The impossible and unlawful healing

By Noralyn O. Dudt

OUTSIDE the Beautiful Gate of Solomon's Temple, the man that was "unlawfully" healed  had been found. The man had been crippled from birth. Yesterday, he was healed. He was put back on his feet.  Now that he could stand up and walk again, he was filled with thanksgiving and praise.

A miracle that was supposed to bring joy to many had become a court case. Peter and John who had healed the man suddenly found themselves arraigned in the court of the Sanhedrin. The night before, they had been arrested by "the priests and the captain of the Temple." They were kept in jail for the night. The captain of the Temple was the head of the body of religious police whose business  was to watch the temple courts, and see that there was no violation of their sanctity. "The priests and the captain of the Temple and the Sadducees came upon them...." Thus the case of the arrest was that the priests inspired by their own "Sadducean" conviction had reported the "healing" to the captain.

Acts 4:5  states,  "Next day the Jewish  rulers, elders, and doctors of the law met in Jerusalem." That was the constitution of the ancient Sanhedrin: the rulers, that is, the priests and the officials; the elders, the heads of the chief families in Israel; the scribes, the interpreters of the law and teachers of the people. The Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one  members but only  twenty-three  would be sufficient to form a quorum to try  such cases as the  healing of  the paralyzed man and other "violations"  that defile  the sanctity of the Temple courts. It was, so far as it went, a legal assembly.

The Litigants at the Court of the Sanhedrin:

    Prosecutor—the Sanhedrin

    Defendants or Plaintiffs—Peter, the Doer; and John the Poet, and a 40 year-old man crippled from birth who was healed by Peter and John

The Sadducees  were priests involved with the Temple, its festivals, and its sacrifices. According to the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament, the Sadducees denied the existence or influence of angels. They did not believe in  the resurrection of the dead. They did not believe in the immortality of the soul. There was no afterlife. Although they believed in God, and in the Mosaic Law, they didn't did not know the extent of God's power.  And as rationalists, they  denied the supernatural.

The Pharisees were known for their rigid adherence to specific behavior prescribed from their interpretations of the ambiguities in the Torah. They promoted the idea of priestly purity for all Jews. They had oral traditions which they taught with diligence and zeal.  Their insistence and rigidity on the layers upon layers of rules  were disdainful to the Sadducees.   

While the Pharisees came from all economic classes, the Sadducees were upper-class wealthy men mostly from Jerusalem who made up the Jewish aristocracy.

Let's take in the scene  at  the Court of the Sanhedrin. A remarkable gathering indeed—the assembly of the wealthy rulers of society (Sadducees), and of the religious elders (Pharisees). The tribunal, looking all dignified in their  robes, seated in a semicircle with the president in the center, the law students listening to every case and  becoming acquainted with the processes of law.

Let us now look at those who were placed in the center of that court—Peter, John and one other man  whose face is beaming and glowing with joy.  The close comradeship existing between these two men: Peter the practical and John the poet seems  obvious. John the dreamer, and Peter the doer. These are the men—the speaker and the thinker –arraigned before the assembly. And then the one other, "the third man is there—"

The man crippled from birth but was healed, and now standing.

He is  there—a testimony  of the miraculous.

Take a look at  Peter and John before this Tribunal. Observe that which cannot be seen with the eyes. "They were  "filled with the Holy Spirit," an indication that they had clear vision, absolute certainty, strong passion, and unflinching courage. Ponder the scene—notice the dignity surrounding these men, notice the cold analytical acumen of Sadducean philosophy confronting them and wonder how these two fishermen will fare in this court of law.

Acts 4:13-14  "When these rulers saw the boldness (courage) of Peter and John, and noted that they were unschooled,  ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there  with them, there was nothing they could say."

One thing that was clear—the Assembly "took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus." They were unlearned and plebeian men, that is men of the common class. But they had boldness of speech, and boldness does not merely mean braveness, but clarity, clearness of statement. The court first inquired,  "by what power,  or in what Name,  have you done this?"

One can imagine that the accused might have said, what do you mean by 'this'? Peter and John  did not do so. Right in the middle of them was the healed man. Obviously, he was the 'this',  a tacit admission that they were in the presence of a fact for which they could not account. Everyone knew the man who had been for forty years and more in that condition, a cripple at the Beautiful Gate, asking alms. He was now standing there, among the rulers and the teachers of the law, with a light on his face and gladness in his heart. He has been healed... he's on his feet... a fact they could not escape.  But their question was, how had it been done? and by "what power" or in what Name?  Was this an attempt to divert the thinking from the Supreme and final evidence, into a metaphysical disquisition?

The inquiry: "by what power" that is,  what force did you employ to set this man upon his feet? Or,  "In what Name". Certainly a very technical question. Were they in denial of what  they saw or heard  at Solomon's porch? There, Peter had declared distinctly that in the Name of Jesus of Nazareth the man had been healed?  Had they missed that?  Or did they just choose to ignore it?  What was this inquiry all about?

The 13^th chapter of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament might shed light on what the Sadducees and Pharisees were up to. In this chapter are  instructions  carefully given to the rulers of the people concerning possible manifestations in their history.

"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you...."—a perfect description of the two men who stood before the Sanhedrin—"and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says,  "Let us follow other gods" ( gods you have not known) "and let us worship them… you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. Then you shall inquire, search, and ask diligently…."

The Sanhedrin was obeying this ancient instruction to their people. Here were two men, a prophet and a dreamer of dreams,  standing side by side. They had definitely performed a sign; and according to the ancient instructions, the rulers of the people were to search and inquire diligently. The death penalty was to be passed upon men attempting to lead men from YAHWEH  to some other god. Thus is revealed the subtlety of their question and their method: "by what power? Or  in what Name?"

But these two "dreamers" had not been seducing the people to follow other gods. Peter went on, "If we this day are examined concerning  a good deed done to a crippled man,"  basically implying that this inquisition was nonsense.

Again, they had asked for the power and the Name. Peter gave the exact information, but in the other order. He began with the Name and then declared the power. "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified." Peter made sure that there should not be any mistake nor misunderstanding. Not just the Messiah, not Jesus merely; but with careful deliberation, he fastened their attention upon the One whose Name they would make forgotten forever. Jesus, the Messiah, of Nazareth whom you crucified.  That was the Name. But what was the power? He immediately went on, "Whom God raised from the dead,  in Him does this man stand here before you, whole (healed). This is the Name, the Name in which you charged us not to speak; this is the power, the raising of that One whom you declared did not rise, because you do not believe in the  resurrection."

Peter and John were clearly stating that it was their God, the God of their fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who raised Jesus from the dead, whose power enabled the man to get on his feet and walk again.

 

The Verdict

The Sanhedrin conferred together and asked among themselves, "what are we going to do with these men? Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this Name." Acts 4:17

Peter's reply? "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." Acts 4:19-20

What made Peter and John so bold in the court of the Sanhedrin will be discussed in the next series.