THE APOSTLES PERFORMED many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. 13No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. 14Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. 15As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. 16Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed.
17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20“Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people the full message of this new life.”
21At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.
When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23“We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.
25Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
27Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
40His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.
Original Meaning
THE THEME OF the triumph of the gospel amidst adversity, which began in chapter 4, continues here. Each time God intervenes and the gospel moves forward. The first time that opposition from the authorities threatened the progress of the gospel, God intervened by shaking the place where the disciples were and giving them a special anointing with his Spirit (4:31). That emboldened them to speak the word of God boldly. Then, when the purity of the church was threatened from within, God intervened through the prophetic insight of Peter, which resulted in judgment (5:1–11). This is followed by an effective miraculous and evangelistic ministry (5:12–16). When trouble comes again from the authorities, God intervenes again, this time through a Jewish authority named Gamaliel (5:17–41). Our passage ends with a report that public and personal evangelism went on incessantly (5:42).
Continuing Power (5:12–16)
THE FEAR THAT came on the people as a result of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (v. 11) did not reduce the evangelistic effectiveness of the apostles. They continued to minister in the miraculous (v. 12) and to reap an evangelistic harvest (v. 14). Their ministry in the miraculous intensified (vv. 15–16). The sick stayed out on the streets just to have Peter’s shadow to fall on them, and people were coming from neighboring towns as well. This is the nearest we have in the Bible to a modern-day healing campaign. Luke may be suggesting that the intensifying of signs and wonders indicated God’s approval of the painful act of purifying the church in 5:1–11.
The emphasis on miracles, however, did not result in a situation where the gospel was cheapened and large numbers came into the church only for miracles. Though Christians were held in high esteem, people were reluctant to join the church (v. 13). They realized that “the awesome power of the Spirit that judges also demands commitment and responsibility.”1 Still, “more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number” (v. 14). The church did not lower its standards in order to win the lost.
The Apostles Arrested, Tried, and Beaten (5:17–40)
IT IS NOT surprising that, with such spectacular ministry by the apostles, the Jewish leaders “were filled with jealousy” (v. 17). The success of the apostles upset the peace that reigned in the community as these leaders lost their power and control over the people. They had to respond with a corresponding show of power. As often happens, they used political power to attack the church rather than spiritual power (v. 18). Yet their plans are foiled through an angelic rescue (v. 19).
Angels appear often in Acts, giving directions (8:26; 10:3) or words of encouragement (27:23), delivering God’s people from prison (5:19; 12:7–11), and judging the wicked (12:23). Here the angel not only delivers the apostles from prison but also encourages them in fulfilling their call by giving a fresh commission (v. 20). He knows that they might be tempted to compromise their witness in this situation. Thus the commission is clear: “Go, stand in the temple courts,” the very center of the Jewish faith, and “tell the people the full message,” that is, “holding nothing back (out of fear, or tact?).”2
In instances of threat and danger in Acts, the key word from God concerns boldness in witness (4:29–31; 18:9–11; 23:11). Three times in this passage the evangelistic ministry of the apostles is described with the verb “teach” (didasko, vv. 21, 25, 28).3 There must have been a major emphasis on the content—the truth—of the gospel. Truth is communicated through what the Bible describes as preaching and teaching.
In the meantime, the meeting of “the full assembly of the elders” (i.e., the Sanhedrin) is ready to begin, but the prisoners are missing (vv. 21–23). The puzzled officials are then informed that they “are standing in the temple courts teaching the people” (vv. 24–25). The captain of the temple guard4 himself goes to rearrest them. It is ironic that those who probably had wanted to stone the apostles for blasphemy are now afraid that they themselves will be stoned by the people.5 Consequently, “they did not use force” (v. 26b). This time all the apostles are brought before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest (v. 27). They are accused of disobeying the orders to stop teaching and of making the Jewish hierarchy “guilty of this man’s blood” (v. 28). It is possible that they said this because they were fearing a popular uprising.6
“Peter and the other apostles” (v. 29) reply to the Sanhedrin. Presumably, “Peter was the spokesman for the group . . . with the others in some way indicating their agreement”7 (cf. 2:14). The Christian community is solidly unified. Peter’s opening statement about obeying “God rather than men” (5:29) is reminiscent of his closing statement during his previous trial (4:19–20); he is willing to die rather than disobey his Lord. Later he will say that the Holy Spirit is “given to those who obey him” (v. 32). His obedience gives him a credibility that qualifies him later on to write to the church about obedience (see 1 Peter 1:2, 14, 22; 3:1, 6; 4:17).
