Acts 5:12-16.  The apostles heal many people

Luke is about to record the second wave of persecution by which the devil attempted to annihilate the church. As he does so, he will highlight various developing attitudes, especially `the deepening jealousy and antagonism of the Sadducees, the moderation of the Pharisees, and the increasing joy and confidence of the Christians'. But before this he refers to the fact that *the apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people*, especially Peter (12a). Having given an account of their message, he now describes the extraordinary signs which authenticated it. They seem to have taken place in *Solomon's Colonnade*, the eastern cloister in which Peter had preached his second sermon (3:11) and in which now *all the believers used to meet together* (12b). The miracles had two interesting and opposite results. On the one hand, *no-one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people* (13). This might just mean that the opposition lacked the courage to `join in disputation with them', but the context suggests simply that they preferred to keep aloof rather than to associate with them. On the other hand, *more and more* people, both *men and women*, having no such fears, *believed in the Lord and were added to their number* (14). `On the one hand an awestruck reserve', as Haenchen puts it, and `on the other great missionary success'. This paradoxical situation has often recurred since then. The presence of the living God, whether manifest through preaching or miracles or both, is alarming to some and appealing to others. Some were frightened away, while others are drawn to faith.

As the movement grew, Luke continues, *people brought the sick into the streets*, presumably their sick relatives, friends and neighbours, *and laid them on beds and mats* in such a way *that at least Peter's shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by* (15). Their action may have been somewhat superstitious, but I see no reason to condemn it as tantamount to belief in magic, any more than was the woman's faith that a touch of the hem of Jesus' garment would be enough to heal her. No, the people had been deeply impressed by the words and works of Peter, had recognised him as a man of God and an apostle of Christ, and believed that through close proximity to him they could be healed. It may be significant that the verb *episkiazo*, which Luke chooses, meaning to `overshadow', he has used twice in his gospel of the overshadowing of God's presence (Lk.1:35; 9:34). 

Now *crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing* not only *their sick* people but also *those tormented by evil spirits* (Luke does not confuse the two conditions), and *all of them were healed* (16). It was a remarkable demonstration of the power of God to heal and free human beings, as the Ananias and Sapphira episode had been of his power to judge them.

Acts 5:17-42.  The Sanhedrin intensifies its opposition.

The apostolic healing provoked the second attack by the authorities, much as the healing of the congenital cripple had provoked the first. Angered by the failure of their first assault on the apostles, dismayed to see that they had ignored the court's prohibition and threats, and *filled with jealousy* (17) of their power and popularity, *the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees*, resolved to take further action. 

a)   The imprisonment (5:18-25)
This time they arrested not only Peter and John but *the apostles*, most if not all of them (see 29), and *put them in the public jail* (18). But *during the night* they were rescued by *an angel of he Lord*. William Neil speculates that this was `a sympathetic warder' or `a secret sympathizer among the guardroom staff', who came later to be seen as `an angel in disguise'. But we have no liberty to demythologize what Luke evidently intends his readers to believe was a heavenly visitor, who not only *opened the doors of the jail* and brought the apostles out (19) but instructed them to *stand in the temple courts* and publicly proclaim *the full message of this new life*(20). *At daybreak* they entered the temple *as they had been told, and began to teach the people*(21a). We note that they disobeyed the Sanhedrin, who had told them not to speak in the name of Jesus (4:17), in order to obey the angel who told them to speak the words of life. 

Meanwhile, the Sanhedrin, which Luke describes as *the full assembly of the elders* (or `senate', JB) *of Israel*, was convened (21). And they were humiliated to discover, on sending for the apostles, that they were no longer in the prison where they had consigned them, although it was *securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors* (22-24). Instead, they were *in the temple courts teaching the people* (25), which they had been forbidden to do. 

b)  The trial (5:26-39)
The captain of the temple guard and his officers re-arrested the apostles, although *they did not use force* because they were afraid *that the people would stone them* (26). They then *made them appear before the Sanhedrin* a second time for questioning (27). The way the high priest addressed them was in reality an admission of the court's powerlessness before the purpose of God. For the Sanhedrin had condemned and liquidated Jesus, given the apostles *strict orders not to teach in this name* (which they still preferred not to pronounce), and locked them up in prison. All the power and authority seemed clearly to be on their side. Yet, in contempt of court and in defiance of its authority, the apostles had successfully *filled Jerusalem* with their teaching, and (in the court's opinion) were determined to fasten on them the guilt of *this man's blood* (28), which at the time (they seem to have forgotten) they had urged the people to call down on themselves and their children (Mt.27:25). 

