Hi, I'm David Bercot, and the title of my message this evening is" What True Greatness Looks Like?" The point of my message is that it looks quite different than what most of us would expect. In fact, it'll probably surprise you whom I'm going to put forth as examples of true greatness. It's the 12 apostles. And when I say the 12, I'm not including Paul, who was actually the 13th Apostle. Now, he was truly great, and I don't think anyone would dispute that. And of course, I'm not including Judas.
He's the epitome of what wickedness looks like. So I'm talking about the Faithful Eleven plus Matthias. Now, if you're like me, in most of the sermons you've heard, if the twelve are put forth as an example, it's usually an example of something bad, something we don't want to do. And that's particularly true of Peter. When he's used as an example, it's nearly always an example of something we shouldn't do, or something that's wrong. Now perhaps that hasn't been your personal experience.
Maybe the sermons you've heard have been different. But in most evangelical Protestant churches, that's usually typical. The apostles are presented as either bad examples or even sometimes as the twelve stooges. For example, John MacArthur recently wrote a book about the 12 apostles naming it" 12 Ordinary Men." His book in itself is not meant to be a slam on the apostles. MacArthur's thesis is that Jesus was able to take 12 ordinary men and train them for great work.
But then MacArthur turned around and wrote a book about 12 of the noteworthy women in the Bible, and he entitled it," Twelve Extraordinary Women." Now the two books are typically marketed side by side, and the message that comes from this combination is that the apostles weren't anything special. Here you have the 12 ordinary men versus the 12 extraordinary women. In other words, Jesus could have chosen just about anyone for the job of the twelve apostles.
And John MacArthur's book is one of the more favorable books coming out of Protestantism. In so many books that I've read and in so many sermons I've heard, and in so many Sunday school lessons I've sat through, the 12 are typically used as bad examples, things we don't want to follow. Let's look at what they did wrong. And that's the view I had of the apostles for much of my life.
But this evening, I want to challenge the stereotype that so many Christians, particularly evangelical Protestants, have of the 12 apostles. Now let me start off by saying I believe that Jesus handpicked these 12 men for the very reason that they were extraordinary. I don't mean that they had extraordinary human abilities. Rather, they were extraordinary in their spirituality, in their souls.
Now to be sure, when Jesus found them, they were all rough gems that had to be cut and polished before they could be used for Christ's work. It took three years of being with Jesus night and day and receiving special instruction and discipline from him before they were ready to take the gospel to the whole world. But no, not just any believer was suited for the job. Any more than just any believer is suited to be a bishop or minister in our churches today.
And I hope by the end of this message, you'll realize just how truly great the 12 were. But I want to be upfront with you about something. In nearly all of my recorded messages, I'm presenting you with objective facts. For example, I explained to you what the early Christians believed about salvation or the millennium. When I do that, I'm not giving you my subjective personal conclusions on the subject, or at least I'm trying not to.
Rather, I'm giving you objective, verifiable facts on what the early Christians believed. However, the subject tonight is a little different. As usual, I'm going to be presenting you with objective verifiable facts. This time it will be about how the early Christians viewed the twelve, particularly Peter, and how they understood the inspiration of the New Testament. That part is objective.
However, even with the objective information I'll be presenting you, I do feel that reasonable Christians could still reach different conclusions about the Twelve. I only ask that you hear me out, and then come to your own conclusion. When I was in my mid-30s, I read a book about the New Testament Church. I don't remember the name of the book or even the author, but I do remember what the author said.
He said," The 11 faithful apostles never got it." They never understood what Christianity was all about, and they never got too excited about the Great Commission. So finally, Jesus had to give up on them, and He chose Paul to get the job done. Now, I remember that at the time, what he said made sense to me. However, shortly after reading that book, I set aside a year to read the early Christian writings.
And I particularly remember how surprised I was to discover that the early Christians had quite a different view of the apostles than what I had heard most of my life. The early Christians all talked about the twelve with the utmost respect, and every one of them testified that all 12 apostles were out planting churches all over the ancient world. Here's a few sample quotations from them. The first one is from Aristides, who was writing about the year 125 AD, just about 25 years after the Apostle John had died.
He said," These 12 disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world and continued to show Christ's greatness with all modesty and uprightness." Justin Martyr, writing just 25 years after that, said," From Jerusalem, there went out 12 men into the world. These men were uneducated and of no ability in speaking.