The response given to the Sanhedrin is recorded in summary form here. Once again the apostles do not give what would be expected of a defense at a trial. Rather, they witness to the facts of the gospel (vv. 30–32; cf. 4:8–12). The kerygma is even more clearly explained here than in chapter 4.
• As always, Peter gives an introduction arising from the particular situation (v. 29). The apostles are responding to the question of the high priest about their defiance of his order not to teach in the name of Jesus (v. 28).
• Next the facts of Christ are presented, beginning with, “The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead” (v. 30a). The words “from the dead” have been added by the NIV translators, though this may not be the intended meaning. The expression “the God of our fathers” reminds the hearers of the great acts of God in Israel’s history. Peter may be proclaiming that God has raised up Jesus as the Messiah, just as he had raised up other deliverers throughout Israel’s history.8
• Then comes a reference to Jesus’ death: “whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree” (v. 30b; cf. also 10:39; 1 Peter 2:24). The idea of hanging on a tree probably alludes to Deuteronomy 21:23, which pronounces a curse for one who hangs on a tree. The early Christians applied this text to the death of Jesus. By the time Peter wrote his first letter he had developed the theological significance of the tree more fully: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24). Paul developed this theme further: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree’ ” (Gal. 3:13; cf. Acts 13:29). Before Jewish audiences (for whom the cross is a scandal), the apostles typically did not hide Jesus’ death but presented it as a triumph of God planned long ago.
• If verse 30a does not refer to the resurrection, then the resurrection is not mentioned in Luke’s summary of this speech. It is, however, implied in Peter’s next statement about Jesus’ exaltation: “God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior” (v. 31). How important the exaltation was to early Christian preaching (2:33–35; 3:20–21; 4:11), and how strange is our comparative neglect of this theme in our evangelistic preaching!
• Next comes the offer of salvation. As a result of Jesus’ exaltation, not only forgiveness but also repentance is given by Christ (v. 31b). Repentance is triggered through the hearing of the Word, which brings the conviction of sin. But this act is not done by our own efforts; the grace to repent is given by Christ (v. 31b). Though Calvinists and Arminians may differ over the possibility of resisting the saving grace of God, they will agree, if they seek to be biblical, that the ability to respond to grace is a gift from God.
• Peter then buttresses his points about Christ by claiming, “We are witnesses of these things” (v. 32a). This is unique to the apostles. But as we noted in our study of the sermon in Acts 2, we too can have the same confidence of the apostles if the facts recorded in the New Testament about Christ and his resurrection are historically true. We believe that there is sufficient evidence for that claim.
• Finally, Peter insists that the Holy Spirit is also a witness and that he has been given to those who are obedient (v. 32b). In other words, the Spirit’s witness is made through believers. As F. F. Bruce puts it, the disciples were “indwelt and possessed by the Spirit to such a degree that they were his organs of expression.”9
The fury and wish for capital punishment of the Sanhedrin (v. 33) is tempered by the comments of Gamaliel (vv. 34–40). He was the greatest teacher of his era and was considered the embodiment of Pharisaism. The apostles’ miracles and escape from prison presumably made him suspect that God might indeed be blessing this new movement. Therefore he advocates caution and restraint. He is confident that God will sovereignly show in history whether this movement is of him or not. Gamaliel feared that by opposing it, they may be opposing God himself (vv. 38–39). Bruce has shown that this advice is a reflection of sound Pharisaic doctrine. The rabbis believed that “men may disobey God, but his will would triumph notwithstanding. The will of men was not fettered, but what they willed would be overruled by God for the accomplishment of his own purposes.”10 This advice persuades the Sanhedrin to drop their intentions of capital punishment, but it does not prevent a sound flogging of the apostles (v. 40).
After the Beating (5:41–42)
INCREDIBLY, THE APOSTLES rejoice over their flogging, because “they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name” (v. 41). This is an oxymoron:11 The disgrace was an indicator of their worth, so they felt honored by the dishonor! “Their suffering allowed them to demonstrate their loyalty” to Christ.12 We see here a new dimension in the exposition on suffering, a major subtheme of Acts: To suffer for Christ is an honor that causes joy.
