Acts 5

CHAPTER V

ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA

The deceit of Achan, Josh. 7:1, etc., and his severe penalty, which occurred when Israel first entered Canaan, are recorded as a warning for the entire Old Testament Church. The deceit of Ananias and of Sapphira, which happened when the Christian Church began in Jerusalem, and their severe penalty are recorded as a warning for the entire New Testament Church. The first danger to the young church came from the outside when the Sanhedrin struck at Peter and at John. This had been safely met, and the church continued on in its successful course. Now follows the second attack of Satan from within the sacred circle of the congregation itself: the hearts of two disciples had become false, two hypocrites are unmasked. Rich members, also Barnabas, sold land or property and laid the proceeds at the feet of the apostles to be used for the needy.

Ananias and Sapphira do the same, but their act is in reality the absolute opposite, and judgment overtakes them. Here God’s attitude toward all hypocrites in the church is recorded whether his judgment strikes them at once or is delayed for a time.

Acts 5:1

1Now a man by name Ananias with Sapphira, his wife, sold a property and held out for himself something from the price, his wife also knowing it together with him; and having brought some part, he placed it at the feet of the apostles.

Because of the gravity of the offense the names of the offenders are not withheld; τίς is used like our indefinite pronoun. Throughout the account Ananias is linked with his wife who was not the jewel (sapphire) after which she was named. They both sold the property. It is usually assumed that this parcel of ground (v. 3) was all they owned, but the indefinite κτῆμα, without the article, makes the impression that this property was only one of their possessions. Nor did Barnabas or any of the owners mentioned in 4:34 sell all their real estate for the benefit of the needy.

Acts 5:2

2Selling the property and retaining a part of the price were but two elements of one transaction. The whole procedure was planned in advance. In order to place the matter beyond question the genitive absolute, “his wife also knowing with him,” is added. We cannot agree with those who think that the idea of retaining part of the price came to these two people only after the parcel had been sold, that perhaps the sight of so much money stirred the cupidity of the couple, that thus an originally right motive went wrong. No sinner should ever be painted blacker than he is, but on the other hand, no sinner should be whitewashed to hide some of his blackness. Here there was no change of mind, no yielding to a sudden impulse.

The heart of husband and wife had grown cold and dead in regard to faith. Their sin was not merely cupidity but the worst and the boldest type of hypocrisy. Satan had entered where Christ could not remain.

Husband and wife were “one heart and soul” (4:32) in evil. Whereas the one should have restrained the other, neither did so, but each aided and abetted the other, both were equally guilty. This premeditation, this conspiracy made the sin so terrible. They had to talk the matter over, had to say to each other what was in their hearts, had to tell each other what to do and how to act so that nobody should know. For such conduct calousness is required; theirs were two seared consciences. Neither had scruples or compunctions of conscience. And thus Ananias carried out the deed.

We must imagine that the congregation or a part of it was assembled for worship. The apostles are present to lead and to teach. Ananias has the bag of money with him; and when the time came to make the offerings, he went forward and in the sight of all deposited the bag. “At or beside the apostles’ feet” (the same expression used in 4:34, 37) represents the apostles as seated on a platform. To those who looked on, Ananias appeared as a second Barnabas. Words of praise, at least thoughts of commendation, accompanied the act of Ananias. He acted with perfect assurance, certain that no one could possibly detect his deception. He never thought of God or of Christ who were present in that assembly according to their promise. And so the deed was done.

The supposition that Ananias aimed at attaining more than praise, that he aspired to a leadership such as Barnabas had gained, cannot be substantiated from Luke’s account. Why Barnabas received his second name is explained in 4:36; that he sold all his possessions is not stated nor is it to be assumed; he became prominent at a later time and only for this reason is he here cited as an example. The mere juxtaposition of Barnabas and Ananias with its contrast of sincerity and base hypocrisy involves no more than is thus indicated, which also is certainly enough.

Acts 5:3

3But Peter said: Ananias, for what reason did Satan fill thy heart for thee to belie the Holy Spirit and to hold back for thyself something from the price of the land? Was it not, remaining (unsold), remaining for thee? and sold, was it not still in thy power? Why didst thou put this affair in thy heart? Thou didst not lie to men, but to God!

Ananias had just laid down the money and had most likely added a few words that expressed his intention. He, no doubt, expected Peter or one of the other apostles to answer with words of acceptance and personal commendation. Instead of this there came the exposure of his fearful sin like a bolt out of the clear sky. How did Peter gain such complete knowledge about the sin of Ananias? One answer to this question is found in 1 Cor. 12:10, “and to another discerning of spirits.” In the case before us Peter had even more, namely the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit concerning Ananias and his wife. Did this revelation include the judgment to be visited upon Ananias?

Peter announces the judgment upon Sapphira but not that upon Ananias. We can get the answer by inference only since we do not have a direct statement by Luke himself. It seems that the revelation given to Peter included the judgment awaiting both Ananias and his wife. Why should God have revealed less than this to him? Sin and judgment belong together. Was Peter to be dumbfounded by the sudden, terrible death of Ananias, frightened, perhaps, that he had helped to kill him?

But why did Peter not announce the judgment upon Ananias as he did that upon Sapphira? The explanation is not acceptable that he did not know that Ananias was to die but from his death concluded that Sapphira was likewise to die. So Peter would speak partly as a result of revelation and partly on the basis of deductions of his own. In a matter of life and death that cannot be considered likely. It seems rather that Peter spoke only such words to Ananias that the Spirit inspired him to speak, and that the Spirit withheld the announcement of the death of Ananias in order to make it absolutely clear to all those present that this judgment was wholly a divine act and not one that was in any way due to Peter, or one in which he served even as an instrument. After this was clear from the first instance, Peter could announce the Spirit’s judgment in the second case without leaving the slightest impression that he was inflicting the penalty or was the agent in the infliction.

The questions asked by Peter assume complete knowledge against which denial is impossible. Peter’s questions are unanswerable. Ananias has no excuse to offer and can state nothing in extenuation of his guilt. So the sinner is always dumb before God: “and he was speechless,” Matt. 22:12; or if he should venture a defense he would be condemned out of his own mouth. “Why did Satan fill thy heart?” refers the guilt back to its real source and implies that Ananias could and should have resisted Satan. With διατί Peter asks for the reason—Satan’s reason was the damnation of Ananias—what reason could Ananias have had? “Filled” means that Satan took complete control of the man, and that his was done with the full consent of Ananias.

Here again (4:32) “heart” is the center of the personality, including especially the mind and the will. When Ananias became a believer, the Holy Spirit filled his heart and cast out and kept out Satan and his power. But Ananias had turned away from God’s Spirit and had once more opened his heart to Satan and to all his devilish suggestions. How a man, once won for God, can again turn to the devil is a mystery no one can solve. We know the fact only too well but we cannot understand how any sane man’s will can so turn to his own destruction.

The two infinitives do not denote purpose, do not state the intentions of Ananias; they express result (R. 1089): “so that thou didst belie and didst hold back for thyself.” The deed has gone far beyond its original intent, it is fully accomplished (two aorists). “Belie” is followed by the accusative as in the classics: in v. 4 it governs the dative. The sin of Ananias is here truly described. All sins are, indeed, committed against God, and those of believers especially against the Holy Spirit. Ananias permitted Satan to influence him to the extreme and to beguile him to carry out a deed that emanated wholly from Satan and to offer it as a deed that was prompted wholly by the Holy Spirit; yea, to present this deed to the Spirit himself, in the very church where the Spirit wrought, before the special agents, the apostles, through whom the Spirit wrought, a deed which the Spirit was to accept as being wrought by him when it was wrought wholly by the power of Satan. Thus, deliberately, mockingly, Ananias belied the Spirit and attempted to palm off a devil’s work on the Spirit and hoped that the Spirit would not detect the deception; yea, he would leave the impression that the Spirit had produced this devil’s work!

The second infinitive defines the lying act more clearly: “to hold back,” etc. It is dreadful enough to sin and to admit that we followed the evil one; but what shall we say of him who sins and then not only pretends that the Holy Spirit prompted his sin but also that it is a divine work and then proceeds to bring it to God as a holy offering?

Acts 5:4

4The sin of Ananias was altogether gratuitous. It was without rime or reason. The double question is so compact in the Greek that we cannot translate it into English with a like compactness. Ananias was entirely free to keep his land for himself or to sell it. The present participle μένον, “remaining,” means: “remaining as it was, unsold and in thy possession”; and the imperfect ἔμενε: “was it not remaining for thee,” no one asking thee to make a change? The interrogative particle οὑ, here found in its strong form οὑχί, brings out the fact.

