Acts 5

Acts 5:1-42

The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 5:1-42 Acts 5:1-16 The opening word of this section, “But,” at once suggests a contrast. Interest still centres in the Church in Jerusalem. We are still observing the first things in its history in that city. We have contemplated the first impression produced, the first message delivered, the first opposition manifested, and the first realization of fellowship. We have seen the hostility of rationalism, the Sadducean party opposed to the work of the apostles, preeminently because they proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus from among the dead. Then following the hostility which manifested itself after the healing of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate, and expressed itself for the present only in examination and threatening, we saw the great and gracious and wonderful picture of the fellowship of spirituality; that first fascinating account of how these people-answering the impulse of love, walking in light, and energized by life, all of which things had come to them in new measure and method by the coming of Pentecost-had all things in common.

In this passage we are faced with a new peril, and a new manifestation of power. The passage opens with the tragic and awful story of Ananias and Sapphira; but it closes with the account of how all the sick who were brought to the apostles were healed. All that is here recorded of judgment and of blessing is the outcome of the One Presence in the Church. The blasting and the blessing were the acts of the Holy Spirit in His administration of the work and the will of Christ. The story therefore of the whole paragraph is that of the first discipline, and reveals its occasion, its operation, and its outcome. The occasion of discipline was the sin of Ananias and Sapphira; its operation was the direct, swift, and awful judgment of God; its outcome was a new fear and a new power resulting therefrom.

We need to understand exactly what this sin was. First let it be noted that it was a sin within the fellowship of the Church. There can be no doubt whatever that Ananias and Sapphira were already associated with that company of believing souls which constituted the infant Church in Jerusalem. The perils without we have seen; but this peril was within, and was far more insidious, far more subtle, far more dangerous, than all those from without. The Church has never been harmed or hindered by opposition from without; it has been perpetually harmed and hindered by perils from within.

Let it be carefully remembered that the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not that of refusing to contribute. They brought a part of the price. Neither was it that of refusing to give all. It was not wrong that they should bring part of the price. We must insist again upon that which we emphasized in our last study, that the communism of the early Church was not by law, rule, regulation, requirement. It was the natural and beautiful outcome of the spirit-life by which all were mastered.

Consequently when Ananias and Sapphira gave only part of the result of their selling of land, of their selling of their possession, there was no wrong in keeping back part of the price. There was no regulation in this early community that men should give, or that they should give all. This was not a requirement for fellowship or for service.

Wherein then lay the sin? One must discover the nature of the sin by what Peter said both to Ananias and Sapphira. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was the sin of pretending that part was all. It was the sin of hypocrisy, of attempting to appear what they really were not, of endeavouring to make it appear that they had done what they really had not. The sin was that of lying; so the apostle named it: “How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” This was the terrible nature of the sin; not that of refusing to give; not that of only giving part; but that of attempting to make men believe that they had given all, when they had only given part, and so that of lying to God.

We may illustrate this by the things of to-day. If a man attend a convention or a religious service, and sing with fervour, “My all is on the altar” when it is not, he is committing the sin of Ananias and Sapphira. The Church’s administration to-day is not what it was, or there might be many dead men and women at the end of some services. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira is that of attempting, by confession of the mouth, or song of the lips, to make it appear that things are, as they really are not. The one thing that made Christ angry, the one thing against which He uttered His severest words, was the sin of hypocrisy. What severe things He said to the men who pretended to be religious; what scorching, blasting words fell from His lips against such.

He had no attitude toward the hypocrite, but that of unsparing severity; no language for the hypocrite, but the language of denunciation and of fire. Ye hypocrites who whiten the external, and within “are full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness.”

This Divine attitude toward hypocrisy is revealed by contrast in the story of God’s dealings with His people as recorded in the Old Testament, and in the accounts of Christ’s attitude toward honest men and women. Honesty never made God angry, even when it seemed to blaspheme, as in the case of Job. Christ was ever patient. An angry protest might honestly be made against something He said, and if His terms of dealing with the protest were severe, the severity was with the mistake, and not with the man who made it. Perhaps the simplest illustration may be cited. When Martha faced Him upon the day of her awful sorrow at the death of their brother, she was angry.

