The theme of Acts 5:26-32 is the message of Peter.[1] In context, the authorities arrested the apostles for performing numerous healings and for telling the story of Jesus. Their time in jail did not last long, however, because an angel opened the prison doors and brought them out to continue their teaching (Acts 5:12-21).
27 When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. Luke was unaware that the Temple police consisted of Levites. The Jewish Council has brought them a second time to an official hearing. Obviously, the Council did not appreciate the message they preach amid the city. This Jewish Court had recently judged Jesus. Now, the apostles are in the presence of the same court to receive judgment. This court held the reins of religious power in Jerusalem and therefore of much of Judaism. For Peter and John, this is round two. For the rest of the apostles, this is their first experience standing before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders. Human authority is at work. It seeks to silence that which it no longer wants to hear. The primary accusation was they had disobeyed the "strict orders." Here is the primary accusation against them, though they told only Peter and John not to preach, the command applies to all the apostles. The implication is that the apostles are the only ones who teach and that their teaching has spread throughout the city. They warned the apostles not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, the first accusation against the apostles, and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us,” the second accusation against the apostles. At their first confrontation with Jesus' followers, these Sadducean priests had professed strong theological differences with the apostles. As Sadducees, they rejected all notions of resurrection (4:1-2), which of course was the crux of the apostles' good news. What alarms them most is the continued use of the name of Jesus -- a name that reminds all listeners of the slippery political slope these religious leaders had descended to deal with that problematic rabbi. Oblivious to the power of a resurrected Christ, the council priests have further concerns with the possible political fallout that might occur if the crucified Jesus remains a topic of discussion and a familiar name on the street. Instead of hearing the Good News of the Resurrection, the authorities only hear continued attempts to pin the blame for Jesus' death on their own actions and behaviors. The reference in 4:10 to their crucifixion of Jesus suggests to the High Priest that they seek divine retribution for the killing of Jesus. 29 Nevertheless,Peter, who again takes up his new role as voice of the apostles and articulator of their faith, and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority. Peter begins by forcing the religious leaders to see the choice the apostles confront. Genuine Christian confession occurs as an act of defiance and opposition. True, private faith is honorable and beautiful, but it does not reach full Christian confession until it occurs in the context of opposition. I note, however, that it says we should obey God more than people, and not instead of people. People have an honorable and dutiful obedience to others.[2] The passage is notably like Socrates in Plato's "Apology" 29D, "I must obey God rather than you," which Luke may have used as a model. Thus, the first response of Peter to the accusations of the high priest testifies to his own innate Jewishness. How can a religious body like the Jewish council take issue with a fellow Jew who claims he must "obey God rather than any human authority?" If any theological concept united a first-century Judaism struggling to maintain its identity within the Roman political machine, it was their claim to recognize only the one God as their Lord and ruler. 30 The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus. Peter's next statement even more intimately unites the apostles and their message to the roots of Judaic history. First, he asserts that it was within the power and unity of the one God of Israel to raise Jesus from the dead. The God Peter knows is the God of Israel, the God who specially loved and chose Israel over all other nations. Followers of Jesus need to recognize this deep bond with the Jewish people and Israel. Their common Jewish tradition leads Peter to describe the wrongful crucifixion of Jesus the way he does. Peter further identifies Jesus as the one whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. Not only does Peter again assert that these Jewish leaders killed Jesus, but that they killed him by "hanging him on a tree," based on Deuteronomy 21:23. However, having clearly established his common ground with the council, Peter goes on to detail their differences by invoking the name of Jesus and denouncing the council's participation in Jesus' degrading death. Yet, Peter continues to make this an "in-house" problem. 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader, which is an uncommon term applied to Jesus as the prince, captain, and even author, sometimes “first cause” or originator. God also exalted Jesus to be Savior. All of this was so that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. We see here that Peter is concerned more with testifying about the wondrous good news of the Savior than he is in fixing blame for Jesus’ death. The great truth that Peter now offers this Council is that even they must seek Jesus as their Savior if they want to experience the repentance and forgiveness God would offer Israel. The Jewish leadership that he now faces are members of his own faith family. Peter condemns the wicked actions that resulted in Jesus' crucifixion while keeping open the door to redemption that the crucifixion and resurrection now make possible especially for the Jews. Despite their despicable behavior, then, Peter continues to offer these most elite and most duplicitous members of the Jewish establishment, the gift of Christ's salvation. Nevertheless, Peter reveals there are some genuine theological revelations that his listeners must accept to receive this gift. Peter describes the relationship between God and the risen Christ as one of shared authority and lordship. Jesus is at the right hand of God through God exalting him to that position. Peter suggests that Jesus himself is now one with God -- working to dispense divine forgiveness and acting with divine authority. 