CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 4:13. Perceived.—Lit., having perceived from what they saw and heard at the time, or from previous inquiry. It would certainly have been strange if the Sanhedrists, and in particular Annas and Caiaphas (see John 18:16), had not been acquainted with Peter and John (Zeller, Holtzmann); but this is not necessarily implied in the language, which rather suggests that they recognised the apostles as having been formerly among Christ’s disciples. Unlearned.—I.e., illiterate, untaught in the learning of the Jewish schools (see John 7:15), and Ignorant.—I.e., private or obscure persons, plebeian as distinguished from persons in the higher walks of life (1 Corinthians 14:16).
Acts 4:15. Out of the council.—Which was open to others, so that Luke could easily have ascertained from parties who had been present what was said and done during the absence of the apostles. It has been thought not improbable that Saul of Tarsus was there (Hackett).
Acts 4:16. That indeed a notable miracle hath been wrought by them is manifest.—This confession on the part of the Sanhedrin has been pronounced incredible, and inconsistent with the instruction given in Acts 4:17 (Gfrörer, Zeller); but their conduct in this instance is no more difficult to understand than their behaviour in the case of the man who was born blind (John 9), with which it is pretty much of a piece.
Acts 4:17. Let us straitly threaten.—Lit., with a threat let us threaten them. For a similar construction see Luke 22:15. The R.V. omits “with a threat.”
Acts 4:18. Nor teach in or upon (ἐπί) the name of Jesus.—So as to make it a theme of discourse.
Acts 4:19. Whether it be right, etc.—See on Acts 4:29; and compare Amos 3:8; 1 John 1:1-3. This remarkable utterance is not without Greek, Roman, and Rabbinical parallels.
Acts 4:21. Glorified God for that which was done.—Compare Luke 5:26; Galatians 1:24.
Acts 4:22. Forty years old.—A note characteristic of Luke (compare Acts 9:33, Acts 14:8; Luke 8:43).
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 4:13-22
The Apostles removed from the Court; or, the Conspirators in Conclave
I. The perplexity of the Sanhedrists.—These holy inquisitors before whom John and Peter were arraigned were
1. Staggered at the boldness of their prisoners. These behaved not like criminals who had been apprehended in acts of wickedness, taken, as it were, red-handed, but like persons who felt conscious not of having done wrong, but of having performed a great good. Peter could have replied to Annas or Caiaphas—
“Thou shalt not see me blush
Nor change my countenance for this arrest;
A heart unspotted is not easily daunted.
The purest spring is not so free from mud
As I am clear from (wrong doing).”—Shakespeare.
Neither Peter nor John resembled their old selves who ran away when they beheld their Master bound with cords, and hurried off to face that awful tribunal. Things had changed since the Gethsemane transaction, both with their Master and with themselves. He had risen from the tomb into which His enemies had thought to shut Him down, and had ascended to His throne; they were being assisted and upheld by His Almighty Spirit.
2. Confounded by their prisoners’ eloquence. Peter and John, though neither learned nor distinguished persons like their judges, but ignorant and obscure fishermen, nevertheless spoke with such fluent and cogent utterance as the most gifted of their Rabbis could not equal or even imitate. The only possible explanation of the phenomenon which presented itself to the Sanhedrists was one they did not like—viz., that their prisoners had been companions of Jesus. It was a virtual admission that Christ had impressed even those who rejected Him with a secret conviction of His superhuman dignity.
3. Unable to deny the miracle. The evidence of its reality stood before them. The man who had been healed was in court. The whole town besides was ringing with excitement at what had happened, and had pronounced it a miracle. The theory of imposture would impose on no one. Just as little would the hypothesis of illusion or delusion. The man himself might have been a hypochondriac, and the apostles might be counted jugglers, but a whole town could not be cheated into believing that a miracle had been wrought, if no such thing had occurred.
4. At a loss what to do with their prisoners. To punish them for healing a lame man would look ridiculous; common sense would say they should rather be rewarded with the freedom of the city. Besides, in the present temper of the people, it would be dangerous to proceed to violence, the people being manifestly on the side of the apostles. Then to debar them from working similar miracles upon other lame persons would be hard upon the invalids. To drive them from the metropolis would only be to send them with their philanthropies to other towns. When men will not do the obviously right thing, it is no wonder they become perplexed in choosing the best of the wrong things. Wrong things are never best.