Our passage closes with the report of the incessant witness of the church (v. 42). Luke may be employing a Greek rhetorical construction called chiasm (inverted parallelism) here. This is the arrangement of the parallel members of a literary unit to form an a-b-b′-a′ arrangement:
a in the temple courts
b and from house to house
b′ teaching
a′ and proclaiming
If this is the case, the proclamation was done in the temple courts and the teaching from house to house. Since this report of incessant evangelistic activity comes immediately after the report of the beating that the apostles received, it seems as if Luke wants to point out that, far from reducing evangelism, the beating resulted in increased evangelistic intensity.
Bridging Contexts
IDENTIFICATION, HOLINESS, AND power in evangelism. The background for the effective evangelism described in verse 14 is significant. Peter had presented an unpleasant message of judgment on Ananias and Sapphira, which resulted in their deaths and in great fear coming on everyone (5:3–11). Because of this awesome holiness that characterized the life of the church, we are told that “no one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people” (v. 13). Nevertheless, Luke goes on to say, “more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number” (v. 14). This should give us courage to persevere in presenting the unpleasant aspects of the faith, just as Peter did.
Our identification with people’s needs brings us close to them, but our holiness separates us from them. The end result of holiness is a restlessness among people as they realize we are different from them. Some will keep their distance (v. 13), some will oppose us (vv. 17–18), but some will be attracted to the difference and will respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit by turning away from their past life in repentance to receive eternal life from Christ (v. 14).
The expression of God’s holiness also led to his power manifested in the church through healings (vv. 15–16). A church that is pure but is powerless is an unattractive church. Along with an emphasis on God’s holiness we must always see to it that there is also the experience of the fullness and power of the Spirit. This theme appears so often in Acts that it bears repeating. By contrast, a church that emphasizes the power of God but has no corresponding holiness reaps a scandalous dishonor to Christ. Thus, a threefold emphasis of identification (meeting people at their point of need), power (ministering in the power of the Spirit), and holiness (expressing God’s hatred for sin) must characterize our evangelistic ministries.
Miraculous deliverances. This passage gives us an instance of a miraculous deliverance through the medium of an angel (vv. 19–20). This does not always happen in our lives. What we learn from this passage is that God can deliver us if he wishes; our task is to obey his call. That is what we must concentrate on and leave the rest in the hands of God.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego expressed this attitude when King Nebuchadnezzar threatened to throw them into the fiery furnace if they refused to obey him. He told them, “Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?” (Dan. 3:15). The three men replied, “If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king” (3:17). But knowing that God may not do this, they added, “But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up” (3:18). Miraculous deliverance or not, our primary responsibility is to be obedient to God.
Obeying God rather than human beings. Can we make an abiding principle out of Peter’s proclamations that the apostles are willing to disobey the authorities in order to please God (4:19; 5:29)? Many Christians have abused these verses by claiming that their selfish desires were God’s will and have disobeyed authorities in order to satisfy those desires. Yet there are plenty of scriptural examples of acceptable disobedience. In addition to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (cf. above), Daniel refused to stop praying to Yahweh when it became illegal (Dan. 6). Yet we must be cautious about coming to absolute rules from statements that may in fact be limited in application by their particular contexts. We should look to all Scripture for guidance.
The Bible does command us to be subject to governing authorities. Peter himself says, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13–14). This teaching is given in more detail in Romans 13, where Paul says that governing authorities have been established by God and we should therefore submit to them (Rom. 13:1–2). He specifically mentions the giving of taxes, revenue, respect, and honor (13:7). Even though Paul had suffered an unjust punishment from the state in Philippi (Acts 16:37), he sought to work within the structure of government. He may have even tried to win for Christianity a place as a legally accepted religion (religio licita).13 A. A. Rupprecht has pointed out that “underlying all of Luke’s narrative is . . . Paul’s careful adherence to the Roman law.”14
By the time Revelation was written, however, the state had become hostile to God and his people (see Rev. 13), so that John expresses a different attitude toward the state.15 John Stott shows that in Romans 13, “the God-ordained purpose of the power they [that is, government authorities] have been given is to promote good and punish evil.” Stott asks, “What shall we do, then, when they use it rather to punish good and promote evil?” He answers, “We must resist. ‘Civil disobedience’ is a biblical concept.” Stott argues that “since the state’s authority has been delegated to it by God, we are to submit to it right up to the point where obedience to the state would involve disobedience to God. At that point it is our Christian duty to disobey the state in order to obey God.”16 Everett Harrison sees significance in the fact that in Romans 13, “Paul avoids saying that the Christian is to obey the state; instead, he says, ‘Be subject’ (13:1, 3). . . . This leaves room for the superior relationship, the ultimate authority, as alone worthy of implicit obedience.”17
Incessant evangelism. This whole passage pulsates with the urgency of the evangelistic task. The apostles are arrested for evangelizing (v. 18). But after their miraculous release the angel tells them to go to the center of Jewish religion, the temple, and proclaim “the full message”; they are not to give in to the temptation to compromise it (v. 20). The divine encouragement to persist in witness in spite of threats is a recurrent theme in Acts (4:31; 18:9–10; 23:11). This not only shows how important witness is, but also that people need constant encouragement, for it is easy to lose passion for evangelism, especially in the face of opposition.
