Biblestudy: Acts (Part Six)

Acts 4-5:11 Peter and John's Boldness and Courage
#BS-AC06
John W. Ritenbaugh (1932-2023)
Given 06-Sep-88; 88 minutes

listen:

playlist:
Go to the Acts (Bible study series) playlist

download:

Let us get back into the book of Acts. We are just going into chapter 4 tonight and actually Luke is still somewhat laying a foundation for what is going to come because in each chapter he is introducing another factor that is going to have some bearing on what he is going to write later.

Chapter 1 was just kind of an interlude between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, His ascension to heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit. And if there is any chapter that is the key chapter in the book of Acts, I would have to say it is Acts the 2nd chapter because everything else is built upon that. Because there the promised comforter comes, the church is born, as it were, as a result of it, we become members of the Body of Jesus Christ and are then empowered to carry out the responsibility of witnessing to the entire world. That has continued right down to today and we are in the process of making a final witness prior to the return of Jesus Christ.

In chapter 3 we see the beginning of the persecution. And actually, chapters 3 through 5 are all kind of linked together in that it shows what it was that motivated the persecution against the church, and it was a combination of the miracles that were done, as well as the preaching that was done. There was no doubt in the minds of those who were the persecutors that these miracles indeed were occurring. But they did not like the method in which it was done, that is, it was done in the name of Jesus Christ, and they of course looked upon Christianity as something that was opposed to them.

So in chapter 3, we had the healing of the man who sat at the Beautiful gate. And then the resulting sermon that was preached by Peter when challenged regarding that healing.

In chapter 4, we have just gotten into the first four verses. So we will begin with chapter 4, verse 1. Well, there is no doubt that the healing made quite an impression on the people's minds, and that is going to come up again in this chapter and again in chapter 5; that it made such an impression that it actually blunted some of the persecution that the Sanhedrin would have liked to have brought upon Peter and John specifically and the church in general. But even though the thrust of the persecution was somewhat blunted, it was not entirely turned away, and this chapter begins to lay the foundation for a much more stern persecution in chapter 5, but we are seeing here how the persecution got started and who were the instigators of it.

Now the authorities (and I will get to that in just a little bit) recognize that Peter and John were acting in the same way as Jesus. That is, that there was a distinct pattern of a miracle, generally of healing, and then some very effective preaching. And they of course wanted to confirm that indeed they were doing things in the same way that He was. Now they commanded Peter and John to stop. Peter comes right back and challenges their authority for doing that. Do they have the authority to tell the church to stop carrying out its responsibility to God? Now, if they do we have got something here that is a real problem for the church. However, Peter was on good solid ground as far as God was concerned, but he was not on solid ground as concerned the actual situation there in Jerusalem.

I want you, first of all, to note the opposition. In verse 1 of chapter 4, it mentions the priests, the captain of the Temple, and the Sadducees came upon them. Now the priests were largely Sadducees. I think the Sadducees are mentioned separately because they were a distinct group who were very active, maybe, within the Sadducean community and they were people who sat in a great deal more authority than the ordinary Sadducean priest. The captain of the Temple was second in command only to the high priest. He was like the chief of police is about the best way that I can put it in a more modern term.

We want to deal just a little bit here with the Sadducees because they were the ones that provided the main opposition through much of the book of Acts. It is very interesting because during Jesus' ministry, it seems as though if we took the number of times that the Pharisees are mentioned in a negative position in relation to Christ and compared it with the number of times the Sadducees are mentioned the same way, I think that we would find that the Pharisees were mentioned more frequently as opponents of Christ than were the Sadducees. Now in the book of Acts, it is reversed and the Sadducees become the main opposition.

I want to qualify this just a little bit. And that is that by the time we get to the crucifixion of Christ in the story that is contained within the Gospels, the Sadducees have already moved into the position where they are the number one persecutor and the Pharisees are beginning to shift into the background. There is no record in the Gospels of a Pharisee making any kind of a negative statement against Christ during the period of His trial. There is no record of the Pharisees making any kind of an accusation in terms of, you know, like "Crucify Him" or doing anything to stir up the people. But there is a great deal of mention of the Sadducees doing that.

What we have here is a holdover from that. Now there is a reason for it, and that is that the Pharisees were not anywhere near as threatened by Christ as the Sadducees were. And whenever Christ was crucified, the Sadducees thought they had gotten rid of the problem and here it is raising its, to them, ugly head once again, and they find their position within the community threatened. This time not because of Jesus directly, but because of His followers. And so they have the most to lose should Christianity become successful and the people begin to follow them rather than following the Sadducees.

Now the Sadducees trace their roots to the Maccabees, really you might say the Hasmonean family. The Hasmoneans were the ones who were given the nickname Maccabee. Maccabee simply means hammer, and they got their name from their military tactic, which was what we would call today guerrilla warfare; they just kept hammering away at the enemy. And so they were called the Maccabees.

