Annas the high priest was there, with Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and as many as were relatives of the high priest. When they had stood Peter and John in the middle of them, they inquired, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?”
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “You rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we are examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, may it be 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, this man stands here before you whole in him. He is ‘the stone which was regarded as worthless by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.’ There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that is given among men, by which we must be saved!”
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled. They recognized that they had been with Jesus. Seeing the man who was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, “What shall we do to these men? Because indeed a notable miracle has been done through them, as can be plainly seen by all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we can’t deny it. But so that this spreads no further among the people, let’s threaten them, that from now on they don’t speak to anyone in this name.” They called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves, for we can’t help telling the things which we saw and heard.”
When they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people; for everyone glorified God for that which was done.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21 7. In what power They do yet seem to…
7. In what power They do yet seem to have some zeal of God. For they feign that they are careful that the honor due unto God may not be given to any other. Name is taken in this place for authority. In sum, they deal as if they were most earnest defenders and maintainers of God’s glory. In the mean season, their importunateness is wonderful, in that they go about to drive the apostles to make denial, by asking many questions concerning a manifest matter, and to wring out by fear some other thing than they had confessed. But God doth bring their crafty wiliness to nought, and maketh them hear that which they would not.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21 Of whom the high Priests were wont to be…
Of whom the high Priests were wont to be chosen and made, the execution of the yearly office being now changed them.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv6–21 6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and…
6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
Ver. 6. And Annas] The same old man, still no changeling, ηη παλαι γυνη, as it was said of Helena.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv6–21 Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas; both these are…
Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas; both these are said to be high priests, Luk 3:2; whether they bare this office by turn each other year, as some think, or that the Roman power put in and out whom they pleased, and in courtesy he that was laid aside still retained the title during his life, is not very material.
John, thought to be the son of Annas.
Read full note →
Alexander, a man of great repute amongst them, as Josephus says.
As many as were of the kindred of the high priest; their relation many times preferring them to a place in their great council, or sanhedrim.
Were gathered together at Jerusalem; or in Jerusalem; either such as were in the city, being called together on such an extraordinary occasion; or else they sent also unto men of greatest note, that lived nigh thereunto.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv12, 13, 19, 21 Observe here, 1. A positive assertion, that there is…
Observe here, 1. A positive assertion, that there is no salvation but by Christ; or, that besides, or without him, there is no possibility of salvation, either for Jew of Gentile; both those under the Old Testament have, one and the same common Saviour.
Observe, 2. The ground and reason of this confident assertion, That there is no salvation but by Christ; namely, because there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved:
Read full note →
That is, no other person designed or appointed by God, to be the author of redemption to, and procurer of salvation for, a lost and miserable world, but only Christ.
Take we good heed then, that we do not reject or set him at naught; for in rejecting of Christ, we reject the wisdom of God, the authority of God, the love of God, yea, the salvation of God.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v15 We have here the issue of the trial of…
We have here the issue of the trial of Peter and John before the council. They came off now with flying colours, because they must be trained up to sufferings by degrees, and by less trials be prepared for greater. They now but run with the footmen; hereafter we shall have them contending with horses, Jer 12:5.
I. Here is the consultation and resolution of the court about this matter, and their proceeding thereupon.
Read full note →
1. The prisoners were ordered to withdraw (Act 4:15): They commanded them to go aside out of the council, willing enough to get clear of them (they spoke so home to their consciences), and not willing they should hear the acknowledgements that were extorted from them; but, though they might not hear from them, we have them here upon record. The designs of Christ's enemies are carried on in close cabals, and they dig deep, as if they would hide their counsels from the Lord.
2. A debate arose upon this matter: They conferred among themselves; every one is desired to speak his mind freely, and to give advice upon this important affair. Now the scripture was fulfilled that the rulers would take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anointed, Psa 2:2. The question proposed was, What shall we do to these men? Act 4:16. If they would have yielded to the convincing commanding power of truth, it had been easy to say what they should do to these men. They should have placed them at the head of their council, and received their doctrine, and been baptized by them in the name of the Lord Jesus, and joined in fellowship with them. But, when men will not be persuaded to do what they should do, it is no marvel that they are ever and anon at a loss what to do. The truths of Christ, if men would but entertain them as they should, would give them no manner of trouble or uneasiness; but, if they hold them or imprison them in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), they will find them a burdensome stone that they will not know what to do with, Zac 12:3.
3. They came at last to a resolution, in two things: -
(1.) That it was not safe to punish the apostles for what they had done. Very willingly would they have done it, but they had not courage to do it, because the people espoused their cause, and cried up the miracle; and they stood now in as much awe of them as they had done formerly, when they durst not lay hands of Christ for fear of the people. By this it appears that the outcry of the mob against our Saviour was a forced or managed thing, the stream soon returned to its former channel. Now they could not find how they might punish Peter and John, what colour they might have for it, because of the people. They knew it would be an unrighteous thing to punish them, and therefore should have been restrained from it by the fear of God; but they considered it only as a dangerous thing, and therefore were held in from it only by the fear of the people. For, [1.] The people were convinced of the truth of the miracle; it was a notable miracle, gnōston sēmeion - a known miracle; it was known that they did it in Christ's name, and that Christ himself had often the like before. This was a known instance of the power of Christ, and a proof of his doctrine. That it was a great miracle, and wrought for the confirmation of the doctrine they preached (for it was a sign), was manifest to all that dwelt in Jerusalem: it was an opinion universally received, and, the miracle being wrought at the gate of the temple, universal notice was taken of it; and they themselves, with all the craftiness and all the effrontery they had, could not deny it to be a true miracle; every body would have hooted at them if they had. They could easily deny it to their own consciences, but not to the world. The proofs of the gospel were undeniable. [2.] They went further, and were not only convinced of the truth of the miracle, but all men glorified God for that which was done. Even those that were not persuaded by it to believe in Christ were yet so affected with it, as a mercy to a poor man and an honour to their country, that they could not but give praise to God for it; even natural religion taught them to do this. And, if the priests had punished Peter and John for that for which all men glorified God, they would have lost all their interest in the people, and been abandoned as enemies both to God and man. Thus therefore their wrath shall be made to praise God, and the remainder thereof shall be restrained.
(2.) That it was nevertheless necessary to silence them for the future, Act 4:17, Act 4:18. They could not prove that they had said or done any thing amiss, and yet they must no more say nor do what they have done. All their care is that the doctrine of Christ spread no further among the people; as if that healing institution were a plague begun, the contagion of which must be stopped. See how the malice of hell fights against the counsels of heaven; God will have the knowledge of Christ to spread all the world over, but the chief priests would have it spread no further, which he that sits in heaven laughs at. Now, to prevent the further spreading of this doctrine, [1.] They charge the apostles never to preach it any more. Be it enacted by their authority (which they think every Israelite is bound in conscience to submit to) that no man speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus, Act 4:18. We do not find that they give them any reason why the doctrine of Christ must be suppressed; they cannot say it is false or dangerous, or of any ill tendency, and they are ashamed to own the true reason, that it testifies against their hypocrisy and wickedness, and shocks their tyranny. But, Stat pro ratione voluntas - They can assign no reason but their will. "We strictly charge and command you, not only that you do not preach this doctrine publicly, but that you speak henceforth to no man, not to any particular person privately, in this name," Act 4:17. There is not a greater service done to the devil's kingdom than the silencing of faithful ministers; and putting those under a bushel that are the lights of the world. [2.] They threaten them if they do, strictly threaten them: it is at their peril. This court will reckon itself highly affronted if they do, and they shall fall under its displeasure. Christ had not only charged them to preach the gospel to every creature, but had promised to bear them out in it, and reward them for it. Now these priests not only forbid the preaching of the gospel, but threaten to punish it as a heinous crime; but those who know how to put a just value upon the world's threatenings, though they be threatenings of slaughter that it breathes out, Act 9:1.
