Session 2.10: December 8, 2023

Scripture Reading: Acts 4:1-31

While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests and the commander of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, 2 angry because they were teaching the people and announcing in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 So they seized them and put them in jail until the next day (for it was already evening). 4 But many of those who had listened to the message believed, and the number of the men came to about 5,000.

5 On the next day, their rulers, elders, and experts in the law came together in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and others who were members of the high priest’s family. 7 After making Peter and John stand in their midst, they began to inquire, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, replied, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man—by what means this man was healed— 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”

13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus. 14 And because they saw the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say against this. 15 But when they had ordered them to go outside the council, they began to confer with one another, 16 saying, “What should we do with these men? For it is plain to all who live in Jerusalem that a notable miraculous sign has come about through them, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to keep this matter from spreading any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 And they called them in and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, 20 for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.” 21 After threatening them further, they released them, for they could not find how to punish them on account of the people, because they were all praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man, on whom this miraculous sign of healing had been performed, was over forty years old.

23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them, 25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather,

‘Why do the nations rage,

and the peoples plot foolish things?

26 The kings of the earth stood together,

and the rulers assembled together,

against the Lord and against his Christ.’

27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen. 29 And now, Lord, pay attention to their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your message with great courage, 30 while you extend your hand to heal, and to bring about miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously.

Main Themes

Introduction

Persecution (But Not Immediately)

Persecution is a major theme in Acts. More broadly, persecution seems inseparable with the spreading of the gospel. Christian persecution is recorded by Luke, Paul, non-Christian ancient historians, and early Christian writers. This remains a true fact today. According to data by Open Doors (which I have not corroborated but I have also not heard to be disputed), about 360 million Christians experience intense persecution today. That is about one out of every seven Christians.

Nevertheless, despite the intense persecution endured by Christian in the Acts narrative, we might ask: why was the Jesus revolution not completely eliminated quickly and swiftly? Authorities did not move against Jesus’ followers the way they did against the followers of other revolutionaries, such as Theudas, the Samaritan prophet, or the Egyptian prophet. Perhaps differences between the political leaders involved accounts for the slower response to early Christians. The more likely reason is that the authorities did not perceive early Jesus followers as a real threat. Neither Jesus nor his followers had taken up arms or spoken of overthrowing the government.

The Parable of the Vinyard

The above notwithstanding, in chapter 4, the disciples must confront the municipal aristocracy. As I am sure you remember from our study of John, the chief priests and scribes were particular targets of Jesus’ criticisms and were his most critical enemies. The same is true in the Gospel of Luke. To understand the conflict in Acts 4, we should read the parable of the vineyard and the tenants found in Luke’s first volume.

Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.’ But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours!’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:9-19

The parable treats the religious elite as people who may have had legitimate power, but who now have exceeded their proper station rendering them illegitimate usurpers of Jesus the king’s rightful position.

Public Perception of the Authorities

Jesus’ criticisms of the elite were shared by many others. Most of the minority Jewish sects viewed the elite as little more than Roman political lackeys. Why? Because they were little more than Roman political lackeys.

The Sanhedrin—Jerusalem’s ruling council—became completely dominated by quasi-Roman appointments and Roman sympathizers. With Rome’s support, Herod the Great had installed his own backers in the Sanhedrin, and Rome determined who filled the high-priestly office. By the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were the dominant (although not exclusive) voice in the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees would be unnervingly familiar to us. They claimed to believe in the Scriptures—in the Jewish constitution, so to speak—while denying the Scripture’s heart and soul. They did not believe in an afterlife, or the promises and curses of the Bible. The were much like modern “progressive Christians.”

This background information helps us to frame the conflict between the apostles and the Sanhedrin correctly. We might be tempted to think of it as Christians versus Jews. This is utterly anachronistic. Both the apostles and the Sadducees claim to lead the people. The apostles claim legitimacy through truth. The Sadducees claim legitimacy through power. The issue is one of political power versus truth.

Inventing Persecution

We should also ask one more introductory question. Would Luke lie about the persecution of Christians? What I mean is, would Luke make it up to make Christians seem courageous? Is Luke going for those highly coveted victimhood points? (Forgive me is my commentary today sounds overly political, but what we read in chapter 4 is quite similar to modern political conflicts. Using language more familiar to us can help us understand what is happening in Acts 4.) The likely answer to these questions is no.

