(1) The apostles went through 40 days of training by Jesus, learned to wait and pray and saw the result — the miraculous baptism of the Spirit and the conversion of thousands instantly. They even dared to go to the temple now. How would John and Peter feel about the arrest? Were they prepared for it?
They were afraid before (Peter denied Jesus before these people three times), but they weren’t now? Why?
(2) The absence of Jesus’ body must have been a very disturbing event to the religious leaders. What might the religious leaders be thinking when they heard of the resurfacing of the apostles out of their hiding, the miracle at Pentecost, the growing number of disciples and now the blatant challenge of the apostles by not only worshipping as usual at the temple, but healing and preaching as if it were their territory? As they asked, “By what power or what name did you do this?” (4:7), they of course knew the answer. Why then did they ask such a question to the apostles? What was the intention?
(3) Reflect on the response of Peter:
a. How did he refer to the act of healing of the cripple?
b. As expected, he pointed out that he healed in the name of Jesus and he highlighted the following:
- Jesus is from Nazareth
- He is the Christ (i.e. the Messiah)
- They crucified Him
- God raised Him from the dead
- The prophecy of Psalm 118:22 is now fulfilled
If you were a skeptic among them, would you have any ground to dispute Peter? Why or why not?
(4) While the above facts may be indisputable, how then could Peter connect these directly to his assertion in v. 12, namely:
a. Salvation is found in no one else, and
b. No other name is given to men by which we must be saved?
(5) How then should we respond to other religions, as when people in general like to say, “All religions are the same”?
(6) What is the main message to you today?
I find Acts 4 a very interesting chapter in that these poor religious leaders were made to face their crime. They thought they had gotten rid of Jesus for good. Little did they anticipate that He would really come alive. Worse, they are now confronted by His disciples, those “unschooled, ordinary men” (Acts 4:13).
As I mentioned in preceding Bible study materials, the absence of Jesus’ body must have been a very disturbing event to these religious leaders. What might the religious leaders be thinking when they heard of the resurfacing of the apostles out of their hiding, the miracle at Pentecost, the growing number of disciples and now the blatant challenge of the apostles by not only worshipping as usual at the temple, but healing and preaching as if it were their territory? As they asked, “By what power or what name did you do this?” they of course knew the answer. Why then did they ask such a question to the apostles? Well, what else could they ask? What else could they say? What else could they do?
They really only had two options. One was to submit to the convicting of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. The evidence was undeniable—they killed the Author of Life; they rejected the “stone”. Now, even with the mention of the name of Jesus, the crippled was healed. Peter powerfully asserted that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Sadly, choosing to repent and be saved by this name was not an option. The only option remained was “to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14). That they did.
Down the centuries, many have chosen to kick against the goads, and they are not confined to those who persecute Christians, but so-called Christians who deny that Jesus is the only name unto salvation. When you care to study the biographies of some of the noted liberal Christian leaders, you will find that many of them are children or grandchildren of missionaries who had given their lives to reach the lost in a totally foreign land with the same message that Peter preached. But now many of their children and grandchildren deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation.
I was listening to Brahms’s Requiem last Sunday before I headed to church. He is one of my favorite composers. Of course theologically, I do not care much about requiem music, because it always begins a prayer for the dead. But Brahms would have none of that. Not because he was brought up as a Protestant, but sadly because he did not believe in life after death. In fact, he did not even believe Jesus as the only Savior of the world. As a result, he purposely omitted the name of Christ in the lyrics of his Requiem. When he was challenged by Conductor Reinthaler, he would not budge. Arias such as I know that my Redeemer liveth were a later insertion by Reinthaler into his German Requiem. He said to Reinthaler, “I would dispense with passages like John 3:16.” In a letter, Dvořák disclosed his concerns regarding Brahms's religious views: “Such a man, such a fine soul—and he believes in nothing! He believes in nothing!” Well, the saddest thing was he did not believe in Jesus Christ.
