6   Peter and John Before the Council

Scripture: Acts 4:1-22

 Reaction of enemies of Christ

As a consequence of the healing of the well-known lame beggar at the gate of the temple (3:1-8), a crowd of people had gathered around Peter and John in Solomon’s porch (3:11). In chapter 4 we learn that the preach­ing of Peter to that large gath­ering attracted the attention also of the enemies of Christ and of His church. The priests who had charge of the temple service that day arrived soon on the scene. They were accompanied by the captain of the temple, whose business it was, as head of the Levitical guard, or temple police, to maintain order in the courts of the Lord’s house. A detachment of those police was most probably present on this occasion also, armed, as was their custom, with clubs.

Particular concern of the Sadducees

Then there were also the Sad­ducees. The priests, the captain, and the temple police could make a show of concern for a possible disturbance in the courts of the temple; but the presence and the prominence of the Sadducees here (4:1, 2) make it clear that the sup­posed offense was the message of Peter, not the commo­tion. The apostles, you see, affirmed that Christ had risen from the dead, and the Sadducees had long insisted that souls die with the body, and there is no resurrection at all. This particular sect (“the dominant party in the San­hedrin” at that time, according to Bruce) would therefore be especially vexed by the preaching of Peter.

Concern of the Sanhedrin generally

They were not alone however. The Pharisaic party in the Sanhedrin had almost as much to lose, were the preaching of the apostles to go un­checked. For, just a few weeks prior to this, the two parties, in a combined effort, had successfully conspired against the Man whom the apostles were now proclaiming to have been in fact the promised Messiah. And what made this preaching such a worrisome development was that converts were being added by the thousands. The Sanhedrin perceived it all, therefore, as a threat to their own hold on the people. They had no doubt already determined that, if the movement did not die of its own accord, they themselves would have to bring it down.

Arrest of Peter and John

The healing of the lame man, and the subsequent preaching of Peter to an apparently enthusiastic, recep­tive audience led the Sadducees to believe that it was time to make their move. And so it was that, with the priests who were on duty, with the Levitical guard, and with the captain of the temple, they made a quick arrest of Peter and John, and possibly even of the beggar. (The beggar was present, at least, at the hearing, either having been locked up with the apostles for being partly responsible for the disturbance in the temple, or having been called in as a witness—the former being the more likely.) Peter and John would very likely have been brought directly before the Sanhedrin, were it not for the fact that “it was now eventide” (4:3)—probably the Jews’ early even­ing, or our late afternoon, too late in the day to summon the Sanhedrin and con­duct the business at hand. So the men were simply locked up for the night.

Impossibility of stopping advance of the kingdom of Christ

It is interesting to note that, in the immediately following verse, Luke makes mention of the effect of the preaching of those whom Christ had appointed to be His ambassadors. He writes, “Howbeit (that is, in spite of the raging of the enemy) many of them which heard the word be­lieved; and the number of the men was about five thousand” (4:4). Opposi­tion there may be, in other words, but the cause of Christ con­tinued to prosper.

Two things, as Calvin put it, the New Testament church learned early: “First, that as soon as the truth of the Gospel comes to light, Satan sets himself in opposition to it by every means in his power, and uses every endeavor to crush it in its earliest beginnings.” Secondly, that “yet by all their machi­nations (i.e., of Satan and the wicked) they cannot prevent God from advanc­ing the King­dom of His Son, or Christ from gath­ering together His sheep, or a few men unarmed and with no warlike resources from re­veal­ing more power, by their words alone, than is pos­sessed by the whole world in its rag­ing against them.” And Calvin adds that “by the ef­fectiveness of this teaching Christ showed that He was alive more clear­ly than if He had offered His body to be handled and to be seen by the eyes of men.”

Makeup of the Sanhedrin

On the following day there was a gathering in Jerusalem to decide upon a course of action over against the two apostles who were in custody. It was, writes Luke in verse 5, a gathering of the rulers (the chief priests), the elders (lay leaders, having no priestly office), and the scribes (rabbis, trained for and especially skilled in interpret­ing the law). These three groups made up the Sanhedrin; so what we have here is an official convening of the supreme court of the Jews, made up as it was of seventy men plus Caia­phas, the seventy-first, who was president by virtue of his office as high priest. Annas was again on hand, as he had been also at the trial of Jesus. He still held the title of high priest (4:6) and was in fact a kind of “power behind the throne.” He continued, according to Lenski, “to wield great influence personally and through his family”—seven members of which held the office, so that “a regular dynasty of the house of Annas was established.” The John men­tioned in verse 6 is thought by some to be one of Annas’ sons, but about that we cannot be sure. Nothing is known of the Alexander (4:6) who is mentioned as being prominent at this meeting of the Sanhedrin. Luke notes that other relatives of the high priest were also present. And since the high priestly family was Sad­ducean, it is plain that the foes of the resurrection were well repre­sented at the meeting.