To invent political persecution would have been counterproductive to Luke’s Christian apologetic. Portraying Christians as opponents of a Roman-friendly ruling council would only worsen Christianity’s reputation in the rest of the empire. I say worsen because many in Rome already disliked Jews for their foreign ways and attempts (sometimes successful) to convert Romans. If Luke was inclined to fiction or exaggeration, the more useful narrative would have been to portray Jesus followers as endorsed by the establishment.

Trouble with the Fuzz

Priests, Commander of the Temple Guard, and the Sadducees

The apostles are arrested by the priests, commander of the temple guard, and the Sadducees. “Priests” obviously refers to various priests in the temple. We should keep in mind that they would have been under or part of the leadership of the aristocratic priests—a large percentage of whom were Sadducees.

The “commander of the temple guard” was a high officer who, according to some ancient reports, occasionally even rose to the office of high priest. His rank seemed to have been only second to the high priest, and his duties included preserving order in the temple. One individual who filled this office close to the time period of Acts 4 is Ananus, who we have reason to believe was the son of the high priest Ananias. If Ananus is the same temple officer as in Acts 4, he later became high priest himself and executed James the Lord’s brother.

The Sadducees are mentioned only once in the Gospel of Luke—those who deny the resurrection (Luke 20:27). As we read Acts, Luke also tells us that they are the circle around the high priests (Acts 5:17) and form a significant part of the ruling assembly (4:5, 15). From other historical sources, we know they were most likely a well-to-do priestly sect who returned to power after the Maccabean era due to Roman influence. Sadducees rejected Pharisaic tradition probably by claiming Scripture as their only authority. However, because of the people’s support for the more Israel-friendly Pharisees, sometimes Sadducees had to play along. In other words, Sadducees had to accommodate populist sentiments.

The Arrest

Chapter 3 ends with Peter calling Israel to repentance. Quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus, Peter tells them, “Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.” This is the context of the arrest. If one believes Peter’s words, then the Jewish authorities appear as the very people disobeying “the prophet.”

Why are the authorities arresting the apostles? Is it because the Sadducees reject the doctrine of the resurrection? On its own, that is not the issue. Pharisees also preached an eschatological resurrection of dead people. This theological difference generated considerable conflict with the Sadducees. Yet, we do not have record of the Sadducees using force against the Pharisees. So what’s the difference between the apostles and the Pharisees? The apostles preached the resurrection “in Jesus”—the man the Sadducees tortured and killed. This same Jesus was the man that claimed to be the true owner of the vineyard—or, put politically, an alternative and more legitimate priestly authority. By preaching Jesus, the apostles are publicly dishonoring the ruling class. Honor was a paramount value in this society.

Night trials were extremely rare in the ancient world. So, the fact that the authorities jailed the apostles overnight and convened in the morning is in keeping with standard procedure.

5,000 Believers

Luke clarifies that the political pressure on the Jesus movement does not dissuade the apostles or new converts. This is in keeping with Jesus’ predictions.

But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses. Luke 21:12-13

Luke reports that the number of believers “came to” five thousand. This could mean that 5,000 converted on that occasion or that the total number of believers came to 5,000 in total. Given the population of Jerusalem at the time, the latter is more likely.

Rulers, Elders, Experts in the Law (“Scribes”), and the Sanhedrin

“Rulers” could refer to temple administrators but more likely refers to the ruling priests, who appear alongside “scribes” and “elders” in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 9:22; 20:1). The term “elders” can apply to local synagogue leadership but can also be connected with chief priests. We should keep in mind that the apostles were young men. So, they would be much younger than these “elders” in a culture that valued age.

Experts in the law, that is “scribes,” had knowledge of the law (obviously) and could draft legal documents. Some scribes may well have been Pharisees, given the Pharisees’ popular reputation for skill in the law and their availability for training. However, not all scribes were Pharisees. Many of the scribes may have been priests, who may have been better equipped financially to pursue such training.

The assembly described in Acts 4:5 consists of the same groups as Jerusalem’s “council,” or Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin was a ruling council equivalent to a senate. Many cities in the ancient world had their own ruling senates composed of the leading citizens. Rome ruled through local aristocracies, and Judea was no different.

According to rabbinic (and probably Pharisaic) ideals, judges who proved themselves locally could be promoted to the Sanhedrin, but in actuality the Sanhedrin in the apostles’ day probably consisted mainly of members of the Jerusalem aristocracy and wealthy landowners in the vicinity.

