Thesis
Every legitimate human authority is itself under the authority of God, and the duty of submission to human authority is therefore bounded by the prior duty of obedience to God. When a human authority commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, the Christian is not merely permitted but required to obey God rather than men. This limit is not the dissolution of the offices examined in Papers 1–8; it is one of the marks of their being real offices, since only an office whose claim is bounded can be honored without idolatry. The biblical witness on this point is consistent from Exodus to Revelation, and the present paper traces it through the principal cases—the Hebrew midwives, the daughter of Pharaoh in concert with Moses’ family, Rahab, Obadiah, the wise men of the East, Daniel and his friends, and the apostles before the Sanhedrin—and draws out the manner in which biblical refusal is to be carried out.
Introduction
The suite has now established that the Son of God is equal with the Father and yet truly sent (Paper 1), that submission within ordered offices does not imply lesser worth (Paper 2), that headship is representative service rather than possession (Paper 3), that authority is service in the manner of the Servant-Lord (Paper 4), that equality may be abused as a weapon against rightful office (Paper 5), that rank may be abused as a weapon against personhood (Paper 6), that respect and honor of office are to be carefully distinguished (Paper 7), and that the ordered relations of family, church, and commonwealth all participate in the same Christological pattern (Paper 8). It remains to address the boundary case. What happens when the office commands what God forbids?
The Scriptures answer plainly. The duty of submission is real and binding; the duty of submission is bounded; the boundary is the command of God. Where the two duties appear to conflict, the prior duty stands and the latter must yield. The classic statement is the apostle Peter’s before the Sanhedrin: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
The paper proceeds in seven sections. The first establishes the foundational principle from Acts and from the prior Old Testament texts. The second through fourth examine the principal Old Testament cases: the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1, Daniel and his friends in Babylon, and a survey of further cases (Rahab, Obadiah, Jonathan, the wise men). The fifth examines the New Testament cases of apostolic refusal. The sixth identifies the pattern that runs through the cases and the criteria by which a command is rightly judged to be a command of sin. The seventh treats the manner in which biblical refusal is carried out. A pastoral conclusion applies the doctrine to the relations of household, church, and commonwealth.
I. The Foundational Principle
The clearest single statement of the principle is given by Peter and the apostles in Acts 5. The Sanhedrin had arrested the apostles, who had been preaching the resurrection of Jesus Christ in defiance of the council’s previous order. The high priest reminded them, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching” (Acts 5:28). The apostles answered: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The verse is the foundation of the Christian doctrine of conscientious refusal.
A parallel exchange a chapter earlier had established the same principle in a slightly different form. “But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard'” (Acts 4:19–20). The apostles did not deny that the council held real authority within its proper sphere. They denied that the council’s authority extended to the silencing of the gospel. The council’s claim, in that respect, lay outside its lawful jurisdiction; in the same respect, the apostles were not bound to comply.
The apostles’ principle was not invented by them. It was the long-standing principle of the people of God under unlawful commands. Long before the New Testament, the Hebrew midwives had refused Pharaoh’s order; Moses’ mother had defied his sentence on Hebrew boys; Daniel had refused the food of the king’s table; his friends had refused to bow to the golden image; Daniel had refused the prayer-prohibition of Darius. In every case the refusal was not rebellion against authority as such; it was the recognition that authority, even when lawfully constituted, is bounded by the prior authority of God.
The principle may be stated as a single doctrinal sentence. The duty of submission to a human authority is the duty of submission to that authority within the office God has given it; where the authority commands what God forbids, it has stepped outside the office, and submission to that command is not owed; in such a case, submission to God requires the refusal of the human command. This sentence is the rule that the rest of the paper unpacks and applies.
II. The Hebrew Midwives
The first sustained narrative of the principle in Scripture is Exodus 1:15–22.
Pharaoh, alarmed at the growth of the Hebrews in Egypt, “said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, ‘When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Exod. 1:15–17). When Pharaoh summoned them to account, they answered him in a manner that has been the subject of much discussion: “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them” (Exod. 1:19). The narrative closes with the LORD’s commendation: “So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families” (Exod. 1:20–21).
Several features of this narrative deserve attention.
First, the midwives held a lawful office. They were the appointed birth-attendants. They were not in rebellion against the office; they refused a command that lay outside the proper exercise of the office. Pharaoh had no authority to require the murder of newborn boys, and his command did not bind their conscience.
Second, the ground of their refusal was the fear of God. “The midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them” (Exod. 1:17). Their refusal was not driven by self-interest or by political opposition to Pharaoh; it was driven by the prior allegiance owed to God. The Scriptures consistently ground biblical refusal in the fear of God, never in mere reluctance or rebellion.