Ananias was compelled to answer “yes”; he knew that he could have kept his land, he sinned with full knowledge. The enclitic σοί is accented and placed before the verb because it has a strong emphasis: “was it not remaining for thee,” wholly and entirely for thee alone.

The question is extended. But now the aorist neuter passive participle πραθέν (from πιπράσκω) speaks of the land as “sold.” Although it had been sold, nothing was changed: “Was it not still in thy power?” The imperfect ὑπῆρχε expresses continuance, “still it was in thy control” (ἐξουσία) for thee to do with it in all honesty and uprightness as thou mightest wish. He could have retained the whole sum he had received for the land, and no one could in the least have blamed him; or he could have brought as an offering for the needy any portion of the money, small or large, as he might have desired; the only requirement set was that he make no false pretense about it. Did Ananias know this? Most certainly. Again the deliberateness of his lie is revealed.

“Why didst thou put this affair in thy heart?” the middle ἔθου, “put it there for thyself.” Τὸπράγματοῦτο is not merely this idea or plan but the whole transaction as now carried out. “Why,” τίὅτι, quid est quod, “what has occurred that” (R. 965), asks about the terrible change that has occurred in the heart which made it possible for Ananias to lend his heart to this deed. To place in the heart means more than “to conceive” (our versions); “heart” includes the will as the center of the personality, and Peter does not refer only to the conception but also to the entire execution of the plan. Something had occurred in this man’s heart: Satan had usurped its control. And thus he lied not merely to men but to God himself.

The deed is considered only with reference to God. Ananias is sadly mistaken when he thinks that he is dealing with men; he is dealing directly with God himself. He could and should have known that. This is in a way true of every sin, especially of every conscious sin; but it is most directly true of every act of hypocrisy, in all matters of worship, wherever God is directly concerned as here in this lying offer to God. Peter’s word to Ananias undoubtedly identifies God and the Holy Ghost. This is often denied, and the claim advanced that the lie was made to God indirectly through the Holy Ghost, the latter serving only as the medium.

But this virtually declares that the Holy Ghost was as ignorant of the fraud as men were. God is not behind the Holy Ghost as he is behind the apostles and the church so that whatever is done against them is done mediately also against God. The Holy Ghost is God; the sin was committed against him as God. The old dogmaticians and the church are right when they here find a clear expression of the deity and the personality of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead.

Acts 5:5

5And Ananias, hearing these words, having fallen down, expired; and there came great fear on all those hearing it. And having arisen, the younger men wrapped him up and, having carried him out, buried him.

With the words ringing in his ears, the λόγοι, the things Peter was saying, Ananias suddenly collapsed and expired (this verb is used only in Acts but is found also in LXX and in Hippocrates). Neither Peter nor the words he uttered killed Ananias. All natural explanations such as a stroke of paralysis, heart failure, etc., that was superinduced by the sudden shock at finding himself exposed, prove insufficient when they are applied to two persons as must be done here, the death of the second being announced the moment before it occurred.

Why was Ananias granted no time for repentance? We have no warrant to inquire into the secret counsel of God in either this or any other case. That question belongs in the domain of divine providence where hundreds of things are beyond our comprehension. God alone knows when and how to interfere with his judgment. He is not accountable to us, and no questioner should forget this truth. His mercy, like his judgment, is beyond question.

Even if he were to uncover these to us, our poor minds would not be able to grasp them. Was Ananias lost? “Not to desire to know where the best of all teachers wants us not to know, is a wholesome and faultless ignorance.” Gerhard. As far as we are concerned, the object of this judgment upon Ananias is to inspire us with fear that we may guard ourselves against the machinations of the devil. This was the effect produced upon the first church.

The present participle “those hearing” = “the hearers,” i. e., those present who heard what Peter said. In v. 11 more is said. This fear was the effect of the power and the judgment of God that were manifested in so sudden a manner. It was awe for faith, fright for the flesh. On the latter, the third use of the law, compare C. Tr., 965, etc., 9 and 19.

Acts 5:6

6The dead body must be removed and buried. Why was Sapphira not called to her dead husband’s side; why was he buried immediately without her knowledge? The answer appears in the sequel: the same judgment awaited her. But we must remember that all this is an act of God’s Spirit and not of Peter nor of the apostles. It was proper that “the younger men” should attend to this sad task. In v. 10 they are called “the young men,” and the change of words indicates that no officers of the church are referred to as some have supposed.

The next chapter will tell us about the first officers. The two words used do not signify youths or boys but men between twenty and forty years of age. The implication is that older men were also present as well as the apostles (v. 2) and not merely Peter. The entire account reveals a full assembly.

When bodies are not embalmed in Oriental countries burial is greatly hastened; in the case of the Jews this hasty burial made possible also the early cleansing from the defilement contracted by touching the dead. Burial took place on the day of death or, if the hour of death was late, the next morning. The wrapped body was carried to the cemetery and buried without a coffin. The writer witnessed such a Jewish funeral procession at Jerusalem: men marched in ranks, the body was wrapped in its garments and carried on a bier of two long poles with bands stretched across them. No covering hid the body, several men carried the poles on each side. In a manner similar to this Ananias was carried out.

Acts 5:7

7Now there occurred an interval of about three hours, and his wife, not knowing what had occurred, came in. And Peter answered to her, Tell me whether you disposed of the land for this much? And she said, Yes, for this much.

Luke regularly records only the facts and leaves their combination and relation to the reader. It has been well said that this manner of writing expects a good deal on the part of the reader. Our historians are prone to relate everything and to leave very little to the reader. So here we should like to know why both had not come together, why the interval was three hours, why Sapphira came at all, etc. Was she worried because of her husband’s long absence? The text supplies nothing. Was it all planned with a view that Ananias should precede her and receive the plaudits of the congregation, and that Sapphira was later to furnish the occasion for a second congratulation? It almost seems so.

The three hours have been regarded as being the interval between the regular Jewish hours of prayer, but this was longer, the morning devotion being held at nine, the evening devotion at three. All that Luke states is that Sapphira was ignorant of what had happened three hours before and came into the assembly in the usual way. She must have known that the meeting was to continue for so long a time or longer. Were there matters other than worship that required so long a time, or did teaching take up so much time? We see no reason for making διάστημα a nominative absolute that is merely inserted to mark the time (B.-D. 144; R. 460), so that ἐγένετοκαί plus the finite verb is the idiom Luke often uses; why not let this nominative be the subject: “there occurred an interval,” etc.?

Acts 5:8

8Sapphira probably looked about the room for her husband. “Answered to her” does not imply that she asked a question to which Peter replied. The verb is frequently used with reference to a statement called forth by a situation. So here it means simply that Peter had waited for Sapphira to enter in order that he might address her as he did. Before she sat down, Peter called to her. “For this much,” genitive of price, gives the impression that the sack of coins had been left untouched where Ananias had deposited it on the platform, and that Peter now pointed to it and Sapphira recognized it. One should think that the question, asked in this manner, should have made the woman hesitate. Why did Peter ask so significantly in regard to the actual amount: “for so much”?

That question must have struck her conscience since she knew that it was not for so much but for more. But no, Sapphira is not startled. She clings to the agreement made with her husband to say “for so much,” and Satan is supporting her as he did Judas when Jesus gave him a final warning. With all positiveness she affirms, “Yes, for so much!” This was loyalty but of the wrong kind. With this word Sapphira forfeited her opportunity for repentance. This final “yes” to the sin was yes also to her judgment.

Acts 5:9

9But Peter said to her: Why was it agreed for you to tempt the Lord’s Spirit? Lo, the feet of those that buried thy husband at the door, and they shall carry thee out! And she fell at once at his feet and expired; and, on coming in, the young men found her dead and, having carried her out, buried her beside her husband. And there came great fear on the whole church and on all that heard these things.

Peter’s question is an exclamation of grief, τίὅτι as in v. 4. He reveals some new features of the sin. They had deliberately agreed, had formed this conspiracy with resolute purpose. The impersonal passive may have the dative as it is found with a passive or after σύν. By carrying out their agreement they have deliberately tempted the Lord’s Spirit. The aorist infinitive states a result; it is like the two infinitives occurring in v. 3: “so that you tempted.” This Israel had done in order to see whether the Spirit would permit its wickedness to pass unpunished, Num. 14:25; Ps. 95:8, 9. We need not say that Ananias and Sapphira intended their act to be such a temptation of the Spirit whom the Lord (Jesus) had sent; it was this, nevertheless.

