Acts 4

CHAPTER IV

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN

Acts 4:1

1News of what had occurred (the healing) and of what was now occurring (the preaching) reached the Sadducees, and they at once interfere with strong measures. Now while they were speaking to the people, there suddenly stood by them the priests and the commander of the Temple and the Sadducees, thoroughly vexed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in connection with Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them and put them in ward for the morrow; for it was already evening.

Peter did the speaking. “They speaking” means that he acted also for John. The address was just about completed. Before anything further could happen such as happened in 2:37, the authorities swoop down on the scene and arrest Peter, John, and the beggar. The verb denotes sudden, unexpected appearance and is used with reference to the sudden standing of angels beside someone. So absorbed was everyone that the approach of the authorities was not noticed.

Luke names in order: “the priests, the commander of the Temple, and the Sadducees.” But this mention of “the priests” in the first place, and the fact that they were few, in no way debars us from thinking that they were the ones who had charge of the service on this afternoon. Their authority was less than that of the commander and of the Sadducees: To think of these “priests” as priest police, and to assume that there were two kinds of police: one that was composed of priests and another of Levites, on no stronger evidence than the appearance of ἱερεῖς in first place in this passage of Acts, is venturesome thinking. These were the regular priests, one of the twenty-four groups that had been selected by lot, whose time of service had been appointed for this day. Somebody had reported to them, and they, in turn, had informed the higher authorities, and so it came about that they were present with these authorities.

“The commander of the Temple” called the sagan, was at the head of the entire police force of the Temple which was composed of Levites. In the story of the arrest of Jesus these Levite police are called ὑπηρέται, “underlings”; they went about armed with clubs. Luke uses the plural στρατηγοί (Luke 22:4), from which we conclude that the commander had several lieutenants under him. The chief commander, Zahn claims, ranked next to the high priest, but that he, too, was a priest we decline to believe unless convincing evidence is furnished. Josephus mentions the commander in Ant. 20, 6, 2; Wars, 6, 5, 3. On an errand such as this present one this commander would not appear without a detachment of Levitical police. That is so self-evident that Luke does not need to mention these “underlings” when he names the authorities that appeared.

“The Sadducees” were members of the Sanhedrin, such as happened to be at hand when Peter addressed the people. They are the persons that instigated the arrest. This Jewish sect rejected the mass of oral tradition taught by the popular schools, claimed that this life was the whole of existence, that there are neither angels nor spirits, and that there is no resurrection of the dead. Although they were few in number, the Sadducees wielded a tremendous influence because they commanded wealth and social position and because the family of the high priest and a number of other priests belonged to their group. “The doctrine of the Sadducees is this, that souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it is an instance of virtue to dispute with these teachers of philosophy whom they frequent. But this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity,” Josephus, Ant. 18, 1, 4. They were the aristocrats, the freethinkers and skeptics among the Jews. They were coarse in manners and lived in Epicurean luxuriousness.

Acts 4:2

2What brought them to the scene was the fact that they were “thoroughly vexed” because Peter and John were teaching the people and proclaiming the very doctrine they were opposing, and were doing this ἐντῷἸησοῦ, “in connection with Jesus,” namely by proclaiming that Jesus was risen and by furnishing as evidence of his living power the miracle wrought on the lame beggar. Peter had not yet preached the general resurrection, but these Sadducees drew the correct conclusion that, if Jesus was risen, their whole contention about the impossibility of the resurrection was null and void. Jesus had already answered them, Matt. 22:23–33, but his answer had left them obdurate. Now, when right here in the Temple, under their very eyes, the resurrection was being taught “in connection with Jesus” whom they had brought to the cross, they rise up in their might to decree a summary stop. Note that Luke adds ἐκνεκρῶν with a second article so that this phrase receives the emphasis (R. 776): “the resurrection, that (namely) from the dead.” The dead, no, they cannot arise! On the phrase itself see 3:16.

Acts 4:3

3Luke’s account is summary. Whether any charges were preferred, whether an altercation ensued, whether the people took the matter quietly, is not said. He states only that these authorities made short work of it, arrested and locked up Peter and John and the beggar. The Greek has the expressive phrase, “they threw their hands on them,” meaning, of course, that not the authorities themselves did this but their “underlings” at their command; so in 3:15 Peter said to all the people, “You killed the Author of life.” Strong men took them by the arms and hurried them away.

Τἠρησις is “custody,” “ward,” “imprisonment.” Zahn has located the place of confinement on the basis of statements found in the Mishna and places it in one of the vaulted halls above a certain portal; but all we can say is that the place was not the same as that mentioned in 5:18. Evening had come, not, indeed, sunset but late afternoon. Thus it was too late to summon a session of the Sanhedrin in the hope of having it take care of the business on hand. The Jewish law forbade trials at night, a law that was most flagrantly violated in the case of Jesus but was here observed.

Acts 4:4

4But many of those that heard the Word believed; and there came to be a number of men about five thousand. The aorists are historical and register only the facts. Peter’s success was phenomenal. This is a fine example of apostolic evangelization. But remember that these were Jews who knew their Scriptures and not Gentiles or people to whom the true religion is still unknown. Even these Jews needed further instruction, 2:40. The apostles always laid a thorough foundation. Note that “they heard the Word,” Rom. 10:17. Thus early “the Word” signified the sum of the apostolic doctrine; in 2:42 it is called “the teaching” or “the doctrine.”

Luke says that the entire number of believers in Jerusalem increased from over 3, 000 souls (2:41) to 5, 000 men, not counting women and children of whom there was, of course, a due proportion. A count must have been made so that Luke could obtain this figure. It was too difficult to count all the souls, at least Luke could obtain only the figure he here recorded. He might have made an estimate of the souls. But his aim is accuracy with no intention of making the figure as large as possible.

Acts 4:5

5Now it came to pass on the morrow that there were brought together their rulers, and the elders and the scribes in Jerusalem and Annas, the high priest, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander and as many as were of high-priestly kindred.

Luke’s Hebraistic ἐγένετο may be followed by καί and a finite verb, by a simple finite verb, or, as here, by the accusative with the infinitive as the subject. The Sanhedrin was brought together by a summoning of its members. Only those “in Jerusalem” were summoned and not those living in country places outside of the city. The phrase modifies the nouns. The Sanhedrin is often designated by naming only two of its constituent groups; a little more impressive is the naming of all three: “the high priests, the elders, and the scribes.” Here Luke refers to the high priests in a special way (v. 6) and thus varies the designation by calling the first group οἱἅρχοντες, “the rulers.” He surely has in mind the group that is otherwise called by the general term “the high priests.” “Rulers” befits them in a special way since they had the leadership in the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas being the presiding officer who had the executive power in his hands. There is no reason for including lay rulers who were not priests in this first group.

These were classed as “the elders.” They were important laymen who had been elevated to a position in the Sanhedrin because of their standing and their experience in judicial matters. The scribes were the rabbis, graduates of the schools, who were chosen because of special ability in interpreting the Tora, i. e., the Law, the Old Testament. All or nearly all of them were Pharisees as were also the elders. The entire number that made up the Sanhedrin was 70 or 72 although not all members were needed for transacting business.

Acts 4:6

6καί particularizes by naming four of them individually and by summarizing the rest of this special high-priestly group. This is an exceptional construction in Luke’s writings but becomes almost necessary after the statement in v. 1 that “the Sadducees” had brought about the arrest; v. 6 tells us who the chief Sadducees were, namely all those of high-priestly connection.