Jerusalem’s Sanhedrin was the ruling council for Jerusalem, the major urban center that watched over Judea. Just as the Roman senate wielded power far beyond Rome because of Rome’s power, Jerusalem’s Sanhedrin wielded some influence in Jewish national affairs.

At some point the Sanhedrin may have held seventy-one members, as tradition indicates. However, even if that were the case, not all members would have been present on all occasions, especially for an emergency meeting.

Rulers could use sanhedrins to secure the end they wanted without taking full responsibility for their decision.

The high priest presided over the ruling council and hence was Jerusalem’s most powerful resident (with the exception of an appointed or visiting Roman ruler), to whom the Roman prefect would likely defer many decisions. Moreover, Luke assumes his audience’s knowledge of Annas and Caiaphas, whom he introduced as high priests in his gospel. That Caiaphas held power as long as he did (nineteen years) reinforces the suspicion he was a skilled and ruthless politician.

Some people suggest that Luke was incorrect about Annas being the high priest, since Caiaphas was officially high priest in this period. However, as we discussed during our study of John, Luke is aware (Luke 3:2) that there can be a difference between who technically holds the office and who truly wields the power. Annas reigned as paterfamilias. Besides, Luke clearly employs the term “high priests” in the plural for all the leading priests. One could argue that there was only one high priest, since that is what the Old Testament established. However, even Josephus, the Jewish historian, used the plural “high priests” (and more often than Luke). It was standard terminology at the time. This could reflect foreign influence. Perhaps the Jews began to treat the priestly aristocracy just like Greeks and Romans treated their aristocracies, removing some of the religious connotations.

The Trial

Peter and John stand in the “midst” of the rulers, elders, and scribes. This fits the tradition that the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle.

The authorities begin the trial with the most important question: by what power or by what name did you do this? In this question, “name” signifies authority. Notice that this is the exact question that Peter sought to answer time and time again in chapter 3. He repeatedly made clear that the miracle and the message he preached came by the power and authority of Jesus.

Before Peter responds to the question, he is described as “having been filled” with the Holy Spirit—using the aorist passive participle. This verb tense more naturally points back to an earlier infilling of the Spirit (probably Pentecost) but it could mean a new infilling—meaning that Peter received fresh power and inspiration for this particular instance. Grammar alone may not be sufficient to settle the question. Some point to other passages that seem to show multiple infillings of the Spirit.

Informed readers might also make a connection between Peter’s God-inspired, bold testimony, and that of prophets of old. In the Old Testament, sometimes prophets were empowered by God to confront Kings and other institutions.

When Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem, he summoned 180,000 skilled warriors from all Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to attack Israel and restore the kingdom to Rehoboam son of Solomon. But God told Shemaiah the prophet, “Say this to King Rehoboam son of Solomon of Judah, and to all Judah and Benjamin, as well as the rest of the people, ‘This is what the Lord has said: “Do not attack and make war with your brothers, the Israelites. Each of you go home. Indeed this thing has happened because of me.”’” So they obeyed the Lord’s message. They went home in keeping with the Lord’s message. 1 Kings 12:21-24

He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet and I will speak with you.” As he spoke to me, a wind came into me and stood me on my feet, and I heard the one speaking to me. He said to me, “Son of man, I am sending you to the house of Israel, to rebellious nations who have rebelled against me; both they and their fathers have revolted against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and hard-hearted, and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.’” Ezekiel 2:1-4

Peter ends up responding “boldly,” but he begins with a respectful address, “rulers of the people and elders.” In rhetoric, this would have been the customary captatio benevolentiae.

After the address, Peter’s response drips with sarcasm. He asks whether the apostles are being detained for doing a good deed, literally an “act of kindness.” Or perhaps they were detained because a man was healed—literally “delivered.” (Keep in mind the semantic range of the word translated as “healed.” This will be important later.)

Peter is both providing a defense and going on offense. The claim is that Peter and John did nothing wrong. In fact, they did something good. And, that the authorities are opposing a good act, which by implication makes them evil. This probably goes without saying, but the argument is predicated on the idea that benefaction is virtuous—an idea universally accepted in the ancient world. Moreover, in the ancient Mediterranean ideology of reciprocity, the proper response to benefaction was gratitude. The ungrateful person was viewed negatively, and to harm benefactors was grossly wicked.

