One came and told them, “Behold, the men whom you put in prison are in the temple, standing and teaching the people.” Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without violence, for they were afraid that the people might stone them.
When they had brought them, they set them before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, “Didn’t we strictly command you not to teach in this name? Behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood on us.”
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On v28 28. The chief priest layeth two crimes to the…
28. The chief priest layeth two crimes to the charge of the apostles, for he accuseth them of contumacy or stubbornness, because they obeyed not the decree of the council. In the second member he betrayeth an evil conscience, or, at least, he showeth that he handled rather a private business than any public cause, for he complaineth that the apostles will cause the priests and the scribes to be hated for the death of Christ. Behold, therefore, what that is which nettleth them, because they fear the revenge and punishment of wicked murder. He pretendeth, at the first, doctrine; but we may gather out of the end that he was not so careful for doctrine. In the mean season, he accuseth the apostles of sedition; for he taketh that for a thing which all men, for the most part, did grant, that Christ was put to death justly. Notwithstanding this is the principal point of the accusation, that they did not obey the commandment of the priests. It was an heinous offense not to obey the chief priest; how much more heinous was it, then, to despise the whole order? But the chief priest doth not consider what is his duty towards God and the Church; he abuseth his authority tyrannously, as if the same were not under any laws, as the Pope dealeth with us at this day; for seeing that he taketh to himself an unbridled authority and government, he feareth not to condemn us for schismatics, so soon as he seeth us refuse his decrees; for he catcheth at these sentences: “He which despiseth you despiseth me,” (Luke 10:16;) and thereupon he concludeth that we will rebel against God. But if he will be heard as the ambassador of Christ, he must speak out of the mouth of Christ.
Now, forasmuch as he doth manifestly play the minister of Satan, he borroweth authority, without shame and color, of the name of Christ; yea, the very form of speech which the chief priest useth doth prove how carelessly spiritual tyrants who usurp such authority and lordship as is not subject to the word of God, dare grant liberty to themselves to attempt whatsoever pleaseth them. With a commandment (saith he) have we commanded. Whence cometh such strait rigor, save only because they think that all that must be received without exception which they shall command?
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 vv25, 26, 28 The more openly that Christ’s virtue showeth itself, the…
The more openly that Christ’s virtue showeth itself, the more increaseth the madness of his enemies which conspire against him.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv25–28 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold,…
25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
Ver. 25. Behold, the men whom ye put in prison] Surely there is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord, Pro 21:30. God’s mind is fulfilled by them that have least mind to it; human wisdom, while it strives for masteries, is shamefully foiled and out mastered.
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 vv25–28 So true is that in Isa 8:10, Take counsel…
So true is that in Isa 8:10, Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought. But, The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, Psa 33:11.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v26 We are not told what it was that the…
We are not told what it was that the apostles preached to the people; no doubt it was according to the direction of the angel - the words of this life; but what passed between them and the council we have here an account of; for in their sufferings there appeared more of a divine power and energy than even in their preaching. Now here we have,
I. The seizing of the apostles a second time. We may think, if God designed this, "Why were they rescued from their first imprisonment?" But this was designed to humble the pride, and check the fury, of their persecutors; and now he would show that they were discharged, not because they feared a trial, for they were ready to surrender themselves and make their appearance before the greatest of their enemies. 1. They brought them without violence, with all the respect and tenderness that could be: did not pull them out of the pulpit, nor bind them, nor drag them along, but accosted them respectfully; and one would think they had reason to do so, in reverence to the temple, that holy place, and for fear of the apostles, lest they should strike them, as they did Ananias, or call for fire from heaven upon them, as Elias did; but all that restrained their violence was their fear of the people, who had such a veneration for the apostles that they would have stoned the officers if they had offered them any abuse. 2. Yet they brought them to those who, they knew, were violent against them, and were resolved to take violent courses with them (Act 5:27): They brought them, to set them before the council, as delinquents. Thus the powers that should have been a terror to evil works and workers became so to the good.
Read full note →
II. Their examination. Being brought before this august assembly, the high priest, as the mouth of the court, told them what it was they had to lay to their charge, Act 5:28. 1. That they had disobeyed the commands of authority, and would not submit to the injunctions and prohibitions given them (Act 5:28), "Did not we, by virtue of our authority, strictly charge and command you, upon pain of our highest displeasure, that you should not teach in this name? But you have disobeyed our commands, and gone on to preach not only without our licence, but against our express order." Thus those who make void the commandments of God are commonly very strict in binding on their own commandments, and insisting upon their own power: Did not we command you? Yes, they did; but did not Peter at the same time tell them that God's authority was superior to theirs, and his commands must take place of theirs? And they had forgotten this. 2. That they had spread false doctrine among the people, or at least a singular doctrine, which was not allowed by the Jewish church, nor agreed with what was delivered form Moses's chair. "You have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and thereby have disturbed the public peace, and drawn people from the public establishment." Some take this for a haughty scornful word: "This silly senseless doctrine of yours, that is not worth taking notice of, you have made such a noise with, that even Jerusalem, the great and holy city, is become full of it, and it is all the talk of the town." They are angry that men, whom they look upon as despicable, should make themselves thus considerable. 3. That they had a malicious design against the government, and aimed to stir up the people against it, by representing it as wicked and tyrannical, and as having made itself justly odious both to God and man: "You intend to bring this man's blood, the guilt of it before God, the shame of it before men, upon us." Thus they charge them not only with contumacy and contempt of the court, but with sedition and faction, and a plot both to set the people against them, for having persecuted even to death not only so innocent but so good and great a man as this Jesus, and also the Romans, for having drawn them into it. See here how those who with a great del of presumption will do an evil thing yet cannot bear to hear of it afterwards, nor to have it charged upon them. When they were in the heat of the persecution they could cry daringly enough, "His blood be upon us and upon our children; let us bear the blame for ever." But now that they have time for a cooler thought they take it as a great affront to have his blood laid at their door. Thus are they convicted and condemned by their own consciences, and dread lying under that guilt in which they were not afraid to involve themselves.
III. Their answer to the charge exhibited against them: Peter and the other apostles all spoke to the same purport; whether severally examined, or answering jointly, they spoke as one and the same Spirit gave them utterance, depending upon the promise their Master had made them, that, when they were brought before councils, it should be given them in that same hour what they should speak, and courage to speak it.
1. They justified themselves in their disobedience to the commands of the great sanhedrim, great as it was (Act 5:29): We ought to obey God rather than men. They do not plead the power they had to work miracles (this spoke sufficiently for them, and therefore they humbly decline mentioning it themselves), but they appeal to a maxim universally owned, which even natural conscience subscribes to, and which comes home to their case. God had commanded them to teach in the name of Christ, and therefore they ought to do it, though the chief priests forbade them. Note, Those rulers set up in opposition to God, and have a great deal to answer for, who punish men for disobedience to them in that which is their duty to God.
2. They justified themselves in doing what they could to fill Jerusalem with the doctrine of Christ, though, in preaching him up, they did indeed reflect upon those that maliciously ran him down, and if they thereby bring his blood upon them they may thank themselves. It is charged upon them as a crime that they preached Christ and his gospel. "Now," say they, "we will tell you who this Christ is, and what his gospel is, and then do you judge whether we ought not to preach it; nay, and we shall take this opportunity to preach it to you, whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear."
(1.) The chief priests are told to their faces the indignities they did to this Jesus: "You slew him and hanged him on a tree, you cannot deny it." The apostles, instead of making an excuse, or begging their pardon, for bringing the guilt of this man's blood upon them, repeat the charge, and stand to it: "It was you that slew him; it was your act and deed," Note, People's being unwilling to hear of their faults is no good reason why they should not be faithfully told of them. It is a common excuse made for not reproving sin that the times will not bear it. But those whose office it is to reprove must not be awed by this; the times must bear it, and shall bear it. Cry aloud and spare not; cry aloud and fear not.
(2.) They are told also what honours God put upon this Jesus, and then let them judge who was in the right, the persecutors of his doctrine or the preachers of it. He calls God the God of our fathers, not only ours, but yours, to show that in preaching Christ they did not preach a new god, nor entice people to come and worship other gods; not did they set up an institution contrary to that of Moses and the prophets, but they adhered to the God of the Jewish fathers; and that name of Christ which they preached answered the promises made to the fathers, and the covenant God entered into with them, and the types and figures of the law he gave them. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; see what honour he did him. [1.] He raised him up; he qualified him for, and called him to, his great undertaking. It seems to refer to the promise God made by Moses, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you. God raised him up out of obscurity, and made him great. Or, it may be meant of his raising him up from the grave: "You put him to death, but God has restored him to life, so that God and you are manifestly contesting about this Jesus; and which must we side with?" [2.] He exalted him with his right hand, hupsōse - hath lifted him up. "You loaded him with disgrace, but God has crowned him with honour; and ought we not to honour him whom God honours?" God has exalted him, tē dexia autou - with his right hand, that is, by his power put forth; Christ is said to live by the power of God. Or, to his right hand, to sit there, to rest there, to rule there. "He has invested him with the highest authority, and therefore we must teach in his name, for God has given him a name above every name." [3.] "He has appointed him to be a prince and a Saviour, and therefore we ought to preach in his name, and to publish the laws of his government as he is a prince, and the offers of his grace as he is a Saviour." Observe, There is no having Christ to be our Saviour, unless we be willing to take him for our prince. We cannot expect to be redeemed and healed by him, unless we give up ourselves to be ruled by him. The judges of old were saviours. Christ's ruling is in order to his saving, and faith takes an entire Christ, that came, not to save us in our sins, but to save us from our sins. [4.] He is appointed, as a prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. Therefore they must preach in his name to the people of Israel, for his favours were designed primarily and principally for them; and none that truly loved their country could be against this. Why should the rulers and elders of Israel oppose one who came with no less a blessing to Israel than repentance and pardon? Had he been exalted to give deliverance to Israel from the Roman yoke, and dominion over the neighbouring nations, the chief priests would have welcomed him with all their hearts. But repentance and remission of sins are blessings they neither value nor see their need of, and therefore they can by no means admit his doctrine. Observe here, First, Repentance and remission go together; wherever repentance is wrought, remission is without fail granted, and the favour is given to all those to whom is given the qualification for it. On the other hand, no remission without repentance; none are freed from the guilt and punishment of sin but those that are freed from the power and dominion of sin, that are turned from it and turned against it. Secondly, It is Jesus Christ that gives, and is authorized to give, both repentance and remission. Whatsoever is required in the gospel-covenant is promised. Are we appointed to repent? Christ is appointed to give repentance, by his Spirit working with the word, to awaken the conscience, to work contrition for sin, and an effectual change in the heart and life. The new heart is his work, and the broken spirit a sacrifice of his providing; and, when he has given repentance, if he should not give remission he would forsake the work of his own hands. See how necessary it is that we repent, and that we apply ourselves to Christ by faith for his grace to work repentance in us. [5.] All this is well attested, First, by the apostles themselves; they are ready to testify upon oath, if required, that they saw him alive after his resurrection, and saw him ascend into heaven; and also that they experienced the power of his grace upon their hearts, raising them up to that which was far above their natural capacities: "We are his witnesses, appointed by him to publish this to the world; and if we should be silent, as you would have us, we should betray a trust, and be false to it." When a cause is trying, witnesses, of all men, ought not to be silenced, for the issue of the cause depends on their testimony. Secondly, By the Spirit of God: "We are witnesses, competent ones, and whose testimony is sufficient before any human judicature." But this is not all: The Holy Ghost is witness, a witness from heaven; for God hath given his gifts and graces to those that obey Christ. Therefore we must preach in this name, because for this end the Holy Ghost is given us, whose operations we cannot stifle. Note, The giving of the Holy Ghost to obedient believers, not only to bring them to the obedience of faith, but to make them eminently useful therein, is a very strong proof of the truth of Christianity. God gave the Holy Ghost by his Son and in his name (Joh 14:26), and in answer to his prayer (Joh 14:16), nay, it was Christ that sent him from the Father (Joh 15:26; Joh 16:7), and this proves the glory to which the Father has exalted him. The great work of the Spirit being not only to justify Christ (Ti1 3:16), but to glorify him, and all his gifts having a direct tendency to exalt his name, prove that his doctrine is divine, else it would not be carried on thus by divine power. And, Lastly, The giving of the Holy Ghost to those that obey Christ, both for their assistance in their obedience and as a present recompence for their obedience, is a plain evidence that it is the will of God that Christ should be obeyed; "judge then whether we ought to obey you in opposition to him."