When the apostles are rearrested and asked to explain their actions, they use the opportunity to proclaim the message, not try to secure a release (vv. 29–39). This method of witness has been used throughout history. Christianity is a religion with a message, a message so important that it simply must be shared to all who live on earth. God’s salvation in Christ is the answer of the Creator of the world to its basic problems. If it is that urgent, then every human being should be told this good news. Thus, when people bring us to trial for preaching, we must explain God’s message. Both Stephen and Paul did this when they were brought to trial (7:2–53; 24:25; 26:2–29).
Evangelism also influences our attitude toward success on earth. From Acts it is clear that suffering is an essential feature of effective evangelism. In this passage the suffering of shame (flogging is a humiliating experience) because of faithful witness is an honor worth rejoicing about (v. 41). What the world considers as failure we may consider as success if it furthers the cause of evangelism and, as here, demonstrates our loyalty to Christ. We must always look at life with evangelistic eyes and be incessantly involved in evangelism. Even if we are brought to trial, we must use it as an opportunity to witness for Christ. If we are dishonored because of evangelism, we can view that dishonor as a great honor.
Gamaliel’s wisdom. For twenty centuries the church has been grateful to Gamaliel for his advice (vv. 35–39). God used it to help the church continue its work of evangelism. This prominent Pharisee advised caution about condemning people (v. 35). He faced the situation from the perspective of God’s sovereignty (v. 39) and regarded seriously the possible evidences of God’s stamp of approval upon the church (vv. 38–39). He expressed fear that the Sanhedrin’s decision might go against God’s will through their zeal for their own interpretation of the truth (v. 39). All these are principles that we can use today.
But should we always follow the principle that if a group succeeds in the long run, it must be of God? Not always. Scripture contains many essential truths. If a movement contradicts those truths, it is wrong even if it grows. God may not be the one causing its success. It may be Satan, or brilliant strategizing, or the fact that this group addresses the felt needs of the people. The recent growth of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Muslims does not indicate God’s approval of those movements, for they refuse to accept basic tenets of God’s revelation.
Of course, every movement on earth will have its shortcomings. We ourselves are often guilty of errors of judgment. Thus, we do not oppose a movement simply because we do not agree on all beliefs and practices. But if it contradicts basic truths, we must oppose it, even though it may grow rapidly and show evidence of miraculous power and wholesome living.
We should add here that there is an attitude that Gamaliel expressed toward the gospel that we clearly should not follow. He did not make a commitment about Christ. Instead, he waited to see what would happen. As far as we know, Gamaliel himself died waiting to see whether the Christian movement was really of God. The call of the gospel is to respond to God’s voice today (2 Cor. 6:2; Heb. 3:7, 15; 4:7).
Contemporary Significance
A GOSPEL WITHOUT holiness or power. Some have argued that presenting unpleasant truths of the gospel to an unbeliever can be deferred until the follow-through process; we must win a hearing first and only present these truths. There is some truth in this, for even the evangelists in Acts started their proclamation with some common ground that the people generally agreed with—some point of contact. But before we ask people to accept the gospel, they need to know those aspects of the essential gospel that may be unpleasant to them. Otherwise they may feel cheated that they were not shown the “fine print” before they entered into a covenant with God. The holiness of God and his hatred of sin are important aspects of the gospel, and they cannot be eliminated from the basic message. As our passage shows, the Jerusalem church exhibited both the awesome holiness of God—which provoked fear among outsiders—and the power of God—which made the gospel attractive to outsiders.