But by the power of God, they proclaimed the gospel to every race of men." In the year 300, Lactantius wrote," The disciples being dispersed throughout the provinces laid the foundations of the Church everywhere. They themselves did many and almost unbelievable miracles in the name of their divine master. Their teaching, because it is true, agrees in every place on earth." So the early Christians knew nothing about the twelve dimwits.
They would have laughed if someone had tried to tell them that the twelve didn't understand what Christianity was all about. To be sure, the early Christians viewed Paul as having equal authority with the other 12, but they did not view Paul as one of the 12. When the early Christians talked about the 12, they always meant the faithful 11 together with Matthias, who was chosen to take Judas' place. Now that in itself was a new thought to me.
I'd always heard that the 11 took it on themselves to replace Judas, and that Christ ignored their feeble human attempts. Instead, Christ picked the man of his own choosing, who was Paul. So when I read the early Christians, it left me wondering, was Matthias really one of the twelve rather than Paul? Well then, one day I was reading through Acts, and suddenly I read a verse that I had never noticed before. Oh, I mean, I had read it many, many times, maybe even a hundred times. But I'd never noticed what it said.
This is Acts 6:2. It says this," Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said," It is not desirable that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables." Let me ask you, who was it who summoned the multitude? It says it was the twelve.
And the 12th apostle was certainly not Paul because he was still persecuting the church at that point. No, Matthias was the 12th apostle. Paul too was an apostle, and the early Christians typically speak of Peter and Paul as the two foremost apostles. But they saw Paul as a special 13th apostle. Not one of the twelve. He was their equal, but he was not one of them. As I said, the twelve, including Matthias, left their mark on the early church.
The testimony of the early church is unanimous that all 12 had been out planting churches across the known world. Now, at first I struggled with this. I thought, how could these thick-headed, bickering men with little faith fit the picture the early Christians painted of them? Now, at the same time, I had to admit that in Acts, the 12, particularly Peter, do seem quite different than the way they appear in the Four Gospels.
Oh, I thought, maybe the answer is simply that they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Maybe the apostles were one way before receiving the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and a different way after receiving it. Now, there's no doubt that the baptism in the Holy Spirit gave them power to accomplish the Great Commission. In fact, Jesus had told them right before His ascension," Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you.
But tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." Since Jesus was giving them such an all-important assignment, he obviously needed to give them special power, and he gave the same power to Paul. No one is suggesting that any of these men accomplished what they did simply in their own strength.
But, I'm not so sure that the baptism of the Holy Spirit by itself accounts for the dramatic spiritual change we see in the apostles between how they appear in the four Gospels and how they appear in the Book of Acts. I say that for a couple of reasons. First, these 12 men were not unbelievers who were now just getting saved on the day of Pentecost. No, the apostles were baptized believers who literally had given up all to follow Jesus since the beginning of His ministry.
Second, everyone in the New Testament church that we read about, they all received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Yet, among those people were Ananias and Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit, Simon Magus, who became the arch heretic. There's the bickering Christians and the immoral man in the church in Corinth. They were all baptized in the Holy Spirit. And then we have the various Christians and their problems in the churches named in the book of Revelation.
So you see, baptism of the Holy Spirit doesn't automatically turn someone into a godly, unselfish, mature Christian. Second, we have to remember that there were many godly men and women who served God faithfully before the Day of Pentecost. Let me give you some examples. There were John the Baptist, Joseph and Mary, Mary Magdalene. They don't come across in the gospels as quarreling, thick-headed simpletons. Yet none of them had received baptism of the Holy Spirit during Jesus' earthly life?
And what about the Old Testament saints? I'm thinking of people like Joseph in Egypt. Look at the godly life that he lived. Or what about Joshua? Or Ruth? What about Daniel or Isaiah or Ezra? None of those godly men and women had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, yet they were mature, astute believers. They don't come across like the twelve apostles in the gospels.
Furthermore, what was the point of Jesus giving the apostles three years of special hands-on training if in the end God was just going to zap them and instantly turn them into mature, unselfish, capable leaders? So no, I think the answer lies deeper. I was pondering all of these things when I discovered from reading the early Christian writings that their concept of the inspiration of the New Testament was quite different from the understanding that I had grown up with.
Now to be sure, the early Christians understood the New Testament and the Old, of course, to be inspired of God, to be inerrant, and to be absolutely authoritative for Christian doctrine and morality. So we all end up at the same place. You don't need to have any concerns there. But I had always understood that when the disciples were writing a letter or a gospel account, that God basically took control of their thoughts. So what they produced was more like automatic writing.