Attempt to intimidate the apostles

Once these judges were as­sembled they ordered the temple police to fetch the prisoners, in order that the judicial investigation might begin. Sitting, as was their custom, in a half-circle, they set the apostles “in the midst” (4:7). Caiaphas then put the question: “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” The high priest was shrewd enough not to ask what they had done. The healing of a lame man was so mani­festly a good deed that even ignorant fishermen would challenge the right of the Sanhedrin to arrest them, jail them, and conduct a criminal inves­tigation over that. To question them concern­ing the means by which they had healed the man, however, would give an appearance of legitimacy to the inquiry, for, as Len­ski put it, “damnable means dare not be used even if, through them, good or ap­parent good is done.” The point is that Jesus had been tried and con­victed of no less a crime than blas­phemy. For one now to heal in His Name would at the very least suggest approval of that for which Jesus was condemned to die.

Caiaphas must surely have hoped that, by this sort of an ap­proach, unlearned fishermen, standing before an august assembly of vener­able judges, could easily be in­timidated. But, to the dismay of the Sanhedrin, such was not the case. No stammering was there on the part of these fishermen, no attempt to explain away what they had done, no request for a little time to collect their thoughts. Rather was there an immediate and masterful defense, such that the learned Sanhedrists were left literally with nothing to say (4:14).

Source of apostles’ boldness

It was Peter who gave answer. Just think about that for a moment. As Calvin so aptly put it, “surely, he who had been frightened by the voice of a mere woman and had denied Christ would have collapsed utterly before such an assembly at the mere sight of such pomp, unless . . . .” Un­less what? The answer is to be found in verse 8: Peter was “filled with the Holy Ghost.” What we have here is the first recorded fulfillment of Christ’s promise to His disciples that, when they will be brought before rulers for His name’s sake, He would be with them (Luke 21:12-15). “Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall an­swer,” Jesus had admonished them, “for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor re­sist.” Before the Sanhedrin on this occasion, Peter learned from experience exactly what Jesus meant.

Peter’s answer

After addressing the assembly respectfully as “rulers of the people, and elders of Israel” (4:8), Peter chided them lightly for conducting this kind of an examination of a deed that was good on the very face of it (4:9). Then he got directly to the point. Forthrightly he states it: You ask by what name we have done this miracle? We are not ashamed to answer. We say it before you, we would declare it to “all the people of Israel,” that we did it “by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” (4:10). We could never have done it by our own power. Nor, for that matter, could a dead Jesus have accomplished it through us. Jesus is not dead. You crucified Him, it is true; but God raised Him up. And the man, over forty years old, lame from birth, stands before you here whole today as living evidence that we speak the truth.

Peter knew full well that such an answer to the question of Caia­phas would be received with great disfavor by the Sanhedrists. But, filled as he was with the Spirit of Christ, he continued. He had in effect laid at their door the responsibility for murdering the Christ, the Lord’s Anointed. He went on to show that, though it might seem incredible, un­thinkable, impossible that those who occupy the chief place in the temple of God could ever reject the Messiah, it was in fact no strange thing. For that the Messiah would be thus re­jected by His own, even “set at nought” by the builders (the spiritual leaders of the nation of Israel), was clearly foretold by the psalmist David himself (Ps. 118:22).

This was not the first time that the Jewish leaders had heard that Psalm applied to them, for Jesus had likewise done it (Mark 12:10). What Peter does now is an­nounce its fulfillment, the fulfill­ment, in fact, of “both parts of it” (Lenski)—they the builders, in their crucify­ing of Jesus of Nazareth, had set the stone at nought, declaring it to be unfit for use anywhere in the build­ing; but God, by raising Jesus and exalting Him to the right hand of power in heavenly glory, had made that stone the head of the corner (Acts 4:11). It was, there­fore, Jesus’ resur­rection that served as most em­phatic vindication of His claims—His claim not only to be the Son of God (for which asser­tion He was convicted of blasphemy), but His claim also to be the only way of sal­vation for His people (see, for ex­ample, John 6:23-59). It is to the latter that Peter finally gives witness before the Sanhedrists. “There is,” he concluded, “none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Reaction of the Sanhedrists

The reaction of the Sanhedrists to all of this is a bit surprising. Lenski wonders, “Why did Caiaphas and those Sadducees not leap up and denounce Peter in blazing wrath? Did the truth thrown into their faces, hurled at their consciences with such unexpected power dumbfound them for the moment?”