Well, the Sadducees looked upon the Maccabean revolt and the ensuing victory and then the ensuing society that was built as a result of those victories, in Messianic proportions. Not that they looked at Judas Maccabeus as being the Messiah, because they did not look for any one person to be a messiah. They looked upon the Messiah in terms of being an ideal age in which there was community, government, business, and everything being accomplished. They did not look upon there being a definite start to a Messianic Age by the appearance of one individual who would head it up. But rather they looked upon the Messianic Age as a process that was evolving. They were the evolutionists of the day in the sense that they thought that man would keep getting better and better, and as we got better and better, why there would be fewer and fewer problems within society and so an age of enlightenment would dawn as a result of it.

Now, you can see that there was going to have to be confrontation between these two groups because that was directly opposed to the church's teaching that Jesus is the Messiah. And that He was put to death, and He was resurrected, and He is going to come again, and He is going to restore the government of God, and then we will have an age of ideals that are tremendously higher than what we see here today.

There was another thing too that sort of plays on this. It is important, but not as important as what I just said, and that is that they did not believe in the resurrection. Now when you put the two of them together they were confronted with something that they felt that they had to stop.

There was another reason why they felt they had to stop it, and it had something to do with the present. By the present, I mean the time that they were living in. That is because they had the most to lose, that is, if this religion was going to be successful, it would replace them in the role of leadership as far as the people were concerned, and then they would have to relinquish that. Now they liked their favored position with Rome because they were in a position of power. Even though they were under Roman authority, they nonetheless had a great deal of authority within the community. In fact, it is recorded that they were given virtually complete autonomy in ruling over the Jews. But the only things that they were not allowed to do was raise taxes and they were not allowed to issue a death penalty upon anyone with the one exception of a Gentile going beyond the Court of the Gentiles and into the Court of Women. If that occurred, they were allowed to sentence a Gentile to death.

But with very few restrictions, they had complete autonomy from Rome in ruling over the people there. So they had a great deal to lose if they were to relinquish that position to the church. Now they had no idea, of course, at least at this time, that Peter and John and the rest of the Christians did not have their eyes set on ruling over anybody, at least politically in the land of Israel. But they did not know that yet, and so they looked upon them as a political enemy as well as a theological and spiritual enemy. And so they were on a course that was going to collide in a great deal of bloodshed eventually.

I want to just interject one more thing here in regard to who these people were. I think that I mentioned this the last time, although they are not directly mentioned here. Sometimes you will see a group of people labeled as "elders" and they will usually be listed with the priests, or they will be listed with the Sadducees, but those people are leading lay members in the community, probably Sadducees. You did not have to be a priest to be a Sadducee. But their political leanings undoubtedly were Sadducean. And there is another term that comes up occasionally, and I think this is a good place to interject it. It is the title chief priests. Now these chief priests were, I am going to equate it with another term that you see every once in a while, and that is, rulers.

The reason I am saying this is because it is going to come up in just a couple of verses. Now the rulers and the chief priests were apparently the same people. The chief priests are not mentioned here, but the rulers are. The term seemed to be interchangeable. Now here is the idea regarding who those people were. That they were important people in the community is without doubt. And that they were Sadducees is also without doubt. That they were priests is also without doubt. But what they were is priests from specific influential families. And it is very likely that a very large number of them were related to the high priest. In fact, it is entirely possible that some of these chief priests or the rulers of the people were themselves at one time high priests but had been deposed from the office for whatever reason.

Now you are probably aware that as God established it in the Old Testament, when a high priest was appointed to the office (and it was a hereditary thing) that he held it for life. That continued up until the Romans took over. And when they took over, they felt that they could have a great deal more control over the country if they were the ones that appointed the high priests. Now being good politicians, they knew how to make money out of the office. And so what they would do is they would appoint someone to the office who had, for them, the right qualifications. That is, that they were willing to cooperate with the Romans and also that they had a lot of money. And the money was used to bribe the Romans. Now of all the high priests that were in office from roughly the time that the Romans took over the rule of the land, up until the time of the destruction of the Temple (just prior to the destruction of the Temple), in a period of 105 years, there were 28 different high priests and all but six of them came from four families.

The residue from those four families became the chief priests because virtually the same family members or the members from the same family were appointed to the office. Now, what do you do when you are no longer a high priest? Well, you are still an influential member of the community. And so the new high priest appoints you to a position of authority within the Sanhedrin. And so they became things like what we would call today cabinet members, where they headed up various committees. And so we find that virtually a half dozen or so influential families are running everything in Judea and most of them have members of their family sitting in the Sanhedrin. So they had a stranglehold on the life of the people.

Now that becomes kind of important in this next section because it was these people that Peter was going to be addressing.