The story cannot be read without catching the accent of an honest, impatient anger. But He was not angry. He patiently bore with it, shed light upon it, and illuminated her mind. He led her into rest by answering the angry protest in such way as to astonish her. If we are in the midst of sorrow, and feel that God has done hardly by us, and then sing of resignation, that is hypocrisy. But if we are in the midst of sorrow, and tell Him all the hot anger of our hearts, He will be patient and gentle, and lead us into light.

He Who said " I am the truth " never made any peace with a lie. This man and this woman lied. That was their sin.

But let us look at the sin a little more closely, in order that we may see what it really meant. We can only see it in the light of the previous story, that of the fellowship of the saints. Self instead of love was the impulse of the lying; darkness instead of light was its method; and an earthly possession instead of the fullness of life was the issue.

Self instead of love was the impulse. The marvel of the love existing among the Christians at that time we have seen illustrated in the picture of our last study; it was love that made men cease to say that anything they had was their own; love that made them feel each other’s joys, and each other’s sorrows in a holy communism. In the midst of that atmosphere of love, Satan was allowed to enter the heart; and the choice made was that of selfishness instead of that of love.

It was, moreover, the method of darkness instead of light. Wondrous light had come to these men; light in which the apostles themselves saw more clearly the meaning of Christ, and the ultimate issue of His mission, than they had done in the three years in which they had been disciples close at His side. It was a strange and mystic light that illuminated all the dark horizon, and led into life with all its new meaning. In the midst of that light, Ananias and Sapphira lived in the darkness, and walked in the darkness, and chose the method of deceit.

They chose, moreover, to retain earthly possessions for themselves, rather than enter into all the spacious issues of the life which they had received. Barnabas, having land, sold it, and laid the proceeds at the feet of the apostles; and as we go on through the Acts of the Apostles, presently we find another thing recorded about him. He was “A man full of faith, and of the Holy Spirit.” That was the larger life. He flung the dusty possessions away, and took hold upon the infinite things. But these people clung to the thing that was material, and in so doing denied the operation of the spiritual life. That which is the price of honesty, is always the ruin of a life.

Judas may grasp his thirty pieces of silver, but he will never spend them. There is no purchasing power in the gain of dishonesty. Ananias and Sapphira retained a part of their possession, but they lost even the thing they sought to gain, when they were content to lose the greater gain.

We turn next to consider the operation of discipline. Here we have to do with matters which we must describe as supernatural. Yet there is a sense in which they were natural, rather than supernatural. If we interpret what happened that day, by the higher law of the higher life that had come to these men, it was natural. The unnatural thing is that men should still live in the Church, professedly in the name of Christ, and continue in their impurity. This was the true nature of the new conditions.

The discerning Spirit was at work, and the atmosphere was such that it was impossible for a man with a lie in his heart to come in, without the lie being known and detected. The tremendous, the overwhelming part of this picture, the thing that astonishes and fills us with awe, is not the death of Ananias and Sapphira.

It is rather that of the purity of the Church that compelled that death; compelled it, not by law and control, but by the atmosphere of the Spirit in which the Church was purified, and in which the Church was wholly and absolutely at the disposal of the Spirit. There was once a flaming sword that guarded the way to the tree of life. How flaming, in the power of holiness, was this atmosphere, into which if a man passed with the profession of generosity on his lips and a lie in his heart, he was immediately arrested and smitten. I look back upon the great scene, and it is not the death of a man that fills me with awe, but that of the Church’s condition. That little company of believing souls, a growing company all the time, but still comparatively a small company, was the Body of Christ, His instrument for the revealing of His will, and the carrying out of His will. It was dominated by the Spirit, and so was mastered by His love, walked in His light, and was energized by His life.

There came into that assembly a man with a lie upon his lips; and in a moment one spokesman of the fellowship addressed him with a faithfulness that could only be the outcome of the Spirit’s indwelling, inspiration, and interpretation. Peter had no mixed motive in his heart, he had no desire to retain the patronage of Ananias because he was a wealthy man; but being a man wholly at the disposal of the Spirit for the doing of the work of Christ, his word was that of terrific directness.