In other words, I had always conceived that the disciples were basically a writing instrument that God was using. To put it another way, I thought the New Testament writings were God dictated. In fact, I'd been told that the apostles wrote other letters, apart from the ones that we have in the New Testament, but that those other letters weren't inspired. Therefore, they weren't included in the New Testament canon. But then I discovered that that's not how the New Testament canon was formed.
And that's not how the early Christians viewed the inspiration of the New Testament writings. The issue for them was not was this letter of Paul or this letter of Peter? Is this inspired? Now how would they know the answer to that question? Can any of us pick up the Song of Solomon, for example, or the Book of Judges, and say," Oh, this work is obviously inspired of God." If we're honest, I think we have to admit, no, we cannot do that. We accept the Old Testament books that have been handed down to us.
Furthermore, we need to understand that the New Testament was not a single bound book, or even a collection of scrolls that the apostles handed to the church at the end of the apostolic age. No, the Second Century Church had to decide what was Scripture and what wasn't.
And the question that they asked when they looked at a writing was not," Is this writing inspired?" Rather, the question they asked," Was this work written by one of the apostles or their close associates?" You see, they viewed the apostles as inspired, inerrant teachers. Everything the apostles wrote was Scripture. Their writings were God-breathed, God inspired, but their writings were not God dictated. And there's a considerable difference between the two.
Now, like so many other things that I discovered when I read the early Christian writings, this was something I had to wrestle with for a long time. But then eventually I realized, of course, this is how it had to be. The first New Testament book was probably written decades after the Day of Pentecost. That means the Church was founded and nourished on the oral teachings of the apostles. If the apostles were not inspired inerrant teachers, then the church would have started off with all sorts of errors.
In fact, it would have been an unworkable situation. Let me give you an illustration. Imagine that Paul has come to your church, and for the first time he preaches a message about the rapture. And after he's gone, the congregation talks about his message. Someone says," That certainly was an exciting message about the rapture, wasn't it?
I wonder if it's true." And someone else says," Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if it comes out in one of his letters." But then a third person says," Yeah, but how do we know if that letter is one of the inspired letters or not?" So they all conclude," Well, I guess we'll have to wait a century or so to see what the consensus of the church is." Now, the apostles could not have built the New Testament Church with that kind of scenario.
The first Christians had to be able to rely on the apostles' preaching as being inspired and true. They had to be able to rely upon everything the apostles wrote. Anything less than that would have been chaos. And that's why we read in 1 Thessalonians 2:13.
Paul is speaking, he says," For this reason, we also thank God without ceasing, because when you receive the Word of God which you heard from us, not what you read from us, but what you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the Word of man, but as it is in truth the Word of God." You see, what the apostles orally preached was the Word of God, just as Paul tells us there. The New Testament believers didn't have to wait until they received the first written epistles or gospels from the apostles.
No, they had the Word of God as soon as the apostles preached it. Actually, what Luke says in the preface of his gospel supports what the early Christians were saying.
He says in Luke 1: 1 through 4," Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the Word handed them down to us." It also seemed good to me since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed. And that's from the Holman translation.
So Luke says that he carefully researched everything so as to give an accurate, orderly account. He does not say that God was guiding his pen as he wrote, or that God dictated to him what to write. Nevertheless, the early Christians viewed Luke's gospel as inerrant and absolutely authoritative because Luke was the close companion of Paul and his gospel received Paul's stamp of approval. Therefore, it was an apostolic writing. Therefore, it was the Word of God.
Now, you might be wondering, David, what does all of this have to do with your subject? Your subject is supposed to be the 12 apostles, and what greatness looks like. Well, the simple fact is, what I've just been talking to you about the writing of the New Testament has everything to do with my subject. That's because it puts the four gospels in a completely different light than what most of us have grown up with. As I said, I had to chew on this for a long time before I could adjust my thinking on it.
So I don't expect you to instantly change your understanding of how inspiration works. Instead, let me ask you for a moment to just temporarily adopt the early Christian view that the New Testament writings were not the product of automatic writing, nor were they dictated by God. And maybe that's already how you understand things. Yet their writings were still infallible and authoritative because they were written or approved by one of the apostles, who were inspired teachers.
What this means is that the apostles had a considerable measure of freedom to choose their subject matter. Now, I believe the Holy Spirit guided the apostles and kept them from introducing any errors in their writings. Their writings are inerrant. And the early Christians believed that as well. But I also believe the apostles had considerable latitude as to what to include in their writings and what to omit.
