Acts 4:5-13 recounts a fascinating series of events.  The Sanhedrin summons Peter and John, a couple of uneducated Galilean fishermen, and demands that they give an account of themselves.  However, rather than trembling before the majesty of the high court, Peter delivers one of the most impressive counterpunches in the Bible.  He points out that a) he and John are being treated as criminals for the “crime” of healing a lame man, b) and they healed him by the authority of Jesus Christ, c) whom this same Sanhedrin had crucified. 

Ouch.  In about three sentences, the Jewish leaders go from being in control of the situation to looking like villains and fools.  They reached out to poke the bunny and drew back a bloody stump. 

V. 13 offers a fascinating insight into their reaction.  They are first of all appalled at Peter and John’s boldness.  Then, they recognize both of them as having been with Jesus. 

It’s possible that this recognition was based on purely physical characteristics.  More likely, though, the leaders recognized them because they acted like Jesus.  They had learned from Him to speak with wisdom and confidence that the enemies of the gospel could not refute.  Only the Master could have taught them that!

Today, do the people we talk to recognize that we have been with Jesus?  The difference between us and worldly people should be conspicuous.  We live in a time when people are corrupt, contentious, selfish, hateful, and foul-mouthed.  Someone who has sat at the feet of the Teacher will be none of those things.  The disciple of Jesus is holy, peacemaking, selfless, loving, and gracious in speech.  If we have been with Jesus, when we walk away from the checkout line at Wal-Mart, the cashier will be smiling.

Does our online presence make it obvious that we have been with Jesus?  Heaven knows that all the worst characteristics of human speech are distilled by social media!  Sadly, I know far too many Christians who are gracious and kind in person but rancorous and contemptuous on Facebook.  If we have been with Jesus, we will recognize the temptation that these platforms offer and govern our speech accordingly.  Rather than fanning the flames of controversy, we will give a blessing, even to others thousands of miles away.

Finally, does our boldness in the proclamation of the gospel show that we have been with Jesus?  Often, we don’t take the opportunities that are before us because we are afraid.  Peter and John were literally on trial.  They had every reason to be afraid, but they had been with Jesus.  His spirit in their hearts drove away fear and emboldened them to tell the truth that needed to be heard. 

We ought to be all these things, but if we aren’t, the solution is obvious.  Be with Jesus!  Spend time learning about His will, both in and outside of the assembly.  Seek Him in prayer.  The more we are with Him, the more evident He will become in every aspect of our lives.

If there is any verse in the Bible that is of particular significance to brethren, it is Acts 2:38.  It says in so many words that the purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, a truth clearly taught in Scripture but rejected by much of the wider religious world.  However, the rest of the verse causes us more perplexity.  Peter says that those who are baptized for the forgiveness of sins will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

What is that?  Does this mean that everyone who is baptized will receive miraculous spiritual gifts, like the ability to speak in tongues the apostles displayed earlier in the chapter?  Does it mean that all Christians will have the Holy Spirit personally indwell them?  Or is something else going on here?

In order to understand the text, we first must acknowledge that the phrase “the gift of the Holy Spirit” does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit is the gift.  For instance, when Jesus refer to “the gift of God” in John 4:10, He means a gift given by God (living water), not God given as a gift. 

Second, we must recognize that Peter’s statement in Acts 2:38 does not exist in a vacuum.  It is the answer to a question, the solution to a problem.  The problem and question appear in the two preceding verses.  Peter’s sermon has convicted his audience that they have crucified the Messiah, and they want to know how they can escape punishment. 

In reply, Peter tells them that they can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Two verses later, he exclaims, “Be saved!”  Thus, there is a strong textual presumption that the gift of the Holy Spirit has to do with salvation.

This presumption is borne out by the rest of the chapter, particularly Peter’s citation of the Joel 2 prophecy in Acts 2:17-21.  There, Joel (speaking by the Holy Spirit, of course) predicts the advent of the miraculous gifts.  He says these gifts will be a twofold sign:  that the day of the Lord is coming, and that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. 