Third, God Himself commended their refusal and rewarded it. “He gave them families.” Their conduct was not merely tolerated; it was approved. The reader is therefore not left in doubt about what Scripture thinks of refusal under unlawful command. It is honored.
Fourth, the immediate sequel makes the point with even greater force. Pharaoh, having failed with the midwives, commanded all his people to throw every Hebrew boy into the Nile (Exod. 1:22). It was in this setting that the mother of Moses hid her son for three months, and then, when she could no longer hide him, placed him in a basket among the reeds (Exod. 2:1–4). Pharaoh’s own daughter took the child up, recognized him as a Hebrew, and arranged for his nursing through what she must have known was his actual mother (Exod. 2:5–10). The whole sequence is a network of refusals of Pharaoh’s murderous command. Hebrews 11:23 names the parents’ faith in this refusal: “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.” The same letter that commands obedience to leaders (Heb. 13:17) names Moses’ parents’ disobedience as faith. The Bible’s doctrine is internally consistent.
III. Daniel and His Friends
The book of Daniel offers four sustained narratives of refusal under unlawful command. They are worth reading together as a single witness.
First, Daniel 1. Daniel and his friends, brought to Babylon as young men, were assigned the king’s food and the king’s wine. “But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself” (Dan. 1:8). The narrative is striking for its manner. Daniel did not refuse with public confrontation; he requested. He proposed a ten-day test. He worked with the official whose neck was on the line. He pursued his refusal in a manner that respected the office of those over him and that gave them a way to honor their own duties without violating his. God blessed the refusal.
Second, Daniel 3. Nebuchadnezzar set up the golden image and commanded that all should fall down and worship it on pain of being thrown into the furnace. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused. Brought before the king, they answered: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Dan. 3:16–18). The “but if not” of verse 18 is, in some ways, the high mark of biblical conscientious refusal. The three men refused without first knowing whether God would rescue them. Their refusal was not contingent on the outcome; it was grounded in the prior allegiance to God. They were prepared to die rather than to bow. They were rescued, in this case, by the visible presence of the Son of God in the fire (Dan. 3:24–25), but they did not require the rescue in order to refuse.
Third, Daniel 6. Darius signed an injunction that no one could pray to anyone but the king for thirty days. Daniel, knowing the document had been signed, “went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously” (Dan. 6:10). The detail is exact. Daniel did not invent a new public demonstration of defiance; he kept doing what he had always done. The injunction did not bind him because it commanded what God forbade (the cessation of prayer to God), and Daniel continued in his usual obedience. He was thrown into the lions’ den; the LORD shut the mouths of the lions; the next morning the king who had signed the injunction worshiped Daniel’s God.
Fourth, the broader posture of the book. Daniel was a faithful servant of the Babylonian and Persian thrones. He served Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus. He gave them counsel; he interpreted their dreams; he occupied high office under each. The book of Daniel is not the manifesto of a revolutionary. Daniel honored the offices God had placed him under. His refusals were the exceptions that occurred at the specific points where the kings commanded what God forbade. The rest of his life was a model of faithful service within a foreign court. The doctrine of refusal in Scripture is therefore not a doctrine of general disobedience; it is the marking of a particular boundary within a general life of submission.
IV. Further Old Testament Cases
Several further cases fill out the picture.
Rahab. Rahab hid the Israelite spies in Jericho and lied to the king’s messengers about their whereabouts (Josh. 2:1–7). The author of Hebrews names her faith: “By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies” (Heb. 11:31). James commends her works: “And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?” (Jas. 2:25). The case is more complex than the Hebrew midwives because it involves an explicit deception, and Scripture’s commendation of her conduct has produced a long and important discussion. Whatever conclusions are reached about the deception itself, the case clearly stands within the category of refusal under unlawful command. The king of Jericho’s order to surrender the spies was not binding upon a woman whose faith had already attached itself to the LORD of Israel, and her concealment of the spies was the act for which Scripture honors her.
Obadiah and the prophets. When Jezebel was cutting off the prophets of the LORD, Obadiah, the steward of Ahab’s household, “took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave and fed them with bread and water” (1 Kings 18:4). The reader is told that Obadiah “feared the LORD greatly” (1 Kings 18:3). His office in Ahab’s house was real; his action against Jezebel’s slaughter of the prophets was right. He continued in his office; he refused, in the matter where the queen’s hand was murderous, to comply with what her court was doing. The category is the same.