II. The resolution of the Sanhedrists.—How Luke ascertained what was talked in the council chamber, after Peter and John had been removed, may be difficult to tell. If the court was opened to the public (see “Critical Remarks”) some of the apostles’ friends may have been present; if it was closed against the public some of the Sanhedrists themselves, on becoming converted, may have revealed the secrets of the court. In any case, what the Sanhedrists resolved upon was this—
1. To prevent, if possible, the spread of the report about the miracle. They felt that if the story was repeated it would be believed, which shows that they regarded it as true. So will Christ’s gospel, wherever told, commend itself to men’s consciences in the sight of God. Hence, the chief aim of its enemies is to prevent its diffusion among the people.
2. To forbid the apostles any more to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. Still avoiding the explosive topic of the resurrection, they limit their prohibition to a general order not to speak in Christ’s name. What they wanted was, if possible, to suppress the name altogether. But as Christ could not be hid when on earth (Mark 7:24), so now that He is risen can He not be suppressed. “He must reign till all His enemies have been placed beneath His feet” (1 Corinthians 15:25).
III. The action of the Sanhedrists.—Having concluded their deliberations, and recalled the apostles, they did three things.
1. Charged them. Not to speak at all, nor to teach in the name of Jesus. But such an order neither John nor Peter could obey. It invaded the domain of conscience, which was God’s peculiar territory. It traversed the commandment of Jesus, which had already bound them to preach the gospel to every creature (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15). It sought to silence the convictions of their souls that what they had seen and heard was true. It collided with that three-fold necessity which urged them on. Hence Peter told the Sanhedrists, that where the alternative lay between obeying them and obeying God, the choice could only be the latter. So affirmed he afterwards to the same judicial body for himself and his brethren. “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). So replied Socrates to his Athenian judges: “Athenians, I will obey God rather than you; and if you would let me go and give me my life on condition that I should no more teach my fellow-citizens, sooner than agree to your proposal I would prefer to die a thousand times” (Apology, 23, B.). “In this first conflict between conscience and force,” says Pressensé, “victory remains with the former. This day is liberty born into the world never to be destroyed.”
2. Threatened them. With pains and penalties endeavoured to deter them from following the path of duty. “Had the judges of Peter and John gone no further than this prohibition and threatening, they would have been entitled to be called persecutors (Pressensé). The essence of persecution is the application of physical force to religion, in which the only forces admissible are those of truth for the understanding and love for the heart.
3. Dismissed them. The Sanhedrists lacked the courage to inflict punishment upon their prisoners. As yet they feared the people, who, siding with the apostles, and glorifying God for what had been done, would not have tolerated either imprisonment or scourging. Hence they felt compelled to let their prisoners go.
Learn.—
1. The transformations Christ through His grace can effect on human character and life, exemplified in Peter and John
2. The best sort of evidence in support of Christ’s religion—such miracles as are wrought upon men’s characters and lives through its influence.
3. The holy courage that should at all times be displayed by Christ’s servants—to obey God and Christ rather than man.
4. The confidence with which Christ and His servants can appeal to the consciences even of their enemies.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 4:13. Companionship with Jesus.
I. A distinguished privilege.
II. A transforming power.
III. A perilous distinction.
IV. A high responsibility.
Acts 4:1-14. The Courage of the Apostles.
I. The occasion of the courage.—It was an imposing assembly, made up of the intelligence and authority and ecclesiastical power of the Jewish nation. The court demanded by what power or efficacy, and in the use of what name, they had done this now notable miracle. Peter stood in view of them all, calm and confident, a splendid illustration of the truth that “the righteous are bold as a lion” (Proverbs 28:1), and made his reply.
II. The secret of the courage.—“Filled with the Holy Ghost.” This was the secret of Peter’s boldness. This made the difference between Peter before the Ascension and Peter after it. It was not natural courage, “to the manner born.” Peter was impulsive and forward, quick and stout in assertion, but by nature a coward. The coward is become a hero. The bank of sand is transformed into a rock of firmness. Impulse has given way to principle. Fear of man is exchanged for fear of God. His being “filled with the Holy Spirit” accounts for the difference. That Spirit has given him a sense of things invisible, has opened to his faith’s sight invisible troops of God, has lifted him to a level where he can look with something of the calmness and fearlessness of his Lord upon those who can only “kill the body.” He knows now, even better than he knew before, his own weakness and his own need, but he has been taught of the Spirit the illimitable sufficiency of God. “Filled with the Spirit” means assurance of sonship. “Filled with the Spirit” is proof that “God is for us and in us,” and that therefore they that be for us are more than they that be against us. It can easily be understood how this would arm the timid soul with a dauntless and deathless courage. One, with God, is a majority always. Weakness, with God, is omnipotence.