Now we get to the significance, and that is the apostles chose to portray themselves as slow to learn, slow to believe, weak in faith, and given to petty bickering. They could have written about their victories, but they chose to write mainly about their failures. They could have focused on the things that they did grasp, but instead they focused on the things that they didn't grasp. They could have dwelled on the fact that they had given up everything to follow Christ.
However, they chose to just mention that in passing. Now, why would they have chosen to do this? Would you and I do that if we were writing an autobiography about ourselves and our ministry? Would we just talk about everything that we did wrong and make ourselves look like fools?
Think of the autobiographies of famous Christians you may have read, the writings of Amy Carmichael, Corrie Ten Boom, and Brother Andrew, the autobiography of George Mueller, the journal of David Brainerd, The Cross and the Switchblade, and John Wesley's journal. When you read those autobiographical works, you're inspired by the examples of those godly men and women, aren't you? You want to be like them.
But who has ever read the four gospels and walked away saying," I want to be just like those twelve apostles." Or," I want to be just like Peter." Let's face it, nobody does. It's just not normal for anyone in Christian ministry to write about themselves and portray themselves in such a way that nobody would want to be like them. I don't think anyone has ever done that, except for the 12. To portray themselves in such a manner would take someone who is incredibly meek and lowly.
It takes someone who honestly doesn't care about his own reputation. It takes a person who doesn't care if anyone even remembers him, except in a negative way. Now, I personally don't know of anyone like that, do you? To demonstrate what I'm talking about, let's discuss for a moment the gospel of Mark. The early Christians unanimously say that this gospel is actually Peter's gospel. They say it's what Peter had been preaching throughout his ministry.
Remember, Christianity was established before there were any of the books of the New Testament. And so the church was founded on the oral teachings of the apostles. And what we read in the Gospel of Mark is what Peter had been preaching throughout his ministry. I'm going to read to you just one example of what the early Christians said. This is from Clement of Alexandria, who wrote around the year 195.
He said," Such a ray of godliness shone forth on the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with the single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation." In other words, Peter preached these things, and they wanted to hear more, or they wanted to have them written down so that they could read them over and over again.
Anyway, Clement continues," So with all manner of entreaties, they pleaded with Mark, to whom the gospel is ascribed, because he was the companion of Peter, to leave in writing a record of the teaching that had been delivered to them orally. And they did not let the man alone until they had prevailed upon him. And so to them, that is, the listeners of Peter, we owe the Scripture called the gospel of Mark.
On learning what had been done, it is said that the Apostle Peter was delighted with the enthusiasm of those listeners, and through the revelation of the Spirit, He approved the composition of this gospel for reading in the churches. End quote. You can find that quote of Clement in volume 2, page 579 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. So even though Mark penned this gospel, he was writing down the things that Peter had been preaching. Now, do you see why this is significant?
It means that Peter had been preaching an account of his days with Jesus that puts himself in the worst possible light. When most Protestants hear the name Peter, what's the first thing they think of? Well, most of them, the first thing they think of is that," Oh, he denied Christ three times." But you know, nobody would have known about Peter's denial of Christ, except perhaps John, if Peter hadn't voluntarily chosen to publicly disclose it. No one else witnessed it, just John and Jesus Christ.
But he voluntarily chose to tell people about it. And I don't mean when the gospel of Mark was written. I mean, he had been telling them from the beginning. This is what he was telling people about their days with Jesus Christ. I'll give you another example. Think about the period of Christ's ministry. Now, when you think of the twelve casting out demons, or trying to cast out demons, what is the event that first pops into your mind? It's probably the time the apostles tried to cast out a demon and failed.
Now why is that the first thing that pops into our minds? It's because it's the only event that the apostles tell us about. I have no doubt the apostles successfully cast out many demons, but they themselves chose not to tell us about their victories. They chose to tell us only about their failures. Let me read that passage to you from Mark.
It's Mark chapter 9, verses 17 through 20, I'm reading from the New King James, it says," Then one of the crowd answered and said,' Teacher, I brought you my son who has a mute spirit. And whenever it seizes him, it throws him down. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. So I spoke to your disciples that they would cast it out, but they could not. Jesus answered and said," Oh, faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?
Bring him to me." Then they brought him to him. And when Jesus saw him, immediately the Spirit convulsed him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at his mouth. Yes, the apostles tell us about when they fail. They don't describe any of the times that they successfully cast out demons. And this is the way all of the gospel of Mark is. In other words, it was the way of Peter's preaching as what he had been telling people for years about himself and about the others.