The results of preaching the gospel without the holiness of God in recent times have been tragic. We see people who claim to have had a born-again experience but who continue in the sins of their past life. I remember reports of a prominent publisher of pornography publicly claiming to be born again, but he did not give up producing pornography. We cannot, of course, automatically blame the church for this. But the fact that people living such flagrant lives of public sin can even claim to be born again may indicate that something is wrong in the understanding of being born again that the church is projecting to the world.
The most common objection to Christianity among the Buddhists in Sri Lanka is that we have a cheap religion. Christians, they say, can live any life of impurity and then receive forgiveness and happily go back to their impure life. That some famous preachers have done just that and that our newspapers have given those stories wide coverage have not helped.
The reason why evangelicals have been slow to battle exploitation and prejudice can in part be traced to a neglect of the holiness of God and its implications in our evangelistic preaching. We ask people to come to Christ to receive forgiveness of sins, but we do not ask them to repent of social sins such as prejudice against race, class, caste, and gender. Nor do we ask them to repent of sins of injustice, such as exploiting employees. We do not like to talk about personal sins like lying and greed. As a result, people accept a Christianity that is neutral on such matters. They enter into the fellowship of the church and become identified as Christians even though they continue to do things that bring disrepute to the name of Christ. We are seeing this in countries torn by ethnic or religious strife, where many supposedly devout Christians express attitudes toward those of the other side that are decidedly contrary to the spirit of Christianity.
Clearly in Acts the emphasis on God’s holiness and its implications did not hinder the evangelistic effectiveness of the early church. Billy Graham stated at one of the International Conferences for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam that when he started preaching about the Lordship of Christ, many felt that less people would respond to the appeal to commit their lives to Christ. But he did not find that to be so. If anything, there was an increase in the proportion of people who responded to the invitation.
On the matter of God’s power, when groups lose the experience of that power, they have only their identification with the people as a means of attracting them to Christ. As a result, they lower their standards and do not insist on holiness, claiming that this is necessary if they are to attract people. But the ministry of Jesus and of the early church show that we do not have to become sinners to attract sinners. Jesus paid the price of such identification, for he was accused of being a sinner himself because he moved so closely with them. But he never lowered his principles. He did go to the home of Zacchaeus—to the surprise of many. But, by the end of the visit, Zacchaeus was a changed man (Luke 19:1–10). Yet we must not forget that it was Jesus’ reputation (probably as a wonder-working rabbi) that made Zacchaeus eager to see him. Identification, holiness, and power make a great combination!
Today we are seeing a strange phenomenon in the church: People are expressing the power of God in their ministries through healing and other manifestations of miraculous gifts while living ungodly lives. How can this be? My tentative answer is to conclude that ministry gifts can become part of our personality and can express themselves for some time even after we have strayed personally from God. In an analogous manner, I have seen this with the gift of preaching, where gifted people who fell into serious sin still showed their giftedness for a time after their fall. But they cannot go on with this deception for long. Soon the fruit of a spiritually dry experience will become evident in their preaching.
Whatever the explanation, the fact that an ungodly person can express miraculous powers through his or her ministry does not mean that God accepts that ministry (see 1 Cor. 13:1–2). At the last judgment, Jesus will say, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” to people who prophesied, drove out demons, and performed miracles in his name (Matt. 7:22–23). It is easy to be fooled by the display of power of such people and to ignore their ungodliness. This is happening a lot today, as we are blinded from seeing the long-term damage that results from their ministries because of the temporary results that are exhibited. When that person is exposed for who he or she really is, God will be dishonored. Then people will not only reject the minister but also the message, even if it was a correct message. I shudder to think of the judgment that awaits teachers who are a stumbling block to others (James 3:1).