Peter then reloads with the phrase, “Let it be known to you.” This prepares the audience for a shocking statement. In rhetoric, a standard practice was charging one’s accuser with something. However, to employ that tactic against one’s judges was highly unusual. Appealing positively to them would be expected and probably more effective in obtaining a favorable ruling.

And what is the shocking truth the authorities must know? “By the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy.” Rhetorically speaking, he stabs and then twists the knife.

Peter then applies prophecy to bolster his case. “Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone.” This is a quotation from Psalm 118:22, but Peter inserts the word “you” to remove all doubt as to whom the prophecy is condemning.

The irony in the use of Ps 118:22-23 here is that in the Old Testament, Israel was the one rejected (or perhaps her king) by the Gentiles, but in the New Testament it is Jesus who is rejected by Israel. Remember that this is exactly the prophecy that Jesus used to condemn the authorities.

What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:15b-19.

Jesus implied the identity of the “builders.” Peter outright stated it.

The cornerstone or topstone (also called capstone) to which Psalm 118 refers is part of the architecture of the temple. Many scholars interpret the “cornerstone” as a “capstone,” the final stone fitted in place to hold the others in place. However, notice what the translators of the NET have to say:

[The Greek word can be translated as] “capstone,” “keystone.” Although these meanings are lexically possible, the imagery in Eph 2:20-22 and 1 Cor 3:11 indicates that the term κεφαλὴ γωνίας (kephalē gōnias) refers to a cornerstone, not a capstone.

The Twist

Peter finishes his argument by returning to the idea of being saved or delivered. Recall earlier I pointed out that the word used to convey the lame man was “healed” also means “delivered” or “saved.” In verse 12, Peter claims this deliverance can come only through Christ, alluding to a greater kind of deliverance.

That no other name provides salvation “under heaven” means that no other name provides it “anywhere.” Notice that Peter leaves little question that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. There are many Christians and so-called Christians who deny that, but the text does not seem to allow for such theology. (However, exactly how exclusive is the group of people saved through Christ could be debated.) Moreover, early Jewish groups held a range of views, from universalism to the salvation only of a single sect. So, Peter’s statement is probably not careless but an idea thoughtfully considered.

Uneducated and Ordinary Men

The authorities did not expect the “boldness” of these “uneducated” and “ordinary” men.

The authorities almost surely expected these commoners to fear them and seek their favor—as certainly most would have done. But Peter and John answer to a higher authority.

The word translated as “uneducated” literally means “illiterate.” Many, if not most, Jewish boys would have had training at least in reciting Torah, and fishermen probably had more education than that. Instead, the term indicates lack of formal education (hence the translation “uneducated”). The term is particularly poignant in the presence of scribes—highlighting the difference between the elite authorities and the disciples.

The word translated as “ordinary” formally designates an ignorant person or one who lacks training, such as in philosophy or rhetoric. However, it was used to refer to less educated “common” people.

We should notice that the authorities recognized that these men had been with Jesus. Recall the last time people recognized that Peter had been with Jesus. Peter denied his lord three times and let him die alone. This scene in chapter 4 is, in a sense, the redemption in Peter’s story arc. The fact that Peter lacked boldness before shows the impact of the Holy Spirit.

Although the apostles are uneducated commoners, the authorities are silenced by the facts. The miracle is undeniable. A man lame from birth, a fact to which multitudes could attest since he was placed at the temple daily, was standing right in front of them (see verse 14). What to do?

Saving Face—They Get Off with a Warning

The authorities need to save face. They simply cannot allow the apostles to have “the last word.” At the same time, they cannot antagonize the people, who have witnessed a miracle and an act of kindness for a member of the most disenfranchised class. Should they punish a benefaction by having the apostles flogged? This would be unwise. So the authorities release the apostles with a mere warning. The ability to issue the warning shows who is in power without having to actually punish the apostles.

We should note that the leaders do not seem to question their own position. Although they cannot deny the miracle, they refuse to consider its implications. Luke may be implying political corruption and hardness of heart among the elite. This would be in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, which explicitly addressed people so set in their wicked ways they would not see the truth. In Matthew 13, Jesus applied a text from Isaiah to them:

You will listen carefully yet will never understand,

you will look closely yet will never comprehend.