(1) From the description in v. 13 about their deliberation, can you tell what the core problem with these religious leaders was?
(2) In their opinion, what kind of people might be qualified to teach the word of God and to be used by God to perform miracles? To what extent is it still the problem with Christians, including yourself?
(3) What had caused these accusers to have, “nothing to say” in v. 14?
(4) In this generation where Evangelical Christians are somewhat suspect in the eyes of the world, what is the one thing that can cause skeptics to have, “nothing to say”?
(5) The people saw the miracle and these religious leaders acknowledged it too. Yet, their responses were very different. Why? What then should your attitude be towards miracles?
(6) John and Peter’s famous statement that “whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God” deserves our reflection:
a. What was the thing that the leaders asked them to obey?
b. How did it conflict with what God has asked them to obey?
c. In our days, there are many things that our culture is imposing on us that are in conflict with God, whether it be at school, at work and in the society. Can you cite three of them and see how you might apply the principle above?
d. What might be the thing that the “law” of our land is imposing on us that is in blatant violation of the Scripture? How can we learn from Peter and John in this case?
(7) Why were Peter and John let go?
(8) What is the main message to you today?
There is a growing recognition among Christians to stand up for the truth in the face of more and more blatant attacks on Biblical principles by the secular society and sometimes even the government, especially in the areas of same-sex marriage and abortion. This is good in that Christians are no longer taking an indifferent attitude as if they had nothing to do with us and it would be fine for us to hide behind the four walls of the church building. It is not even relevant whether the North American nations were originally established under God or not, we are the prophetic voice that needs to be sounded in order to warn the nations and to steer them toward God.
Among these expressions of our concern toward all these oppressive initiatives and/or laws by the government, I have discovered an equally prominent voice of concern towards the possible loss of tax exemption status by the church. I find this very interesting because this would never be the concern of the first believers who taught us to obey God rather than man (Acts 4:19). They never enjoyed such a privilege nor would they ever have dreamed of such a possibility. I find that such a concern in fact reflects a very erroneous attitude toward God and our giving to Him. Are we concerned that if this tax exemption is removed, it will plunge all churches into financial difficulties? Or, are we concerned that we will not be able to receive deductions to lessen our taxable income? I rather welcome such a removal of exemption, because our offerings would be more genuine.
In the last few years, I have witnessed a group of brothers and sisters donate a sizeable amount of money to help reach the Muslims for Christ in a certain city outside of North America. Because of the location of the ministry, no tax exemption receipts are issued, but it has not deterred them from the continuation of their regular and sizeable giving. This is in fact a true expression of our obedience to God.
The response by the early church to Peter and John’s account gives us a glimpse about their corporate life:
(1) How did the church respond immediately to the account given by Peter and John? How (not what) did they pray?
(2) Can you divide their prayers into meaningful sub-divisions?
a. V. 24 is adoration: Why did they start with adoration and why did they focus on the sovereignty of God in response to the report?
b. Vv. 25-26 is a quote from Psalm 2:1-2: How did they make a point by point correspondence with this Psalm in vv. 27-28? What was their conclusion in echoing their adoration?
c. Vv. 29-30 is their request: Without looking at their request, what might your request be under the circumstances? Compare yours with that of the early church. What can you learn from their request?
(3) What can you learn from the pattern and the contents of their prayer?
(4) What was the result of their prayer?
(5) Did you focus your answer on the phenomenon or on their boldness? What is more important?
(6) What is the main message to you today?
I have met a few persecuted Christians in my life, but I have never been one myself. Yes, I have been mocked at, I have been sworn at, and I have been driven out of the house with a broom, but compared to what Peter, John and other disciples faced, I would not even call these acts against me as persecution. So, as I read about the courage and joy that these apostles had in Acts 4, I was indeed amazed. How the church prayed, subsequent to the imprisonment and release of John and Peter, was truly amazing too.
