Blog All

It is interesting when you read the preaching in Acts, how radically different it is from the pastoral writing of Paul and the other Apostles. Not surprisingly the reaction to what is said in Acts is different than even what was evoked by Paul's harshest corrections to churches as recorded in the epistles. Obviously, there are things tailored for one audience that is unfitting for the other ... Paul and Peter would not talk to the Sanhedrin in the same manner and tone as they did to their spiritual children and coheirs in Christ. And visa versa.

The result of the Apostle's sermons to repentance / evangelism:
Hearers were "cut to the quick," "cut to the heart," "furious," and they reacted violently, jealously, determined and murderous.
Gamaliel was a rare example of temperance, wisdom, and trust in God ...

Acts 5:33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some 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. 37After 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. 38Therefore, 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. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

When God speaks, how will most react?

Truth probably won't be comfortable to hear, but a person who purposes to say what is authentic, knows there is a cost to pay in accordance with how attune his listener is to the same reality of which he witnesses truthfully.

How many people, besides John, can write Revelation and not be guilty of blasphemous lies, arrogance, and pride?!? Well, by now we have come to accept Revelation as authentic, and closed the discussion on whether or not John was full of crap, so it almost seems ridiculous to ponder ... Nevertheless, I know that if I plagiarized that book, then for me to do so would be all of those things and more. It would be wrong for me to say, that which was fine for John to write ... and same goes for everyone else.

Knowing how people tend to judge with projection, there is little doubt the anxiety that John had about releasing Revelation to even his closest friends. Surely, many people sneered that it was the rant of an egomaniac, because those who judged would see that they would have written the book as their own rant of their egomaniac tendencies and projected that upon John. It is a simple matter of John having an experience that made it pure / blameless and correct to write that book, whereas nobody else that we can mention would be in the right having not had the same experience as John. Still others may have had a different reaction. One such reaction that was likely to occur might be like the one that Gamaliel had in Acts 5. Perhaps a few others even went so far as bolstering John's book of Revelation with their own experience of the same things and understanding from God that would have collaborated what was written down by him ... though, given the extremely mysterious nature of Revelation, this last possibility seems the least likely to have ever occurred.

Suffice it to say, the most popular response at the time (with few exceptions) was probably harsh critical judgment and slander ... based purely on projection. (feel free to say that I am projecting even when I weigh that likelihood.)

Yet John released it anyway, and God preserved it in the scriptures that we have all come to love and teach. Have we forgotten how far-fetched it would have sounded at the time (or even still does)? I think it is safe to say that the Bible is a collection of scandalous books, that are either based on extraordinary experience or written by some of the biggest blasphemers, arrogant egomaniacs that have ever walked the earth ... and what do you and I believe, except that these are indeed the fruit of God speaking through men!

It is all a leap of faith, but one that is done with little inner-conflict, as we have been herded to that jumping point and leaped willingly ... perhaps thinking there must be safety in numbers ... so lets make the jump together.

The luxury of popular opinion in American culture about the Bible makes all of this an afterthought. Of course, who would argue otherwise about the written Word? It is all figured out, and systematic theology has made doctrine as challenging as a color-by-number coloring-book. Just place a check in the form next to "Yes" next to the "is the Bible the Word of God" question on your instant-orthodoxy-form and move on down the list to the more controversial articles of faith, right? We have lost the impact of the mighty declaration ... a scandalous assertion anyway you look at it ... but indeed the New Testament is a flawless collection of wittings only attributable to God, Himself.

So perish the thought that if the Lord God should speak again, it would be a lullaby gently whispering, for one is not on solid ground to have said that it has ever been a lullaby. Moreover, provided that God is speaking again (blowing the trumpet that He promised to do) one can hardly imagine a trumpet being a good instrument to lull anyone back to sleep. Sounding the trumpet is the alert ... the alarm of war ... it is a blast that shivers the spine and pumps our adrenaline ... like the bugle at a horse race. We only have the luxury in our saturated Christian-culture to have invented a novel idea over the course of history that the Word of God is common to other books in its demeanor... and that it may be thought of as a gentle comfort to any and all that read it. I'm challenging that idea. Moreover, I am calling that notion incorrect and silly with only a few exceptions.

Exceptions? Yes. Indeed there are exceptions. I doubt that Timothy (Paul's protégé) would have been universally disquieted by reading Paul's epistle to him ... as it must have been familiar as his old friend's counsel, even familiar to what the Lord had revealed to Timothy though the revelation of the Spirit and through the gifts of prophesy that were spoken over him (1 Tim 4:14, and 1:18). There are tough parts of 1 Timothy, I assure you, that were needfully chewed for a while, even by Timothy, before swallowing. Yet I hope to establish in your mind the idea that there is no universal response to the Words that God would speak. Nor is there a universal tone to His speech. God is not as concerned with the constraint that man places on Him to be consistent in all ways at all times with all peoples as God is concerned with the effect of His words on His hearers. He desires an effect in human lives ... and His Word never returns to Him void.

So perhaps the amount of alarm when hearing the Word of God has most to do with the quality and experience of the listener(s). God's Word has always revealed something about God ... and man's response and reaction always reveals something about man. Agreed?