II. Here is the courageous resolution of the prisoners to go on in their work, notwithstanding the resolutions of this court, and their declaration of this resolution, Act 4:19, Act 4:20. Peter and John needed not confer together to know one another's minds (for they were both actuated by one and the same Spirit), but agree presently in the same sentiments, and jointly put in the answer: "Whether it be right in the sight of God, to whom both you and we are accountable, to hearken unto you more than unto God, we appeal to yourselves, judge you; for we cannot forbear speaking to every body the things which we have seen and heard, and are ourselves full of, and are charged to publish." The prudence of the serpent would have directed them to be silent, and, though they could not with a good conscience promise that they would not preach the gospel any more, yet they needed not tell the rulers that they would. But the boldness of the lion directed them thus to set both the authority and the malignity of their persecutors at defiance. They do, in effect, tell them that they are resolved to go on in preaching, and justify themselves in it with two things: - 1. The command of God: "You charge us not to preach the gospel; he has charged us to preach it, has committed it to us as a trust, requiring us upon our allegiance faithfully to dispense it; now whom must we obey, God or you?" Here they appeal to one of the communes notitiae - to a settled and acknowledged maxim in the law of nature, that if men's commands and God's interfere God's commands must take place. It is a rule in the common law of England that if any statute be made contrary to the law of God it is null and void. Nothing can be more absurd than to hearken unto weak and fallible men, that are fellow-creatures and fellow-subjects, more than unto a God that is infinitely wise and holy, our Creator and sovereign Lord, and the Judge to whom we are all accountable. The case is so plain, so uncontroverted and self-evident, that we will venture to leave it to yourselves to judge of it, though you are biassed and prejudiced. Can you think it right in the sight of God to break a divine command in obedience to a human injunction? That is right indeed which is right in the sight of God; for his judgment, we are sure, is according to truth, and therefore by that we ought to govern ourselves. 2. The convictions of their consciences. Even if they had not had such an express command from heaven to preach the doctrine of Christ, yet they could not but speak, and speak publicly, those things which they had seen and heard. Like Elihu, they were full of this matter, and the Spirit within them constrained them, they must speak, that they might be refreshed, Job 32:18, Job 32:20. (1.) They felt the influence of it upon themselves, what a blessed change it had wrought upon them, had brought them into a new world, and therefore they could not but speak of it: and those speak the doctrine of Christ best that have felt the power of it, and tasted the sweetness of it, and have themselves been deeply affected with it; it is as a fire in their bones, Jer 20:9. (2.) They knew the importance of it to others. They look with concern upon perishing souls, and know that they cannot escape eternal ruin but by Jesus Christ, and therefore will be faithful to them in giving them warning, and showing them the right way. They are things which we have seen and heard, and therefore will be faithful to them in giving them warning, and showing them the right way. They are things which we only have seen and heard, and therefore, if we do not publish them, who will? Who can? Knowing the favour, as well as the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; for the love of Christ and the love of souls constrain us, Co2 5:11, Co2 5:14.
III. Here is the discharge of the prisoners (Act 4:21): They further threatened them, and thought they frightened them, and then let them go. There were many whom they terrified into an obedience to their unrighteous decrees; they knew how to keep men in awe with their excommunication (Joh 9:22), and thought they could have the same influence upon the apostles that they had upon other men; but they were deceived, for they had been with Jesus. They threatened them, and that was all they did now: when they had done this they let them go, 1. Because they durst not contradict the people, who glorified God for that which was done, and would have been ready (at least they thought so) to pull them out of their seats, if they had punished the apostles for doing it. As rulers by the ordinance of God are made a terror and restraint to wicked people, so people are sometimes by the providence of God made a terror and restrain to wicked rulers. 2. Because they could not contradict the miracle: For (Act 4:22) the man was above forty years old on whom this miracle of healing was shown. And therefore, (1.) The miracle was so much the greater, he having been lame from his mother's womb, Act 3:2. The older he grew the more inveterate the disease was, and the more hardly cured. If those that are grown into years, and have been long accustomed to evil, are cured of their spiritual impotency to good, and thereby of their evil customs, the power of divine grace is therein so much the more magnified. (2.) The truth of it was so much the better attested; for the man being above forty years old, he was able, like the blind man whom Christ healed, when he was asked, to speak for himself, Joh 9:21.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv6–21 And Annas the high priest,.... So called, either because…
And Annas the high priest,.... So called, either because he had been an high priest, though he was not now, but Caiaphas his son-in-law; or because he was the Sagan of the high priest, and had all the other priests under his government; and is mentioned first, because he was father-in-law to Caiaphas; See Gill on Luk 3:2 he could not be called so, because he was "prince", or president of the council; for not he, but Gamaliel, was president at this time. And
Caiaphas; who was properly high priest, and continued so for three years after the death of Christ:
Read full note →
and John; who is thought by Dr. Lightfoot to be the same with Jochanan, or John ben Zaccai; a famous Jewish Rabbi, who lived at this time, and until, and after the destruction of Jerusalem: this Rabbi was "a priest" (t), as this John was, of the kindred of the high priest; he lived also at Jerusalem; for it is said of him (u), that he sat in the shadow of the temple, and expounded all the whole day; and a very remarkable story is told of him, which happened just about this time (w); which is, that
"forty years before the destruction of the temple--the doors of the temple opened of themselves, when Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai reproved them, saying, O temple, temple, wherefore dost thou fright thyself? I know thee, that thine end shall be, to be destroyed; for so prophesied of thee Zechariah, the son of Iddo, Zac 11:1. "Open thy doors, O Lebanon", &c.''
The chief objection to him, as that learned writer observes, is, that he lived and died a Pharisee, whereas this John seems to have been a Sadducee; see Act 5:17. This puts me in mind of John the high priest, who ministered in the high priesthood fourscore years, and at last became a Sadducee (x): Beza's ancient copy reads "Jonathan: and Alexander"; whose surname was Lysimachus, and had the title of "Alabarcha"; he was a very rich man (y): after Alexander the great had been at Jerusalem, this name became frequent among the Jews; and it is said (z) to be promised him, and was fulfilled, that every son that was born to the priests that year he entered Jerusalem, should be called Alexander; and therefore it is no wonder to hear of an Alexander among the kindred of the high priest; frequent mention is made of , "Rabbi Alexander", in the Jewish writings (a):
and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest; by whose means they were become members of the sanhedrim:
were gathered together at Jerusalem; where the great council only sat, until the destruction of it; it seems by this, that some of the members of it lived in the country; it may be in some of the villages adjacent, where they might be easily and quickly sent for, upon any occasion, as they very likely now were; the Syriac version leaves out the words "at Jerusalem".
(t) Juchasin, fol. 20. 2. (u) T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 26. 1. (w) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 39. 2. & Hieros. Yoma, fol. 43. 3. (x) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 29. 1. (y) Joseph Antiqu. l. 20. c. 4. sect. 2. (z) Juchasin, fol. 14. 1. & 159. 1. Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 18. 2. (a) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 53. 2. Chagiga, fol. 5. 1. Megilla, fol. 17. 2. Nedarim, fol. 41. 1. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 1. & passim.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 Annas, who had been the high priest, and Caiaphas,…
Annas, who had been the high priest, and Caiaphas, who was so then.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 Verse 6. Annas] Though this man was not now…
Verse 6. Annas] Though this man was not now actually in the office of high priest, yet he had possessed it for eleven years, bore the title all his life, and had the honour of seeing five of his sons fill that eminent place after him-an honour that never happened to any other person from the commencement of the Mosaic institution. He is the same who is called Ananus by Josephus, Ant. b. xx. c. 8.
And Caiaphas] He was son-in-law to Annas, Joh 18:13, was now high priest, and the same who, a short time before, condemned Christ to be crucified.
Read full note →
And John] Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, with great probability that this was Jochanan ben Zaccai, who was very famous at that time in the Jewish nation. Of him it is said in the Talmud, Jucas. fol. 60: "Rabbin Jochanan ben Zaccai the priest lived 120 years. He found favour in the eyes of Caesar, from whom he obtained Jafneh. When he died, the glory of wisdom ceased." The following is a remarkable passage: Yoma, fol. 39: Forty years before the destruction of the city, (the very time of which St. Luke now treats,) when the gates of the temple flew open of their own accord, Rab. Jochanan ben Zaccai said, "O temple! temple! why dost thou disturb thyself? I know thy end, that thou shalt be destroyed, for so the Prophet Zachary hath spoken concerning thee: open thy doors, O Lebanon! that the fire may devour thy cedars." See Lightfoot and Schoettgen.