Then observe that Peter said no word to Ananias about his death. The sentence was not the calling down upon a man of a curse at the caprice of an ecclesiastical official. The death of Ananias was the act of God. It is probable that no man in that company was more surprised than Peter himself when Ananias fell dead. He “gave up the ghost.” He could not live in that atmosphere.

It was also the purification of the Church. This was an act of discipline by which a man who would have spoiled the Church’s fellowship, and paralyzed its power, by polluting its purity, was swept on one side. Through all the story of God’s dealing with men, it will be found that the beginning of some new departure such as this, has been characterized by an act of sudden judgment. The question is often asked: Why has not this continued? If the Church had continued to live as a whole, in that atmosphere, that discipline would have been maintained. The Church has become dangerously weak in the matter of discipline.

We have welcomed altogether too carelessly men into our fellowship who are not of us; and as the mixed multitude was the perpetual curse through all the years to the Hebrew nation; so the mixed multitude in the fellowship of the Christian Church has been, and still is, the supreme curse of the Christian Church. Far better the three hundred men that lapped, than the thirty-two thousand who first gathered about Gideon. I look back with wonder and astonishment and amazement and ever-increasing awe at that awful atmosphere of the purity of the early Church, in which a lie could not live; and in which the judgment was swift, sudden, sure, appalling, awful, direct, by the hand of God.

Finally the outcome is clearly revealed in the passage. Two words will express it: fear, and power. Luke is careful to say that the fear came upon the Church, and was felt outside it also. “Great fear came upon the whole Church.” That is the first occurrence of the word Church in the Acts of the Apostles. Never before had the company been called the Church. Here she emerges in her conscious and corporate life. There fell upon them a new sense of fear, the revelation of the awful purity of the atmosphere of the Holy Spirit. They had felt the thrill of love, and had answered it in that holy fellowship described in the previous chapter. Now they were taught by this activity of the Holy Spirit in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, the purity of the Holy Spirit.

The very Church itself fell into solemn and awful awe under the sense of that purity. Where the Spirit indwells and has full sway, the same awe forevermore abides. We have heard very much in recent years of the ministry of the Spirit. More books have been written on the work of the Holy Spirit during the last fifty years than in all the nineteen centuries preceding. Yet I am sometimes afraid, in reading books, in listening to addresses, in singing hymns about the Spirit, that we have been more impressed by the joy of the life, than by the awful solemnity of its purity. The early Church had to learn not only the love that made a man feel that nothing he possessed was his own, but that a lie could not live in the atmosphere of the Spirit.

Either Ananias or the Spirit must go. The two cannot live side by side.

Fear fell upon the Church, wholesome Godly fear; the Spirit of awe sweeping over the company of believers; the fear that made them investigate as to whether or not, perchance there were any lie in their own position and profession. Would God that such a baptism of fire might fall upon us to-day, the fear that drives us to a solemn enquiry as to whether our anthems are blasphemy, our hymns impertinence, and our profession a lie. I am passing no judgment upon any man, but I am bringing my life to the bar of the judgment of purity. It is only as we come there that we gain the full value of this story.

But the fear fell upon the community outside, as well as upon the Church; upon all the city, and upon all the leaders of men that thronged the city. That sudden and swift and awful judgment became a flaming sword barring the entrance, and holding men away. There is a sense in which the Church of God should always be spoken of as Mother Church, with her dear arms stretched out to take back the lost and wandering. But the Church must be a holy Church, a flame, a fire, and a scorching; so that while the wandering may come back, they know in their coming that the garments spotted by the flesh must be burned as they enter; that the unholy traffic must be left at the door; that no man or woman can hope to come into the fellowship of the Christian Church, whose hands are stained with unholy business; that no man or woman can hope to find refuge in the Church unless their lives are true and pure and consecrated to the highest of all ideals. It will be a good thing for the Church when she gets back so near to the Pentecostal manifestation and power, that fear falls upon the outside world. Why is it that the outside world does not fear in the presence of the Church?

Why is it that parliaments and kings and emperors are not afraid of the Church? Because the Church has allowed to come within her borders the unclean thing; because she is not pure. If only the Church of God had maintained that level of purity that comes from absolute abandonment to the indwelling Spirit, so that His life might have flamed at her gates, men would have come for healing, but never for refuge for a lie.

