THE PRIESTS AND the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3They seized Peter and John, and because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 4But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.
5The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family. 7They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”
8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
“ ‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.’
12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16“What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. 17But 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.”
18Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. 20For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
21After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. 22For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.
Original Meaning
CHAPTER 4 MARKS the beginning of resistance to evangelism in the life of the church, a feature that has been true of her life during the twenty centuries that followed! Here, as at the outset of the ministry of Jesus, the Jewish people in general seem to have been favorable towards the church while the authorities are beginning to express hostility.
Peter and John Arrested (4:1–4)
THE WORD FOR “people” (laos) appears five times in a generally positive light just before and after Peter’s temple speech. As in the case of Jesus (Luke 19:47–48; 20:19; 21:38; 22:2), the popularity of the church with the people prevented the authorities from taking action against it. But soon, as with Jesus, the tide changed, so that by the time of Stephen’s death, the people also seem to have turned against the church. By the time of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, references to laos suddenly reappear (21:28, 30, 36, 39, 40), and the people cry for his death (21:36; 22:22). Chapter 4 records the first imprisonment in Acts; the book ends with Paul in prison. But God ultimately accomplishes his purposes, whether through imprisonment or miraculous release.1
Peter is seized by the priests (possibly the chief priests, who were all Sadducees), the captain of the temple guard (a powerful person who commanded the temple police force), and the Sadducees. They were particularly disturbed about the message of the resurrection (v. 2). To say that Christ rose would buttress the Pharisees’ teaching regarding the resurrection, which the Sadducees rejected. The trial, however, was before the whole Sanhedrin, which at that time consisted of “a mixture of the Sadducean nobility (priestly and lay) and pharisaic scholars.”2 They are deeply concerned, for “many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand” (v. 4). This growth is phenomenal, considering that women and children are not included in this accounting.3
Before the Sanhedrin (4:5–12)
THE NEXT DAY Peter and John are brought before the Sanhedrin (v. 6; cf. v. 15). Annas, who was actually the senior ex-high priest, and his son-in-law Caiaphas, the reigning high priest, are there. They had participated in the trial of Jesus some weeks before, but their hopes of getting rid of Jesus were short-lived. In a typical question that authorities ask when their position is threatened, they demand to know the source of the apostles’ “power” and “name” (i.e., authority, v. 7). Though they felt they had the authority over religious matters in the nation, they had neither power nor authority comparable to what these uneducated laymen had. In contrast to them is Peter, who has not only performed a miracle but who is now also “filled with the Holy Spirit” (v. 8). This is one of several instances in Acts where God’s servants are filled with the Holy Spirit in order to face a special challenge.4 We often call this anointing.
Though the disciples are technically on the defensive, they switch to an attacking position in their response to the Sanhedrin’s question.5 Peter replies, “It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed” (v. 10). Then he cites Psalm 118:22, which became a favorite text in the early church: “He is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone’ ” (v. 11).6 Israel is probably intended in this psalm. “But, as so often in the New Testament, God’s purpose for Israel finds its fulfillment in the single-handed work of Christ.”7
Then comes a proclamation of the absolute uniqueness of Christ as the only means of salvation (v. 12). The meaning of “saved” here has been debated, especially since the same Greek word (sozo) is used in verse 9 with the meaning “healed.” But the meaning here is closer to the way it is used in 2:40 (salvation from this perverse generation) and 2:47 (attachment to the people of God). Peter is referring here to a broader meaning than simple deliverance from sickness or birth defect (which may also be included here). He is talking about a change of status from being rebels to being accepted among God’s people.
Warned and Discharged (4:13–22)
THE MEMBERS OF the Sanhedrin are “astonished” at the courage of Peter and John, for they are “unschooled, ordinary men” (v. 13a). The word translated “unschooled” (agrammatos) carried the meaning “illiterate” in some papyri. But that is clearly not the meaning here or in John 7:15, where the word is used for Jesus. In this latter text it expresses surprise “that he could teach and discuss subjects which normally were beyond the scope of those who had not received a rabbinical education.”8 That seems to be the sense here as well. The word translated “ordinary” (idiotes) refers to “a person who has not acquired systematic information or expertise in some field of knowledge or activity,” thus yielding the meaning of layman or amateur.9
In other words, though Peter and John are professionally unqualified, they are boldly conducting their own defense with great eloquence before this august assembly. The Sanhedrin already knows that these men have been with Jesus. But this performance reminds them afresh how they have been influenced by Jesus, who also “taught . . . as one who had authority” (Mark 1:22). Jesus’ ministry once prompted the Jews to ask (John 7:15), “How did this man get such learning without having studied?” We can add to this Luke’s mention that Peter was filled with the Spirit here (Acts 4:8). Luke is thus describing effective ministry in the New Testament era: speaking out of the fullness of the Spirit and out of a knowledge of the Scriptures. The apostles have a boldness that comes from confidence about their message and empowerment by the Spirit.