Sinners often call their sins by mild but untrue names. When the light of God falls upon them, all shams disappear. Every imitation of faith and of love tempts the Spirit, challenges him. Will he know, will our cunning not deceive him? “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”

“Behold the feet,” etc., needs no verb to complete its sense for it is an exclamation. The footsteps of the returning young men were heard. Now, only a moment before her own death, Sapphira learns that her husband is already buried. “They shall carry thee out” states only the fact. Why this was said to her and not to Ananias also is discussed above.

Acts 5:10

10Her death ensued on the instant. When the young men came in they found another such sad task awaiting them. The first two and the most awful hypocrites in the Christian Church were buried side by side. It is often asked whether they committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. This may be safely denied because an outstanding mark of this sin is blasphemy, a feature that was absent in the case of Ananias and Sapphira.

Acts 5:11

11The effect produced by these two deaths that had occurred in the very assembly of the congregation must have been tremendous. Luke again notes the fear and its greatness; not, however, fear of the apostles but of the Spirit before whom the lies found in every heart are open to view, and who is able to smite the sinner in the very midst of his sin. This fear came “upon the whole church.”

Here Luke for the first time uses ἐκκλησία with reference to the body of the believers in Jerusalem, whether they were gathered in an assembly or not. It is so used in Matt. 16:18, but in a still wider sense, for it refers to the body of believers of all future time. In Matt. 18:17 the word denotes the local congregation. This double use continues to this day. The term is derived from ἐκκαλεῖν, “to call out,” as when a herald calls out the citizens to meet in assembly. The assembly of Israel was called its ecclesia, 7:38. “All those that heard these things” were the people who were not connected with the congregation. In v. 5 the present participle denotes the immediate hearers who were present in the meeting; here the aorist participle refers to those who later learned of the matter, and the preceding ecclesia restricts these to outsiders.

THE THIRD PICTURE OF THE MOTHER CONGREGATION IN JERUSALEM

As he did in 2:43–47; 4:32–35, Luke pauses also at this point to present a survey of the congregation and briefly notes the main features of the great and continuous progress.

Acts 5:12

12Now through the hands of the apostles there continued to occur many signs and wonders among the people. And they were all with one accord in the porch of Solomon. Yet of the rest no one dared to join himself to them, but the people kept magnifying them.

What has been recorded in the previous brief descriptions holds good for the present account and need not be repeated. Some new, notable features are added, especially the signs and wonders (see 2:19 on the terms) of which Luke records that they were many, πολλά being placed emphatically at the end. These were miracles of grace and of healing, and we note that Luke places them in strong contrast with the one miracle of judgment he has just recorded. The singular “through (the) hand,” the phrase being little more than a preposition, denotes only agency in general, but the plural “through the hands” points to the actual placing of the hand or the hands upon the sufferers. In Luke’s first description of the congregation signs and wonders were noted (2:43); these have now greatly increased.

The usual meeting place of the entire congregation was “the porch of Solomon” (see 3:11) before which Peter and John had been arrested. Here “all” (ἅπαντες, stronger than πάντες) kept meeting “with one accord.” Although they had been threatened never again to use the name of Jesus, the apostles used it right here in the Temple court. Thus far those threats had remained empty. The long, roomy colonnade afforded ample space for the assembly of the thousands of Christians. Although all of them were Jews, they now constituted a separate body and thus met “with one accord.” This spacious porch was also ideal for the work of the apostles in ever making new converts. Here the Jews gathered daily in multitudes, and the Christians, too, joined in the regular services so that no outward division as yet appeared.

Acts 5:13

13Yet the Christians were a distinct body and were recognized as such with the result that no outsider ventured to join himself to them. This concurs with the fact that the people kept magnifying them (compare 4:21 and 2:47) and speaking highly of them. Had it not been for this general favor and praise, undesirables would have crowded in and disturbed the gatherings of the believers in all sorts of ways. To whatever degree the miracles prompted this high regard, the effect here described is not that “the rest,” the Jews generally, stayed away from the gatherings of the Christians; they were evidently drawn by the preaching and the teaching that went on diligently here in Solomon’s porch.

Acts 5:14

14Moreover, the more were believing ones added to the Lord, crowds both of men and women. Μᾶλλον refers to this magnifying on the part of the people, and δέ adds the statement as something that went beyond what has just been said. The attitude of the people helped in producing new believers. Many would at any rate have been won, but now this occurred the more. In 2:47 the Lord kept adding; the parallel is now passive, “believing ones kept being added to the Lord.” In 4:4 Luke could still state figures, but only with reference to the men, 5, 000 of them; but now all count has been lost, no figures could be secured, and all that Luke can write is that “crowds both of men and of women” were added to the thousands already in the faith. Why this manner of expression should be called popular exaggeration is hard to see; “crowds” does not mean “little groups.” A general movement set in which was due to the favorable attitude of the people as such. Luke considers πιστεύοντες and “were being added to the Lord” quite sufficient for the intelligent reader who will understand that these people believed in the Lord (Jesus) and were brought to such faith by the preaching of the apostles. Since 2:41 baptism has not been mentioned, but it certainly is understood that all new believers were, like those 3, 000, received by baptism.

A few oddities must be noted. The section from 12b to 14 has been considered an insertion by a strange hand, or a marginal note that was introduced into the text, or a section transposed from 4:31. Why? Not on the basis of textual evidence but because v. 15 is supposed to be a continuation of 12a. Yet v. 15 properly joins v. 14 and could not fittingly be connected with 12a. B.-D. 365, 1 considers v. 14 a parenthesis and calls it harsh because v. 15 is said to match illy with v. 13.

There is no parenthesis. At this point, too, we can see how unwarranted is the opinion that in v. 13 κολλᾶσθαι signifies “to join” in the sense of believing, and that “dared not join” refers to a certain party that kept entirely aloof. Here in v. 14 we see how Luke expresses this kind of joining: “were added unto,” the same verb he used in 2:41, 47. Verse 13 speaks of intrusions, men fastening themselves on the assemblies of believers in order to harass them.

Acts 5:15

15So that they kept carrying the sick even into the street and kept placing them on little beds and pallets in order that, as Peter came, at least the shadow might overshadow some one of them. Moreover, there kept coming together also the crowd from the cities around Jerusalem, bringing sick and any oppressed by unclean spirits, who continued to be healed all.

Ὥστε with the infinitive expresses actual result. The claim that we must connect this verse with 12a overlooks the fact that, the more signs and wonders occurred, the less reason was there to carry the sick into the streets. Luke intends to show that the people magnified the Christians, and that numbers of men and women came to faith, and that the result of this circumstance was that they kept carrying the sick out even into the streets, etc. This, as Lukes states it, was a result of the attitude of the people, of their tremendous confidence; not, as some regard Luke as saying, a result only of the occurrence of many miracles. The present infinitives denote iterative action. With the feminine πλατείας supply ὁδούς.

The diminutive κλινάριον denotes a little bed, and κράβαττος (κράββατος) a pallet or camp roll. The sick were carried out into the street and then deposited on some sort of a bed to await Peter’s coming. No distinction is here made between rich, soft beds and hard, poor couches.

The sick were arranged in this manner in order that they might be directly in the path of Peter so that he could not avoid seeing them and could heal them without losing time by going to their homes. The idea to be expressed is that he did so heal them. For κἄν (note the crasis for καὶἐάν), which has come to be a mere particle (B.-D. 374), states that “at least,” i. e., if no more were done by Peter, his shadow might overshadow some one of them here and there and evidently thus transmit the healing. Some texts have the future indicative after ἵνα, a construction which is found in the Koine.

This trust that even Peter’s shadow would heal them has been called superstition or faith coupled with superstition. The question has also been raised as to whether healing was actually thus transmitted. If Peter’s shadow had not healed, the fancy that it might heal would have at once been dissipated. Many unfortunates asked Jesus to touch them and to heal them in this manner; to ask for the touch is not more superstitious than to look to the shadow. In Mark 6:56 the touching of even the garment of Jesus healed; in Acts 19:12 the handkerchiefs of Paul accomplished a like miracle. The physician Luke describes these effects and in no way suggests that the apostles or Jesus found anything superstitious or wrong in this faith.