Here, as elsewhere, Annas is mentioned as being especially important. He is named first because of his age; Caiaphas was his son-in-law. Annas had been high priest from the year 6 to the year 15. Then several other high priests followed in quick succession. After these Caiaphas held the office from 18–36. Having been high priest, this title was still accorded to Annas, no doubt also because he continued to wield great influence personally and through his family.

His son Eleazar had been high priest after him, his son-in-law now held this office, four other sons attained the high priesthood at a later time (Josephus, Ant. 20, 9, 1), so that a regular dynasty of the house of Annas was established. The name Annas was common, hence an addition was needed to mark the Annas here referred to. He also had a son by the name of Annas. Caiaphas was a rare name; we know of only this one individual who bore it; hence no further distinctive mark was needed. The Talmud also laid down the principle, that one might promote an individual to a sacred office but not demote him. This idea may well have been operative already at this time when the Romans interfered with the high priesthood so that the office was no longer held for life.

We really know nothing definite about John and Alexander. Zahn identifies John with Jonathan, the son of Annas, high priest after Caiaphas in 36, who was soon replaced by his brother Theophilus, was offered the same office again but declined in favor of his brother Matthias, and was finally murdered in the Temple by bandits. When Luke wrote, all this was history (recorded by Josephus), and this circumstance would explain why “John” is placed third by Luke, if he is, indeed, this Jonathan and son of Annas. All that can be said about Alexander is this, the fact that a Sadducee bearing such a name reveals the foreign influences at work among the sect.

Luke mentions still others who belonged to the high-priestly γένος, “kindred,” which some take in a wide sense as referring to relatives of former high priests, but which seems to refer to relatives of the present high-priestly family. These, Luke suggests, were the real leaders of the Sanhedrin, all of them Sadducees, all of them foes of the resurrection and of any preaching about Jesus as having risen from the dead. These most powerful judges, whose verdict was absolutely determined in advance, the two former fishermen from Galilee had now to face.

Acts 4:7

7And having stood them in the midst, they began to question, In connection with what power, or in connection with what name did you do this thing? The judges sat cross-legged in a half-circle on a raised platform. Temple police brought in Peter, John, and the beggar. They were compelled to stand on the lower floor “in the midst,” the judges facing them from all sides. This was the exact manner in which and the exact place where Jesus had stood when facing this court. What memories, what anticipations must have crowded into the apostles’ minds!

Caiaphas must have presided as he had done when Jesus was tried. But no crime is charged against them, no row of witnesses confronts the disciples. This is only a judicial investigation; the apostles are asked to make a statement regarding themselves. All present know what that statement will be, one that gravely incriminates themselves together with this court, most especially with its dominating members, the high-priestly Sadducean connection. The imperfect “they began to question” is descriptive and at the same time holds us in suspense as to what the answer will be.

The English cannot reproduce the pointed τοῦτοὑμεῖς at the end of the question: “this thing—you,” fellows like you. The pronoun has an emphasis of scorn. “This thing” declines to describe it in any way, for that would bring into prominence the greatness and the beneficence of the deed of the apostles. Not what they had done is asked about, for who could condemn the restoration of a congenital cripple; the way they had done what they had done, the means by which they had done it, are assailed. Sometimes ποῖος is qualitative, sometimes it is not (R. 740). We may here render: “In connection with what kind of power, or in connection with what kind of name?” The Sanhedrists know that the apostles will be compelled to say that the power and the name have reference to Jesus. Now also the Jewish exorcists claimed to do wonderful things by using the formulas of their day, the names of the patriarchs or the name of Solomon, and this procedure was considered proper and orthodox.

The question thus implies that, if some other power and especially some other name was used by the apostles, they lay themselves open to the most serious charge. Jesus of Nazareth was regarded as a rank blasphemer in the eyes of the Sanhedrin because he had called himself the Son of God. To use his power and his name for healing, no matter what the blessed result, was using the power and the name that were as blasphemous as this blasphemer himself.

The question with its repeated and thus emphatic “what kind of” is shrewd; it is like a noose thrown around the necks of the apostles. The end certainly does not justify the means. Damnable means dare not be used even if, through them, good or apparent good is done. That is the point of the double question. The Sadducees could not, of course, unlike the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin, claim that Beelzebul was the source of Jesus’ power and name, for they denied the existence of angels and of spirits. Yet Josephus, Ant. 18, 1, 4, informs us that they were base enough, when it served their purpose, to “addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees because the multitude would otherwise not hear them.” The question is here put in a shrewd way so as to gain the support also of all the Pharisees who had their own view of the wickedness of Jesus’ power and name. Note that here and in 2:38 and in Peter’s answer ἐνποίῳὀνόματι means “in connection with” what name?

Acts 4:8

8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers of the people and elders, if we on our part this day are judicially examined on a good deed to an impotent man, in connection with what this man has been saved, let it be known to you all and to all the people of Israel that in connection with the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised up from the dead, in connection with this One does this man stand here before you whole.

Peter again speaks for himself and also for John. It was not necessary to state explicitly that on Pentecost Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit when he preached as he did; nor was there need to state that he spoke by the Spirit to the multitude before Solomon’s Porch. But here this fact must be noted because it is the first fulfillment of the Lord’s promise given in Matt. 10:19, 20. Peter’s wonderful defense is not to be credited to his keen powers and his great courage. He and John had not lain awake all night planning what to say. They had not even known what turn things would take.

It is the Holy Spirit who puts this telling defense into Peter’s mouth. Peter merely uses a shorter formula when he names only the rulers and the elders when addressing the Sanhedrin. Both are most honorable terms; in fact, either could be used alone as a designation of the entire court. Like Jesus, the apostles acknowledge and submit to the authority of the Sanhedrin. Peter used even the most respectful form of address.

Acts 4:9

9In the conditional form of the answer: “if we this day,” etc., there lies a fine intimation that no just grounds exist for instituting the examination now being made. The emphatic ἡμεῖς, “we on our part,” takes up in a dignified way the emphatic and scornful ὑμεῖς of the question. The verb ἀνακρίνω is used in a forensic sense to indicate a preliminary judicial examination on the result of which further legal action may depend. Peter thus tells the Sanhedrin what it is doing; its president had failed to do so. The latter had used only τοῦτο, “this thing,” in his question of examination; Peter is proud to state what “this thing” really is because of which he and John are being subjected to judicial probing: “a good deed to an impotent man” (the objective genitive, R. 500). The articles are purposely omitted in order to emphasize the quality of the terms and to generalize the phrase.

Any good deed done to any helpless man, a restoration of such a man, speaks for itself. Not only this good deed but any and all like it ought to be beyond criminal suspicion and inquiry by any court. The Sanhedrin should investigate crimes and not good deeds. Yet if this high court must know “in connection with what this man (pointing to the beggar) has been saved (and thus now stands before them as saved,” Peter is certainly ready to furnish the fullest information, and this high court may then decree whether any criminality attaches to the means used for the man’s wonderful restoration. Ἐντίνι is neuter because it includes both “power” and “name” in the question; the R. V.’s marginal translation “in whom” is inexact. All five ἐν, beginning with those in the question, are identical in force and mean neither “through,” “by,” nor “in,” but, “in connection with,” which is the original sense of this preposition.

This sense also gives it so wide a range. Sphere illustrates its idea, for ἐν draws a circle around two concepts.

