4:1 It would appear that John as well as Peter spoke to the crowd—the Greek has simply, “as they were speaking”—and that they were still speaking when the authorities intervened, though they had evidently said enough for an effective presentation of the gospel (cf. v. 4). The captain of temple guard, that is, “the chief officer” (cf. 5:24, 26; RSV Neh. 11:11; Jer. 20:1; 2 Macc. 3:3; Josephus, Antiquities 20.125–133; War 6.288–309), was not only a priest, but second only in dignity to the high priest himself. To him belonged the general supervision of the temple worship and personnel. Under him were other officers (cf. Luke 22:4, 52), each in charge of a corps of temple police and charged with the responsibility of patrolling the temple, guarding its gates and its treasures. With the chief officer were the priests, probably those on duty for the evening sacrifice, whose service may have been disturbed by the throng that had gathered about the apostles, and some Sadducees, representing the temple hierarchy, perhaps no less angry at the disturbance than were the ordinary priests but angry for other reasons as well. The verb used to describe their “coming up to” the apostles is commonly used of coming suddenly and sometimes of coming with hostile intent (Gk. ephistanai). Both senses probably apply in this case.
The Sadducees were one of several sects within the Judaism of that day. Their number was small. For the most part they comprised the high priestly families (see disc. on v. 6) and the “elders,” heads of ancient families whose tradition of leadership went back a long way in Israelite history. The Sadducees represented an aristocracy that seems to have been haughty and exclusive. Their power was declining, but as long as the office of high priest was in their hands (as it was throughout this period) and with it the administration of the temple, they were still a force to be reckoned with. The party died out after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. In politics they were pragmatic conservatives. They found it expedient to keep on good terms with the Romans. Thus when Jesus appeared to them as a revolutionary figure whose movement would bring reprisals from Rome, their hostility toward him was aroused (John 11:48). It was further inflamed by his interference in the temple (Luke 19:45–48), so that in the end it was the Sadducees who brought about his death. And when his movement survived his death, it was they who remained its most persistent opponents (see disc. on 23:9), political considerations being still to the fore—they wanted nothing to disturb the status quo.
4:2–3 But though this may have been the chief factor in their opposition to Jesus’ followers, it was not the only one. Their enmity stemmed also from their religious conservatism. Unlike the Pharisees, who gave considerable weight to the “oral law”—the large body of tradition and interpretation that had grown up around the Scriptures—the Sadducees held that only the written law had permanent validity, and even then their interest was largely confined to the precepts relating to the cultus and the priesthood. In applying the law they held strictly to the literal interpretation, and on this basis repudiated many of the doctrines held by the Pharisees, including the expectation of a general resurrection of the dead (cf. 23:8; Luke 20:27; Josephus Antiquities 18.16–17). But the difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees went deeper than matters of interpretation. Theirs was, in a sense, a class warfare, waged over the very right to teach and interpret the Scriptures. The Pharisaic scribes, who, for the most part, were not priests, were contending for what had always been a priestly prerogative, whereas the Sadducees, for their part, saw themselves as the guardians of this ancient right. It was vexing for the Sadducees, therefore, to find the followers of Jesus—“unschooled, ordinary men” (v. 13)—also claiming the right to interpret the Scriptures and doing so both in the temple and in support of a doctrine that the temple hierarchy denied. For Peter and John were teaching in Jesus the resurrection of the dead (v. 2).
Like the Pharisees, the Christians looked for a general resurrection (of the good; see disc. on 24:15), but unlike them they grounded their expectation “in Jesus,” because his resurrection was the pledge that others would also rise (cf. 1 Cor. 15:21f.). This particular teaching is not found explicitly in the speech of 3:12–26, though we need not doubt for that reason that it was included in what they said. Luke’s intention was only to provide us with the main thrust of the speech, which had to do with Jesus’ messiahship. At all events, it was plain to the Sadducees that the doctrine of the general resurrection was being taught on the basis of the (alleged, they would say) resurrection of Jesus, and they were determined to nip this teaching in the bud. On the pretext of a breach of the peace they had the apostles arrested, and because it was evening (v. 3), held them over for trial the next day. It is not clear whether the beggar was also arrested, though he was certainly present in court when the case was heard.
4:4 Two results had followed from the apostles’ preaching: the hostility of the authorities was aroused, and many who heard the message believed. To this Luke adds the comment and the number of men grew to (lit., “became”) about five thousand. In saying this, he uses a word that usually denotes men as distinct from women, and presumably this is his meaning here. However, probably he means not that five thousand males were added that day but that the converts on this occasion, who may also have included women, brought the total number of men among the believers to about five thousand. Again, the figure is not an exact one (cf. 1:15; 2:41).