Acts 4:5-6 And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together in Jerusalem.

We know that Annas was high priest from 6 AD to 14 AD. And then Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years. I do not know when it began, it must have begun in 18 AD because he was high priest until 36 AD. And then guess who became the next high priest? Well, it is this next guy that is named here, John. They are all of one family, John or Jonathan. Now nobody knows who Alexander was. Apparently he never made it to the office of high priest.

Now it says "Annas the high priest." He was not literally high priest at that time. That is, the time of the occasion of Acts 4:6. Caiaphas was high priest then but everybody knew that the power behind the throne was Annas. He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas and he was the father of John or Jonathan. So this is the group of people before whom Peter and John were taken.

Acts 4:7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, "By what power or by what name have you done this?"

It was very likely that they were before the whole Sanhedrin. We have these men named who were the leaders, but they were not the only ones who were there. And it is very likely that the whole Sanhedrin was there and probably like a semicircle around them. And here is Peter and John standing there, having to answer this question. I think what we have here is really a striking example of Peter's courage. Because here were gathered before him the most powerful and influential people in the land. They were the people who mattered. You know, if you were going to get a job, maybe, it was because these people would give the okay.

Sort of like Chicago. If you want to work for the city in Chicago, most of the time you have to go to a council. And you walk in before the councilman, you have an appointment and the councilman determines whether or not you are going to work for the city. There is virtually always a payoff that goes to him. Now if you want to have any kind of a future in that direction at all within the city, well, it is good to pay attention and to grease the palm of the councilman. I have no doubt that from what I have read about Annas and Caiaphas that is the way it was here. Anybody that mattered within the community, virtually, he was before them.

Now there are two kinds of courage. There is the kind of courage that we have that is somewhat reckless and that usually occurs when we are not even aware of the dangers and we will just go full bore, straight ahead, going into areas where angels fear to tread. But if we are aware and have a pretty good idea of what the dangers are going to be and we still go ahead, now to me, that is a courage that is far greater than when you are not aware of the dangers. I feel that Peter here was certainly aware that he was before the the wealthiest, the most intellectual, and the most influential and powerful men in the land. And yet he aggressively went on. He did not hold back one bit the message that he had to tell.

It is interesting, you will note as we go through here, that the Sadducees almost seem to be afraid to say the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Now here they simply ask, "By what power or by what name?" It is virtually saying the same thing. But they turn it over with a synonymous phrase in order to make sure that the question is clearly understood.

Acts 4:8-10 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole."

Now, what you are witnessing there is a fulfillment of something that Jesus mentioned before. Let us go back to the book of Luke in chapter 21, verse 12.

Luke 21:12-15 "But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you [Jesus is speaking to His disciples], delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. And you will be brought before kings and rulers for My name's sake. But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony. Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist."

Back to Acts the 4th chapter again. Now if that be a fulfillment of that, then we know that where it says that "Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit," God is showing us a special moment of inspiration. You know, when he was filled by God's Holy Spirit to enable him to speak powerfully and effectively.

Now in verse 9, you see the last two words, "made well." It is very interesting because that is the same word that is translated in verse 12, "salvation." Some of the commentators remarked how beautifully this argument, if I can put it that way, is worded so that he was able, by taking this word, soteria in the Greek, that has a very broad application. Its simplest application or definition would be deliverance. But it means deliverance on a lot of levels. It can mean deliverance from sickness, or it can be deliverance from mortality to immortality. It can be deliverance from the flesh. It can mean deliverance from a prison.

In this case, he very smoothly, like an automatic transmission, went from deliverance from sickness to deliverance from mortality to immortality. "There is salvation given under no other name but by that of Jesus Christ." And that word provided him a means of preaching the gospel. He took off on that word and he preached the gospel to them.

Now his defense then was that this was an act of kindness. Why should he be called into account for doing a good work? That makes good sense. What he is saying in effect is, here you are getting ready to judge me, what law have I broken? Is it illegal to heal someone? Well, they really had no answer for that. They can see that God just gave them the answer immediately. And so very quickly the ball was taken out of their hands and they were in a position now where they were being forced to listen to what he had to say. Because undoubtedly, when he came back at them with that, they began to think of what he had to say because they were going to have to come up with an answer for what he was saying here.

So that word saved allowed him to move from healing to spiritual salvation just very quickly.

Let us go on a little bit further.

Acts 4:11 "This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'

He very quickly moved to a psalm that they were well aware of. Psalm 118. They understood that that thing had messianic applications. And he tied the rejected into what they did with Jesus of Nazareth, they rejected Him. Do you see there in verse 10, he told them that they were murderers? Well, that is bold! "You crucified Him."

Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

What Peter said there is that this man was healed by Jesus. Jesus is alive. He was telling those people there is nothing superstitious about that name. You can use that name all you want, and nothing will ever happen. What he is saying is those who are obedient to the Being whose name is represented by Jesus Christ, that that name is going to act, that name is alive.

So in a sense, the name means nothing. It is the fact that the name is alive that means something. Now you can call upon the name of somebody who is dead and nothing is going to happen, there is not going to be any response at all. But if a person who is alive is within your hearing, and you call out their name, what is going to happen? See, at the very least, you are going to get their attention, the attention that they could not give unless they were alive.

That is what Peter is saying. This name is alive and the healing of this person is proof that He is alive because the owner of that name responded to our prayer to Him. That is what he is saying.

Acts 4:13-14 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.

What I think apparently impressed those Jews was Peter and John's boldness. Undoubtedly the argument also impressed them as well. They were confident. They were unashamed. And that confidence and that unashamedness enabled them to speak freely, without being all inhibited. They did it before what must have been a very daunting audience or would have been a very daunting audience to just about anybody. You will find if we wanted to go through here, that boldness is what characterized their preaching. I mean the preaching of the early church. Almost every time that preaching is mentioned, it is mentioned how boldly they did it.

Now this phrase, "uneducated and untrained." Josephus tells us that the literacy level in Judea was actually quite high. Now he may have been bragging, I do not know. But he says that there were very few illiterate people. That the general education of the people in matters of reading and writing was quite good. Now when it says here that they were uneducated and untrained, it apparently means that they had no technical training in theological matters, that is, that they had been to no rabbinical school. And by all rights, one would think that they would be unable to carry on a theological conversation for very long. There would be just very little discussion because they had not been trained in that kind of an area.

So the Jews assumption was that in order to be able to speak intelligently on theological matters, you had to go to some rabbinical school. Well, they knew that Peter and John had not been to any. And they knew that Jesus had not been to any either, and they made the same discovery regarding Him, practically the same comment regarding Him as well.

It is interesting that it says "and they realized that they had been with Jesus." Now, undoubtedly, these were many of the same men who had gotten into arguments with Jesus and they probably recognized the line of reasoning, the approach to the way that they (Jesus and the apostles) presented arguments. It was like a broken record. And they probably remembered how difficult it was to win an argument with Jesus, and now here they were with more untrained, seemingly illiterate men, and they were finding it impossible to reconcile these men's lack of training with the intelligent argument that was coming out of their mouths, and the boldness as well. So they recognized, really, what it was. It was the Holy Spirit speaking through them.

Here they are, in verse 14, "they could say nothing against it," but they could not really see, understand, comprehend, and therefore agree with what Peter was presenting. And there is a reason that I think is really very clear, and that is, understanding their background, they were so preoccupied with protecting their vested interest, they could not think of anything else except how to refute what they were hearing. So their minds were really not open. They were closed by their desire to hang on to the status quo.

Acts 4:15-17 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, "What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell on Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name."

Now those three verses tell you that if they could have denied the miracle, they would have. You can see that what they were doing was protecting their vested interest, and they were looking for a way out. And so with that in mind, they had no disposition at all to be convinced either by the miracle or by the words. The miracle was there. They admitted it was there. But they were not going to let it convince them that the argument that was behind the miracle might be just as sound as the fact that that man's legs were now sound.

The next step is, well, we cannot deny that it happened. We do not want to admit to their argument, but the least we can do is stop them from speaking. So that is what they attempted to do, to stop them from speaking.

There was little more that they could do than what they did because the apostles had broken no law. Now we can find from the life of Jesus Christ that if men want to, innocence is not going to stop those people from doing what they want. So in verse 18, he says,

Acts 4:18-20 They called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor to teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."

It is interesting to compare this with others who have undergone a similar experience. You might remember Jeremiah, how that he said that God's Word was burning within him, and he could not hold it in. It is in by Jeremiah 20 if I recall right. And so he said that God's Word was like a fire in his tongue, and that he could not hold himself back from speaking what had to be said.

Now these men were that way because they had experienced something that very few people on the face of the earth have ever experienced. They witnessed the coming alive again of somebody that they knew was dead. For 3.5 years, they listened to this Man speak. They were convinced, at least intellectually, at the time of His death, that He indeed was the Messiah. They needed yet, of course, to get their hearts totally and completely within it.

Well, with the addition of God's Holy Spirit that had occurred. Here were men who were filled with what they had to say because their lives had been transformed by what they heard and what they saw. And their minds were not like the Sadducees here. They were not preoccupied with holding on to the status quo. They were not preoccupied with holding on to their position. They were preoccupied with doing the job that God had given them to do, and that was that they were to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and of the establishment of the government of God on earth. So they felt terribly responsible for what they were to do and they were not going to let anything stand in their way, short of being killed themselves. "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."

Acts 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them because of the people.