Acts 4:10

10We have noted Peter’s tone of authority in 2:14, 36; here it appears again and is expressed with the same imperative: “let it be known to you and to all the people of Israel.” So little is there to hide that Peter courts the utmost publicity and would have the world of Judaism know the exact facts regarding this beggar’s restoration. The Sanhedrin wants the name stated that is involved in this miracle; triumphantly Peter complies: it is “in connection with the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene,” that this man stands here before their very eyes ὑγιής, sound, whole, no longer crippled. By naming this name Peter does not need to specify the power in regard to which he also had been asked. All Palestine knew about that power because of the miracles which Jesus himself had wrought.

The old view is still held that in these “name” phrases ὄνομα means “authority,” R. 649, or that the phrase is a mere circumlocution. It is, of course, the Hebrew beschem, B.-D. 206, 3; but in these phrases and in other connections NAME always denotes revelation; see the discussion in 2:21, 38; 3:6. We believe “in or on the name.” The name is inserted before the person as making him known to us, as the means for apprehending him, of connecting ourselves with him. Note the resumptive ἐντούτῳ in this verse: “in connection with this One” as named and revealed. “Nazarene” is repeatedly used to identify Jesus in the popular way (2:22); and, as in 2:38, “Jesus Christ” designates him as the Messiah (2:36, “Lord and Christ”).

The two relative clauses name Jesus as Christ more fully, and the asyndeton makes them the more striking by presenting clashing opposites: “whom you crucified, whom God raised up from the dead.” Here we have the same bold contrast we noticed in 2:23, 24; 3:14, 15, which appeals to the conscience when the divine law reveals the sin. Here again God is shown as nullifying what the Sanhedrin had done. It had intended to abolish Jesus forever, God raised him up and established him forever. Here Peter does not add as he did in 2:32; 3:15: “of which we are witnesses.” Their testimony regarding the resurrection of Jesus would be scorned by the Sanhedrists. Peter points to the testimony that even these vicious haters of Jesus cannot deny, namely the healed beggar standing there before their eyes: “in connection with this One,” whose name and revelation he has just presented, “this man stands here before you whole.” The perfect παρέστηκεν is always used as a present, and παρά, “stands beside,” means, “stands here.”

Peter says this to men like Annas and Caiaphas here in the midst of their Sadducean following. The whole Sanhedrin had tried to hush up the resurrection of Jesus, Matt. 28:11–15. Here it faced them with even stronger evidence than that which the Roman guard brought from the tomb. No dead Jesus could work a miracle such as this; the risen and glorified Jesus alone could do that. So Jesus had healed when he was alive; lo, so he had healed now after this Sanhedrin had crucified him!

Acts 4:11

11Why 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? Peter continues: This One is the stone, the one considered as nothing by you, the ones building, the one become corner head. And the salvation is in connection with not a single other; for there is not another name under heaven as having been given among men in connection with which we must be saved.

Peter was not defending himself and John. There was nothing against which to make a defense. He is doing his part of witnessing (1:8), preaching Jesus Christ to these Sanhedrists as to any other sinners through law and gospel. What this court would do with him and with John mattered not at all; his one concern was to glorify Jesus as the Savior, and in this the Holy Spirit directed his words In his witness he uses Ps. 118:22, yet not as a quotation but in order to recall to the Sanhedrists what Jesus himself had told them on the basis of this psalm in Matt. 21:42–44. Jesus had warned them that this prophecy would be fulfilled; Peter points out that it has now been fulfilled, both parts of it, viz., what they had done, and what God had done. But he centers attention on Jesus, on the unbelief of the Sanhedrists in rejecting him, and on the deed of God in making him the Savior.

“This One” is resumptive and repeats all that Peter has said about Jesus. The article with the predicate “the stone” makes it identical and interchangeable with the subject, R. 769. The figure refers to the spiritual temple of God. In their office as spiritual leaders of the Jewish nation God had appointed these Sanhedrists builders of this temple. How they would function as builders the psalmist had foretold, and Peter now repeats the thought of the psalmist in connection with this stone, Jesus Christ, “the one considered as nothing” by them, unfit to be used anywhere in a building such as they proposed. They rejected Jesus and crucified him.

But this very stone is “the one become corner head,” the one supreme stone which, laid at the head corner, governs every other corner and every angle in the entire spiritual temple and thus determines the angle at which every other stone is to be laid. How Jesus became this wonderful stone Peter has already stated, namely by God’s raising Jesus from the dead. Note that εἰς is predicative: geworden zum Eckstein, Hebrew, le, R. 481. “Corner head” is without articles and thus stresses the concepts themselves; it is almost a compound.

Sometimes Christ is viewed as the entire foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), then again as the cornerstone, as distinct from the foundation (Eph. 2:20). The latter is not the former. Peter loved this passage about the cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:4, etc.), for his own name Peter (rock) always reminded him of this Stone. Will these blind Sanhedrists at last see their terrible sin and repent?

Acts 4:12

12In plain, literal language Peter presents the fulness of the gospel with its mighty call to salvation. The Greek may or may not use the article with an abstract noun, so that here ἡσωτηρία is usually translated “salvation,” Heil (Luther); yet here the article specifies. Peter means “the salvation,” that promised in the Messiah. It is this salvation that exists “in connection with not a single other”; ἐν is used like the five ἐν in v. 7 and 10. No second, no substitute, no alternate to Jesus exists so that by connecting with (ἐν) this other we could secure salvation. The noun “salvation,” to which the verb “be saved” is added, denotes the act of deliverance plus the resultant state of safety; both are wrought by the Σωτήρ, Savior; see the participle in 2:47.

Peter uses the same verb when speaking of the deliverance of the beggar in v. 9, just as Jesus, too, had used it in the case of persons healed in Luke 8:48; 18:42; and with reference to the deliverance from sin in Luke 7:50. The word can be used in either sense, but here, where Peter speaks of the supreme work of the Messiah Jesus, salvation and saving are to be taken in the spiritual sense.

With γάρ Peter explains by restating more fully and explicitly what he had said. Because of γάρ, οὑδέ cannot mean “neither,” this is true also because no other οὑδέ follows. The entire previous sentence is expanded. Elucidating and fuller restatements are generally introduced with explanatory γάρ. Instead of “not a single other” (person) Peter says, “not another name under heaven as having been given among men.” Here he again uses “name” as he did in v. 10 and as he used it with such emphasis in 3:16, there adding the correlative “faith” with equal emphasis; see the remarks on that passage.

Name” is again the revelation by which the saving person becomes the possession of the person to be saved. It is the objective means of saving and implies faith in that name or revelation as the subjective means. Jesus comes to us by means of his name; that name awakens faith; and by faith in his name he saves us. Ἄλλος and ἔτερος are often used without a special difference in meaning; and R. 749 thinks that here the latter means only no “other at all.” This absoluteness, however, lies in the added phrase “under heaven” and not in ἔτερον itself. We are certainly entitled to retain the difference here; “not a single other” who is in any way like and comparable to Jesus brings us salvation; and, excluding the other possibility, “not another name under heaven” that is different from his and works on us in a different way.

Instead of a relative clause we have the articulated perfect participle, articulated because otherwise the participle would be combined with ἐστίν and form a periphrastic perfect verb form. This participle adds the very important thought that, to do us any good, the “name” must be given to us, namely by God or by Christ. Only of a name thus given among men is Peter speaking, any other name would reveal and convey nothing to us. Names are intended as distinctions by which others know us, and the better they know us, the better they can trust us. The perfect participle “having been given among men” implies that, once given, the name remains as our means of salvation.