American theologian Carl F. H. Henry wrote a seminal book in 1948, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, which signaled a change in attitude among evangelicals toward the social aspects of Christian holiness. In it he wrote, “We must confront the world now with an ethics to make it tremble, and with a dynamic to give it hope.”18
Why sometimes no miraculous deliverance? If God can deliver us as he did Peter and John, why does he not deliver us all of the time? Many have grappled with this factor, and reports of God’s deliverance sometimes discourage such people as they ponder the question of why God has not acted to prevent their pain. Just the day before writing this, I went to the home of a YFC volunteer who was arrested, having been falsely accused by a vindictive ex-employee in the organization where he works that the volunteer had links with a terrorist organization. As I prayed with his wife and mother, I was reminded about how the church first reacted to the news of the proscribing of evangelism—they reflected deeply on the sovereignty of God over history (Acts 4:24–28). That was the great hope of the church in Acts. Whatever befell them, because God was sovereign, he would use it to achieve some glorious purpose of his.
Even the martyrdom of Stephen and the ensuing persecution became an occasion for the scattering of the seed of the word of God (Acts 8:1–4).19 It helped inaugurate the missionary program of the church, which occupies one of the most exciting places in the history of the world. Jesus said in connection with his own sufferings that he could have called twelve legions of angels to rescue him, but did not because through his death he was going to fulfill what the Scriptures prophesied (Matt. 26:53–54).
God does not will for us to be immune to the frustration that is a part of life in this fallen world (Rom. 8:18–25). But we know that even if we experience pain in this world, we will be more than conquerors through Christ in every situation we face (8:37), so that everything is turned for the good (8:28). In other words, when we go through an experience where God does not deliver us from pain and hardship, we must affirm that he can do it but has chosen not to since he has something better to achieve through our suffering. When we examine God’s seeming inaction in times of crisis in this light, we can feel honored that he has called us to suffer for him, and we can look expectantly to the form that his “over-conquering” (cf. 8:37) is going to take—a form that will even surpass the triumph of a miraculous deliverance. If God can save us and does not, it is only because he has some greater good in mind.
Civil disobedience. Some important criteria need to be followed in practicing any civil disobedience responsibly. D. J. E. Attwood presents two situations that might warrant civil disobedience: “1. when believers are required to deny their faith in Christ, or explicitly disown their Lord; and 2. when the state has required Christians to take part in an action which is in clear conflict with their Christianly informed conscience.” Peter’s action comes under the first of these situations, as the refusal to witness is equivalent to denying the faith. Attwood goes on to cite criteria to help us make a decision:
1. All democratic and constitutional means must genuinely be exhausted. It is far preferable to persuade people by democratic argument. [That is what the great apologists of the early church did.] . . . 2. Civil disobedience should be open and public. [This point is perhaps not necessary when it comes to verbal witness that could be done in private.] It should be submissive to arrest and punishment, ready to take responsibility for its illegal actions. 3. It should strongly prefer non-violent methods, some would say it must insist on non-violence. 4. Actions of civil disobedience should display a good knowledge of the law, and a full respect for it. 5. Actions should be appropriate to the cause. 6. Civil disobedience should have a specific and realistic end in view. It should not be designed or undertaken in ways that are politically counter-productive.
Attwood’s conclusion is: “Fundamentally it remains only an extreme form of protest and persuasion, and it is not a form of coercion.”20
Actions like breaking what we consider “a ridiculous speed limit,” refusing to pay “unreasonable” taxes, and bombing abortion clinics do not qualify according to the criteria just mentioned. Two more helpful cautions come from John and Paul Feinberg. (1) While morality dictates disobeying the government, prudence suggests how we should do it.20 Paul always used his mind to come up with the wisest way to respond to situations where his convictions clashed with those of the authorities. (2) We must remember that we are members of a spiritual community, the church. Therefore “counsel and prayer with other members of the body of Christ are advisable not only when planning strategy for representing God in society, but also when the option of acting beyond the law presents itself.”21 There are heroic stories in the film world of vigilantes who battle alone for justice. In real life, it is much more prudent to act in community.
In spite of these cautions we must remember that there will probably be disagreement within the church about the precise action one should take in certain situations. The classic example of this is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s participation in a plot against Hitler. Many Christians consider this a heroic decision, while others see it as opposed to the teachings of the Bible. Another example is the ethics of smuggling Bibles and Christian literature into “restricted access countries.” Some have considered this a necessary means of getting the gospel to nations that prohibit the publication and distribution of Christian literature.22 Others have felt that Christians should work within the legal limits of a nation and, when possible, negotiate with the restrictive governments to have the laws relaxed. God has used both groups of people for his glory.