Now the Sadducees were impressed by something. That is, they feared that they would set off a reaction in the people because the people were impressed. They were not preoccupied with holding on to their position. So they were impressed in a way that the Sadducees were not.

The Sadducees did accomplish something here. A precedent had been set through the means of a judgment. Much the way our Supreme Court does, they set precedents. They make decisions based upon the laws that are in dispute before them and a precedent is set, and then that precedent becomes the means against which other things are judged, that is, other cases that are similar are judged. Now in this case, the precedent being the telling of them that they were not to preach in the name of Jesus. Of course, what this is going to do is it is going to provide a means to intensify the persecution against the church. And we will be getting to that in just a little bit.

Acts 4:23-30 And being let go, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You who are God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, and the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.' For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus."

Let us go back to verse 23. Now the first thing that you have to notice here I think is the unity of the church in their reaction to what had just occurred. There is a oneness of mind. There is a common sentiment as to what needed to be done. Now it is highly unlikely that all of the people stood or sat down in one place and verbatim said everything that was written here for you and me to to read. I think what we undoubtedly have is the essence of what they did pray. And it is entirely possible that one of the apostles said virtually everything that is written here in one prayer that was made before the assembled people. But whatever it was, they all agreed that this is virtually what was said at the time.

Now it is interesting the way they address God. In my New King James, it does not really do justice. It just said they raised their voice to God. Now, some modern Bibles will translate that a little bit more closely to what that word "God" actually means. They will say sovereign Lord, and that is closer. But the word is really something that to you and me has evil connotations. Because the modern English word is "despot." Now what do you think of a despot as being? You think of it being some dirty fascist ruler, you see, who is grabbing everything from the people and spending it all on his own enjoyment or whatever. But that is the way they address God. Despotes, sovereign Ruler, and it indicates someone who has total and complete control of what is under his authority. Now, in the world today, the way a person gets that is through a reign of terror, through secret police, through armed power.

But that is not the connotation that I think that Luke wants us to have, not that evil connotation. But the connotation undoubtedly is that they want us to understand that God has complete control of everything. That nothing is done within the framework of His church's work—we are going to concentrate on the church here—of which He is not aware and of which He has not passed His judgment. In other words, if it happens, He has decided He wanted it to happen. And therefore, whatever the situation is, He is in control of it. Now it may not be that He originally intended that it go in that direction, but it did go in that direction, and He is going to make use of it going in that direction and whatever it is, as Paul says later in the book of Romans, it is going to work out for the good.

I will tell you, that is a wonderful way to think of God in relation to your own life. Do you really look at God as your absolute owner who is in complete control of everything that is going on in your life? So that nothing happens to you without His express permission? Even though He may not have intended that it go in that direction, it was not really His purpose or plan, but it did go in that direction and now that it is, He is going to make use of it for your good.

You see, they looked upon God as being in absolute control of what was going on. Therefore, however this thing worked out, it was His will that was going to be done.

This can really add spice to your prayers when you recognize that this is the way God is. He is going to make use of every situation and that from it is going to come good, not evil. Because God's purposes are always positive. Even His correction, which is painful to us, is positive in His hands. It is going to bring about something that is good. We have Romans 8:28 to bank on for that.

Now this can do a great deal for your peace of mind. It can do a great deal for your sense of well-being. God is aware. He has all power. He is a despot. Nothing is going to escape Him. Nobody is going to do anything to us that He will not will to be done. And therefore, if it does happen, it must be for our good. And it is under control.

So they raised their voice to Despotes and with one accord said, "Lord, you are God." Notice how they reinforce this idea of one who has everything under control. ". . . who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them." And the inference is that everything that is in them is also under His control. That is going to do a lot for our faith. We can be confident that God is allowing this.

Verse 25 begins a fairly long quote there from Psalm 2. Now, the quote is pointed in what the psalmist is saying. He is pointing out the fruitless efforts of those who tried to rebel against God. It does not matter who it is, it does not matter how powerful they are, they are going to be fruitless in rebelling against God. Now that fits right in to their circumstance because here were the most powerful people in their nation who thought that they were just fighting against men, Peter, James, John, and the rest of the the apostles and the disciples. They did not realize that they were fighting against God. But the church did. They were well aware of it. So they quote a psalm that applies to that.

Now, how can anyone fight against someone like God and expect to win? Well, the church was confident that they were going to win this battle. You see, Psalm 2 is applied directly to the situation that Peter and John were going through. And so the church perceived that the attack against Peter and John was an attack against God's anointed. That is why they quoted that psalm. It was really an attack against Christ and they happened to get caught in that. Now is Christ going to be defeated by mere men? Of course not.

In verse 27, Herod and Pontius Pilate are related to the kings and rulers of Psalm 2. If you go back there, verse 26, the kings, that is Herod, rulers, the next phrase, Pontius Pilate, gathered together against the Lord and His Christ with the Gentiles. In verse 25, "Why do the nations rage, and the peoples," that is Israel. So we cover the whole gamut there. They are all "gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done."