And here again is universality: “among men,” paralleling “on all flesh” in 2:17, and “to those afar off” in 2:39. The name has been given “among men” in order to attract and to draw them with its saving power: “in connection with which we must be saved,” ἐν is for the sixth time used in the same sense. This “we” is not a retraction of “among men,” not a limitation of the universality. It appeals to Peter’s hearers and joins him with them; for he is not offering an academic or abstract proposition which one might debate and regarding which one might hold different opinions but an absolute fact of necessity on which hangs eternal salvation or eternal destruction. Since “to be saved” includes the act plus the condition, Peter can freely include the apostles with the Sanhedrin; the infinitive is constative. The necessity implied in δεῖ is that of the fact: Since salvation is possible only in connection with Jesus, all who desire to be saved must embrace his name.

Acts 4:13

13Now, beholding the boldness of Peter and John and having perceived that they were people uneducated and ordinary, they were marvelling, also they were recognizing them, that they had been with Jesus. Seeing also the man standing with them, the one having been healed, they had nothing to say to the contrary.

The imperfect tenses are descriptive of the situation of the Sanhedrists. Two things made them marvel: the παρρησία of the apostles, the free, assured way in which they bore themselves and spoke, and yet the fact that they were “uneducated,” never having attended a rabbinical school, and besides that they were ἰδιῶται, ordinary, common people who had nothing but their own little personal affairs to which to attend. They held no public office of any kind that might give them some training. They understood that the apostles had neither the advantage of rabbinical schooling nor that offered by any other kind of prominence. Associated with this was their recognition of the fact that they had been with Jesus, and that this experience in some way accounted for the effective way in which they spoke and acted. Many, no doubt, had seen these two apostles with Jesus during the Passover week, then, however, paying little attention to them. The Greek retains the tenses of the direct discourse when it expresses what one perceives and recognizes, hence εἰσί and also ἦσαν; the thought of the Sanhedrists was: “they are uneducated”—“they were with Jesus.”

Acts 4:14

14Associated with all this they saw standing beside the apostles the man that had been healed, whom, of course, they had for a long time known as the most hopeless cripple but who was now standing on his feet completely healed—eloquent attestation of every word Peter had spoken. All of this was too much. They were checkmated, “they had nothing to say to the contrary,” there just was nothing that they could say. Note how the two τε used in these verses bind the three statements into one compact whole.

Here we have a shining exemplification of the manner in which the Holy Spirit conducts the cases of persecuted disciples. Even the Sanhedrists perceived that a power was sustaining Peter and John. The point to be noted, however, is not the fact that the apostles escaped but that, irrespective of this, they so perfectly maintained the cause of Christ and the gospel. The very judges who compelled them to appear were converted into an audience for the apostles’ preaching, and they preached to this audience without the least timidity or restraint and with all power and effectiveness. Such scenes occur throughout the Acts; in this way the gospel reached out to the highest authorities to win rulers, governors, kings for Christ.

Acts 4:15

15But having ordered them to go outside of the council chamber, they conferred with each other, saying: What shall we do to these men? for that a known sign has occurred through them is manifest to all those inhabiting Jerusalem, and we are not able to make denial. But in order that it may not spread farther to the people, let us threaten them no longer to speak on the basis of this name to any man.

This was a painful situation. The Sadducees, who had caused the arrest, had not expected to find themselves at such a disadvantage. Nothing is left to them but to order the prisoners to step outside and to confer in private. Here συνέδριον designates the hall where the session was held, where the judges “sat together”; the word is also used to designate the Sanhedrin itself. The Greek is picturesque: “they threw together” (words, λόγοι), R. 1202, and thus conferred in private, each giving his opinion. We need not ask how Luke obtained the results of this conference, for since so many were conferring, it was impossible to keep things secret.

Acts 4:16

16Luke reports only the gist of what was said and decided. “What shall we do to these men?” is a question of deliberation and doubt, hence the subjunctive is employed. Having arrested these men, they felt that they must do something to them; but what could they do? The honest thing to do was to acknowledge their wrong in having made the arrest; yea, to admit their crime in crucifying Jesus, to repent, and to accept him as the Christ. But their very question implies that these things they will not do. They must in some way maintain their opposition, the only question being in what way.

They admit that they cannot deny the reality of the “sign” wrought through the apostles. It is a “known sign” and by this time “manifest to all those inhabiting Jerusalem.” The crowds that saw the healed beggar and heard Peter’s address in the Temple court spread the news over all the city; the Sanhedrists admit this to each other. With φανερόν supply the copula ἐστί.

This is the blindness of unbelief. The fact that a known and notable sign has occurred, a sign that signified something, one that had been wrought “through the apostles,” they being only the medium (διά) of a higher power, means absolutely nothing to these Sanhedrists personally. They would deny the miracle if they could; the only thing that prevents such a denial is the fact that it is already known throughout the city. This to their great regret. We see how old the motives and the policies of unbelief are. 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.

Acts 4:17

17Ἀλλά corresponds to μέν in v. 16. The only thing left to be done under the painful circumstances is to take effective measures to prevent the further spread of the knowledge of this sign “to the people” (εἰν, not. “among”). The Sanhedrists agree that proper threatening will accomplish this; yet we must remember that they were sorely perplexed to find anything they might do. The subjunctive is hortative: “let us threaten them,” aorist to express the one act. They have in mind a threatening command “no longer to speak on the basis of this name to any man.” Note λαλεῖν; not “to make utterance” is to keep still. The apostles are not to mention “this name” nor anything depending “on this name,” no matter what it may be.

The Sanhedrin intends to muzzle the apostles completely. The phrase “on the name” has the same force as “in the name,” the preposition varying only the relation by using the idea of basis instead of that of connection. “Name,” however, has the same meaning it had in v. 7, 10, 12; compare 3:16; and the previous passages 2:21, 38; 3:6. They purposely say “this name” without mentioning “Jesus.” It has been well said: sie wollten ihn totschweigen. (They would kill him by silence.) This significant aversion to pronouncing even the name still exists to this day.

Acts 4:18

18And having called them, they passed the order all through not to make a sound and not to teach on the basis of the name of Jesus. The threat was implied. To disobey a strict order of the supreme Jewish court was at that time a more serious thing than contempt of court is now. The order is summary and permits no exception of any kind. “All through” is to be construed with both infinitives, but τό modifies only the compound adverb καθόλου by regarding this as an adverbial accusative. The present infinitives are linear and refer to all time to come. They are not even “to make a sound,” etwas verlauten lassen, on the basis of the name of Jesus. This includes the teaching, but that is also specified because the apostles had been teaching.

“Jesus” is here added, and the usual explanation given is that the Sanhedrin was compelled to mention this name when issuing its order; yet these are Luke’s own words, and there is no evidence that “Jesus” was even here uttered by the Sanhedrists. One cannot be sure that they did so. Thus the apostles were no longer to be apostles, the witnesses (1:8; 2:32; 3:15) were no longer to testify. The Sanhedrin nullifies the order and the appointment of Jesus. The whole work of the gospel is to be nipped in the bud.

19, 20) But Peter and John, making answer to them, said: Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken to you rather than to God, judge ye; for not able are we on our part not to utter what things we saw and heard.

The circumstantial participle (aorist of simultaneous action), “making answer to them,” intends to mark the importance of the answer to this court order. The answer is very brief but perfect. No man could have given a better one. Peter and John act as a unit. The perfection of the answer lies in the turning of the question at issue back upon the judgment of the Sanhedrin itself; in the formulating of that question in the simple way in which it ought alone to be formulated; and then in the giving of the only answer the apostles on their part are able to make. The whole answer is designed so as to focus on the real issue and to cut off any opportunity to quibble about irrelevant points. The Holy Spirit prompted this answer even as to its wording.