In 2:39, Peter affirms that this promise is not merely for his audience on the day of Pentecost or even for their descendants, but for everyone whom God calls to Himself.  Today, 2000 years later, we find ourselves in the midst of a generation no less corrupt than that one.  If we want to be saved from the wrath to come, we too must be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins.  If we are, we will receive the same salvation promised on that day—the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Some hymns are lightning rods for criticism.  They contain an odd mix of attributes.  Something about them is strongly appealing enough that they are sung, while they contain something else that offends the sensibilities of other Christians.  As opposed to the bell curve of popularity that most hymns possess, these hymns have a V curve.  Either you love ‘em, or you hate ‘em!  In my experience, such hymns include “Days of Elijah”, “Thomas’ Song”, and the king of them all, “In the Garden”.

“In the Garden” has been part of the worship repertoire in every church of which I have been a member.  Nonetheless, it is the subject of frequent complaint online.  Some brethren believe it teaches direct personal revelation.  Others wonder how they can claim that their joy in Jesus is more than anyone else ever has known.

Many of these issues resolve themselves once we realize what the subject of the hymn actually is.  Those who are so inclined can find the words of C. Austin Miles, the author himself, at www.hymnologyarchive.com/in-the-garden.  To summarize, though, the hymn is about the encounter between Mary Magdalene and the risen Jesus in John 20:11-18, with the singer invited to put themselves in the position of Mary.

Thus, we sing about Jesus speaking to us because on that occasion, Jesus did literally speak to Mary.  The hymn insists that no one else ever has known such joy because Mary was the first person (probably) to see the risen Lord.  Everything in the hymn suddenly makes a whole lot more sense!

There is nothing particularly unusual about putting ourselves in the position of Bible characters as we sing.  None of us have a problem with singing “Dare to Stand Like Joshua” even though we are not literally “tenting by the way” (unless we happen to be on a camping trip).  As we sing “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”, we cannot literally see the blood flowing from the head, hands, and feet of Jesus, but we call each other to “See!” regardless.

We recognize that there can be considerable spiritual value in these imaginative flights.  The true problem with “In the Garden” is not that it adopts Mary’s point of view.  It is that you can read the lyrics and sing them attentively without having the slightest clue that you’re singing about Mary.  I myself did for decades before somebody clued me in.

This is not such an issue when it comes to “In the Garden” itself.  A congregation that has been enlightened (by a bulletin article, say) can sing the hymn with spirit and understanding.  It does, however, highlight an important trait of good hymns generally.  They must be meaningful, and they must be clear enough that the singer can understand the meaning while singing.  Hymns are no place for poetic obscurity!  As lovely as “In the Garden” is, it would have been a much better hymn if it had been a clearer hymn.  When it comes to hymns that share its faults without sharing its virtues, there are better choices.

When it comes to discussion about baptism for the forgiveness of sins, most Christians know all the steps of the dance.  If we’re studying with a non-Christian and we show them passages like Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21, one of two things is going to happen.  Either they are going to submit to the word of God, or (because of past denominational indoctrination), they are going to hunt for a reason to object.

The most popular objection resides in Luke 23:39-43.  “What about the thief on the cross?” they ask.  “He wasn’t baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but Jesus told him that he would be with Jesus in paradise.”

I don’t see much basis for the assumption that the thief wasn’t baptized (for all we know, he may have been), but there’s an even more significant problem for the argument than that.  It presumes that we find forgiveness of sins through Jesus now in the same way that people did during Jesus’ ministry, and we know for certain that isn’t true.

Consider, for instance, the account of Mark 2:1-12.  This story is a favorite in children’s Bible classes because of its dramatic story arc (“They dug a hole in the ROOF and lowered their friend through!”), but the faith of the friends, and even Jesus’ healing of the paralytic, are not the true point of the story.  Instead, in Jesus’ own words, all of this is recorded because it establishes that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.