But the result was not only fear; it was also power. “By the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. But of the rest durst no man join himself to them; howbeit the people magnified them; and believers were the more added to the Lord.” Then mark the peculiar evidence of power that follows. " Insomuch that they even carried out the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his shadow might overshadow some one of them. And there also came together the multitude from the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folk, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one."

There are several things of importance in that paragraph. First of all notice that the paragraph does not say that the shadow of Peter healed any one of them, or that it did not. Do not let us deny the accuracy of the story, by denying the truth of something that is not affirmed. The phrase “the shadow of Peter” is a purely Eastern phrase; and in the Eastern lands to-day people will try to escape from the shadow of one man because there is an evil influence supposed to be in it; and they will try to come into the shadow of another in which there is supposed to be an influence for good. This is a purely Eastern picture, but see what it reveals; and see what these men thought of Peter. Sick people felt they would be healed if put in his shadow.

It is a revelation of these people’s conception of the power of the Christian Church. They were afraid, and yet they knew that purity was at the heart of the fierce fire that scorched and blasted sin. The world always knows it. At the heart of the fire there is not only purity, but blessing. The world is keenly conscious of the fact that the only healing is the healing of purity and holiness, however much they may argue to the contrary. As they carried the sick out into the streets and laid them there, their doing so was evidence of the impression made upon them of that little company of pure souls, in the presence of whom no lie could live.

Then there was the actual healing of the multitudes. Observe how careful Luke the physician is. We can detect the touch of the physician in all his writings. He drew attention to the different kinds of sickness. “There also came together the multitudes from the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folk, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits; and they were healed every one.” That is to say there was bodily and mental healing, healing for the bodies of the sick, healing for the minds demon-possessed; and they were healed every one. The Church ought to face this problem and enquire as to whether we have not lost, with our loss of purity, an actual power which ought to have enabled us to deal with very much of physical and mental disease, which is still in our midst, and which baffles us on every hand. Take the story as written here, and the story of all healing in the New Testament, and it will at once be seen where the wrong emphasis is placed.

Gifts were bestowed upon some in the Church and exercised by them. There is no case recorded where healing was made dependent upon a certain kind of faith, or even upon an attitude of faith on the part of the person who was sick.

What are the individual applications of the story? First surely this story speaks to us in the most solemn terms of the necessity for truth and holiness in the individual life. The need abides as much as ever. He requires truth in the inward parts.

In making an application of the story so far as the Church is concerned, I repeat that here is a story that begins with destruction and ends in healing, but it is the one power in both cases. Hell and heaven are made by the selfsame presence. It depends upon what a man is, as to whether the presence of God to him be heaven or hell. “Who among us can dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously; and speaketh uprightly.” God is the one and final environment of man’s soul, and He is heaven or hell to a man according to what the man is. The same mystic might in that early Church of the indwelling and abiding Spirit struck a lying man and woman to death, and healed the crowds that came.

It is but one Presence, and indeed there is a very remarkable interrelation between the two effects. Through judgment in the Church the Spirit moved to the healing of all that were brought. It is when the Church is cleansed and pure that she is ready to be an instrument of His healing, whether it be of spirit or mind or body. Through judgment to healing is the movement of this narrative.

The Church pure is the Church powerful. Go back over her history and see how true that is. It has always been so. Mathematics have no place in the economy of God, numbers are nothing; quality is everything.

But the Church Spirit-filled is the Church pure. The only power equal to making a Church pure is that of the indwelling Spirit of God.

And the last thing is, the Church obedient is the Church Spirit-filled. In proportion as she is obedient to the light she has, she is filled not once and forever, but perpetually with the eternal inrush of the Spirit, which is also the eternal outflow of the Spirit’s power. “Living water” said the Lord Himself. What is living water? Water that is not stagnant, simply that, and nothing more. The term does not suggest mineral properties, but a continual flow. If I gather from the bubbling spring some water, and say I will retain some of this living water for use, it ceases to be living water in the moment I have so gathered it.