From the Jewish supreme court the apostles appeal to God’s own court, to which even the Sanhedrin was amenable: “whether it is right in the sight of God.” As the highest religious court of the nation the Sanhedrin itself was always assembled as being in the very sight of God, and its every act was to have the full sanction and approval of God. Peter struck home when he said “in the sight of God.” The forensic point in the words employed by the apostles should not be overlooked, for both δίκαιον and ἐνώπιοντοῦΘεοῦ refer to God as the Judge who pronounces what is δίκη, “just,” “righteous,” in harmony with the divine δίκαιον or norm of right. The one thing the Sanhedrists need to dread is that the divine Judge should pronounce an action of theirs unjust, contrary to his norm of right.

So the alternative before the apostles is, “whether to hearken unto you rather than unto God,” or negatively, “whether to disobey men rather than God.” “Judge ye” means that, as far as the apostles are concerned, the alternative is decided, and they are ready to abide by the consequences. Elucidative γάρ explains that their position has been taken: “not able are we not to utter what things we saw and heard.” This is a litotes which puts negatively what is intended very positively, namely that they are bound to utter these things. The οὑ and the μή cancel each other, B.-D. 431, 1. The inability of the apostles to remain silent about all that they have seen and heard (the Greek uses aorists to express the facts, the English prefers perfects to express the relative time of the facts) of Jesus is moral, spiritual, due to the compulsion of conscience. In the four Gospels we have a survey of what the apostles saw and heard. The emphasis is strongly on ἡμεῖς, both because it is written out and because of its position, verb and subject are reversed: “unable are we,” stressing both.

The Sanhedrin may judge for itself, what the apostles judge they here declare. Where God is involved, every man must judge for himself, and he is entitled to do so.

There was not a moment’s hesitation, not the least trace of fear, but complete outspokenness. The apostles do not leave the impression that they may possibly obey while in their hearts they resolve not to obey; nor do they evade the issue by saying that they will think the matter over. They face the issue like men, squarely, openly.

Compare 5:29. No wonder Luke devotes so much space (chapters three to five) to the events which evoked these declarations that are of the highest moral import regarding human and divine authority. In John 7:48, 49 this very Sanhedrin operated with the directly opposite principle, a principle which now receives its supreme challenge. All human authority must yield to divine authority. It is, indeed, a divine command that we obey the government (Rom. 13:1), but this obedience is never absolute. When the government or any human authority commands what is contrary to God, we are bound to obey God alone.

The first members of the church who suffered for this principle were the Twelve, cf., 5:40; the history of all the martyrdoms that followed extends from that time until the present. Tears and blood have ever anew sealed this great principle in this wicked world.

Some individuals have gone too far by having this principle justify rebellion and revolution. The apostles offered only passive resistance and not the sword. Like them, we may use all legitimate means to change the wrong demands made on us, but beyond that we suffer in patience any infliction that may result. It is this great principle that makes for the separation of church and state, that keeps each out of the domain of the other. This is the principle underlying true civil and religious liberty and the liberty of conscience. Endless are the means by which this principle is assailed, endless the efforts of human authority to supersede the divine. The author has treated the entire subject in Kings and Priests, see especially pp. 101, 104, 116.

Acts 4:21

21But they, having made further threats, released them, finding nothing as to how they should punish them on account of the people, because all were glorifying God for what had occurred. For the man was of more than forty years on whom this sign of the healing had occurred.

So the whole proceeding ended in failure. Luke adds the reason that the Sanhedrists found nothing chargeable: “on account, or in consideration, of the people.” They dreaded the effect which harsher methods might have on the people, for these glorified God because of what had occurred. The insincerity and the inner dishonesty of the Sanhedrin is in glaring contrast with the openness of the apostles. Chrysostom has a fine passage in which he compares the two: the Sanhedrists at a loss, the apostles joyful; they afraid to say what they think, these speaking out openly; they dreading to have the report spread, these unable not to say what they saw and heard; they not doing what they wanted, these declaring what they wanted. He ends by asking, “Who, then, were in bonds and in dangers?” The article before the indirect question of deliberation with πῶς merely substantivizes it as being the object of the participle, R. 766.

Acts 4:22

22It may well be possible that as a medical man Luke adds the notable detail of the man’s age although one need not be a doctor in order to be impressed by this feature of the miracle. The people, no doubt, remarked about the beggar’s age when they told the story of his instantaneous healing. With πλείων (and ἐλάσσων), ἥ, “than,” is omitted when these occur before numbers, B.-D., 185, 4. The perfect participle is proper in the phrase in v. 21; “what has occurred,” which states the viewpoint of those praising God; here, in the relative clause, the past perfect states the standpoint of the reader. The genitive “of the healing” is appositional to “this sign,” R. 498.

THE PRAYER OF THE APOSTLES

Acts 4:23

23Luke adds the sequel, which incidentally gives us an insight into the prayer life of the apostles. Now, having been released, they came to their own and reported what all the high priests and the elders said to them.

There is a question as to who are referred to by “their own?” Many interpreters answer, “The believers.” But in v. 31 we learn that all were filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to utter the Word of God; and in v. 32, we read of the multitude of those that believed. And this multitude, no doubt, includes more than the “all” of v. 31. Nor did “all” mentioned in this verse preach the Word. Peter and John came to their fellow apostles; if a few other persons were present, they are not considered in Luke’s narrative. The Sanhedrin is usually designated by naming only two of its classes as is done here where “the high priests and the elders” are named. And these are “their rulers and the elders” which were mentioned in v. 5.

Stress is laid only on what these foes of Christ and the gospel “said” and not on what Peter and John replied, because the prayer that now follows deals with what these foes ordered, namely, the cessation of all preaching. The apostles pray that God may grant them the ability to go on preaching with boldness (v. 29).

Acts 4:24

24And they, on hearing it, with one accord lifted voice to God and said: Lord Almighty, thou art he that madest the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them, the One that through thy servant David’s mouth didst say:

For what purpose did Gentiles snort,

And people put care on empty things?

The kings of the earth stood in array,

And the rulers were gathered together

Against the Lord and against his Anointed.

For there were gathered of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with Gentiles and peoples of Israel to do what all thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to occur.

Instead of launching words of indignation against the Sanhedrin and its unjust demands, the apostles automatically turn to God, the Omnipotent, lay the case before him, and ask him to enable them to resist those demands. A great critical moment has come: all their preaching and teaching must henceforth be done in open violation of the highest legal power and authority of their nation. They must, therefore, depend wholly upon the still higher power and authority of God. “They lifted up voice and said” certainly does not intend to exclude Peter and John. Here we again meet the significant adverb “with one accord.” There was no coward among the apostles, no one wavered, all as one man resolved to disobey the Sanhedrin and to rely and to call upon God.

The view that the plural conveys the idea that all those present actually spoke the prayer aloud in unison is as untenable as to think that in v. 19 Peter and John spoke in unison. Some even state that this prayer had been composed and committed to memory some days before, and that it was a general prayer without special reference to what had just occurred. But this view is plainly contradicted by v. 29: “look upon their threats,” which clearly refers to v. 17 and 21; and by v. 30: “while thou stretchest forth thy hand for healings,” which certainly refers to the healing of the lame man on the previous afternoon. No; we discard such literalism. Luke evidently means that one of the apostles uttered the prayer, and that all the apostles lifted up their voice and spoke through his voice and his words. We pray in the same manner. The pastor’s voice is the voice of the entire congregation speaking to God.