Now we have taken this thing one step further. Not only is God aware of what is going on, He actually brought it to pass! How about those apples? You know, if you apply these things to your own life, well, you may not like the situation that you are going through, but if we really are converted and we really have God's Spirit, then God is leading us into situations that are going to test our mettle and are going to produce traits of wisdom, understanding, character, if we are willing to go through it with Him. You see, if you believe things like this, you can go through your trials confident that God is involved. It does not mean that we are always going to know the answers, but it does mean that we are confident that God is involved and that we can be looking to Him in prayer and in study for either the strength or the wisdom and understanding to do what needs to be done in order to produce what it is that He wants to be produced.

One thing that we are always at least somewhat in the dark about is where God is going with our lives. We generally, of course, understand that we are going toward the Kingdom of God, but that is so vague. I do not know what the Kingdom of God is going to be like. I mean, somebody can say to me, and I can say it to myself, "Well, I'll never have a headache again. I'll never get tired. I'll have a vibrantly alive body and make a hole in one every time I hit a golf ball." But we have never experienced being God but we have all experienced the need for wisdom, understanding, character, discipline, self-control, knowledge, those are things that can be used both here and now, and they are going to be needed in spades in the Kingdom of God. And these things that we go through in life can produce that kind of thing.

What about empathy? What about sympathy? What about compassion? What about mercy and kindness? What about gentleness and goodness? Those are things, qualities of character traits of God that we need. And yet, if God was not directing our growth, the chances are very great we would avoid the very things that would produce that. Because carnally, what are we all looking for? Most of us currently are looking for the easiest way out, the most comfortable circumstance. We are looking for acclaim and recognition. And I am not saying those things are wrong of and by themselves. But God has greater things in mind than that. Because we will have those things in spades in the Kingdom of God. And so He has to take us through circumstances that are going to produce that which is going to be eternally useful. And that is what we have to have faith in.

Now you can see the church understood that. That is why they prayed the way they did: "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done." Now look what they asked for: "Now, Lord, look on their threats and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus."

I wonder if you noticed something in their request there to God. They did not ask for the removal of the trial. They asked for the strength to glorify God. They asked for the power to overcome. They asked that God would work. Now, you know, be honest with yourself now. When you get into a trial, what is it that you are most likely going to ask God? Oh God, deliver this terrible burden from me! And again, I do not mean to make fun of it. That is what we do. In making that request, are we not very likely thwarting the very thing that God has led us into in our life? Is that not what he said, "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done."

Now I do not mean that God leads us into the sin. He does not do that. But there is such a thing as sin. And there is such a thing as free moral agency. And so God does not stop the sin from occurring. He does not stop us from using free moral agency. And so therefore, He determines to allow us to go into the trial through our own mistakes or whatever. Or somebody else's mistake that drags us into the trial with it. And then He makes use of the situation.

Do you not think that this One who has every hair on our head numbered and is aware even when the sparrow falls, do you not think that He is aware and He sees you sliding into the ditch? Sure He does. [God speaking] "OK, there you go. He's going to get all dirty. Well, we will make the best out of this that we possibly can. He has some lessons to learn down there in the ditch, and we will see what he can do with it." So we get all discouraged, "Oh, God has left me!" We get in despair and again, I do not mean to make fun of that at all. But God is aware. Do we have faith in Him? And that somehow or another, like it says in I Corinthians 10:13, that He is going to provide a way of escape. Did you ever look at that verse? Let us look at that again just pick up one thing from it. Now he says,

I Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

He makes a way of escape so that we can bear it. He does not say He is going to remove the trial. But rather He wants us to bear it. And the way out of the trial is through it, right? Not being plucked up and dropped on the outside somewhere because going through the trial is going to teach us so much more. And so God will make use of the mess we got ourselves into through free moral agency. He makes the best of every situation, even though in many cases He did not will it to be done, in a sense He did will it in that He allowed us to continue to use our free moral agency.

Now that despot has everything under control. And so He says He will not allow it to get over our heads. We will be able to bear it. It may not be easy, it may be very painful. But we will be able to bear it and from it something good is going to occur.

I think that God put that prayer here in Acts 4 to be a model just as much as that prayer in Matthew the 6th chapter. Those people knew that the best way to get out of a problem was to ask God to work His will within it and to give them the strength to bear it, endure it, to learn, or whatever. But not just to be plucked from it. So that way God's will would be done, which is to put the mind of Christ within us, and Christ learned by the things which He suffered.

