Acts 4:1-22
What is in a Name?
A crippled man had just been healed and the Jewish leaders wanted to know what caused this miracle, by what name Peter and John had done it. What the leaders were asking, was not merely for Peter and John to give a name, but by what power or authority they were able to perform the miracle. The terms in this case are synonymous:
And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired,”By what power or by what name did you do this?” (v7)
The leadership knew that it had taken a supernatural power to heal the man. The evidence of the miracle was literally standing before them, thus they could not deny it (v16) nor say anything in opposition to it (v14). Yet they did attempt to silence the disciples. Why? Why would anyone want to stop this? Certainly some of them must have had family or friends who were in need of such a miraculous healing. Why then would they attempt to stop this? Because it opposed their worldview and threatened their authority. Recall the audience in the opening verse:
… the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees ...
Luke explicitly tells us why the leaders were so upset: because [Peter and John] were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead (v2). Not only did the disciples message directly oppose their doctrine, for the Saducees did not believe in the resurrection, but it also condemned them, for the disciples were accusing them of crucifying and rejecting the Christ (v10-11), the very one in whose name Peter and John had healed the cripple.Thus, the healing validated the disciples words which in turn vilified the Jewish leaders.
And so the leaders attempted to silence the disciples, creating a clash of authorities. On the one side, the Sanhedrin charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus(v18). Yet on the other side, Jesus had commanded them to be his witnesses throughout the world (1:8). Thus Peter and John respond to the elders, “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”(v19-20). Think about this, the elders had seen and heard, yet they refused to accept who Jesus was. However, the disciples could not but speak of what they knew to be true that:
There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name [or authority] under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (v12)
The Problem of Pluralism
A similar clash of authorities takes place every time we teach and proclaim in Jesus' name. We may not experience opposition tonight to the degree of the disciples, but we will face opposition on a personal level. To claim that Jesus is the only way, that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” is a direct affront to the common pluralistic philosophy of this age. The claim of exclusivity is seen as naive, prejudice, intolerable, and the very cause violence done in the name of religion.
Objections from Unbelievers:
“You Christians are so arrogant to think that Jesus is the only way. Christianity is too exclusive and intolerable of other religions. I believe that there are many paths to God.”
Whenever addressing objections it is important to address the assumptions or blind spots underlying their comments. For instance, what is the underlying assumption or blind spot with the previous objection? They assume that they are not exclusive, but that they are tolerable. You cannot come out and say this, because they will most likely deny it since they are blind to it. So you must ask questions to expose these assumptions:
Q: What do you mean by exclusive?
I: That Christianity is the only true religion and that all others are false?
Q: Do you mean that Christians think that they are right and everyone else is wrong?
I: Yes.
Q: Do you think that anyone who thinks this is arrogant?
I: Yes.
Q: Do you think Christianity is a good religion and that they are right?
I: No, or course not.
Q: So according to your own definition you must be arrogant as well.
I: What?
Q: You said that anyone who thinks that he is right and others are wrong is arrogant. You think that you are right, but that I as a Christian am wrong; therefore, according to your own definition you too must be arrogant. Do you see that your claims are just as exclusive as mine? You exclude me. I exclude you. So let's stop saying that Christianity is exclusive and you are not.
Another series of questions may go like this:
Q: Why do you think Christianity is wrong?
I: Because I think there are many ways to God?
Q: Many ways that is except Christianity, right?
I: No, I think Christianity is only one way, but not the only way.
Q: Is that what Christianity says?
I: What do you mean?
Q: Christianity on its own terms states that Christ is the only way and that there is no other way to God but through Christ, not Buddha, not Muhammad, not one's self.
I: I don't think that is Christianity.
Q: Your name is Kevin, right?
I: No, it's Eric.
Q: That's what I said, Kevin. So tell me Kevin, you must be about 6'2” 230lbs and from an African descent, no?
I: I don't get what you're trying to say.
Q: Sure you do. Just because I say your name is Kevin and that you have these characteristics, doesn't mean that it is true. I don't tell you who you are, you tell me who you are. If I then go to a friend and describe you the way I think you are … 6'2” 230lbs and African American … I may think I'm describing you, but you and I both know that I am not. I'm talking about somebody else. Your name is Eric, which excludes all other possibilities (except nicknames). Truth by definition is exclusive. Christ must tell me what Christianity is, I don't define it, it defines itself and according to Christ, he is the only way, which excludes all others. Either I accept this or reject this, but this is the truth and I have no right to tamper with it.
Additional Resources
Book
Article
Video
- Great video on responding to the claim that all religious are the same or valid
No comments:
Post a Comment