Δεσπότης is our “despot,” one who rules with absolute and unrestricted power by his will alone, but the Greek word does not have the connotation of arbitrariness and tyranny which we associate with the word despot. In spite of Prov. 11:26 where the LXX used the term as a translation for ʾAdon, it is a question whether ʾAdon was the Aramaic word here employed. The word evidently refers to God’s omnipotence, and we might translate it “Lord Almighty.” When deciding between the A. V. which inserts the copula: “thou art (God is not in the text) he that made,” etc., and the R. V. which omits the copula, we prefer the former. To make all that follows in v. 25, 26 an apposition results in an unwieldy anacoluthon.

We then have an extended subject without the sign of a predicate, and the construction continues with a γάρ clause in v. 27. By inserting the copula a construction such as this is avoided. The omnipotent power of God is sketched by describing him as the Creator of heaven, earth, sea, and all things in them, and the mind dwells on each of these tremendously great created objects somewhat as in Neh. 9:6; Jer. 32:17; Rev. 14:7.

Acts 4:25

25Although it is supported by four great uncials, the reading ὁτοῦπατρὸςἡμῶνδιὰΙΙνεύματοςἈγίουστόματοςΔαυεὶδπαιδόςσουεἰπών is unacceptable both as to form and to substance. It seems to be an old Jewish-Christian gloss that found its way into the text. Linguistically it is impossible to construe both the Holy Spirit and David after the one διά, to say nothing of the genitive “our father” which precedes this preposition; nor has anyone discovered why David should here be called not only God’s servant but in addition “our father,” the latter being placed forward for the sake of great emphasis. The A. V. renders in a sensible way, “Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said,” or more literally, “the One that through the mouth … didst say.” ΙΙαῖς = “servant.” It is so used with regard to Jesus in 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30. Διά, especially when it is used in connection with “mouth,” describes Verbal Inspiration. R.

W. P., supposes that a second διά dropped out in the longer reading given above, but this still leaves that reading unacceptable.

The critics reject this apostolic testimony to the Davidic authorship of Ps. 2, and seek to find some other far later author. The testimony of the apostles is rejected although it is inspired (v. 31). Like the Sanhedrists, the critics still regard them as ἁγράμματοικαὶἰδιῶται, v. 13. The Old Testament has no superscription for this psalm, and the critics draw the conclusion that therefore David could not be the author of it and thereby ignore the old warning that it is dangerous to conclude anything e silentio. The fact that the psalm is nevertheless, ascribed to David is explained by some on the supposition that the term “psalm” was regarded as equivalent to “song of David” although this is contradicted by the fact that many psalms are ascribed to other writers.

We may well regard David himself as a type of Christ, so that the psalm refers to David’s ascending the throne of Israel and maintaining that throne by the help of Jehovah in spite of all his enemies. But this is described in a way that is so grand and comprehensive that it plainly reaches out beyond David’s person and extends to the Messiah whom David typified also in this respect. Meyer paraphrases the words of the psalm here quoted as follows: “Why do the Gentiles rage” against Jesus, namely the Romans, “and the peoples,” Israel’s tribes, “imagine vain things,” such as they cannot successfully carry into effect, namely the destruction of Jesus? “The kings of the earth,” represented by Herod, “set themselves in array” against Jesus, “and the rulers,” with Pilate, “were gathered together” with the ἔθνη and λαοί “against the Lord,” Jehovah who had sent Jesus, “and against his Anointed.” This psalm, of course, goes beyond the opposition that was evident at the time of Jesus and the apostles and includes all opposition down to the end of time. The greatness of the psalm is evident from the fact that it is repeatedly quoted in the New Testament.

Acts 4:26

26The ἔθνη, heathen and Gentiles, are paired with λαοί, the plural to denote the tribes of Israel (the singular is regularly used as a designation of the people of Israel). The question introduced by ἱνατί is one in regard to purpose (“in order that what may occur?”) and here inquires as to what possible sensible purpose the heathen could have in snorting against Jehovah and his Anointed. What end had they in view? This verb is used with reference to the snorting of horses and thus denotes the pride and the scorn of strength. These pagans rear, paw, and snort like wild stallions who show their power as though nothing could control them. What for? For nothing.

What is the end to be accomplished by these λαοί by bestowing care, thought, and diligence on things that are κενά, empty, without inner reality or substance? The senselessness manifested by devoting effort to things that are void and hollow ought to be apparent. The whole scheme of abolishing Christ is an empty dream, an insane delusion, and yet ceaseless effort is put forth to realize that dream. These two lines are full of divine scorn and irony.

The psalm advances to the kings and the rulers who stand at the head of their people, and in whom this opposition centers. ΙΙαρέστησαν, “stood by,” is well rendered, “stood in array.” They ranged themselves in line for battle. In the same way the rulers “were gathered together” (ἐπὶτὸαὑτό as in 1:16 and repeatedly) for the same opposition. Two great κατά phrases (“down against”) state the focus of all this tremendous though vacuous hostility: “the Lord (Yahweh) and his Anointed (Χριστός, Luke 3:22).” They will not have this man to reign over them, Luke 19:14. And yet he will reign even over them, over all of them, if not in grace (which they scorn) then in judgment (which none can scorn), Ps. 2:9. It is one of those odd fancies that still find occasional favor (as in R., W. P.) that all present sang the lines of the psalm, and that Peter then applied them. Luke, however, records a prayer.

Acts 4:27

27What the psalm depicted found one of its most notable fulfilments as to both Gentile and Jewish opposition in the death of Jesus. The conjunction γάρ frequently specifies by introducing an example; it is like our “for instance.” Note that the verb “there were gathered” is repeated and put into the emphatic forward position. For the striking feature of the killing of Jesus was this very coalition of his foes, notably Herod and Pilate, who actually again became friends in this strange way. Who would have thought it possible? But it occurred “of a truth”—it actually did. And “in this city,” the last place in the world where one would have thought it possible for Jews and pagans, a Jewish king and a pagan ruler, to combine against Jehovah and his Messiah.

Ἐπί, “on thy holy Servant Jesus,” fits the idea of the trial to which Jesus was subjected. This monstrous and unholy alliance was directed as the psalm states, “against Jehovah’s Anointed” who is fully designated in the prayer. “Servant,” the great ʾEbed Yahweh, is explained in 3:13. He is here significantly called “holy” in order to manifest how monstrous and damnable this combination against him was. “Thy holy Servant” shows how Jehovah was involved as the line of the psalm last quoted states. Instead of saying “Jesus Christ,” the prayer expands, “Jesus whom thou didst anoint” and lays fuller stress on this point in the psalm and again shows that Jehovah is involved. It is enough to mention the king and the governor, for all the rest that were implicated in the murder of Jesus are included in the phrase “with Gentiles and peoples of Israel.” Yes, “of Israel,” a poignant genitive!

Acts 4:28

28The purpose of this coalition is expressed, not from the viewpoint of Herod and of Pilate, but from that of God. The enemies of Jesus did not assemble to do what God had foreordained but to carry out what their own wicked will intended; and yet they thereby carried out exactly what God had determined from eternity. Behind their violence in attempting to destroy Jesus there stood “thy hand,” the power of God designated concretly and anthropomorphitically, and “thy counsel,” the will and plan of God regarding Jesus, his Anointed, which through his very passion and death made him the Savior of the world.