After ordering Peter and John to leave the Sanhedrin, the Jewish leaders discuss the dilemma they are in, especially since no one can deny that an “outstanding miracle” had been performed (v. 16; cf. also v. 21: “They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened”). The only thing they can do is to command Peter and John “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (v. 18). The two apostles reply that they must obey God and “cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard”—words that have inspired persecuted Christians throughout the history of the church (vv. 19–20).
“What [they] have seen and heard” (i.e., the works and words of Jesus) was a message worthy of proclamation to the whole world. Loyalty to God and the nature of the message combine to give compelling reasons to disobey the command of the Sanhedrin. The question of civil disobedience is an important one today and will be discussed in our treatment of 5:29. Such is the dilemma of the Sanhedrin that even so bold a proclamation of defiance cannot bring about a punishment. All they can do is to threaten the apostles further and release them (v. 21).
Bridging Contexts
THE IMPORTANCE OF numbers. In verse 4 we encounter another of the numbers-related references to the growth of the church in Acts (see 2:41, 47; 5:14; 11:24). This implies that God is interested in numbers, though not as a badge of success, for that would yield a triumphalist attitude alien to the gospel. God’s interest in numbers is because they represent people who have been rescued from damnation and granted salvation. The individuals who make up the five thousand are beloved persons for whom Christ died. A minister, visiting a family in his congregation, noticed many children in the house. He asked the mother, “How many children do you have?” She began to count off on her fingers, “John, Mary, Lucy, David. . . .” The minister interrupted, “I don’t want their names, I just asked for the number.” The mother responded, “They have names, not numbers.”10 Numbers are important because they represent people.
The indispensability of suffering. We often hear people say that they would like to get back to the book of Acts and have a church just like that. But the view many have of this church is a romantic one. They think of a church that saw many miracles, much conversion, amazing unity, and Spirit-filled leadership. They forget that Acts also describes the troubles the church faced from within itself and without. The most consistent trouble mentioned is persecution.
After chapter 3 only three chapters in Acts do not mention persecution. This suggests that persecution may be a necessary part of the Christian life. Paul confirms this, “Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). Jesus himself said, “ ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also” (John 15:20). The truth of God is too radical for all people to respond to it passively. Some will oppose it and others will ignore it, but, thank God, some will take it to heart. Acts, then, challenges us to anticipate suffering as an indispensable ingredient of obedience to Christ.
Opposition from the religious leaders. The powerful people in Jewish society in New Testament times asked Peter and John, “By what power or what name [authority] did you do this?” (v. 7). Today too “the powers that be” will ask this of God’s faithful servants. They are often people without many earthly credentials (v. 13), for as Paul said, “Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong” (1 Cor. 1:26–27). The “wise” and the “strong” do not usually take this shame passively. They use their wisdom and strength to fight God’s people. Thus, as in Acts 4, when a new move of God appears that expresses his power and authority, it is often the ecclesiastical hierarchy that opposes it.
A new definition of significant service. In the eyes of the members of the Sanhedrin, Peter and John were not people from whom they expected something significant. Therefore, they expressed surprise, since Peter and John were unschooled, ordinary laymen. Several important indicators of significant service emerge in this passage.
• An anointing with the fullness of the Spirit (v. 8).
• Courage (v. 13). The noun translated “courage” (parresia) and its corresponding verb (parresiazomai) appear twelve times in Acts—generally in close association to preaching the gospel to Jews.11 The death and resurrection of Christ and his uniqueness as the source of salvation were offensive to the Jews, but the early Christians had the inner motivation to persist in this work. In today’s society we need a similar courage as we face similar challenges.
