Easter 2 • Acts 5:12–20 (21–32) • April 11, 2010

by David Maxwell

Acts 5:12–16 presents a picture of a time when signs and wonders were a common occurrence. The ESV is perhaps over-translating in verse 12 when it says, “Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles.” The word “regularly” is a translation of the imperfect aspect of the main verb egeneto. This is a legitimate translation, but it is worth noting that Luke uses the imperfect indicative throughout these verses simply to narrate past events. Thus, the preacher should not put too much weight on the word “regularly” (other translations do not even use it). Nevertheless, it is clear that these miracles were happening frequently enough for people to come to expect them.

The question this raises for us is, “Why don’t these things happen today?” More pointedly, perhaps, Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in verses 17–32 raises the question of whether we, too, should expect this kind of deliverance. How, exactly, does this text apply to us?

God can, of course, do whatever he wants. However, there are some indications in the text that the signs and wonders are not functioning primarily to mark God’s presence. If that were their function, then we might expect to see them wherever God’s presence is, even today. In this text, the signs and wonders vindicate the apostles in much the same way the resurrection vindicated Jesus. In verse 12, for example, Luke includes the specification that the signs and wonders were performed “by the hands of the apostles.” A similar linkage to the apostles may be seen in Acts 8:18, where Simon Magus observes that “the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands.” Faced with the charge of disobedience, Peter and the apostles tell the council, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The miracles serve to authenticate Peter’s testimony and vindicate him from the charges leveled against him.

This parallels the way that the resurrection vindicates Christ. Peter continues, “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him” (Acts 5:30–32). Perhaps we may not be accustomed to the idea that the resurrection vindicates Christ. Lutherans tend to stress that the resurrection conquers death (1 Cor 15) or that it proves that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was acceptable (the synodical exposition of the Small Catechism). However, Luke is very concerned to show that Jesus was not a failure who died the death of the criminal. That is why the centurion at the cross, in Luke’s account, says, “Certainly this man was innocent!” (Lk 23:47). The same point is critical in the story of the two men on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13–35). They were going to Emmaus because they thought Jesus had failed. Jesus’ appearance to them convinces them that his death was not a failure, and they turned around and went back to Jerusalem. Likewise, in our text, Peter cites Christ’s resurrection as evidence that God the Father had vindicated him, overturning their criminal execution of him.

The signs and wonders in this passage, then, serve not as an example of what we, too, can do if we only believe, but as vindication of the apostles’ message of repentance and forgiveness (Acts 5:31).

Related posts

Proper 25 · 1 Thessalonians 2:1–13 · October 29, 2017

Proper 25 · 1 Thessalonians 2:1–13 · October 29, 2017

By David Peter, This is the second in a series of sermons based on texts from 1 Thessalonians. The series is entitled “Fatherly Encouragement.” Paul writes as the spiritual father to his children who need guidance and encouragement to grow in faith and faithful living. Fatherly...

Proper 24 · 1 Thessalonians 1:1–10 · October 22, 2017

Proper 24 · 1 Thessalonians 1:1–10 · October 22, 2017

By David Peter This Sunday begins a series of several weeks in which the Epistle readings are taken from 1 Thessalonians. In this lectio continua much of the content of Paul’s letter is covered. This provides the opportunity for an expository sermon series based on the appointed Epistle...

Proper 23 · Philippians 4:4–13 · October 15, 2017

Proper 23 · Philippians 4:4–13 · October 15, 2017

Editor’s note: David Schmitt provides this homiletical help as the fourth and final in a sermon series on the lectionary’s successive readings from Paul’s letter to the Philippians. By David Schmitt, Textual Connection In Paul’s closing exhortations, he encourages the Philippians in...

1 Comment

  1. Jason Krause April 3, 2013

    I would agree that the signs and wonders serve not as an example of what we can do and thus that signs and wonders do not occur everywhere that Jesus’ manifests His presence, but that the signs and wonders authentic Peter’s message. Even so, it seems that here Jesus’ presence with the disciples should still be noted (even if not primary). To that end, Luke uses the word “episkiazo” (“overshadow”) in relation to the signs and wonders which occurred even with Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15). Doesn’t this recall the presence of God as it overshadowed the disciples in the Transfiguration or the Holy Spirit overshadowed the virgin Mary or the OT accounts of God overshadowing His people in the pillar of cloud and fire, etc.? Wouldn’t this suggest that God’s presence is with His disciples/apostles as His witnesses and as those who bear the Spirit? Thus, people should be listening and hearing them and their message? The angel that frees them doesn’t send them out to work more wonders but rather to speak “all the words of this life” (Acts 5:20).

    So, rather than saying, “However, there are some indications in the text that the signs and wonders are not functioning primarily to mark God’s presence”, would it be better to say, “the the signs and wonders indicate God’s presence with the apostles for the purpose of authenticating and vindicating their testimony of Jesus Christ”? In this way do we not divide up the function of the signs and wonders into different functions but rather see the function of these signs and wonders in a more cohesive manner?

Leave a comment