Jonathan and Saul’s oath. When Saul foolishly bound the people under oath not to eat anything until evening on the day of the battle with the Philistines, Jonathan, who had not heard the oath, tasted honey and was refreshed (1 Sam. 14:24–30). When Saul determined to put him to death for the breach, the people redeemed Jonathan: “Shall Jonathan die, who has worked this great salvation in Israel? Far from it! As the LORD lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day. So the people ransomed Jonathan, so that he did not die” (1 Sam. 14:45). The case is a near-mirror image: a son refusing to die under his father’s rash oath, and the people refusing to consent to that death. The honor due to Saul as king did not extend to participation in an unjust execution that even Saul’s own kingdom recognized as such.
The wise men of the East. “And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way” (Matt. 2:12). Herod, the lawful tetrarch, had commanded their return; God, through a dream, instructed them not to. They obeyed God rather than Herod. The next narrative—Joseph fleeing to Egypt with Mary and the child (Matt. 2:13–15) and remaining there until Herod’s death—is similarly a refusal of Herod’s murderous order by departure rather than confrontation.
These cases broaden the picture. Refusal under unlawful command is not the privilege of prophets and apostles only. It is the duty of midwives, of stewards, of foreign visitors, of common soldiers’ sons, and of ordinary believers placed in extraordinary moments. The Bible’s witness is consistent.
V. The Apostolic Cases
The New Testament adds the cases of the apostles themselves.
When the Sanhedrin had arrested Peter and John and ordered them not to preach in the name of Jesus, the apostles answered, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). When the apostles were arrested again and brought before the same council, Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). They continued teaching in the temple and in every house (Acts 5:42).
When Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and brought before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, he submitted himself to the legal proceedings and answered each ruler with patience and respect, but he never retracted the substance of the gospel that the council had condemned. He appealed to Caesar, the highest lawful court of his world (Acts 25:11), and continued to bear witness even from his Roman imprisonment.
The book of Revelation extends the same line to the eschatological horizon. The beast and the false prophet command the worship of the image and the receiving of the mark; the saints “have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death” (Rev. 12:11). The duty of refusal under unlawful command does not pass away with apostolic times; it runs through the whole life of the church to the end of the age. Whenever an authority commands the worship of any but the LORD, or forbids the worship of the LORD, the saints refuse, and they refuse at the cost of their lives if necessary.
VI. The Pattern Across the Cases
Reading the cases together, four criteria emerge by which a command is rightly judged to be a command of sin.
First, the command requires the violation of a clear command of God. The Hebrew midwives were ordered to murder; God forbids murder. The three men in Daniel 3 were ordered to bow to an image; God forbids idolatry. Daniel was ordered to cease prayer to God; God commands prayer to God. The apostles were ordered to be silent about Jesus Christ; God commands the proclamation of His Son. In every case the command lay across a clear biblical prohibition or positive obligation. The pattern is not that the believer dislikes the command or finds it inconvenient; the pattern is that the command requires the violation of a definite revealed will of God.
Second, the command is identifiable as such, not merely felt as such. The cases do not treat the conscience as autonomous. The believer is not free to refuse any command he happens to find disagreeable on the grounds of conscience; the conscience must be bound by the word of God. Daniel and his friends had explicit biblical reasons for their refusals. The apostles appealed to the express command of Jesus Christ. Conscience that refuses without a biblical reason is not the kind of conscience Scripture honors.
Third, the refusal addresses the specific command, not the existence of the office. The midwives continued to attend births; Daniel continued to serve the kings; Joseph continued to honor Herod’s lawful jurisdiction while fleeing his murderous one; the apostles continued to honor the Sanhedrin within its proper sphere even while refusing its silencing of the gospel. The refusal is therefore not a rejection of the office. It is a refusal of a particular command issued by an office that has, in this matter, stepped outside its authority.
Fourth, the refusal is sustained under suffering rather than under leverage. The midwives faced Pharaoh; Daniel’s friends faced the furnace; Daniel faced the den; the apostles faced the council. None of them refused only when refusal was cheap. The refusal is recognizable as biblical precisely because the cost is borne. Where refusal is offered only when it is risk-free, it cannot be assumed to be the refusal of which Scripture speaks.
These four criteria are pastorally important. The doctrine of conscientious refusal is widely abused in our age. Persons who refuse to honor legitimate offices on the grounds of “conscience” while having no clear biblical reason, in matters that do not lie across any clear command of God, with no willingness to suffer for the refusal, are not in the line of the Hebrew midwives. They are, more often, in the line of Korah. The four criteria above mark the difference.
VII. The Manner of Refusal
A final question is the manner in which biblical refusal is carried out. The cases show several consistent features.