• The desire to use every opportunity to share the message of the gospel. Peter and John were being tried before a council, but their aim was not just to get off the hook. They used the opportunity to declare the gospel. This became a hallmark of Christian witness in Acts and in the history of the church. The gospel is such urgent news that we must use every opportunity we have; indeed, we must seek opportunities to get the message across.
• The nearness and similarity to Christ that Peter and John exhibited. Peter and John spoke with the boldness of Jesus, they performed miracles like Jesus, and they knew the Scriptures as Jesus knew them. The Sanhedrin took note that they had been with Jesus and presented that as the explanation for their unusual behavior (v. 13).
• Loyalty to God. Peter and John chose to obey God even if it meant incurring the wrath of the most powerful people of the time (vv. 19–20).
• Confidence over the gospel. Peter and John said that they had no choice but to share what they had “heard and seen” (v. 20)—the facts about the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and teaching of Christ (see 3:14–15). This was the heart of the basic kerygma. When we witness for Christ, we are witnessing to these objective facts. Unlike the apostles, we were not there when these events occurred, but we believe that they took place as recorded in the Gospels. The Gospels give us an impression that Jesus is unique and that the events of his life are of eternal consequence to the whole world. We believe this record, and thus twenty centuries later we can also affirm the uniqueness of the message of Christ.
The absence of formal theological education. The need for theological education, which usually appears in today’s criteria for selection of church leaders, is missing from this list. In fact, it is specifically stated that Peter and John lacked such education (v. 13). This raises the question as to whether formal theological education is necessary for usefulness in ministry. This will be discussed in some detail below.
One way to salvation. An aspect of the apostles’ confidence over the gospel is the concept that belief in the name of Jesus is the only way to salvation (v. 12). This is a biblical principle stated throughout the New Testament, though it is hotly contested in this pluralistic age.
Contemporary Significance
NUMBERS AND GROWTH today. In the Bible numbers are important because they represent people for whom Christ died. This approach to numbers stands in contrast with the triumphalist approach. If we are concerned primarily about numbers, we may be tempted to use wrong means to win people. We may lower our standards by watering down the gospel, not doing proper follow-through care, or not insisting on holiness. We may add unbiblical features to our gospel or indulge in sheep-stealing, evangelistic bribery, or manipulation. Some consider these acceptable methods to use in the marketplace and in society in general. Recently my wife and I listened to an audio version of a best-selling book on husband-wife relationships, which recommended methods of winning one’s spouse over that sounded like dishonest manipulation.12 Living in such an environment, we may be tempted to accept such means as acceptable to make our churches grow numerically.
But when we use such methods, we can easily end up with fat but unhealthy churches. This is a danger in the megachurches of today. They can have members who get lost in the crowd and do not really partake in Christian community. I know of some churches that have a policy of dividing and starting a daughter church the moment they get to a certain size (e.g., four hundred members), in order to maintain the family atmosphere that is essential to Christian fellowship. The early church overcame these pitfalls and ensured spiritual accountability by having the members break up into smaller house groups (2:46) and by observing strict discipline in the church (5:1–11). Effective megachurches must have numerous small groups, which are the real local churches where true Christian fellowship and accountability are practiced.
Some churches reject any emphasis on numbers, saying that we are called to be faithful, not successful, and that God wants quality, not quantity. There is truth to this. Some are called to work in resistant fields, which need a faithful witness for a considerable period of time before people open up to the gospel. Once it opens up, there may be a huge harvest. I have heard about one saintly missionary who worked faithfully in an area for two decades without any visible conversions. After his death another missionary replaced him and experienced a remarkable turning to the Lord. When the people were asked why they had not come to Christ during the lifetime of that great missionary, they replied that the missionary had told them that Christians are not afraid of death and that they needed to see him die before they could accept his message. An overemphasis on numbers would have caused this man to become discouraged and give up.
On the other hand, thinking about many people coming to Christ is part of our faithfulness, for Christ has commanded us to go to all nations and bring as many as we can to salvation. Paul manifested this perspective when he wrote, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). Many groups who claim that they are being faithful and committed to quality are not willing to change their styles of ministry and do things that they are uncomfortable with so as to reach as many as possible. Naturally, then, they do not see much growth. But that is not because of faithfulness. Rather, they are being unfaithful to the Great Commission, which calls for incarnational evangelism, of making ourselves nothing (Phil. 2:7), and of going into the world in the same sacrificial way as Jesus did (John 20:21). Their faithfulness is to their tradition, not to the gospel of Christ.