One more thing that I want to add here. It is very obvious that the church's concern was not with themselves, but rather that God's Word would go forth, because that is what they prayed for. Now again, this does not mean that we should not pray about ourselves, but their concern was for the work. "Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word," that is where their concern was, "by stretching out Your hand to heal," because they were asking for this power because it would promote the preaching, "and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus."

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

So God not only granted them their request, He also gave them a sign. And I think that we can summarize this section here from verse 23 up to the end of verse 31 in this way, and that is it is very evident that the church was convicted of God's power. He was a despot. The next thing that they were convicted of was the futility of man's rebellion against God. That is why they quoted Psalm 2. And then the third thing, they remembered how Christ suffered and so they submitted to whatever suffering came as a result of their responsibility. Because they could remember not only did Christ suffer, but He also triumphed. And the resurrection proved Him to be right.

Acts 4:32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.

Now this is kind of, in a sense, a flashback to what we saw toward the end of chapter 2. I think it is here because Luke wants to illustrate the nature and extent of their love for one another. That the result of their closeness to God was a feeling (maybe feeling is not quite the right word, but it is the best one I can come up with right right at this time) of a great responsibility that they had toward each other. They were committed to the well-being of their fellow Christians. And so the way that they showed it was in their fellowship. That is, in their sharing of what they had to help someone along.

It is very evident as we go through this next chapter or so, that these people had private property. That they were not living communally. That is, that they did not gather themselves together like the Amish do. They did not do it like the Essenes back in that period of time. They were not off in a monastery somewhere, or a convent. They were living in their scattered locations yet somehow or another they maintained the sense of community and they did it through their sharing of what they had, so that really, nobody had a need for very long before someone found it out, and they were willing to share of their goods with this person who had need.

So what he is showing here is that they not only preached the gospel, but they also had a deep social concern for one another, and so they took care of one another. And it stresses here in this next section that they had a common mind in regard to generosity as well.

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon all.

I want to go back to verse 32. I picked up something in my notes here. Now the group is a multitude. That indicates a pretty sizable group of people. Now the last figure I think that we saw was somewhere in the neighborhood of about 5,000, was it not? I think that was the figure. And it is very interesting to read in some of those commentators, they like to back away from that figure. They said that is too many. There are some who argue that it is a reasonable figure if the size of Jerusalem was large enough to admit 5,000 people who were members of the church of God. Now they say that it would probably take a population of about 250,000 to account for a population in the church of about 5,000. Well, I do not know about that. That is all assumptions. How do they know those things? They do not have any idea.

I think I mentioned to you the last time that the guesses, and that is all it is, of the size of Jerusalem went anywhere from about 25,000 to ten times that, to 250,000 people. I do not know, it might have been larger than that. Who knows? They do not have any way to accurately gauge it. And it is entirely possible that the population fell somewhere within what they said. But God really did a powerful job through Jesus Christ and then the apostles in converting a lot of people very quickly to support the work and get it off the ground.

Verse 33 again. "And with great power, the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all." So in spite of the opposition, why their speaking was effective and people were being led to repentance.

Acts 4:34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold.

Now some have questioned the need for this. Well, there is something missing and that is an accurate report or an accurate record or history of what was going on in the country at the time. Were they having one of their frequent droughts? It is possible. Is it possible that there were large numbers of people who were unemployed for a number of reasons? That is also possible. We do not have anything similar today. And it is entirely possible that the reason we do not have anything similar today is because the federal government has taken over in providing for people through the welfare systems. There is no record of those people in that day having little, if any, of a welfare system to take care of them. So it is entirely possible there was a great deal more poverty then than we are accustomed to by today's standards because of the welfare systems that we have.

if you take away welfare and SSI would we not be confronted with the same thing that we see these people going through? I think we would. What was happening is, I think, these people who were being converted were not being taken care of by the government and were not being well taken care of by their families. However, as people were converted and came into the church, those who had possessions did not consider their possessions to be private, that is, their own, but they looked upon the larger community as also part of their family and felt that it was part of their responsibility to supply to their well-being and so the system of providing for people was instituted.

You know, the church did not have any third tithe system, not at that time. It certainly was not in operation. The church as an institution and such was not well enough organized yet. We see the first efforts at organization in chapter 6. So this is the way they did it. They did it voluntarily. There is no indication that it was in any way legislated.

It is really a very fine illustration of the heart of these people. That they were not only converted intellectually, but they were converted in their heart, and they looked upon themselves as really being their brother's keeper. So not only were they preaching the gospel; Luke is showing the flip side of the coin here is that they felt a social responsibility as well in taking care of their brother.

Acts 4:34-35 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

"Laid at the apostle's feet" means to put under the control of. It does not mean that it was made as a personal gift to the apostles, but rather it was given to them to administer. So that is what they did with it then.