Living water is for evermore flowing in, and through, and out. The great and gracious river, figurative of the Spirit, is full of suggestiveness. The Church must be filled by the Spirit, Who ever fills, and ever purifies, and ever flows through. But if the Church by her worldliness, by her complicity with the world, the flesh, and the devil dams the flow of the river, she loses her power, because she loses her purity.

All the great principles revealed concerning the Church are true of the individual. It is the pure man who is the strong man. It is the Spirit-filled man who is the pure man. It is the man obedient to the light received, who is the Spirit-filled man.

Acts 5:17-42 We are still dealing with the first things of the Christian Church, and come now to the first definite persecution. We see the forces opposed to Christianity, gaining courage, most evidently the courage of desperation. The rulers were strangely perplexed by the new and remarkable victories that were being gained in the city. At the centre of our paragraph there is a statement which gives us a general outlook upon the condition of affairs in Jerusalem. This declaration is the more remarkable in that it was made, not by Peter, but by the high priest; not by one who stood in defence of the Christian movement, but by the chief leader of the opposition thereto. From the standpoint of the opposition it was surely a word spoken inadvisedly.

I sometimes wonder if the high priest would have uttered such remarkable testimony to that little band of men arraigned before him, if he had known that it would be preserved for all time. He said to them: “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name; and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us.” This was, as we have said, most remarkable testimony to the growth of Christianity in Jerusalem at that time. It shows how profound an effect was being produced upon the city;-“Ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching”; and more, ye “intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us.” This was a revelation of the fact that the testimony and teaching of the apostles were turning public opinion toward a true conception of the action of the rulers in encompassing the death of Christ.

As we read this chapter there are three standpoints from which we may consider the story profitably: first, that of the opposition:-its composition, its reason, and its methods; secondly, that of the Church:-its master principle, the methods of its work, and its temper in the midst of opposition; finally, that of seeing God amid the shadows, keeping watch above “His own,-His methods, and His victories.

In order that we may follow this course, the simple facts of the story must be kept in mind. The apostles were imprisoned by the jealousy of the Sadducees. In the early morning, before daybreak, they were delivered supernaturally by the intervention of an angel. Immediately upon their release they returned-just as the sun was flushing the eastern sky, and as, in the Hebrew economy therefore, the ancient sacrifice was about to be offered in the temple-and carried on that work, for the doing of which they had been imprisoned. A little later in the day, but still in the morning, the Sanhedrim assembled, and they were perplexed because the apostles were lost. There is a touch of humour in the situation, in that trembling in the most august assembly of men that Jerusalem could produce.

Luke describes that assembly on this occasion with careful accuracy as the senate and council, that is the greater and the lesser Sanhedrim. In imagination we see them assembled in their robes, and dignity, and glory; everything in readiness except the prisoners.

They were not forthcoming. While they waited, messengers were sent to the prison, only to discover their absolute helplessness in the presence of the Divine movement, for the messengers returned to tell them the prisoners had escaped. Then came another messenger, and there seems to be a touch of satire, whether intended or not, in his message: “The men whom ye put in the prison are in the temple standing and teaching the people.” The apostles were at last brought, and placed in the centre of the council; arraigned on the charge of continuing to preach and teach in the name of Jesus. The apostolic defence followed, that address of Peter, a perfect example of courage and clearness and concise declaration of fundamental truths. It was a powerful statement, and the council decided to dismiss the men with a caution, and then violated their own order, by beating them. We then see them go forth, and a most illuminative thing is written of them: “They therefore departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name.” Such is the story.

First then let us observe the opposition. A description is given in verse seventeen of those before whom the apostles were arraigned: “The high priest . . . and all they that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees).” Then in verse twenty-one (Acts 5:21): “The high priest . . . called the council together”;-that is the inner circle of the Sanhedrim, that which was known as the Lesser Sanhedrim, lesser not in importance but in numbers;-“and all the senate”;-that is the whole company of the Sanhedrim. Pharisees were included in that gathering. When we were considering the first opposition we saw how very careful the writer of the story was to show that the whole Sanhedrim was not in opposition; but now the complete Sanhedrim was gathered together. The full gathering was a revelation of keen interest. It was a rare thing in those days for the whole of that great assembly to meet together.

