early Church. I will stop along the way to point out interesting features of the story, but I'll make it a point ot help us together to get a more realistic picture of the political dilemma and the personal failings of some Jewish leaders.

A Bird's-Eye View of Acts 5
The story really begins at the end of chapter four. Verses 34-35 say, There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. It reminds me of BVBC generosity.

In the next two verses Luke introduces one of the very important figures in the story of Acts, the man we know best as Barnabas. Barnabas is my patron saint. Not that I have a patron saint, but if I did, it would be Barnabas. Verse 37 says that he sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

You sometimes hear people characterize this generosity of the early Christians as a kind of communism. I'm not at all sure that is a responsible thing to say, and I can show you why in the next story that opens Acts 5.

Verses one and two open with some skullduggery. Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

Peter found out about it and, according to verse three, said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept back for yourself some of the money you received for the land?" It was all very embarrassing, but then something beyond embarrassment happened. Verse five: When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard about what had happened. You think? And there was more to come.

About three hours later, Sapphira showed up, not knowning what had happened. Peter asked her if the money they gave was the money they got for sale of their property. She said it was, and Peter told her there were some people prepared to escort her out - feet first. Verse ten: At that moment she fell down at his feet and died.

Can you imagine the hassle that would cause, if it happened here during the 10:00 worship hour? We would have to call 9-1-1. Some of us would go to the hospital. The Medical Examiner would have to do an autopsy. The police would surely be interested, especially after Number Two died in the 11:15 service. They asked fewer questions then.

By the way, did you notice what Peter said to Ananias in verse four about the land he sold? "Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" While he owned it, he didn't have to sell it, and after he sold it, he could keep the money. That's not communism. Theirs was a strong sense of community that motivated people to make sacrifices to be sure that no one in the family of faith went without the necessities. Participation was completely voluntary.

Verses 13-16 report dramatic healings and exorcisms by the apostles and Peter in particular. Luke explicitly confines the miracle-working to the apostles. In principle you would think such things should continue to take place in the life of the Church. They do, but sporadically. We have to be very patient.

In any case, their actions came to the attention of the Jewish officials in Jerusalem, and for the second time they put Peter in jail and this time the other eleven apostles with him. In the middle of the night, unbeknownst to the jailers themselves, an angel released the apostles, relocked the cell doors, and told them to go back to the temple the next day and preach their message to the people gathered there.

That's where the authorities found them next day and dragged them back before the Sanhedrin, the highest, governing Jewish body. Remember from chapter three that members of this governing body had charged Peter and John not to speak in Jesus' name any more. So, of course, they were angry that they had disregarded that direct order.

I want to come back to Peter's answer in a few minutes. For now, it is enough to acknowledge his fine defiance of lawful authority that defies God. Verse 29: "We must obey God rather than men!" You could write those words across the history of the Church in its congrontations with tyrants that have tried to silence the faith.

Verse 33 points out that Peter's remarks infuriated the Sanhedrin so much that they wanted to kill the apostles. They were dissuaded from their injudicious anger by a most judicious member of the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee named Gamaliel. He had the apostles excused from the meeting for a while, and it is worth reading his short speech.

Then he addressed them. "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

The Sanhedrin agreed, called the apostles back, warned them again not to speak in the name of Jesus, flogged them, and let them go. They apostles counted it as an honor to be flogged for the sake of Jesus, and of course they defied the order not to speak in Jesus' name. They spoke it frm house to house and in the temple courts for all to see. Something had to give.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Now, let's get closer to the dilemma that the Jewish leaders found themselves in. Verse 17 opens with Luke's assessment of the Sanhedrin's motivation. Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the part of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. Let me put this statement in the worse possible light.

How did Luke know they were motivated by jealousy? How does any one know the true motives of another? Isn't his statement character assassination, just the sort of anti-Semitic prejudice that has poisoned Jewish-Christian relations all these years? Two considerations may take much of the sting out of these questions.

First, we should ask ourselves this question. How likely is it in any group of people for some people to be jealous, when someone else, especially someone outside their group, outshines them? Knowing what we know about human nature, it would almost be surprising, if there was no jealousy among members of the Sanhedrin.

Second, when Pilate saw Jesus was innocent and wanted to spare him crucifixion, Mark 15:10 says this. "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. At the very least, this is a second, independent statement about the motive of the men who pushed for the execution of Jesus. And Pilate with his contempt for everything Jewish may have let his feelings be known.

I think we are justified in saying that Acts 5:17 is not character assassination. Jealousy played a part in the Sanhedrin's treatment of the apostles. We are also justified in saying that not every member of the Sanhedrin was jealous. That would be drawing an unwarranted conclusion. In any case, something in addition to jealous bothered them.

In verse 28 the high priest expresses their dilemma. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's (Jesus') blood." He was simply concerned that people thought badly about them. The Sanhedrin were the mediating party in Jewish life between their Jewish kinsmen on one hand, who hated the Romans and on the other hand the Romans with their awesome military power.

The Sanhedrin were motivated by reasons of state. If the apostles made them look bad enough long enough in the wrong people's eyes, the delicate balance that kept the Romans at bay might be lost, and Jerusalem might be imperiled.

Peter's response to the High Priest in verses 29-31 was not encouraging. "We must obey God rather than men!" (That's the cry of every religious protest group.) "The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead - whom you killed by hanging him on a tree." If enough people believed this, it would be just the sort of match that could ignite political unrest and bring people out in the streets against the Romans. Verse 31 is far more inflammatory than we usually think. God exalted him (Jesus) to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. In many quarters that was Jewis code language that said Jesus was the long-expected Messiah, who would deliver Israel from its oppressors and restore the kingdom of God in Jerusalem, and that meant revolution against Rome.

You say to me, "Peter didn't mean that." I agree, but that's what the Sanhedrin thought he meant. And you say to me, "How do you know that?" Because of Gamaliel's speech in verse 35-39. I am particularly interested in verse 37. "Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt." Why do you think he gave that example? It was because the Sanhedrin feared that Peter was the ringleader of another revolutionary group of zealots, out to overthrow the Romans.

The Pastoral Center of Gravity
So, why have I asked you to look at Acts five with sympathy for the Sanhedrin? I have done it, because I want our congregation to contribute to the easing of hostility between Christians and Jews. One way to help us do that is to read our Biblees with a more realistic understanding of the dilemma that Jesus and His followers posed for Judaism.

If God raised Jesus from among the dead to an indestructible life, then the Sanhedrin betrayed Israel's true calling. But they also acted out of a sincere desire to protect Jews from Roman brutality. Jealousy and envy may have clouded their judgment, and unblief may have blinded them to Jesus' mission, but if leaders ever found themselves between a religious rock and a political hard place, it was the Sanhedrin. Sensitivity to their crushing responsibility might deepen our reading of the New Testatment and further dilute tensions between Christians and Jews.

That easing of tension might also make it easier for Christians and Jews to talk to each other about Jesus. A number of Jewish writers are writing about Jesus again. In scholarly circles Christians and Jews are doing research togehter on the Second Temple Period, when Jesus lived.

What would really be exciting would be for Christians and Jews to be having conversations like that at street level. If we could do that with the effort to understand that we brought to Acts five and without the slightest hint of coercion, the conversation might actually prosper. Best of all, conversation about Jesus might become a point of unity between Christians and Jews. That's not far-fetched. All the first Christians were Jews. All but one biblical writer was Jewish. Reading the Bible, including the New Testament, through Jewish eyes makes sense. Why can't we do it together?