And Alexander] This was probably Alexander Lysimachus, one of the richest Jews of his time, who made great presents to the temple, and was highly esteemed by King Agrippa. See Calmet. He was brother to the famous Philo Judaeus, and father of Alexander Tiberius, who married Berenice, the daughter of Agrippa the elder, and was governor of Judea after Cuspius Fadus. See Josephus, Ant. l. xix. c. 5, s. 1.
Of the kindred of the high priest] Or rather, as Bp. Pearce renders it, "of the race of the high priests, i.e. of the family out of which the high priests were chosen." It may, however, comprehend those who belonged to the families of Annas and Caiaphas, and all who were connected with the sacerdotal family. Luke distinctly mentions all these, to show how formidable the enemies were against whom the infant Church of Christ had to contend.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv8, 13, 15, 19, 21 Act 4:8-12. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost…
Act 4:8-12. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost — That moment, according to the promise of his now glorified Master, (Mat 10:20; Mar 13:11,) which was upon this occasion remarkably verified; said unto them — With the utmost freedom; Ye rulers of the people, &c. — He gives them the honour due to their office. If we this day be examined — And called to an account as criminals, about the good deed — Greek, ευεργεσια, the good work, or benefit, done to the impotent man, and you want us to declare by what means he is delivered from his calamitous state, and made whole — Σεσωσται, is cured or saved: be it known unto you — Probably the herald of God proclaimed this with a loud voice: that by the name of Jesus, whom ye lately crucified — With all the marks of detestation and contempt, as a criminal worthy of the most infamous death, but whom God raised from the dead — These rulers and elders knew in their own consciences that it was so. And, though they had hired the soldiers to tell a most senseless and incredible tale to the contrary, (Mat 28:12-15,) yet it is observable, they did not, so far as we can know, dare to plead it before Peter and John. Even by him — By his power and goodness; doth this man — Cripple though he was from his mother’s womb, as you well know; stand here before you whole — Perfectly sound and well. This is the stone set at naught of you builders — That is, of you, who by your office should have been, and who professed to be, builders of God’s church, which, through the power of God, is become the head of the corner — To which the whole building owes its strength, its union, and its beauty. See notes on Psa 118:22. Neither is there salvation — Temporal or spiritual; in any other: for there is no other name, &c., whereby we must be saved — The apostle, in this passage, uses a beautiful gradation from the temporal deliverance which had been wrought for the poor cripple, by the power of Christ, to that of a nobler and more important kind, which is wrought by Christ for impotent and sinful souls. He therein follows the admirable custom of his great Lord and Master, who continually took occasion from earthly to speak of heavenly things.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 In the midst - In the presence of the…
In the midst - In the presence of the Great Council.
By what power ... - A similar question was put to Christ in the temple, Mat 21:23.
Read full note →
By what name - That is, by whose authority. It is very probable that they expected to intimidate the apostles by this question. They claimed the right of regulating the religious affairs of the nation. They had vast power with the people. They assumed that all power to instruct the people should originate with them; and they expected that the apostles would be confounded, as having violated the established usage of the nation. It did not seem to occur to them to enter into an investigation of the question whether this acknowledged miracle did not prove that they were sent by God, but they assumed that they were impostors, and attempted to silence them by authority. It has been usual with the enemies of religion to attempt to intimidate its friends, and when argument fails, to attempt to silence Christians by appealing to their fears.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21 By what authority? Is it by your own authority,…
By what authority? Is it by your own authority, or that of some other, you have healed this lame man? They wished the know if it was a true miracle, or the effects of some secret magic or enchantment. The knowledge of this kind of affairs belonged to them. It was their duty to repress the attempts of false prophets, seducers, and magicians. But they might easily discover that the apostles were far removed from any thing of this kind. The simple narration of the fact was enough to acquit them. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 Annas . . . and Caiaphas--(See on Luk 3:2).
Annas . . . and Caiaphas--(See on Luk 3:2).
John and Alexander--of whom nothing is known.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv6–21 6. Annas—The same court, the same judges, are to…
6. Annas—The same court, the same judges, are to be faced who arraigned their Divine Master some sixty days ago. (See notes on Joh_18:13; Joh_18:19.)
Caiaphas—See notes on Mat_26:3; Joh_11:49.
Read full note →
John, and Alexander—However important these two characters were in their day, (and Luke intimates by mentioning them that they were weighty personages,) no other certain trace of them exists in any history besides this verse. They are indebted to their participation in the trial of these two humble apostles for all the sure record they have left on earth. Only some have conjectured that the first was Johanan Ben Tachai, famous in Jewish tradition; and others that Alexander was brother to Philo the Jew. (See notes on Luk_1:5; Joh_1:1.) But these were very ordinary names among the Jews; the former for its Old Testament odour and its propitious meaning, God favours; and the latter in honour of Alexander the Great, who was so gratefully remembered by the Jews for his kingly favour that they called all children of priestly rank born on the anniversary of his visit to Jerusalem by his name.
Kindred of the high priest—Meaning probably the relatives of Annas and Caiaphas in the Sanhedrin.
Gathered… Jerusalem—Coming in, perhaps, from their country homes to attend this session.
What gave this case such importance as to bring the highest dignitaries of the nation to the capital? They had a very grave case before them. A decisive miracle, attested and accredited by hundreds, had been performed within the very courts of the temple before the assembled crowds of worshipping Israel, and that in the name of the One claiming to be Messiah, whom their own high court, with these same high priests at its head, had sentenced to death. The question now to be decided is, Are these men prophets of Jehovah, or seducers to idolatry? Deu_13:1-5.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv6–21 6. and Annas the high priest] was there. The…
6. and Annas the high priest] was there. The verb is understood. Annas (called Ananus in Josephus), son of one Seth, was made high-priest (a.d. 7) by the Roman governor Quirinus [Cyrenius], and so continued till a.d. 14 (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2. 1). We do not find that he was ever again appointed to the office, though St Luke here calls him high-priest. But the way in which he is mentioned at the time of the trial of Christ, who was brought, as we read, before Annas first (Joh_18:13), and sent by him afterwards bound unto Caiaphas, shews that, though not actual high-priest, yet his position in the eyes of the people of Jerusalem was one which justified them in bringing Jesus to him as soon as he was seized. It is difficult to explain from the words of the New Test, the relation of these two men in their office. Caiaphas is expressly called high-priest by St John, yet we are not told why Christ was not at once brought to him. It may be that one was acting high-priest, while the other was nasi or president of the Sanhedrin. Moreover it is not improbable that Annas, having been high-priest before, and only deposed from the office by the Roman governor Gratus, would, both during the short high-priesthood of his son Eleazar (a.d. 16), and the longer high-priesthood of Caiaphas, his son-in-law (a.d. 25–37), exercise much influence by reason of his age and experience, and might, from his former tenure of the office, even be spoken of as high-priest. It is clear that he was at the head of one of the most influential Jewish families, for before his death, five of his sons had been high-priests (Joseph. Antiq. xx. 9. 1). We can see from Luk_3:2, where both Annas and Caiaphas are said to be high-priests, that there was some laxity in the common use of the title. So far only does the New Testament carry us, but when we come to examine the Old Testament, and the records of later Jewish literature, there seems every reason to conclude that the expressions which seem somewhat hard to reconcile are exactly those which would naturally be employed. We find that Moses, who is himself counted (Psa_99:6) God’s priest on the same level with Aaron, anointed not Aaron only, but his sons at the same time (Exo_40:12-15) to be high-priests. Also (Num_31:6) Phinehas the son of Eleazar is sent to the war against the Midianites with “the holy instruments” (Le. the Urim and Thummim), which shews that he was high-priest at the same time as Eleazar his father. Again in later times (2Ki_25:18) we have mention made of “Seraiah the chief priest and Zephaniah the second priest,” which the Targum explain as “high-priest and Sagan” or deputy high-priest. The Talmud makes it very clear that there was a special arrangement for providing on some occasions such a deputy for the high-priest. Thus (Mishna Joma i. 1) it says, “Seven days before the day of atonement they remove the high-priest from his house to the chamber of the assessors, and they provide another priest in his place lest any disqualification should befal him.” On this passage Rashi’s note is “to be high-priest instead of him.” and a little later on in the same treatise (T. B. Joma 39 a) it is said concerning the services of the day of atonement: “Rabbi Khanina the Sagan of the priests (and so one qualified to speak on the duties of the office) said: Why does the Sagan stand on the right hand of the high-priest (when the lots are being cast for the goats)?” The answer is, “So that if any disqualification should befal him, the Sagan may go in (to the Holy of Holies) and perform the service in his stead.” Cp. also Midrash Rabbah on Leviticus (par. 20 ad fin.). “If there was any defilement on Aaron, Eleazar served (as high-priest), and if there was any defilement on Eleazar, Ithamar served.” (On the slight matters which caused such ceremonial defilement, see note on Act_10:28.) And in the same chapter we find “Had not Elisheba (Exo_6:23, the wife of Aaron) joy in this world who saw five crowns (i.e. subjects for rejoicing) in one day? her brother-in-law (Moses) a king (Deu_33:5); her brother (Naashon) nasi, i.e. president, of the tribe of Judah; her husband high-priest; her two sons, sagans of the high-priest; and Phinehas her grandson anointed for the war.” These notices make it clear that from the earliest times down to a period posterior to the date of the Acts, there were occasions, and these not unfrequent, when two men were called high-priests at the same time.