Suffering in an aspirin age. If, as we said, suffering and persecution are indispensable features of Christianity, why are so many Christians not suffering and being persecuted today? Is it because they have not taken up the cross of Christ? As the cross is what we suffer because of our commitment to Christ, all Christians should be suffering for Christ. Yet it is possible to avoid this suffering by refusing to take a stand for Christ when we should. In this pluralistic age it is considered against proper etiquette and politically incorrect to insist on the validity of one’s views when it comes to certain issues, especially moral and religious issues. We as believers must not adopt such an attitude since we know that the light of Christ is opposed to the darkness of the world.
Here are some Christian beliefs and practices that can arouse hostility today: evangelism with conversion in view; insistence that practicing homosexuality and abortion and consuming pornography are wrong; a pattern of showing active love and compassion to homosexuals, AIDS patients, prostitutes, outcasts, and other people shunned by the church; opposition to all forms of injustice and exploitation; and insistence that doctrines that contradict the clear teachings of the Bible are heresies and must be rooted out of the church. When faced with wrong ideas and practices, some do nothing to express their opposition. They want to be known as nice people, and they will certainly not be persecuted. Yet as someone has said, “Nice guys have no cutting edge.” They do little eternal service to humanity.
Thus, we must not fear persecution. Rather, we must seek to be faithful and guard against the temptation to tone down our gospel so that we too become respectable and avoid persecution. Many older, established churches have done this. They have downplayed the uniqueness of Christianity and beliefs that go against the grain of this pluralistic society. They have, as a result, been able to maintain their respectability in society, but they have lost their power and vitality. They have stopped growing, and their places as standard-bearers of the kingdom have been taken by others. Some conservative churches have stopped opposing injustice and maintained their respectability with the authorities, but by so doing they have betrayed Christ.
That suffering is a basic ingredient of the Christian life is confirmed by the fact that it occurs so often in the Bible. When Paul described both the justified life and the Spirit-filled life in Romans, he immediately went on to deal with the problem of suffering, which is an inherent part of that life (Rom. 5:3–5; 8:17–39). Luke has a significant summary of Paul’s teaching during the last lap of his first missionary journey: “Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. ‘We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,’ they said” (14:21b–22). The call to suffer must be a basic part of the follow-through care of new converts (see comment on 14:22).
We must remember that Jesus predicted what the disciples encountered in this episode. Shortly before his death he told them that they would stand before councils and rulers (Mark 13:9) and would be given the words to speak at such times (13:11). The fact that it had been predicted so accurately must have been a source of both comfort and strength to them. If new believers are not warned about and prepared for suffering, they may get disillusioned when they face it and wonder whether they have been deceived by those who led them to Christ. This is especially important since much of evangelistic proclamation today focuses on the blessings of salvation, such as eternal life, forgiveness, freedom, joy, peace, healing, significance, and purpose. Too many people view Christianity without including the blessing of suffering. Indeed, in the Bible suffering is presented as a blessing (Rom. 5:3–5; Phil. 1:29–30; James 1:2–4).
We live in an age that gives much attention to mastering the art of avoiding suffering. We live in what may be called an “aspirin generation,” which views pain and suffering as calamities that are to be avoided at all costs. In this climate, Christians are tempted to avoid the cross through disobedience. We must help redeem suffering, so that Christians will learn to think biblically about it and anticipate the rich harvest of blessing that it yields. That will remove a lot of the “sting” of suffering. Then Christians can follow the biblical admonition to “consider it pure joy . . . whenever you face trials of many kinds” (James 1:2).
Facing opposition from religious leaders. Often when there is a special move of God in the church, the religious leaders are the ones who oppose it. They are the ones in authority, but these upstarts seem to be having more authority with the people, and the new movement has unprecedented popularity. This places the leaders in a dilemma, and usually they respond by stamping down their authority and appealing to tradition to proscribe or criticize the movement. Some of the greatest opponents of renewal movements within the church have been its leaders.