32 Further, we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” Peter stands as an example of the Holy Spirit's ability to act as a witness for Christ. The apostle who had so often spoken without thinking, acted without consideration, and even run away without hesitation, has now twice stood before the power and authority of the Sanhedrin without once misspeaking. Israel now can repent and win forgiveness. This point is part of the kerygma. The witnesses are the apostles and the Holy Spirit, whom God bestows on every believer. The significance of the resurrection of Jesus is that if God has raised Jesus, this can only confirm the pre-Easter history of Jesus. That which was ambiguous has become clear. This passage maintains the unity of Jesus with God. One reason for this affirmation is the facticity of the resurrection of Jesus as the Christian message proclaims it. The basis of the message is the primitive Christian testimonies to the appearances of the risen Lord to the disciples, along with the discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem. Of course, we as modern people cannot accept such testimony blindly because of authority. Rather, we might do so only after considering whether the testimony holds up by testing other reported facts. In this context, the oldest New Testament witness to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus form a single event, which is the point here in verses 30-32. This suggests that the account of the appearance of the risen Lord “from heaven” to Paul in Galatians 1:6 is an indication of what is behind the Gospel stories of the appearances as well.[3]
I would like to say a word about Peter. Think of the transformation that took place. Just a few weeks prior, this council had judged Jesus worthy of crucifixion. Peter, confronted with a question from some guards and even a servant girl, denied he knew Jesus. Along with the rest of the disciples, he abandoned Jesus on that fateful night and went into hiding. However, in this incident, Jesus is a bold witness for Jesus. Something has happened to him and to the others in prison with him. I believe the “something” is precisely what they claim, namely, they saw Jesus raised from the dead, receiving new life from the God of Israel, the one whom he called “Father.” The Holy Spirit, the giver of life, gave new life to Jesus, so that he could be the Originator and Savior who could offer forgiveness of sin to the very people who judged him worthy of crucifixion.
The bold declaration by Peter is the early reflection upon what a few hundred years later the church would call the Trinity. Father, Son, and Spirit cooperate to bring salvation and forgiveness of sin to Israel and to the world. Despite Peter's insistence that God's miraculous redemptive act -- the gift of Jesus Christ -- was for Israel's salvation, the high priest and the council are "enraged" and "wanted to kill them" (v.33). Although the apostolic witness grows, the rift between their Jewish audience and the newly formed Christian churches continues to widen throughout the book of Acts. After Pentecost, the apostles had quickly established themselves as a vocal and continually annoying presence in the midst of Jerusalem. Far from confirming the status quo and the establishment, the resurrection is a disruptive, counter cultural experience. In case we thought the resurrection was an event that happened to Jesus at the cemetery, something private and weirdly out of this world, think again. Resurrection keeps on happening, and the authorities do not like it a bit. What is happening among these "poor and ignorant" people is God's victory of life over death.
I want to take you back to a different time, to April 1963, and see if we can learn some things about human authority, God, and Christians differing when confronted with differing political choices.
If you were a leader of the clergy in Alabama in April 1963, you would have received a strongly worded letter from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. On April 16, King issued his Letter from Birmingham Jail. In August of the same year, he would deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. In November of that year, Oswald would kill President John F. Kennedy. Authorities locked up the freedom movement leader in the city jail after arresting him for his part in the Birmingham campaign. So why did King write the letter? Eight white Alabama clergymen -- four bishops, three pastors and one rabbi -- had written a statement known as “A Call for Unity.” It said that while they understood the “natural impatience”, King's efforts of direct action on the streets were "unwise and untimely." They agreed that racial segregation was a problem, but that religious leaders should pursue change through negotiation and judicial action. They thought that although Dr. King espoused nonviolence, his direct action had incited violence, which has no sanction within the religious tradition. These religious leaders rebuked King for being an outsider causing trouble in Birmingham.