The important feature in all these healings is the fact that contact was in some way sought with the person transmitting the healing. The διά in v. 12 states that the Lord used the apostles as the personal media for the signs and wonders. It was throughout his power that wrought the healing.

More must be added. All healings emanate from the Lord and his will; the apostles are no more than his instruments. Once this is understood, we shall not lay stress on the will or the consciousness of the apostles. In Matt. 9:20 it was the will of Jesus that healed the woman who touched the tassel of his robe from behind. It is his will that operated through the apostles, through their hands (v. 12) and through Peter’s shadow. As far as the will of the apostles was concerned, this was wholly in accord with the will of Jesus.

The rich outflow of healing power from Jesus at this time meets the abundant faith that sought this healing power and manifested itself in such striking ways. Here faith in Jesus’ power preceded the healing; this was not the case in 3:4 and in other instances—see the discussion on this passage. No man who came to Jesus or to the apostles in faith remained unhealed, and not a few were healed without previously having had faith in order to be brought to that faith. All this, too, was at first faith only in the power of Jesus to heal. That was enough to begin with; but this incipient faith was to advance to the higher faith which would rely on him for healing and for saving also the soul. This subject must be studied in its entirety; those who busy themselves with it merely as they happen upon it here and there will naturally draw inadequate and wrong conclusions.

Acts 5:16

16For the first time the history of the church reaches out beyond Jerusalem proper, namely to the towns around the capital (πέριξ is an adverb with the genitive and is like the preposition περί). Even from these places the sick were brought in. As he does in his Gospel, so here in Acts Luke differentiates and describes the demoniacs and never for a moment confuses them with people who were suffering from ordinary ailments. Here he mentions them for the first time in Acts and calls them “oppressed by unclean spirits,” agitated, vexed. Note that ὑπό points to these spirits as being the personal agents; and “unclean,” filthy, vile, points to their unholy character. On the entire subject of demoniacal possession see the comment of the author on Matt. 4:24; 8:28; Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33.

The idea expressed in οἵτινες is “any such,” no matter who they were or how severe their case. They continued to be healed all, ἅπαντες, as in v. 12, is stronger than the simple πάντες, “all altogether,” without a single exception, the word being placed emphatically at the end. Note the imperfect tenses throughout the entire paragraph, all of them are descriptive and picture what was going on at this time; they are also continuative and iterative. These open tenses at the same time imply that something is to follow that interfered with this grand work and progress. In fact, that is why Luke places this sketch at this point of his narrative.

Peter continues to stand out pre-eminently. This may be due to the fact that the apostles had not as yet scattered but remained together and moved about and acted as one body. Thus Peter spoke for all and in the case of the healings acted for all; note v. 29. The people thus looked to Peter and trusted that even his shadow would cure the unfortunate. Neither the other apostles nor Luke see an undue assumption of authority on Peter’s part in this fact, on the contrary, all feel that through Peter they are acting as a unified body, and that is the way in which they intended to act.

Here the promise of Jesus regarding healings and signs was fulfilled in a notable manner; the miracles of the apostles appeared as a direct continuation of the extensive healings wrought by Jesus himself. His power in and through the apostles thus in the most manifest way connects their work with the work he did during the days of his earthly ministry. The success was phenomenal. It now seemed as though the entire population of Jerusalem and that of even the surrounding towns would soon be won for Christ; and once the capital became Christian, what might not be expected from the nation as a whole?

THE TWELVE ARRESTED AND MIRACULOUSLY RELEASED

For some time the Sanhedrin tolerated the bold disobedience of its peremptory orders not to speak or to teach in Jesus’ name and with growing concern watched the growth of the Christian movement. The members of this body were, however, convinced that this could not be permitted to continue much longer unless they were ready to abdicate their position in favor of the apostles. The tension increased until finally, without an especial cause or occasion, the cord snapped.

Acts 5:17

17Now, having arisen, the high priest and all those with him, the local sect of the Sadducees, were filled with passion and laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public ward.

These same Sadducees caused the arrest of Peter and of John in 4:1, 2. This time the high priest takes the lead, and he and his following take summary action. “Having arisen” means, “having proceeded from inaction to action”; he and his followers refused to remain inactive. Because in 4:6 “high priest” is appended to the name Annas, it is supposed that this same individual is referred to also in this place and Luke is accordingly charged with inaccuracy. But in 4:6 the names are arranged according to seniority, and “high priest” indicates only the general status of Annas. Neither there nor here does Luke make Annas the ruling high priest, for Caiaphas held this position.

These Sadducees have the leading position in the Sanhedrin and maintain it also in this case by ordering the arrest on their own authority and afterward call a session of the Sanhedrin. Our versions translate, “which is the sect of the Sadducees”; R., W. P., “the sect of the Sadducees” or “the sect which is of the Sadducees.” But the high priest and those with him were only a small part of this sect, nor were they a little sect within the sect of the Sadducees. Hence these translations are unacceptable. Moulton (in R. 1107) puts us on the right track when in 13:1 he translates the same attributive participle, “the local church”; a papyrus has this participle in the sense, “the current month.” So Luke means “the local sect of the Sadducees.” Αἵρεσις means “choice,” a chosen opinion or tenet, and thus the party holding that tenet, “a sect”; it often has a connotation of reproach.

First the motive, then the act. They were filled with passion, filled to overflowing, could not longer contain themselves. The noun means “hot steam”; it is derived from ζέω, “to boil.” That this was “envy” (A. V. margin) or “jealousy” (R. V.) is a deduction made from what is regarded as the general situation, but this is too narrow. These Sadducees were wrought up because the apostles were boldly continuing their preaching of Jesus. We have their own statement for this in v. 28.

Acts 5:18

18On this occasion all the apostles are summarily arrested; of course, by the Temple police on an order of these Sadducees. Where and how this was done we are left to surmise. We have only one clue in v. 26, where the Temple commander and his men proceed alertly because they were afraid of the people present. We thus conclude that the arrest mentioned in this verse was made at a moment when the people were absent. The culprits were placed “in a public ward.” Since Luke always writes with great care and exactness, it is fair to conclude that this was not the same place of confinement as the one referred to in 4:3, but was one of the common jails, in regard to the location of which we are left uninformed. Thus at one sudden stroke and without the least warning the leaders of the entire church in Jerusalem were snatched away.

Lodgment in jail was no more pleasant or honorable in those days than it is in ours; the procedure seems to be a deliberate attempt to subject the entire leadership of the believers to public disgrace. Criminals are summarily arrested but not decent men. Peter and John seem to have been placed only under guard for the night; the Twelve are now thrown into jail under lock and key.

Acts 5:19

19But an angel of the Lord, during the night, opened the doors of the prison and, after leading them out, said, Be going and, having taken a stand, go on speaking in the Temple to the people the words of this life! And having heard it, they went at dawn into the Temple and began to teach.

To say that Luke is less vivid here than he is in the similar account in 12:6–10 is to overlook the great differences in the situations. Peter was to be executed, was fastened in chains and most heavily guarded in a far stronger prison; the Twelve were confined in the common jail. So Luke has less to say here, but what he says is surely vivid enough. We make no apology as far as the veracity of Luke’s account is concerned. We find no legendary element in the narrative, no clothing of any fact in symbolical form, no friendly jailor or courageous Christian who released the apostles. Meyer is correct: Das ist einlegende Schwindelei.

Some time during the night (the phrase needs no article) an angel appeared in the prison where the apostles were confined, miraculously opened the locked doors from the inside, and himself led the apostles out (note the close connective τε which makes the whole action but one procedure). The guards saw nothing. Twelve men witnessed this act, saw and heard the angel, and were not deceived as to his identity. Some say that this release amounted to nothing since the apostles were promptly rearrested. But the rearrested apostles were in a position that was far different from the one that obtained at the time of their first arrest. The outcome of this affair was turned in favor of the apostles by this miracle; the time of peaceful development for the church was yet to continue.