First, the refusal is normally respectful. Daniel “asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself” (Dan. 1:8). The three men spoke to Nebuchadnezzar without insult: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter” (Dan. 3:16) was the most pointed they came, and it was not contempt of his office but a refusal to deliberate about it. Peter, called before the council, gave his answer with reasoned reverence (Acts 4:19–20). Paul addressed Felix, Festus, and Agrippa with the proper forms of respect. The biblical refuser does not despise the office while refusing the unlawful command.
Second, the refusal is normally peaceable. The biblical cases of refusal almost never include violent uprising. Daniel did not lead an army; the apostles did not arm themselves; the midwives did not rise in revolt. The refusal was suffered rather than enforced. Whether there is, in the biblical witness, any room for violent resistance against tyrannical authority is a question much discussed in Christian history; the present paper takes no position on that broader question. It simply observes that the paradigmatic cases of biblical refusal are peaceable. They refuse the command and accept the consequences.
Third, the refusal is normally costly. The midwives risked Pharaoh’s wrath; Daniel’s friends were thrown into the furnace; Daniel was thrown into the den; the apostles were beaten and imprisoned. The refusal was costly in every case where the office that issued the command had the power to enforce it. The biblical refuser does not assume that refusal will be costless; he refuses with full awareness of the cost and with the prior allegiance to God that makes the cost bearable.
Fourth, the refusal is normally accompanied by the continuation of the rest of life under the office. Daniel kept serving the king. The apostles kept preaching but also kept honoring the council in its proper sphere. The midwives kept being midwives. Refusal is a particular act in a particular case, not a wholesale break with the order in which one stands. This protects refusal from sliding into the abuse of equality (Paper 5) that despises the office itself.
Pastoral Conclusion: Application to Family, Church, and Commonwealth
The doctrine of refusal under unlawful command applies, with appropriate calibration, to each of the relations of Paper 8.
In the family. A wife is not bound to obey a husband who commands her to sin—to lie under oath, to defraud her neighbor, to deny her Lord, to abuse her children. A child is not bound to obey a parent who commands him to sin. The doctrine of headship in Paper 3 does not require, and never required, the submission of the wife or the child to commands that lie across the revealed will of God. The full witness of the New Testament household tables already includes the qualifiers “as to the Lord” and “in the Lord,” which mark the limit. Within those limits, the household submission of Paper 8 is owed; beyond them, it is not. This doctrine does not authorize a wife or a child to refuse on any pretext; it authorizes refusal under the four criteria of Section VI.
In the church. A member is not bound to obey an elder who commands him to sin, to embrace false doctrine, or to participate in unlawful coercion of conscience. The honor owed to elders (1 Tim. 5:17) and the obedience commanded in Hebrews 13:17 are real, but they are bounded by the prior word of God. Where the elders teach what is contrary to the word, the members are not bound to follow them. Indeed, the elders themselves are subject to correction (1 Tim. 5:19–20). The Bereans, who “examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11), are commended; their willingness to test even apostolic preaching against the Scriptures is the New Testament model.
In the commonwealth. A citizen is not bound to obey a magistrate who commands the worship of false gods, the suppression of true worship, the murder of the innocent, the bearing of false witness, or any other clear violation of the revealed will of God. This is the most public and historically the most contested application of the doctrine, and the church has lived under regimes ranging from the relatively favorable to the persecutorial. The fundamental answer has been the same in every age: the duty of submission to the magistrate is real, the duty is bounded, and the boundary is the command of God.
A final pastoral note is warranted. The doctrine of refusal does not authorize the Christian to live in a posture of perpetual suspicion toward all authority. The cases examined in this paper are notable in part because they are exceptional. The vast majority of every faithful believer’s life is to be lived in the ordinary submissions of Paper 8: honoring parents, loving spouses, obeying lawful magistrates, supporting faithful elders, working as if for the Lord. Refusal is the exception, not the rule. When the moment comes—and in many lives it does come—the Christian must be prepared to refuse with the steadiness of the Hebrew midwives, the courage of the three men, the persistence of Daniel, and the peace of the apostles. But the moment will not come every day, and the doctrine of refusal must not be confused with the disposition of rebellion. The road runs between the two ditches of Papers 5 and 6, and it is on that road, in the ordinary submissions and the extraordinary refusals alike, that the disciple of Jesus Christ walks.
The last paper of this suite gathers the whole into its kingdom horizon. The Lord whose pattern has shaped every paper, whose name is at the foundation of every doctrine, and whose return will resolve every conflict between the two duties, is the One under whom every authority finally stands. Paper 10 turns to Him.
Notes
- All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).