That one who had been high-priest should still retain the title may be seen from the principle laid down in several places in the Talmud, (see Mishna Shekalim vi. 6, ed. princ. Jerus.), viz. that “you may elevate in a sacred office or service, but you cannot bring down,” as with us “once a Bishop, always a Bishop.” The illustration given is that you might lay the shewbread on a marble table first, and afterwards on a golden one, but the contrary order of proceeding was forbidden. (For another illustration, see note on Act_6:3.) Therefore Annas, having been high-priest, could, according to Jewish usage, never be called by any lower title.
Read full note →
The relationship between Annas and Caiaphas and the seniority of the former is enough to explain the conduct of the crowd in bringing Jesus to him first: while the omission of the word high-priest (Act_4:6) with the name of Caiaphas is no more a proof that he was not also known to be high-priest, as well as Annas, than the words of St Mark’s Gospel (Act_16:7), “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter,” can be made evidence that Peter was not one of the disciples. For a similar phrase cp. Act_5:29 and the note there.
and Caiaphas] He was also called Joseph, and was son-in-law to Annas.
and John] This is the same name as Johanan, and Lightfoot concludes that this person was the famous Johanan ben Zaccai, who by his influence with Vespasian procured permission for many of the Jews to settle in Jamnia (Yavneh) after the destruction of their city, and himself became head of the synagogue there.
and Alexander] of whom nothing is known more than can be gathered from this mention of him.
and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest] And these would probably all be of the Sadducees’ party.
were gathered together at (MSS. in) Jerusalem] These words which A. V. places at the end of Act_4:6 are in the Greek a part of Act_4:5, and it is better to insert them there, because the MSS. of most authority make the names in Act_4:6 all nominatives and subjects to a new verb. It may have been that some of the authorities were not residents in Jerusalem, but had to be summoned.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 (6) And Annas the high priest . . .—These…
(6) And Annas the high priest . . .—These are mentioned by themselves as representing the section that had probably convened the meeting, and came in as if to dominate its proceedings. The order of the first two names is the same as in Luk_3:2, and as that implied in Joh_18:13; Joh_18:24. Annas, or Ananus, had been made high priest by Quirinus, the Governor of Syria, filled the office A.D. 7-15, and lived to see five of his sons occupy it after him. At this time, Joseph Caiaphas was the actual high priest (see Note on Joh_11:49), having been appointed in A.D. 17. He was deposed A.D. 37. He had married the daughter of Annas; and the latter seems to have exercised a dominant influence, perhaps, as the Nasi, the Prince, or President, of the Sanhedrin, during the remainder of his life. If he presided on this occasion, it may explain St. Luke’s calling him “the high priest.”
John.—This may have been the Johanan ben Zaccai, who is reported by Jewish writers to have been at the height of his fame forty years before the destruction of the Temple, and to have been President of the Great Synagogue after its removal to Jamnia. The identification is, at the best, uncertain; but the story told of his death-bed, in itself full of pathos, becomes, on this assumption, singularly interesting. His disciples asked him why he wept: “O light or Israel, . . . . whence these tears?” And he replied: “If I were going to appear before a king of flesh and blood, he is one who to-day is and to-morrow is in the grave; if he were wroth with me, his wrath is not eternal; if he were to cast me into chains, those chains are not for ever; if he slay me, that death is not eternal; I might soothe him with words or appease him with a gift. But they are about to bring me before the King of kings, the Lord, the Holy and Blessed One, who liveth and abideth for ever. And if He is wroth with me, His wrath is eternal; and if He bind, His bonds are eternal; if He slay, it is eternal death; and Him I cannot soothe with words or appease with gifts. And besides all this, there are before me two paths, one to Paradise and the other to Gehenna, and I know not in which they are about to lead me. How can I do aught else but weep?” (Bab-Beracoth, fol. 28, in Lightfoot: Cent.-Chorogr., Acts 15)
Read full note →
Alexander.—This name has been identified by many scholars with Alexander, the brother of Philo, the Alabarch, or magistrate of Alexandria (Jos. Ant. xviii. 8, § 1; xix. 5, § 1). There is, however, not the shadow of any evidence for the identification.
As many as were of the kindred of the high priest.—The same phrase is used by Josephus (Ant. xv. 3, § 1), and may mean either those who were personally related by ties of blood with the high priest for the time being, or the heads of the four-and-twenty courses of priests. (See Notes on Mat_2:4; Luk_1:5.) All these had probably taken part in our Lord’s condemnation.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Annas the high priest was there for Annas the…
Annas the high priest was there for Annas the high priest, A.V. This is the same Annas as is mentioned in Luk_3:2 and Joh_18:13, and is described as "father-in-law to Caiaphas." He is called by Josephus, Ananus. The succession of the high priests was so irregular, and their tenure of the office so uncertain, in these later years of the Jewish commonwealth, being dependent upon the caprice of the civil rulers who appointed and deposed them at their pleasure, that it does not surprise us to find Annas and Caiaphas high priests at the commencement of John the Baptist"s ministry, then Caiaphas at the time of our Lord"s passion, and now Annas again. It is possible, however, that Annas may have continued to be president of the Sanhedrim, and be called high priest, even when not actually so. He seems to have lived to old age. He is mentioned by Josephus ("Ant. Jud:," 20, 60:1) as having had the singular felicity not only of enjoying the high priesthood himself for a great length of time, but of having five sons promoted to the dignity of high priest, viz. Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Mat-thins, and Ananus (or Annas). Caiaphas. (Joh_18:13) Of John and Alexander nothing further is known, but Farrar conjectures that John may be "the celebrated Johanan Ben Zakkai, and Alexander perhaps the wealthy brother of Philo" ("Life of St. Paul," 1. p. 107). Of the kindred of the high priest ; rather, of the high priestly race. The high priests were only taken from certain families; the members of which were called ajrciereiv, or chief priests, A.V., (Mat_16:21 Mat_26:47, etc.) Many of these would naturally be the near relations of the high priest.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18 By what power, or by what name, have ye…
Act_4:7-10
By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
Read full note →
The power in apostolic miracles
The fact of the healing was recognised; and the logical conclusion, that it was a sign of the presence and working of some supernatural power, was not shirked; but the inquiry remained, What is your power and authority? The word power is that used of our Lords miracles, and translated mighty works. The term name here stands for authority. This the Sanhedrin asked because they regarded themselves as the highest religious authority in the land, and they could approve of nothing which had not been submitted for their sanction. They had to learn that God never will allow His grace to be tied with official bonds. Moses gave the high example of the noble spirit. Would God that all the Lords people were prophets, and that He would put His Spirit on them! We are led to consider the apostolic miracles, and what was thought of them.
I. The peoples thought of them. Miracles excited the interest of the common people. This is true both of our Lords miracles and of those wrought by the apostles. The great distinction between the two series is this--our Lord permitted His miracles to witness to Himself; but the apostles turned the peoples minds from themselves. The common people are more susceptible to the supernatural than the learned; partly because they are more simple, freer from prejudices; and partly because sentiment and imagination are toned and repressed by knowledge. The simplicity of the common people has both its good and its bad side. They hardly knew What to make of St. Peters miracle. It was not in their way to think the matter out. Enough for them that it was a sign of gracious power. They must be good men who were the agents of such good work; and so they were prepared to listen with the expectation that their word would be as good as their work. It is a safe principle that if a mans works are kind and good we may expect kindness and goodness in his words; and we may even assume that there will be truth in them. Our Lord taught us that by their works we may judge our teachers.