We must, therefore, not be overly disillusioned when criticism and persecution come our way from those who should be encouraging us the most. Parents, whose children’s lives are transformed for the better through a youth movement, may oppose the movement as they fear that their authority will be undermined and their hypocrisy exposed. Our best efforts may be discounted on technicalities by those who do not like what we say or are threatened by our message. For example, a powerful message through song, drama, or speech may be discounted because it took too long. To our acts of deepest sacrifice selfish motives will be attributed.
When the sixty-six-year-old Methodist leader Thomas Coke (1747–1814) announced that he had been called by God to take the gospel to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), people accused him of being senile and of trying to build his personal kingdom. But he persisted and left for Ceylon with a band of young missionaries. He died before he reached our shores. But the young missionaries, inspired by his vision, came and preached the gospel, and people like me are in the kingdom as a fruit of their labors.13
Significant ministry today. Each of the six features of significant service we listed above is significant today. Perhaps an anointing with the fullness of the Spirit (v. 8) is the most important indicator, for in all significant service God is the one who does the work. Many prominent ministries may result in being burned up as wood, hay, and straw at the Day of Judgment (1 Cor. 3:11–15). It is possible to judge a ministry by the volume, status, and the prominence of the work it does. This can seduce us into giving ourselves to so much busy activity that we ignore the primary task of ensuring that God’s anointing is with us. We may even use our work to cover up a sense of spiritual inadequacy.
The second and third features were courage (v. 13) and the desire to use every opportunity to share the gospel message. Though the gospel was offensive to the Jews, the first Christians had the inner motivation to persist in this work. In an effort to maintain respectability, we can be tempted to jettison some of the aspects of the gospel that are offensive to the world. This happened in Sri Lanka after it received independence from the British in 1948. Many within the established churches maintained their respectability with the Buddhist hierarchy by refusing to insist on the uniqueness of Christianity. One of the results has been a loss of fire in these churches, and with that also a loss of members. A key to maintaining a vibrant witness in an environment hostile to the gospel is courage.
Enthusiastic Christians are sometimes criticized for the foolhardy way in which they present their witness and sometimes turn people away from the gospel. Yet many of those who level these criticisms do no witnessing themselves. I have seen many people converted through witnesses with a lot of boldness and not much wisdom. An effective witness will not emerge from one who has never ventured to speak up for Christ.
Many factors can help those who lack boldness to witness. One is the realization of the urgency of the gospel—that people are lost without Christ. Another is prayer—asking God to give us opportunities for witness and to help us when the opportunities arise. A third is involvement in a witnessing community. Though we may be afraid to speak when alone, the presence of another Christian with us can increase our courage (note how Jesus sent his disciples out two by two). Even when we are alone, the knowledge that we belong to a witnessing community that expects its members to witness acts as a motivation to take the first steps in a witnessing situation—and the first steps are often the hardest.
All this may give the impression that we are under a huge bondage that mandates a bold witness even though we do not want to witness. All I can say in response to that is that though I am often afraid to witness boldly, and though my witness is sometimes triggered more by a sense of duty than of love for the individual, I have always felt a great joy whenever I have witnessed. Is not this a means by which the love of God flows through us? Are we not sharing the greatest news there is to share? Ultimately, it is not a burden; it is a sheer delight!
The fourth characteristic is the nearness to the Spirit of Christ. This comes by spending time at the feet of the Master—learning from his Word, praying, and going out with him to serve. We tend to become like those with whom we spend extended time. A girl came to her pastor and said that she thought she was filled with the Spirit, but she did not see the fruit of the Spirit in her life. He asked her what type of devotional life she had. She said, “Hit and miss.” He asked, “Do you have your meals that way?” She said, “I did once, and I nearly lost my health.” She got the message! If she wanted to be like Jesus, she had to be with Jesus.
Coupled with spending time with Jesus should be a deep desire to be like him (Phil. 3:10–14). This is the aspiration that Jesus advocated in the Beatitudes: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matt. 5:6). Such aspiration comes from a passion for Christ. Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf (1700–1760), the founder of the Moravians, had as his motto: “I have one passion only: It is he! It is he!”
The fifth characteristic of significant service is loyalty to God, even at a risk to personal safety. H. G. Wells has said, “The trouble with so many people is that the voice of their neighbors sounds louder in their ears than the voice of God.”14 William Barclay refers to a tribute once paid to the Scottish reformer John Knox (1514–1572): “He feared God so much that he never feared the face of any man.”15 An incident from the life of D. L. Moody well expresses the attitude we should have. When he was young, an Irish friend named Henry Varley told him, “Moody, the world has yet to see what God will do with a man fully consecrated to him.” Moody was startled by the statement. He kept thinking about it for days. He reasoned: “A man! Varley meant any man. Varley didn’t say he had to be educated, or brilliant, or anything else. Just a man. Well, by the Holy Spirit in me, I’ll be that man.”16 This is passion: loyalty to God.