The apostles' response took the form of a mini-sermon, for their concern was still not to defend themselves but to uplift Christ. We *must obey God rather than men!* they said (29), and in so doing laid down the principle of civil and ecclesiastical disobedience. To be sure Christians are called to be conscientious citizens and generally speaking, to submit to human authorities (eg. Rom.13:1ff; Tit.3:1; 1 Pet.2:13ff). But if the authority concerned misuses its God-given power to command what he forbids or forbid what he commands, then the Christian's duty is to disobey the human authority in order to obey God's. 

Having stated that their primary responsibility was to obey God, the apostles emphasized three truths about him. First, *God*, who is *the God of our fathers, raised Jesus from the dead*, whom  the Jewish leaders *had killed by hanging him on a tree* (30). It is the familiar contrast: you killed him, but God raised him;  you rejected him, but God vindicated him. Secondly, God *exalted him to his own right hand as Prince (*archegos* again, as in 3:15) and Saviour*, so that from this supreme position of honour and power he is able to *give repentance and forgiveness of sins (which are both gifts of God) to Israel* (31). Moreover, of the death and resurrection of Jesus the apostles were *witnesses*, not just eye-witnesses but mouth-witnesses, for they were called to bear witness to what they had seen. Yet the chief witness to Jesus Christ is *the Holy Spirit* (cf. Jn.15:26), *whom God had given  (literally `gave') to those who obey him* (32). That is the apostles' third affirmation  about God. He raised Jesus from the dead, exalted him as Saviour and gave the Holy Spirit to his obedient people. Thus the sermon began and ended with the reference to obeying God. God's people are under obligation to obey him, and if they do so, even though they may suffer when they have to disobey human authorities, they will be richly rewarded by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. 

Hearing the words of defiance and triumph, the Council was *furious* (`touched ...on the raw', NEB), and but for the diplomatic intervention of Gamaliel, they would probably have fulfilled their wish *to put them to death* (33). Gamaliel was a Pharisee, and as such exhibited a more tolerant spirit than the rival party of the Sadducees. Grandson and follower of the famous liberal rabbi Hillel, he was given the honorific and affectionate title `Rabban', `our teacher', and Saul of Tarsus had been one of his pupils (22:3). He had a reputation for scholarship, wisdom and moderation, and *was honoured by all the people*. His behaviour on this occasion was fully in keeping with his public image. He stood up and gave instructions for the apostles to *be put outside for a little while*, so that the Council might confer in private session (34). He then proceeded to restrain their anger and to counsel caution (35) on account of certain historical precedents. He gave two examples, namely men called Theudas and Judas the Galilean.  

The account which Gamaliel is recorded as giving of their careers is brief. When Theudas arose, *claiming to be somebody, about four hundred men rallied* to his cause. But he himself *was killed, and all his followers were dispersed*, and his movement *came to nothing* (36). Following him, *Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census* (always an inflammatory event, a symbol of Roman rule by taxation), and `induced some people to revolt under his leadership' (NEB). But he also perished, `and his whole following melted away' (JBP,37). Gamaliel thus sketched their histories in parallel. Both men *appeared*, advanced claims and won a following. But then each *was killed, all his followers* were scattered, and his movement faded away. 

Commentators have understandably consulted Josephus for confirmation and/or amplification of these revolts, and have found references to two rebels with the same names. There was, he says, `a certain magician' named Theudas, when Fadus was procurator of Judea, who persuaded many to `follow him to the River Jordan, for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would by his own command divide the river'. But he was captured and beheaded. Then Josephus also described `a certain Galilean' named Judas, who prevailed on his countrymen to revolt, because he told them they would be `cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans' and thus `submit to mortal men as their lords', when tribute should be paid to God alone. He was the forerunner of the zealots. 

So far, then, there are slight similarities between Gamaliel and Josephus. The problem arises when we look at the dates. The taxation census against which Judas revolted was introduced by Cyrenius (Quirinius) when he came from Rome to Judea in about AD 6. Josephus' Theudas, however, rebelled not *before* Judas (as Luke records Gamaliel as saying, verses 36-37) but during the procuratorship of Fadus (AD 44-46) which was about 40 years *after* him, and indeed a decade or more after Gamaliel was speaking! 