I often wonder, what I would have prayed in their situation. Of course, I would have given thanks for the release and I might even have mimicked them in praising and thanking God. But what about praying for what would happen next? I’d probably pray something like this: “Lord, protect us and save us from persecution.” But these first disciples prayed, “(E)nable your servants to speak your word with great boldness.” (Acts 4:29)
Great boldness? These disciples felt that they were not bold enough! Their focus was not on themselves or their safety, their primary focus was on speaking God’s word, so that the gospel may be spread. Their desire was to see the wider spread of the gospel, and therefore they prayed for even greater boldness.
We often wonder why the church is so weak today. We often wonder too, why our evangelism is so ineffective. I think it is time you and I learn to pray like the first disciples.
(1) What does it mean to be “one in heart and in mind”? In what ways can we, believers, express our oneness in heart and mind? Think of at least three times in which you have seen this oneness in the church?
(2) The phrase, “from time to time” (v.34 in some versions of the NIV) is more of a paraphrase, but it does point to the fact that the believers might not have sold all they had, but as the need arose and as prompted by the Holy Spirit, they would continue to sell part or all of their possession. Nonetheless, the facts remain:
a. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own
b. They shared everything they had
c. There was no needy persons among them
d. From time to time, i.e. continuously, believers were disposing part or all of their possessions and entrusting the proceeds into the hands of the apostles, and
e. The apostles distributed them according to needs.
What might have been the motives behind such actions? List three at least.
Among those you have listed (and they might include the expectation of Jesus’ immediate return, a genuine love for one another, or the understanding that all they had was not theirs, but God’s) which might be the most important motive and one that you should learn to have?
(3) As we know, these apostles were humans too and would make mistakes, including being manipulated by phony claims of need (in chapter 6, they did show negligence over caring for the widows). Why then would people still sell their possessions and entrust them (like Barnabas) to the apostles? Why did they not worry about abuse? What can you learn from them about your own attitude:
a. On tithing?
b. On how you would manage your possessions?
(4) What is the main message today, and how would you act on it?
I find it interesting to note that repeatedly the apostles were labeled by the people of Jerusalem as people not worthy of their respect.
When the apostles were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, the people were amazed for sure, but they were even more amazed (in fact, “utterly amazed”), and asked, “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?” (Acts 2:7)
Then, when Peter and John were able to perform miracles, the religious remarked that “they were unschooled and ordinary” (4:13).
But when thousands came to believe in their message, they began to devote themselves to the teachings of these unschooled apostles (2:42). This was a clear indication of their conversion — putting their trust not in human wisdom, but in the very Word of God which was passed on by the Lord Jesus to these apostles. That was not too surprising to me.
What is truly surprising to me was when they practiced sharing all things in common and sold their possessions, including land and “brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:37).
I would have no problem submitting to the spiritual authority of these apostles, and I would have no problem following their teachings, but to entrust them with money — lots of money, it would be a different story. They were mere Galileans, uneducated and inexperienced certainly in business. None of them had anything close to an MBA. How on earth would they know how to manage such a large sum of money (which consisted of proceeds from the sale of numerous pieces of property)? How on earth would they know how to devise wise measures to prevent abuse, as they “distributed to anyone as he had need” (Acts 4:35).
Indeed, they did make a mistake even in the fair handling of the daily distribution of food to widows among them.
Yet, no one was deterred to continue to sell their possessions as prompted by the Holy Spirit.
I think it is a great lesson for us to learn and that is ultimately our offering is not to men, not to the leaders, not to the church, but to God, and God alone.
I have seen Christians who diverted or withheld their offering from their church because they either disliked those in leadership or they disagreed with the contents of the approved budget. They wanted to be in control of their offering, not knowing that once offered, the money is not theirs any more, it belongs to God.
(1) Do you think Ananias and his wife were true believers? Why or why not?
(2) We do not know how much they kept back from the proceeds of sale, and perhaps, not a lot since everyone would know how much a parcel would have fetched. In any case, what then was their motive for offering what was probably not too small an amount of money to the church?