4:5 Something of the strength of the forces gathered against them can be gauged from this verse and the following one. The three orders mentioned here are apparently those of the Sanhedrin. Under the Romans, this supreme council of the Jews possessed considerable independence of jurisdiction, both civil and criminal. It could order arrests by its own officers, as in this case (cf. 9:1f.; Matt. 26:47), and was empowered to dispose of cases that did not involve capital punishment. Capital cases required the confirmation of the Roman procurator (cf. John 18:31), which was generally given. The Sanhedrin comprised, first, the chief priests, probably indicated here as the rulers (cf. v. 23), including the ruling high priest, other high priests who had lost office, and other members of the families from which they were drawn; second, the elders, tribal and family heads (see disc. on v. 1); and third, the teachers of the law, that is, the scribes or legal experts (cf. 23:6; Josephus, War 2.411–416; Life 189–198; Against Apion 2.184–187). The Sanhedrin numbered seventy-one in all, including the high priest who presided, with both Sadducees and Pharisees represented, the latter among the scribes, the former by the priests and the elders. The Sadducees were in the majority, but were often compelled for fear of the people to accede to Pharisaic opinion (Josephus, Antiquities 18.16–17; cf. Acts 5:34ff.), for the Pharisees, despite their own exclusiveness, were remarkably popular (see Jeremias, Jerusalem, p. 266).
If this verse does not describe a full meeting of the Sanhedrin, which may have been difficult to arrange at short notice, it implies at least that a representative body of council members met the next day in Jerusalem. The city was always their meeting place, but Luke has probably added this note for the benefit of his Gentile readers. But where in the city did they meet? According to Josephus, the council chamber was at the eastern end of the first, that is, the oldest, wall, immediately to the west of the temple area and between it and the Xystus, a large paved area farther still to the west (War 5.142–155). But the Mishnah has it that the council met in a room within the temple itself known as the Gazith, “the Chamber of Hewn Stones” (m. Middoth 5.4). Josephus is the better authority, though the Mishnah may still be right in calling the hall the Gazith, a possible reference to Xystus.
4:6 This particular meeting included Annas the high priest, who had been high priest in the years A.D. 6–14 but had been removed from office by the Roman procurator. Like other “retired” high priests, he retained not only the title but also many of the rights and obligations of the office. The difficulty here is that the title is given to Annas alone, and this seems to suggest that he was also regarded as the president of the Sanhedrin, whereas it was usually the ruling high priest who presided (cf. 5:17; 7:1; 9:1; 22:5; 23:2, 4; 24:1). But as the head of the high priest’s family, Annas may have retained the presidency though he had lost the office of high priest. Caiaphas, the present high priest, was his son-in-law. The John of this verse may be “Jonathan” (the reading of the Western text), one of Annas’ five sons who succeeded Caiaphas in A.D. 36; Alexander is otherwise unknown to us. Present also were the other men of the high priest’s family. This could refer simply to the family of Annas or, more generally, to all who belonged to the small group of families from which the high priests were chosen. Among them would be those who held permanent office in the temple administration, including “the captain of the temple guard” (v. 1), the temple overseer, and the treasurers (see Jeremias, Jerusalem, p. 179). It is evident, then, that whoever else was present, the Sadducees were out in force. This was only to be expected. It was, after all, their quarrel with the apostles. The apostle John, who was an acquaintance of the high priest (John 18:15), would later have been able to furnish these names to an interested church.
4:7–10 According to the Mishnah, the Sanhedrin was arranged in a semicircle so that the members might see one another (m. Sanhedrin 4.3). This arrangement may be reflected in this passage, where it is said that they made Peter and John “stand in the middle” (v. 7, so the Greek), though the expression can be used in the more general sense of “standing in front” (cf. 14:6; Mark 3:3; John 8:3). During the investigation the councilors would sit (cf. 6:15; 23:3), while the accused, the witnesses, and those speaking stood (cf. 5:27, 34; 6:13; 23:9; Mark 14:57, 60). For most prisoners it was a daunting experience to stand before the council (see Josephus, Antiquities 14.168–176), but not for these two apparently. Nuances of speech are not easy to catch in the written word, but in verse 9, for example, in Peter’s words if we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple we seem to hear the tones of indignation, perhaps even of sarcasm, but certainly not of a man overawed by the dignity of the council. Luke attributes this confidence (explicitly in Peter’s case, by implication in John’s) to their being filled with the Holy Spirit. They had become “different people” (cf. 1 Sam. 10:6). To say that they were “filled” does not call into question the permanence of the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost. The Spirit remains with his people, as Luke well understood. But there are moments when they are more aware of his presence (cf. 2:4; 4:31; 13:9; Luke 12:11f.; 21:14f.), and such a moment was this, as the apostles prepared to make an answer for the hope that was in them (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15). Strangely, they were not questioned about their preaching of the resurrection, for which they had been arrested, but about the healing that had preceded it (see further the disc. on v. 14). The two things were connected, of course, and it could, on the one hand, be said that the Sanhedrin was simply starting at the beginning. On the other hand, they may not have wished to discuss the resurrection of Jesus, having found already that they could not disprove it.