IV. The impression which the apostles' defence of themselves made upon the court. It was contrary to what one would have expected from men that pretended to reason, learning, and sanctity. Surely such fair reasoning could not but clear the prisoners, and convert the judges. No, instead of yielding to it, they raged against it, and were filled, 1. With indignation at what the apostles said: They were cut to the heart, angry to see their own sin set in order before them; stark mad to find that the gospel of Christ had so much to say for itself, and consequently was likely to get ground. When a sermon was preached to the people to this purport, they were pricked to the heart, in remorse and godly sorrow, Act 2:37. These here were cut to the heart with rage and indignation. Thus the same gospel is to some a savour of life unto life, to others of death unto death. The enemies of the gospel not only deprive themselves of its comforts, but fill themselves with terrors, and are their own tormentors. 2. With malice against the apostles themselves. Since they see they cannot stop their mouths any other way than by stopping their breath, they take counsel to slay them, hoping that so they shall cause the work to cease. While the apostles went on in the service of Christ, with a holy security and serenity of mind, perfectly composed, and in a sweet enjoyment of themselves, their persecutors went on in their opposition to Christ, with a constant perplexity and perturbation of mind, and vexation to themselves.
V. The grave advice which Gamaliel, a leading man in the council, gave upon this occasion, the scope of which was to moderate the fury of these bigots, and check the violence of the prosecution. This Gamaliel is here said to be a Pharisee by his profession and sect, and by office a doctor of the law, one that studied the scriptures of the Old Testament, read lectures upon the sacred authors, and trained up pupils in the knowledge of them. Paul was brought up at his feet (Act 22:3), and tradition says that so were Stephen and Barnabas. Some say he was the son of that Simeon that took up Christ in his arms, when he was presented in the temple, and grandson of the famous Hillel. He is here said to be in reputation among all the people for his wisdom and conduct, it appearing by this passage that he was a moderate man, and not apt to go in with furious measures. Men of temper and charity are justly had in reputation, for checking the incendiaries that otherwise would set the world on fire. Now observe here,
1. The necessary caution he gives to the council, with reference to the case before them: He commanded to put the apostles forth a little while, that he might speak the more freely, and be the more freely answered (it was fit that the prisoners should withdraw when their case was to be debated); and then put the house in mind of the importance of this matter, which in their heat they were not capable of considering as they ought: You men of Israel, saith he, take heed to yourselves, consider what you do, or intend to do, as touching these men, Act 5:35. It is not a common case, and therefore should not be hastily determined. He calls them men of Israel, to enforce this caution: "You are men, that should be governed by reason, be not then as the horse and the mule that have no understanding; you are men of Israel, that should be governed by revelation, be not then as strangers and heathens, that have no regard to God and his word. Take heed to yourselves now that you are angry with these men, lest you meddle to your own hurt." Note, The persecutors of God's people had best look to themselves, lest they fall into the pit which they dig. We have need to be cautious whom we give trouble to, lest we be found making the hearts of the righteous sad. 2. The cases he cites, to pave the way to his opinion. Two instances he gives of factious seditious men (such as they would have the apostles thought to be), whose attempts came to nothing of themselves; whence he infers that if these men were indeed such as they represented them the cause would sink with its own weight, and Providence would infatuate and defeat them, and then they needed not persecute them. (1.) There was one Theudas, that made a mighty noise for awhile, as one sent of God, boasting himself to be somebody, some great one (so the word is), either a teacher or a prince, with a divine commission to effect some great revolution in the church or in the state; and he observes here (Act 5:36) concerning him, [1.] How far he prevailed: "A number of men, about four hundred in all, joined themselves to him, that knew not what to do with themselves, or hoped to better themselves; and they seemed then a formidable body." [2.] How soon his pretensions were all dashed: "When he was slain" (probably in war) "there needed no more ado, all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and melted away like snow before the sun. Now compare that case with this. You have slain Jesus, the ringleader of this faction; you have taken him off. Now if he was, as you say he was, an impostor and pretender, his death, like that of Theudas, will be the death of his cause, and the final dispersion of his followers." From what has been we may infer what will be in a like case; the smiting of the shepherd will be the scattering of the sheep: and, if the God of peace had not brought again from the dead that great Shepherd, the dispersion of the sheep, at his death, had been total and final. (2.) The case was the same with Judas of Galilee, Act 5:37. Observe, [1.] The attempt he made. It is said to be after this, which some read, besides this, or, Let me mention, after this, - supposing that Judas's insurrection was long before that of Theudas; for it was in the time of the taxation, namely, that at our Saviour's birth (Luk 2:1), and that of Theudas, whom Josephus speaks of, that mutinied, in the time of Cuspius Fadus; but this was in the days of Claudius Caesar, some years after Gamaliel spoke this, and therefore could not be the same. It is not easy to determine particularly when these events happened, nor whether this taxing was the same with that at our Saviour's birth or one of a later date. Some think this Judas of Galilee was the same with Judas Gaulonites, whom Josephus speaks of, others not. It is probable that they were cases which lately happened, and were fresh in memory. This Judas drew away much people after him, who gave credit to his pretensions. But, [2.] Here is the defeat of his attempt, and that without any interposal of the great sanhedrim, or any decree of theirs against him (it did not need it); he also perished, and all, even as many as obeyed him, or were persuaded by him, were dispersed. Many have foolishly thrown away their lives, and brought others into the same snares, by a jealousy for their liberties, in the days of the taxing, who had better have been content, when Providence had so determined, to serve the king of Babylon.
3. His opinion upon the whole matter.
(1.) That they should not persecute the apostles (Act 5:38): Now I say unto you, ta nun - for the present, as the matter now stands, my advice is, "Refrain from these men; neither punish them for what they have done nor restrain them for the future. Connive at them; let them take their course; let not our hand be upon them." It is uncertain whether he spoke this out of policy, for fear of offending either the people or the Romans and making further mischief. The apostles did not attempt any thing by outward force. The weapons of their warfare were not carnal; and therefore why should any outward force be used against them? Or, whether he was under any present convictions, at least of the probability of the truth of the Christian doctrine, and thought it deserved better treatment, at least a fair trial. Or, whether it was only the language of a mild quiet spirit, that was against persecution for conscience' sake. Or, whether God put this word into his mouth beyond his own intention, for the deliverance of the apostles at this time. We are sure there was an overruling Providence in it, that the servants of Christ might not only come off, but come off honourably.
(2.) That they should refer this matter to Providence: "Wait the issue, and see what it will come to. If it be of men, it will come to nought of itself; if of God, it will stand, in spite of all your powers and policies." That which is apparently wicked and immoral must be suppressed, else the magistrate bears the sword in vain; but that which has a show of good, and it is doubtful whether it be of God or men, it is best to let it alone, and let it take its fate, not to use any external force for the suppressing of it. Christ rules by the power of truth, not of the sword. What Christ asked concerning John's baptism, Was it from heaven or of men? was a question proper to be asked concerning the apostles' doctrine and baptism, which followed Christ, as John Baptist's went before him. Now they, having owned, concerning the former, that they could not tell whether it was from heaven or of men, ought not to be too confident concerning the latter. But, take it which way you will, it is a reason why they should not be persecuted. [1.] "If this counsel, and this work, this forming of a society, and incorporating it in the name of Jesus, be of men, it will come to nothing. If it be the counsel and work of foolish crack-brained men that know not what they do, let them alone awhile, and they will run themselves out of breath, and their folly will be manifest before all men, and they will make themselves ridiculous. If it be the counsel and work of politic and designing men, who under colour of religion are setting up a secular interest, let them alone awhile, and they will throw off the mask, and their knavery will be manifest to all men, and they will make themselves odious; Providence will never countenance it. It will come to nothing in a little time; and, if so, your persecuting and opposing it is very needless; there is no occasion for giving yourselves so much trouble, and bringing such an odium upon yourselves, to kill that which, if you give it a little time, will die of itself. The unnecessary use of power is an abuse of it. But," [2.] "If it should prove (and as wise men as you have been mistaken) that this counsel and this work is of God, that these preachers have their commissions and instructions from him, that they are as truly his messengers to the world as the Old Testament prophets were, then what do you think of persecuting them, of this attempt of yours (Act 5:33) to slay them? You must conclude it to be," First, "A fruitless attempt against them: If it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; for there is no wisdom nor counsel against the Lord; he that sits in heaven laughs at you." It may be the comfort of all who are sincerely on God's side, who have a single eye to his will as their rule and his glory as their end, that whatsoever is of God cannot be overthrown totally and finally, though it may be very vigorously opposed; it may be run upon, but cannot be run down. Secondly, "A dangerous attempt to yourselves. Pray let it alone, lest haply you be found even to fight against God; and I need not tell you who will come off by the worse in that contest." Woe unto him that strives with his Maker; for he will not only be overcome as an impotent enemy, but severely reckoned with as a rebel and traitor against his rightful prince. Those that hate and abuse God's faithful people, that restrain and silence his faithful ministers, fight against God, for he takes what is done against them as done against himself. Whoso touches them, touches the apple of his eye. Well, this was the advice of Gamaliel: we wish it were duly considered by those that persecute for conscience' sake, for it was a good thought, and natural enough, though we are uncertain what the man was. The tradition of the Jewish writers is that, for all this, he lived and died an inveterate enemy to Christ and his gospel; and though (now at least) he was not for persecuting the followers of Christ, yet he was the man who composed that prayer which the Jews use to this day for the extirpating of Christians and Christianity. On the contrary, the tradition of the Papists is that he turned Christian, and became an eminent patron of Christianity and a follower of Paul, who had formerly sat at his feet. If it had been so, it is very probable that we should have heard of him somewhere in the Acts or Epistles.