Peter told everyone about all the rebukes he and the other apostles received from Jesus. But he tells us very few of the times when they actually received praise from Jesus. And I don't think that's because Jesus never praised them. It's because they don't want to draw any praise to themselves. In fact, Peter singles himself out for the most rebukes. I mean, most of us, when we think of the twelve and their failures, we think of Peter being the foremost of the failures.
Now, what kind of person portrays himself that way? Well, I'll tell you, it is someone who is very, very humble and is not trying to build a reputation for himself. It's a selfless person. It's a truly great man. In fact, I just discovered something this week that had been in my Bible all these years, but I had never noticed it. I want you to turn in your Bibles, if you're in a position to do so, to Matthew 16 verses 13 through 23. Now I want you to follow along in Matthew while I read.
However, I'm going to be reading the account as given by Mark, or I should say, the account as given by Peter. And as I read, notice what Peter intentionally leaves out.
It says," Now Jesus and His disciples went out to the towns of Caesarea Philippi, and on the road he asked his disciples saying to them," Who do men say that I am?" So they answered," John the Baptist, but some say Elijah, and others one of the prophets." He said to them," But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to him," You are the Christ." Then he strictly warned them that they should tell no one about him.
And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned around and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying," Get behind me, Satan, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of man." It's in Mark 8:27 through 33, what I was reading.
Now, if you were following along in Matthew's account of this same incident, that's in Matthew 16, verses 13 to 23, you notice that he includes something that Peter leaves out. Beginning with verse 16, it says," Simon Peter answered and said," You are the Christ." And that's as far as the account in Mark says. It just stops there, okay?
But then Matthew continues telling us the rest of the conversation." You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him," Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." End quote. So when Peter tells the story, he leaves out this tremendous endorsement that Christ had given him. Can you imagine that? I mean, here is the strongest passage in all scripture about the important position Jesus was giving Peter, and Peter intentionally omits it from his account.
Oh, but he makes sure to include the stinging rebuke Jesus gave him, one of the harshest rebukes any of the apostles ever received. And that is precisely why Jesus chose to give him the keys of the kingdom. He needed a totally selfless person who would not seek his own glory. That's what true greatness looks like. Now this same humility can be found in the gospels written by the other two apostles, Matthew and John. Let's start with Matthew.
Now we've just seen how He inserts in His gospel the passage where Jesus talks about giving Peter the keys of the kingdom. Matthew was interested in lifting up his fellow apostle Peter. He wasn't jealous of Peter, he wanted to lift Peter up. At the same time, in his gospel, he tends to put himself down.
For example, it is only in Matthew that when the list of the 12 apostles is given, Matthew is designated as" Matthew the Tax Collector." When Matthew names the other 11, he doesn't state what their professions had been before becoming apostles. It's only for himself that he names his profession, a tax collector. For a Jew, that was an odious label to have attached to your name.
I racked my brain this week to try to think of a similar term today, something parallel, an occupation that is perfectly legal, but which everyone looks down on. Probably the best parallel I could come up with is used car salesmen. It would be like Matthew giving the list of the 12 apostles, and when it gets to him, he says," Matthew, the used car salesman." It's purposeful, and it illustrates Matthew's lowly view of himself. He's just like Peter.
By the way, I want to apologize to any of you who are used car salesmen. I know plenty of honest used car salesmen, but the profession is given that name. Maybe a parallel would be lawyers were usually not thought particularly highly of either. Now, in contrast, when the other three gospel writers furnish a list of the 12, they simply call him Matthew without any reference to his being a tax collector. Another example of Matthew's humility is what he says in chapter 10 verse 1 of his gospel.
We read," And when Jesus had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease." End quote. Yet, unless I've missed it, I don't think Matthew ever describes a single miracle the apostles performed. We read a lot about the miracles performed by Jesus, but not by the apostles. This same spirit of humility is found in John's gospel as well.
He wrote the last gospel decades after the other three gospels had been written and after all of the other apostles had died. It would have been only human nature for John to want to tell about the ministry of himself and of the twelve after Pentecost. After all, Luke had written the book of Acts, which mainly describes Paul's ministry. Why not write an account of what the twelve did after Christ's ascension? I don't think Jesus would have prohibited John from doing that. But John was like the others.
He had no desire to call attention to his exploits or that of the other apostles. That's what true greatness looks like. It's interesting that Peter said nothing in his gospel, that is Mark, about Jesus giving him the commission of feeding his sheep, a position of honor. Instead, it is John who reveals out of his love for Peter that Jesus gave Peter that commission after His resurrection. Again, there is no rivalry, there's no jealousy between these men.