In other words, alone of all people who ever have walked the face of the earth, Jesus could say to somebody, “Your sins are forgiven you,” and it would be true.  For anybody else to make such a claim would be blasphemy.  For Jesus, it was a statement of fact.

The paralytic is not the only recipient of grace through the spoken word of Jesus.  The same thing happens to the sinful woman in Luke 7, another sinful woman in John 8, and Zacchaeus in Luke 19.  To that list, we can add another—the thief on the cross.  Even granting the assumption that he wasn’t baptized, why did Jesus tell him he would be with Him in paradise?  Because the Son of Man had authority on earth to forgive sins.

These stories provide powerful illustrations of the power of the grace of Jesus, but they can’t provide us with a pattern to follow.  The Son of Man is no longer on earth.  He no longer has conversations with people to tell them that they are forgiven, and no other human being has the authority to issue grace by fiat. 

Today, then, rather than presuming that Jesus has forgiven us in the absence of confirmation from Him, we need to look to the pattern of salvation established by His disciples.  We cannot expect to hear His voice telling us that our sins are forgiven, but we can expect forgiveness as we submit to His will—through belief, repentance, confession, and baptism.

How do you convict a sinless man of a crime serious enough to warrant His execution?  It might sound like a logic puzzle to us, but for the chief priests, it was a serious problem.  After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, they determined that He had to die.  However, they couldn’t just murder Him because of the pushback from the people and maybe the Romans too.  Instead, they had to find a way to sentence Him to death under color of law.

We tend to assume that the game was over after Jesus’ arrest in the garden, but the arrest was only the beginning of the process.  The chief priests needed not merely to arrest Him, but to convict Him of a crime.  As Mark 14:55-64 reveals, they rounded up a bunch of false witnesses, but none of them could agree that Jesus had done anything criminal.  By Mark 14:59, the prosecution has failed, and the chief priests are going to have to release Jesus unless something changes.

At this point, Caiaphas the high priest takes a gamble.  He asks Jesus a question:  “Are You the Christ?”  This is very dangerous; Jesus has spent the past several years humiliating opponents who ask Him questions.  However, much to Caiaphas’ delight and probable surprise, Jesus gives the answer that will condemn Him—that He is the Son of God.  Caiaphas declares that the whole Sanhedrin are witnesses to Jesus’ “crime” of blasphemy, so they vote to convict Him. 

However, this does not end the chief priests’ difficulties.  They can convict Jesus, but they can’t sentence Him to death.  That’s a Roman prerogative.  Thus, their next hurdle is to convince Pilate, the Roman governor, that an innocent man ought to die.

This does not go well.  Even an unrighteous man like Pilate doesn’t want to condemn the guiltless.  The Jewish leaders, however, prompt Pilate to ask Jesus if He is a king.  This is another massive risk, but it pays off too.  In John 18:36-37, Jesus affirms that even though His kingdom is not of this world, He is a king.

Thereafter, Pilate continues to press for Jesus’ release, but now the Jews have leverage.  In John 19:12, they threaten Pilate.  If he lets Jesus go, they’re going to report to Caesar that he is a friend to rebels, not Caesar.  When he hears this, Pilate agrees to Jesus’ crucifixion.  Doing the right thing is infinitely less important to him than saving his own skin.

In this narrative, two main forces are evident:  the chief priests’ persistent hatred. . . and Jesus’ acquiescence in His own death.  As Isaiah 53:7 predicted would happen, Jesus does not speak to defend Himself.  Rather, He is the prosecution’s star witness.  His twin affirmations of His deity and kingship are the two reasons why He is condemned.

In worldly terms, this is madness.  Jesus knew, though, that it had to happen for Him to carry out His Father’s will.  If Jesus is not the victim of great injustice, there will be no sinless sacrifice to enable God to be both just and the justifier.  Jesus knowingly brought that injustice upon Himself—all so that He could ransom us.