VI. The determination of the council upon the whole matter, v. 40. 1. Thus far they agreed with Gamaliel that they let fall the design of putting the apostles to death. They saw a great deal of reason in what Gamaliel said, and, for the present, it gave some check to their fury, and a reminder of their wrath was restrained by it. 2. Yet they could not forbear giving some vent to their rage (so outrageous was it) contrary to the convictions of their judgments and consciences; for, though they were advised to let them alone, yet, (1.) They beat them, scourged them as malefactors, stripped them, and whipped them, as they used to do in the synagogues, and notice is taken (v. 41) of the ignominy of it. Thus they thought to make them ashamed of preaching, and the people ashamed of hearing them; as Pilate scourged our Saviour to expose him, when yet he declared he found no fault in him. (2.) They commanded them that they should not speak any more in the name of Jesus, that, if they could find no other fault with their preaching, they might have this ground to reproach it, that it was against law, and not only without the permissions, but against the express order of their superiors.
VII. The wonderful courage and constancy of the apostles in the midst of all these injuries and indignities done them. When they were dismissed they departed from the council, and we do not find one word they said by way of reflection upon the court and the unjust treatment given them. When they were reviled they reviled not again; and when they suffered they threatened not; but committed their cause to him to whom Gamaliel had referred it, even to a God who judgeth righteously. All their business was to preserve the possession of their own souls, and to make full proof of their ministry, notwithstanding the opposition given them; and both these they did to admiration.
1. They bore their sufferings with an invincible cheerfulness (v. 41): When they went out, perhaps with the marks of the lashes given them on their arms and hands appearing, hissed at by the servants and rabble, it may be, or public notice given of the infamous punishment they had undergone, instead of being ashamed of Christ, and their relation to him, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. They were men, and men in reputation, that had never done any thing to make themselves vile, and therefore could not but have a sense of the shame they suffered, which, it should seem, was more grievous to them than the smart, as it usually is to ingenuous minds; but they considered that it was for the name of Christ that they were thus abused, because they belonged to him and served his interest, and their sufferings should be made to contribute to the further advancement of his name; and therefore, (1.) They reckoned it an honour, looked upon it that they were counted worthy to suffer shame, katēxiōthēsan atimasthēnai - that they were honoured to be dishonoured for Christ. Reproach for Christ is true preferment, as it makes us conformable to his pattern and serviceable to his interest. (2.) They rejoiced in it, remembering what their Master had said to them at their first setting out (Mat 5:11, Mat 5:12): When men shall revile you, and persecute you, rejoice and be exceedingly glad. They rejoiced, not only though they suffered shame (their troubles did not diminish their joy), but that they suffered shame; their troubles increased their joy, and added to it. If we suffer ill for doing well, provided we suffer it well, and as we should, we ought to rejoice in that grace which enables us so to do.
2. They went on in their work with indefatigable diligence (v. 41): They were punished for preaching, and were commanded not to preach, and yet they ceased not to teach and preach; they omitted no opportunity, nor abated any thing of their zeal or forwardness. Observe, (1.) When they preached - daily; not only on sabbath days, or on Lord's days, but every day, as duly as the day came, without intermitting any day, as their Master did (Mat 26:55, Luk 19:47), not fearing that they should either kill themselves or cloy their hearers. (2.) Where they preached - both publicly in the temple, and privately in every house; in promiscuous assemblies, to which all resorted, and in the select assemblies of Christians for special ordinances. They did not think that either one would excuse them from the other, for the word must be preached in season and out of season. Though in the temple they were more exposed, and under the eye of their enemies, yet they did not confine themselves to their little oratories in their own houses, but ventured into the post of danger; and though they had the liberty of the temple, a consecrated place, yet they made no difficulty of preaching in houses, in every house, even the poorest cottage. They visited the families of those that were under their charge, and gave particular instructions to them according as their case required, even to the children and servants. (3.) What was the subject matter of their preaching: They preached Jesus Christ; they preached concerning him; and this was not all, they preached him up, they proposed him to those who heard them, to be their prince and Saviour. They did not preach themselves, but Christ, as faithful friends to the bridegroom, making it their business to advance his interest. This was the preaching that gave most offence to the priests, who were willing they should preach any thing but Christ; but they would not alter their subject to please them. It ought to be the constant business of gospel ministers to preach Christ; Christ, and him crucified; Christ, and him glorified; nothing besides this but what is reducible to it.
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 vv25–28 Then went the captain with the offcers,.... That is,…
Then went the captain with the offcers,.... That is, the captain of the temple, who had the command of it; he went thither attended with the officers and servants of the chief priests, the same that had been sent to the prison, to fetch the apostles:
and brought them without violence; they did not lay hold upon them, and drag them away in a violent manner; but gave them good words, and allured them, and entreated them to go along with them, and perhaps promised them, that no hurt should come to them, and that they should have full liberty to speak for themselves; the Ethiopic version renders it, "they brought them, behaving themselves mildly towards them"; they used no forcible, but gentle methods; they did not seize them in a violent way, and bind them, and carry them away by force:
Read full note →
for they feared the people; who had them in great esteem, because of the miracles done by them, and the benefit they received from them, both for their souls and bodies:
lest they should have been stoned; by the populace, who had they used them in a severe and cruel manner, would have risen upon them, and stoned them to death; the Ethiopic version renders it, "because they feared the people, they did not stone them"; as if the captain of the temple, and the officers would have stoned the apostles, but that they were afraid of the people.
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 v28 Did not we strictly command you, not to teach?…
Did not we strictly command you, not to teach? - See the poor cunning of the enemies of the Gospel. They make laws and interdicts at their pleasure, which those who obey God cannot but break; and then take occasion thereby to censure and punish the innocent, as guilty. Ye would bring the blood of this man upon us - An artful and invidious word. The apostles did not desire to accuse any man. They simply declared the naked truth.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv25, 26, 28 Verse 25. Then came one and told them] While…
Verse 25. Then came one and told them] While they were in the perplexity mentioned above, a messenger surprised them with the information that the very men whom they had imprisoned the preceding night were standing in the temple and teaching the people!
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 v26 Act 5:26-28. Then went the captain with the officers…
Act 5:26-28. Then went the captain with the officers — By the direction of the sanhedrim; and brought them — Ου μετα βιας, not by violence; for they feared the people, lest — If they had offered any violence in their presence; they should have been stoned — The people were so fully persuaded that a divine power attended the apostles, that they held their persons sacred, and would not have borne any open attack upon them. “This may seem a surprising change in the people, considering the eagerness with which they demanded that Christ should be crucified. But it is exceedingly probable, that seeing the mighty power which wrought in the apostles, they might entertain some hope of obtaining temporal deliverance by their means, (see Act 1:6,) of which they were so exceedingly fond; and a disappointment in their hope of which had turned their hosannas [addressed to Christ] into the cry, Crucify him, crucify him.” And when they had brought them — For the apostles made no opposition, but readily and cheerfully obeyed the summons, that they might repeat their testimony to their Divine Master, in the presence of the rulers; they set them before the council — In order to their examination. We may think, if God designed that the apostles should be thus seized, and brought before the sanhedrim a second time, why were they rescued from their first imprisonment? But that was intended to humble the pride, and check the fury of these their persecutors. And the high-priest — Singling out Peter and John, who had so lately been examined before the council; asked them — As the mouth of the court; saying, Did we not straitly command you — You two in particular, and so, in effect, all the rest of your company, and on pain of our highest displeasure; that you should not teach in this name — But you have disobeyed our commands, and go on to preach, not only without our license, but against our express order. See the poor cunning of the enemies of the gospel! They make laws and interdicts at their pleasure, which those who obey God cannot but break, and then they take occasion thereby to censure and punish the innocent as guilty. And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine — Your false and pernicious doctrine, and thereby have disturbed the public peace; and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us — An artful and invidious expression. The apostles did not desire to accuse any man; they simply declared the naked truth. Thus these rulers charged them, not only with contumacy, and contempt of the court, but with sedition and faction, and a plot to set the people against them, for having persecuted, even to death, not only so innocent, but so good and great a man as this Jesus.
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 vv26, 28 Without violence - Not by force; not by “binding”…
Without violence - Not by force; not by “binding” them. Compare Mat 27:2. The command of the Sanhedrin was sufficient to secure their presence, as they did not intend to refuse to answer for any alleged violation of the laws. Besides, their going before the council would give them another noble opportunity to bear witness to the truth of the gospel. Christians, when charged with a violation of the laws of the land, should not refuse to answer, Act 25:11, “If I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die.” It is a part of our religion to yield obedience to all the just laws of the land, and to evince respect for all that are in authority, Rom 13:1-7.