How we react to the discrepancy will depend on our basic pre-suppositions. Liberal commentators jump to the conclusion that Luke was guilty of an anachronism amounting to a major error, which must fatally undermine our confidence in him as a reliable historian. Conservatives, on the other hand, reach the opposite conclusion: `we cannot suppose that St. Luke could have made the gross blunder attributed to him in the face of his usual accuracy.' If there is a mistake, it is more likely to have been made by Josephus (who was `far from being an infallible historian') than by Luke. A better alternative explanation is that Josephus and Luke were each referring to a different Theudas. The stories they tell are divergent (Josephus does not mention that his followers numbered four hundred, nor Luke that he led them to the River Jordan). The only similarities are  that both men were named Theudas, and led a revolt which was crushed. But Josephus tells us that after the death of Herod the Great `there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults', and Theudas was not an uncommon name. So perhaps neither Luke nor Josephus made a mistake, but Gamaliel was referring to a Theudas whom Josephus does not describe, who revolted about 4 BC, and who was indeed followed, among others, by Judas the Galilean in AD 6. 

At all events, Gamaliel took the failure of both revolts as an object lesson which justified a policy of  *laissez-faire*. His advise to the council is given in verse 38: *Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. If, on the other hand it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God* (39). We should not be too ready to credit Gamaliel with having uttered an invariable principle. To be sure, in the long run what is from God will triumph, and what is merely human (let alone diabolical) will not. Nevertheless in the shorter run evil plans sometimes succeed, while good ones conceived in accordance with the will of God sometimes fail. So the Gamaliel principle is not a reliable index to what is from God and what is not.

Acts 5:40-42.  The Conclusion

The Council accepted Gamaliel's reasoning, however. *His speech persuaded them*. Having *called the apostles in*, they first *had them flogged* (presumably administering the terrible
`forty lashes minus one'). *Then they ordered them (for the second time) not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go* (40).  The apostles' reaction arouses our admiration. They *left the Sanhedrin*, their backs cruelly lacerated and bleeding, yet *rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name* (41). Luke's expression is `a beautiful antithesis (the honour to be dishonoured, the grace to be disgraced)'. They were in fact doing what in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had told them to do, namely rejoicing in persecution (Mt. 5:10-12; Lk.6:22-23). Moreover, they again boldly defied the count's prohibition, for *day after day*, in public and in private, *in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ* (42).

Luke has now concluded his account of the two waves of persecution which broke over the infant church. In the first the Council issued a prohibition and a warning, which led the apostles
to pray to the sovereign Lord for boldness to go on preaching; in the second they received a prohibition and a beating, which led them to praise God for the honour of suffering for Christ.
The devil has never given up the attempt to destroy the church by force. Under Nero (AD 54-68) Christians were imprisoned and executed, including probably Paul and Peter.  Domitian (AD 81-96) oppressed Christians who refused to pay him the divine honours he demanded; under him John was exiled to Patmos. Marcus Aurelius (AD 161-180), believing that Christianity was dangerous and immoral, turned a blind eye to severe local outbreaks of mob violence.  Then in the third century what had so far been sporadic became systematic. Under Decius (AD 249-251) thousands died, including Fabian, Bishop of Rome, for refusing to sacrifice to the imperial name.  The last persecuting emperor before the conversion of Constantine was Diocletian (AD 284-305).  He issued four edicts which were intended to stamp out Christianity altogether.  He ordered churches to be burned, Scriptures to be confiscated, clergy to be tortured, and Christian civil servants to be deprived of their of their citizenship and, if stubbornly unrepentant, executed.  Still today, especially in some Marxist, Hindu and Moslem countries, the church is often harassed.  But we need not fear for its survival. Tertullian, addressing the rulers of the Roman Empire, cried out: `Kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust.... The more you mow us down, the more we grow; *the
seed is the blood of Christians*'. Or, as Bishop Festo Kivengere said in February 1979, on the second anniversary of the martyrdom of Archbishop Janani Luwum of Uganda: `Without bleeding the church fails to bless'.  Persecution will refine the church, but not destroy it. If it leads to prayer and praise, to an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God and of solidarity with Christ in his sufferings, then - however painful - it may even be welcome.

