Committee or Community? – A Bible Study on Acts 4

Feb 4, 2017 by

A Bible Study on Acts 4: Committee or Community?

Rev Paul Perkin – Vicar of St Mark’s Battersea Rise

Acts Chapter 4 contrasts the religious committee with the Christian community.

1 What does it feel like living in a Sanhedrin?

The Sadducees were the ruling class. Politically they ingratiated themselves with the Romans and followed a policy of collaboration. So they feared the subversive implications of the apostles’ teaching. They were not looking for a Messiah, and they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, which the apostles preached in v.2. They saw the apostles as agitators and heretics – disturbers of the peace and enemies of the truth. That is why ( verse 2)

See how hierarchical they are and how concerned for order. In addition to the wealthy aristos were the priests, v.1, and the captain of the temple guard, who was the chief of temple police responsible for law and order. This is a man who plays everything according to canon law ( vs 3). Luke assures his readers straight away that the opposition of men could not hinder the word of God. The Sadducees could arrest the apostles but not the gospel.

On the contrary, (vs 4) A marker from Luke – they look very impressive and intimidating – actually they are impotent.

The next day, (vs 5), the council is swelled with heavyweights. The rulers, that is the Sanhedrin men of influence, including the elders (probably clan leaders), and the teachers of the law (the academic theologians), met in Jerusalem, notably Annas and Caiaphas, (vs 6), (Luke reminds us of them because they had figured prominently in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus), plus a few odd bods, John and Alexander (of whom we know nothing). They sat down in the customary semi-circle, and Peter and John were brought before them. Memories of the trial of Jesus must have flooded the apostles’ minds. Was history about to repeat itself? After a night in a cold cell, just as Jesus had been held, imagine what they must have thought.

The court began their interrogation with a straight question (vs 7). Jesus, they would have instantly recognized, was asked exactly the same question. But instead of thinking of his own defence, Peter rushed to the honour and glory of Jesus Christ. ‘You cannot possibly be objecting to an act of kindness to a crippled man. But if you want to know by what power he was healed – it was by the power of Jesus’. And then he adds for good measure: ‘the Jesus you crucified and God resurrected’ (you decided he was too bad to live – God decided he was too good to die). That is already the third time Peter has put the boot in (2.23, 3.15). Moreover, (vs 12), notice the ease with which Peter moves from healing to salvation – from the particular to the general. He sees one man’s physical cure as a sign of the total healing, the forgiveness and eternal life offered to everybody in Christ. And notice the double negative: no-one else, no other name – Jesus is the only Saviour.

Well, the court was astonished by Peter and John’s courage, because they were unschooled ( vs 13) – meaning not that they were illiterate, but they had no theological degrees. But then, end of v.13, ‘they took note these men had been with Jesus’ who also lacked any formal theological education or professional status as a rabbi. At the same time, before their eyes, was the incontrovertible evidence of the healed cripple. Despite the fact that it was well-known in the city he had never walked in his life, there he was standing in front of them. So there was nothing they could say. They could not deny it, they would not acknowledge it. What do you do in such situations if your home is in the Sanhedrin? You pass to next business. Embarrassed they ordered them out of the court, (v.15), so they could confer in private.

On the one hand they could not deny the miracle – everyone knew it! On the other hand they must stop this thing spreading any further. And you cannot help noticing that they avoided altogether the main thing, the heart of the apostles’ message – their witness to the resurrection. They did not even attempt to discredit that, although knew it was the core of their message. So what could they do? All they could think of was to warn them, v.17,18. So they hauled Peter and John back in and solemnly forbade them to speak in the name of Jesus – to which Peter and John gave the spirited reply in ( vs 19,20). So a few more threats, v.21, they were released. It did not seem possible to punish them; the people were behind them, the healed man was over 40, so everyone knew him, the evidence of his cure was known to all.

2 From that rather sorry committee turn to the community.

What does it feel like living not in the Sanhedrin, but in the Spirit? Peter and John’s instant reaction, v.23, was to go straight to their relatives and friends in Christ, report everything the council had said to them (a good thing to do when you have been in controversy – find people to debrief with). And the instinctive and immediate reaction of all was to turn together in prayer to God, v.24 (quite unlike the instinctive reaction of the council which was to debate and argue). Here is the Christian fellowship in action in its default mode.

Peter and John, having been bold in witness in the council, are now equally bold in the fellowship in prayer – though it does not say the apostles led the prayer – there appeared little human control of the prayer meeting because they all prayed (they raised their voices together) and the Spirit presided. That is why their first words were ‘Sovereign Lord’ rather than ‘Mr Chairman, on a point of order!’ ‘Sovereign Lord’ – despotes – the word used of a slaveowner. The Sanhedrin might utter warnings, threats and prohibitions, throw their weight around and try to silence the church – but they were slaves to a higher authority!

Before they come to requests (a tiny footnote to their prayers – almost a p.s.) they fill their minds with thoughts of God’s power and control of the world:

1) He is the God of creation (vs 24) ‘you made’

2) He is the God of revelation (vs 25), ‘you spoke’ pointedly quoting Psalm 2 which prophesied that when the Christ came the world would oppose him. The key word is ‘against’ – the rulers of the world gather not before their Lord, but against the Lord. And most devastating , it is not just the gentile world leaders that would oppose Christ, but also the Jewish religious leaders.