For they feared the people - The people were favorable to the apostles. If violence had been attempted, or they had been taken in a cruel and forcible manner, the consequence would have been tumults and bloodshed. In this way, also, the apostles showed that they were not disposed to excite tumult. Opposition by them would have excited commotion; and though “they” would have been rescued, yet they resolved to show that they were not obstinate, contumacious, or rebellious, but were disposed, as far as it could be done with a clear conscience, to yield obedience to the laws of the land,
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 vv26, 28 Then went the magistrate;[4] which by the Greek was…
Then went the magistrate;[4] which by the Greek was a military officer. But he did not bind them like prisoners, for fear of a tumult, but desired them to go along with them to the sanhedrim. (Witham) --- Without violence. They persuaded them to appear willingly before the sanhedrim, thinking, perhaps moreover, that they could not bind them, whom the walls of the prison could not confine. The apostles here, and on all other occasions, shew the most astonishing examples of patience, constancy, and obedience to the laws of the country. (Menochius) --- O Jews! who do you shut your eyes against the light? why so blindly mad? You say the apostles took Christ from the tomb. Tell me, then, who stole the apostles from under your locks and bolts? Who conveyed them from your prison through the midst of your guards, without alarming them? Shall the evidence of the miracle serve only to make you the less open to conviction? (Ven. Bede; Denis the Carthusian)
===============================
Read full note →
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Magistratus, Greek: o strategos.
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).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v27 27And when they had brought them, they set them…
B.—THE APOSTLES BOLDLY DEFEND THEMSELVES BEFORE THE GREAT COUNCIL: THEY ARE ULTIMATELY RELEASED, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE INTERVENTION OF GAMALIEL, AFTER THEY HAD BEEN SHAMEFULLY BEATEN
Act_5:27-42.
Read full note →
27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the highpriest asked them, 28Saying, Did not15 we straitly command [We strictly commanded] you that ye should not teach in this name? [; note of interrog. om., and placed at end of verse], and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend [wish]to bring this man’s blood upon us [?]. 29Then Peter and the other [om. other] apostlesanswered and said, We ought to [must] obey God rather than men. 30The God of our fathers [has] raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [the wood,ξύλου]. 31Him [This (one)] hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince anda Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are his16 witnesses of these things [words]; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hathgiven to them that obey him. 33When they heard that, they were cut to the heart17,and took counsel18 to slay them. 34Then stood there [But (δέ) there stood] up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law [a scribe], had in reputation [highly esteemed] among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles19 [the men] forth a little space20; 35And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed toyourselves what ye intend to do as touching [with respect to] these men. 36For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be [and alleged (λέγων) that he was] somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined21 themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed22 him, were scattered and brought to nought.37After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much23 people after him; he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.38And now I say unto you, Refrain [Stand off] from these men, and let them alone:for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39But if it be of God, ye cannot24 [will not be able to] overthrow it25 [them]; lest haply ye be found even to [that ye be not even found as those who] fight against God. 40And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten [scourged] them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41And they [They now, οἱ μὲν οὖν] departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing thatthey were counted worthy to suffer shame for his26 name. 42And daily in the temple, and in every house [here and there in houses, χατʼ οἶκον], they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ [ceased not to proclaim the gospel concerning Jesus the (τὸν) Messiah].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act_5:27. And the high priest asked them.—The word ἐπηρώτησεν, certainly seems to indicate that the words of the presiding judge, which are now reported, had assumed the form of a direct question, although this is not really the case, as οὐ is spurious. Still, the whole tenor of the high priest’s language, in which the apostles are charged with having promulgated their doctrine, notwithstanding the prohibition [in Act_4:18], shows that he demanded, at least indirectly, an explanation of their conduct. [See note 1 above, appended to the text.—Tr.]
Act_5:28. (a) Did not we straitly command [We strictly commanded] you, etc.—The high priest refers with great circumspection to Jesus, and avoids the actual mention of his name, as if it were inconsistent with his dignity to pronounce it; he merely says: τῷ ὀνόμ. τούτῷ; τοῦ ἀνθρ. τούτου. But Peter, on the contrary, is not ashamed of the name of Jesus; he names him with the utmost freedom and boldness, and ascribes all honor and glory to him, Act_5:30 ff.
(b) And, behold, ye have filled.—The high priest alleges, as the most serious charge which he can produce against the apostles, that they had wished ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς the blood of Jesus. Meyer thus interprets the verb: to cause that the blood of this man which was shed, should be avenged by a popular insurrection. Such a fulness of meaning can, however, scarcely be ascribed to it. It is more probable that the high priest accused the apostles only of an attempt to fix the responsibility and guilt of having shed that blood; on him and his associates. The reproach which he utters, betrays the secret trouble of his conscience, which was oppressed by a dread of well-merited punishment. The charge which he brings is not entirely unfounded, for Peter had, without the least reserve, said to the Sanhedrists: Ye slew Jesus—ye slew him with your own hands (διεχειρίσασθε,) Act_5:30. Still, the odious, revengeful, and hostile sentiments which the high priest ascribes to the apostles, had not controlled them; the language in Act_5:31, on the contrary, contains an indirect offer even to the Sanhedrists of the divine gift of repentance and forgiveness with respect to the sin committed by them.
Act_5:29. We ought to obey God rather than men.—This truth, which had once before been expressed, Act_4:19, is repeated on this occasion in a far more emphatic manner. Peter had introduced it, in the former case, only at the close of the proceedings, but here he at once commences his defence with a distinct, statement of it. He may be said to have, on the former occasion, addressed himself to the members of the Sanhedrin personally, and appealed to their own conscience: εἰ δίκαιόν ἐστιν—κρίνατε; but he now repeats the sentiment in terse and absolute terms, as an incontestable truth, without inquiring whether it would receive the assent of his judges, or be unconditionally rejected by them.
Act_5:30-32. The God of our fathers.—Meyer, who adopts the view of Erasmus and others, supposes that the phrase: ὁ θεός—ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν refers to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead; but when ἐγείρειν has this sense in the Acts, it is always connected with ἐκ νεκρῶν [Act_3:15; Act_4:10; Act_13:30; or the context indicates that sense, Act_10:40; Act_13:37]. Besides, the sequence of the clauses beginning with ἤγειρεν—διεχειρίσασθε,—ὕψωσε, indicates that the succession of events, in the order in which they really occurred, was intended to be set forth. Hence, ἤγειρεν cannot refer to any other event than the public appearance of Jesus as the messenger of God [“raised up, sent into the world.” Hack.]. In accordance with this interpretation, ὕψωσε in Act_5:31, includes both the resurrection, and the ascension.
Act_5:33. When they heard that, etc.; διεπρίοντο, literally, they were sawed through; dissecabantur (Vulg.); findebantur; it cut them through the heart, they became violently enraged: many of the members, accordingly, conceived the thought of putting these men to death, and secretly consulted with one another respecting the mode; they cannot, however, have openly discussed this subject, since the apostles were only afterwards, (Act_5:34), directed to withdraw.
Act_5:34. Gamaliel.—Three facts connected with the personal history of this man, are stated: (1) he was a member of the Sanhedrin; (2) he belonged to the party of the Pharisees; (3) he was a scribe [νομοδιδάσκαλος, a teacher of the law, equivalent to γραμματεύς, scribe, Robinson: Lex. ad verb.]. The second and third are more fully illustrated in Act_22:3, where Paul, who evidently describes himself as having been originally a Pharisee (ἄκρίβεια τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου), states that he had sat at the feet of Gamaliel as a pupil. As to the fact first stated, some writers have supposed that he was the President of the Council, but the terms τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρ. cannot possibly describe the presiding officer; they simply state that he was one of the members.—Two learned men, who both receive the same name, are mentioned in Jewish history: Gamaliel I. or, the Old [the Elder] (חַזָקֵן), a son of Rabbi Simeon, and grandson of the celebrated Hillel, and Gamaliel II., or Gamaliel of Jabne [the Jamnia of the Books of the Maccabees and Josephus, situated between Diospolis (Lydda) and Ashdod (von Raumer: Palæstina, p. 203.—Tr.]. Each receives the honorable appellation of Rabban in the Talmud, and is described as having been the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. The younger or second Gamaliel cannot be the individual meant in the text, as the period in which he flourished did not begin until A. D. 80, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and continued to the year 118. But no chronological difficulties interfere with the interpretation which identifies the Gamaliel of the text with the older, or the first of that name. The period in which he labored, coincides, according to the Talmud, with the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius, and he is said to have died eighteen years after the destruction of Jerusalem. This interpretation encounters no internal difficulty, unless we assume that the ancient Christian tradition (Recognit. Clem. I. 55; Photius, Cod. 171) is really more than a mere conjecture suggested by the present text; according to that tradition, Gamaliel had secretly become a Christian, and had, at a later period, in conjunction with his son Abib and with Nicodemus, been baptized by the apostles Peter and John. But this account is altogether inconsistent with the strict Pharisaic and national character of Gamaliel I., as he is described in Jewish writings, and it is by no means sustained by the opinion which he expresses in Act_5:35-39.
Act_5:35. Ye men of Israel.—Gamaliel advises the council to exercise prudence and to wait, rather than hastily adopt measures that might produce results which they would regret, προςέχετε ἑαυτοῖς, Act_5:35; he therefore proposes that the apostles should be temporarily released, without the infliction of any punishment, ἀπόστητε—καὶ ἐάσατε αὐτούς, Act_5:38. He appeals, in confirmation of his views, to the lessons which experience teaches, and asserts that if the whole affair proceeded solely from a human source, it would come to an end without any interference on their part, but that if it had really been ordered and sustained by God himself, it could not possibly be opposed with success. The opinion which the speaker himself entertained respecting the human or divine source of the proceedings of the apostles, cannot be ascertained from his words. Meyer, who follows Bengel’s example [“ἐὰν ῇ̓, si fit—conditionaliter; εἰ ἔστιν, si est—categorice.” (Gnom. ad loc.)—Tr.], compares εἰ with the Indic. pres., at the beginning of Act_5:39, with ἐάν followed by the Subj. in the preceding verse, and thence concludes that Gamaliel himself considered it probable that the Christian religion proceeded from a divine rather than from a human source. It may here be remarked, in general, that εἰ with the Indic, pres. is by far more objective than ἐάν with the Subj., that is, the latter construction supposes that a certain case occurs, while the former, without any reference to actual occurrences, simply states the condition under which any case will occur; comp. Bæumlein: Gr. Schulgr. 2d ed. § 604, 606. [Kuehner, transl. by Edwards and Taylor, on εἰ, § 339, 2, I. (a); on ἐάν, II. (b); Matthiæ, transl. by Blomfield, §§ 508, 523.—“ἐάν and εἰ are sometimes combined in two parallel propositions: Act_5:38-39. ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ κ. τ. λ (if it should be of men, which the result will show), εἰ δὲ ἐκ θ. ἐστιν, κ. τ. λ (if it is of God, a case which I suppose),” Winer: Gr. N. T. § 41, 2, near the end.—Tr]. Gamaliel undoubtedly assumes that the cause of the apostles may possibly be the cause of God, and that, accordingly, any opposition to them would be sinful, resistance offered to God himself (θεομάχοι, Act_5:39). The two instances, however, which he adduces, Act_5:36-37, indicate, that, as a consistent and decided Pharisee, he nevertheless expected that this new effort, like many similar innovations, would soon terminate in an entire failure. And on this account, also, the present address is quite consistent with the character which Gamaliel I. bears in history.