III. Characteristics of the courage.—But a courage of this sort, born of the presence of the Spirit of God, true Christian courage, will be marked by certain characteristics. Let us look at them as they appear in the record of Peter’s speech before the court.
1. Courtesy marks the first words of this brave soul. Peter gives the men of the court their appropriate titles, recognises their office and authority, and addresses them with deference and respect: “Ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel.” Bravery does not consist in brusqueness and bravado and bluster. To speak the truth boldly one need not be a boar or a bear. The bully is not the ideal hero. The kingdom and patience of Jesus go hand in hand. There is a so-called maintaining one’s self-respect which is simply a manifesting one’s impudence.
2. Prudence is another characteristic of Christian courage, as shown by Peter in this defence. His courteous recognition of the position and office of the men composing the tribunal is immediately followed by a reference to the character of the deed for which he was arraigned: “If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man.” The deed was “good,” and Peter reminds them of it. An impotent man has been made whole. Mark the prudent wisdom of this answer. Peter first turns attention from the method of the doing to the thing done. The work itself could challenge only gratitude and joy. Of itself it could provoke no opposition. He thus by a wise tact sought to pave the way for a favourable hearing. He made the most of his circumstances. So will the highest courage always. It does not disdain the use of every justifiable means to conciliate opposition. While scorning compromise of principle, it presses into service every alleviating circumstance. It does not court a tilt or invite a conflict.
3. Frankness is another characteristic, as exhibited by Peter. The council demanded by what authority or by what name they had done this. They got for instant answer, “By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” Here Peter might have stopped. But this was not the truth that put Peter in bonds. Peter could answer the court’s questions without any allusion to the crucifixion and resurrection. But it was this that got him into trouble, and he must not withhold it now to get out of trouble. Christian courage is always the very soul of frankness. It will wear no masks—tell the whole truth, as well as nothing but the truth. The temptation to be compromisingly politic at the point of real danger is most plausibly insidious and subtle, and a brave spirit gets here its sorest test.
4. Fidelity is one more mark of Christian courage that shone out conspicuously in this court-scene at Jerusalem. This pushed Peter beyond the mere claims of frankness. He had fully stated the facts. The Jews had crucified Jesus, and God had raised Him from the dead. These two facts Peter had put in the plainest terms. They were offensive to the tribunal. They implicated his hearers both in crime and folly. Yet out they came with courageous frankness. This was the top and crown of Christian courage. It was transforming the prisoner’s bar into a pulpit from which to preach a gospel sermon to men, some of whom probably had never heard it before, and whose ear the preacher might never have again.
IV. Effect of the courage.—It only remains to speak briefly of the effect of this righteous boldness. These effects are common where Christian courage gets anything like such public exhibition in such hostile circumstances.
1. Men wonder first at the boldness. They see nothing behind it, nothing to support it—no arms, no government, no material resource—and they are astounded. They marvel where it gets its spring and inspiration. The world knows not its secret. It is born of the invisible Spirit of God.
2. Then they have nothing to speak against. Christian courage has a wonderful way of disarming opposition.
Christians, there are some things taught here that ought to be to our spiritual profit.
1. The Spirit of God can make the weakest saint bold.
2. We can afford to trust Christ.
3. Truth will sometimes smite to silence when it does not smite to heal.—H. Johnson, D.D.
Acts 4:16. What shall we do with these men?—The world’s question concerning Christians.
I. To this the world has usually answered.—Let us
1. Suspect them as hypocrites.
2. Disbelieve them as liars.
3. Oppose them as enemies.
4. Punish them as evildoers; and, generally,
5. Persecute them as sectaries, separatists, and heretics.
II. To this the world ought to answer.—Let us
1. Listen to them as bringers of good tidings.
2. Honour them as self-denying philanthropists.
3. Credit them as sincere preachers.
4. Reward them as benefactors of their race; and, generally,
5. Imitate them as noble exemplars of virtue.
Acts 4:19. Liberty of Conscience.
