And when they had brought them, they set them before the council.
The accusation this time is simply that the apostles had not complied with the former judgment--they were guilty of contempt of court. They had not, however, broken their parole, for they had given none, having declared that they would continue to preach in the name of Jesus. And now the judges are thinking not of truth and justice, but simply of their own safety (Acts 5:28). They believed that the apostles were working up the multitude to revenge the murder of the Saviour. It is interesting to observe how shy they were of introducing the name of Jesus; but in proportion as the rulers avoided it, the apostles proclaimed it. It was a stone of stumbling to the former which might grind them to powder: it was a strong tower to the latter, into which they ran and were safe. Peter’s reply to the question was, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Whence had this man this wisdom and this courage? How much the world owes to Peter’s reply! It is the foundation of all true liberty. Peter’s defence is one of the finest specimens of pleading on record. It is clear and cogent; it is very short, but long enough. The speaker says all that is needful, and then stops. In this short space he defends himself, confounds his adversaries, and commends Christ. The address assumes the form of a syllogism which would not have been so remarkable on the lips of Paul, but which we are surprised to find in the unpremeditated defence of a simple and impetuous fisherman. After announcing the general principle that wherever God claims obedience man’s claim must stand in abeyance, he shows that this case comes under the rule. The God of our fathers he takes care to trace all up to the God of Israel whom the Sanhedrin acknowledged--“raised up Jesus whom ye slew.” The point of the arrow is at their breast again. In one sense he is in their power; in another they are in his. “Him God hath exalted.” He pillories the priests as enemies of God and crucifiers of the Messiah. But this is not the dictate of revenge. He is feeling for an opening into the consciences of the judges, that he may introduce the gospel; and therefore now offers through the exalted Prince and Saviour remission of sins. The preachers have an eye to the magistrates, the bystanders, the officers, the young advocates, such as Saul of Tarsus, who might be hanging about the court. And who shall tell whether Saul, through Peter’s word, received an arrow into his heart which would not out for all his intemperate zeal until he surrendered at Damascus. The witnesses were careful to sow beside all waters, not knowing which might bear fruit. (W. Arnot, D. D.)
The apostles persecuted
I. The arrest by the council. The arrest of Peter and his brother apostles took place at the instigation of the council before whom they were brought. It was the intent of the rulers to make the new doctrine odious by making its teachers criminals. Thus reasoned the rulers. Moreover, they believed that truth confined behind bars and stone walls could not be very dangerous. But how little they understood the nature of the truth! There is a vitality in ideas utterly beyond the power of man to conceive. When once they are fully grasped by and instilled into the mind they become living, permanent influences. The teachings were safely lodged in men’s hearts outside the prison, and not confined within the prison. The rulers also made the mistake of supposing that they could prevent the growth of the gospel by the power of authority. “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this Name?” They had no doubt as to their power to suppress it. But human authority takes no account of the intense enthusiasm which truth inspires in men who believe it, and the degree of self-sacrifice which it can evoke. You can never be sure that your authority has stopped up all loopholes of escape. You can never be sure that your authority can inspire fear enough to terrify the advocate of it into silence.
II. Peter’s reply to the council. Here was another instance in which Christ’s words were to come true, for He had said some time previously, “But when they shall deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak” (Matthew 10:19). Peter, in his reply, admitted the truth of the charges. The apostles had indeed refused to recognise the authority of the council, because they recognised a higher authority. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Peter, however, goes still farther. Not satisfied with merely answering their charges, he assumes the aggressive by re-affirming the doctrines he had been teaching the people, and boldly sets forth the claims of Christ. There is no shadow of a spirit of compromise in his words. Peter makes the startling announcement that Christ was a Prince. “Him bath God exalted … to be a Prince.” Peter, nevertheless, unflinchingly declared the new truth, that salvation was not in a system, but in a man. There was one more step necessary to complete Peter’s argument, which was that he and his fellow apostles had irrevocably committed themselves to these truths. “We are His witnesses of these things.” Thus the reply of Peter’s threw the necessity of action upon the council.
III. The release by the council. They began in bluster and ended in ignominious defeat. Gamaliel, the master mind among them, rises to state his position, having first, however, secured a temporary removal of the apostles. In private session he pleads for caution, his fundamental ground being that they cannot decide upon the merita of the case. They cannot tell yet whether this new movement is of God or of man. If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; if it be of man, it will come to an end of itself. They had had two marked instances in their own history of the schemes of men coming to an untimely end-namely, those of Theudas and Judas. This incident in the history of the early Church clearly shows two or three things which it is well to note. And one is that ideas cannot be suppressed by persecuting their advocates; and yet the world is very slow in learning this lesson. To shut Peter in jail is no answer to the doctrine he taught, that salvation is of Christ. Fanatic, dreamer, bigot, heretic, are names freely hurled against individuals who are doing what they can for their fellow-men. But these titles have no more power to prevent thought or action than a thistledown can keep back the tides. The personal equation in persecution makes it the infernal thing it is. Another thing to be remarked is that persecution serves the hated truth a good turn by causing it to be clearly stated before the public. If you will consider the causes that called forth four of Peter’s sermons, you will find that; it was the opposition or doubt of unbelievers. (E. S. Tead.)
Did we not straitly command you.., and behold ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine.--
Fidelity under intimidation
Basil being offered the alternative of con, forming to the Arian creed or of resigning his bishopric, he answered the prefect, who was interrogating him, with calm dignity, that he could not obey the emperor’s will, “because it was inconsistent with that of his Sovereign Lord, and he could not worship any human creature, being himself a subject of that Lord, and commanded to be like Him.” “Do you know his dignity to whom you speak?” asked Modestus. “I do,” was the reply, “and I respect it, but that of God is greater. We are both His servants, and among Christians greatness depends not upon rank, but upon faith.” The prefect threatened him with pains and penalties. The bishop smiled as he answered, “What are such threats to me? He who has nothing to lose can scarce fear confiscation, and I have no possession save these mean garments and some few books. Neither does he fear exile who counts no spot on earth his home, being here but a pilgrim and sojourner, seeking safer place of rest; heaven is my home. Nor do I fear torture; my frail body would endure but little--you could strike but one blow, and my pain is past; I should but depart the sooner to Him, for whose service alone I am willing to live, and after whom my soul yearns.” Modestus could not forbear expressing his surprise at the boldness of the bishop’s speech. “Perhaps,” was the answer, “you have not before met with a Christian bishop, or under such circumstances you would have found the same conduct.” The emperor yielded, and, his child being dangerously ill, the Empress Dominica even sought Basil’s prayers on the young Galatus’ behalf.