Missing the Point – Acts 5:17-32

In Numbers 22, we read the story of Balak and Balaam:

Israel was in the process of moving from Egypt to the Promised Land.

They didn’t care about occupying the wilderness areas that they had to cross;

They just wanted to get to their new home.

So they politely asked permission to cross the territories of the Edomites, Amorites and others.

Several of those peoples refused to give their permission and tried to stop Israel,

But they were summarily defeated and dismissed.

Balak, the king of Moab, saw Israel approaching his territory and grew frightened.

So he tried to hire Balaam to curse Israel and bring down God’s judgment upon them.

But as hard as Balaam tried, he failed on several occasions.

In fact, several times, the Lord clearly stated His pleasure with Israel, and His promise to bless her.

Balak, however completely missed the point, and insisted on maintaining his attack upon God’s people.

Jehovah’s promises, Israel’s victories, Balaam’s warnings, all fell on deaf ears,

Because Balak’s mind was made up,

And he wasn’t going to be deterred by logic, revelation or historical fact.

I hope that you can see a correlation between that illustration and the priests in Acts 5.

The Lord was going to bring His people right through, and out of, Jerusalem.

If the priests or the Sanhedrin didn’t want to join the disciples, then they should have simply stepped aside.

Balak may have thought that Israel want to live in the land of Moab, but that was not the case.

He might have thought that they wanted to destroy Moab on their way to the Promised land,

But again, that was not true.

He completely missed the point.

In Acts 5:28 the High Priest, probably Caiaphas, with his father-in-law, Annas right beside him –

Caiaphas charged the disciples with three things:

“You have disobeyed the command that we gave you after you healed the man at the Beautiful Gate;

You have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine;

And you intend to bring the blood of that charlatan down upon our heads.”

Peter might have replied, “I’m sorry Mr. Caiaphas, but you have completely missed the point..

In some ways what you are saying is true,

But we are not deliberately trying to upset you or bring your government to an end.”

Let’s think about the three accusations laid against the apostles here.

First, you have completely DISCARDED THE COMMAND that we gave you earlier.

“Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name?”

Turn the page back to Acts 4:15

“But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,

Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.

But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.

And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.”

Here’s a little hermeneutical question for you?

“Hermeneutics” is science of Bible interpretation.

Is verse 18 what the council said, or is it Luke’s interpretation of what they said?

Notice that verses 16 and 17 apparently are the very words of the Sanhedrin:

They conferred among themselves and then they said,

“Let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in his name.”

But is verse 18 a quote or a paraphrase of what they actually said to the two disciples?

I think that it was only Luke’s description of what they said.

And what of it?

I think that in both there in chapter 4 and again here in chapter 5, those priests actually and deliberately refused to speak the name of Jesus.

In Acts 4:17 they deliberately avoided it,

And here they said,“did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name?

And “you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”

Twice they went out of their way to spit on the name of Jesus by refusing to use it.

These leaders of Israel were so filled with hate towards Christ, that they couldn’t even bring themselves to speak His name.

But getting back to my point: they were saying that the apostles had disobeyed the command of the council.

But I think that they had missed the point.

I went back and re-read each of Peter’s sermons and public statements, for several different reasons.

Even after you spend a month studying a passage, you can go back and learn just a little more.

In his sermon on Pentecost, Peter pointed to the Lord Jesus and said,

“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.”

And further on he said, David prophesied that God “would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”

And “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool.”

Among other things, in the Pentecostal Sermon it was declared that Christ is Lord and King.

Then in Peter’s first defense before the council he said, Christ is the head of the corner – the chief.

When they heard that the Sanhedrin “threatened them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.”

To which Peter and John answered, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.”

Have you ever noticed that the road that you see through the windshield looks different through your rear-view mirror?

When Peter said “Whether it be right … to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye,”

Wasn’t he making a comment on the deity of Christ?

It was Christ who commissioned them to fill Jerusalem with this doctrine, but Peter ascribed it to God.

Why didn’t I see that before?

Anyway, Peter told the priests and the council right up front,

“It is the duty of all men everywhere, and therefore it is our duty, to obey God before we obey you.”

You are missing the point: we are not acting in disobedience when we continue to obey God.

You are missing the point: we are not trying to upset you or to show you any disrespect.

Again in this chapter Peter and the others said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

The second charge against the apostles in verse 28, was that they filled Jerusalem with their doctrine.

The word “doctrine” in the original language is “didache” ( did-akh-ay’ ).

After their angelic release from the jail, the apostles went back to the temple and taught (verse 21).

The word “taught” is the Greek word “didasko” ( did-as’-ko ).

Do you know what the Greek word is in Matthew 28:20 for “teaching?”

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Do you know the Greek word translated “teach” in the last verse of this chapter?

“And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.”

Since you know that those were leading questions, I think that you might be able to guess.

The apostles were accused with filling Jerusalem with their “teaching.”

Every time the pastor speaks he should be indoctrinating his hearers to some degree.

He should be teaching.

“Doctrine” is not a bad word; it is a very good word, if Acts 5:28 teaches us anything at all.

But again, getting back to my point: the Jews were missing the point.

It was not the APOSTLE’S doctrine that was filling the city.

It was the message of Christ; it was the Lord’s doctrine.

And secondly, this teaching was primarily positive, not negative.

The disciples were not trying to bring down the Sadducean regime in Jerusalem.

They were trying to win souls to Christ.

And then there was the third charge against them: You intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

What they meant was that the disciples were trying to make the priests guilty of the death of Christ.

As I said a couple of minutes ago, in preparing for this message, I re-read all of Peter’s public statements.

One reason was to research the background to this accusation.

In the Pentecostal sermon Peter declared:

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

To whom was Peter preaching when he spoke these words?

He was not specifically addressing the Sanhedrin, the priests, or the Sadducees.

He was preaching to every Jew who had ears to hear.

After the curing of the lame man Peter was given an opportunity to preach and he declared:

“The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.”

To whom was Peter preaching when he spoke these words?

He was not specifically addressing the Sanhedrin, the priests, or the Sadducees.

He was preaching to every Jew who had ears to hear.

Yes, when Peter and John stood before the council they said,

“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.”

PRIVATELY, Peter accused the Jewish leadership with crucifying the Lord Jesus.

But prior to that he had PUBLICALLY accused the whole nation of doing so.

And here again in verse 30, he will accuse the High priest and his friends with the death of Christ.

But it is not true that the apostles are trying to make the priests personally responsible.

In fact, had he not publically stated that it was the according to the eternal decree of the Father?

These Jews were once again missing the point.

Every time that Peter laid down this accusation of guilt it was followed by the exhortation: “repent, repent.”

Notice 2:36: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Turn to 3:17: “And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.”

Look at 4:10: “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

It wasn’t Peter’s desire simply to make these people, or anyone else feel bad.

It was his desire to bring these people to repentance before the Lord.

And in order to do that, he wanted them to admit to their guilt.

Peter and the others WERE disobeying the priests, and filling Jerusalem with their teaching

It was in order to bring these guilty sinners to their knees before God.

This is what it’s all about.

And my purpose this evening, in addition to exploring what these verses teach,

My purpose this evening is to encourage you not to miss the point either.

If you are not children of God then knowing all the interesting Greek words and ironic twists of the preacher will mean nothing.

You need to be born again, just as much as did Annas and Caiaphas, the High Priest of Israel.