Acts 5:20

20The angel leaves the apostles with specific directions which in point of boldness, were like an open challenge to the Sanhedrists who had caused their arrest. They are to go and to take their stand or position in the very court of the Temple where they had been preaching constantly, and are to “continue to utter all the utterances of this life” to the people. Both λσλεῖτε and ῥήματα say nothing about the subject matter to be uttered, they make plain only that the apostles are to speak as they did before. The subject matter is contained in the emphatic qualitative genitive “of this life,” the divine ζωή. In John 6:68, Peter had confessed regarding Jesus, “Thou hast utterances of life everlasting.” The demonstrative does not refer “in sense” to ῥήματα (R. 497, 706) but is placed correctly: “this life,” the one you are preaching in connection with the resurrection of Jesus, the one that is so objectionable to the Sadducees, the one that is salvation indeed. We do not need the capital letter of the R. V. even as it is not needed in John 6:68, nor the appeal to the Aramaic as though the angel had said, “these life utterances,” and Luke had misconceived the sense. “Utter the utterances” implies that they were given to the apostles by the Lord, and “of life” that they conveyed this life to men.

Acts 5:21

21One text adds: “and each one went home,” which is certainly true. It was still night, the Temple gates were still locked, the time still too early to carry out the angel’s order. But sub lucem, “under the dawn,” when the gates were first opened for the early service at dawn, the apostles entered the Temple courts and began their teaching (inchoative imperfect). This was God’s answer to the Sadducees. Rejecting “this life” themselves, they were resolved to prevent all others from accepting it even as Jesus had said in regard to the Pharisees, Matt. 23:13.

Now the high priest having arrived and those with him, they called together the Sanhedrin and all the eldership of the sons of Israel and sent to the jail in order that they be brought. But the underlings, on coming, did not find them in the prison; and having returned, they reported, saying, The jail we found as having been locked in all safety, and the guards standing at the doors; but on having opened, inside we found no one.

Granted that the addition of the words “having arisen early” in a very few texts reports a fact, the reason for this very early appearance of the high priest and his coterie would not be due to the fact that the high priest officiated in person at the early morning service; we should rather suppose that this early beginning was made in order to hasten on their way the messengers that were to summon the members of the Sanhedrin. Luke never reports irrelevant matters, and this functioning of the high priest at the early service would be one of these. Παρά in the participial form refers to the Temple which has just been mentioned.

The twofold designation, “Sanhedrin and all the eldership of the sons of Israel,” has led to the conjecture that two bodies were summoned, or that the eldership was called in as advisory, in the capacity of assessors. But no historical evidence for such a second body has been found. The Sanhedrin was certainly large enough in itself. We have a similar twofold designation in Mark 15:1. In each instance a plenary session in indicated. Συνέδριον refers to the function of the body sitting together and taking counsel; while γερουσία indicates its dignity as being composed of γέροντες, old and honored men; hence it was also called the presbytery. “Sons of Israel” is only a more dignified term than “of the people.” The Sadducees were presenting a case of major importance and they, indeed, had no less than twelve men to present as criminals.

The Sadducees summoned the members of the high court and then also sent a detachment of Temple police to bring the prisoners from the δεσμωτήριον or jail. These Temple police were Levites, were a large body that was generally armed with clubs, were under the orders of a chief commander who, in turn, had lieutenants under him. They are usually termed ὑπηρέται, “underlings.” The high priests and the Sadducees imagine that they have everything in their own hands and are fully determined to crush the entire movement. They were due for a rather rude awakening.

Acts 5:22

22The detachment of “underlings” proceeds on its errand. Luke states only the facts that they did not find the apostles in the jail and that they returned and made due report to their superiors.

Acts 5:23

23Here we learn more although the report, too, states only the facts in the succinct way of military reports. First of all, they report that they found the jail still duly locked in all safety, the perfect participle bringing out the thought that, once locked, it had remained so until these underlings themselves unlocked it. Secondly, they also found the guards standing at the doors. In other words, on arriving, they found nothing whatever amiss—locks and guards were in order. But now comes the shock: “on having opened up, inside no one did we find.” The twelve prisoners had vanished into thin air. One can imagine the expression on the faces of the Sadducees when they heard this report.

Acts 5:24

24Now when they heard these words, both the commander of the Temple and the high priests, they were much perplexed concerning them as to what might have occurred. But someone, having come, reported to them, Lo, the men whom you placed in the prison are in the Temple standing and teaching.

Only the commander of the Temple police and the high priests are named because they had made the arrest; the rest of the Sanhedrists now learned of the matter for the first time. The commander is named first because he was responsible for all his men through whose fingers these prisoners had slipped. The preposition διά in the verb intensifies it: “thoroughly perplexed concerning them,” i.e., the words or statements just made. In the indirect question: τίἂνγένοιτοτοῦτο, we have an instance where a misconception of the meaning may mislead not only some translators but a few grammarians. Neither the sense nor the grammar yield the translation, “whereunto this would grow” (our versions, Luther, R., W. P.).

This translation would require the present optative. The aorist optative compels us to translate, “what might have occurred” (B.-D. 299, 2: was da wohl geschehen sei; wie das zugegangen sei). The perplexity was caused by what had just been reported and the astonishment as to how in the world such a thing could have happened. It was not as yet caused by a regard for the future and what might happen.

In the New Testament the direct discourse is preferred to the indirect, hence so few examples of indirect discourse with the optative occur, and these occur only in Luke’s writings. They represent the potential optative with ἄν which is taken over from the direct question without change, B.-D. 385 and 386. Only the apodosis is used in these indirect questions, the protasis, εί with the optative, does not appear.

Acts 5:25

25In the midst of this perplexity there comes a messenger with the news that the men whom the Sanhedrists had locked up were in the Temple this very instant, back in their accustomed places, standing there as usual and proceeding with their teaching of the people. This messenger was, no doubt, a Levite, at least someone who knew all about the arrest of the previous day. But note that the news reaches the perplexed Sanhedrists just at this psychological moment as though the Lord had timed it so. If the Sadducees had heard this news sooner they might have kept it to themselves; now it came to the ears of the entire Sanhedrin and certainly had its effect.

THE TWELVE BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN

Acts 5:26

26The situation had taken on an unexpected complexion. Then the commander, having gone with the underlings, brought them, not with force, for they were fearing the people lest they be stoned.

The chief commander had not thought it necessary to go to the prison in person, now he finds it decidedly necessary to go to the Temple court, for the situation has become delicate. He takes with him the Levite police who have just made their astonishing report. The texts with the reading ἦγεν describe, those with ἤγαγεν merely state the fact. From the prison the apostles were to have been brought “with force” like prisoners who are being haled before their judges; nothing of the sort is now attempted, “not with force,” but the apostles are brought as men who have been requested to appear. They accompany the commander of their own accord; not a hand is laid upon them. And Luke states the reason (γάρ): the commander and his men feared the people, crowds of whom were again listening to the teaching. That was real fear “lest they be stoned.”

We see no reason for being in doubt in regard to the construction of this clause; it is not a purpose clause that is dependent on the phrase “not with force” (R., W. P.); but it is dependent on “they were fearing” and states what was feared. See R. 995; B.-D. 370. Sections of the Temple were still being rebuilt; in fact, this rebuilding was not completed until shortly before the war and the final destruction of the entire Temple. So stones were at hand as in John 8:59; 10:31. The Jews were also extremely excitable, and when they were suddenly aroused knew no limits in their mob violence.

Here we see the high esteem which the apostles enjoyed among the common people; it was highly dangerous to make a false move against them in the presence of the people. And all this occurred while the great Sanhedrin was kept waiting.

Acts 5:27

27Now, having brought them, they made them stand in the Sanhedrin. And the high priest inquired of them, saying: With an order we gave orders to you not to be teaching on the basis of this name; and lo, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring on us the blood of this man!

While the Sanhedrists were seated on a semicircular platform, the apostles were literally made to stand (the verb is transitive) “in the Sanhedrin.” So John and Peter, and so Jesus, too, had stood. Caiaphas presides, and it is he that “inquired.” But the form of his address is not a question, it is an assertion in an accusing tone that demands a reply in defense.

Acts 5:28

28Not a word does Caiaphas breathe about the manner in which the apostles escaped from the prison—he surely had his suspicions regarding that. It would have been a fine thing for him and for the other Sadducees, who did not believe in angels, to hear it attested by twelve witnesses before the whole Sanhedrin and all the Pharisees who were in it, who did believe in angels, that an angel had opened the prison and had led them out. So not a word regarding that subject. But a strong word regarding the awful crime of the apostles who had flagrantly disobeyed the strictest orders of the august Sanhedrin in no way ever to be teaching ἐπὶτῷὀνόματιτούτῳ, with “this name” and what it stands for and reveals as the basis (see 2:21).

