Ancient Truth: Acts Note

In the process of editing my commentary on Acts, I ran into a spot where it seemed essential to explain a bit of theological background. At the end of my notes on Chapter 13, I added this paragraph:

It becomes necessary to note here what Paul is doing. While early in her history the Nation of Israel understood the Law of Moses was largely a ritual expression of much higher truth, that understanding was quickly lost. They made the rituals and trappings into a false god. Any attempt to draw mankind into redemption from the Fall through such a system was entirely too fragile; a critical part of God’s revelation was proving that point. Mankind at his best was incapable of keeping a firm grip on what was utterly necessary to return to God. Instead of using the long hard path of human conditioning as the means to standing people in the place to hear from God, the Lord was granting a direct connection first, then allowing humanity to go back and learn what was essential in this world for living out the implications of that redemption. Those essentials were far hinted at in the Law of Moses, and Jesus’ teaching clarified the situation greatly. He then implemented the new requirements by offering the final sacrifice to end the ritual necessities, even as it raised the moral standards to a much higher level. Both the higher moral demands, and the reduction of ritual necessity were a major threat to the corrupted system which Judaism had become, far distant and greatly abstracted from the original religion of the Old Testament. Paul was attacking the corrupt Judaism, not the original revelation of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In his unique position, holding what amounts to a PhD in Judaism, then learning in depth the teachings of Jesus as corrective, Paul was attacking religious corruption. Perceptive readers will note what was wrong there and then is echoed so broadly in every failure of religion throughout human history. We see it even in the civic religion of Americans today. Granted, we could debate endlessly what is truly in the best interests of human beings, and we always will. A great many would find much worthy of objection in the religion I propose using such terms as the Law of Noah or the broader Laws of God and so forth. However, the underlying principle remains the same: It’s wrong to abuse authority.
Even as we note human life is impossible without some sort of coordination, that someone gaining authority over others is inevitable, that authority must serve the purpose of promoting life. Religion is properly defined as the behavioral manifestations, often as a system, of pursuit of spiritual or eternal issues. Religious leadership is a form of human authority. It is morally repugnant people should gain it unjustly and abuse it. Anyone seeking to lead others, particularly in religious pursuits, have to make their case. I can’t make my case through an honest accounting of what I understand, I have failed.
Self-deception is no excuse for an obvious moral failure.