Act_5:36-37. For before these days, etc.—The two historical events to which Gamaliel appeals, are connected with the Galilean Judas and with Theudas. The former is repeatedly mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 1, 1; xx. 5, 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 1). This Judas was born in Gamala, in Lower Gaulonitis, and is, on this account, once termed a Gaulonite by Josephus, but also twice a Galilean, as in this place, [having subsequently lived in Galilee. (de W.)—Tr.]. The fact that he instigated the people to rebel, at the time when Augustus directed Quirinus to take the census (Jos. Ant xviii. 1, 1), fully agrees with the present statement; ἐν ταῖς ἡμ. τῆς ἀπογραφῆς, etc.; he represented this measure as the means by which a yoke was to be put upon the people, and appealed to the established principle: μόνον ἡγεμόνα καὶ δεσπότην τόν θεὸν εἶναι. Luke informs us that Judas himself perished, while Josephus (Ant. xx. 5, 2) records the death of his sons; the two statements are complementary to one another. And the remark of Josephus that the band of Judas afterwards re-appeared during the Jewish war, may be easily reconciled with the text before us, which simply mentions the dispersion (διεσκορπίσθησαν), but not the entire extinction of that band.
But while the narrative of Luke fully agrees with that of Josephus, as far as Judas is concerned, (although it is obvious that the former was not derived from the latter), the case of Theudas presents an entirely different aspect. The general facts which Josephus relates concerning a certain Theudas, perfectly agree with those recorded by Luke, but the chronological data are totally different. The leading facts presented in Act_5:36, and those narrated by Josephus (Ant. xx. 5, 1) precisely agree in the following particulars: 1. Theudas incited the people to revolt, and found numerous adherents; 2. He professed to be a person of special importance (λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτον); for instance, he styled himself a prophet, and promised to divide the waters of the Jordan by his word (Jos.); 3. He himself was slain, and his party became extinct. Josephus relates that he was captured and beheaded, and that his adherents were, partly killed, and partly taken prisoners by the cavalry which had been sent in pursuit of them.—But the dates of the events of the two narratives differ in a surprising manner. According to Luke, the insurrection of Judas was posterior to that of Theudas (μετὰ τοῦτον, Act_5:37), and the latter was, of course, anterior to the delivery of this address (πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν, Act_5:36). Josephus, on the other hand, distinctly states that this Theudas appeared as an insurgent when Cuspius Fadus was the Procurator, that is, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, and, consequently, not before A. D. 44, whereas the address of Gamaliel was delivered during the reign of Tiberius, who died A. D. 37. Now as Judas, according to the concurrent testimony of Josephus and Luke, began his movements at the time when the census was taken, the Theudas mentioned in Act_5:36, must have come forward about fifty years before that Theudas, of whom Josephus speaks, acted as an insurrectionist. [Augustus, during whose reign Judas appeared, as stated above, died A. D. 14; the Theudas of Josephus appeared during the reign of Claudius, which began A. D. 41.—Tr.]. It is, therefore, usually assumed that the Theudas of Luke was a different person from the one who bears the same name in Josephus (Ant. xx. 5, 11); this is the opinion of Bengel, Baumgarten, and many others [e. g. Origen, Beza, Grotius, Rosenm., Kuin., Ols., Lardner, Guericke, Ebrard, Jost, J. A. Alexander, Hackett.—Tr.]. These writers are influenced by the following considerations: 1. The name Theudas, was not rare among the Jews (Lightfoot); 2. Insurrections frequently occurred among the Jews at that period; 3. Josephus does not furnish a full historical account, and may have easily omitted all mention of an earlier Theudas who was at the head of a party during the age of Herod the Great. That such an omission may have occurred, cannot be denied in abstracto. Still, the agreement between Act_5:36 and the narrative of Josephus in the three particulars mentioned above, is so striking, that an unbiassed reader would involuntarily receive the impression that the same individual, and the same events were meant by both writers, particularly as not every leader of an insurgent band would presume to assert that he possessed a super-human authority. But if this supposition is correct, an erroneous chronological statement—a πρόληψις attributed by Luke to Gamaliel—must be admitted (de Wette, Neander, Meyer). [A recent writer, A. Köhler, in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. Vol. 16, p. 40, states a theory which originated with Wieseler, and which, adopting as a basis the statements found in Josephus, Ant. xvii. 6, 2-4; ch. ix, 1–3; xix. 6, 4; Bell. Jud. i. 33, 2–4, presents the following features:—About the close of Herod’s reign, Matthias and another zealot, named Judas, commenced proceedings on religious grounds, which resulted in a popular tumult. It was suppressed, and Matthias was ultimately burned alive by order of Herod. This Matthias—Köhler proceeds—was Gamaliel’s Theudas. For Matthias is simply the Grecized form of the Hebrew name Mattaniah, (found in 2Ki_24:17, and elsewhere frequently, and signifying gift of Jehovah); when translated into Greek, it assumes the form of Θευδᾶς=Θεοδᾶς=Θεοδώρος. Either Luke here translates the name in writing to Theophilus, or else Matthias, in accordance with the Jewish custom at the time, substituted for his Hebrew name, one in Greek of similar import.—In allusion to the opinion apparently adopted by the author above, viz.: that Luke represents Gamaliel as speaking proleptically of Theudas, Alford (ad loc.) remarks: “We are plainly in no position (setting all other considerations aside) to charge St. Luke with having put into the mouth of Gamaliel words which he could not have uttered.… All we can say is, that such impostors are too frequent, for any one to be able to say that there was not one of this name at the time specified. It is exceedingly improbable, considering the time and circumstances of the writing of the Acts, and the evident supervision of them by St. Paul, the pupil of Gamaliel, that a gross historical mistake should have been here put into his mouth.”—Tr.]
Act_5:38-42. Refrain from these men.—The opinion of Gamaliel, whose calmness, thoughtfulness, and apparent impartiality, contrast strikingly with the heated fanaticism and passionate language of others, especially of the Sadducees, was adopted to a certain extent; the council resolved to abandon the murderous plan which they had entertained, Act_5:33, and to release the apostles. Nevertheless, they decided to inflict corporeal punishment on the latter, and that sentence was carried into effect, Act_5:40; [δέρω, to flay, excoriate by scourging]. They had a twofold object in view: they desired, on the one hand, to avoid the appearance of having causelessly instituted proceedings, and, on the other, to punish the disobedience of the apostles; comp. Act_5:28; their own dignity and consistency seemed to demand that their previous threats (Act_4:17; Act_4:21) should be executed. But the apostles are not intimidated either by bodily punishments or by repeated and stern prohibitions; they leave the spot, on the contrary, with the animating and happy consciousness that they are honored when they suffer shame for the sake of the name of Jesus. And they continue to testify daily that Jesus is the Christ, both publicly in the temple, and also privately in the houses of believers.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Jesus, a Prince and a Saviour, Act_5:31; he is called ἀρχηγός, since he is our leader; he is not only the chief, “the author [Greek: άρχηγ. Heb_12:2] and finisher of our faith,” but also the ruler who claims obedience. (The office of Christ as our King, is here indicated). Christ, as ἀρχηγός, commands an army which obeys him, a kingdom which belongs to him.—But he is also termed σωτήρ. He saves us from the greatest evil, the most imminent danger—namely, from sin and its wages, from the wrath of God and eternal destruction. It is his great object, as our ruler, to deliver, to minister, and to save; he seeks the salvation of the souls of men, and not his own honor, might and glory.—God has exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour; it was by the resurrection and ascension to heaven that God, in his omnipotence, exalted him (ὕψωσε τῇ δεξιᾷ αὑτοῦ, Act_5:30); it was then that he was invested with the dignity of an ἀρχηγός and σωτήρ. He was such, it is true, already in the state of humiliation, as the Son of God, and the Son of man; but it was this subsequent exaltation which so plainly assigned such a position to him, that he now claims the reverence of all, and that his power to lead, to deliver, and to save, can be universally recognized.
2. The apostles had testified from the beginning, that no one could be saved through Christ without a change of mind [μετάνοια, Mar_6:12]; they also taught that all who repented of their sins, should obtain forgiveness and grace through Jesus Christ. But Peter here intimates that repentance and forgiveness of sins are to be viewed as the grace or gift of God (δοῦναι μετάν. καί ἄφ. ἁμ.). That forgiveness of sins is a gift of the grace of God, that man cannot atone for his sins in his own person, and cleanse himself from guilt by his own means, are obvious truths, to which the Old Testament also bears witness, e. g. Psa_32:1-2; Psa_32:5. But that the change of mind itself is a gift of God, imparted through the Spirit and his gracious influences, is here distinctly declared. This doctrine by no means involves a denial of the freedom of the will, but implies that no true change of mind and no true conversion can take place without the previous action of grace, or without the converting grace of God. And, again, this action of converting grace could be manifested in a full measure and in a wider sphere, only as a result of the exaltation of Jesus. God exalted him in order to give repentance (a change of mind) and forgiveness to Israel.
3. The apostles and also the Holy Ghost, are witnesses of Jesus, according to Act_5:32, that is to say, the Holy Ghost dwelling in those who receive the word of the apostles, who obey God and believe in Jesus. The apostles represent their own testimony as merely that of men, but, nevertheless, of men who had personally heard and seen all that they declare, and who are, accordingly, credible and trustworthy witnesses. But in order that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established,” their testimony, which is human and transitory, is sustained by other testimony, which is divine and of eternal efficacy; the Holy Ghost was a witness as well as the apostles. Every one who receives with faith the word of the Gospel, when it is proclaimed, and submits to it with an obedient spirit, receives the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost bears witness in man, that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Redeemer; and he who receives this witness, becomes at length fully persuaded in his own mind respecting the truth.—The testimony of the apostles is recorded in the Holy Scriptures for us and for all succeeding generations; the word and the Spirit are now the two witnesses that testify to us concerning Christ. But the word becomes a living power, is made intelligible, convinces and moves us through the presence of the Spirit, so that ultimately a divinely-wrought reliance on our redemption through Christ, and on the power of God which resides in the Gospel, secures the peace of the soul.
4. The facts connected with the case before us, demonstrate in the clearest manner, that Jesus Christ, whom the Father exalted, rules even in the midst of his enemies. He has a kingdom, and he protects and enlarges it, but no compulsory measures interfere with the liberty of man. For no one is compelled by an irresistible operation of God either to put faith in his word and the testimony of the apostles, or to render obedience. He who does not voluntarily receive the word, unto his own salvation, is not constrained to do so. He may experience its power when it pierces him as a sword, but he may also discard it; he may even devise murderous plans against the servants of God, Act_5:33. But “man proposes; God disposes.” The Lord is able to frustrate every evil counsel. When he deems it wise and necessary, he can so direct an individual, even in the ranks of the enemies of his word, and so influence the conscience, that this individual, prompted by the fear of God, will arise and oppose that evil counsel. And he can so control the minds of men, that they give heed to the warning and refrain from adopting violent measures against the witnesses of the truth.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act_5:28. Ye intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.—The wolf always accuses the innocent lamb of Christ of having mingled the mud and the clear water. (Starke).—The kingdom of this world betrays in its hostile movements against the kingdom of God, that it consists, in part, of clay, in part of iron [Dan_2:33; Dan_2:43]—of clay, for its fears proceed from a consciousness of its own weakness—of iron, for it obstinately refuses to yield to the truth. This obstinacy it attempts to extenuate or justify, by confessing any truth, the power of which it has deeply felt. These men complain: “Ye intend, etc.,” but they pass over the offer of forgiveness in entire silence.—And still does the world complain of the mode in which the truth is proclaimed; it alleges that the condemnation of the sinner is constantly set forth, but never alludes to the invitations to seek the mercy of God, which are addressed to sinners. For the world deems it to be disreputable to seek for grace at the foot of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. (K. H. Rieger).—We unquestionably do intend to bring the blood of Christ upon you, when we preach Him crucified, but it is unto your salvation, not your damnation!—The preaching of the doctrine concerning the blood of Christ: I. It is a loud call to repentance, Act_5:30; II. It affords the richest consolations, Act_5:31.
Act_5:29. We ought to obey, etc.; see Act_4:19.
Act_5:30 ff. Whom ye slew.—The hatred with which the world regards some Gospel truths, cannot justify us in being alarmed and therefore suppressing them; festering wounds and sores must be exposed and probed, before they can be healed. (Ap. Past.).—Jesus Christ, a Prince and a Saviour: I. A Prince, in view of (a) his celestial origin, (b) his divine testimonials, even when he appeared in the form of a servant, (c) his glorious exaltation to the right hand of the Father; II. A Saviour, (a) in the manger (by making himself of no reputation), (b) on the cross (by dying as a sacrifice, in order to give repentance, etc.), (c) on his throne (by becoming our advocate with the Father [1Jn_2:1]—a merciful high priest); III. Both Prince and Saviour; (a) he would not be a Prince, if he were not a Saviour (his most glorious and princely ornament is the crown of thorns); he became a Prince, when his love prompted him to sacrifice himself; (b) he would not be a Saviour, if he were not a Prince (the value and power of his sacrifice proceed from his divine dignity); (c) in order to obtain salvation through him, we must honor and obey him as a Prince, and love and confide in him as a Saviour.—Salvation in Christ: I. Offered by him as a Prince and Saviour; II. Accepted by us, in connection with repentance and forgiveness of sins.
Act_5:33. When they heard that, they were cut to the heart.—When the truth is not voluntarily received, let it cut to the heart; that, too, is a victory. (Starke.)—And took counsel to slay them.—It is an evidence of the powerlessness of the enemies of the truth, that they silence those who confess it, not by adducing arguments, but by applying a gag, and by attempts to slay them. (Ap. Past.).
Act_5:34. Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee.—God can find an advocate of his cause, even in the midst of his enemies. (Starke).—Named Gamaliel.—Pfaff says: “Gamaliel is only a moving figure on the stage, but no Christian; he is guided by the light of reason, but Christ does not own him. Such is the judgment of over-wise men, who do not wish to incur the enmity of any party. The Pentecostal miracle should have conducted him to a decision. Beware of worldly wisdom; as Gamaliel advances in years, his heart grows colder.” But a different view is presented in Apost. Pastorale: “It is true that Gamaliel did not sincerely love the Saviour, and we should not unreasonably extol his course. Still, he was not guided merely by the common rules of prudence. His heart may have previously often been deeply moved, and he was in so far influenced by that grace which seeks men, and anticipates their call, that he at least feared to commit an act which might involve him in danger.” And Schleiermacher says: “To him, if ever to any one, the Lord would have said: ‘Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.’ ”
Act_5:36-37. For before these days rose up Theudas, etc.—The false and the true prophet: I. The former “rises up” by his own impulse, as Theudas and Judas; the latter is raised up by God (Act_3:22); II. The former “boasts himself to be somebody;” the latter gives the honor to God alone (Act_3:12); III. The former “draws away much people after him;” the latter conducts men to the Lord; IV. The former falls from heaven like a wandering star (Jude, Act_5:13); Theudas and Judas both “perish,” and their adherents are “slain” or “scattered;” the latter will shine as the brightness of the firmament, and as the stars, for ever and ever. (Dan_12:3.—A number of men—joined themselves.—Men who will not take up the cross of Christ, are willing to bear the yoke imposed by Satan’s prophets. And the Lord still abandons many who defy and despise him, to the influence of lying prophets, in order that they may ultimately be put to shame with their leaders.—Unbelief conducts men to the embraces of superstition. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act_5:38-39. Gamaliel’s counsel.—It is not always wise to wait passively for the issue; that course would encourage spiritual sloth and a doubting spirit. But when the occasion presents features which are above our comprehension, we rightly wait, and submit the result to God; Psa_39:9. We cannot adopt the principle that those things are not of God, which have no stability, for then it would follow that the Christian congregations which the apostles established in Asia Minor, and which have long since passed away, were also not of God. Neither can we adopt the principle, that those things which firmly endure, are of God, for in that case the religion of the Turks, which has so long sustained itself, or that of pagans, is also of God. (Starke).—He who cannot decide until Christ and his Church are completely victorious, will remain in doubt until the day of judgment arrives. Hence the neutral policy of waiting is not recognized in the kingdom of Christ. (Leonh. and Sp.).—Gamaliel’s counsel is both prudent and devout; but he did not practically follow it himself, and here lies his error. For he who cautiously abstains from fighting against God, ought certainly to consider it a solemn duty to fight for God, and firmly hold the standard of the truth, even when the heathen rage, and the world combines in offering resistance. Gamaliel’s counsel was the voice of God, speaking in his heart, and the evil which he committed, consisted in his refusal to obey that voice, to trust the Lord’s word implicitly, and to test the truth of the saying: ‘If any man will do the will of him that sent me, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.’ Joh_7:17. (Rudelbach).—Gamaliel’s whole counsel proceeded on the false principle that the temporal and visible results of any testimony or undertaking, decide conclusively respecting its divine or human character. Is not this a total misconception of the cross? He whose heart as well as whose understanding has been influenced by the Holy Ghost, as little waits for the issue before he decides, as the genuine supporters of missions wait for glowing missionary reports; on the contrary, he is added to the company of believers, and avows his faith in the Gospel, even when that Gospel seems to have reached the moment of its entire extinction; thus the blood of martyrs, which was shed during the persecutions, attracted new adherents. We cannot fight against God—this is the view of the halting, feeble prudence of calculating and worldly-minded men; we must believe and obey God’s word, even before his work is actually crowned with victory—this is the true wisdom of repenting souls. Still, Gamaliel’s opinion, as expressed in that council of ungodly men, will always possess a highly significant character; it may be regarded as the representative of the conscience of the Sanhedrin, or of that voice which bears witness in every enemy of God, and which prompts the reason even of such men to cry aloud: “Take heed.” We unite therefore willingly with Luther in appealing to Gamaliel’s sentiments, as far as these exist in enemies or worldly-minded men, since they encourage us to hope; but let us not ourselves, in the spirit of Thomas, first ask for ocular evidence, but believe at once. (Stier).—Gamaliel is a believer living under the old covenant, even if the light within him is feeble; he adheres to the principle that God cannot permanently leave himself without a witness among his people, and that, consequently, false prophets who come forward, will, sooner or later, receive their merited punishment. (Gerlach).—Two points are presented in the advice of Gamaliel. He holds, in the first place, that no violent measures should be employed in any affair, which can be only spiritually discerned, even if it be a work of man; he does not, however, dissuade the council from opposing it by spiritual force, and would, indeed, have been himself prepared to adopt such a course. The second point he presents in the following form: “If it really be a work of God, you will, in no case, be able to suppress it, but you will yourselves be found to be men who fight against God.” Can we conceive of greater anguish of soul than that to which Gamaliel alludes? Such an individual learns, perhaps at the close of his career, when he cannot possibly retrace his steps, that he had deviated far from the right way, and employed noble, great and glorious powers with which God had endowed him, in direct opposition to his Maker’s will! When the scales fall from his eyes, he himself rejoices that the entire work on which he had expended his whole life, has come to nought! As long, therefore, as we are in doubt whether any counsel or work is of men or of God, so long we can adopt no wiser course than that which Gamaliel recommends—none that will more effectually withhold the upright from entering on the way that leads to destruction, and preserve them from sacrificing their life in fruitless efforts—none that could more successfully furnish man with the true light in his path, or qualify him for receiving a knowledge of the truth. (Schleiermacher).