Acts 4:36-37 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Barnabas seems to be Exhibit A and Ananias and Sapphira in chapter 5 are Exhibit B. Now there is one thing you have to say about God and the writers of the Bible, they were honest. They could have done like most historians do, that is, tell all the good things about your country and all the bad things about the enemy. But at least you see here we have an honest account that in the New Testament church, there were some stinkers. There were some people who did not get the vision. There were some people who were going to accomplish their goals in a way that was not right.

Exhibit A here is Barnabas, and he is an example of of doing things right. And now Joses, or Joseph as we would say it today, was his household name, and Barnabas was a nickname. It was given to him by the apostles and very likely it was because there were so many Josephs and this was a way of telling them apart. And you know, they named things for outstanding characteristics. He undoubtedly was an encouraging fellow. He went around, I guess, building people up.

We find in Colossians 4:10 that John Mark—the Mark who went off with the apostle Paul, the Mark who was the scribe who wrote the gospel of Mark—was his cousin. Once again we begin to see God working through families. Now he was a Levite, and he was from the island of Cyprus. And undoubtedly there is a another reason why he mentioned Barnabas. And that is because he figures so prominently in the rest of the book of Acts and I think that is intended to put his name on our minds and also to show that this was a man of unselfish bent. You know, to show a little bit more of his character other than the fact that he tagged along with the apostle Paul. There was a reason why he was with the apostle Paul, that he was a man of generosity and of encouragement. He was a man of understanding as well. So the main thing about Barnabas is that he contributed ungrudgingly of his wealth for the well-being of those people.

The first 11 verses of chapter 5 describe what was surely a sensational and yet distressing event in the early church. And that, of course, is the deceit and the subsequent sudden deaths of Ananias and Sapphira. Now, we just saw a positive insight into the life of the Christian community there. And in chapter 5, we have the negative. So, Luke is pretty balanced, all is not sweetness and light, and so Luke gives us an insight here into something that I think that we need to think a little bit more deeply about. And that is the seriousness of sin. Especially a sin that is directly against God. All sin is against God. But this was one that is pointed out here that was directly against God. And the sin, there was no doubt greed behind it, and there was no doubt in their minds the desire for recognition and praise within the community and to achieve that at less than honest means. And that, of course, led them to the deceit that they undertook there.

The sin is basically this. Ananias and Sapphira conspired to take credit for a greater personal sacrifice than they actually gave. Now, when they were discovered, they were accused, convicted, and executed very swiftly. Now let us look at it.

Acts 5:1-11 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, "Ananias, why as Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God." Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. And so great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter answered her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?" And she said, "Yes, for so much." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." And then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

Let us see if I can pick a couple of things out here very quickly. It says in verse 2 that they "kept back." The Greek literally means "put aside for oneself." And it is interesting that in the book of Judges where the sin of Achan is shown (Judges 6, Judges 7, right around in there), that in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, they used exactly the same word to describe what Achan did. See, that he kept back what had been previously dedicated to the Lord. So he stole that bit of gold and the garment, and that they had previously decided among themselves, the Israelites did, that everything that they got out of Jericho would be dedicated to God. And so he kept back part for himself.

That is what these guys did, exactly the same thing. So they decided beforehand, they told the whole community that we are going to sell this piece of land and we are going to give the whole amount to God for use within the community. I mean they did not give the whole amount. They conspired between them, and they kept back part of the price, and they told the apostles that this was the whole amount.

Now there is an interesting thought here, and that is that the thing with Achan occurred just as the nation of Israel, as it were, was being born and was taking over the land. And here we have Ananias and Sapphira doing almost exactly the same thing that Achan did just as the church was getting started in doing its responsibility. There seems to be an exact parallel between Achan and Ananias and Sapphira. Now, Achan was summarily executed. And God shows that He did not change one bit. He was the one that executed Ananias and Sapphira. You will read that Peter did not issue a death sentence against Ananias. He dropped dead while Peter was talking. But Peter did not execute him, God did. And then by that time, when Sapphira came back, Peter knew what God's will was, and so he did issue a death sentence against her, and she died immediately as well. Very interesting thing.

So I do not think that we can regard this as merely an incidental occurrence. Something apparently that God took advantage of, that since they did this He was going to relate that with Ananias and Sapphira with what occurred with Achan back in the book of Judges. And He was going to show the church very quickly that He meant business. And at least as far as the church was concerned there, why it says "great fear," in this case it means dread, came upon everybody. They were afraid to do anything for fear that they would drop dead! Boy, I will tell you, that would make you heed, would it not? Boy!

Well, I will tell you, this is important because what God is showing here is that all good relationships are built on trust. And where you cannot trust someone, you cannot have a good relationship. Where you cannot trust someone, the whole community is going to break down. And if Ananias and Sapphira could not be trusted, then God got rid of them and He taught the community very quickly that we better be honest with one another and upright and fair, because if this thing is going to work, it is going to be built on honesty.

JWR/aws/drm