II. The priests thought of them. The priests stand for the Sadducee section. They were not simple-minded, and so not prepared fairly to consider the apostolic miracle. They had taken up strong prejudices against our Lord which developed into active enmity, and secured our Lords death. But their gratification passed into intense anxiety when the guard reported, and the disciples of the Crucified openly declared that He was risen. If that were true they were convicted of the almost inconceivable crime to a Jew, of judicially murdering the long-promised Messiah. In their straits they determined to put a bold face on the matter, and make violence serve their end. Perhaps they even succeeded in deluding themselves; and when news came of this miracle of healing they declared it must have been wrought by some malign power, some strange jugglery; and it was their duty to deal with these men as wizards and mountebanks. To these prejudiced priests the same rule may be applied as sufficed for the people, and the character and quality of the apostles works should be allowed to declare their truthfulness, and explain the source of their authority.
III. The apostles thought of thee (Act_4:9-12). They firmly declare that they had wrought the miracle by Divine power entrusted to them; and that they had exerted that power by the authority of that very Nazarene whom they had crucified, but who was risen, and sending forth that grace of which the miracle of healing was an outward sign. The apostles teach us to look upon the miracle--and all the cycle of apostolic miracles--as being signs of--
1. The Divine presence: the Lord was present to heal.
2. The Divine witness, giving public attestation to their teachings and preachings; and--
3. The Divine work, which is to recover men from all the ill and woes brought in by sin, redeeming them from both sin and sins effects. Conclusion: Miracles are fitting modes of persuasion only for the unscientific ages and peoples. They are witnesses to eye and feeling for those who are mainly influenced through the senses rather than through the mind. Therefore the age of miracles has ceased; and the ever-working miracle of Gods converting and renewing grace in mens hearts and lives suffices to convince all open souls that Jesus the Risen is the One, only, all-sufficient Saviour still. (R. Tuck, B. A.)
The pre-eminence and power of the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth
These are manifest--
I. In the necessity for the gospel, and in its corresponding nature. Two correlative words summarise the whole Bible--sin and salvation. But our knowledge of these is not derived from the same source. There is a distinction between what is revealed and what is only recorded in Scripture. Salvation is revealed. But sin is only recorded. It was already in the world, and the consciousness of it was interwoven with human experience before salvation was proclaimed (Rom_3:20). The Scriptures assume this terrible fact. All their warnings, invitations, and promises are based upon it. All the rites prescribed in the Old Testament and all the forms of worship recognised in the New take it for granted. It lies at the foundation of all prayer. The Scriptures also directly assert it. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. The most formal and elaborate argument of the Bible (the Epistle to Rome) sustains these assertions. On the dark background of natural religion, by which all men are tried and found guilty, the glorious gospel shines resplendent. Jesus Christ is not a light, but The Light of the world, without which there is no deliverance from the power of darkness. God has laid at the foundation of all revealed theology, and of all Christian effort, that Stone which foolish builders have rejected, and has graven upon it this indelible inscription, Neither is there salvation in any other--for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.
II. In the biblical history of that name. It is not a mere collection of arbitrary titles, but the embodiment of the Divine nature and purpose. The Elohim created the heavens and the earth; but Jehovah Elohim entered into covenant with man. This new name (Exo_6:3) runs through and characterises the Old Testament economy, until its last prophet proclaims the promise, Jehovah whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple; even the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye delight in (Mal_3:1). The New Testament revelations begin with the fulfilment of the promise that closes the Old. Jesus is the human name of the Covenant Angel. In the synagogue at Nazareth He claims to be the Anointed of God, and from that time His words evoke the recognition of His nature and His mission. Andrew declares, We have found the Messias, and Philip confirms the testimony. Nathanael falls down before Him, and says, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel. The woman of Samaria exclaims, Is not this the Christ? Peter falls prostrate at His feet, crying out, Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord! and No man can call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now He is not only Jesus, He is Jesus the Christ, and Our Lord Jesus Christ. That name is above every name. It translates the ineffable name of Jehovah into human speech, and interprets it to human hearts. It runs through and unifies all Scripture. It embodies the expressed essence of a thousand titles, by which all that is glorious and amiable in God and man, in heaven or earth, is appropriated to Him.
III. In the constitution of His person. The Incarnation of the Son of God is the most stupendous fact in the history of the universe. This it is that makes His name Wonderful. This is the foundation God has laid in Zion, and calls upon men and angels to behold--the elect, tried, and precious stone, rejected of men, but made in the Divine plan and in human experience, the head of the corner. And that which demonstrates this stupendous fact as the power of God unto salvation is the revealed purpose that Jesus Christ should come in the flesh to be the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Among the human builders there are none whose speech is so utterly confounded, and whose wisdom is more manifestly taken in their own craftiness, than those who undertake to re-write the life of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, to explain His mission, and the confessed power of His name, omitting the recognition of His Deity, and the cleansing power of His atoning blood. Regarded simply as a man and a teacher, He is a bundle of contradictions. For while we are not competent to set limits to the Almighty, we do know what man can do; and we know that no uninspired and deceitful man could have drawn this consistent portraiture of the incarnate God. It is only when we add to the human name and nature of Jesus--the Divine attributes and purposes of which the angels sang when they declared Him to be a Saviour who is Christ the Lord (Luk_2:11)--that we can apprehend the truth and grace which shine out in all His recorded ministry, or the power with which the story of His life comes home to the universal heart.
IV. In the offices that name describes, and for the execution of which He is qualified by the constitution of His wonderful person.
1. He is that Prophet whose coming Moses predicted, and for whose teaching he challenged an absolute credence. His instructions prepare the way for the effectual application of His sacrifice.
2. This Prophet is also the great High Priest, and by the one offering of Himself He has both satisfied Divine justice, and for ever perfected them that are sanctified.
3. Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ is King. His royal power underlies and gives efficacy to His prophetic and priestly offices.
4. These offices impart a Divine efficacy to the facts of His death and resurrection. He died as a Prophet and Martyr, to confirm His testimony. He died as a King, to conquer death, and him that hath the power of it. He died as a Priest, that by His precious blood He might redeem and purify unto Himself a peculiar people.
V. In all true preaching of the gospel. The power of God unto salvation resides in the gospel, i.e., in the open proclamation of the truth as it is in Jesus; and demonstrates itself in them that believe. All power, says the ascending Saviour, is given unto Me; go ye, therefore, and teach all nations. So the apostles understood it, and because they believed, therefore have they spoken. When the Jewish council charged them to speak no more to any man in this name, they answered, We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard. Wherein consisted their inability to keep silence? Doubtless they were constrained by loyalty to Christ. But their loyalty ran much deeper than the external commandment. It was but another name for a Divine sympathy and oneness with Him. (H. J. Van Dyke, D. D.)
If we this day be examined of the good deed.--
Giving the reason
Let us see that we can give a good reason for our work, both to ourselves and also to others. It is well for us again and again to question ourselves as to the real motives and, as far as we can predict them, the probable results of our actions. Let us see that we can give thoroughly satisfactory answers to questions about whose real meaning there can be no possible doubt. Questions such as these, Why do I teach in the Sunday school? Why ought I to teach? What should be the reason for and the object of my instruction? Dont let us be satisfied with merely general and indefinite answers, such as, Because it is right, or Because it is known and admitted to be a good work. The real answer should be of this kind, It is most important that these children and these young people should have a thorough knowledge of the life and words, the example and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. They should be taught to seek for and be guided by His Spirit, they should be prepared for the many temptations they will meet in the world. The conscience must be made tender and able to discern between good and evil. The will must be strengthened so that they may be able to persevere in that course of life which they perceive and know to be right. Moreover, since the conflict upon which they will enter will be of lifelong duration, it is most important that they should be trained to live a disciplined life; that they should be taught that the Church, besides being a school, is also an army, the members of which should lead disciplined lives; that they should learn that a means and a method and a safeguard is provided against all forms of temptation by means of this discipline. The district visitor should also be able to answer the same questions. They must answer both themselves and others. From the nature of their work they are more likely to be criticised than the Sunday-school teacher; for they deal with those of mature years, with those who can form an opinion, and who are not slow to detect and judge their motives. Let people see, then, that our object is helpfulness. Teach them how many are, by sad experience, proved to be impotent to carry on the struggle of life; tell them how we would instruct them in the laws of life, and help and strengthen them to live happier and healthier lives. St. Peter pointed to effects produced; we must do the same; we must show men and women how those who are really obedient to the teaching of Christ and the discipline of the Church are more able to fulfil the duty to which God has called them. (W. E. Chadwick, M. A.)