Acts 6:1-7.  The Seven are chosen and commissioned

The devil's next attack was the cleverest of the three. Having failed to overcome the church by either persecution or corruption, he now tried distraction.  If he could preoccupy the apostles with social administration, which though essential was  not their calling, they would neglect their God-given responsibilities to pray and to preach, and so leave the church without any defence against false doctrine. 

a)  The problem (6:1)
The situation is clear. On the one hand, *in those days... the number of the disciples was increasing*.  On the other, the excitement of the church growth was tempered by a regrettable *goggysmos*, a `complaint... expressed in the murmuring' (BAGD). The cognate verb is used in LXX to denote the `murmuring' of the Israelites against Moses (eg. Ex.16:7; Num.14:27; 1Cor. 10:10), and evidently the Jerusalem church members were murmuring against the apostles, who received the relief money (4:35,37) and were therefore expected to distribute it equitably.  But such grumbling is inappropriate in Christians (Phil.2:14; 1 Pet.4:9). 

The complaint concerned the welfare of the widows, whose cause God had promised in the Old Testament to defend (eg. Ex.22:22ff; Dt.10:18). Assuming that they were unable to earn their own living and had no relatives to support them (cf.1 Tim.5:3-16), the church had accepted the responsibility, and a daily distribution of food was made to them.  But there were two groups in the Jerusalem church, one called *Hellenistai* and the other *Hebraioi*, and the former *complained against* the latter *because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food* (1).  It is not suggested that the oversight was deliberate (`the Hebrew widows were being given preferential treatment', JBP); more probably the cause was poor administration or supervision. 

What exactly was the identity of these two groups? It has usually been supposed that they were distinguished from each other by a mixture of geography and language.  That is, the *Hellenistai*  came from the diaspora, had settled in Palestine and spoke Greek, while the *Hebraioi*, were natives of Palestine and spoke Aramaic.  This is an inadequate explanation, however. Since Paul called himself *Hebraios* (2 Cor.11:22; Phil.3:5), in spite of the fact that he came from Tarsus and spoke Greek, the distinction must go beyond origin and language to culture. In this case the *Hellenistai* not only spoke Greek but thought and behaved like Greeks, while the *Hebraioi* not only spoke Aramaic but were deeply immersed in Hebrew culture.  This being so, *Grecian Jews* is a good rendering, while *the Aramaic-speaking community* is not, since it refers to language only and not culture. `What is needed here'. writes Richard Longenecher, `is some such translation as "Grecian Jews" and "Hebraic Jews". There had always, of course, been rivalry between these groups in Jewish culture; the tragedy is that it was  perpetuated within the new  community of Jesus who by his death had abolished such distinctions (eg. Gal.3:28; Eph.2:14ff; Col.3:11). 

The issue was more, however, than one of cultural tension. The apostles discerned a deeper problem, namely that social administration (both organising the distribution and settling the  complaint) was threatening to occupy all their time and to inhibit them from the work which Christ had specifically entrusted to them, namely preaching and teaching. 

b)  The solution. (6:2-6) 
*The twelve* did not impose a solution on the church, however, but *gathered all the disciples together* in order to share the problem with them. They said, `*It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables*' (2).  There is no hint whatever that the apostles regarded social work as inferior to pastoral work, or beneath their dignity.  It was entirely a question of calling.  They has no liberty to be distracted from their own priority task. So they  made a proposal to the church: `*Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom* [JBP, "both practical and spiritually minded"].  *We will turn this  responsibility over to them (3) and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word*' (4).  It is note-worthy that now the Twelve have added prayer to preaching (probably meaning public as well as private intercession) in specifying the essence of the apostles' ministry.  They form a natural couple, since the ministry of the word, without prayer that the Spirit will water the seed, is unlikely to bear fruit.  This delegation of social welfare to the Seven is commonly thought to have been the origin of the diaconate.  It may be so, for the language of diakonia* is used in verses 1 and 2, as we shall see later.  Nevertheless, the Seven are not actually called *diakonoi* (cf.Rom.16:1; Phil.1:1; 1 Tim.3:8, 12; 4:6). 

The church saw the point of the apostles' plan:  *This proposal pleased the whole group*.  So they put it into effect. *They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas from  Antioch, a convert* (NEB, `a former convert') *to Judaism* (5). i.e. a proselyte. It has been pointed out that all seven had Greek names.  They may all, therefore, have been *Hellenistai*, deliberately chosen to satisfy this group who were complaining.  But this is speculative. It seems more likely *a priori* that `some of both classes of Jews were elected, the only fair and proper course'.  Whether they were deacons or not, and whether they were *Hellenistai* or not, the church *presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them* (6), thus  commissioning them and authorizing them to exercise this ministry.

Acts 6:1-7.  c). The principle

c)  The principle
A vital principle is illustrated in this incident, which is of urgent importance to the church today. It is that God calls all his people to ministry, that he calls different people to different ministries, and that those called to `prayer and the ministry of the word' must on no account allow themselves to be distracted from their priorities. 

