No Other Name - Hillsong Conference 2014 Theme Bible background
 |
| Giotto's depiction of Jesus before Caiaphas in the morning based on Luke 22 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Annas here is called the high priest. He was officially high priest from a.d. 6–15. Then his son Jonathan was appointed for about three years. Next Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was made the official high priest (a.d. 18–36). But Annas remained the power behind the position and kept his honorary title. The people did not accept his deposition by the Romans and still considered him to be the true high priest. In the Old Testament, Aaron and each of his successors was made high priest for life. The Law made no provision for the secular governors to change this. Consequently, Jesus was taken to Annas’s house first (John 18:13), then to Caiaphas (who probably occupied a portion of the same building around the same courtyard). Annas and Caiaphas, along with some of the rest of the relatives of Annas, formed something of a “closed corporation” that ran the temple and controlled its vast income and wealth.
John here may have been Jonathan the son of Annas.36 Alexander was probably one of the leading Sadducees.
They made Peter and John stand in the midst of the assembled court, which was basically the same one that convicted Jesus. (Their meeting place, according to Josephus, was just west of the temple area.) Then they began their inquiry by asking them, “By what [sort of] power [dunamis, “mighty power”] or what name [“authority”] did you [plural, emphatic] do this?”
“What” (power, name) is used here in a derogatory way. The emphasis on “you” shows contempt. They were trying to awe the disciples or even scare them. Perhaps they remembered how the disciples had fled in fear when Jesus was arrested. Verse 13 shows the reason for the Sandhedrin’s contempt—the disciples were “unschooled, ordinary men,” not educated in their schools.
Peter had indeed once cringed before a girl in the courtyard when this same group was gathered around Jesus. Now there was a difference. Peter, as he began to speak, was filled with the Holy Spirit. The form of the Greek verb here indicates a new, fresh filling. This does not mean he had lost any of the power and presence of the Spirit he received on the Day of Pentecost. In view of the pressures of this critical situation, the Lord simply enlarged his capacity and gave him this fresh filling to meet this new need for power to witness.
We can see here also a practical application of Jesus’ instructions and promise given in Matthew 10:19–20; Mark 13:9–11; and Luke 12:11–12; 21:12–15. They were not to worry or take any advance thought of what they should speak. The Spirit of their Heavenly Father would speak in (and by) them. Thus instead of trying to defend themselves, the Spirit would make their words a witness. We may be sure Peter and John had slept well the night before and awoke refreshed.
Peter, filled anew with the Spirit and sensing His presence in a powerful way, did not let the Jewish leaders frighten him. As Paul told Timothy (2 Tim. 1:7), God has not given us a spirit of timidity (cowardly fear), but “of power, of love, and of self-discipline.” Politely, Peter addressed them as “rulers [official members of the Sanhedrin] and elders.”
Then, in a dignified way, he told them that if they were making a judicial examination concerning the good deed done for a weak human being, by what means the man had been (and still was) “healed” (saved, restored), then Peter had the answer.
Peter proclaimed that by the name of Jesus—whom they crucified (“you” is plural) and whom God raised from the dead—by Him this man stood before them restored to health. What a contrast Peter makes between what these leaders did to Jesus and what God did through Him! Notice also how he emphasizes the significant name of Jesus, not only here but also throughout this response.
Then Peter quoted a passage that most of these same chief priests and elders had heard from Jesus himself. On one occasion they had challenged Jesus’ authority to teach. He gave them parables and then quoted Psalm 118:22. (See Matt. 21:23, 42, 45; 1 Pet. 2:7.)41 Peter, however, makes it personal. “This one [emphatic] is ‘the stone treated with contempt [ignored, despised, scorned] by you [plural] the builders, who has become the head of the corner’ ” (my translation). He became “the capstone”42 because He is exalted to the Father’s right hand (2:33; 5:31). God had accomplished His purpose in spite of their opposition.
Then Peter explains what this means: There is no salvation in anyone else (the salvation which they hoped to be brought by the Messiah is not in anyone other than Jesus), “for there is no other name under heaven given to men [human beings] by which we must be saved.” “Must” (Gk. dei) is an emphatic word indicating compelling necessity. If we do not find salvation through the name (Person) of Jesus, we shall never find it. Nowhere in the entire world is there another Savior—there never has been and never will be.
The healing of the lame man thus witnessed to Jesus as the only Savior. The Jewish leaders could see no use in Jesus; yet God had made Him of unique and supreme value. In Him, as Isaiah chapter 53 also shows, is (the promised) salvation. There is only one salvation, only one way (Heb. 10:12–22). Jesus said, “ ‘I am the way.… No one comes to the Father except through me’ ” (John 14:6). There will never be another Messiah sent from God, or another Savior.
Many have claimed to be Messiahs or Saviors; many have presented other ways of salvation. The Sanhedrin also claimed to declare the good works that would help the Jews to obtain salvation. However, Peter considers all other “ways” to salvation as having no value when compared to our Lord Jesus Christ. We have only one choice when we face the claims of Christ: We can accept or reject. Other ways which may seem right can only lead to destruction (Prov. 14:12; Matt. 7:13).
It is not popular to be so exclusive. Most unbelievers who are not atheists want to think that there are many ways to find God. Some cults, the Baha’i, for example, even try to combine what they suppose is the good in various religions. But all this is in vain. God has rejected all other ways. In Christ alone is hope. It is this that places the heavy responsibility of the Great Commission upon us. If there were any other way of salvation, we could afford to take it easy. But there is no hope for anyone apart from the salvation through Christ. This may sound intolerant. “But it is also true.” Only through Him can we enter into the inheritance and glory God has promised to those who love Him.