The final characteristic is confidence over the gospel, which comes through our confidence in the Gospel records of the life and work of Christ. When one’s belief in the trustworthiness of this record goes, along with it goes belief in the uniqueness of Christ. This is how “Christian” pluralists today can sustain their doctrine. They believe that the record of the life, work, and teaching of Christ in the Gospels contains subjective reflections of devotees of Christ, not historically accurate records. In this way they are able to discard the teachings that present the uniqueness of Christ by claiming that Jesus himself did not say such things.
We must always distinguish between testimony and evangelism. Testimony is a powerful tool in evangelism. The healing of the cripple helped the witness of Peter and John by being evidence of what God had done. Today, too, testimony is effective in commending Christ. It is difficult to argue against (vv. 14, 16), and it opens doors for the proclamation of the gospel. But testimony is not the gospel. The gospel primarily has to do with what Jesus did in history for the world and how it can impact us today. Note that people of other faiths may be able to have experiences similar to ours, but in no other faith do we find Christ. Roy Clements says, “Testimony is telling people what Jesus has done for me in my personal experience, but evangelism is telling people what Jesus has done for the world in history.”17
Is theological education necessary for preaching? The fact that uneducated laymen like Peter and John were used so powerfully makes us ask the question whether theological education is really necessary for a preaching ministry. There is likewise a great line of preachers in the history of the church who did not have any formal education—for example, powerful early Methodist preachers like Billy Bray, and in more recent times people like Charles Spurgeon, D. L. Moody, Campbell Morgan, “Gypsy” Smith, and A. W. Tozer. The so-called Third World has a host of powerful preachers who are not known outside their own nations because they do not write books and thus go unnoticed by the Western Christian media. Those people, however, are mighty in the Scriptures. Anyone who seeks to be used of God should be a careful student of the Word—but you do not need to go to seminary for that.
Seminaries, however, can be a great aid to the church. We must not forget that Peter and John were discipled (or mentored) by Jesus. He taught them through his life and teaching, so that when the Sanhedrin heard them, they took note that they had been with Jesus. They lived with him for three and one-half years—more credit hours of study than a basic seminary degree! Paul did the same thing with his “traveling Bible school,” where he taught his younger assistants.
And this is what a seminary should seek to do: to have teachers who will mentor students by being with them and teaching them, just as Jesus did with his disciples. If teachers fail in this regard, then the seminary fails in its task of preparing men and women for ministry. Some teachers do little personal work, though a seminary is rife with students needing personal counsel. Though the heart of ministry is working through committed teams, these teachers do not model team ministry in the way they relate to other members of the faculty. This type of seminary we do not need. A seminary where the teachers truly mentor the students can become a great asset to the church by sending out effective men and women.
As I think of my seminary experience, the thing that stands out most is the effect the lives of my professors had on me. Their godliness, their commitment to careful scholarship—especially the care they showed in the study of the Scriptures—their honesty, the time they gave to counsel and pray with me, their refusal to accept shoddy arguments, their commitment to excellence, and their letting me accompany them when they went out to preach have all left an abiding influence on my life.
When I arrived in Pasadena, California, for graduate studies, with fear and trembling I phoned the advisor assigned to me for my studies, Dr. Daniel Fuller. He had sent me a stern letter about the academic requirements for the course I was pursuing (Th.M. in New Testament). Thus, I was not eagerly looking forward to working with him! He came to the campus a few minutes after I called, talked with me—more about myself than about the studies I was to do—and prayed with me. His academic demands were high, but so was his concern for my personal welfare. He became a father to me, and his personal concern for me persists to this day.
No other name? Peter’s claim that salvation is only through the name of Jesus (4:12), grates against the prevalent pluralistic mood in society. The church has responded to this in different ways. The first response is pluralism. Theologians like John Hick and Paul Knitter hold that while Christ may be unique to Christians, his is not an absolute uniqueness that applies to adherents of other faiths. They put Christ on par with the founders of other religions and claim that Christianity and the other faiths are “equals in the universe of faiths.”18 The pluralist denies that Acts 4:12 can be applied to all persons.