We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement in particular, on the calm manner in which these demonstrations have been handled.
Of course, King, who had personal experience with the police department of Bull Connor, disagreed with their assessment. They concluded with a message of hope: “We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.” One can see that what the Alabama clergy saw was quite different from what Dr. King saw. They saw that the defeat of “Bull” Connor in the recent election meant the possibility of a new day for the city. Dr. King saw that the problem of segregation was not just one man, no matter how much of a symbol of racism he had become. Of course, calling Dr. King’s non-violent demonstrations “extreme measures” does seem odd, considering the Black Nationalist movements then and now. Among the bishops were two Methodist bishops. What struck me though was that King referred to them as “men of genuine good will” and that they sent forth their criticism “sincerely.” Yet, he also suggests that such “white moderates,” who agree with the goals but not the methods, may be the greatest hindrance to advances by the Black people.
King responded to the open letter with his own admittedly long letter. He said he was not an outsider because, as he beautifully put it, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.” King agreed that the open demonstrations were unfortunate, but said, "It is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative." As to the question of the timing of the demonstrations, King responded that those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation could easily tell others to wait. He offers a lengthy list of the abuses of segregation. He refers to lynching, hate-filled officers of the law, violence, poverty, blocking entrance to public places, inferiority, hatred within black children for white people, and called disrespectfully “nigger” and “boy.” The “cup of endurance” has reached its limit. For blacks in the United States, the word "wait" had meant "never." They had already been waiting 340 years for their "constitutional and God-given rights." That is too long to wait. King was sick and tired of waiting for human authorities to act. It was time to obey God. If you think you must disobey an immoral law, King says to do so openly and lovingly.
Not that King was the first to practice civil disobedience. He spoke of the Old Testament's Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refusing to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar ..., Socrates practicing civil disobedience in ancient Greece ..., American patriots participating in the Boston Tea Party ..., and, of course, early Christians facing persecution for their faith. Like Martin Luther King Jr., they knew that they must obey God rather than human authority. In fact, as King says later in the letter, the church was powerful in its witness when it suffered for the right cause. However, how did he know that he was hearing the voice of God? After all, the clergy of Birmingham believed that they were obeying God. They had the authority of religious institutions on their side. King addresses this question head-on. In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," he says that there are two types of laws: just and unjust.
"I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"
Of course, the obvious question is how we are to know the difference. That is the tough part.
"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. A just law is any law that uplifts human personality." An unjust law is: "Any law that degrades human personality." [Based on this reasoning, he concludes that] "all segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."
King refers to the deep connection between America and the African-American.
We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America.
He contrasts himself with various Black Nationalist movements that have lost faith in America. He urges the more excellent way of love and non-violent protest. He wants to channel the normal and healthy disturbance that oppression brings into nonviolent action. King quotes the theologian Paul Tillich in saying that sin is separation, and then makes the point that segregation is an
"expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness." [If segregation is sin, then King can justifiably urge his followers to] "disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong."
In other words, one can legitimately disobey segregation ordinances because they alienate people from each other, when morality will bring people together in mutual regard and respect. King expresses his disappointment in the church, represented by “A Call for Unity” letter, especially since he has led a nonviolent form of direct action.
All of this leads me to reflect upon where we draw the line between just and moral laws in contrast to moral and immoral laws. I am sure those in the legal profession would have much to say about such notions. Depending upon where we draw the line, we will come to differing conclusions as to when and where to practice civil disobedience.
We can look brilliant this long after April 1963. Dr. King looks quite prophetic while the others in whom he expressed disappointment look morally and spiritually dull. It was time for segregation and all that it represented to end. Yet, they at least tried to treat each other respectfully.