Similarly, many sincere Christians in China feel they should work within the “official” Three-Self Patriotic movement despite the way the Communist government controls and uses it. Others view such involvement as compromise and work within the “illegal” house churches. Christians have also disagreed on the levels and means of participation in a war, especially when there is compulsory military conscription, bringing in the idea of “conscientious objector.” Some solved the problem by serving in military hospitals and other humanitarian divisions that did not involve participation directly or indirectly in battle.
The Bible leaves room for disagreement among Christians on issues where there can be no single binding position. Scriptural examples of such issues are dietary habits (Rom. 14), the observing of sacred days (Rom. 14), and the consuming of food offered to idols (1 Cor. 8). On these issues Paul cites important guidelines, such as “each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). He cautions against a judgmental or superior attitude toward those who hold different views (14:1–4, 13) and against acting in ways that become a stumbling block to weaker Christians (14:13–16; 1 Cor. 8:9–13). These are areas where we must not force our opinions on others. According to Paul, “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God” (Rom. 14:22). Our actions should come from the overall aim Paul gives: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (14:19).
Having said this, we must also say that in the face of blatant injustice and oppression we cannot acquiesce to an attitude of silence because there is no unanimity in the church about how we should deal with the problem. This is what some Christians did during the atrocities committed by the Nazis.
Evangelistic passion. The early church was clearly focused on evangelism, using every opportunity and paying whatever price was necessary to further that cause. When they went to the courts, their primary concern was not winning a case; it was furthering the cause of the gospel. We too must look at situations of persecution as opportunities to share the gospel.23
I was once traveling by train to a distant mission station in Sri Lanka at a time that Christianity had come in under attack because many poor Buddhists were coming to Christ. Christians were being falsely accused in the newspapers of buying up converts by offering financial incentives. I was seated next to a Buddhist who presented these typical arguments. In my response to him, I denied the charges, stating that the press was distorting the facts by, perhaps, using an isolated incident. Then I told him that Christians believe that this world has been created by the supreme God, who seeing the mess that it is in, presented in Christ the solution to this mess. We therefore regard it as the most important news in the world. Because we believe that, it is essential that we share it with the world, however much we suffer and are maligned for it. I used the opportunity to explain why and how it was the answer of the Creator to the world. My hope was that this Buddhist would not only understand why we evangelize, but that he would also be challenged by the fact that the gospel was the answer to his own need.
Evangelistic passion also caused the apostles to rejoice when they were flogged for evangelizing. They rejoiced because the earthly dishonor was to them actually a high honor. Consequently, the beating did not discourage evangelistic activity, it only propelled it forward with greater intensity (v. 42). This understanding of honor is why some Christians in the early centuries desired martyrdom and many rejoiced in it, though they may not have desired it. When Ignatius of Antioch in Syria was martyred around A.D. 107, he prayed, “I thank you, Lord and Master, that you have deemed to honor me by making complete my love for you in that you have bound me with chains of iron to your apostle Paul.”24
Iranian Christian leader Mehdi Dibaj spent nine years in prison for his faith and was murdered in 1994, six months after his release from prison. One of his prison guards once asked him, “Does Jesus Christ know that He has someone in this prison who loves Him?” He replied, “Jesus Christ our Lord has millions of people who love Him and who wish to sacrifice their lives for Him. I too wish I was one of them.” After relating this, Dibaj wrote, “How sweet it will be if one day my life is sacrificed for him.”25
Such attitudes are not natural to us. Usually when we are ridiculed in public or punished for the gospel, we get angry and resentful—in part, perhaps, because we think that we should look victorious in public. It is clear that there were long periods when biblical heroes looked anything but victorious. But they were propelled by the vision of God’s ultimate victory and the belief that their temporary defeats were contributing to winning a great victory for the kingdom. These are important attitudes we must develop in relation to the gospel, especially as they are difficult to sustain in a culture that is so committed to the need to look good in public.
These attitudes did not come naturally to the apostles either. Calvin says, “It must not be thought that the apostles were so stolid as not to feel ashamed, and even to suffer from a sense that they had been wronged; for they had not discarded nature completely. But when they thought over the cause, joy got the upper hand.” Calvin agrees that most of us do not think in this way: “Hardly one in a hundred understands that the ignominy of Christ is superior to all the triumphs of the world.” Thus he says, “For that reason we must think about this sentence more earnestly.”26 The question we must constantly ask ourselves is, “How important to us is the gospel of Christ and honor of his name?”