The Sanhedrim was the constituted Hebrew authority, having limited jurisdiction under the Roman rule, and they met occasionally, a handful of them; but this whole gathering was evidence of remarkably keen interest in the case before them. This full gathering of the Sanhedrim was a very important thing, showing the growth of the Christian movement in Jerusalem. So keenly interested were the rulers of the people, that the whole Sanhedrim had come together, gathering from far and near. They were all there because they had felt the thrill of the new movement. The air was electric with it. The high priest, spokesman of the rest, said, “Ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching.” Men were talking in the assembly courts, in the places of commerce, and everywhere, about this new heresy, this new doctrine, this new teaching, this new way, this new life, this new religion.

The real inspiration of the opposition is revealed quite clearly in verse twenty-one (Acts 5:21); it was jealousy. Jealousy is always an ugly word; and it means here exactly what it means in our English tongue. Their jealousy is explained by verse twenty-eight (Acts 5:28. These rulers had discovered that their own authority was being set at nought as the result of a new authority which was at work in the city; an authority that had no central council, no police to enforce it, no army behind it; but a mighty, spiritual power, making itself felt in all the city. In consequence of that new authority, theirs was being set on one side, first by these very men who were arraigned before them, and therefore by the people. They were “much perplexed concerning them whereunto this would grow.” They were unable to see the direction, and they were in trouble as to the ultimate issue.

The final reason of the opposition was hatred. These men did not understand this new movement. They could not account for it. It was a great mystery to them that they had not been able to end it when they crucified its Leader; and an even greater mystery, that when they laid a charge of silence upon a handful of Galilean fishermen, it proved to be absolutely and utterly without avail. Despite all their determination to stamp out the heresy of the Nazarene, Jerusalem was full of the doctrine. In the presence of that mystery their hearts were moved with hatred because they felt the reins of power slipping from their own fingers.

The methods of the opposition were those, first of intimidation; and finally of caution, according to the advice of Gamaliel. This advice was by no means strong, but preeminently weak. From the standpoint of the Church, the advice of Gamaliel to give them time was excellent; but from the standpoint of the opposition it was weak. The strong attitude is never that of allowing anything to drift, in order to see its result; but rather that of intellectual determination to examine and discover the meaning of that which is moving men. Saul of Tarsus was honest, intellectual, strong, mighty before he was converted, and he was so afterwards. His two attitudes of mind were these; first to crush the movement; and then, when he was arrested and compelled to come to the inner heart of the mystery, he discovered that the only attitude was that of toiling and suffering in order to put a crown upon the brow of Jesus Christ.

The opposition to the Christian Church was mainly Sadducean, rationalistic, that which protests against the supernatural. In the presence of the supernatural it was strangely perplexed, and acting upon the advice of Gamaliel, decided to watch developments, rather than to face and solve the problem.

Let us now look at the Church. As we look back at the city of Jerusalem and accept this dictum of the high priest that it was full of the doctrine, we must feel a sense of contrast with the present times. To-day there are great multitudes of people gathering together to worship God. We thank God for all the assemblies of His saints. There is an atmosphere of fiery fervour and irresistible dynamic in these stories that we miss to-day. If we can see that early Church, we shall discover the reason of the difference.

The opposition is exactly the same. It does not take the same forms to-day. It never will take the same form again. Physical imprisonment and torture are largely things of the past. They will not be tolerated to-day. But if the method of the opposition is different, the spirit is with us still.

Sadduceeism is rampant, so is Pharisaism; they are represented to-day by rationalism and ritualism. These are the opponents of living, vital Christianity to-day, just as they were in Jerusalem.

How then is the Church to be victorious in the midst of these things? Let us go back to our story. Observe the principle upon which these men acted. It is expressed in one brief statement: “We must obey God rather than men.” That was the master-principle of the early Church. The word translated obey is a rare word in the New Testament, occurring not more than four times altogether. It stands exclusively for obedience; it does not suggest anything except actual, absolute, unquestioning submission.