May I never be disposed to apologise for any good deed which I may have wrought in the name of Jesus, no matter who may be offended thereby. May I never be tempted to give to myself any glory for anything that has been wrought through me by the Holy Ghost. May I not be moved by any regard for the opinions of what is called cultivated society or the opinions of materialistic scientists to attempt to explain away, or explain on some natural principle, that which has been wrought by the supernatural grace of God, by the power of faith in Jesus. May I never be ashamed of Jesus because of the opprobrium thrown on Him by His enemies. Jesus of Nazareth: call Him so, bigoted churchmen; call Him so, powerful worldlings; call Him so, cultivated sceptics; but He is Jesus, and whether of Nazareth, or Bethlehem, or Jerusalem, or earth, or heaven, faith in His name has healed millions, and not a single soul has ever been healed by faith in any other name. (C. F. Deems, LL. D.)
This is the Stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the Head of the corner.--
The corner stone
is the top stone at an angle of the building of great weight and importance in their roofs, built of solid fiat stones, to admit of being walked upon. Christ as the Corner Stone united Jews and Gentiles, as He united the two natures, the Godhead and the manhood. His own name must have helped to endear this Psalm to the apostle (1Pe_2:4-7). (Bp. Jacobson.)
Men as moral architects
These words, borrowed from Psa_118:22, are also quoted by all the evangelists except John, and are applied to the Jewish leaders who professed to be the builders of the temple of religion. All men are builders in some form or another. Man is a constructive creature. Some are building scientific systems, some mercantile schemes, some social institutions. All are building their own character. The text suggests--
I. Mans great need as a moral builder--a foundation stone. A good foundation is essential to a good building.
1. Is it a system that man is building? He must have a foundation principle which will give strength and unity to all the parts.
2. Is it an institution--social, political, or ecclesiastical? It must be based on some good reason.
3. Is it character? Whatever a mans governing disposition, whether sensuality, avarice, ambition, selfishness, or benevolence and religion, that is the foundation of his character.
II. Mans great error as a moral builder. Men reject the Divine--
1. In their system of thought. The world teems with intellectual buildings, some of a grand and imposing character; but they have no Divine truth for their foundation. These, like houses on the sand, are constantly tumbling down. The ever-swelling river of history bears on its bosom the wrecks of many such.
2. In their institutional arrangements. A truculent expediency, a false philanthropy, a perverted religious sentiment, form the basis of many political, social, and religious institutions. These cannot stand; many have tumbled down; some are tumbling now; all must go.
3. In their practical enterprises. Schemes of business are launched, great companies are built up, whose foundations are chicanery and fraud, and sooner or later they fail.
4. In their moral character. Mans character is made up of habits, habits are made up of acts, and acts start from principles which lie at the foundation. But the principles are not Divine. They are selfish, not benevolent; carnal, not spiritual; atheistic, not godly. All these are wood, hay, stubble, and cannot last.
III. Mans ultimate discovery as a moral builder. One day he will find the Divine, which he rejected, supreme.
1. This is often fulfilled in the individual characters of men--in the history of all who have been genuinely converted. The stone which they once set at nought, through the renovating grace of God, becomes the head of the corner. Christ, whom they once despised, becomes their all in all.
2. This is being gradually fulfilled in the life of society. As the old systems, institutions, and enterprises in society which have been founded on wrong principles totter and fall, society begins to look out for a firmer foundation--for the Divine--and the rejected stone in many cases is becoming the head of the corner. The varied edifices in social life are becoming Diviner things.
3. This will be fully realised in the final history of the world. Christ whom the world had rejected, will be the subject of every thought, the spirit of every system, the spring of every activity, the sweetness of every pleasure, the glory of every distinction. He shall be all in all. What a terrible discovery for Christs rejecters! (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Christ the Head of the Corner
Christ acts in a two-fold capacity in the building up of human life. He is the foundation (1Co_3:2; 1Pe_2:4-7); and the stone which crowns the edifice and gives it completeness, unity, and strength. He is thus the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. The text sets forth Christ in the latter of these two capacities. Man without Christ is incomplete, disorganised, and weak; in Him he has perfection, oneness, and power. We see this--
I. In the history of the races. Before Christ came humanity lacked its full development. Never before the Advent was there an exhibition even in the ideal of what man could be. Just as man was the crown and perfection of Gods handiwork in creation, so is Christ the crown and perfection of man. And wherever Christ is not accepted and placed in His true position, the fatal flaw of incompleteness is apparent. Note, too, the disintegration of humanity before Christ came, and where Christs supremacy is not recognised. One is your Master, etc., is the secret of the unity of mankind. Weakness, too, is stamped upon all ancient nationalities, in spite of high civilisation and bloated armaments, part of iron and part of clay. Hence their non-survival. Internal weakness, prophetic of sure decay, is the fate of every nation that rejects the Head of the Corner.
II. In the experience of the individual. These principles hold good of mans--
1. Intellectual life. Ancient and modern antichristian philosophy were and are defective, lacked coherence, had and have no power to quicken. The truth as it is in Jesus alone can survive, because it has in it all that man needs to know, appeals to all his faculties, reason, imagination, etc., and thoroughly satisfies the mind. Then it is a complete and well-rounded unity, and by accepting it mans intellectual nature becomes at one with itself and with the other faculties. And finally the words of Jesus are spirit and are life.
2. Moral life. One thing thou lackest is the allegation against all systems and men out of Christ, and how true Rom_8:1-39. is of all the unregenerate! Dead in trespasses and sins completes the fatal category.
3. Business life. The fatal lack here is that of the ennobling motive, Do all to the glory of God. Men are distracted because of the want of a cohering commercial principle such as Ye serve the Lord Christ would supply. And all enterprises are impotent to do more than supply mans physical needs which are not animated by the Spirit of Christ.
III. In the government of the family. (J. W. Burn.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21 6. Annas the high priest. Still so called, though…
6. Annas the high priest. Still so called, though deposed ten years before by the Romans. The Jews held him still as high priest by right. Caiaphas. Son-in-law of Annas, and the high priest now in office by Roman appointment. John and Alexander. No doubt great men at the time, but we know nothing of them. Kindred of the high priest. Of the family of Annas, all of priestly rank, and many of them holding high offices. The Sanhedrim usually met in a hall of the temple.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v13 Act_4:13. Perceived.—Lit., having perceived from what they saw and…
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act_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 Joh_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 Joh_7:15), and Ignorant.—I.e., private or obscure persons, plebeian as distinguished from persons in the higher walks of life (1Co_14:16).
Read full note →
Act_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).
Act_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 Act_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.
Act_4:17. Let us straitly threaten.—Lit., with a threat let us threaten them. For a similar construction see Luk_22:15. The R.V. omits “with a threat.”
Act_4:18. Nor teach in or upon (ἐπί) the name of Jesus.—So as to make it a theme of discourse.
Act_4:19. Whether it be right, etc.—See on Act_4:29; and compare Amo_3:8; 1Jn_1:1-3. This remarkable utterance is not without Greek, Roman, and Rabbinical parallels.
Act_4:21. Glorified God for that which was done.—Compare Luk_5:26; Gal_1:24.
Act_4:22. Forty years old.—A note characteristic of Luke (compare Act_9:33, Act_14:8; Luk_8:43).
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_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 (Mar_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” (1Co_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 (Mat_28:19; Mar_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” (Act_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
Act_4:13. Companionship with Jesus.
I. A distinguished privilege.
II. A transforming power.
III. A perilous distinction.
IV. A high responsibility.
Act_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” (Pro_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.
Act_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.
Act_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, Act_5:29.)