For the heart of this people has become dull;

they are hard of hearing,

and they have shut their eyes,

so that they would not see with their eyes

and hear with their ears

and understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them. Matthew 13:14b-15 quoting Isaiah 6:9-10

No More Talking About Jesus

The authorities order the apostles not to speak in Jesus’ name. This means not to speak as his representatives or acting on his authority, thus drawing attention to a person who was executed by the authorities. The phrasing, however, creates a narrative contrast between the elite and the apostles. The name of Jesus is precisely the authority and power by which miracles are happening and, ultimately, deliverance.

Peter and John openly refuse to abide by the order. There is a sad and almost mocking difference between the “inability” of the apostles and that of the authorities. The apostles are not able to deny or keep secret that which they have seen and heard. The authorities are also unable to deny the miracle (4:16) but they are also unable to acknowledge its implications.

The Jewish tradition contained examples of justified civil disobedience, particularly when obedience to God and obedience to the government became unavoidably contradictory. Perhaps the most memorable example is in Daniel 3.

Then Nebuchadnezzar in a fit of rage demanded that they bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego before him. So they brought them before the king. Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you don’t serve my gods and that you don’t pay homage to the golden statue that I erected? Now if you are ready, when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, trigon, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music, you must bow down and pay homage to the statue that I had made. If you don’t pay homage to it, you will immediately be thrown into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire. Now, who is that god who can rescue you from my power?” Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, “We do not need to give you a reply concerning this. If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. But if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.” Daniel 3:13-18

A more prescient example that was probably in the minds of apostles and the authorities was the Maccabean revolt. In the 2nd century BC, when Antiochus ruled over Israel, he encouraged the Semitic peoples of the Mediterranean coast to regard him as the ancient god Baal of the Canaanites. Consider how Britannica explains the lead up to revolution:

This conception of revealed religion and of loyalty to the Word of God, rather than to a human king, Antiochus could not appreciate, particularly since he himself delighted in the name God Manifest. In order to extirpate the faith of Israel, therefore, he attacked Israel’s religious practices. He thus forbade the observance of the Sabbath and of the traditional feasts, for these had been ordained by a “jealous,” or intolerant, God. All sacrifices were to come to an end. He forbade the reading of the Law of Moses and gave orders to search out and burn any copies that could be found. He forbade the practice of circumcision, for it was this that set the Jews off from other peoples as the one “people of God.” In place of these practices, Antiochus encouraged the development of cultural clubs called gymnasia, in which people gathered to study, to learn, and to enjoy each other’s company. After competing in various forms of athletics, men and women used to soak themselves in hot baths. But because the pursuit of the “good” included a delight in the body beautiful, such activities were performed naked. A circumcised Jew taking part in the games in a gymnasium could not therefore hide where his loyalty lay. Finally, in 168 BCE, Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and desacralized the Holy of Holies in the Temple. This was the one place on earth about which Yahweh said “My name” (the expression of his Person) “shall be there” (I Kings).

A number of Jews, under their leader Jason, the high priest, took the easy way of conformity with the new universal trends. But with Antiochus’s impious act, a strong general reaction set in. Thus, when, later in the same year, Antiochus again entered Jerusalem, this time plundering and burning and setting up his citadel, the Acra, on the hill overlooking the Temple courts, he went too far, for his final act of spite, on December 25, 167 BCE, was to rededicate the Temple in Jerusalem to the Olympian god Zeus.

I provide the long quotation above because the Maccabean Revolt was brutal and bloody. (It is from its success in rededicating the temple that the holiday of Hanukkah finds its origin.) This is exactly the kind of revolution the authorities sought to prevent. But, we should notice by now, this is not quite the kind of revolution the apostles sought to start.

Should We Be Like Peter?

Is the boldness and disobedience of Peter an example for all Christians—an example for us today? Answering this question could take an entire Bible study session, but perhaps we can discern some general principles from Luke’s writing.

In Luke 20, Jesus is asked about paying taxes to the Romans (Caesar in particular). Jesus responds,

“Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” They said, “Caesar’s.” So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Luke 20-24-25

We must keep in mind that the context of Luke 20 is people attempting to deceive Jesus into saying something treacherous and worthy of arrest and death. So we should expect his answer to be less than straightforward. However, it is still clear from his answer that government has a proper sphere in which it deserves obedience.

At the same time, we must keep in mind Peter’s attitude in chapter 4. “Is it “right before God to obey the [authorities] rather than God”? Peter answer, in word and deed, is no.

Put broadly, Luke’s writings seem to suggest that we should obey the government unless doing so is directly contrary to obeying God. In practice, however, this principle can be hard to apply.