‘Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “You rulers of the people, and elders, if we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole (‘saved'), be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him does this man stand here before you whole.”
‘Filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit.' Jesus had promised His Apostles that when they had to face courts the Holy Spirit would teach them what they should say (Luke 12:12). Here then the promise was being fulfilled. But we are no doubt also intended to see that this is part of the Holy Spirit's continuing witness to Jesus (John 15:26-27) in line with the forward movement of His people. The filling was for the purpose of inspiring Peter's words and giving them due impact before the highest authority in the land, reaching to the very heart of Jerusalem.
We note here the usual content of the early preaching. Appeal to the Scripture, reference to Jesus' life, a pointing to the resurrection, and a final if carefully worded appeal to his hearers.
Peter's defence is bold and clear. ‘Filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit' he addresses the Sanhedrin with due courtesy. and then stresses that the deed that has been done is a ‘good' deed. It has no connection with evil forces. And by it a man, lame from birth, has been healed. As to how it was done, it was done in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom ‘they' had crucified, but Whom God had raised from the dead. It will be noted that he is not seeking to be placatory but to try and bring home to these men what he considered that they had done in ignorance (Acts 3:17). He knew that he would probably never have another opportunity to speak to these men, and was possibly hopeful that some at least of them would listen.
In chapter 1 the Apostles had been told that they had to be witnesses ‘in Jerusalem'. In Chapter s 2 and 3 they had done so at the spiritual heart of Jerusalem, in the Temple. Now they were being enabled to do it at the political heart of Jerusalem, in the Sanhedrin.
Peter takes his opportunity (what a different man this is from the one who had cowered before a serving girl in the courtyard of the High Priest's house - Luke 22:57). His charge is that the ones who were guilty that day were not he and John, but those who sat in judgment on them. They had caused Jesus to be crucified. But God had raised Him up. This should convince them quite clearly that they had been in the wrong. And he pointed out that a further evidence that Jesus has been raised up can be found in this healed man who is standing there before them. It was ‘in Jesus' that this man had been made whole. If Jesus were not alive it could not have happened. As this is a reply to the question as to the name by which the man had been healed this is probably shorthand for ‘in the name of Jesus'. He may, however, be indicating that the man had been healed because he had been brought into oneness with the risen Jesus by God's mercy.
We note that the healed man himself was there before the court. He may have been accused along with Peter and John, or he may have been called as a witness.