I. The principle stated.—To hearken unto God rather than unto man.
II. The principle exemplified.—By the behaviour of the Apostles.
III. The principle justified.—By an appeal to the moral and religious instincts of the Sanhedrists.
IV. The principle recognised.—In part, at least, by the dismissal of the apostles from the council chamber. (See further on, Acts 5:29.)
Acts 4:20. The Preacher’s Motto.
I. The nature of the preacher’s function.—To speak, to address his fellow-men by the living voice. This function can never be superseded by the press. There is that in the contact of soul with soul, through the medium of the living voice, which no printed page can supply.
II. The extent of the preacher’s commission.—To speak what he has seen and heard. This what the apostles were called to do when they were made witnesses of Christ’s resurrection. In like manner the proper business of the Christian preacher is to lay before his fellow-men the truth of sacred Scripture as that is revealed to and appropriated by his own understanding, heart, and conscience.
III. The constraint of the preacher’s action.—“We cannot but speak” showed that the apostles had not taken up their calling as a matter of self-directed choice, but in obedience to the impulse of conscience, and not from interested motives as a means of procuring a livelihood or acquiring fame, but from an irresistible sense of duty, or, as Paul afterwards expressed it, “because necessity had been laid upon them” (1 Corinthians 9:16). So should none assume the preacher’s office except under a similar constraint. To exercise the preacher’s office for a piece of bread (1 Samuel 2:36) is to desecrate the office and be guilty of sacrilege.
Acts 4:21. God glorified by the People for the Healing of the Lame Man.
I. For the exhibition of divine power which they had witnessed.
II. For the rich grace which had been shown to the cripple.
III. For the signal honour which had been put upon the apostles in making them the instruments of this miracle.
IV. For the glorious hope of heavenly succour which was brought to themselves, the people, through this wondrous deed.
Acts 4:1-22. The Jewish Leaders and the Apostles.
I. On the side of the Jewish leaders there was—
1. Illiberality. “Being grieved that they taught the people.” The highest pre-christian culture! Christ alone has shown Himself the friend of universal man—slave or king. Christianity is a universal appeal. It is not a taper, it is the sun.
2. Shortsightedness. They put the apostles in prison! Fools! They could not put God in prison! Had the apostles been original workers, had the cause of their actions lain within themselves, imprisonment might have met the case. But God! etc. Why were the apostles put in prison? For two reasons:
(1) They did good to the diseased;
(2) They instructed the ignorant. Christianity is still the great physical and mental regenerator of the world. The only charge which can be brought against Christianity is that it continually seeks to do good.
3. Impotence. “What shall we do to these men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.” They “threatened” the apostles. That is, they shook their fists in the face of the sun in order to darken the world! They stamped a foot angrily on the sea-shore in order to repel the advancing tide! They sent a message to the wind stating that they would henceforth be independent of the living air! We see how small men are when they set themselves against Truth. They know not what they do! Truth is to them an unknown quantity; at any moment it may smite them; it is subtle, mysterious, intractable. Terrible is the hand of the Lord upon all them that oppose the truth.
II. On the side of the apostles there was—
1. Complete intelligence within the sphere of their ministry. Though the apostles “were unlearned and ignorant men,” yet within the compass of the work which they were called to do they were wise and efficient. This is the secret of success. Know what you do know. Do not venture beyond the line of your vocation. Every preacher is strong when he stands upon fact and experience. Christians must not accept the bait which would draw them upon unknown or forbidden ground.
2. Inconquerable courage in narrating and applying facts.
(1) Look at the dignity of the address;
(2) Look at the calm and emphatic assertion of the name of Christ;
(3) Look at the direct and special impeachment of the hearers; “whom ye crucified”; “set at nought of you builders.” Dignity is proper in the preachers of truth; Christ is the life of Christianity—beware of lauding the system, and forgetting the Man. Accusation is the first work of every Christian evangelist. Prove the world’s crime!
3. Christian magnanimity in preaching the Gospel. “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, where by we must be saved.” Thus was the Gospel preached to the murderers of God’s Holy One. “Beginning at Jerusalem.” In this brief sermon Peter proceeds upon two assumptions:
(1) That men need saving;
(2) That there is but one true way of saving them. These assumptions have been proved to be true.
4. Incorruptible loyalty to God and to His truth. “Whether it be right in the sight of God,” etc. (Acts 4:19). “Things which we have seen and heard!” What a field! Missions at home and abroad,—Schools,—Labours,—Sacrifices,—Death-beds!—J. Parker, D.D.