In his defence Peter affirmed three things concerning God: God raised Jesus; God exalted Jesus to His right hand; God gave the Spirit to them that obey Him. These were the great things which had brought these men into the position of absolute surrender to God; the resurrection, the ascension, and the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. In the power of these things Peter said, “We must obey God rather than men.” We must put emphasis upon almost every word in that little sentence, in order to find the profound significance of it. “We must obey God.” That is the language of a company of people who have come into fellowship with God, and have swept out from their lives all other mastership and all other authority. Or again, “We must obey God.” Not we must consider Him, or patronize Him, or hold theories concerning Him, or defend the fact of His existence. Yet further, “We must obey God.” It is when a man, or a company of men, says, I must, or, We must, that we listen with respect. When a man says, I ought, we are interested, but not moved.

A man may know what he ought to do, and never do it. When a man says I must, and begins to interpret his rights or his beliefs in the terms of obligation, then he is passing into the realm of power. “We must.” All these men are against you-“We must.” You will be imprisoned-“We must.” We are determined that you shall not-“We must.” Finally, “We must obey God.” They did not endeavour to persuade others to bear their responsibility, but took the burden upon themselves.

The proportion in which the Church and individual members of the Church say that, is the measure in which the old impressions can be made again, the old victories won, the old power be known. That may seem like a somewhat severe impeachment of the Christian Church to-day. If it be so then let us remember that whenever men say “We must obey God,” and mean it, they safeguard themselves against the power of opposition, the peril of patronage and the paralysis of compromise. To ponder these three words is to see some of the reasons why the Church is not producing, and has not recently produced the old effects.

One is almost ashamed to speak of suffering for Christ To-day, there is so little of it. We see these men scarred, bruised, and battered; carrying in their bodies the stigmata of Jesus, the actual brutal scars and bruises in the flesh as the result of stones and stripes; when we put against all that, the suffering we have to endure to-day, one is almost ashamed to speak of it as suffering. But opposition is with us still, insidious, smiling, devilish opposition; and perhaps that kind of opposition is harder to fight than the other. How shall we be safeguarded against yielding to opposition? “We must obey God.” The Church’s gravest danger has never been created by opposition. When she has been opposed and persecuted she has been pure and strong. Never until she was patronized did she become weak.

Wherever the Church is patronized and admired by the world, she becomes weak. How shall we safeguard against that? “We must obey God.” So surely as the Church is obeying Him, she can never be weakened by patronage, and she never can be paralyzed by compromise. She must forevermore stand alone, bearing her testimony, opening her portals to receive the wounded in order that they may be healed, spreading her arms, great mother Church, to take the wanderers back again, and lead them to health and blessedness; but never permitting the standard of her ideals to be lowered, or her message of righteousness to be silenced, or her claim on behalf of God to be reckoned as of no account.

In this story we find not only the principle, but the methods of the early Church. These are revealed in the final word of Peter, “We are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, Whom God hath given to them that obey Him.“What is a witness? Not a person who talks merely. Many people will talk who are not witnesses; and many people will witness, who do not talk. A witness is a martyr. A martyr is a confessor, not with the lip only, but with the life; a martyr is an evidence, a credential, a demonstration.

I see Peter standing in the midst of the intellectual aristocracy of Jerusalem, saying in effect: You have no right to question the accuracy of what we say until you have accounted for what we are. “We are witnesses.” See what we were; see what we are; and know that the change has been wrought because God raised Jesus, exalted Him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and remission, and gave us the Spirit. We have followed Him; we have repented, our sins are remitted; we have the Spirit. “We are witnesses.” See what we are. The Church is never powerful unless she can produce her witnesses; not her preachers merely. If men and women are listening to preaching and are incarnating the thing preached, and are becoming living witnesses, concrete, incarnate documents, that is the way of the Church’s victory.

But observe the completion of the declaration. “We are witnesses . . . and so is the Holy Spirit.” That is the Church’s final power. That is the mightiest fact of all. If we lack cooperation with the Holy Spirit, unless we are in business partnership with the Holy Spirit, we can do nothing to impress Jerusalem or London. Unless the preacher is touched with the unseen, unless the Church catches and flashes upon the world the mystic light of the infinite, which cannot be gathered in the academy or university, preacher and Church will be “Faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null.” If we would fill London with our doctrine, we must be in partnership with the Holy Spirit. Then through joy and pain, the Church will move forward with God in continual victory.