(3) What was their sin: Not giving all the proceeds of sale or not telling the truth?
(4) Note that the word, “kept back” is translated “steal” in Titus 2:10. Why would such a sin deserve the punishment of death?
(5) We all know that a husband and wife have become one. Can you blame his wife for lying with the husband? What should she have done in the first place? What if Ananias insisted on his way? Would what Peter said in 4:19 apply here? Why or why not?
(6) Did their death necessarily signify loss of salvation? (See 1 Co. 5:5)
(7) In your opinion, why do divine disciplines not seem as obvious and instant these days?
(8) What is the main message to you today?
As we read and reflect on the tragedy of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, let also examine our own motive in following Christ with these insightful words by Amy Carmichael:
Many crowd the Savior’s kingdom,
Few receive His cross;
Many seek His consolation,
Few will suffer loss.
For the dear sake of the Master,
Counting all but dross,
For the dear sake of the Master,
Counting all but dross.
Many sit at Jesus’ table,
Few will fast with Him,
When the sorrow-cup of anguish
Trembles to the brim.
Few watch with Him in the garden,
Who have sung the hymn,
Few watch with Him in the garden,
Who have sung the hymn.
Many will confess His wisdom,
Few embrace His shame.
Many, should He smile upon them,
Will His praise proclaim;
Then, if for a while He leave them,
They desert His name,
Then, if for a while He leave them,
They desert His name.
But the souls who love Him truly,
Let woe come or bliss,
These will count their dearest hearts’ blood
Not their own, but His.
Savior, Thou who thus hast loved me,
Give me love like this,
Savior, Thou who thus hast loved me,
Give me love like this.
(1) Vv. 12-17 give us an exciting picture, as crowds gathered and the apostles appeared to be performing miracles even in the temple court area (Solomon’s Colonnade was on the east side of the temple):
a. Luke mentioned that “no one dared join them”, in spite of their miracles and the high regard of the people. Why was that? Did it have anything to do with what was described in v. 11?
b. At the same time, others did join them. What then might be their difference?
(2) It appeared that the arrest of the apostles was sparked by “jealousy” (v. 17). Do you think jealousy was the root cause or the immediate cause? What do you think the root cause was? (Consult v. 28 as well.)
(3) Reflect on why the angel of the Lord told the apostles to “Go, stand in the temple courts and tell the people the full message of this new life” (v.20).
(4) Luke’s narrative of how the leaders (stressing the full assembly of them) were all set to put the apostles on trial only to discover them at the temple court is quite humorous. What would you expect them to do and say? Compare what they said and what Gamaliel said. How did Gamaliel differ in his response with the rest?
(5) Reflect on Peter’s reply and see
a. How he tailored his response to the Jews and
b. What you can learn from Peter in telling the “full message” of this new life, by
- Affirming their obedience to God, rather than man
- Accusing them of killing Jesus on a tree
- Asserting that God (of their fathers) raised Jesus from the dead
- Asserting that God has exalted Jesus to His own right hand
- Asserting that He is now Prince (Ezek. 34:24, 37:25 and Isa. 9:6) and Savior
- Asserting that He is to give repentance and forgiveness of sins to “Israel”
- Asserting that the apostles were not the only witness, but the Holy Spirit was also
- Asserting that God will give the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him
(6) How did they eventually deal with the apostles and how did the apostles react to their treatment? Would you be rejoicing if you were the apostles? Why or why not?
(7) What is the main message to you today?
I admire the open-mindedness of Gamaliel. As part of the Sanhedrin and a well honored teacher of the law, he would have to be part of the Sanhedrin that brought on the crucifixion of the Lord. All the subsequent events leading up to the arrest of the apostles were indeed very troubling to these leaders, because all the evidence was stacked against them, proving that they had indeed crucified the Messiah. But their jealousy (Acts 5:17) and their unrepentant, guilty conscience only served to harden their hearts to the point that they thought they could stamp out this lingering problem by also putting the apostles to death.