The things these enemies did were κενά, “empty,” as far as their purpose and intent were concerned; but in God’s hand and counsel these vicious things were made to serve his purpose and intent. Neither God’s hand nor his counsel compelled these enemies to make Jesus suffer and die; their own wickedness did that. But God’s hand and counsel foreordained in all eternity that what they did should serve the divine purpose and end, defeat their purpose and accomplish his. It is thus that God rules in the midst of his enemies, and when they do their own wicked will most perfectly, they become mere tools for his high and blessed will. The depth of thought here so tersely expressed is the product only of divine revelation.

Acts 4:29

29And as to things now, Lord, look upon their threats and give to thy slaves with all boldness to go on uttering thy Word while thou stretchest out thy hand for healing and in order that signs and wonders may occur through the name of thy Servant Jesus.

Acts alone has the form τανῦν, “as to things now” or simply “now,” here referring to the situation that has just developed. In regard to the threats of the Sanhedrin the apostles ask only that God “look upon” them, i.e., take them into account in what he does for the apostles. They do not ask for punishment of the Sanhedrin, nor that God should make its threats null and void; they do not ask for protection against the execution of these threats, nor for anything regarding their own person. All they plead for is the gift of boldly uttering the Word, irrespective of what the Sanhedrin may do. Peter and John had shown this boldness (v. 13), but the apostles realized that this consisted in more than just manly courage, that it was a spiritual virtue and thus a gift bestowed by God. The emphasis is on the phrase “with all boldness.”

By calling themselves δούλοιςσου they bow in humility before God but also state that they have no will but his, that they are wholly dependent on him and wholly bound to his service. The aorist is used in prayers because of the urgency and the intensity it expresses. As true apostles, men sent and commissioned, they merely “utter” the Word, λαλεῖν; it is laid upon their lips and is not the product of their own minds. And here again, as in v. 4, “the Word” is used in its comprehensive and specific sense as designating the gospel of Christ. If God will help them to keep sounding forth (durative infinitive) the Word, all will be well.

Acts 4:30

30When they ask for signs, no second request is made, for these naturally accompany the apostolic Word as its seal even as Jesus had also promised; hence also there is no καί or coordination but only ἐντῷ, Luke’s favorite idiom, which certainly does not here indicate means (R. 1073) but has its usual force, “while.” Here we have a plain statement by the apostles themselves that a miracle is wrought only when God wills “to stretch out his hand” in omnipotent power. In every case (as noted when explaining 3:4) the apostles waited until God bade them act; they never depended merely on their own judgment. “For healing” is a special reference to the miracle performed upon the lame beggar.

“Signs and wonders” include all miracles of every kind such as the Lord’s hand may choose to work. His hand (power) works them but does so through the medium of (διά) “the name” of Jesus; on ὄνομα see 2:21, and the phrases found in 2:38; 3:6; 3:16; 4:8, 10. “Thy holy Servant” is added as it was in v. 27. Some interpreters construe the infinitive γίνεσθαι with ἐντῷ and coordinate it with ἐκτείνειν, but the subject of the latter is personal, that of the former neuter. Others construe it with εἰς, but this makes the infinitive clause coordinate with a mere man. We construe it as a purpose clause that is dependent on “in that thou stretchest out thy hand”; thus it is parallel with the phrase εἰςἴασιν, which expresses purpose.

Acts 4:31

31And when they had petitioned, the place was shaken in which they had been gathered, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to utter the Word with boldness.

The answer to the petition was immediate and miraculous. We are helped in understanding this when we remember the great issue (v. 19, 20) with which the petition dealt. God put his sanction and his seal upon the principle uttered in this prayer, did it for all time to come. Δέομαι is the common verb to express begging for something either from men or from God. The shaking of the place is sometimes assumed to have been due to an earthquake; but when an earthquake occurred, as at the death and at the resurrection of Jesus, this is stated, see also 16:26. This shaking had no natural cause but, like the manifestations at Pentecost, was due only to the Holy Ghost. The sign was one of omnipotent power in the divine presence.

The verb “they had been gathered together” may be considered the periphrastic past perfect (R., W. P.) or the imperfect plus a perfect participle: “they were,” namely “as having been gathered” and thus still being together.

A new measure of the Holy Spirit was bestowed on them. The wider we open our hearts, or the wider God is able to open them, the more of the Spirit we receive; verbs of filling are followed by the genitive. Although it is added only as a coordinate fact by means of καί, it is the result of this being filled with the Spirit that they all “continued to utter the Word with boldness,” the very thing asked for in v. 29. The imperfect tense is not inchoative (R., W. P.), for they had been speaking with boldness all along, and the test was now whether they would allow the threats of the Sanhedrin to intimidate them or not. By the Spirit’s help they continued their public preaching openly and freely as though the Sanhedrin had never made a threat.

They obeyed God rather than men and committed the consequences to God. This was spiritual heroism.

THE SECOND PICTURE OF THE MOTHER CONGREGATION AT JERUSALEM

Acts 4:32

32Compare 2:44–47. After the first great influx of members Luke describes the excellent condition of the congregational life; now after a second great influx and after a notable victory over their opponents he again shows us the condition of the church. Now of the multitude of those that believed there was one heart and soul; and not one was saying that anything of his possessions was his own, on the contrary, for them all things were common.

Viewed outwardly, the congregation consisted of a great πλῆθος or “crowd” that was made up of a vast variety of people, old and young, rich and poor, with many differences in occupations, gifts, temperament, inclinations, etc. The 3, 000 won at Pentecost came from many lands and had different native languages. Luke’s last count was about 5, 000 men (4:4). Make your own estimate of the total membership when the women and the children are included. What held all these people together was their one faith; they were “those that believed,” the aorist participle stating only the fact of their believing.

Faith is the inner and essential bond of union in the church. The Communion of Saints is such by faith alone. Mere outward connection with a church body does not constitute true membership although it may lead to that. This is a spiritual state in the soul and not a matter of outward arrangement. Faith, of course, produces many visible results, for those who believe show their faith in many ways, and all these manifestations are valuable, but valuable only as evidences and fruits of the inner state, the precious saving faith itself.

The outstanding feature which Luke can report is that of this host of believers “there was one heart and soul.” As in a living body only one heart beats, and as it is animated by only one ψυχή, so it was true of this great body of believers. Καρδία and ψυχή naturally go together as the pulsing heart and the breath of life. The Greek word for the heart designates the center of the personality, the seat of thought, feeling, and volition; in English the word heart connotes chiefly the feeling. The Greek ψυχή characterizes the soul in so far as it animates the body, it is the “life” of the body. Luke presents the fact that this great outward body of the congregation had one living personality in it. Its whole active life was one in thought, feeling, and will. “They all wanted one thing: to be saved eternally; they all thought one thing: only to be faithful to the Lord Jesus; they all experienced one thing: the comfort of the Holy Spirit.” Besser. This means that, despite the great number, no divisions, no factions, no contentions existed.

In this regard the mother congregation of Christendom serves as a model for all time, a rebuke to all her daughters who followed heresies and errors and caused rents in the church, and a rebuke likewise to all members in any congregation that cause strife and disturbance; but a shining example for all congregations that hold in unity to the one faith and doctrine (2:42) and in one mind to the things that make for peace. The condition of the first congregation was one that made for healthy inner and outer growth.

We have already discussed how “for them all things were common,” see 2:44, 45. Here the additional feature is added that even in this matter “not one was saying or claiming that anything of his possessions (literally, of the things belonging to him) was his own.” Everyone regarded his possessions as not being intended for him alone but to be employed for all as need required. Even in the matter of personal possessions all were one heart and soul. This is truly remarkable, especially in so large a body. “Not one”—usually one or at least a few are opposed to such an arrangement. This is especially true where money is concerned. Selfishness shows itself, often in shameful ways, and will not let true generosity and Christian love flourish. We have already shown that even here in Jerusalem no communism was practiced and have answered the attempts to misconstrue the motives that animated these first Christians; see 2:44, 45.