“With an order we gave orders” is the Greek reproduction of the Hebrew infinitive absolute and yet follows similar Greek constructions which, by adding the cognate noun, emphasize the force of the verb: “we issued strictest orders to you,” R. 531. The infinitive is properly durative: “not to be teaching.” Here we again see the unwillingness of these foes of Jesus even to utter his name “Jesus”; “this name,” “this man” is all that they can bring themselves to say. Sie moechten ihn totschweigen. Fugit appellate Jesum; Petrus appellat et celebrat. Bengel. The high priest’s feeling on that point is correct, for this name will prove his destruction.

But what have the apostles done? “You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching!” No less. And this is true in fact and not an exaggeration. The perfect is extensive (R. 895); it reaches from the past to a point in the present; the accusative indicates what is filled, and the genitive that with which the filling has been accomplished. “Jerusalem” has the article, das Jerusalem (German), it is feminine because it is the name of a place. This very teaching, this reprehensible doctrine (2:42) the apostles have spread over the entire city in bold violation of the Sanhedrin’s stringent command.

Thus far Caiaphas kept the judicial tone, his words sounded like a stern indictment. Now the judge turns defendant and speaks in behalf of his own personal cause and even in an injured tone. He is recalling the bold words of the people that were, no doubt, first uttered by him personally and then caught up by all of them when Pilate refused to assume the guilt of Jesus’ blood as recorded in Matt. 27:25. But he is now thinking only of himself and of the Sanhedrin. When they stood before Pilate they were morally certain that there would be no such guilt and boldly offered to take it upon themselves if such guilt there should be.

Why should that offer and especially the word “blood” have remained in this high priest’s mind now to be recalled in the presence of apostles? Why should he say, “you intend (the verb expressing purpose, R. 878) to bring on us the blood of this man” if no guilt attached to the shedding of his blood and to the part the Sanhedrin had played in that shedding? This is the secret working of conscience which makes a coward of this hardened criminal. He sees frightful intentions in the hearts of the apostles and in the growing success of their work. They were resolved to dethrone the high priest, to overthrow the Sanhedrin, and thus to wreak vengeance on them for “the blood of this man.” His blood is haunting this Jew, has gone on haunting Jews ever since; but all they do is what Caiaphas here does: betray the thought and charge men with trying to execute it instead of repenting before God.

Acts 5:29

29Answering, however, Peter and the apostles said: It is necessary to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you on your part laid hands on, hanging him on wood. Him as Leader and Savior God exalted with his right hand to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things, also the Holy Spirit whom God gave to those obeying him.

The indictment is met by a perfect defense. The singular “answering” presents Peter as the speaker, and the plural “they said” makes the words of Peter the words of all the apostles. First of all, Peter summarily restates what he had said already in 4:19, 20, with the difference that now the great principle is stated abstractly in the briefest form: “It is necessary to obey God rather than men.” The “we” of our versions is due to the awkwardness of the English; the Greek expresses the general idea that “one must obey,” the German, man muss gehorchen.

This dictum is axiomatic for all except atheists and agnostics. Its tremendous significations have been fully discussed in connection with 4:19, 20. But in any given case of supposed conflict between these two authorities “God” and “men,” how are we to determine that God really says and orders what men object to, deny, and forbid? Peter answers this question in a full and direct way for the apostles. The Sanhedrin would readily admit the general principle, but it would deny that, by filling Jerusalem with the name of Jesus, the apostles were obeying God and thus rightly placing his authority above that of the Sanhedrin. This, then, is the real point.

Men who have erring consciences convince themselves in some way of their own that they are obeying God, whereas, like the Sanhedrin here, they are not but are, perhaps, doing the very opposite. This is not the case with Peter’s defense. We may test it today. The apostles were, indeed, obeying God when they disobeyed the men of the Sanhedrin.

Acts 5:30

30For God did these things with regard to Jesus and made them and the Holy Spirit the witnesses. They must, therefore, testify and, if men forbid, must obey God rather than men. “The God of our fathers” is a designation that has strong connotations. First, all the hopes and the expectations of our godly fathers rested on God’s Messianic promises. Secondly, they were our fathers, and we ought to be their true children by sharing those promises and those hopes now that they have been fulfilled. Thirdly, “our” refers to the Sanhedrin as well as to the apostles; the very pronoun is a call to faith.

The emphasis is on what God did, for the apostles are obeying God rather than men. And now Peter once more uses two fearful contrasts that were employed so crushingly in 3:13–15, and 4:10: God raised up the Jesus you killed. Your action was directly against God; he nullified what you did, yea, elevated Jesus into his eternal office. Thus, in the most effective way Peter at this very moment does his part by testifying as God’s witness and by filling even this hall of the Sanhedrin and the ears of all the Sanhedrists with the name of Jesus.

It is contended that the statement, “God raised up Jesus,” does not refer to the resurrection but to the entire act of sending Jesus for his work. Peter cannot mention the resurrection before the crucifixion. Moreover, we are told that we here have the proper chronological order: God raised up Jesus by sending him; the Jews crucified him; God exalted him (by raising him from the dead and by enthroning him in heaven). But this is specious. Peter is not following chronology but is hurling contrasts at the Sanhedrists. The strong asyndeton in v. 31 is not a parallel to the relative ὅν in v. 30; a relative and then an asyndeton do not denote a chronological succession.

No; Peter at once announces the mighty deed of God: raising up Jesus from the dead. Everything turns about this central act of God’s. As he had done in 4:10, he compels especially the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin who deny the resurrection to face this fact of the resurrection of Jesus. And whereas the Sanhedrists avoided the very name as though even to pronounce it brought defilement upon them, Peter joyfully utters this blessed name and sounds it forth into the ears of these Sanhedrists.

There stands the great fact: God raised up Jesus. And here stands its opposite: “whom you laid hands on by hanging him on wood,” the modal participle which expresses action that is coincident with that of the verb. The verb is expressive of exactly what the Sanhedrists did although they used the hands of others. Moreover, it agrees with the participle: “by hanging him on wood,” ἐπὶξύλου, which is usually translated, “on a tree.” The expression is Jewish for the Jewish thought that is expressed in Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13, that one who was executed by being hanged on a beam of wood was by that act declared to be accursed. The Jews suspended the dead body of a criminal after execution; so Christ’s dead body hung on the cross. Not only did the Sanhedrin bring about the death of Jesus, a death that was shameful in the eyes of Romans (crucifixion), but they inflicted upon him the death of those who are accursed by God (suspension on wood).

Acts 5:31

31The succession of thought is by no means chronological, for with the emphatic τοῦτον Peter in typical Greek fashion resumes all that he has just said about Jesus in v. 30. He is not adding a third act in a series of three but is stating what God’s act in raising up the Jesus whom the Jews hanged as one accursed really signifies, namely that “by his right hand God exalted him as Leader and Savior.” God’s right hand always signifies his power and his majesty; on this dative with the same verb compare 2:33.

Because ἀρχηγόν and σωτῆρα are without articles they are predicative: God exalted him “as Leader and Savior”; the idea is not that of purpose “in order to be a Leader,” etc. The two terms, taken together, state what Jesus is. In 3:15 we have ἀρχηγός with a genitive while here this definitive title is absolute. In an effort to find one English term that will fit both passages many translators use “Prince,” German Fuerst, although the connotation in these translations is not that associated with the Greek word. Archegos, like “Savior,” refers to what Jesus does for us; he is a fountain, source, author, beginner for us and, as we see from “Savior,” the beginner and author of salvation for us. In 3:15 we say “Author of life,” here, if we had a similar genitive, we could say “Author of salvation,” and this is indeed the sense. “Prince” would indicate that we honor his royal position, that we do something for him; it may also imply that he is not yet King. On the idea contained in “Savior” compare 4:12 (3:47).

Christ’s exaltation always refers to his human nature which is in the unio with the divine. The term includes the resurrection which was already a glorification and also the sessio in heaven. But only through the medium of the human nature by which Jesus lived under the law, suffered, and died for our sins is he now our Leader and Savior, bringing us to the salvation he has prepared for us.

God exalted him as such an Author of salvation for our sakes, “in order to give (infinitive of purpose, effective aorist) repentance to Israel and remission of sins.” This shows how the salvation is made ours. It is wholly by a gift of grace, τοῦδοῦναι; both repentance and remission are given. The former is wrought in the heart through the Word, the very Word Peter is here preaching so effectively; the latter is given through the divine declaration of justification which absolves the repentant sinner from his sins. The two are simultaneous but always occur in this order and never in the reverse order. The moment repentance is wrought in the heart the act of remission follows in heaven. On μετάνοια and on ἄφεσις see 2:38. “Israel” is mentioned as the recipient of the gift in the sense of 1:8. The gift was intended for Israel in the first place, and Peter had only Israelites before him.