Act_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” (1Co_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 (1Sa_2:36) is to desecrate the office and be guilty of sacrilege.
Act_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.
Act_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. (Act_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.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv11, 13, 15, 19 11, 12. Can we not learn this truth? There…
JESUS ONLY
11, 12. Can we not learn this truth? There is salvation in none but Jesus. If you differ from this you are an idolater. Our Jesus needs no help to save a soul. Some worship a water-god; others, a day-god, and still others worship gods of wood and stone in the form of a fine edifice, while many worship creeds and sects, Mammon and style. Jesus warns us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy, i. e., modern orthodoxy;
Read full note →
the leaven of the Sadducees, which is rationalism, i. e., higher criticism; and the leaven of Herod (a royal dynasty), which is spread-eagleism, i. e., the worship of political gods. Oh, how few worship Jesus only! The true God is only revealed in Jesus by the Holy Ghost. Reader, be sure you adopt the creed Jesus only.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv13, 14, 19, 20, 21
Acts
THE FIRST BLAST OF TEMPEST
Read full note →
WITH AND LIKE CHRIST
Act 4:13.
Two young Galilean fishermen, before the same formidable tribunal which a few weeks before had condemned their Master, might well have quailed. And evidently ‘Annas, the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest,’ were very much astonished that their united wisdom and dignity did not produce a greater impression on these two contumacious prisoners. They were ‘unlearned,’ knowing nothing about Rabbinical wisdom; they were ‘ignorant,’ or, as the word ought rather to be rendered, ‘persons in a private station,’ without any kind of official dignity. And yet there they stood, perfectly unembarrassed and at their ease, and said what they wanted to say, all of it, right out. So, as great astonishment crept over the dignified ecclesiastics who were sitting in judgment upon them, their astonishment led them to remember what, of course, they knew before, only that it had not struck them so forcibly, as explaining the Apostles’ demeanour- viz.,’that they had been with Jesus.’ So they said to themselves: ‘Ah, that explains it all! There is the root of it. The company that they have kept accounts for their unembarrassed boldness.’
Now, I need not notice by more than a word in passing, what a testimony it is to the impression that that meek and gracious Sufferer had made upon His judges, that when they saw these two men standing there unfaltering, they began to remember how that other Prisoner had stood. And perhaps some of them began to think that they had made a mistake in that last trial. It is a testimony to the impression that Christ had made that the strange demeanour of His two servants recalled the Master to the mind of the judges.
I. The first thing that strikes us here is the companionship that transforms.
The rulers were partly right, and they were partly wrong. The source from which these men had drawn their boldness was their being with Christ; but it was not such companionship with Christ, as Annas and Caiaphas had in view, that had given them courage. For as long as the Apostles had His personal presence with them, there was no perceptible transforming or elevating process going on in them; and it was not until after they had lost that corporeal presence that there came upon them the change which even the prejudiced eyes of these judges could not help seeing.
The writer of Acts gives a truer explanation with which we may fill out the incomplete explanation of the rulers, when he says, ‘Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them.’ Ah, that is it! They had been with Jesus all the days that He went in and out amongst them. They had companioned with Him, and they had gained but little from it. But when He went away, and they were relegated to the same kind of companionship with Him that you and I have or may have, then a change began to take place on them. And so the companionship that transforms is not what the Apostle calls ‘knowing Christ after the flesh,’ but inward communion with Him, the companionship and familiarity which are as possible for us as for any Peter or John of them all, and without which our Christianity is nothing but sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.
They were ‘with Jesus,’ as each of us may be. Their communion was in no respect different from the communion that is open and indispensable to any real Christian. To be with Him is possible for us all. When we go to our daily work, when we are compassed about by distracting and trivial cares, when men come buzzing round us, and the ordinary secularities of life seem to close in upon us like the walls of a prison, and to shut out the blue and the light-oh! it is hard, but it is possible, for every one of us to think these all away, and to carry with us into everything that blessed thought of a Presence that is not to be put aside, that sits beside me at my study table, that stands beside you at your tasks, that goes with you in shop and mart, that is always near, with its tender encircling, with its mighty protection, with its all-sufficing sweetness and power. To be with Christ is no prerogative, either of Apostles and teachers of the primitive age, or of saints that have passed into the higher vision; but it is possible for us all. No doubt there are as yet unknown forms and degrees of companionship with Christ in the future state, in comparison with which to be ‘present in the body is to be absent from the Lord’; but in the inmost depth of reality, the soul that loves is where it loves, and has whom it loves ever with it. ‘Where the treasure is, there will the heart be also,’ and we may be with Christ if only we will honestly try hour by hour to keep ourselves in touch with Him, and to make Him the motive as well as the end of the work that other men do along with us, and do from altogether secular and low motives.
Another phase of being with Christ lies in frank, full, and familiar conversation with Him. I do not understand a dumb companionship. When we are with those that we love, and with whom we are at ease, speech comes instinctively. If we are co-denizens of the Father’s house with the Elder Brother, we shall talk to Him. We shall not need to be reminded of the ‘duty of prayer,’ but shall rather instinctively and as a matter of course, without thinking of what we are doing, speak to Him our momentary wants, our passing discomforts, our little troubles. There may be a great deal more virtue in monosyllabic prayers than in long liturgies. Little jets of speech or even of unspoken speech that go up to Him are likely to be heart-felt and to be heard. It is said of Israel’s army on one occasion, ‘they cried unto God in the battle, and He was entreated of them.’ Do you think that theirs would be very elaborate prayers? Was there any time to make a long petition when the sword of a Philistine was whizzing about the suppliant’s ears? It was only a cry, but it was a cry; and so ‘He was entreated of them.’ If we are ‘with Christ’ we shall talk to Him; and if we are with Christ He will talk to us. It is for us to keep in the attitude of listening and, so far as may be, to hush other voices, in order that His may be heard, If we do so, even here ‘shall we ever be with the Lord.’
II. Now, note next the character that this companionship produces.
Annas and Caiaphas said to each other: ‘Ah, these two have been with that Jesus! That is where they have got their boldness. They are like Him.’
As is the Master, so is the servant. That is the broad, general principle that lies in my text. To be with Christ makes men Christlike. A soul habitually in contact with Jesus will imbibe sweetness from Him, as garments laid away in a drawer with some preservative perfume absorb fragrance from that beside which they lie. Therefore the surest way for Christian people to become what God would have them to be, is to direct the greater part of their effort, not so much to the acquirement of individual characteristics and excellences, as to the keeping up of continuity of communion with the Master. Then the excellences will come. Astronomers, for instance, have found out that if they take a sensitive plate and lay it so as to receive the light from a star, and keep it in place by giving it a motion corresponding with the apparent motion of the heavens, for hours and hours, there will become visible upon it a photographic image of dim stars that no human eye or telescope can see. Persistent lying before the light stamps the image of the light upon the plate. Communion with Christ is the secret of Christlikeness. So instead of all the wearisome, painful, futile attempts at tinkering one’s own character apart from Him, here is the royal road. Not that there is no effort in it. We must never forget nor undervalue the necessity for struggle in the Christian life. But that truth needs to be supplemented with the thought that comes from my text-viz. that the fruitful direction in which the struggle is to be mainly made lies in keeping ourselves in touch with Jesus Christ, and if we do that, then transformation comes by beholding. ‘We all, reflecting as a mirror does, the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image.’ ‘They have been with Jesus,’ and so they were like Him.
But now look at the specific kinds of excellence which seem to have come out of this communion. ‘They beheld the boldness of Peter and John.’ The word that is translated ‘boldness’ no doubt conveys that idea, but it also conveys another. Literally it means ‘the act of saying everything.’ It means openness of unembarrassed speech, and so comes to have the secondary signification, which the text gives, of ‘boldness.’
Then, to be with Christ gives a living knowledge of Him and of truth, far in advance of the head knowledge of wise and learned people. It was a fact that these two knew nothing about what Rabbi This, or Rabbi That, or Rabbi The Other had said, and yet could speak, as they had been speaking, large religious ideas that astonished these hide-bound Pharisees, who thought that there was no way to get to the knowledge of the revelation of God made to Israel, except by the road of their own musty and profitless learning. Ay! and it always is so. An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theology. The men that have summered and wintered with Jesus Christ may not know a great many things that are supposed to be very important parts of religion, but they have got hold of the central truth of it, with a power, and in a fashion, that men of books, and ideas, and systems, and creeds, and theological learning, may know nothing about. ‘Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, are called.’ Let a poor man at his plough-tail, or a poor woman in her garret, or a collier in the pit, have Jesus Christ for their Companion, and they have got the kernel; and the gentlemen that like such diet may live on the shell if they will, and can. Religious ideas are of little use unless there be heart-experiences; and heart-experiences are wonderful teachers of religious truth.