“Unexpected” the reply of Peter surely was. The San­hedrists were simply not prepared for a situa­tion in which, in dealing with these uneducated Galileans, they would find themselves put on the defensive. Whatever the reason for the response of the Sanhedrin, it was indeed obvious that the apostles had seized the advantage in this first encounter. The Sanhedrists could only marvel at the boldness with which the apostles spoke, and take note of the fact “that they had been with Jesus” (v. 13). They remembered all too well the authority with which Jesus spoke and the miracles by which He had supported His teaching. They had thought they were rid of Him. And now, all that they had hated in Jesus was reappearing in His disciples.

But what can they do? The apostles had broken no law. And the logic of Peter was such that “they could say nothing against it” (4:14). Knowing only that they are deter­mined to maintain their opposition to the name of Christ, but being at a loss exactly how to proceed, they ordered that the three men be taken from the room while the judges “con­ferred among themselves” (4:15).

Their angry frustration is evi­dent at once in their discussion of the problem. They deplore the fact that a “notable miracle” is already “mani­fest to all them that dwell in Jerusa­lem,” so that they (i.e., the San­hedrists) “cannot deny it” (4:16). Apparently they would have been quick to do that, if they could have somehow acted before the miracle had become general knowledge. That the miracle was a sign, wrought through the disciples of Jesus by a high­er power (and who could that be but God Himself?), leaves them cold. Writes Lenski, “the circumstance that facts are facts and signs are signs means nothing; deny them, get rid of them in some way; it is deplorable that they should be known at all, and they must be kept from becoming better known lest still more people believe them.”

Action of the Sanhedrin

That, indeed, was the action on which they decided. They dared not yet harm Peter and John, for the miracle, performed as it was near the gate of the temple at the hour of prayer, had made popular heroes out of them for the moment (see 4:21). They would therefore threaten them with serious consequences were they ever again so much as to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Thus would they fight against God—by silencing two men.

We note, with Bruce, that “it is particularly striking that neither on this nor on any subsequent occasion (so far as our information goes) did the Sanhedrin take any serious action to disprove the apostles’ central affir­mation—the resurrection of Jesus. Had it seemed possible to refute them on this point, how readily would the Sanhedrin have seized the oppor­tunity! Had they succeeded, how quickly and completely the new move­ment would have collapsed!” But they did not. And the problem seems to be the tomb—empty after the third day. There was, of course, the story of the guards that the body had been stolen. But the Sanhedrin itself must have wondered about the be­lieve­ableness of that. “The body of Jesus,” Bruce continues, “had vanished so completely that all the authority they (the Sanhedrists) had at their com­mand could not produce it.” And that was, for the Sanhedrin, “a disturbing situation.”

Response of the apostles

Be that as it may, the com­mand of the Sanhedrists at that time was, in effect, that the apostles no longer be Christ’s witnesses. And Peter and John saw at once that they could never obey that command, for it was directly contrary to the command of Christ: “ye shall be witnesses unto me...” (Acts 1:8). That they under­stood their responsibility, otherwise, to submit to the ordinances of man is clear from their response. “Whether it be right in the sight of God to heark­en unto you more than unto God, judge ye” (4:19). The idea is that they were prepared to take the conse­quences of non-compliance, if the judges would determine that thus it must be. But in their own mind it was settled—”we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (4:20).

God frustrates counsels of Sanhedrin

Fear of the people, writes Luke in verse 21, is all that restrained the Sanhedrin from doing violence to the apostles for their open declaration that they cannot submit in this in­stance to the court’s demand. Unable to do anything else, therefore, they simply threatened them further, and released them.

“Though they do not know it,” says Calvin, “God is binding them with His bonds.” A fear of the popu­lace it may be, but through it God frustrates their counsels in order to accomplish His own good purpose in the spread of the gospel.
============================================================================
Return to the New Work on New Testament History Page