3) He is the God of history (vs 27f) ‘you decided’ – even this unholy alliance, all they could achieve was precisely, (v.28), what God’s power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Only now, with their vision of God clarified and themselves humbled before him in praise, were they ready at last to pray. They ask for three things:

1) That God would consider their threats, (v.29) – not that God would visit judgment on their threats, or even that the threats would not be carried out so that the church could be preserved in peace and safety. But ‘Lord, would you bear them in mind?’

2) That God would enable them to speak with courage, undeterred and unafraid of the threats, whether or not they were carried out, in fact courage to speak boldly would make the threats more likely carried out!

3) That God would stretch out his hand with more healings, (vs 30). Their demand is not for miracles of vengeance but for miracles of mercy.

In answer to their three-fold prayer, there is a three-fold answer:

1) The place was shaken, v.31 – possibly a sign that made them all the more unshaken

2) They were filled with the Holy Spirit, and

3) They spoke the word of God boldly, an immediate answer to their specific prayer.

Well there is another footnote, the incredible love between them ( vs 32). The sense continues in (vs 34), and sandwiched in between is ( vs 33). The apostles testified to the risen Christ (they kept the main thing the main thing) – and they testified with such great power in the context of such great generosity. Maybe it was because they were so liberal with their possessions that God was so liberal with his grace.

So how do the Committee and the Community compare? What difference is there between living in the Sanhedrin and living in the Spirit?

1 Difference of focus. The primary focus of the committee is on man, to obey man, to please man, to form coalitions and pressure groups and win votes. The primary focus of the community of the Spirit is on God, to please Him and to obey Him. That is why the primary activity of the committee is debate, while the primary activity of the community is prayer. Committees take votes to discover the majority human opinion – the community of the Spirit prays, to try to discover God’s will. Although part of discovering the will of God may be discussion within the fellowship there is nevertheless this quite stark difference of focus. The Committee is at its heart man-centred, while the community is at heart God-centred.

2 Difference in values. The primary value of the Sanhedrin is ‘Don’t rock the boat’. At all costs the status quo must not be disturbed. The stability of what we have always believed and done, and the way in which we have done it, is more important than anything else. That is why the Sanhedrin were so greatly disturbed. The primary value of the Spirit is to shake the community regularly – not to shake them from their faith – but to shake everything else because it is only in that way that their faith will remain unshaken. So shake their leaders, shake their pockets, shake their security by opposition and even persecution. Shake even the place in which they meet. But by every means they must be shaken regularly. Because the Spirit’s heart is in mission, whereas the heart of the Sanhedrin is in maintenance.

3 Difference of agenda. The primary agenda of the human religious institution is containment. The institution is seen as the container of religion, and the agenda of its officers is control. Their means may be heavy-handed threats, or very gentle persuasion, but human manipulation is the name of the game. So its agenda is the machinery, rather than the message – the mechanism of containment rather than the deposit of faith (the primary agenda for example of the BAP process is not to ask what a candidate believes, but whether he or she can manage with ‘pastoral sensitivity’).

Whereas the primary agenda of the Spirit is not containment but release of the gospel message. The preoccupation of the Spirit is not with the container, but with the content the container dispenses. This is why Sanhedrins will always operate primarily at an emotional level, whereas Spirit-filled communities operate at a rational level – and there is no divergence between mind and Spirit. Hence this earnestness not only in prayer, but also to get the message out. The community of the Spirit is not just filled with hot air – it is passionately concerned for truth, it has a word-based ministry. That is why it keeps returning to the central gospel issues and truths – a habit of mind conspicuously absent from the Sanhedrin.

4 Difference of qualification. The primary qualification for membership of the committee is human accreditation – by age, by wealth, by human power and influence, and by the academic establishment. ‘The death of the church is never sudden, but by degrees’! Whereas the primary qualification for membership of the community is by function rather than by status. Unschooled, ordinary men, but they have been with Jesus. And they are filled with the Holy Spirit, and they are passionate for God’s honour and glory, and they are fervent in prayer, and they are up for the demolition of all their comfort zones, and they have abandoned their possessions, and they are risking their safety, and they are loving one another, and they are healing the sick, and not a single one of them is needy, and they are more concerned for their courage than for their reputations. It is a different ball-game!

Although it is too easy to knock the Church of England, the institutional life of the established church fits neatly and precisely into Sanhedrin categories.

To the establishment enthusiasm will always be a very ugly thing. The main qualifications for appointment are to be clubbable, a man-pleaser, for whom collegiality takes precedence over all else. He or she must not rock the boat, must steer by containment, and have degrees, preferably public school and Oxbridge. But every one of us, our fellowship group, our national organisations, our church family – each of us has to make the fundamental choice whether we will be part of the committee or the community. That is not to deny that some of us will be called by God to work in committees. And lest you think I am making a facile distinction between parish and diocese, or say between charismatic network and the National Church, anything we do can potentially live in the first half of this chapter. They could describe an independent church, or a charismatic renewal group, or an evangelical network, or our Christian home life. And any committee that meets – any group can form community.

But where is our true home, our heart? Will we live in the Sanhedrin? Or in the Spirit? The proof here is in the outcome – the Sanhedrin is in decline, morally bankrupt, spiritually stagnant, and soon to cease to exist. The Spirit’s community is exploding, five thousand already and growing daily.

Related Posts

Tags

Share This