It is surely deliberate that the work of the Twelve and the work of the Seven are alike called *diakonia* (1, 4), `ministry' or `service'.  The former is `the ministry of the word' (4) or pastoral work, the latter `the ministry of tables' (2) or social work.  Neither ministry is superior to the other.  On the contrary, both are Christian ministries, that is, ways of serving God and his people.  Both require spiritual people, `full of the Spirit', to exercise them. And both can be full-time Christian ministries.  The only difference between them lies in the form the ministry takes, requiring different gifts and different callings.

We do a great disservice to the church whenever we refer to the pastorate as `the ministry', for example when we speak of ordination in terms of `entering the ministry'. This use of the definite article implies that the ordained pastorate is the only ministry there is. But *diakonia* is a generic word for service; it lacks specificity until a descriptive adjective is added, whether `pastoral', `social', `political', `medical' or another. All Christians without exception, being followers of him who came `not to be served but to serve', are themselves called to ministry, indeed to give their lives in ministry. But the expression `full-time Christian ministry' is not to be restricted to church work and missionary service; it can also be exercised in government, the media, the professions, business, industry and the home. We need to recover this vision of the wide diversity of ministries to which God calls his people. 

In particular, it is vital for the health and growth of the church that pastors and people in the local congregation learn this lesson. True, pastors are not apostles, for the apostles were given authority to formulate and to teach the gospel, while pastors are responsible to expound the message which the apostles have bequeathed to us in the New Testament.  Nevertheless, it is a real `ministry of the word' to which pastors are called to dedicate their life. The apostles were not too busy for ministry, but preoccupied with the wrong ministry.  So are many pastors.  Instead of concentrating on the ministry of the word (which will include preaching to the congregation, counselling individuals and training groups), they become overwhelmed with administration.  Sometimes it is the pastors fault (he wants to keep all the reins in his own hands), and sometimes the people's (they want him to be a general factotum). In either case the consequences are disastrous. The standards of preaching and teaching decline, since the pastor has little time to study or pray.  And the lay people do not exercise their God-given roles, since the pastor does everything himself. For both reasons the congregation is inhibited from growing into maturity in Christ.  What is needed is the basic, biblical recognition that God calls different men and women to different ministries.  Then the people will ensure that their pastor is set free from unnecessary administration, in order to give himself to the ministry of the word, and the pastor will ensure that the people discover their gifts and develop ministries appropriate to them.

d)  The result (6:7)   
As a direct result of the action of the apostles in delegating the social work, in order to concentrate on their pastoral priority, *the word of God spread* (7a). But of course! The word cannot spread when the ministry of the word is neglected. Conversely, when pastors devote themselves to the word, it spreads. Then as a further result, *the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and (a remarkable development) a large number of priests became obedient to the faith* (7b). The two verbs `spread' and `increased' are in the imperfect tense, indicating both the spread of the word and the growth of the church were continuous. This verse is the first of six summaries of growth, with which Luke intersperses his narrative. They come at crucial points in his unfolding story: after the apostles' decision to give their attention to prayer and preaching (6:7); (cf.Acts 2:47; 4:4; 5:14;  6:1) after the dramatic conversion of Saul of Tarsus (9:31); after the equally wonderful conversion of the first Gentile, Cornelius, followed by the overthrow of Herod Agrippa 1 (12:24); after Paul's first missionary journey and the Jerusalem Council (16:5); after the second and third missionary journeys (19:20); and at the end of the book after Paul's arrival in Rome, where he preached `boldly and without hindrance' (28:30-31). in each of these verses we read either that the word was spreading or that the church was growing or both. God was at work; neither humans nor demons could stand in his way. 

We have now seen the three tactics which the devil employed in his overall strategy to destroy the church. First, he tried through the Jewish authorities to suppress it by force; secondly through the married couple Ananias and Sapphira to corrupt it by hypocrisy; and thirdly through some squabbling widows to distract its leadership from prayer and preaching, and so expose it to error and evil. If he had succeeded in any of these attempts, the new community of Jesus would have been annihilated in its infancy. But the apostles were sufficiently alert to detect `the devil's schemes' (Eph.6:11). We need their spiritual discernment today to recognise the activity of both the Holy Spirit and the evil spirit (cf.5:3) We also need their faith in the strong name of Jesus, by whose authority alone the powers of darkness can be overthrown (cf. Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7,10,12,18) 

Next: Acts 6:8-7:60.  Stephen the martyr.