Sadly, today, I do not find much effort at mutual regard and respect. To take direct action today is not to do so “openly and lovingly.” Often, such action is covert, accusatory, and even violent.
I do not come to the positions I hold easily. I have never been much for politics in the pulpit. In so many issues, I feel the need to study thoroughly, and that takes some time. After my study, I may well come to some personal conclusions. Yet, I can always understand that someone might legitimately take a differing opinion.
I have counseled people considering abortion to value life instead. As I think of one family, that baby is now a valued member of an extended family. Does that mean I would always do so? Could I imagine circumstances where I might offer a different counsel?
The definition of marriage for society has always been between a man and a woman. Apart from biblical arguments, it has been a good guide for healthy expression of our sexual desire, need for intimate friendship, encouraging responsibility and work, and passing on basic values to the next generation. Society is now going through a change. How can society stand in the way of any two people who want a marriage license? We do not know what the outcome of such change will be. Will we witness the breakdown of the family? Will we see the growth of personal hurt and pain because we no longer have a guide to healthy sexual expression? What happens if society allows the sexualization of every relationship? What happens of gender identity gets so confusing that it leads to policies regarding public restrooms that put women in danger?
We have long had limits on immigration from other countries. The reason was that it takes time for people to assimilate into the American idea of political and economic freedom. Do these rules need re-consideration? What do we do with people who come without going through legal channels?
The rise of Islamic militancy presents a challenge, of course, due to its religious ties, but we must also defend our neighbors from those who want to do harm. The religious genocide against Christians in the Middle East deserves opposition from all forms of government.
I know I need more education on the ending of child sex slavery and human trafficking. I have puzzled as to why it took a Civil War to end slavery in America, but the fact that it continues may suggest that slavery is a far deeper issue than I presently think.
In an election year, which seems like every year now, people feel deeply about their candidate. Does it make me a non-Christian or racist if I do not support your candidate? Does it make me a hater of America if I do not support your candidate?
The point is, can we frame the discussion in such a way that it makes us think about whether we advance human alienation or enhance our common humanity in our creation and destiny. While God created us in the image of God, due to our separation from God, each other, and nature (see Genesis 3-4), we are now on the way to our destiny, to be conformed into the image of Jesus Christ. Note that our commonality in creation and destiny does not obliterate our individuality. Rather, this commonality leads us toward the actualization of love to God and to others, to the actualization of faith, hope, and love.
Regardless of the stand you take, the solution will not be quick or easy. I hope we can always engage in such discussions with mutual regard and respect. As Dr. King put it, we are to discuss matters openly (and therefore courageously) and lovingly (and therefore with understanding of those with whom we disagree).
Does this mean that two people, standing on opposite sides of an issue, could legitimately say, “I must obey God rather than human authority?”
Garrison Keillor, in “On the Meaning of Life,”[4] wrote of how difficult it can be to keep focused when times are tough. Of course, we are to know and serve God, or to use the imagery of this passage, of course, we are to obey God rather than humans. Such a truth is obvious as the nose on your face. He next gets into some imagery I like. The country may seem as if it is going to the dogs, so cats must learn to be circumspect, walk on fences, sleep in trees, and have faith that not all the woofing is the last word. If we are fortunate, the “last word” is still gentleness, showing consideration and courage, openness and love, non-violence, and the fruit of the Spirit.
[1] [Here is how some scholars consider the history contained in this passage. Part of the early polemic against the view that Jesus was the Messiah was whether crucifixion nullified the possibility that Jesus could be the promised Jewish Messiah. The answer of the early church would have included a reference to Dt. 21:22-23. This may help explain Paul's emphasis on the cross.
{(If a man guilty of a capital offence is to be put to death, and you hang him from a tree, his body must not remain on the tree overnight; you must bury him the same day, since anyone hanged is a curse of God, and you must not bring pollution on the soil ...) 30 ... whom you executed by hanging on a tree.}
[2] Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.4, [53.2], 82-85, 250.
[3] Systematic Theology, Volume I, 352-55; Jesus: God and Man, 67-68, 92.
[4] We Are Still Married (1989)