Again, to be with Christ frees from the fear of man. It was a new thing for such persons as Peter and John to stand cool and unawed before the Council. Not so very long ago one of the two had been frightened into a momentary apostasy by dread of being haled before the rulers, and now they are calmly heroic, and threats are idle words to them. I need not point to the strong presumption, raised by the contrast of the Apostles’ past cowardice and present courage, of the occurrence of some such extraordinary facts as the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Descent of the Spirit. Something had happened which revolutionised these men. It was their communion with Jesus, made more real and deep by the cessation of His bodily presence, which made these unlearned and non-official Galileans front the Council with calmly beating hearts and unfaltering tongues. Doubtless, temperament has much to do with courage, but, no doubt, he who lives near Jesus is set free from undue dependence on things seen and on persons. Perfect love casts out fear, not only of the Beloved, but of all creatures. It is the bravest thing in the world.
Further, to be with Christ will open a man’s lips. The fountain, if it is full, must well up. ‘Light is light which circulates. Heat is heat which radiates.’ The true possession of Jesus Christ will always make it impossible for the possessor to be dumb. I pray you to test yourselves, as I would that all professing Christians should test themselves, by that simple truth, that a full heart must find utterance. The instinct that drives a man to speak of the thing in which he is interested should have full play in the Christian life. It seems to me a terribly sad fact that there are such hosts of good, kind people, with some sort of religion about them, who never feel any anxiety to say a word to any soul concerning the Master whom they profess to love. I know, of course, that deep feeling is silent, and that the secrets of Christian experience are not to be worn on the sleeve for daws to peck at. And I know that the conventionalities of this generation frown very largely upon the frank utterance of religious convictions on the part of religious people, except on Sundays, in Sunday-schools, pulpits, and the like. But for all that, what is in you will come out. If you have never felt ‘I was weary of forbearing, and I could not stay,’ I do not think that there is much sign in you of a very deep or a very real being with Jesus.
III. The last point to be noted is, the impression which such a character makes.
It was not so much what Peter and John said that astonished the Council, as the fact of their being composed and bold enough to say anything.
A great deal more is done by character than by anything else. Most people in the world take their notions of Christianity from its concrete embodiments in professing Christians. For one man that has read his Bible, and has come to know what religion is thereby, there are a hundred that look at you and me, and therefrom draw their conclusions as to what religion is. It is not my sermons, but your life, that is the most important agency for the spread of the Gospel in this congregation. And if we, as Christian people, were to live so as to make men say, ‘Dear me, that is strange. That is not the kind of thing that one would have expected from that man. That is of a higher strain than he is of. Where did it come from, I wonder?’ ‘Ah, he learned it of that Jesus’-if people were constrained to speak in that style to themselves about us, dear friends, and about all our brethren, England would be a different England from what it is t-day. It is Christians’ lives, after all, that make dints in the world’s conscience.
Do you remember one of the Apostle’s lovely and strong metaphors? Paul says that that little Church in Thessalonica rung out clear and strong the name of Jesus Christ-resonant like the clang of a bugle, ‘so that we need not to speak anything.’ The word that he employs for ‘sounded out’ is a technical expression for the ringing blast of a trumpet. Very small penny whistles would be a better metaphor for the instruments which the bulk of professing Christians play on.
‘Adorn the doctrine of Christ.’ And that you may, listen to His own word, which says all I have been trying to say in this sermon: ‘Abide in Me. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv6–21 See notes on verse 5
See notes on verse 5
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv12, 16 (See Scofield "Rom 1:16").
salvation
(See Scofield "Rom 1:16").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv8, 13, 18 Peter’s speech of defense:
Peter’s speech of defense:
v. 8. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel,
Read full note →
v. 9. if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole,
v. 10. be it known unto you all and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand here before you whole.
v. 11. This is the Stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the Head of the corner.
v. 12. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.
In the case of Peter it was now fulfilled what Jesus had promised, Luk 12:12. He was filled with the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost took charge of his mind and his mouth and directed the action of both. The question of the council had been with reference to the name and authority by which the apostles were acting. Solemnly, emphatically, and boldly addressing them as rulers of the people and elders, Peter makes a confession of his faith and of his ministry. He does not overlook the sneering "you" of the question, but states: If, as is the case, we, upon whom you heap mockery, are examined on account, about, the good deed shown to the sick man. Note the fine bit of oratorical irony in the statement. It reproves the rulers of the Jews for making a crime of acts of kindness and beneficence. Since the members of the council wanted to know in what manner, by what means, or "in whom" this man had been thoroughly healed, it should be known, not only to them all, but also to the entire nation of Israel, that this man was standing, was presented, before them in full health in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom they had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead. This was the answer of Peter, a statement which needed no proof; for the judges could not deny that the miracle had actually been performed with the man standing before them. And as for refuting the claim of Peter as to the manner of the miracle, they could not with any degree of probability adduce any other power or name through which such a deed might have been done. And the candidness of Peter is equaled only by his boldness. For he deliberately pushes his advantage farther by holding before the eyes of his judges the passage Psa 118:22, which Jesus, but a short time before, had quoted to a committee of the same Sanhedrin, Mat 21:42; Mar 12:10; Luk 21:17. The rulers of the Jews were like men that tried to build a house, and foolishly rejected the only stone which was available for the corner of the foundation upon which the whole building was to rest. Jesus was the Stone ordained by God as the foundation of His Church. But the Jews had rejected Christ, and thus spoken the judgment upon themselves. In spite of all that Jesus was and will remain the Corner-stone, the very Foundation of the holy temple which He is rearing to Himself. And not only that, but, as Peter joyfully cries out: In none other is there salvation, for there is also none other name under heaven that is given among men in which we must be saved. The salvation earned by Jesus is complete, and it is the only salvation to be found anywhere. His name, the Word of redemption, is given, is proclaimed in the midst of men, in all the world, and whoever will be saved must turn to this one Source and Author of everlasting life. "On the name of Christ I cannot believe in any other pay but that I hear the merit of Christ preached and accept this. Therefore by believing on the name of Christ and not by trust in our works we are saved. For the word ’name’ in this place means the reason by which and on account of which salvation comes. Therefore, to glorify and confess the name of Christ is as much as trusting in Him who alone is and is called Christ, as the cause of my salvation and my treasure, by which I am saved."
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv8, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit
This can be stated in active form. See how you translated this in Acts 2:4. AT: "The Holy Spirit filled Peter and he" (See: Active or Passive)
Read full note →
if we this day are being questioned ... by what means was this man made well?
Peter asks this question to clarify that this was the real reason that they were on trial. AT: "You are asking us this day ... by what means we made this man well" (See: Rhetorical Question)
we this day are being questioned
This can be stated in active form. AT: "you are questioning us this day" (See: Active or Passive)
by what means was this man made well
This can be stated in active form. AT: "by what means we have made this man well" (See: Active or Passive)
May this be known to you all and to all the people of Israel
This can be stated in active form. AT: "May all of you and all of the people of Israel know this" (See: Active or Passive)
to you all and to all the people of Israel
"to you who are questioning us and to all the other people of Israel"
in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth
Here the word "name" refers to power and authority. AT: "by the power of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (See: Metonymy)
whom God raised from the dead,
Here to raise up is an idiom for causing someone who has died to become alive again. AT: "whom God caused to live again" (See: Idiom)
translationWords
Peter
filled with the Holy Spirit
works
Israel
Jesus
Nazareth
crucify
God
raise
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv13, 16, 19 4:13 ordinary men with no special training in the…
4:13 ordinary men with no special training in the Scriptures: That is, they were not scholars or ordained teachers—they were working men without higher education. The educated members of the Jewish high council were treated as authorities on the Scriptures and matters of religion, so it amazed them to see uneducated men speaking with such boldness about such matters.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.