- The principle “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) is treated in this paper as the explicit New Testament formulation of a principle that runs through the entire canon. The Old Testament cases (the Hebrew midwives, Daniel, Rahab, Obadiah, the wise men) are read as antecedents and exemplars of the same doctrine.
- The case of Rahab (Josh. 2; Heb. 11:31; Jas. 2:25) is mentioned in Section IV without entering the full discussion of the moral status of her deception. The case is sufficient for the present paper as a clear instance of biblical refusal under unlawful command, since the king’s order to surrender the spies was unlawful in the sight of God and Rahab’s faith led her to refuse it.
- The “but if not” of Daniel 3:18 is highlighted in this paper as the high mark of biblical conscientious refusal because it explicitly detaches the refusal from any guarantee of rescue. The three men did not refuse only because they expected to be saved; they refused because they would not bow, whether God saved them or not. This grounding of refusal in prior allegiance rather than in expected outcome is the doctrinal essence of biblical conscientious refusal.
- The four criteria for identifying a command of sin offered in Section VI are not exhaustive but are intended as a useful first-order test. The pastoral application of the doctrine in particular cases will often require careful counsel from faithful Christians and especially from faithful elders, since the temptation to abuse the doctrine of refusal is real on the side of every relation.
- The paper does not enter the broader historical and theological discussion of the right of armed resistance to tyrannical authority. The cases examined are paradigmatically peaceable, and the paper takes that as the dominant biblical witness without resolving the further question.
- The application of the doctrine of refusal to the household (Section “Pastoral Conclusion”) is not to be confused with a general license to disobey within the marital or parental relation. The doctrine authorizes refusal only under the four criteria of Section VI. Within those limits, the doctrine is a real and important protection for those over whom abusive authority is exercised; outside those limits, the ordinary submissions of Paper 8 stand.
- The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are referred to throughout by their scriptural names. The Son is named “Jesus Christ” in the form most frequently attested in the New Testament writings.
References
Baldwin, J. G. (1978). Daniel: An introduction and commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries). InterVarsity Press.
Bavinck, H. (2008). Reformed dogmatics: Vol. 4. Holy Spirit, church, and new creation (J. Bolt, Ed.; J. Vriend, Trans.). Baker Academic.
Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary). Eerdmans.
Bock, D. L. (2007). Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Baker Academic.
Bruce, F. F. (1988). The book of the Acts (Rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament). Eerdmans.
Calvin, J. (1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (J. T. McNeill, Ed.; F. L. Battles, Trans.). Westminster John Knox Press. (Original work published 1559)
Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.). Zondervan.
Cassuto, U. (1967). A commentary on the book of Exodus (I. Abrahams, Trans.). Magnes Press.
Clowney, E. P. (1988). The message of 1 Peter: The way of the cross (The Bible Speaks Today). InterVarsity Press.
Crossway. (2016). The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles.
Davis, J. J. (1993). Evangelical ethics: Issues facing the church today (2nd ed.). Presbyterian and Reformed.
Frame, J. M. (2008). The doctrine of the Christian life (A Theology of Lordship). Presbyterian and Reformed.
Goldingay, J. E. (1989). Daniel (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 30). Word Books.
Howard, D. M., Jr. (1998). Joshua (New American Commentary, Vol. 5). Broadman & Holman.
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1980). Commentary on the Old Testament: Vol. 1. The Pentateuch. Eerdmans. (Original work published 1866)
Kuyper, A. (2016). Lectures on Calvinism. Eerdmans. (Original work published 1898)
Longman, T., III. (1999). Daniel (NIV Application Commentary). Zondervan.
Marshall, I. H. (1980). The Acts of the Apostles: An introduction and commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). InterVarsity Press.
Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1–11:26 (New American Commentary, Vol. 1A). Broadman & Holman.
Miller, S. R. (1994). Daniel (New American Commentary, Vol. 18). Broadman & Holman.
Mounce, R. H. (1997). The book of Revelation (Rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament). Eerdmans.
Murray, J. (1957). Principles of conduct: Aspects of biblical ethics. Eerdmans.
Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (New American Commentary, Vol. 2). Broadman & Holman.
Stott, J. R. W. (1990). The message of Acts: To the ends of the earth (The Bible Speaks Today). InterVarsity Press.
Tsumura, D. T. (2007). The first book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans.
VanDrunen, D. (2010). Living in God’s two kingdoms: A biblical vision for Christianity and culture. Crossway.
VanDrunen, D. (2014). Divine covenants and moral order: A biblical theology of natural law. Eerdmans.
Witherington, B., III. (1998). The Acts of the Apostles: A socio-rhetorical commentary. Eerdmans.
Woudstra, M. H. (1981). The book of Joshua (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans.