In the heat of the moment, one cooler head prevailed. He was Gamaliel. As much as he was well respected, to stick his neck out for these apostles was not only political suicide, but real suicide. The crowd could turn against him in an instant.
Yet, he was bold enough to suggest that “But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God” (Acts 5:39). In essence, he was suggesting that there was a possibility that Jesus was the Christ!
I have no idea if Gamaliel eventually became a follower of Christ, but one of his great followers did! (Acts 22:3) It would not surprise me a bit that he did too.
This reminds me of a story told in class by a professor. He shared with us his ongoing dialogue with one of the leading liberal scholars of half a century ago, by the name of Thomas C. Oden. Because Oden had an open mind, he eventually assumed a more conservative stand and abandoned the old ecumenicalism of the World Council of Churches.
I was equally impressed with the dialogue between another professor of mine, Norman Wright (the Bishop of Durham) and Antony Flew (the father of modern atheism). Flew eventually abandoned his atheism some years before his death in 2010, because he too had an open mind and was determined to follow “where the evidence leads”.
The non-judgmental approach of the two professors serves as a model for me in how to lovingly deal with people who might disagree strongly with me in my evangelical faith.
(1) Judging from the accounts of the previous 5 chapters, how much had the early church grown, in terms of number, by now?
(2) We learned earlier in 4:34 that “there were no needy persons among them.” So why were some of the widows being overlooked? What is meant by being “overlooked”?
(3) Why were the overseas widows (immigrants to the Greek world) overlooked, and not the native Jewish widows?
(4) If you were one of the apostles (and they were all Jewish), how would you respond to such a complain?
a. Set up a committee to investigate
b. View the complaint as a nuisance
c. Consider such an act as a typical reaction of a minority
d. Focus only on caring for those who feel hurt and seek to remedy the situation right away
What was the Apostles’ choice of action?
(5) Why did the Twelve choose not to get involved in this ministry directly? What can we learn from their emphases?
(6) Since they seemed to put ministry of the word above that of waiting on tables, why would they need to select people who were “known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom” to take on the latter ministry and even lay hands on them? What is the message for the church today?
(7) The church has now become a multi-cultural church, and since this issue has an ethnic overtone, apart from the spiritual criteria, whom would you choose to take up this new responsibility in order to appear to be fair?
(8) Surprisingly, the group of seven chosen all bore Greek names, not one bore a Hebrew name (Marshall, TNTC, Acts, 127). What does it tell you about the mentality of the early church? How can we emulate them?
(9) What is the main message to you today?
Indeed, if I were one of the leaders handling the dispute concerning the complaints against the neglect over the daily distribution of food to the Grecian Jewish widows, I would (in my heart) look upon it as a nuisance. There are far more important things to deal with, like being persecuted by the Jews!
But since I had to deal with the complaint, I would first set up a committee to investigate if it was valid. If so, then I would commission a team to set things right, and seek ways to appease the dissidents, perhaps with an apology.
I have no idea if the apostles did any of the above. But I do know that they immediately appointed seven deacons to take care of the distribution of food to the widows. In so doing, they picked people who were filled with the Spirit and wisdom. This means that they took this ministry seriously (although they still maintained the primacy of prayer and the ministry of the word.)
In the selection of the seven deacons, I was blown away when I came to realize that, as Marshall puts it, the group of seven chosen “all bore Greek names”. (Marshall, TNTC, Acts, 127) If I were the apostles, because of fairness, I would have selected half of them from the local Jewish community, and half of them from those who had come back from abroad. That would be fair. But the apostles were not concerned about fairness, but love only. By choosing all overseas Jews, they were sending a message to those who complained that they totally loved, accepted and trusted them completely. This was far better than any apology!
If we behaved like these apostles, many of our church fights could have been avoided.