Acts 4: Before the Sanhedrin, and Believers at Prayer

Although Paul’s missionary endeavors resulted in many churches throughout Greece and Asia Minor, and some of these eventually may have numbered over a hundred members, there is nothing in them to compare with the large numbers of converts at one time that are recorded in Acts 2-8, right in the heart of Israel! It was for this reason that the opposition among the leaders acted so quickly and forcefully. One commentator (IVP-NBC in loc.) compares the situation to someone using your church to teach and propagate a sect’s doctrines. But in this case, although the priests were Sadducees, the Jerusalem temple did not belong to any one sect within Judaism: it was God’s house.

1-6 E. P. Sanders (Judaism 333) quotes Josephus to the effect that the Sadducees were harsher in judgment than the Pharisees and “rather boorish in behavior”.

1 On interrupted Christian evangelistic speeches in Acts see Witherington, Acts 188f., who cites also Acts 7:54; 10:44; 17:32; 22:22; 26:24. And since Luke’s book is about not only the progress of the gospel but as well about the nature of the opposition, he pays close attention to the reasons given by the opponents throught his book (see Colin Hemer 419 cited by Witherington Acts 188). The wording here gives the false impression that all of the members of the party of the Sadducees approached the apostles.

2 There is a discrepancy between the motive ascribed to the arresting group by Luke and the main question put to them in the hearing: “by what power or name did you do this?” (v. 7). Luke appears to think the hearing was on the miracle, but the real reason for the arrest was the teaching about resurrection. The motive for the arrest was they were greatly disturbed that the apostles were proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection. — For the other use of this Greek word “disturbed, provoked, greatly annoyed” see Ac 16:18; cf. also: “Whoever quarries stones will be hurt by them; and whoever splits logs will be endangered by them.” [Eccl 10:9 NRSV]; Aquila's Greek in Gen 6:6 and 1 Sam 20:30) Mk 14:4 D — The Sadducees denied the existence of angels or spirits, and any afterlife, bodily or not, but were particularly opposed to a bodily resurrection. Claiming it for Jesus meant confirming its possibility for the righteous in the End Time (see Paul’s similar argument in 1Cor 15:12-20, and also Acts 23:6-9; 24:15; 26:6-8). Resuscitations such as that performed by Elisha were acknowledged, and no one could doubt that Jesus performed such on a little girl in Galilee (Mark 5:35-45) and on Lazarus (after 3 days!). But Jesus’ own case (and the resurrections that occurred at the time of his resurrection [Matt 27:52-53]) were special in that there was no human agent for them: God raised Jesus directly. This had a connection with the end-time resurrections that the Sadducees could not ignore. Also significant is Peter’s expression tên anastasin tên ek nekrôn, which implies a partial, not general resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection was the out-resurrection from among the dead which was to foreshadow or even trigger the end-time resurrection predicted by in the prophets and described in Rev 20:13. There is a good possibility that the expression contains a genitive as its second element and should be render “by means of that (resurrection) of Jesus”. Luke routinely uses an anarthrous construction with proper nouns, including with the name Jesus. For the construction definite article (“the/that one”) followed immediately by a noun in a different case than that of the article, meaning “that of PN” see elsewhere in Luke-Acts: Acts 15:1. and similar: Luke 3:2; Acts 4:13; 10:38; 13:22; 18:25; 19:3. In the rest of the NT see Mat 22:21; Mark 12:17; 15:47; Lu 20:25; 1Cor 10:33; Phil 2:21; 2Tim 3:9. In LXX see Gen 49:27; 1Ki 17:6; 1Esdr 8:29; Neh 6:17; 1Mac 1:1.

3 Jewish temple authorities had jurisdiction for arresting violators of the temple area, and did not need to consult the Roman procurator. They could not impose a death penalty without Roman approval (thus the martyrdoms of Stephen and James were examples of overstepping rights), but they could execute even a Roman citizen, if he as a Gentile entered the prohibited area of the temple (see Bruce, Acts Gk 116). The apostles were put in custody. The same word (têrêsis; Latin Vg in custodiam) is used in Acts 5:18 (cf IVP-NBD “prison”).