In his gospel, Peter says nothing about his personally visiting the empty tomb. Peter's account in Mark indicates that he and the other apostles simply didn't believe Mary Magdalene about the empty tomb when she told him. Yet when we read John's gospel, we find out that Peter immediately ran to the tomb upon hearing this news. So back to the question of why the apostles seem so different in Acts than they do in the four Gospels.
This difference is actually noticeable in the first chapter of Acts before the Day of Pentecost, before the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them. Now of course, the apostles were energized and excited about the resurrection of Christ and His ascension, and the Holy Spirit certainly gave them special power. There definitely is a contrast between the depths of despair the apostles were in after the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus, and the jubilation they felt with His ascension.
However, I think the main reason we see such a big difference between the apostles in the four gospels and how the apostles are in the book of Acts is that the apostles did not write the book of Acts. Luke did, and he was not one of the 12. Now in Luke's gospel, he was pretty much limited to what the apostles had told everyone about what had happened during their years of ministry with Jesus. Most of the things talked about nobody had personal knowledge of except the twelve.
And so Luke writes down the things that the twelve revealed about themselves. But when it came to the book of Acts, Luke had plenty of other witnesses of the events he writes about. In Acts, I think we get a glimpse of how the apostles really were. In the Gospels, in contrast, we see how the Apostles chose to present themselves.
I honestly believe that if one of the 12 had been describing the events in the first part of Acts, he would have been pointing out each and every mistake the apostles made even after Christ's ascension. And I think he would have tried to direct the glory away from the twelve to other men. Now some of you may be thinking, what about Paul's encounter with Peter in Antioch, which is described in the second chapter of Galatians? Doesn't this reveal the same old Peter?
But I would contend that it reveals the same humble Peter I've been describing. Let's read that passage. It's found in Galatians 2 verses 11 through 14, where we read," Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed. For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all," If you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" End quote. Now one of the key questions in understanding this passage is when did this event take place?
Well, we know it was at a time that Paul and Barnabas were still working together and at a time when they were both in Antioch. This places the situation before the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15. I say that because Paul and Barnabas argued shortly after that council, and they permanently parted company thereafter.
So this was in the early period of accepting uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church, and it was before there had been a definitive ruling concerning what would be required of these new Gentile believers. In Galatians 2, just a few verses before describing this incident, Paul states that just as Jesus had given him a special ministry to the Gentiles, He had given Peter a special ministry to the Jews.
Now eventually that would change in that all of the twelve planted Gentile churches, but that was the situation right at the time of this incident there in Antioch. Now, like many of you, I'd always read this account in Galatians with the disparaging view of Peter. Poor Peter, he just never grew up, still afraid of man, still setting a poor example as a leader. However, when I first read the writings of the early Christians, I was surprised to discover that they all had such a very high view of Peter.
I also noticed that nearly all of them defend Peter in this situation at Antioch. You have to remember that the second chapter of Galatians is similar to the various chapters of the Book of Acts. Here, Paul is relating historical events. For example, at the end of Acts 15, Luke describes the argument that took place between Paul and Barnabas, and their separation as a result of that. Now Luke simply relates the incident. He doesn't say that what happened was right or that it was wrong. He just reports facts.
Nowhere do we have God's view of the situation. Likewise, in Galatians 2, we have a description of an incident from Paul's perspective of what took place. But God doesn't interject His thoughts of the whole incident. The early Christians didn't take for granted that Paul's conduct was approved by God, or that Peter's conduct was condemned by God. They read the passage as a description of an historical incident, just like Paul's later argument with Barnabas. And as I said, they tend to defend Peter.
Now that doesn't mean they criticize Paul. They try to find a way to diffuse the situation and defend both men, who of course were both passed away by then. For example, Tertullian describes the incident in this way:" As a neophyte, in the eagerness of his zeal against Judaism, Paul thought that there was something to be blamed in the apostles' conduct, particularly in their changeable conduct toward the Gentiles.
However, afterwards, Paul himself practiced all things to all that he might gain all, to the Jews as a Jew, and to them that were under the law as under law. In short, you have his rebuke of Peter, which was merely directed against conduct that was destined to become acceptable even to Peter's accuser. That's Paul himself. End quote. You can find that in volume 3 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, page 286.
Yes, eventually Paul would go on to circumcise Timothy and to do other things in order not to offend the Jews, even though Paul was sent to the Gentiles, not to the Jews. Now, since at the time of the incident in Antioch, Peter had been entrusted with ministry to the Jews. Didn't he have the right to try not to offend his Jewish brothers, who were still very uncomfortable with Jewish Christians going into the homes of uncircumcised Gentile believers? Perhaps so.
My guess is that Paul is describing the same series of events that Luke describes in Acts 14: 25 through chapter 15 verse 11. If so, Luke certainly presents Peter in a different light. He portrays Peter as the one who takes the lead at the conference in defending the new Gentile believers. Peter argues for a church-wide policy that the Gentiles should not have to live by the Mosaic Law.
Now some Christians think that the incident that Paul describes in Galatians 2 was a different one than the one that Luke describes in Acts 14. They say that it was something that happened before the events described in Acts 14. Perhaps so, we don't know. But if that is the case, then the church's policy toward Gentiles was even less established. However, let's just suppose for a moment that Peter's actions were simply wrong. Regardless, I still see the same humble Meek Peter that I've been describing.
Paul doesn't say that he and Peter got into a heated argument. He doesn't say that Peter defended himself or that Peter attacked Paul in response. Think about that for a moment. Here is a man who was one of the chosen twelve. He was one of Jesus' earliest disciples, and he gave up all he had to follow Jesus. He accompanied Jesus 24 hours a day for about three years. He sat under Jesus' teaching and received personal training during those three years. Jesus entrusted him with the keys of the kingdom.
Jesus gave him the commission of feeding his sheep. And now, here comes along a new convert named Paul, who has the nerve to challenge Peter on his conduct, and even to rebuke him publicly in front of a whole congregation. Do you know many leaders who would meekly accept that kind of behavior? Every incident I've personally witnessed or known about where there's been that kind of public confrontation has always led to a split between the two men, and usually a split in the church that is involved.
In fact, it's usually resulted in a lifelong feud between the two leaders and between their respective churches. However, notice Peter's response. Not only does he not defend himself or argue with Paul, but he takes the lead in bringing the entire church to a new view of Gentile Christians. Instead of there being a feud between Paul and Peter, the two men work together to make sure that there is no division in the churches.
In fact, even though Paul's letter to the Galatians, with its stinging rebuke of Peter was circulating throughout all of the churches, Peter never gives his side of the story, nor does he ever attack or belittle Paul in any way. In fact, even though Paul had publicly put Peter in a bad light, this is how Peter refers to Paul in Peter's second letter.
He says," Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless, and consider that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, and which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." Did you note
Peter doesn't refer to him as the sharp tongued Paul or the hot-headed Paul?
No, he refers to him as our beloved brother Paul. He talks about Paul's wisdom. Isn't that something? Not only that, when he mentions the fact that some people are misunderstanding what Paul is saying in his letters, Peter refers to Paul's letters as part of the Scriptures. Now to my knowledge, this is the very first time that any of the writings of the apostles are referred to as Scripture. If it's not the first, it's at least one of the first.
And it's Peter referring not to his own letters, but to Paul's letters. How Peter conducted himself in response to Paul's rebuke is the epitome of meekness, humility, and selflessness. It's why Jesus entrusted Peter with such important responsibilities. It's how all church leaders should be. And it's a picture of true greatness. But now I want to talk about what the apostles accomplished. I don't think most Christians have any concept of the magnitude of what the apostles achieved during their lifetimes.
At the end of the first century, after the last apostle died, there was one unified church across the entire ancient world, both within and without the Roman Empire. By the time John died, Christ's Church extended all the way from India and Persia in the east to the British Isles in the west. It extended from North Africa in the south to the Germanic tribes in the north. To be sure, Paul had planted some of those churches, but not most of them.
The three largest cities in the Roman Empire were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch in that order. And during the first 300 years after the apostles, the churches in those cities were the largest churches on earth. Yet Paul didn't plant a single one of those churches. Each was planted either by one of the twelve or by persons working under their authority.
Now, if Christ truly had been dealing with 12 ordinary men, at the end of the 1st century there would have been 12 competing groups of churches, each bearing the name of the apostle who had founded it. And there would have been a thirteenth group bearing the name of Paul. These 13 churches would have been competing against each other, and before long, instead of 13 churches there would have been 26, and then 52, and so on. If you think I exaggerate, reflect on the Reformation for a moment.
Initially, there were two main Reformers, Luther and Zwingli. One was in Germany and the other was in neighboring Switzerland. Were the two of them able to work together to create a single united Reformation Church? No, they argued over the nature of communion, and each refused to work with the other. When Zwingli was killed, Luther said he got what he deserved. No, the Lutheran and Reformed churches never united.
And there would have been many, many other churches that initially came out of the Reformation, except for the fact that the Reformers created state churches and used the power of the state to try to keep everyone in their state church. In fact, a few centuries later, when freedom of religion was granted in various places like America, the number of denominations and independent churches absolutely mushroomed into the thousands and thousands.
As we all know, the original Anabaptist reformers were willing to brave persecution in order to create a restored New Testament church to the best of their ability. Those men like Michael Sattler and Conrad Grebel were certainly filled with the Holy Spirit, and they were remarkable men, and that the Anabaptist movement that they started is still here 500 years later. However, even these very gifted, spirit-filled men were not able to create one single united Anabaptist Church.
Within a few years, the movement began to splinter into separate groups of churches that refused to have communion with each other. And 500 years later, we Anabaptists are still horribly divided. In contrast, the Church started by the Apostles was so unified that there weren't even nuances between individual congregations based on who planted or oversaw that church. There was no difference between the churches Paul planted and the ones Peter planted.
In fact, about the only difference that came up in the second century was that the churches in Asia that had been overseen by John at the end of his ministry, they annually commemorated Christ's death and resurrection on a slightly different date than did most of the rest of the churches throughout the world. That's it. That was the only difference. That's what true greatness looks like.
Yet although this one church was so united, there was no visible head, there was no central organization, and there was no state-empowered hierarchy that kept it together. This was a church that had been so well-founded that it was able to withstand the powerful Gnostic movement that tried to engulf the church once the apostles were gone. It was a church that withstood the withering blast of horrendous persecution from the Roman government and from pagan mobs.
It withstood all of those things without compromising the faith, without persecuting anyone, and without fighting back. The people in this one United Church spoke many different languages, yet they all believed one and the same thing. We don't usually think of the twelve as being particularly wise. Oh, but they were.
They somehow came up with a simple statement of faith that incorporated the key doctrines of Christianity that worked everywhere throughout the world, such that no matter where you went in the ancient world, from India to the Germanic tribes in Europe, they all held to this simple, basic set of core Christian beliefs. Not only that, their church services were all alike.
A Christian traveler from Egypt could visit a congregation in Britain, and he would find the same kind of church service and the same doctrines preached just as they were back in Egypt. Not only that, he would be admitted to their communion in Britain, so long as he carried with him a signed letter from his bishop saying that he was in good standing in his congregation in Egypt. That's how united the Church was.
The fact that there was only one church, which remained united and faithful for 300 years, speaks volumes about the greatness of the man who founded it. And that's the only thing that speaks volumes, for none of the apostles left any written record whatsoever of their mission work. They worked hard on behalf of their Lord, planting His church throughout the world, and as far as we know all of them, but John ended up dying as martyrs.
The twelve were content to let the light shine on men like Paul, while they remained in the shadows. Although they were the apostles, they let James, the half-brother of Jesus, serve as bishop of Jerusalem. They let him preside at the first and the only church-wide council recorded in the New Testament. Again, that's what true greatness looks like. Jesus had spent an entire night in prayer before choosing the twelve.
Except for Judas, whose choice was no accident, he carefully chose men who, with the power of the Holy Spirit, would be up to the enormous task being given them. These were humble, selfless men who surrendered all, including their lives for Christ. They quietly did the job Christ had given them, and they were content to let others get the glory. They had no desire to leave monuments, biographies, or accounts of their ministry.
When called upon to leave written records of their time with Jesus, they left accounts that portrayed their foolishness, but little of their wisdom. They were content to be remembered for their mistakes and failures. That's what true greatness looks like. When many Christians think of the twelve apostles, perhaps most Christians, they think of them bickering over who would be the greatest. But when the time came, that is the very thing they didn't do.
The 12 worked together as a perfect team without any rivalry among them. They all recognized Peter as the lead apostle. Yet Peter never lorded it over the others. The twelve worked together in perfect harmony. Jesus had prayed that his church would all be one, and that's what he obtained through the work of the apostles. Yes, Jesus had chosen carefully, and he got exactly the type of man he needed to get the job done.
So it's for good reason that Jesus portrays his city, New Jerusalem, as having twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Francis of Assisi once said," What a man is before God is all he is, and nothing more." I don't think any man personified that statement more than the twelve. They knew where they stood with God. And that's all that mattered to them. Let others get the glory. Let other names be the famous ones.
They just quietly went about their work of establishing the Church of Jesus Christ throughout the whole world. And that is what true greatness looks like.