Acts 5:32

32These are the profound things that God has done for this most vital purpose. “And we are witnesses of these things” or “of these said things.” The idea contained in “witnesses” is not only that the apostles themselves saw these said things and could thus testify regarding them. Seeing the nature of these things and their divine purpose, it would be absolutely criminal if they, the witnesses, did not testify and proclaim them to all Israel. Such negligence would certainly be disobeying God in the most wicked way. When the Sanhedrists attempt to silence them these Sanhedrists disobey God. The apostles cannot permit themselves to be thus silenced, for that keeping silent would imply putting the authority of men in the place of that of God. The logic and the moral rectitude are as clear as crystal.

When Peter adduces the Holy Spirit as another witness in the relative clause, “whom God gave to those obeying him,” he intends to state that the testimony of the Spirit is mediate, he using the believers as his media. The idea is not that they are all to preach and to teach as the apostles did, but it is much broader. The apostolic office is kept distinct (1:22). The Holy Spirit is in the hearts as a gift of God to all who by faith in Jesus obey God. All that the Spirit has wrought in these obedient ones is the Spirit’s living testimony to Jesus and to what God has made Jesus to be. The fact that Jesus is the exalted Savior is apparent in every believer who has Jesus and his salvation in his heart and confesses these by lip and life.

The apostles are not only God’s witnesses, their testimony is accompanied by the great fact that is before the eyes of all men, namely that all those who are with the apostles have God’s Spirit in their hearts, and that he speaks in and through them. “Those obeying God” include the apostles, although their service as special apostolic witnesses is not excluded. “Obeying” recalls the same verb used in v. 19. What about these Sanhedrists? They are evidently not among those who obey God with the blessed obedience of faith; they have closed their hearts against the gift of the Holy Spirit, against the gift of repentance and remission, against Jesus, God’s Savior.

This apostolic address is far more than a defense against an indictment. Peter preaches law and gospel to the hearts of the Sanhedrists, if possible, by God’s grace in Christ, to convert and to save them. Note that he speaks to these Sanhedrists about the Holy Spirit as though the Holy Trinity were known to them. This knowledge of the Trinity is assumed already in the preaching of the Baptist and thereafter with never a Jewish objection based on unitarian conceptions of God being uttered. The claim that the Old Testament did not reveal the Trinity to the Jews is without basis in fact.

Acts 5:33

33Peter’s words reached the heart. But they, having heard, were sawn in two and were intending to make away with them. We have the same strong figure in 7:54. We prefer to retain it instead of modifying it: “were cut to the heart” (our versions). The verb is passive and states what Peter’s words inflicted. Here the infliction was not salutary, but note a similar passive in 2:37 where it had a salutary effect.

The verb states only how pained the Sanhedrists were by the truth concerning their murder of Jesus and their hostility to God; it does not say anything about the rage of these men. The next verb, “they were intending” (to be understood in the same sense as in v. 28 and not “took counsel,” A. V.), states that the Sanhedrists were forming the purpose in their hearts to “make away with” the apostles, to murder them. From the treatment accorded Jesus as well as that accorded his apostles we note the type of men that constituted the supreme court and the highest leadership of the Jews: men who had committed murder and were ready again to commit murder.

Would it not have been wiser for Peter to have toned down his words? Many have adopted that sort of wisdom and by doing so have persuaded themselves that they were better witnesses than Peter, more obedient to God than were the apostles. They have never sawn a sinner in two by a preaching of the law. They convert painlessly. Alas, their conversions are only counterfeit. Both verbs are imperfects, both describe conditions, both imply that something definite followed. If the reading ἐβουλεύουτο be preferred to ἐβούλοντο, the former would indicate a little more than intention, namely an openly voiced resolution on the part of some of the Sanhedrists to make away with the apostles. “Were intending,” in fact, implies as much, for the intention could not be known unless it was expressed in words.

Acts 5:34

34Now one in the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee, by name Gamaliel, a lawteacher, in honor with all the people, having arisen, ordered to put the men outside for a little while.

“One in the Sanhedrin” means a member of that body. “A Pharisee” describes him as being a member of the party that was opposed to that mentioned in v. 17 and even more fully in 4:5, 6. This point is of great importance for the sequel. The Sadducees were thwarted by this Pharisee and his followers in the Sanhedrin; a compromise was effected, the apostles were only scourged. “By name Gamaliel,” the common dative for introducing names, at once shows to all who know anything about this famous teacher what weight a word of his would have. He was not only “a lawteacher” but one “in honor with all the people” (ethical dative), famous among the Jews. This important personage, as was the right of any member of the Sanhedrin when an executive and private session was desired by him, ordered the prisoners to be taken out βραχύ, “for a little,” the neuter adjective used as an adverb.

Φαρισαῖος, from the Hebrew pharash, means “a separatist.” This designation came to be the name of a member of the Jewish party that is prominent everywhere in the New Testament. Organized after the exile, this party insisted on the strictest outward observance of all legal regulations and also of the tradition that added a mass of rabbinical regulations to the Mosaic laws. They were extreme formalists who ignored everything spiritual in the Scriptures, under their formalism hid much that was morally vicious, and yet were proud of their holiness. They were honored as being holy by the people generally, were absolutely self-righteous and thus violently opposed to the doctrine of grace and liberty that was proclaimed by Jesus. They are accurately described by Jesus himself in Matt. 23:13–39.

This Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel who was famous in Jewish tradition. Hillel flourished about 37–4 B. C. We know nothing about his son Simon; but Simon’s son Gamaliel, whom Luke introduces here, was one of the seven men who were accorded the title “Rabban.” He developed his grandfather’s teaching and founded a dynasty of famous men which continued for about four centuries. This Gamaliel, called “the old,” to distinguish him from his grandson of the same name, must have been famous for many years before the incident recorded in this passage. Saul was a pupil of his (22:3), and it is just possible that Saul himself was present (but not as a member) at this session of the Sanhedrin and heard Gamaliel’s address.

Much has been made of this Pharisee in Christian tradition and legend. Zahn loves to trace such things, see his Apostelgeschichte, 219, etc.

Acts 5:35

35And he said to them: Israelite men, take heed to yourselves about these men, what you are about to do. For before these days, there arose Theudas, claiming himself to be somebody, to whom there was inclined a number of men about four hundred, who was made away with, and all as many as kept on obeying him were dispersed and came to nothing.

Gamaliel addresses his colleagues in the same honorable fashion as did Peter the Jews in 2:22, and in 3:12. He counsels caution and advises that his colleagues forget not to consider their own interests in case of any precipitate action into which their passion may otherwise lead them. Many, no doubt, thought that he was referring to the danger from the people (v. 26) who held the apostles and believers generally in high esteem (v. 13), but Gamaliel has a different self-interest. He bids his colleagues look farther. Yet his own view and his conclusions proved to be entirely wrong. The Lord, however, used his spurious wisdom to extend the great work that was going on in Jerusalem with full vigor.

Acts 5:36

36He sketches briefly the career of a certain Theudas, who was known to his colleagues, who claimed himself to be somebody, secured a following of 400 men for his rebellion, and was soon killed with the result that those who still adhered to his ideas were dispersed and faded into nothing, ad nihilum. His entire movement ran its full course without aid from the Sanhedrin. We see the drift of Gamaliel’s argument: this Jesus-movement will most likely fade out of itself. Why should the Sanhedrin dip its hands into the blood of these twelve men who still “keep on obeying” Jesus as the followers of Theudas did even after he was slain?

But this little bit of history recounted by Gamaliel, which Luke records without comment as to its correctness, has become the occasion for considerable debate because of statements made by Josephus. In his Ant. 20, 5, 1 he, too, reports about a certain Theudas who incited a rebellion and came to a miserable end; but this man appeared about thirteen years after the time of Gamaliel’s address. Gamaliel mentions 400 men as constituting the following of the man whom he has in mind, Josephus writes of this man that “he persuaded a great part of the people.” Not a few conclude that Josephus is right, and that something is wrong with Luke’s account. To make this conclusion more plausible they date Luke and Acts late enough so that Luke could have read Josephus. And Luke is then thought to have invented this part of Gamaliel’s address. Men like Ramsey, Robertson (Luke the Historian, 160; W.

P.), and others still think that at least a problem exists and themselves propose to wait until it has been solved. There is no problem whatever in regard to Luke who never read a line of Josephus. Any problem there may be pertains only to Josephus whose mistakes and inaccuracies Zahn, among others, has sufficiently pointed out. Whether Josephus speaks about this Theudas mentioned by Gamaliel, confused the dates, or reports about another Theudas who was active thirteen years later, leaves Gamaliel’s statements unaffected.

Acts 5:37

37After him there arose Judas, the Galilean, in the days of the enrolment and drew away people after him; he also perished, and all as many as kept obeying him were scattered abroad.

This refers to the enrolment for taxation mentioned in Luke 2:1, 2. Gamaliel’s expression “in the days of the enrolment” speaks of this as a well-known period. Judas, born in Gamala in Gaulonitis, is called “the Galilean” because of the scene of his revolt which was of far greater proportions than that of Theudas. But he, too, perished, and his following, too, was dispersed so that his efforts likewise ended in nothing.

Usually little is said in regard to Josephus and his account of this Judas, but in this case Josephus’ account is worse than that in regard to Theudas. Zahn charges Josephus with heillose Verwirrung regarding Judas and other men of like aims as well as in regard to the taxation under Cyrenius in Palestine. Josephus produces a tangle by duplicating Judas, so that he mentions one who was active during the taxation at the end of the life of Herod the Great and another who was active toward the close of the first century. We need not enter into the details which pertain only to Josephus and not in the least to Luke. We add only that the rebellion was of grave proportions, that Judas sought royal honors, and that Josephus, both in the case of Theudas and of Judas, suppresses the Messianic claims that helped to attract the following of these men.

Acts 5:38

38In view of these two plain historical instances Gamaliel offers what has become his famous counsel of indecision: Be careful—do not decide—wait, wait and see! And as to now I say to you, stand away from these men and let them be! For if this counsel or this work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—lest perchance you be found even fighting God.

Τανῦν, “as to the things now,” as to the present situation, this, namely, in view of the two historical instances that were well known to all present, Gamaliel advises his colleagues “to stand away from these men” and not to think of killing them and “to let them be,” which we may also translate, “to dismiss them.” Gamaliel then makes plain his method of reasoning. There can be only two possibilities. He takes up each and draws the conclusion. First, if this counsel or this work—call it what you please—is “of men,” has its origin and its source of strength only in weak, erring, deluded men, “it will be overthrown.” That is undoubtedly true. Every religion that is built and founded on men will go down in failure. The only oversight in Gamaliel’s statement is that he did not say when it will be overthrown.

He and his colleagues may be dead and gone by the time this human thing, if it be human, is finally overthrown. The question for Gamaliel was as to how long he could wait. How long have some pagan religions endured? How old is Mohammedanism? God will overthrow every false religion and every false religious movement in the end, but can we sit down in indecision until this final proof is produced?

Acts 5:39

39The other alternative is equally faulty. If it is “of God,” has its source and strength in him, “you cannot overthrow it.” “Lest perchance” requires that we supply in thought: “Take heed, lest,” etc.; and καί is elliptic: “not merely fighting men but even fighting God.” Shall they, then, do nothing? Shall they sit on the fence and wait and wait, afraid to strike for God lest they strike against God? This counsel has been called wise but it offers only the folly of indecision where decision is imperative. And with its indecision there goes hand in hand the implication that God has not supplied us with means to make the true and safe decision, so that only the final fate of any religion can decide whether it is of God or of men.

Gamaliel belongs to that class of men whom the most convincing evidence does not convince. They still demand other evidence, more and more signs, Matt. 12:39, etc. Their answer to all the evidence furnished by Christ is: “Yes—but!” Gamaliel lacked one thing: the consciousness of sin. The veil of his Pharisaic work-righteousness blinded him to his guilt. Peter’s call to repentance did not move him to contrition. So this wise Jew continued in his folly.

R. 1018 compares the two conditional sentences employed by Gamaliel, first, ἐάν with the subjunctive followed by the future indicative (expectance); secondly, εἰ with the indicative followed by the future indicative (reality), and finds that Gamaliel is giving the benefit of the doubt to Christianity. This, however, is not the case. The conditional forms used keep the balance and incline neither way. The reason for using these forms lies elsewhere. In the one case Gamaliel rightly thinks of the future: “if it shall (turn out to) be of men”; in the other case he just as rightly thinks of the present: “if it is of God.” Both are suppositions on his part just as all conditions are suppositions and nothing more. In the one case Gamaliel supposes something future with a future result; in the other something present with a future result. He has not a mite more certainty for the one case than for the other—yes, masterly indecision.

Acts 5:40

40Now they obeyed him; and having called the apostles, after administering a hiding, they gave orders not to be speaking on the basis of the name of Jesus and released them.

Literally, “they were persuaded to him,” the Greek for, “they obeyed.” No one of the Sanhedrin arose to point out the fallacy in Gamaliel’s argument, and no one called attention to the fact that by rejecting and crucifying Jesus they had already decided that this entire movement was not of God. The Sadducees lost, the Pharisees won. This friction between the two parties explains much, particularly also the scourging administered before the apostles were released, δείραντες, literally, “after flaying them.” They were stripped and given thirty-nine blows with rods across the back (Deut. 25:3; 2 Cor. 11:24; compare, Matt. 10:17, and Acts 22:19). This severe treatment was not so much to be a punishment for what the apostles had done but rather an emphasis on the renewed order not to be saying a word “on (the basis of) the name of Jesus” (see 4:17, 18). To be beaten thus was no small disgrace; before Roman judges Roman citizens dared not be treated thus. The Jews had no such restrictions.

Acts 5:41

41They, therefore, were going from the presence of the Sanhedrin rejoicing that they were deemed worthy to be dishonored on behalf of the Name. And every day in the Temple and from house to house they were not ceasing to teach and to proclaim as good news Jesus the Christ.

Οἱμὲνοὗν is Luke’s favorite turn of expression, see 1:6; a δέ need not follow. The imperfect with its present participle is beautifully descriptive and pictures the apostles going from the presence of the Sanhedrin and rejoicing as they went. The scourging took place in the presence of the Sanhedrin; Jesus, too, was scourged in the presence of Pilate. Gamaliel also went away, but certainly not rejoicing. If this work was “of God,” would not forbidding it and scourging its agents be fighting God? But there was no doubt in the hearts of the apostles.

Note the sharp oxymoron (bringing together contradictory terms) in “deemed worthy to be dishonored.” These disgraceful stripes the apostles considered badges of honor. In the great and blessed fight for God they had not been undecided and inactive like Gamaliel but had done their part valiantly and as true soldiers of the cross bore honorable wounds to attest their noble loyalty. This was the first instance of what Paul writes in 1 Cor. 4:9: “I think God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to the angels, and to men.” “On behalf of the Name” makes ὄνομα emphatic, for from the beginning (4:7) everything had turned on this “Name,” the term being used as explained in 4:2; 2:21. Here it is used in an eminent sense.

Acts 5:42

42Never for a moment did the apostles cease their blessed work. “Every day” they continued, and this openly “in the Temple” where the Sanhedrin and the Temple police could see and hear them, and, of course, also κατʼ οἶκον, which is distributive, “from house to house,” and not merely adverbial, “at home.” They continued to fill Jerusalem from center to circumference with the Name. They scorned to work only in secret. They knew no fear. The imperfect, “they were not ceasing,” with its complementary present participles is still descriptive, and “were not ceasing” (negative) is a litotes for “were ever continuing.” The first participle, “teaching,” is made more specific by the second, “proclaiming as good news Jesus the Christ”; τὸνΧριστόν is predicative: “as the Christ.” Here we have the first instance of εὑαγγελίζεσθαι in the Acts in the full sense of preaching the gospel, and with it the mighty name “Jesus” and its full significance in “the Christ,” the Messiah of God (2:36). This “name” fittingly closes the present narrative.

This was the opposite of indecision. This was the divinely wrought certainty that had long ago made the final decision. This was the joy that came from that certainty. The apostles never for a moment complained of the injustice they had suffered at the hands of the authorities; they did not boast of their own courage and fortitude or concern themselves about defending their personal honor against the shame inflicted on them. If they thought of themselves at all, it was only that they might prove faithful to the Lord by working for the honor of his great blessed Name. All else they committed into his hands.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

C. Tr Concordia Triglotta, Libri symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae. German-Latin-English. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.