NIV Study Bible: “The evening sacrifices ended about 4:00 P.M., and the temple gates would be closed at that time. Any judgments involving life and death must be begun and concluded in daylight hours.” The night trial of Jesus was a flagrant abuse of this rule. The court of the Sanhedrin was on the south end of the Temple Mount.

4 Since Luke has already told us that the disciples practiced koinonia "fellowship” (Acts 2:42, 44-45), which would have required registering, it is easy to understand how the persons in charge of distributions would know the exact number of the membership. But Luke carefully says “about five thousand”.

5-6 The composition of the Sanhedrin.

7 "Stood them in the midst". With. Acts 192 takes this to mean that the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a semi-circle with the accused standing in the middle of the circle. But is “in the midst” here merely an idiom for “in the midst (of the room in which they were gathered)”?

The subject of the hearing. See With. Acts 192f., who thinks the subject was both the preaching and healing. IVP NBC speculates that this charge was aimed at the teaching, not the authenticity of the healing. But how could the Sadducee members of the Sanhedrin possibly object to a proclamation of resurrection, which Peter had based on the evidence of the healing by the resurrected Jesus, without attacking the authenticity of that healing? What authority was required for teaching in the temple courts? Jesus had done so on many occasions. His authority to violate the Sabbath and to forgive sins were indeed questioned, but not his right to teach in the temple courts. Peter never declares anyone’s sins are forgiven in his preaching in ch. 3, only urges them to repent that God may forgive them (Acts 3:19). Therefore Peter was right to see these words as questioning the authenticity of the healing and right to do so in the name of Jesus.

8 Bruce Acts Gk 120 aptly contrasts the momentary “filled” here with the abiding character of Stephen, “full” in Ac 6:5. See also Luke 1:15,41,67; Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 9:17; 13:9 as opposed to Luke 4:1; Acts 6:3,5; 7:55; 11:24.

The permanent filling (indwelling) of the spirit was not known in the OT, and even the temporary empowerment by the Spirit was described differently: not “filled with” but “the Spirit put him on like a garment” (Hebrew laveshah, LXX enedusen: Judg 6:34; 1Chr 12:19; 2Chr 24:20). Or the Spirit “empowered/enabled him” (LXX kateuthunen eph auton). Examples of the Hebr. are: Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1S 10:6, 10; 11:6, with lRa 1S 16:13; 18:10.

See Luke 12:11-12 and parallels for Luke’s understanding of the source and convicting power of Peter’s words here.

9 Peter interprets the issue as “by what means” (ESV) or “how” (NIV) the man was healed: en tini houtos sesôtai, which can indicate a personal power source. When Jesus was accused of using improper “power” to exorcise and heal, his reply was “And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom (en tini) do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.” (Matt 12:27 NIV). Peter frames the issue here with the same phrase that Jesus used. Many Jews in Jesus’ day (“your people”) believed in the legends about Solomon: that he learned the names of the demons and the names of the particular angels that could thwart each of them, and by this means was able to both heal people oppressed by them and force the demons to help in the building of his temple (see Charlesworth, OTPseudepigraph: 1 TSol intro). This Jewish belief also helps us to see that knowledge of the name involves knowing the true character and the areas of power and activity of the name-bearer. One must believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God, and that he comes not to harm or incite to evil, but to heal and incite to acts of kindness and love. Prayers cannot truly be “in Jesus’ name” that ask for evil or for selfish and greedy motives. (When Wini taught this last Sunday in Choir SS, there were lots of nods of assent!)