The threefold attitude which men may assume in view of the progress of the kingdom of God: it may be marked, I. By open hostility, Act_5:33; II. By a calculating prudence, Act_5:34; III. By humble and zealous coöperation, Act_5:42. (Ahlfeld).—Gamaliel’s counsel: I. Convenient—for those who yield to spiritual sloth—for those who are governed by policy rather than religious principle; II. Judicious—as opposed to an inconsiderate zeal; III. Faltering—at a time which demanded immediate decision and prompt action—when the highest interests are concerned. (C. Beck: Homilet. Repert.).—By what principles are we to be governed, when we are required to choose between things that are old, and things that are new, in the kingdom of God? (id.).—Gamaliel’s counsel: it is, I. Judicious, (a) as a guide for our judgment, when the issue of the ways of God is considered; for the words of the Lord will always apply: “Every plant, etc.,” Mat_15:13; (b) as a guide for our conduct: (1) when a carnal zeal would prompt us to employ carnal weapons in a spiritual contest; (2) when we are not yet enabled to decide whether a work be of God or of men. (In this aspect Luther presented the counsel of Gamaliel to the Elector of Treves, while the mind of the latter was still undecided); II. Injudicious, (a) as a guide for our judgment, if it should lead us to pronounce on the good or evil character of any work in accordance with its external and temporal results, before the whole course of human events is completed; (b) as a guide for our conduct, if we should avail ourselves of it as an excuse, (1) for deferring our own decision, even when God’s word speaks unequivocally, and his Spirit bears direct witness, or, (2) for evading the duty of acting with vigor, and bearing witness with boldness, even when we are fully convinced in our own minds.—The counsel of Gamaliel: it is, I. Wise, in so far as it recommends (a) humility in the presence of God, the sovereign Judge; (b) gentle treatment of those who differ from us, even if they should judge erroneously; (c) a watchful control of our passions; II. Unwise, in so far as it recommends (a) the principle of judging merely according to external results; (b) the toleration even of that which is evil; (c) a neutrality proceeding from irresolution or indifference.—Better by far than the counsel of Gamaliel are the actions of the disciples!—The extension of the kingdom of God depends on the counsel of God and the work of man (Act_5:38-39); I. The counsel of God; let us, therefore, do nothing against God, or without God, as Gamaliel advises; II. The work of man; let us, therefore, do all for God, and with God, as the Apostles teach.—The Reformation triumphantly demonstrated to be a work of the living God: I. By the choice of the instruments which he employed; II. By the sure and lasting foundation on which this work was established; III. By the weapons which the agents employed in this warfare [2Co_10:4]; IV. By the fruits which it has produced. (Sermon on the Reformation, by W. Hofacker).
Act_5:40. When they had … beaten them.—The gradation in the afflictions of the servants of the cross, an illustration of the divine mode of training them: I. Threats, Act_4:21; II. Imprisonment, Act_5:18; III. Scourging, Act_5:40; IV. Martyrdom, Act_7:60.
Act_5:41. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing.—The servants and children of God are indeed a mystery in the eyes of the world. What philosophy was it that taught them to rejoice under such circumstances? (Apost. Past.).—Of all who were assembled, none departed rejoicing, except the men who had been scourged. He who suffers, not for evil doing [1Pe_3:17], but for Christ’s sake, and in his service encounters shame, stripes, and bonds, is indeed truly united with Christ, and has reason to rejoice. (Ahlfeld).—Four classes in the school of affliction: I. I am called to suffer; II. I am willing to suffer; III. I am able to suffer; IV. I am permitted to suffer. (K. F. Hartmann).
Act_5:42. They ceased not, etc.—When the apostles were released, and addressed the people, they did not complain of their enemies, did not boast of their own firmness, did not defend their character, which had been sullied by the scourge, but simply preached the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ. (Apost. Past.).—[The spiritual state of the persecutors of the apostles: I. Described; (a) total misapprehension of the meaning of the Scriptures; (b) entire want of love to God; (c) complete subjection to human passions, Act_5:33. II. Causes; (a) traced to the original corruption of the heart; (b) confirmed by their spiritual sloth; (c) established by their worldly-mindedness. III. Results; (a) abject fear, Act_5:28; (b) vain opposition to God; (c) eternal loss of their souls.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[15]Act_5:28. οὐ [of the text. rec. before παραγ., giving the whole an interrogative form] is wanting in A. B., in some ancient versions, and in some of the fathers; it is undoubtedly spurious; for if it had been originally in the text, no one would have cancelled it, whereas its insertion on account of ἐπηρώτησε could easily occur. [Found in D. E., but omitted in A. B. Cod. Sin. Vulg. etc., and cancelled by recent editors; it was inserted by a later hand (C) in Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
[16]Act_5:32.—αὐτοῦ [of text. rec.] after ἐσμέν seemed to be superfluous, as μάρτυρες was followed by another genitive depending on it, and was therefore omitted in some MSS. [A. D. Cod. Sin.] and versions [Syr., Vulg.], or ἐν αὐτῷ was substituted [B., and adopted by Lach.]; but, as the more difficult reading, it is, without doubt, genuine. [Found in E., and retained by Tisch. and Alf.]
[17]Act_5:33. a. [The Italicized words of the Engl. version: to the heart, are supplied from Act_7:54, where they are connected in the Greek with precisely the same verb; see the exegetical note on this verse.—Tr.]
[18]Act_5:33. b. ἐβουλεύοντο is not better attested, it is true, than ἐβούλοντο, but should be preferred, as the shorter form could more easily have proceeded from the longer than vice versa. [ἐβουλεύοντο, of D. H., and also Cod. Sin., is preferred by Tisch. and Alf. to ἐβούλοντο of A. B. E., which latter Lach. adopts.—Tr.]
[19]Act_5:34. a. τ. ἀνθρώπους was exchanged in some MSS. for the explanatory ἀποστόλους, but it is sufficiently attested, and, even, in sermone obliquo, may be the term actually employed by Gamaliel. [Alford, with D. E. H. reads ἀποστ.; Lach. and Tisch. with A. B. Cod. Sin. Vulg., etc., read ἀνθρώπ.; de Wette regards the latter as a correction to suit Act_5:35; Act_5:38.—Tr.]
[20]Act_5:34. b. τι after βραχύ [in H. and text. rec.] is not genuine, as external evidence demonstrates, and is clearly a later addition. [Rejected by recent critics, in accordance with A. B. D. E. Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
[21]Act_5:36. a. The reading προςεκλίθη is sufficiently attested [by A. B. Cod. Sin., and adopted by later editors], but does not occur elsewhere in the New Test.; for this more difficult reading other terms were substituted: προςεκλήθη [C.], προςεκολλήθη [text. rec.] and also προςετέθη) [the two latter only in minuscules.—Tr.]
[22]Act_5:36. b. [The word obeyed (or, followed, lit. were persuaded by) in the text of the Engl. version (Geneva), is preferable to believed (Wiclif; Tynd.; Cranmer) in the margin. (Robinson; J. A. Alexander.)—Tr.]
[23]Act_5:37. [ἱκανὸν of text. rec., found in E. H., is omitted in A. B. Cod. Sin. Vulg., etc., and cancelled by Lach. Tisch. and Alf. with whom Meyer and de Wette concur; C. and D. substitute πολύν.—Tr.]
[24]Act_5:39. a. The fut. δυνήσεσθε has by far the stronger testimony in its favor [found in B. C. D. E.; Vulg. etc.]; the pres. δύνασθε [of text. rec.] was substituted, in order to give the strongest possible emphasis to Gamaliel’s opinion. [Alford, who retains the pres., (found in A. H.) regards the fut. as an alteration to agree with the foregoing future, καταλ., and the conditional εἰ. Lach. and Tisch. adopt the fut. Cod. Sin. exhibits δυνησεσθαι.—Tr.]
[25]Act_5:39 b. αὐτούς is supported by many MSS. and versions [A. B. C. D. E. and Cod. Sin.], while αὐτό is but feebly attested [by Vulg., etc., and adopted in text. rec.]; it seems to be a correction to suit τὸ ἔργον, as an easier sense. [αὐτούς, Lach. Tisch. Alf.]
[26]Act_5:41. τοῦ ὀνόματος without the appended αὐτοῦ [of text. rec.] is, unquestionably, the original reading; the following explanatory additions occur:αὐτοῦ; Ιησου[Vulg.]; τοῦ χριστοῦ, τοῦ κυρίυ, etc. [αὐτοῦ is omitted by later critics, in accordance with A. B. C. D. H. and Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv26–28 without violence, for they feared, &c.--hardened ecclesiastics, all unawed…
without violence, for they feared, &c.--hardened ecclesiastics, all unawed by the miraculous tokens of God's presence with the apostles, and the fear of the mob only before their eyes!
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 vv25, 26, 28 25. Came one and told them—This high court is…
25. Came one and told them—This high court is ridiculously relieved of its perplexity as to the whereabouts of their prisoners by a chance messenger, who declares that they are standing in the temple repeating the offence for which they were imprisoned.
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 vv25–28 25. Then came one and told them] Better, And…
25. Then came one and told them] Better, And there came, &c. The English then is often in such a position taken for an adverb of time.
The proceedings were evidently well known, and the hall of judgment was not far from where the Apostles were teaching at the very time.
Read full note →
are standing in the temple, and teaching the people] The order of the original should be preserved: are in the temple standing, &c., for the words look back to the command of the angel in Act_5:20. This standing implies the prominent and undaunted position which the Apostles had taken up. They were not like prisoners who had escaped, and so were seeking a place to hide themselves; but like men whose work had been interfered with, and who, as soon as they were able, had come back to it again.
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 vv26, 28 (26) Without violence . . .—The scene recalls that…
(26) Without violence . . .—The scene recalls that of Joh_7:45. Here, however, the Apostles set the example of unresisting acquiescence, even though the tide of feeling in their favour was so strong that they might have easily raised a tumult in their favour. The signs that had been recently wrought, perhaps also the lavish distribution of alms, the ideal communism of the disciples, were all likely, till counteracted by stronger influences, to secure popular favour.
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 vv25, 26, 28 And there came one for then came one, A.V.;…
And there came one for then came one, A.V.; behold for saying, Behold, A.V. and T.R.; the prison for prison, A.V.; in the temple standing for standing in the temple, A.V. Standing implying the calm, fearless attitude of the men. There is an apparent reference in the mind of the writer to the words of the angel in ver. 20, "Go ye, and stand and speak."
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 v27 And when they had brought them, they set them…
Act_5:27-29
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council.
Read full note →
The accusation this time is simply that the apostles had not complied with the former judgment--they were guilty of contempt of court. They had not, however, broken their parole, for they had given none, having declared that they would continue to preach in the name of Jesus. And now the judges are thinking not of truth and justice, but simply of their own safety (Act_5:28). They believed that the apostles were working up the multitude to revenge the murder of the Saviour. It is interesting to observe how shy they were of introducing the name of Jesus; but in proportion as the rulers avoided it, the apostles proclaimed it. It was a stone of stumbling to the former which might grind them to powder: it was a strong tower to the latter, into which they ran and were safe. Peters reply to the question was, We ought to obey God rather than men. Whence had this man this wisdom and this courage? How much the world owes to Peters reply! It is the foundation of all true liberty. Peters defence is one of the finest specimens of pleading on record. It is clear and cogent; it is very short, but long enough. The speaker says all that is needful, and then stops. In this short space he defends himself, confounds his adversaries, and commends Christ. The address assumes the form of a syllogism which would not have been so remarkable on the lips of Paul, but which we are surprised to find in the unpremeditated defence of a simple and impetuous fisherman. After announcing the general principle that wherever God claims obedience mans claim must stand in abeyance, he shows that this case comes under the rule. The God of our fathers he takes care to trace all up to the God of Israel whom the Sanhedrin acknowledged--raised up Jesus whom ye slew. The point of the arrow is at their breast again. In one sense he is in their power; in another they are in his. Him God hath exalted. He pillories the priests as enemies of God and crucifiers of the Messiah. But this is not the dictate of revenge. He is feeling for an opening into the consciences of the judges, that he may introduce the gospel; and therefore now offers through the exalted Prince and Saviour remission of sins. The preachers have an eye to the magistrates, the bystanders, the officers, the young advocates, such as Saul of Tarsus, who might be hanging about the court. And who shall tell whether Saul, through Peters word, received an arrow into his heart which would not out for all his intemperate zeal until he surrendered at Damascus. The witnesses were careful to sow beside all waters, not knowing which might bear fruit. (W. Arnot, D. D.)
The apostles persecuted
I. The arrest by the council. The arrest of Peter and his brother apostles took place at the instigation of the council before whom they were brought. It was the intent of the rulers to make the new doctrine odious by making its teachers criminals. Thus reasoned the rulers. Moreover, they believed that truth confined behind bars and stone walls could not be very dangerous. But how little they understood the nature of the truth! There is a vitality in ideas utterly beyond the power of man to conceive. When once they are fully grasped by and instilled into the mind they become living, permanent influences. The teachings were safely lodged in mens hearts outside the prison, and not confined within the prison. The rulers also made the mistake of supposing that they could prevent the growth of the gospel by the power of authority. Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this Name? They had no doubt as to their power to suppress it. But human authority takes no account of the intense enthusiasm which truth inspires in men who believe it, and the degree of self-sacrifice which it can evoke. You can never be sure that your authority has stopped up all loopholes of escape. You can never be sure that your authority can inspire fear enough to terrify the advocate of it into silence.
II. Peters reply to the council. Here was another instance in which Christs words were to come true, for He had said some time previously, But when they shall deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak (Mat_10:19). Peter, in his reply, admitted the truth of the charges. The apostles had indeed refused to recognise the authority of the council, because they recognised a higher authority. We ought to obey God rather than men. Peter, however, goes still farther. Not satisfied with merely answering their charges, he assumes the aggressive by re-affirming the doctrines he had been teaching the people, and boldly sets forth the claims of Christ. There is no shadow of a spirit of compromise in his words. Peter makes the startling announcement that Christ was a Prince. Him bath God exalted … to be a Prince. Peter, nevertheless, unflinchingly declared the new truth, that salvation was not in a system, but in a man. There was one more step necessary to complete Peters argument, which was that he and his fellow apostles had irrevocably committed themselves to these truths. We are His witnesses of these things. Thus the reply of Peters threw the necessity of action upon the council.
III. The release by the council. They began in bluster and ended in ignominious defeat. Gamaliel, the master mind among them, rises to state his position, having first, however, secured a temporary removal of the apostles. In private session he pleads for caution, his fundamental ground being that they cannot decide upon the merita of the case. They cannot tell yet whether this new movement is of God or of man. If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; if it be of man, it will come to an end of itself. They had had two marked instances in their own history of the schemes of men coming to an untimely end-namely, those of Theudas and Judas. This incident in the history of the early Church clearly shows two or three things which it is well to note. And one is that ideas cannot be suppressed by persecuting their advocates; and yet the world is very slow in learning this lesson. To shut Peter in jail is no answer to the doctrine he taught, that salvation is of Christ. Fanatic, dreamer, bigot, heretic, are names freely hurled against individuals who are doing what they can for their fellow-men. But these titles have no more power to prevent thought or action than a thistledown can keep back the tides. The personal equation in persecution makes it the infernal thing it is. Another thing to be remarked is that persecution serves the hated truth a good turn by causing it to be clearly stated before the public. If you will consider the causes that called forth four of Peters sermons, you will find that; it was the opposition or doubt of unbelievers. (E. S. Tead.)
Did we not straitly command you.., and behold ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine.--
Fidelity under intimidation
Basil being offered the alternative of con, forming to the Arian creed or of resigning his bishopric, he answered the prefect, who was interrogating him, with calm dignity, that he could not obey the emperors will, because it was inconsistent with that of his Sovereign Lord, and he could not worship any human creature, being himself a subject of that Lord, and commanded to be like Him. Do you know his dignity to whom you speak? asked Modestus. I do, was the reply, and I respect it, but that of God is greater. We are both His servants, and among Christians greatness depends not upon rank, but upon faith. The prefect threatened him with pains and penalties. The bishop smiled as he answered, What are such threats to me? He who has nothing to lose can scarce fear confiscation, and I have no possession save these mean garments and some few books. Neither does he fear exile who counts no spot on earth his home, being here but a pilgrim and sojourner, seeking safer place of rest; heaven is my home. Nor do I fear torture; my frail body would endure but little--you could strike but one blow, and my pain is past; I should but depart the sooner to Him, for whose service alone I am willing to live, and after whom my soul yearns. Modestus could not forbear expressing his surprise at the boldness of the bishops speech. Perhaps, was the answer, you have not before met with a Christian bishop, or under such circumstances you would have found the same conduct. The emperor yielded, and, his child being dangerously ill, the Empress Dominica even sought Basils prayers on the young Galatus behalf.
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 vv25–27 25. Then came one and told them. The mystery…
25. Then came one and told them. The mystery was explained by the word that, as usual, the apostles were preaching in 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.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv25–28 See notes on verse 24
See notes on verse 24
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v26 The arraignment of the apostles:
The arraignment of the apostles:
v. 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence; for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Read full note →
v. 27. And when they had brought them, they set them before the Council; and the high priest asked them,
v. 28. saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us.
The chief of the Temple police acted upon the information which had been given to the Sanhedrin, Leaving the council-chamber, probably the Half of Polished Stones, he went over with the servants to get the apostles. But instead of making it appear at all like an arrest, the chief was very careful to escort the apostles most carefully and civilly. Not for a moment did he make use of force, for the whole band had a wholesome respect for, and fear of, the temper of the people, lest they should be stoned. It was not only that the apostles were held in high esteem by the people, but it had undoubtedly appeared by this time in what manner they had been liberated from prison. It was doubtless the mass of people that they feared, since the members of the congregation would hardly have become guilty of any act of violence. The apostles, on their part, accompanied the officers without hesitation or fear, trusting simply in the Lord. And so the servants brought them into the presence of the judges, who sat in the accustomed semicircle, while the accused stood before them. The high priest now put the question to them, not without some heat, whether the Council had not very earnestly and emphatically recommended to them and urged upon them not to teach in this name. Note that the enemy of Christ will not even mention the hated name. He charges them with disobedience to the Sanhedrin and complains that they have filled all Jerusalem with their doctrine. So much the high priest had to concede, that the success of the new teaching was marvelous. But his main charge is that they are attempting to bring upon the Jewish nation and their leaders the blood of Jesus. There seems to be here a reference to the terrible curse which the Jewish rulers had spoken on the day of the Lord’s death, when they cried out: His blood be upon us and upon our children! Mat 27:25. The resurrection of Jesus being established and therefore His eternal Sonship, it would naturally follow that those who condemned Him were murderers, having shed innocent blood. They must either let the people make this accusation, or they must suppress every witness of the resurrection with ruthless violence. Should the common people once be stirred up against the murderers of the innocent Jesus, the chances are that the latter would pay very quickly for their crime, blood for blood and life for life. Instead of abandoning the way of hypocrisy and crime, therefore, the Jewish leaders decided to choose the bad alternative of plunging in still more deeply. Note: If a person has been given reasonable proofs of having been guilty and persists in his course, stifles the voice of his conscience, and adds additional crimes to the list already charged against him, he is hardening his heart and placing himself beyond the reach of mercy.
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 v26 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
The captain and the officers bring the apostles before the Jewish religious council.
Read full note →
General Information:
The word "they" in this section refers to the captain and the officers. In the phrase "feared that the people might stone them" the word "them" refers to the captain and the officers. All other occurrences of "them" in this chunk refer to the apostles.
General Information:
Here the word "you" is plural and refers to the apostles. (See: Forms of You)
they feared
"they were afraid"
in this name
Here the word "name" refers to the person of Jesus. See how you translated this in Acts 4:17. AT: "not to speak anymore about this person, Jesus" (See: Metonymy)
you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching
Teaching many people in a city is spoken of as if they were filling the city with a teaching. AT: "you have taught many people in Jerusalem about him" or "you have taught about him throughout the Jerusalem" (See: Metaphor)
desire to bring this man's blood upon us
Here the word "blood" is a metonym for death, and to bring someone's blood on people is a metaphor for saying that they are guilty of that person's death. AT: "desire to make us responsible for this man's death" (See: Metonymy and Metaphor)
translationWords
fear
stone
council
high priest
teach
name
Jerusalem
blood
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.