Acts 4:33

33And with great power the apostles continued duly to give the testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, also great grace was upon them all.

In v. 31 the uttering of the Word with boldness refers to the preaching before the general public in the city in order to win new believers. We have, pointed out that Luke says this regarding the apostles and not regarding any and all of the believers. The fact that these latter also testified in their private capacity is taken for granted. When Luke now adds that “the apostles continued duly to give the testimony of the resurrection” we again see that this was their official task; ἀπό in the verb always denotes a giving that is due to an obligation that is to be met. The obligation is indicated by the word “testimony” or witness, which recalls the fact that the apostles were the divinely appointed “witnesses” (1:8). We know that many others had seen the risen Lord; yet here the apostles alone act as the public witnesses.

The fact that the others testified in private is self-evident. Yet we are not friendly toward the restriction which some introduce at this place by claiming that the testimony here mentioned was given only to the congregation—why not also to others? The answer usually given, that Luke here writes only regarding the believers, overlooks the fact that the apostles had the appointment “duly to give the testimony” in all Jerusalem, etc. To be sure, as in 2:42, they diligently testified and taught in the congregation; but they also reached out beyond it.

About this testimony the believers had gathered, about it new believers would gather. From it sprang their faith and their love. They needed to have it preached to them ever anew. The resurrection is the crowning work of God in accomplishing our redemption. It was the final proof of the deity and of the Messiahship of Jesus. It attested the full efficacy of his life, his suffering, and his death in removing the barrier that separated us from God (sin) by satisfying every claim of his holiness and righteousness.

It showed also that the glorified Savior lived and ruled as the Head of the church to keep and to bless it to eternity. To this day it is Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection, which assembles the hosts of his believers to the worship of his name. With the close connective τέ Luke unites this preaching with its result, namely “great grace upon them all,” namely divine grace through the channel of this testimony, God’s unmerited favor which built up the faith and the love of all. In 2:47 we have a different context, and there χάρις means the favor and the good will of the general public.

Acts 4:34

34In 2:44, 45 Luke wrote only briefly regarding the manner in which love manifested itself in the congregation; here he returns to the subject and adds an instance of how things were done. For there was not anyone needy among them; for as many as were owners of lands or of houses, making sales, kept bringing the proceeds of the things disposed of and laying them at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to each according as anyone was having need.

Here γάρ brings evidence of the grace that rested on them: not one in need of the necessities of life. There were many beggars among the Jews. We meet them constantly (3:2 is a sample). The believers had none. The model here given has been followed by the church since that time. Every congregation takes care of its poor and unfortunate, and we need not add how extensive the arrangements are for doing this work through entire church bodies and in regular institutions. Even the world has learned something from the church in this line.

The rich came forward, “owners of lands and of houses.” The present participle and the two imperfect verbs are iterative (R. 884) and express what occurred from time to time (R. 1116). The prices or proceeds of the sales were brought into the assembly and deposited beside the feet of the apostles. They seem to be represented as sitting on a platform and at this time managed the distribution of the funds thus voluntarily brought in. The idea to be expressed is certainly not that the rich sold all of their property and thus made also themselves poor. What Luke conveys is that the amounts brought in were large, each seller going to great lengths in disposing of some of his property, and that sales were made only at intervals, when new funds were required.

Acts 4:35

35Another iterative imperfect reports the distribution; it is a form of διαδίδωμι, and the passive singular has an indefinite subject: “it was distributed,” i. e., by the apostles who still managed everything without assistants. In this simple, though effective, fashion every case of need received proper relief.

Acts 4:36

36Luke adds an illustration of this way of giving but singles out Barnabas for the special reason that we may thus early take note of this man, since he came to occupy an important place in the advance of the church. An illustration is in place at this point so that we may properly understand the following narrative which records a flagrant case of deception in this very matter of charity. And Joseph, the one called besides Barnabas on the part of the apostles, which is, when interpreted, “son of consolation,” a Levite, a Cyprian by race, he, having a field, on selling it, brought the money and placed it at the feet of the apostles.

The elaborate manner in which Luke introduces this man is due to his future importance. His introduction is fittingly connected with a noble act of his that was performed in the early part of his Christian career. He had the common Jewish name “Joseph” which had been given him at the time of circumcision. Since many others had the same name, it is not surprising that he bore also another name. This second name was “Barnabas” and, as we shall find, completely superseded his original name.

We restrict ourselves to the main points regarding this second name; those interested may examine Zahn on our passage who has an elaborate investigation. Luke writes ὁἐπικληθείς, the aorist participle, and not ἐπικαλούμενος, the present. The latter would mean that Joseph was always called Barnabas, the former means that he got this name from the apostles, and ἀπό is the correct preposition, “from,” not ὑπό, “by.” One of the apostles must have called Joseph by this name; originating thus, everybody (not only the apostles) called him by this name. Luke translates the name for Theophilus. Why? Because Theophilus is not merely to know its meaning but is at the same time to see how a name that had such a meaning was given this man by the apostles.

Luke is the last man to dispense mere etymological information. The interpretation or rather translation of Barnabas is “son of consolation.” Luke mentions all this regarding the name in advance of the statement that Joseph was a Levite in order to bring together everything regarding the name. The fact that Joseph was “a Levite” is again no mere biographical item without further relevancy. Joseph was the first Levite to be won for the gospel by the apostles, won immediately after the Sanhedrin had uttered its dire threats to Peter and to John. His conversion was the first breach in the hierarchical walls and, coming at just this critical time, brought great consolation and encouragement to the apostles. That is why they gave him the new name, one which caused his original name to be discarded.

The onomastic debate with regard to “Barnabas” is rather severe and has taken on renewed energy. The charge that Luke mistranslated is rather beside the point since he was for so long a time and so well acquainted with Barnabas himself. And at least some of the Twelve most certainly knew Barnabas intimately. Meanings such as “son of prophecy,” “son of a prophet,” “son of consolation” in the sense of preaching in a comforting way, or Deissmann’s “son of Nebo,” an idol whose downfall Isa. 46:1, 2 prophesied, find no support in Luke. If Joseph’s preaching gave him his name, why did he preach so early, and why was he called “son” and not, as one should expect, “father of consolation”?

The fact that he was a Cyprian by race is added because he and Paul made their first missionary journey to Joseph’s homeland, the island of Cyprus. He was thus a foreign-born Jew. His father seems to have given up his station as a Levite and to have moved to Cyprus; see the list of foreign-born Jews in 2:9, etc. Joseph, however, remained a Hebrew Jew and, like Paul, did not become a Hellenist. The fact that he was at this time in Jerusalem, aside from other reasons, may be explained by the circumstance that his relatives, his sister Mary and his cousin Mark, lived here. It is only a conjecture that Joseph was one of the Seventy, a conjecture that disagrees with all that may otherwise be safely assumed.

Acts 4:37

37The genitive absolute, “a field being for him,” i. e., “he having a field,” shows that he possessed wealth; he was like those mentioned in v. 34. The statement regarding what he did with this field is worded exactly like that in v. 34, 35, and only uses the aorists instead of the iterative tenses. The singular τὸχρῆμα, instead of the usual plural, seems to signify the sum of money as a whole.

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

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