10-12 In Acts 3:16 Peter has used the term holoklêria to describe the healed cripple’s new condition, implying as that word does that he was now fully qualified to worship in the temple (see holoklêros "whole, unhewn" in temple/altar contexts in Deut 27:6; Josh 8:31 and see the unhewn stones used in the Arad altar). Peter seizes upon this belief that knowledge of and invoking of a demon’s name gives one power over him, but he turns it all around: neither he (Peter) nor the lame man has power over Jesus just because he knows the name of Jesus; rather Jesus answers to save those who call upon him as Savior and Lord. His power, which exceeds that of any demon or pagan deity, was displayed by God’s raising him from the dead (v. 10). Furthermore, the name of Jesus is not one among many which can give healing and deliverance from ills, but it is the only one by which God will save (v. 12). This all-powerful Jesus whom God has raised these very people (i.e., the rulers) delivered over to be crucified. For the various ways in which Peter (and the speakers within his sources) use the words “save” and “salvation” see Witherington “Salvation and Health” in Marshall & Peterson Witness to the Gospel (1998) 145ff. Most likely here the reference is to eternal salvation, not just physical healing.

10 One wonders why the full name formula is given as en tô onomati Iêsou Cristou tou Nazôraiou, and not simply en tô onomati Iêsou Cristou. This full form gives the impression in English translation that “Christ” was Jesus’ last name, or in Greek that Jesus was “the Messiah of Nazareth”!

12 One wonders if the “must” (dei) refers to God’s obligation to save or to the fact that salvation must be only through Jesus. Both, I suppose, are true.

13 The confidence (parrêsian) with which Peter spoke before this august assembly, despite his having no formal training or priestly rank (agrammatoi ... kai idiôtai) surprised the rulers until they recognized them as part of Jesus’ immediate entourage, and supposed that through their firsthand knowledge of him and by virtue of their long association with him they quite likely had learned to do such miracles as the healing and reflected his teaching in their own. Besides, in the history of the Church self-taught people have always been a threat to the establishment. “That preacher didn’t go to our seminary, nor was he ordained by us!”

16 The rulers were worried, because the miracle (“sign”) done in the temple was not only widely known, but obvious in its significance (see Paul’s use of gnwsto\n in “what can be known about God is clear to them” Rom 1:19). One feels that their quandary here is intended to be strong reminiscent of the quandary of the leaders after the tomb of Jesus was discovered empty (Mat 28:11-15). This time they do not cook up an “explanation” of the miracle, but simply try to suppress further teaching based upon it by intimidating the disciples.

17-18 It is unclear if Luke means ftheggesthai and lalein to be interchangeable synonyms or not. Is it ordinary conversing or rather public speaking that the rulers prohibited? They could not enforce a ban on private teaching in homes, but they sought to suppress public teaching and preaching in the temple courts. They sought to accomplish this by “charging” (parêggeilan) and backing it up by “threatening” (apeilesômetha v. 17, prosapeilêsamenoi v. 21) .

19-20 Still, the disciples recognize a bluff when they hear one: the temple authorities do not have authority to restrict preaching God’s own truth in the temple. Their ancient predecessors could not gag Jeremiah and his likes, nor could these men silence Peter. It was a question of what was dikaion “right (in the sight of God)”. Peter was not pleading absolute freedom of speech in the temple: he would not have condoned blasphemy. But telling God’s own miracles and praising him for raising Jesus was clearly not blasphemy.

21-22 As earlier the leaders could not arrest and punish Jesus because of his wide popularity, so now they face the same with his disciples. The miracle was especially striking, since the man had been lame from birth and was now over 40.

23-31 The response of the believers and their prayer is obviously intended to be Luke’s model for the church. The (1) God is first acknowledged as Creator and All-powerful (v. 24). A prophecy is then quoted from the Psalms (vv. 25-26), which they affirm is being fulfilled in their present experience.

32-25 Summary. Gregory Sterling has rightly noted that “[Luke] has verbally connected the summaries to the surrounding narratives. Each summary has a Janus-like quality, looking both backward to the preceding narrative and forward to the succeeding” (JBL 113 [1994] 681). This looks back at the manifest unity among the praying believers in the preceding verses and forward to the case studies of Joseph Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira.