Acts 4

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 4 FIRST — PETER AND JOHN Act_4:1-22 1-2 And as they spake unto the people,—Peter and John had gone up to the temple at the ninth hour, which was the hour of prayer, and had healed the lame man; this excited and brought a multitude of people together in Solomon’ s porch of the temple, and Peter explained to the multitude the healing of the lame man and proceeded to preach Jesus as the Christ to them. The Jewish au¬thorities felt the charge of crucifying the Messiah; they must either confess their guilt or suppress the testimony against them. Some of them chose to stop Peter and John from bearing testimony that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Messiah promised. The “ Sadducees” joined the rulers in suppressing the testimony. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead; hence, when the resurrection of Jesus was preached, it antagonized them and they were ready to help suppress the doctrine of the resurrection. As the kingdom of God advances under the ministry of the apostles, the kingdom of darkness is also aroused, and sets itself in active opposition.

The priests were divided into twenty-four courses, each of which served a week in the temple; the priests mentioned here are probably those on duty for that week. “ The captain of the temple” was the ruler of the house of God (1 Chronicles 9:11; 2 Chronicles 31:13; Nehemiah 11:11); he was a priest whose duty was to command the guard of Levites stationed in the temple; he posted the sentinels at night and preserved peace during the day; his presence implied that the authorities were afraid of a disturbance from the crowd surrounding the apostles. The distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees had grown out of national differences dating from the time of the captivity; they were a small but powerful party of the priestly nobles who were supported by the temple dues, and had come to regard religion as a matter of profitable living rather than a service to God. They disliked any popular movement which might disturb the steady accumulation of temple revenues; they saw in the preaching of Jesus that their source of revenue would be diminished. 3 And they laid hands on them,—To lay “ hands on them” was to arrest them; so they were arrested and put in “ ward” or in prison; probably the prison was one of the chambers of the temple; Peter and John had gone up to the temple at the hour of prayer, and now they find themselves at “ eventide” in prison. They were put in prison until the next morning, as no trial could take place before the next day. They often quoted Jeremiah 21:12, but violated this with respect to the trial of Jesus; the day closed with the twelfth hour or sunset. 4 But many of them that heard the word—In contrast with the opposition “ many of them that heard the word believed.” “ The number of the men came to be about five thousand” ; it is noticed here that “ the number of the men” became about five thou¬sand; this says nothing about the number of women. Two ques¬tions have been raised here: (1) Did five thousand believe for the first time that day? (2) Did the whole number of Christians now become five thousand? Were five thousand converted here? or were there only two thousand converted here? and the two thousand added to the three thousand on Pentecost made the number five thousand? The best scholarship is in favor of two thousand converted on this occasion, and so the number “ came to be about five thousand.” It is very likely that others were converted besides those mentioned on Pentecost and those at this time, as some time had elapsed between Pentecost and this day. The church increased rapidly. 5-6 And it came to pass on the morrow,—The apostles are now put on trial before the Sanhedrin; this was the highest court of the Jewish nation; “ the morrow,” or the day, had dawned and they could proceed legally with their trial. We have here men¬tioned the different classes who composed the Sanhedrin. The San¬hedrin was supposed to be composed of twenty-four chief priests, or rulers of the twenty-four courses into which the priests had been divided, and twenty-four elders and twenty-four scribes; this would make the number of the Sanhedrin to be seventy-two; the high priest was ex officio a member of the Sanhedrin. It seldom had its full quota. “ Annas” is mentioned in Luke 3:2 with Caiaphas as being both of them high priests; Annas was father-in-law of Caiaphas (John 18:13), and had some rank above Caiaphas. This is accounted for from the fact that while by the Jewish law the office of high priest was held for life, it was shifted at pleasure by the Roman authorities; hence, while but one would be the high priest according to Jewish law, the office might have passed to several others by the authority of the Romans, who deposed and appointed whom they pleased. Here Annas is designated as the high priest (in the eye of the Jewish law the only one), while Caiaphas is named also as holding the title under the Romans.

John and Alexander were relatives of Annas and Caiaphas, and must have been well known. There were also present “ many as were of the kindred of the high priest.” Some think that these were the members of the family of the high priest whose ancestors had lately enjoyed the high priesthood. Some authorities claim that Annas lived to see five sons and a son-in-law high priests, and for nearly fifty years enjoyed the real power of the high priesthood. Caiaphas was a Sadducee, and since he had been made high priest by the Roman authorities, he was willing to do anyting that the Roman authorities demanded. 7 And when they had set them in the midst,—When the Sanhedrin assembled that morning, and all of the kindred of the high priest were present, they “ set them in the midst.” The San¬hedrin usually sat in a semicircle in the room, and the accused and witnesses occupied a place in the center. When Peter and John were thus placed, they were asked: “ By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?” “ By what power” means the same as “ in what name” ; some think that they meant to ask: “ What sort of power, or in what kind of name,” have ye done this? It was impossible to deny the cure; the lame man now healed was in their midst; so the Sadducees asked for the authority or source of power for doing what they had done. This was the very question that the apostles wanted, for it would give them the best opportunity to preach Christ unto them. 8-9 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit,—It seems that they were filled with the Holy Spirit for the present occasion; they had been promised such aid when they should be brought before rulers for the sake of Christ. (Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12 Luke 21:14-15.) “ Ye rulers of the people, and elders,” is a very respectful way of addressing the Sanhedrin. Christianity demands that we be respectful even to our enemies; the apostles set the example of being respectful to rulers. The high court or Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-two persons of rank; hence, the apostles recognize and honor the rank of the members of the Sanhedrin. Peter now puts the case on its merits and forces the Sanhedrin to pass judgment on their doing a good deed to an unfortunate man. Surely these honorable men will not object to the apostles doing “ a good deed” to “ an impotent man.” They cannot object to the good deed with¬out putting themselves against doing that which is good. Next they will want to know by what authority this good deed was done. They have a right to inquire into this matter, and the apostles are anxious to tell them that it is by the authority of Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, but who has been raised from the dead. 10 be it known unto you all,—Peter is not ashamed or afraid to give the greatest publicity to what he had done and taught; he is anxious for the entire membership of the Sanhedrin and all who were present to know. He at once tells them that the man was made whole “ in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” ; he also is bold enough to accuse them of crucifying this Jesus, and that God had raised him from the dead. They had asked, “ By what power, or in what name,” and Peter now tells them that it was “ in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” “ Jesus” means Savior; “ Christ” means the anointed, the Messiah who was predicted in the Old Testament; “ of Nazareth” designates which Jesus, as the one that they had crucified and the one that God had raised from the dead. Peter thus charges the Sanhedrin of the high crime of crucifying the Messiah. Instead of the Sanhedrin placing Peter and John on trial, these apostles now put the Sanhedrin on trial; they are forced to defend the crime which they had committed or acknowledge their guilt. 11 He is the stone which was set at nought—Reference is here made to Psalms 118:22; Jesus is the stone which was set at nought. Jesus had already made application of this Psalm to him¬self. (Matthew 21:42.) Both Paul and Peter later referred to this prophecy and applied it to Christ. (Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4-6.) The Sanhedrin as the rulers of the people had rejected Christ and refused to build upon him, but he has now become the “ chief, corner stone.” Their rejection of Christ went to prove him to be the true stone of whom the prophets spoke. 12 And in none other is there salvation:—We must admire the boldness of Peter and John as they stood in the midst of the Sanhedrin and declared that even the members of the Sanhedrin could be saved only by accepting this Jesus of Nazareth whom they had condemned and crucified. This Jesus is the author of all salvation ; the miraculous cure of this lame man and all others is only the lower department of his salvation; he is to save not only the body, but the soul. Although the Sanhedrin had rejected Christ once, Peter tells them that there is given them an opportunity to repent; he also informs them that there is no “ other name under heaven, that is given among men,” wherein people must be saved. There is no second Savior; Jesus the Christ is the only Savior. The Jews hoped to be saved because they were of Abraham’ s seed (John 8:33-39), or because they claimed to trust in Moses (John 5:45-46). But Abraham and Moses pointed to the Christ whom they had rejected. It is important that the gospel be preached since there was none other in whom there is salvation “ wherein we must be saved.” In the Greek the “ we” is the last word in the Greek sentence; it means “ we”— priests, elders, scribes, fishermen— all of us here must be saved by faith and obedience in the Christ. 13 Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John,—It was an inspiring scene to see the Sanhedrin assembled in a semicircle, sitting in their dignity and clothed with the highest au¬thority granted unto the Jewish race, and observe two prisoners, Peter and John, standing accused by the Sanhedrin, to turn and bring such grave charges against the Sanhedrin! It took courage to do this; the members of the Sanhedrin observed their boldness and observed that they were “ unlearned and ignorant men.” “ Unlearned,” as used here, means unlettered men without technical training in the professional rabbinical schools of Hillel or Shammai; Jesus himself was regarded as not having learned letters. (John 7:15.) “ Ignorant,” as used here, is “ one in a private station, as opposed to one in office or in public affairs; there¬fore, one without professional knowlege, a layman; hence, generally ignorant, ill-informed.” These apostles were not cultured and trained in the schools of that day, but they had a knowledge far su¬perior to all of the culture and education and training of the mem¬bers of the Sanhedrin. They were caused to wonder or marvel at such boldness.. “ They took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” They began to recognize them as men that had seen and had been associated with Jesus. 14 And seeing the man that was healed standing—The lame man was standing there before their eyes in proof of what Peter had said. They did not pretend to deny the miracle, neither were they prepared to acknowledge the real source of his cure. They had nothing to say; their mouths were closed; no argument could be made and no accusation could they charge against the apostles. What would they do under such circumstances ? 15-16 But when they had commanded them to go aside—In their confused state they asked the apostles to retire so that they could confer among themselves as to what was the best thing to do. They acknowledged that a notable deed had been done and that they could not deny it, and they knew that such publicity had been given to it that “ all that dwell in Jerusalem” knew of it. Instead of asking what they should do to be saved, they asked how they should stop the apostles from preaching in the name of Jesus. They acknowledged that they could not deny what had been done, which implies that they would have denied if they could have done so successfully. 17 But that it spread no further among the people,—These admissions were made to each other in the absence of the apostles, and an agreement was reached that they “ threaten them” that they speak no more “ in this name.” This was done that “ it spread no further among the people.” “ Spread,” as used here, means “ be distributed.” It is the same idea as expressed in 2 Timothy 2:17 : “ Their word will eat as doth a gangrene,” or literally, “ will have distribution or spreading” as a gangrene. There was no inquiry as to the truth of their salvation, but an anxious inquiry as to how they could put a check on these apostles. They assumed that the teaching of the apostles was pernicious and that it must be suppressed; their only concern was as to the best way to suppress it; hence, they proposed to threaten the apostles and not let them teach any more. 18 And they called them, and charged them— After reaching a decision in the absence of the apostles, they summoned the apos¬tles again into their presence and made known to them the decision that they were “ not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.” The two words, “ speak” and “ teach,” are used to make the com¬mand more rigid; the original conveys the idea that they were not to let the name of Jesus pass their lips again. They severely threatened them and charged them that they were not to use “ the name of Jesus” at all. 19-20 But Peter and John answered and said unto them,—This reply of the apostles shows the strong ground which they took; God spoke by the miracle which they had done, and the San¬hedrin, however authorized, had no right to contradict God. It was the business of the Sanhedrin to inquire whether Peter and John were speaking by the authority of God, but their right ex¬tended no further; they had no right to suppress anything that God authorized to be taught. Peter and John again put a matter to the Sanhedrin that it could not answer. They asked “ whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God.” The Sanhedrin was in a dilemma. If the Sanhedrin said it is right to hearken unto God when God authorizes the thing to be done, then the apostles would continue to speak in the name of Jesus; but if the Sanhedrin should say that it was right to hearken unto its decision, then it would be teaching to go contrary to the authority of God. Peter gave them to understand that they would continue to obey the authority of God regardless of the decision and threats of the Sanhedrin.

This was an open defiance of the authority of the Sanhedrin, when it conflicted with the authority of God. This was also an implication that the authority of the San¬hedrin was in defiance of the authority of God. The Sanhedrin was to learn that there were some things that it could not do; it could not put to silence the apostles. 21 And they, when they had further threatened them,—The Sanhedrin was put to silence; they had no further arguments to offer, charges to make, or warnings to give; they repeated with emphasis the threatenings that had been made. They “ further threatened them” ; that is, they added further threatenings to those that had been first announced. They let them go free, not because they were reconciled to them, or that they acknowledged that the apostles were right, but because they were unable to find in a legal way how “ they might punish them.” The Sanhedrin did not inflict punishment because “ of the people.” They were afraid of the people; they did not want the people to rise up against the rulers; the miracle was so manifest and so well known that “ all men glorified God for that which was done.” Hence, the people would be ready to take the part of the apostles against their persecutors. The enemies of Jesus also feared the people. (Mark 12:12.) It would be dangerous for the rulers to deal severely with the apostles in the face of such public enthusiasm. 22 For the man was more than forty years old,—There was a reason for the age of the man being given. He had been lame all his life; he was not a child, but a man fully matured, and had been in this condition so long his acquaintance was extensive. This made the case a notable one in favor of the apostles and the cause of Christianity. The rulers were helpless except to threaten; the truth and the apostles had triumphed this time. All human cures had been exhausted and failed; the apostles with the power of Jesus had triumphed in the case. PETER AND JOHN SET FREE; REPORT TO THE ; THEIR PRAYERAct_4:23-31 23 And being let go, they came to their own company,—Here we have a turn in the history. The apostles so soon as they were released “ came to their own company.’’ They came to the Christians and reported “ all that the chief priests and the elders had said unto them.” They reported what the chief priests and elders had said in threatening them; and it is also possible that they reported just what they had said to the Sanhedrin. Peter and John had been tried before the Jewish court and they had been tri¬umphant in their defense; they now reported all to the other Christians. The entire company of Christians now numbered several thousand. It is noted that the Sanhedrin is here called “ the chief priests and the elders.” 24 And they, when they heard it,—When the disciples heard the report of Peter and John, they “ lifted up their voice to God with one accord.” They all prayed to God; they were united in their prayer. Did one lead and the others repeat aloud the petition after him? Was there a general form of prayer already known to all? Or did one lead and the others join mentally or by responses with “ Amen” ? We do not know just how they proceeded; we only know that “ with one accord” they addressed God as the one who had made “ the heaven and the earth and the sea.” This prayer addressed Jehovah as the Creator and Governor of the universe. The same God who made the world has prophesied of Christ and provided against all his enemies. 25-26 who by the Holy Spirit,—Again we have reference made to Psalms 2:1-2, and it is ascribed to David. Reference here made to this Psalm shows that it was prophetic, and had reference to Christ in whom it is so remarkably fulfilled. “ Why did the Gentiles rage” had reference to the nations who were not of Israel, and “ the peoples” generally are included by the Jews; hence, both Jew and Gentile “ raged” against Christ. The Greek for “ rage” is “ ephruaxan,” and literally means “ to neigh like a horse, to prance or stamp the ground, to put on lofty airs.” This is the only time the word is used in the New Testament. “ Imagine” is from the Greek “ emeletesan,” and means “ to practice, to caution, as orators and rhetoricians.” “ The kings of the earth” mean the rulers and governors, and include the Jewish “ Sanhedrin” with all its mighty power. All of the forces were “ gathered together” against “ the Lord, and against his Anointed.” The Psalm is quoted and ap¬plied to Jesus as the Christ, and the heathen or Roman soldiers, the people of the Jews, kings of the earth such as Herod and Pon¬tius Pilate, and the rulers, or Sanhedrin, were all opposed to Christ. 27-28 for of a truth in this city—The apostles continued their prayer with the assembly of disciples and made mention of the op¬position “ against thy holy Servant Jesus” ; some translate “ holy Child Jesus.” God had anointed him with the Holy Spirit at his baptism; hence, he was the “ Christ,” as “ Christ” means “ anointed.” (Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 52:13; Zechariah 3:8.) “ Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,” were gathered together and put Jesus to death. He was brought before Herod and Pilate in his mock trials; he was subjected to trial before the Sanhedrin; the Jews and Roman soldiers conspired together to put Jesus to death. The actors in this dreadful tragedy had no design to fulfill prophecy; they only acted of their own free will, and were guilty of the greatest crime known to man, yet they were doing that which fulfilled the predictions concerning them. The death of Jesus was a fulfillment of prophecy and was necessary to his resurrection. 29, 30 And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings:—The apostles prayed for courage to go on and preach the gospel, for God to continue his power with them in working miracles and con¬firming his word, and for God to be with them as they continued to speak boldly in the name of Jesus. They were under the heavy threatenings of the Sanhedrin; they wanted to be protected from the threatenings of the opposition so they could continue freely to testify for Christ. This was to be done by God’ s stretching “ forth thy hand to heal.” By exerting his miraculous power in healing the sick and the lame, God would be confirming what the apostles preached; this was all to be done “ through the name of thy holy Servant Jesus.” The apostles did not pray for safety or deliverance from the threats, or that their persecutors be crushed; they asked as “ bondservants” for boldness to speak the word and continue the work which they had begun. They prayed that the “ signs and wonders” should prove to the people the power of Jesus.

UNITY OF THE CHURCH; FOR COMMON GOODAct_4:32-37 32 And the multitude of them that believed—The disciples of Christ now numbered several thousand; they were all in and around Jerusalem; they had not been scattered at this time. The entire company were united; they “ were of one heart and soul.” They were many in number, but one in spirit. One of the most striking things that may be said about the early church was its per¬fect oneness of heart and soul. It is not possible to make a clear distinction between “ heart” and “ soul.” “ Kardia,” as used here, means not only the seat of the affections, but the center of the entire complex being, physical, moral, and intellectual. “ Psuche” is frequently used in the New Testament to mean “ life.” (Matthew 2:20 Matthew 20:28; Acts 20:10; Romans 11:3.) Those who owned property regarded it not as their own, but freely used it for the com¬mon weal of others; they “ had all things common.” The property was held for the common use, but the rights of property were not abolished, nor the individual holding of property declared to be wrong. This was an emergency, and all were willing and anxious to use whatever they possessed for the common good. 33 And with great power gave the apostles their witness— The apostles bore witness to the resurrection with great power; the resurrection was the offensive doctrine to the Sadducees; it was the very heart of the gospel; hence, the apostles bore witness to what they had seen and heard. They kept on giving their wit¬ness with power after the answer to their prayer. “ Great power” means the force of argument accompanied with spiritual power. “ Great grace was upon them all.” The entire membership of the church found favor with each other and with others. The lives that they were now living commended them to others. The original word for “ grace” is the same as the word for “ favor” in Acts 2:47. Hence, the same idea is expressed; therefore, great favor was felt toward the Christians on the part of the people generally. 34-35 For neither was there among them—No one among them was allowed by his brethren to be in want, for no one among them was in want. Those who owned the property sold it and used the money to relieve those who were in destitute circumstances. It should be remembered that a great company of Jews had assembled in Jerusalem for the Passover, and then remained over for the Pentecost feast. They brought possessions enough to last them until this feast had passed. But many of them had been converted and continued their sojourn in Jerusalem until their supply had been exhausted. They were now new creatures in Christ; they had begun a new life; they had new hopes and new purposes; they had not learned the full meaning of Christianity.

Some of them were in need, not because they had been idle, neither because they had squandered their possessions, nor yet because they were shiftless; but their means had been exhausted and they now were in need. In this emergency those who had possessions were ready to distribute as each had need. There is no “ communism” practiced here; there was no denial of property rights, nor an encourage¬ment to idleness; but an emergency had arisen and they had enough of the spirit of Christ to supply the needs of those who were in distress. 36-37 And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas—“ Barnabas” is derived from two Hebrew words which mean “ son of teaching” or “ preaching” ; the two Greek words, here translated “ son of consolation,” may also mean “ son of preaching or exhortation.” His name was “ Joseph” ; he is here mentioned as one illustration of those who are mentioned in verse 34, who sold his possessions and brought the money to the apostles for them to distribute it as there was need. The apostles named this Joseph “ Barnabas,” and he is known better by this name than any other. It seems clear from this fact that all did not actually sell their property, but were ready to do so as the need arose; but Barnabas actually sold his field and gave to the apostles the price. It is very likely that as a preacher his gift was in persuasion and exhortation. In Acts 11: 23 the very word “ parekalei,” which means “ exhorted,” is used of Barnabas. Paul describes such a preacher in 1 Cor. 14: 3.

He is in a broad sense of the word called an apostle. (Acts 14: 14.) He was of the tribe of Levi and a native of Cyprus, which was an important island in the Mediterranean Sea. He was a Levite and “ a man of Cyprus by race,” which means that he was a Jew and was born in Cyprus of Jewish parents; the Greek literally means “ a Levite, a Cyprian by birth” ; he was both a Jew and a Cyprian.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 4Acts 4:1-3. Just at this point in Peter’s discourse: (1) “And while they were speaking to the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, (2) being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead. (3) And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day; for it was already evening.” This sudden disturbance of the interested audience, by a body of armed men rushing through their midst and seizing Peter and John, is the beginning of a series of persecutions with which Luke is about to follow the account of the first peaceful triumphs of the apostles. We would naturally, at first thought, expect to find the parties to this violent proceeding identical with the chief persecutors of Jesus, supposing that the same motives which had excited opposition to him would perpetuate it against his disciples. But the Pharisees were his most bitter enemies, the Sadducees being comparatively indifferent to his pretensions, while here we see the Sadducees leading the attack upon the apostles, and we will soon see the leader of the Pharisees interfering to save them from threatened death. In order to appreciate this unexpected change in the aspect of the parties, we must note a little more carefully the ground of opposition in each case. The supposition sometimes entertained that Jesus was hated by men simply because there is in human nature an innate aversion to truth and holiness, is not less false to the facts of history than to the nature of fallen men. It is disproved by the fact that it was not the mass of his cotemporaries who hated him, as the supposition would require, but chiefly, and almost exclusively, the Pharisees. That portion of the people who were most depraved, according to external appearances, heard him gladly, and delighted to praise him, while the Pharisees, who were most of all noted for their piety, were the men who hated him most. Neither were they actuated simply by an aversion to his holiness; for they had a more substantial, if not a better reason for hating him. If he had been content merely to go about doing good, and teaching righteousness, “ letting other people alone,” he might have passed his days in peace. But such was not his sense of duty.

He knew that his teaching could not have proper effect unless the erroneous doctrines of the Pharisees, who were then the chief teachers of Israel, were dislodged from the public mind, and the mask of hypocrisy, which had secured them their great reputation for piety, were stripped off. He undertook, therefore, an offensive warfare upon their doctrinal tenets and their religious pretensions. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew contains an epitome of this warfare on his part, than which there is not a more withering philippic on record in all literature. Such denunciation necessarily provoked the most intense hatred on the part of such Pharisees as were too deeply imbued with the prevailing spirit of the party to be reached by the truth. By this very fact, however, they made it more evident to the people that they deserved all the denunciation which he hurled against them. On the other hand, the Sadducees were so well pleased with his successful assaults upon their hereditary and too powerful enemies, that they forgave, in some degree, his known opposition to their favorite doctrine, and felt for him some friendly sympathy. With the apostles the relations of these parties were as naturally reversed. Instead of assaulting, in detail, the doctrinal tenets of any party, they confined their labors, at first, to testimony concerning the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. This confirmed the chief distinctive doctrine of the Pharisees, who believed in a resurrection, and it left their other tenets, for the time being, unnoticed. But the whole force of this preaching was leveled against Sadduceean infidelity in reference to the resurrection, and it therefore aroused this party to an activity never exhibited before. They rushed in and arrested Peter and John, “ being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead.” They were seconded in this violent movement by the priests who were at the time officiating in the temple, and who were either identified with the Sadducees, or were enraged because the apostles, in the very midst of the temple, were drawing away the people from waiting upon their services. The “ captain of the temple,” with his guard, was doubtless subject to the orders of the chief of the officiating priests, and executed the arrest. Acts 4:4. The audience who had been listening to Peter must have been thrown into intense excitement by the arrest, and the disciples among them, doubtless, expected to see re-enacted, in the persons of Peter and John, the murderous scenes which had terminated the life of their master. Notwithstanding this excitement, however, the words of Peter were not without a decided effect upon the hitherto unbelieving portion of his hearers; for Luke says: (4) “But many of those who were hearing the word believed, and the number of the men became about five thousand.” Whether this number includes the three thousand who were added on Pentecost or not, has been a matter of some dispute, but it is generally agreed by critics that it does. If those who believed on the present occasion were alone intended, the writer would have said the number en, was, instead of egenethe, became, about five thousand. Acts 4:5-6. The prisoners having been arrested late in the afternoon, all further proceedings were adjourned till the next day, and Peter and John had the quiet of a night in prison for reflection and mutual encouragement ere they were brought to trial. (5) “And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes, (6) and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in Jerusalem.” This assembly was the great Jewish Sanhedrim, and the parties here named are the different officials who constituted that tribunal. Who John and Alexander were is not now known. Annas and Caiaphas are historical characters, conspicuous in the history of the trial of Jesus, and also prominent on the pages of Josephus. Between the latter and Luke there is an apparent discrepancy, in reference to their official position at this time, Luke calling Annas the high priest, and Josephus attributing that dignity to Caiaphas. According to Josephus, Valerius Gratus, the immediate predecessor of Pontius Pilate, had removed Annas from the high priesthood, and after having appointed and removed three others, one of them, Eleazar, the son of Annas, finally left Caiaphas in office, when he was superseded by Pilate.

The Apostle John informs us that Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas. According to the law of Moses the high priest held office during life; hence, in deposing Annas, the Roman governor violated the Jewish Law, and the act was religiously null and void. Annas was still high priest by right, and for this reason is so styled here by Luke. The Jews, also, recognized his right, by taking Jesus before him for trial, though he, not daring to claim the office, sent them to Caiaphas. In his former narrative, Luke also mentions them both as being high priests at the same time. This is best explained by the fact that one was rightfully entitled to the office, and the other was exercising it by illegal appointment. The “ kindred of the high priest” embraced not only the chief members of his immediate family, but also some of the deposed high priests, who were all, in great probability, connected with the one high priestly family, and thereby entitled to seats in the Sanhedrim. Acts 4:7. When the court was assembled, the prisoners were introduced, and the cripple, who had been healed had the boldness to appear by their side. (7) “And placing them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have you done this?”This is not the first time that Peter and John had been together in the presence of this august assembly. As they gazed around for a moment, and recognized the faces of their judges, they could not fail to remember that terrible morning when their masters stood there in bonds, and they themselves, full of fearful misgivings, stood in a distant part of the hall, and looked on. The fall, and the bitter tears of Peter, on that occasion, were now a warning and a strength to them both, and their very position brought to mind some solemn words of Jesus which had never acquired a present value till now. “ Beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in the synagogues, and you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what you shall say. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your father that speaks in you.” Cheered by this promise, they now stand before their accusers and judges with a boldness unaccountable to the latter. The prisoners had been arrested without a formal charge being preferred against them, and the court was now dependent upon what might be extorted from them, for the ground of their accusation. The question propounded to them is remarkable for its vagueness. By what power, or, in what name, have you done this? Done what? might have been the answer. Done this preaching? or this miracle? or what? The question specified nothing. There was no one particular thing done by Peter, on which they dared fix attention; but they frame an indefinite question, in attempting to answer which they evidently hoped he would say something on which they might condemn him. Acts 4:8-10. They could not, however, have asked a question which suited Peter any better. It left him at liberty to select any thing he had done as the subject of reply, and, therefore, he chose to select that deed, which, of all that had been done, they were most unwilling to hear mentioned. He frames his answer, too, with a more direct reference to the other terms of their question, than they either desired or anticipated. (8) “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (9) If we are examined this day concerning the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he had been saved, (10) be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him doth this man stand before you sound.” This statement needed no proof, for the Sanhedrim could not deny, with the man standing before them, that the miracle had been wrought, nor could they, with plausibility, attribute the deed to any other power or name than that assumed by Peter. To deny that it was a divine power would have been absurd in the estimation of all the people; but to admit that the power was divine, and yet reject the explanation given by those through whom it was exercised, would have been still more absurd. Acts 4:11-12. Realizing the advantage which he had now gained, Peter pushes his adversaries into still closer quarters, by adding: (11) “This is the stone which was despised by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved.” In this passage, he places his proud judges in the ridiculous attitude of searching about vainly for a stone to fit the corner of the foundation, while persistently rejecting the real corner-stone, without which the building can be reared. And, leaving the figurative language of David, he more fully declares, that there is no salvation for man except in the name of the very Jesus whom they had crucified. This proposition is universal, and shows that the redemption effected by Jesus will include every human being who shall finally be saved. Acts 4:13-14. Instead of answering evasively and timidly, as was expected of men in their social position, when arraigned in such a presence, the apostles had unhesitatingly avowed the chief deed of yesterday’s proceedings, with the name in which it had been done, stating all in the terms most obnoxious to their hearers. (13) “Now, seeing the freedom of speech of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were illiterate and private men, they were astonished, and recognized them, that they had been with Jesus. (14) But beholding the man who was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” There was total silence for awhile, when Peter ceased speaking. Not a man in the Sanhedrim could open his mouth in reply to Peter’s brief speech. He had avowed every obnoxious sentiment on account of which they had been instigated to arrest him, yet not one of them dares to contradict his words, or to rebuke him for giving them utterance. The silence was painful and embarrassing. Acts 4:15-16. Finally, the silence was broken by a proposition that the prisoners be withdrawn. (15) “And having commanded them to go aside out of the Sanhedrim, they conferred among themselves, (16) saying, What shall we do to these men? For that, indeed, a noted miracle has been wrought by them, is manifest to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we can not deny it.” This admission, in their secret deliberations, shows the utter heartlessness and hypocrisy of their proceedings, and it is astonishing that they could any longer give each other countenance in such a course. Acts 4:17. The real motive which controlled them, and under the influence of which they kept each other in countenance, was an unconquerable desire to maintain their old influence with the people. This is manifested in the conclusion to which they came. (17) “But, that it may be spread no further among the people, let us strictly threaten them, that they speak, henceforth, to no man in this name.” The man who made this proposition no doubt thought that he had most satisfactorily solved a difficult problem, and the majority were too well pleased to find some means of escape from their present awkward predicament, to look very shrewdly into the probable success of the measure proposed. It was a safe course, if not a very bold one, and as there was no obstacle in the way but conscience, the could find no difficulty in pursuing it. Acts 4:18. The resolution was no sooner formed than acted upon. (18) “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus.” How Luke learned the particulars of the secret consultation which resulted in this injunction, we are not informed, though it is not difficult to imagine. Gamaliel, Saul’s teacher, and perhaps Saul himself, was present as a member of the Sanhedrim; and a great company of the priests themselves afterward became obedient to the faith. These and other conversions from the ranks of the enemy opened up channels for such information in abundance. Acts 4:19-20. The apostles, if at all anxious concerning their personal safety, might have received this stern command in silence, and retired respectfully from the assembly. (19) “But, Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right, in the sight of God, to hearken to you rather than to God, do you judge. (20) For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” This was an open defiance of their power, with a direct appeal to their own consciences for a vindication of it. The apostles were not willing that their silence should be construed into even a momentary acquiescence in such a command, and they spoke in such a manner as to be distinctly understood. Acts 4:21-22. It was a sore trial to the haughty spirits of the Sanhedrim to brook such defiance; but a desire to conciliate the people, mingled, no doubt, with a secret fear of the consequences of putting to death men who had exercised such power, restrained their wrath. (21) “And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, not finding how they might punish them, because of the people; for all glorified God for what was done. (22) For the man on whom this miracle of healing was wrought was more than forty years of age.“ Acts 4:23-30. The apostles had now humbled the pride of their adversaries, and went away from the assembly in triumph. But they were uninflated by their present prosperity, as they had been undaunted by their recent danger. They had now attained that lofty degree of faith and hope which enables men to maintain a steady calmness amid all the vicissitudes of life. The course they immediately pursued is worthy of remembrance, and of all imitation. (23) “And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported what the high priests and the elders had said to them. (24) And when they heard it, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said: Sovereign Lord, thou God who hast made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them; (25) who through the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? (26) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his anointed. (27) For, of a truth, against thy holy son Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontus Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (28) to do what thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (29) And now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant to thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, (30) by stretching out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy son Jesus.” This prayer was uttered by one of the brethren, and the expression, “ they lifted up their voice with one accord,” indicates the perfect unity of sentiment with which they followed the words of the leader. In all the prayers of the apostles, we observe strict appropriateness, in the ascription to God with which they open, and a remarkable simplicity in presenting the exact petition, and no more, which the occasion demands. On a former occasion, they had set before him two men, that he might choose one for the apostolic office, and they addressed him as the “ heart-knower;” now they desire his protecting power, and they style him the “ Sovereign God who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that is in them.” They remind him that, according to his own words by David, kings and rulers, in the persons of Herod and Pilate, had risen up against his anointed while the people and the Gentiles were imagining vain things; and they pray him to “ behold the threatening,” and grant to his servants boldness to speak the word in defiance of all opposition. In these days of passion and war, in which it is common for prayers to be filled with earnest entreaties for victory over our enemies, and sometimes with terrible maledictions against those who are waging war against our supposed rights, it is quite refreshing to observe the tone of this apostolic prayer. These men were not in danger of losing some mere political power or privilege, but the dearest and most indisputable right they had on earth was denied them, and they were threatened with death if they did not relinquish it; yet, in their prayers, they manifest no vindictive nor resentful spirit; but, in reference to their enemies they simply pray, Lord, behold their threatenings. Their gentle spirits never could have conceived that unblushing impiety which now so often brings men upon their knees for the very purpose of pouring out in the ears of God those violent and destructive passions which he has forbidden us to allow a place even within our hearts. By such prayers men seek to make God a partisan in every angry contention among men, as though he were nothing more than themselves. Much needs to be said upon this unhappy theme, but it can not be said here. In praying for boldness the apostles give an intimation of the manner in which they expected it to be imparted to them. It was not by some direct and internal spiritual impact, but by external manifestations of his continued presence and favor: “by stretching out his hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be wrought through the name of Jesus.” Acts 4:31. The prayer for boldness was answered at once, and in the way they had requested. (31) “And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness.” The shaking of the house, attended by a conscious renewal of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, gave them the boldness for which they prayed, because it assured them that God was still with them. Acts 4:32-35. From this brief account of the first conflict of the young congregation, Luke again turns, to view more minutely the internal condition of the Church. Their religious life was now more fully developed, than at the period glanced at in the close of the second chapter, and his description is more in detail. (32) “Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did one of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. (33) And with great power the apostle gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among them who lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to each, as any one had need.” Considering the immense numbers of this congregation, and that they were so suddenly drawn together from every class of society, it is certainly remarkable, and well worthy of a place in this record, that they were “of one heart and of one mind.” But the most signal proof of the power of the gospel among them was the almost entire subsidence of selfishness. Among the heathen nations of antiquity, systematic provision of the wants of the poor was unknown; and even among the Jews, whose law was watchful for the welfare of the poor in many respects, those who became insolvent were sold into temporary bondage to pay their debts. It was, therefore, a new thing under the sun, to see a large community selling houses and lands to supply the wants of the poor. It could but give additional weight to all that was said by the apostles, and for this reason Luke breaks the thread of his statements concerning it, to throw in the remark, that “ With great power the apostles gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was among all.” This remark does not mean that the testimony of the apostles was more distinct or positive, or that it was sustained by more signal miracles than before; for neither of these is possible. But it means that their testimony had more power with the people; and this is attributed to the harmony observed within the Church, together with their unheard-of benevolence, which combined to give them “ great favor” with the people. The fact that distribution was made to each as he had need, shows that it was only the needy who received any thing, and that there was no equalization of property. The sale of property and consecration of the proceeds was voluntary with each individual, and not an established law of the Church. This is evident from the question of Peter to Ananias, below: “ While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?” Acts 4:36-37. After stating that many brethren who had property sold it, and gave up the proceeds, Luke now gives an individual instance of this liberality, introduced, no doubt, on account of the subsequent celebrity of the individual. (36) “Now Joses, who was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles, (which is, when translated, son of exhortation,) a Levite, a Cyprian by birth, (37) having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles.” This surname was given to Joses on account of his excellence in horatory address, and not on account of the consolation which he afforded by his liberality. The original term paraklesis, rendered consolation in the common version, is a verbal noun used to express both the act of the verb parakalein and the effect produced by it. We have no one word in English to represent it in these two senses; but exhortation expresses the act, and consolation the effect. We have, therefore, exhortation eight times in the common version, when the paraklesis is connected with the agent, but always consolation when the reference is to the recipient. As Barnabas is contemplated at the agent, in this case, it should be exhortation, not consolation.

This criticism is confirmed by the history of Barnabas. When the Church in Jerusalem heard that a congregation was planted in Antioch, they sent Barnabas thither, who “exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to the Lord.” This exhorting being the object for which he was sent, his selection for the mission indicates his superiority in that kind of talent. Perhaps it was chiefly on account of this talent, in which Paul was deficient, that Barnabas became the traveling companion of this apostle. It is a talent much more rare than mere logical power, and has always been highly prized by the Churches. It is quite probable that the land sold by Barnabas constituted his whole estate. Having no family dependent on him, he consecrated his life to unrequited missionary labor.

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Four IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To study the beginning of the persecution against the church, and the reason for it

2. To note the apostolic response to persecution, and continued progress of the church in Jerusalem

SUMMARY The first case of persecution against the church is described in this chapter. Peter and John are put into custody because their preaching on the resurrection of Jesus disturbed a number of the religious leaders (in particular the Sadducees who denied any resurrection, Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8). In spite of this, the number of men who believed came to be about five thousand (Acts 4:1-4).

After a night in jail, Peter and John are brought before the council, including the high priest and members of his family. Challenged to explain themselves, Peter proclaims the healing was done by the name of Jesus Christ, the very one they crucified yet whom God raised from the dead and who has now become “the chief cornerstone” (cf. Psalms 118:22), and in whose name alone salvation is now available. Amazed at Peter and John’s boldness, and unable to deny that the lame man had been healed, the council sends them outside and confer among themselves. They decide to prevent the spread of the apostles’ doctrine by threatening Peter and John not to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. The apostles respond that they must speak what they have seen and heard. The council, unable to do anything more at this time because of the people, simply threaten the apostles once again and let them go (Acts 4:5-22).

Returning to their companions, Peter and John report what has been said. Prayer is offered, asking for boldness in view of the persecution foretold in Psalms 2:1-2, and for signs and wonders to continue in the name of Jesus. At the conclusion of the prayer, the place where they prayed was shaken and all were filled the Holy Spirit, emboldening them to speak the Word of God (Acts 4:23-31).

The chapter ends with a description of the continued growth of the church, with the oneness of the brethren and the empowered testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Jesus. The great liberality continues, meeting the needs of the saints. One example in particular is noted, that of Barnabas, whose work is featured later in the book (cf. Acts 11:22-30 Acts 13:1 to Acts 15:41), and whose liberality stands in stark contrast to what takes place in the next chapter (Acts 4:32-36).

OUTLINE I. THE ARREST OF PETER AND JOHN (Acts 4:1-22) A. BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL (Acts 4:1-12)1. Peter and John taken into custody a. By the priests, captain of the temple, and the Sadducees b. Who were upset by their preaching in Jesus the resurrection from the dead c. Kept overnight until the next day d. The number of those who believed came to be about five thousand 2. Their appearance before the Council (Sanhedrin) a. Before the rulers, elders and scribes b. Before Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, along with other family members of the high priest c. Peter and John challenged to explain by what power or name they have acted 3. Peter’s response as led be the Spirit a. Were they being judged for doing a good deed to a helpless man in making him well? b. It was by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth he was made whole

1. Whom they crucified
2. Whom God raised from the dead
3. Who is the stone rejected by the builders, and has become the chief cornerstone - cf. Psalms 118:22c. There is salvation in no other name under heaven

B. NOT TO TEACH (Acts 4:13-22)1. The council’s reaction a. What the council saw

1. The boldness of Peter and John a) Perceived as uneducated and untrained men b) Realized as having been with Jesus
2. The man who had been healed a) Standing with Peter and John b) Against whose healing nothing could be said b. What the council reasoned
3. A notable has occurred, evident to all, none could deny
4. To prevent further spread, to threaten the apostles c. What the council did
5. Commanded Peter and John 2) Not to speak at all or teaching in the name of Jesus

2. Peter and John’s reply a. Shall they listen to the council or God? b. They cannot but speak what they have seen and heard
3. Peter and John released a. Upon further threatening b. Finding no way of punishing them, c. Because of the people, who glorified God for what had been done d. For the man who was healed was over forty years old

II. THE PRAYER FOR (Acts 4:23-31) A. PETER AND JOHN RETURN (Acts 4:23)1. To their brethren 2. To report all that had been said to them

B. THEIR PRAYER (Acts 4:24-30)1. Addressed to the Lord God, Creator of all things a. Who prophesied by the mouth of His servant David b. Of the nations’ rage and plotting against His Christ c. As fulfilled by Herod and Pilate, by Gentiles and Israel d. Who did according to His predetermined purpose 2. Asking for all boldness in the face of such threats a. That His servants may speak His word b. That His hand might stretch out

1. To heal, to do signs and wonders
2. Through the name of His holy Servant Jesus

C. THE ANSWER (Acts 4:31)1. The place in which they were assembled was shaken 2. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit 3. They spoke the word of God with boldness

III. THE OF THE CHURCH (Acts 4:32-37) A. THEIR UNITY (Acts 4:32)1. The multitude of believers were of one heart and one soul 2. None claimed their possessions as their own; they had all things in common

B. THEIR (Acts 4:33)1. With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of Jesus 2. And great grace was upon them all

C. THEIR (Acts 4:34-37)1. None among them lacked what they needed a. For all who possessed lands or houses sold them b. The proceeds were laid at the apostles’ feet c. Distribution was made as each had need 2. The example of Joses a. Called Barnabas, Son of Encouragement, by the apostles b. A Levite of the country of Cyprus c. Sold land, and laid the money at the apostles’ feet

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- The arrest of Peter and John (Acts 4:1-22)

• The prayer for boldness (Acts 4:23-31)
• The progress of the church (Acts 4:32-37)

2. Who came upon Peter and John while they were speaking? (Acts 4:1)- The priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees

3. Why were they upset with Peter and John? (Acts 4:2)- Because they preached in Jesus the resurrection of the dead

4. Why did that upset them? (cf. Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8)- The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection

5. What did they do with Peter and John? (Acts 4:3)- Placed them in custody until the next day

6. How many men had come to believe in Christ? (Acts 4:4)- About five thousand

7. Who joined the rulers, elders and scribes on the next day? (Acts 4:5-6)- Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and other members of the family of the high priest

8. What did they ask Peter and John? (Acts 4:7)- “By what power or by what name have you done this?”

9. What name did Peter given them? (Acts 4:8-10)- The name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth

10. What had the religious leaders done? What had God done? (Acts 4:10)- Crucified Jesus

• Raised Jesus from the dead

11. What else did Peter say about Jesus? (Acts 4:11-12)- He is the rejected stone which has become the chief cornerstone (cf. Psalms 118:22)

• There is salvation in no other name but His

12. What did the religious leaders see, perceive, and realize about Peter and John? (Acts 4:13)- Their boldness

• That they were uneducated and untrained men
• That they had been with Jesus

13. What could the religious leaders not deny? (Acts 4:14)- That the man standing with Peter and John had been healed

14. After Peter and John were put out of the council, what did the council confer among themselves? (Acts 4:15-17)- They could not deny such a notable miracle

• To prevent the spread of the apostles’ doctrine, to severely threaten them

15. What did the council command Peter and John? How did they respond? (Acts 4:18-20)- Not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus

• “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.”
• “…we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

16. After threatening the apostles some more, why did the council not punish them further? (Acts 4:21-22)- Because of the people, who glorified God for what had been done

17. Once released, what did Peter and John do? (Acts 4:23)- Returned to their companions and reported all the council had said

18. What did they then do? (Acts 4:24)- Pray to God

19. What Messianic prophecy did they refer to in their prayer? (Acts 4:25-26)- The one found in Psalms 2:1-2

20. Who were mentioned as a fulfillment of opposing God and Christ? (Acts 4:27)- Herod and Pilate; the Gentiles and the people of Israel

21. In their opposition against God, what had they actually done? (Acts 4:28)- What God had determined before to be done

22. In their prayer, what did the apostles ask of God? (Acts 4:29-30)- To consider the threats and give His servants boldness to speak His word

• To grant healing signs and wonders to be done in the name of Jesus

23. What happened in response to their prayer? (Acts 4:31)- The place where they assembled shook; they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

• They spoke the word of God with boldness

24. What manifested the oneness of the believers at that time? (Acts 4:32)- They had all things in common

25. What manifested the greatness enjoyed by the church at that time? (Acts 4:33)- With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of Jesus

• Great grace was upon them all

26. What manifested their love and generosity at that time? (Acts 4:34-35)- Those who had lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds to the apostles

• Distribution was made as anyone had need

27. Who was singled out as an example of their liberality? (Acts 4:36-37)- Joses, a Levite from Cyprus named Barnabas (Son of Encouragement) by the apostles

Verse 1 The glorious success of the gospel at Pentecost and for some time afterward could not last. The mighty dragon who had attempted to devour the Christ, who had been “caught up unto God, and unto his throne” (Revelation 12:5), then turned the full strength of his fury against the Woman, that is, the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. The inherent hatred of truth and righteousness on the part of the powers of darkness was quickly manifested in the bitter opposition encountered by the apostolic preachers of the gospel. The first move against the church came suddenly. And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them. (Acts 4:1) Peter’s sermon was interrupted by those inveterate enemies of Christ, the Sadducees, who descended upon the apostles in sufficient strength to stop their preaching and cast them into prison. Significantly, the Pharisees were not a part of the arresting party; and, as Dummelow noted: It is a mark of historic truth that the chief opposition to the apostles is here assigned to the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. The Pharisees, who affirmed it, were comparatively friendly; and not a few of them became Christians (Acts 15:5).[1]This Jewish sect was composed of proud, secular materialists who denied the existence of a spiritual world, holding that neither angels nor demons existed, denying any such thing as the resurrection, and rejecting the Old Testament Scriptures, except for parts of them which had political utility, and also refusing the traditions of the elders. Through wealth and political power they had gained control of the religious apparatus which ran the temple, the office of the high priest being regularly filled from this group. Their pipe-dream of having silenced forever the claims of Jesus Christ by their wanton murder of him was rudely shattered by the incident recorded in the last chapter. Not only was Christ alive, but he had ascended to the right hand of God, had poured out the marvelous power of the Holy Spirit upon the Twelve; and the astounding miracles that had accompanied the personal ministry of Christ were continuing through the apostles who wrought such signs “in the name of” that same Christ! The captain of the temple … This officer was of high rank, coming “from one of the chief-priestly families, ranking next to the high priest, commanding the temple guard of a picked body of Levites,"[2] and presumably being the one who commanded the sentries stationed at the tomb of Jesus (Matthew 27:65 ff). More than one man held this rank (Luke 22:4 Luke 22:52); and it is likely that they rotated with one another in the discharge of their official duties. Whichever “captain” was in this arresting party, it is certain that he, as well as all the group, knew for a certainty that the resurrection of Christ had occurred. Luke’s purpose in his unfolding narrative was correctly noted by Harrison: One of the main purposes of Acts is to show that the Jews who rejected and crucified Jesus continued their rebellion against God by rejecting the gospel of the resurrected and ascended Jesus proclaimed by the apostles.[3]Even the wicked Sadducees, however, were to have an other opportunity to be saved. Their rejection of Christ, although grossly wicked, was not the final rejection; for they could yet have obeyed the gospel and have received the gift of eternal life. As Wesley observed: So wisely did God order that they should first hear a full testimony to the truth in the temple, and then in the great council; to which they (the apostles) could have had no access, had they not been brought before it as criminals.[4][1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 823. [2] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 95. [3] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 395. [4] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, n.d.), in loco. Verse 2 Being sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.Being sorely troubled … The word thus rendered occurs only here and in Acts 16:18; and this is an inadequate translation. Alexander Campbell translated it “indignant,"[5] far more accurately describing the attitude of the priests. And indeed they must have been indignant. Sure enough, Christ was risen from the dead; and that eventuality foreseen by them (Matthew 27:65) in which “the last error was worse than the first” had truly come to pass. Moreover, the great popularity of the gospel message threatened their political base, promised to hold them up before the people as murderers, as ignoramuses concerning the Holy Scriptures, and as deserving of universal contempt. To proud, arrogant men like themselves, the situation had become intolerable; and their venomous hatred overflowed against the apostles. ENDNOTE: [5] Alexander Campbell, Acts of Apostles (Austin: Firm Foundation, 1859), p. 25. Verse 3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the morrow: for it was now eventide.As Walker said. “This jailing of the apostles was illegal; no charge was placed against them; it was a highhanded abuse of authority."[6] In the light of this, we should not make too much of the fact that, contrary to the night trial of Jesus, which was also illegal, they did, on this occasion, defer the trial until daytime on the morrow. This was not due to any concern for holy law, but they simply needed time to figure out what they would do. The unhappiness of the Sadducees over the fact of Jesus’ resurrection and the successful proclamation of the gospel was commented upon thus, by Scott: Miserable is their case to whom the glory of Christ’s kingdom is a grief; for, since the glory of that kingdom is everlasting, it follows of course that their grief shall be everlasting also.[7][6] W. R. Walker, Studies in Acts (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, n.d.), p. 30. [7] Thomas Scott, The Henry-Scott Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 443. Verse 4 But many of them that heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.That heard the word … has “exclusive reference to the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ."[8] This use of “the word” as a designation of the Christian gospel goes back to Christ himself (Matthew 13:23). Believed … As throughout the New Testament, “believed” here stands not as the sole condition of salvation, but as a synecdoche for all the preconditions of redemption in Jesus’ name; “This (believed) is a usual scriptural expression for the whole change wrought by belief."[9]About five thousand … Some ambiguity exists with regard to understanding the “five thousand” here as inclusive of the three thousand on Pentecost, or as an additional five thousand; but, as Boles said, “The best scholarship is in favor of two thousand being converted on this occasion, and so the number `came to be about five thousand.’"[10]Regarding the time-lapse since Pentecost to the time of this event, it was regarded by Ramsay and others as being perhaps years; but Barnes is most likely correct when he affirmed that: “It is clear that it was at no very distant period."[11][8] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 25. [9] B. W. Johnson, The New Testament with Explanatory Notes (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 429. [10] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Acts (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1953), p. 64. [11] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 75. Verse 5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were the kindred of the high priest.This august assembly was known as the Sanhedrin, a form of Jewish Supreme Court, composed of the presiding officer, who was the high priest, and seventy others. It was the same body which had demanded and received the crucifixion of Jesus. It was the historical successor to the board of judges appointed by Moses (Numbers 11:16-25). In Jerusalem … The council chamber in which they met was traditionally in the temple; but about A.D. 30, they changed their meeting place “to a court on the east side of the temple mount … the meeting at the palace of the high priest (Matthew 26:56 ff) was irregular."[12]Annas the high priest … The critics who make some big thing out of the various references in the New Testament to Caiaphas as high priest, or to Annas as high priest, are only quibbling. Luke denominated both as holders of that office concurrently, “in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (Luke 3:2), hence it was altogether correct to refer to either one of them as high priest. The circumstances that brought this condition about are well known. Annas was deposed from his high office by Tiberius in 14 A.D.,[13] a penalty incurred through his excess in executing one of his enemies; but the Jews did not honor the Emperor’s deposition, still recognizing Annas as the rightful holder of the office; however, Rome controlled the patronage, and the office was rotated among no less than five of Annas’ sons, with Caiaphas his son-in-law also holding it for a period of time.

His sons who held the office were: “Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus."[14]John … in Acts 4:6 is thought by some to have been the same “as Jonathan, son of Annas, and successor to Caiaphas."[15]The record of those who controlled the assembly in view here reveals them to have been the hard cadre of Sadducean priests who sat at the heart of official Jewry. They were as evil and unscrupulous a group as any that may be found in history, fit architects indeed of the crucifixion of the Son of God. [12] Robert Milligan, Analysis of the New Testament (Cincinnati, Ohio: Bosworth, Chase and Hail, Publishers, 1874), p. 325. [13] F. N. Peloubet, Bible Dictionary (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1025), under “Annas.” [14] A. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary, Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vo1. 18, p. 123. [15] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 289. Acts 3:7 And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?This shows that the Sanhedrin had not been able to formulate any charge against the apostles; therefore the question was to induce them to talk in the hope that they could turn some of their words into an indictment. However, both the worldly antagonist and the holy apostles knew perfectly well why they were there; and Peter at once launched into his message. Have ye done this … Bruce tells us that in the Greek, “There is a scornful emphasis in the position of the pronoun (for “ye”) at the end of Act 4:7, meaning “people like you."[16]ENDNOTE: [16] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 99. Verse 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders.Ye rulers of the people … Peter’s respectful language here teaches the same deference and respect of public officials which are binding upon all Christians; but, as Plumptre noted, there was a marked change in Peter: A few weeks back he had quailed before the soldiers and servants in the palace of the high priest. But now he stands before the Sanhedrin and speaks in the language of respect … but also that of unflinching boldness.[17]Regarding the profound and dramatic change discernible in the apostles of Christ which began with the resurrection and was final after Pentecost, Barnes truly declared that “It is not possible to account for this change except on the supposition that this religion is true."[18]Filled with the Holy Spirit … Here began to be fulfilled the blessed promise of Jesus to the Twelve that they should not be concerned about what they should say when arraigned before earthly authorities, because the Holy Spirit in that hour would give them the message they were to deliver (Matthew 10:17-19). [17] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott’s Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 21. [18] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 77. Verse 9 If we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole.Peter moved quickly to the attack, charging the Sanhedrin with murdering the Son of God, and affirming that the great miracle in view had been accomplished by the authority of that same Christ whom they had crucified. In him doth this man stand … If we may rely upon the English Revised Version (1885) rendition here, it may be assumed that the man had been baptized into Christ since the miracle was wrought; because the New Testament reveals no other device by which any man was accounted to be “in Christ.” See Romans 6:3,1 Corinthians 12:13, and Galatians 3:27. If this is allowed, and we believe it should be, then Peter’s words emphasized the fact of the spreading kingdom and the multiplication of disciples mentioned by Luke a bit earlier (Luke 4:4), This, of course, would have further infuriated the Sadducees. Verse 11 He is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which hath been made the head of the corner.It is remarkable how true are the speeches of Peter recorded in Acts to the epistles credited to this apostle in the New Testament. Peter had been present when the Lord first used this figure of himself (Matthew 21:42), and he developed the idea further in 1 Peter 2:4-6. For a dissertation on “Christ the Living Stone,” see my Commentary on Romans, under Romans 9:33. Psalms 118:22 has a prophecy of the rejected stone becoming the head of the corner; and it was founded upon an incident connected with the building of the temple. The first stone that came down from the quarry was most complicated, and the builders could not find a place for it. It was dragged into a corner of the building area and in time covered with debris.

When the building was completed, there was no cornerstone until someone remembered the rejected stone which fit perfectly. The Sanhedrin were the religious builders who had rejected the head of the corner, Christ; and Peter hurled this charge in their teeth. Verse 12 And in none other is there salvation; for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.In none other is there salvation … As McGarvey wrote: This declaration is universal; and it shows that every human being who is saved at all will be saved in the name of Christ. If any who do not know him or believe in him are saved, still in some way their salvation will be in his name.[19]Wherein we must be saved … Concerning this clause Boles pointed out that: In the Greek, the “we” is the last word of the Greek sentence; it means, “we priests, elders, scribes, fishermen - all of us” must be saved by faith and obedience in the Christ.[20]Thus, Peter included his wicked judges in those invited to participate in the new life in Christ. The priests, however, rejected the way of salvation taught by Jesus. They were among those such as were mentioned by Walker: Who imagine themselves so lovely in God’s sight, that he simply could not afford to damn them. Such loveliness may be either of character or culture; and both classes of these self-righteous bigots are equally certain that heaven would be impoverished without them. They feel that they need no forgiveness.[21]Peter preached the same plan of salvation to the Sanhedrin which he had proclaimed on Pentecost, and before the Gate Beautiful of the temple; but our own age, no less than that, prefers some other way of salvation. For example: Daniel Soper, speaking of the crowd whose questions he has sought to answer for so many years, says, (men have) “no time for a religion which confines itself to the work of converting individuals and has nothing authoritative to say about war or unemployment."[22]Soper certainly read the popular mind accurately; but the truth is that the church’s business is not concerned with social or political issues at all, except in a peripheral sense. Like Christ himself, the church must teach men regarding the salvation of their souls. Let churches leave the social problems to the government, which can botch them up better than any church could! Loving concern for brothers and sisters in the Lord is taught and is mandatory for Christians; but involvement in the social issues of the times is always, for the church, a sacrifice of first priorities for those which are secondary. The unique and glorious message of salvation in Jesus’ name, through faith and obedience to the gospel, has no parallels. The study of the history of religion has amassed countless “parallels and analogies” to the message of Jesus … Yet the more analogies we amass, the clearer it becomes that there are no analogies to the message of Jesus.[23]How precious, how glorious, how past all human ability fully to comprehend it, is the name of Jesus! The victory has been enshrined in a Name. All the power of the Nazareth victory, and of the Wilderness victory, all the power of the great climax victory of Calvary, and of the Resurrection morning - all is packed into one word, a Name, the Name of Jesus![24][19] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), p. 72. [20] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 68. [21] R. E. Walker, op. cit., p. 33. [22] Daniel Soper, as quoted by William Barclay, Turning to God (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), p. 102. [23] Joachim Jeremias, translated by Norman Perrin (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), p. 20. [24] J. Hastings, Great Texts of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911), Acts and Romans, p. 79. Verse 13 Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.Unlearned and ignorant … This “does not refer to their intelligence or literacy but to the fact that they were not schooled in the traditions of the scribes."[25] " should be translated PRIVATE PERSONS."[26]As De Welt said: Some men are prone to “set at naught all others” as ignorant and unlearned, who have not been trained in just the way and manner they have. From all these things, dear Lord, deliver us![27]It is the smug and arrogant pride of the Sadducees which surfaces here, there being utterly no reflection upon the intelligence and understanding of those great men who were the apostles of the Son of God. Luke, in this place, was clearly giving not his own evaluation of the Twelve, but that of the Sanhedrin. [25] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 796. [26] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 824. [27] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 67. Verse 14 And seeing the man that was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.Had this wonder been performed on the sabbath day, they might have charged the apostles with breaking the sabbath, as they had so often falsely charged the Lord; but Peter’s choice of the issue which he would defend was truly inspired. He said, in effect, “I suppose you wish to examine us regarding the good deed which has been done to the impotent man.” Such a thesis was truly inspired. There was not a thing which those hypocrites could say against it; therefore, they decided to have a caucus about it. Verse 15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, What shall we do to these men? for indeed that a notable miracle hath been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.The utter bankruptcy of the Sanhedrin’s position is plain in these verses. As Scott said: We do not find that the council gave any reason why the doctrine of Christ must be suppressed; they could not say that it was either false or dangerous, or of any evil tendency; and they were ashamed to own the true reason, that it testified against their hypocrisy, wickedness and tyranny.[28]What the Sanhedrin did not do is of epic significance. They did deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a fact Peter had boldly affirmed in their presence; and the conclusion must be allowed that the resurrection of Christ was in the same category as the healing of the impotent man before them. They could not deny it! Can any man believe that those unscrupulous unbelievers would not have denied it if there had been any rational basis under heaven for their doing so? They conferred among themselves … Commentators who raise a question as to how Luke knew what is related here overlook two things, (1) the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the inspired evangelist, and (2) the fact that many of the Pharisees obeyed the gospel and had long been faithful Christians at the time of Luke’s probable interview of them (Acts 6:1 Acts 15:5, etc.). We may be certain that what is here related occurred exactly as it is written. Therefore, it is not necessary, as did Bruce, to suggest that “The decision by the Sanhedrin in the absence of Peter and John would be readily inferred from what they said when Peter and John were brought back."[29]The admissions of the Sanhedrin in these verses “show that in their public proceedings they had been utterly hypocritical and heartless. How they could now look one another in the face is a moral puzzle."[30][28] Thomas Scott, op. cit., p. 444. [29] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 103. [30] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 73. Verse 17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.Truth was no consideration to the Sanhedrin. They were determined to oppose the teaching of the apostles, and the best thing they could think of, at the moment, was to threaten them. In view of the weakness of the apostles during the Passion, they might have supposed they could intimidate them. That failing, they were prepared to use methods of violence; but the popularity of the new faith made the murder of the Twelve inexpedient at the moment. Verse 18 And they called them and charged them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye.This same Sanhedrin had once hailed the man born blind before their council; and throughout the proceedings the name of Jesus was not mentioned, in all probability because they had forbidden it; but Peter and John had boldly flaunted the name of Jesus before them, and their strategy here was to impose upon the holy apostles the same restriction they had for a while imposed upon the man born blind. The reply of the apostles served fair notice that the old strategy would no longer work. It was a new day, and the gospel of Jesus Christ would be preached if all hell barred the way. Boles said, “The original conveys the idea that they were not to let the name of Jesus pass their lips again;"[31] but these men would persevere unto death, shouting that Jesus is risen from the dead; Jesus is Lord of all; there is salvation in no other name under heaven; Jesus is coming again, etc. ENDNOTE: [31] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 70. Verse 20 We cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard.This verse proved that “The responsibility of men for their religious opinions is direct to God, and that other men have no power of control."[32] It also indicates that “Men have a right to private judgment in matters of religion, subject only to God."[33][32] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 83. [33] Ibid., p. 84. Verse 21 And they, when they had further threatened them, let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people; for all men glorified God for that which was done. For the man was more than forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was wrought.Further threatened them … These were not idle threats. Later, the apostles were arrested and beaten (Acts 5:17-40); and still later, Stephen was stoned to death for preaching the gospel (Acts 6:8 to Acts 7:60). There is a progression in this inspired history toward that murderous fury which at last signaled official Israel’s total rejection of Jesus Christ. For the moment, the popularity of the apostles with the people prevented all but the threats. Forty years old … Luke added this bit of information regarding the age of the man who was healed, making the marvel of the miracle all the greater. Verse 23 And being let go, they came to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said unto them.Having been threatened by the hierarchy, the apostles might have been expected, by those who threatened, to flee from the area; but instead, they, together with the whole Christian community, went to their knees in prayer to Almighty God. No, they would not flee - yet. The battle for the soul of secular Israel would be continued for forty years; THEN the Christians would flee from Jerusalem, and the accumulated wrath of centuries would humble forever that city which rejected Jesus. Verse 24 And they, when they heard it, lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, O Lord, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is.The Christians met the crisis through resort to prayer, and the prayer here recorded is remarkable in several particulars. With one accord … This expression occurs eleven times in the Acts, and only once elsewhere in the New Testament (Romans 15:6).[34] It stresses the unity of the Lord’s followers, and thus reveals one of the great secrets of the success of Christianity during those first years. O Lord … The holy reverence of prayers recorded in the Bible is notable and, in all ages, a loss of reverence in prayers has proved to be a loss of effectiveness. “Lord” in this place is from the Greek term meaning “Master” (English Revised Version margin); and, coupled with the reference to creation, it has the force of acknowledging God’s unlimited power over all that he made. “The church in danger finds support and solace in the thought of God’s absolute sovereignty."[35]Thou art he that did make … is preferable to the English Revised Version (1885) rendition and is given as a permissible reading in the margin. [34] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 124. [35] Ibid., p. 125. Verse 25 Who by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our father David thy servant, didst say, Why did the Gentiles rage, And the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against his Anointed.Plainly taught here is the fact that the early disciples regarded the Psalms as inspired; and, to them, inspiration was not mere genius, or literary skill, or prudent foresightedness; it was an impartation of the Holy Spirit which endowed the author of Scripture. Thus his words were true and accurate and his commands authoritative. Verse 27 For of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel were gathered together.Thy holy Servant Jesus … Certain critics have attempted to deny that Jesus identified himself with the suffering Servant of Isaiah; but, as Hunter declared: The key to most of the (New Testament) theology is in the Old Testament, especially in the Servant Songs of Isaiah and the seventh chapter of Daniel … Jesus clearly saw his Messianic ministry from Jordan to Golgotha, as a fulfilling of the prophecies of the Servant of the Lord.[36]Thus, it is no surprise that in the very beginning of the gospel proclamation by the apostles strong emphasis upon the role of Jesus’ sufferings should appear. We find Peter four times in the early chapters of Acts (Acts 3:13 Acts 3:26 Acts 4:27 Acts 4:30) calling Jesus “God’s Servant.” A little later, Philip expressly tells the Ethiopian eunuch that Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:26-40).[37]The fulfillment of the prophecy from Psalms 2:1-2, as quoted in this prayer, is declared by this verse. Herod and Pilate were representatives of kings and rulers who would oppose the Lord, and they were Gentiles. The implication, although not stated so bluntly, is that the Jewish religious leaders in the Sanhedrin were representatives of other rulers and of the children of Israel. Regarding the question of why the mighty men such as rulers and kings and priests would with nearly unanimous hatred of the Christ unite their efforts to oppose and destroy Jesus and his teaching, the reason for it was deeply embedded in human nature. The Jewish rulers were mortified, disgusted and outraged that one so poor and lowly would claim to be the Messiah. Their pride, ambition and selfishness simply could not accept Jesus as the fulfillment of an expectation they had so long cherished of some spectacular leader on a white horse who would overthrow the power of Rome and restore the defunct Solomonic empire. In the case of the Romans, human nature at last turned upon the new faith with the fury of a vicious animal; and, although at first not opposed to Christianity (because they did not understand it), when it finally became clear to Roman authorities that the new religion was not merely seeking a place ALONG WITH OTHER , but was exclusive in its claims, the Gentile authorities launched the great persecutions in the hope of exterminating Christianity. [36] Archibald M. Hunter, Introducing New Testament Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), p. 23. [37] Ibid., p. 37. Verse 28 To do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to come to pass.Perhaps the profoundest question in theology appears in what is stated here. This is the same problem on a cosmic scale that appears in the more limited instance of Judas’ fulfilling prophecy by his betrayal of Jesus. Did God’s foreordaining such rebellion against his authority become, in any sense, the cause of it? There are mysteries here beyond any complete human understanding of them; but any solution of the problem must take account of the freedom of the human will, either to obey or disobey God. Any resolution of the question that denies such freedom must be rejected. In the case in hand, God desired the salvation of men through the death of Christ; but it was the wickedness of evil men which became an instrument of the fulfillment. That fact stands in bold relief in this apostolic prayer. God “foreordained” the sufferings and death of the Saviour of the world. We may only bow the head and say with the incomparable Paul, “How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out” (Romans 11:33). Verse 29 And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness.This is reminiscent of Hezekiah’s prayer (2 Kings 19:14 ff) in which he spread the insulting letter of Sennacherib before the Lord in the temple, pleading with God “to see and hear the words of Sennacherib.” The praying saints did not propose any solution, leaving the matter wholly in the hands of the Lord; but their petition was concerned with their own basic need of power to “speak the word with boldness.” Verse 30 While thou stretchest forth thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy Servant Jesus.This was a petition that God would continue to perform the great signs and wonders such as the healing of the impotent man; but the apostles accurately read the connection between such signs and the preaching of the word; for, in the previous verse, they had prayed first that they themselves should not flinch in the proclamation of the truth. Holy Servant Jesus … See under Acts 4:27, above. Verse 31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spake the word of God with boldness.The place … was shaken … God gave this visible sign that his promise of miraculous power to the Twelve would continue to be honored. Filled with the Holy Spirit … This was not a repetition of the wonder at Pentecost, but a continuation in the apostles of that power “from on high” which had been promised, the result of which (their speaking the word with boldness) was also a proof of the purpose of such a gift. Verse 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.This is not a reference to another manifestation of the event narrated in Acts 2:43 ff, but another reference to that same event, introduced here by Luke as preliminary to the happenings regarding Ananias and Sapphira. The custom of having all things common which began shortly after Pentecost had continued until the time of these events; but Luke’s reference to it here sheds new light upon it. The things which he possessed … Thus it is clear that private property had not been abolished. What is taught here is not that the institution of private possessions had been abolished, but that the Christians held their possessions, not as their own, but as subject to the will of God in the use of them for the relief of the needy. “This was an emergency, and all were willing and anxious to use whatever they possessed for the common good."[38] In the fact of the “emergency” mentioned by Boles and so many others, there is a clue suggesting that all of the events mentioned thus far in Acts occurred within a very short space of time after Pentecost; because the most logical reason for any emergency, which is actually inferred rather than plainly stated, lies in the fact that vast throngs in Jerusalem for Pentecost, after obeying the gospel, continued to remain in Jerusalem for a time in order to hear the preaching of the apostles, and perhaps to aid in evangelism. Naturally, such a situation would terminate after a while; and the extreme generosity of the Christians prolonged it as long as possible. ENDNOTE: [38] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 75. Verse 33 And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made to each, according as any one had need.Great grace was upon them all … The result of such overflowing generosity was that the effectiveness of the apostles’ message was multiplied, and what might be called a revival of the most fantastic proportions ensued. Possessors of lands or houses … As Lange observed: We are authorized by the literal import of the text to assume that all the owners of real estate who belonged to the church, sold property, but not that they sold ALL the real estate of which they were the possessors. Each one contributed a certain portion, but it is not said here that each one disposed of his whole property; we are not even distinctly told that a single individual relinquished all that he owned.[39]To each, according as any one had need … “This shows that only the needy received anything, and that those who were not needy were the givers."[40] As McGarvey further noted: This church was not at this time a commune, or a socialistic club, as many interpreters have fancied. There was no uniform distribution of the property of all among the members; neither was the property of all held and administered by the apostles.[41]Upon Luke’s first mention of this matter of “all things common”. (Acts 2:43), the comment was made that it was the result of no clear commandment of either Christ or the apostles; and while this is true enough, there yet remains the overwhelming impact of this generosity of the first Christians as an example for the church of all ages; and we believe that McGarvey was correct in thus assessing the import of the events here recorded: In reality this church was setting an example for all other churches in all times, by showing that true Christian benevolence requires that we shall not let our brethren in the church suffer for food, even if those of us who have houses and lands can prevent it only by the sale of our possessions. It teaches that we should share the last crust of bread with our brother.[42]Before leaving this, the comment of Root is noted: “It was not a matter of providing for the whole church, but of supplying the needs of those who lacked."[43]Despite McGarvey’s comment, above, it is nevertheless true that the scheme of having all things common was not long continued, nor is there any evidence that it became a policy of the apostolic church. Perhaps, in the event about to be related, Luke intended that we should behold the failure of the experiment. Walker believed that the scheme did not originate with the apostles and that they permitted rather than encouraged it, stating that “the scheme was never tried elsewhere."[44]Ramsay pointed out that: No universal selling of property is mentioned, and no general instructions were issued that members of the church ought to distribute to the poor all that they possessed … Many of the owners of property, of their own free will, from love of the brethren, used from time to time to sell their property and bring the proceeds to the apostles.[45][39] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1866), p. 81. [40] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 80. [41] Ibid. [42] Ibid., p. 81. [43] Orin Root, Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 34. [44] W. R. Walker, op. cit., pp. 36,37. [45] Sir William M. Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 29. Verse 36 And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of Exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race, having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.It should be noted that not a word is here given to the effect that Barnabas “sold all that he had,” there being no evidence at all that he did any such thing. Then, there is the further consideration that the sister of Barnabas, Mary, the mother of John Mark, appears in Acts 12 as the owner of a large residence in Jerusalem, capable of housing a considerable portion of the church for a prayer meeting, the house having a courtyard and a gate which was attended by the serving girl, Rhoda. It was not the practice of those early disciples to make a total liquidation of their assets in order to distribute all to the poor. Son of Exhortation … contrasts with “Son of Consolation” as in the KJV and the English Revised Version (1885) margin, both meanings being in the original. Barnabas … This was the faithful and distinguished Christian who accompanied Paul on the first missionary journey. Having related the example of the generosity of Barnabas, Luke would at once relate the story of Ananias and Sapphira and their scheme of imposing upon the Twelve apostles. This incident, about to be narrated inActs 5, has the utility of shedding even more light on the so-called “Christian communism” of Acts.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 41. Who are “ they” of verse one? (See Acts 4:1) 2. What persons came upon them? 3. Describe their state of mind. 4. Did not the Jews believe in the resurrection? 5. Then what caused their grief here ? 6. What did they do to the apostles? 7. Does this mean a religious ceremony? 8. What was done now with Peter and John? 9. Did this cut off all their good fruits? 10. How many believed? 11. Who gathered next day? 12. Where did they gather? 13. Who was set in their midst? 14. What is meant by “ this” in verse seven? 15. State their inquiry of the apostles. 16. Who spoke in answer? 17. With what was he filled? 18. Was his answer evasive? 19. Was the information to be held confidentially? 20. To what name does he ascribe the deed? 21. Of what does he accuse them? 22. What part had God had in the work? 23. By what object is Christ illustrated ? 24. What had the builders done to it ? 25. Who were the builders ? 26. What had the stone become? 27. State what is in this stone only. 28. How exclusive is this name ? 29. State the literary rank of the apostles. 30. In spite of this, what did they manifest ? 31. What conclusion did this suggest to the crowd? 32. State what fact they could not deny. 33. What manner of conference was held? 34. Who are “ them” of 15th verse ? 35. What difficulty confronted the council? 36. Tell what they did as last resort. 37. What did they hope to affect by the threat? 38. Name the antecedent of “ this” in 17th verse. 39. Delate the orders then given the apostles. 40. Did it intimidate them ? 41. To what were they restricted in speaking? 42. Why were the apostles then let go? 43. What was done before being let go? 44. Tell what attitude the people took. 45. What gave emphasis to the miracle ? 46. When released, to whom did the apostles go? 47. State the report they made. 48. How was the report received? 49. What prophecy was brought to their mind? 50. Name the rulers who assembled against Christ. 51. In so doing what did they fulfill? 52. Did the disciples pray for freedom from trials? 53. Give the substance of their prayer. 54. Through what means might signs be done ? 55. What demonstration followed the prayer? 56. With what were they filled? 57. How and what did they speak? 58. What was their condition as to unity? 59. How did they arrange their possessions? 60. Had this been commanded? 61. To what did the apostles give witness ? 62. Who had charge of the treasury? 63. In what form was the property presented?

Acts 4:1

1 Act 4:1. The first Gospel discourse was delivered in some building suitable for an auditorium, not especially connected with the Jewish institutions. The present one was in the temple, which was the capitol of the religious system that had been established by Moses. That is why the priests and other public men became stirred up over the preaching. Captain is from , which originally means “the commander of an army.” Thayer explains it (citing a passage in Josephus) to mean, “The commander of the Le-vites, who kept guard in and around the temple.” The Sadducees were a sect of the Jews who did not believe in the resurrection. A full description of this sect is given with the comments on Matthew 16:12. All of the classes named came upon the apostles as they were preaching to the people in the temple.

Acts 4:2

2Act 4:2. Grieved is from , which the Thayer lexicon defines at this place, “To be troubled, displeased, offended, pained, worked up.” The Sad-ducees did not believe in the resurrection and would naturally resent any teaching in favor of the subject. The main cause of this displeasure, however, was that the apostles were telling that it was through Jesus that the dead would be resurrected. They had already come to hate Him because of His exposure of their sins and inconsistencies (Matthew 16:1-4 Matthew 22:23 Matthew 22:34), and now to have Him held up to the people as the hope of the resurrection, a doctrine they rejected with all the bitterness possible, was more than they could stand.

Acts 4:3

3Act 4:3. Laid hands on them means they arrested the apostles. Hold is another word for “prison,” but they were put there and held “without charge” for the time, because it was too late in the day to have any hearing on the case.

Acts 4:4

4Acts 4:4. Howbeit is not in the original text, and does not serve any important purpose, although it is not out of line with the thought of the passage. The original does justify the statement that many believed. That is a frequent expression used by the inspired writers to mean that the people obeyed the commands given them. If the word is used in a restricted sense it will say so, as in the case of the rulers in John 12:42. Number of the men was, etc. The Englishmen’s Greek New Testament renders this passage, “the number of men became about five thousand.” Moffatt translates it, “bringing up their number to about five thousand.” It means that the new believers made on this occasion, added to what, they already had, made the total number of disciples in fellowship with the apostles about five thousand.

Acts 4:5-6

6Acts 4:5-6. This paragraph shows a meeting of the council or Sanhedrin (verse 15), to see what could be done about the stir that was being caused over the work and preaching of the apostles. According to Thayer, the rulers were leading men of the Jews who were members of the Sanhedrin. The elders in this case is defined by Thayer, “Members of the great council or Sanhedrin,” then explains “because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from the elderly men.” Scribes came to have a very influential position in the time of Christ and the apostles. A full description of the word is given with the comments at Matthew 13:52. Annas and Caiaphas are both mentioned in connection with the high priesthood.

That was due to some interference by the secular government in the affairs of the Jews. (See the comments at Luke 3:2.) All we know of John and Alexander is that they were leading men in Jerusalem at this time, and related in some way to the high priest. Others of the high priesthood who were not so outstanding are merely referred to as such.

Acts 4:7

7Acts 4:7. After this meeting of the Sanhedrin was called, they brought Peter and John out of the prison where they had been held overnight, and placed them in the midst of the assembly. The last word of the verse is a pronoun that refers to the healing of the lame man. No attempt was made to deny the fact for it was too well known for them to try that plan in their persecution of the apostles (verse 16). Hence they were foolish enough to think they could oppose the work by showing that it was done illegally. As though any law could be made that would forbid’ curing a man of a physical infirmity!

Power is from DUNAMIS and means strength or ability. This was another question that showed how desperate the council was in its desire to punish the apostles. Whatever might have been the power that was used, if it actually healed a man of a life-long infirmity, and without doing anyone else any harm, there could not possibly be any wrong about it. But these persecutors would not depend solely on the one point of attack; they also demanded to know by what name they had done the deed, which means by what authority they did it. One of Thayer’s definitions of the original word is, “To do a thing by one’s command and authority, acting on his behalf, promoting his cause.” This was also a foolish question, and could not in any way touch the matter of right and wrong in the deed performed. If a man was pretending to offer remedial services to the public independent of the laws of the land, and was suspected of defrauding people, it would be entirely proper to require him to “show his license.” But nothing of that kind was being done, for the actual healing of the patient had been done without any infringement of authority, either human or divine.

However, the apostles did actually perform their deed under authority to act, as we shall soon see.

Acts 4:8

8Acts 4:8. Filled with the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that Peter Just then was filled with the Spirit, for he received that in the second chapter in fulfillment of the promise made the apostles by Jesus (John 14:16), and it was to abide with them forever. The writer means that Peter was qualified to speak with authority to this audience, because he was in possession of the Holy Ghost or Spirit. All persons present were expected to hear what Peter said, but the rulers and elders were the ones who had taken the lead in this action against the apostles, hence it was appropriate to make his address especially to them.

Acts 4:9

9Acts 4:9. To be examined means to be questioned and investigated. Peter did not object to being questioned, but he did not consider that they had even accused him of anything wrong, much less been shown any testimony that was claimed to hint at such a thing. Instead, he virtually held his investigators up to shame by the statement that the investigation was over a good deed done to the impotent (weak) man.

Acts 4:10

0Acts 4:10. In all of the circumstances that ever came upon the apostles that concerned their work, they never failed to use the opportunity for preaching Christ to the hearers. Peter not only told them that it was in the name of Jesus that the deed was done, but he reminded them that it was the same person whom they had crucified. This was not said in the spirit of petty resentment, for an inspired apostle would not need to resort to that sort of speech. It was in order to show them that even death on the cross did not prevent Him from accomplishing his intended work for mankind. As definite proof that death could not overthrow the plans of Jesus, Peter reminded them that God had raised his Son from the grave.

Acts 4:11

1Act 4:11. While the vital facts concerning the experiences of Christ were under consideration in this “investigation,” Peter cited these leading Jews t(, a prophecy in Psalms 118:22, which they had fulfilled by slaying Jesus. And when God overruled their wicked deed and brought his Son out from the grave, and seated him on the throne in Heaven, he caused that Son to be the head of the earner.

Acts 4:12

2Act 4:12. All of the discourses of the apostles contained the same thoughts, even though they were not always worded alike. This verse corresponds to chapter 2:36, 38 and 3:16, 19, and is similar in thought to the “closing exhortations” of evangelistic sermons today. Peter made a strong and exclusive claim for Christ. He not only declared that salvation could be had in Him, but that no salvation could be found in any other. Under heaven given among men.

There is much truth involved in this phrase, for it designates the only part of the universe where any means of salvation is being offered. Under heaven would denote that no salvation is planned (or needed) for beings living in Heaven. Among men restricts. the realm outside of heaven to the place where men live as human beings, and that would exclude those in the unseen world or Hades, even though they are “under heaven.” Must is from DEI which Thayer defines, “It is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper.” Robinson gives the general definition, “It is binding on anyone, it behooves one to do, i. e., one must, one ought.” He then says that in the New Testament it means, “It. behooves, it must needs, one must or ought.” The passage does not teach that anyone must be saved at all, for the matter of accepting salvation is one to be decided by man; “Whosoever will may come.” The verse means that if a man is saved, it must be through the name (or authority) of Christ.

Acts 4:13

3Act 4:13. The lexicon defines the original for boldness to mean, “Freedom in speaking, unreservedness in speech; openly, frankly; free and fearless confidence, cheerful courage.” Perceived is from , which Thayer defines at this place, “To lay hold of with the mind; to understand, learn, comprehend.” Unlearned and ignorant does not refer to their natural intelligence, for even their enemies did not think the apostles were lacking along that line; had they thought so, they would not have been so uneasy about their influence with the people. The phrase means the apostles were not cultured in the art of learning as taught in the public institutions, but were private citizens without what the world would call “education.” The leaders in the Sanhedrin perceived (realized) that the apostles were without these advantages of learning, yet beheld their boldness and ability of speech, and that caused them to marvel. They had to account for it in some way, which they did by concluding that the men had been with Jesus. These Jewish leaders did not know what Jesus had taught his apostles, but many of them had heard Him speak and had known how bold and outspoken he was. Now they conclude that the apostles had been with Jesus so much that they had imbibed the same spirit of courage and force of speech, which’made them (the leaders in the Sanhedrin) fearful of the influence they might have over the common people.

Acts 4:14

4Acts 4:14. It refers to the boldness of Peter and John. The reason the Jews could not say anything against their outspoken claims for the power of Jesus by which they were working, was that the man whom they had healed was right there with them, and was standing, something no one had ever seen him do before.

Acts 4:15

5Acts 4:15. Commanded them means they ordered the apostles to leave the Sanhedrin while a consultation was being held. It was much like the circumstance where a jury is taken out of the court room, while the lawyers argue over some question of the testimony, as if they feared the men might catch some truth they did not want them to hear.

Acts 4:16

6Acts 4:16. These Jews knew they could not deny the fact of the lame man’s recovery. And it would not have been so bad if only they knew about it; but it was manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem.

Acts 4:17

7Acts 4:17. Threaten means an indefinite warning that something very bad will be done, without stating what that will be. It is an intimation that does not have any specific charge, as the word is being used in this case. It is very much like the warning of some irresponsible parent or guardian, “If you do not behave yourself, you will wish that you had.” These rulers knew they could not cite any law that was being violated by the preaching of the apostles, hence they thought they could daunt them by their cowardly threats.

Acts 4:18

8Acts 4:18. The leaders in the Sanhedrin concluded that they did not have any recourse to the law, hence all they could do was to threaten the apostles. They brought their victims back into the assembly and ordered them to cease speaking in Christ’s name.

Acts 4:19

9Acts 4:19. The apostles made a respectful but firm reply to the order against speaking in the name of Christ. They made no reference to the threat, doubtless regarding such a subject such a petty thing that it was beneath their dignity. But they put the issue in its true light by showing that the leaders of the Sanhedrin were demanding more consideration for themselves than they allowed the apostles to show for God.

Acts 4:20

0Acts 4:20. Cannot but speak has a double force as to obligation. The apostles had seen Jesus after his resurrection, and had heard him command them to tell the story to others. Therefore when they preached the Gospel of Christ they were dealing with matters of evidence on which they could speak without any guesswork. They also were under the duty to speak these things to the world, or else they would be guilty of failing in their obligation to Him who had commissioned them for the work.

Acts 4:21

1Act 4:21. Because of the people. Public sentiment is a powerful influence, and when it is aroused in favor of a good cause, not many leaders are willing to defy it, especially if they are desirous of maintaining a popular standing. The Sanhedrin officials knew there was nothing in the deed of healing a lame man that could call for any punishment, and if they attempted such a thing the public would unite against it, because they had already expressed an attitude of glory to God for the good deed.

Acts 4:22

2Act 4:22. It would have been useless to claim the whole circumstance was a delusion, for the man was more than forty years old who had been healed. A mere child or very young man might have been said to be ready for improvement through the course of nature. Such a theory would not be accepted concerning a man forty years old.

Acts 4:23

3Act 4:23. Their own company means the believers who were assembled (verse 31), no doubt waiting to see the outcome of the action against the apostles. When Peter and John were released they went and joined the gathering of disciples and made a report.

Acts 4:24

4Acts 4:24. The report did not discourage the believers but strengthened their faith. It did not even cause any dissension among them, for they spoke with one accord. They offered a prayer to God whom they recognized to be the Maker of all things.

Acts 4:25

5Acts 4:25. One reason the disciples were not discouraged, was the fact that what had occurred to the apos- tles was a fulfillment of one of the prophecies. They were acquainted with the predictions that David made in Psalms 2:1-2, but acknowledged that it was God speaking through the mouth of the Psalmist. The prediction is in the form of a question, because the prophetic style is not always in the regular form of literal language. Heathen is from ETHNOS, which means the nations in general who are not Jews. The leaders of the Sanhedrin were Jews, but they could accomplish their purposes against Christ and the apostles only by resorting to the Roman courts which were Gentile.

Rage is from PHRUSSO, and its general definition is, “To neigh, stamp the ground, prance, snort; to be high-spirited.” Imagine is from MELETAO, which Thayer defines, “To meditate or devise, contrive.” Vain is from KENOS and is defined, “Vain, fruitless, without effect.” The idea is that the enemies of the Lord planned and schemed to destroy the work He was doing on the earth, even to the extent of persecuting his Son first, then the servants who were doing His work. But the prediction was that their schemes would prove to be in vain, for God would finally overrule all to the good of the world.

Acts 4:26

6Acts 4:26. This verse is somewhat indefinite, meaning that the powers of government in various domains among men would be arrayed against the Lord (the Divine Ruler) and his Christ (or Anointed One).

Acts 4:27

7Acts 4:27. Of a truth. It was a true prediction that David made, for such opposition actually took place within the knowledge of these disciples. Herod was in the line set up by the Maccabees, and was supposed to represent the interests of the Jews. Pilate was a governor in the Roman Empire, and represented the heathen or Gentile nations. Gentiles and people of Israel are named as a general summing up of the forces that worked against the Lord. The Herod who is named in this verse is Antipas, son of Herod the Great; he is the one mentioned in Luke 23:7-12.

Acts 4:28

8Acts 4:28. They did not do this planning for the purpose of carrying out the work of God, for they were enemies of Him. The statement means that their schemes were what God had aforetime determined should be done. But although their work was according to the plans of God, they were not justified, for their motive was wicked throughout.

Acts 4:29

9Acts 4:29. The disciples called the attention of the Lord to the threaten-ings of the Sanhedrin, but not to ask for any personal relief from persecutions. Instead, they prayed for divine help for the speakers of truth, that they might be able to speak the word with all boldness. The last word is from the same original as in 13, meaning to be outspoken and fearless in proclaiming the truth. They were not worrying about what sufferings it might bring on them; they were concerned only in the effectiveness of the truth that was going to be offered to the people.

Acts 4:30

0Acts 4:30. Knowing that human might alone would not avail, they asked the Lord to confirm the preaching by demonstrations of miraculous power. It should be observed that they wished all of this to be done in the name of Jesus, the very One whose name they had been forbidden by the Sanhedrin to proclaim.

Acts 4:31

1Act 4:31. In the days of miracles, God sometimes answered prayers with a physical demonstration, or by something that could be discerned by the natural sense (John 12:27-30), and the present case is another of such an evidence. Were all filled with the Holy Ghost. In the book of Acts there are no less than ten places where the expression to be “full” or “filled” with the Holy Ghost is used. It is said of both official and unofficial disciples; sometimes applying to the apostles and at others referring to the ordinary disciples. Since we know that the quail-cations of the apostles were greater than those of any other Christians, we should understand that the expression under consideration is one with various shades of meaning, and the connection must always be considered in each instance for determining the force of the term.

It would be natural to ask how two people could be “full” of anything, and yet one of them have more of it than the other. The passage in John 3:34 should always be remembered when the subject of the Holy Ghost or Spirit is being studied. That statement shows that the Spirit can be measured or limited according to the will of God. But the mistake that is commonly made is to limit the word “full” or “measure” to the one quality of volume. But that is not a correct or necessary conclusion. A room could be “full” of smoke and still be capable of admitting more of it by making it more dense.

A disciple could be full of the Holy Ghost, yet the density of it not be such as to enable the possessor to perform the same works as could the apostles. And so in the present verse, they were filled with the Holy Ghost in such measure or density or strength, that it encouraged them to speak the word with boldness. In the case of the apostles, the measure was such that they could testify with great power, which was what the other disciples prayed for in verse 30.

Acts 4:32

2Act 4:32. Was his own (personally), but that it was to be deposited in the common stock of money. For a complete discussion of this subject, see chapter 2:44, 45.

Acts 4:33

3Act 4:33. The great power came in answer to the prayer of the other disciples in verse 30, and it consisted in the miraculous deeds that they performed upon the people. The question might be asked, what would the miraculous performances of the apostles have to do with the resurrection of Jesus. It confirmed the testimony they were giving that they had seen Jesus alive after his death on the cross. Had they been false witnesses of that claim, they never could have performed the miracles, for God would not work with them in their activities. All of this proved that when they affirmed that Jesus had appeared to them after his resurrection, they were telling the truth.

Acts 4:34

4Acts 4:34. As to the merits of this community of resources, see the comments at chapter 2:44, 45. For the present verse and onward, we shall study the outworkings of the system with various kinds of disciples.

Acts 4:35

5Acts 4:35. The money received for their property was deposited with the apostles. That was logical since no other officials had been designated for any special work.

Acts 4:36-37

7Acts 4:36-37. We might wonder at the purpose of this paragraph, as it seems to be mentioned casually without any connection with the line of narrative being run. But it really does have a related purpose in what Luke knew he was about to report on the subject. There was to be given the sad story of some people who met with disaster because of their dishonesty. The present instance was given first to show that some disciples fulfilled their promise and came up to the agreement without a fault. The details of identity for this man are im-portant because of the prominent place Barnabas occupies later in the work of the Lord. We shall hear much of him while studying this book, and even in one of the epistles of Paul he will be named (1 Corinthians 9:6).