The second response is called inclusivism. While accepting the basic proposition that all those who are saved are saved only through the work of Christ, they add that Christ can save through means other than explicit belief in the gospel. To put it in theological language, Christ is the ontological19 ground of salvation—that is, salvation is grounded in Christ—but his gospel is not necessarily the only epistomological20 means of salvation—that is, salvation does not necessarily require the knowledge of Jesus’ name.
This approach was pioneered by Roman Catholic theologians like Karl Rahner and Raimundo Panikkar and popularized by Hans Küng. They extended the Catholic view that salvation is through the sacraments (like baptism and the Eucharist) to include the “sacraments” of other religions, like almsgiving and meditation. They claimed that in each case Christ is the one who saves these devotees of other religions. They are called “anonymous Christians,” and their faiths are called the “ordinary” ways to salvation whereas the gospel is the “very special and extraordinary” way to salvation.21 A modification of this approach has been seen in the Protestant orbit through the writings of Sir Norman Anderson and, more radically, of John Sanders and Clark Pinnock, who state that those who repent of their sin and place their trust in what they know to be God do indeed exhibit what the Bible describes as saving faith.22
The traditional view is called exclusivism or particularism, which holds that explicit faith in Christ is a necessary implication of the verse that only in the name of Jesus is salvation found. This has been argued by scholars such as Ramesh Richard, Ronald Nash, D. A. Carson, Douglas Geivett, and Gary Phillips. They show that the Bible in general teaches that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and that Acts 4:12 necessarily implies that too.23 We should also mention that some, like Lesslie Newbigin, prefer an attitude of agnosticism on this issue. Such scholars do not want to venture into speculations about the results of the final judgment and refuse to answer the question of whether those who have never heard the gospel can be saved.24
It is beyond the scope of this book to go into a detailed study of this controversial issue.25 Pinnock’s main argument on Acts 4:12 is that it does not address the issue of what will happen to those who have not heard the gospel. He says that exclusivists read into this text the doctrines that they hold but which are not implied in this text: “I would claim the silence of the text in defense of my interpretation. It does not demand restrictive exclusivism.”26
This view calls for some response.27 The first half of verse 12, “Salvation is found in no one else” could perhaps be confined to an ontological interpretation, if considered alone. But the second part seems to eliminate that interpretation: “for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” The word “must” in the second part is related to the “name.” Peter is saying that everyone in the world must be saved only by the name of Jesus. The word “must” (dei) emphasizes necessity; a response to this name is needed.
Ten of the thirty-two occurrences of the “name” of the Lord in Acts appear in Acts 2–4. In all those except 4:12, it is clear that conscious acknowledgment of the name is implied. This is equally true for most of the other occurrences in Acts. In his speech at the temple prior to his arrest, Peter said, “By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see” (3:16). Thus, we can conclude with Geivett and Phillips that here Peter “is indicating what must be acknowledged about Jesus before one can be saved.”28
A common objection to this uncompromising affirmation of the absolute uniqueness of Christ is that it is sheer arrogance to maintain this in light of the treasures of religious insight that are found in other faiths. In response, we must say that arrogance has to do with attitudes of individuals and that those who understand the gospel cannot possibly have an arrogant attitude. To accept the gospel is to admit that we cannot help ourselves and that Christ alone can help us. In other words, to accept the gospel we must rid ourselves of arrogance. When we find this salvation, we are filled with gratitude to God for what he has done. Arrogance focuses on oneself while gratitude focuses on someone else. We dare not say that we are better that anyone else, for we know that we do not deserve salvation. But we dare to say that Jesus is the only way because we know that he can perform the impossible task of saving unworthy persons like us. We conclude with a statement by the Dutch missiologist, Hendrik Kraemer (1888–1965):
Inspired by this biblical realism, the attitude toward non-Christian religions is a remarkable combination of downright intrepidity [that is, daring or courage] and of radical humility. Radical humility because the missionary and through him the Christian Church is the bringer of a divine gift, not something of his making and achievement; and what he has received for nothing. Downright intrepidity, because the missionary is the bearer of a message, the witness to a divine revelation, not his discovery, but God’s act.29