The address rulers and elders of the people (v. 8) again suggests that the apostles especially had to deal with the Sadducees (see disc. on v. 5). Peter began by pointing out that they had done an act of kindness … to a cripple (v. 9). Surely this was no ground for complaint. Twice in these verses the demonstrative pronoun this is used of the man, as though Peter were actually pointing to him as he spoke. Behind the phrase he was healed is the same Greek word that is used in verse 12 with the wider meaning “to save.” The line between physical and spiritual well-being is always a fine one in biblical thought (cf. Mark 10:52; Luke 7:50). As for the source of the healing, it was by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (see note on 2:38). This Jesus, these very council members (you) had sent to his death, but God has raised him from the dead (v. 10).
4:11 Already the speech had become another declaration of Jesus’ messiahship—he is the Christ (v. 10)—and this theme was maintained as Peter quoted Psalm 118:22. Originally the stone was intended to represent Israel or Israel’s king and the builders who rejected the stone equalled the heathen, the builders of the empires of this world. Or perhaps “the builders” was used initially of those in Israel who despised some small beginnings of a new era. At all events, the reference came to be understood of the Messiah, perhaps by the Jews (cf. Luke 19:38 to Ps. 118:26, though rabbinic literature offers no instance of a messianic interpretation of v. 22), certainly by the Christians, who saw in “the stone” a reference to Jesus and in “the builders” these council members and their kind (see E. E. Ellis, pp. 205ff.). Among a number of changes from the LXX in the text as cited here, the addition of you drives home the application, whereas the substitution of “despised” for a word that means simply “to reject” (GNB; NIV rejected [Gk. ho exouthenētheis; LXX exoudenōsin]) underscores the accusation. The stone on which these builders had poured their contempt had turned out to be the capstone of the building, literally, the “head of the corner”—perhaps not so much the stone at the top, as NIV suggests, but the stone at the base of the corner, uniting the two walls that met at that point and took their line from it (cf. Eph. 2:20).
4:12 The Christian use of Psalm 118:22 had been suggested by Jesus himself, who had quoted it in answer to much the same question as that put to the apostles on this occasion (v. 7; cf. Luke 20:1–18). In Jesus’ case, he had gone on to speak in terms of Isaiah 8:14f. and Daniel 2:35, of the stone as destroying those who rejected it. Here Peter points to the other side of that coin by presenting the stone as the source of salvation. It is worth noticing that in 1 Peter 2:6f. he mentions both sides (cf. also Rom. 9:33; Eph. 2:20) and the connecting link in his thought there, as perhaps here between verses 11 and 12, is Isaiah 28:16, which appears to have been interpreted of the Messiah in the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, or targums. Peter was thinking now, not simply of the miracle of the lame man, but of what that miracle signified—generally, the whole salvation of humanity, to which “the name” was as essential as it had been in this particular case of healing (see note on 2:38 for “the name”). In Jewish thought the Messiah was never essential to the kingdom, which could be spoken of as coming either with or without him. But the Christians had learned that their Messiah was indispensable. One preposition is used twice in this verse (Gk. en, translated variously “through” and “by” but most characteristically meaning “in”). It gives the sense that Christ is both the agent and, as it were, the location of our salvation; he brought it about and only in him can we find it (cf. John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5f.). The use of the word “must” (see disc. on 1:16), together with the statement that God has given this name, reminds us that this is his appointed way of salvation. There is no other way. For the Christian message as the announcement of salvation (see 13:26, 47; 16:17).
4:13 Again it would appear that John spoke as well as Peter and with the same confidence. The word translated courage means to speak holding nothing back. It was a gift for which they prayed (“boldness,” vv. 29, 31) and a feature of their preaching (cf. 9:27f.; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8; 26:26; 28:31; also Eph. 6:20; 1 Thess. 2:2). On this occasion the council members were astonished at their boldness, the more so since the apostles were obviously unschooled, ordinary men. Probably their dress and their way of speaking gave them away. This is not to say that the council necessarily regarded Peter and John as completely ignorant and unlettered (taking the Greek at its face value), but only that they were lacking in the formal training of the scribes—they were laymen! The same complaint had been made of Jesus (John 7:15), who had also surprised his hearers with his boldness of bearing and speech. Indeed, it may have been the council’s recollection of Jesus that lay behind the comment: They took note that these men had been with Jesus. We cannot think that they only now discovered that Peter and John were Jesus’ disciples. They must have known this much, at least, about them. But now it was borne in upon them how like Jesus they were. When Pilate had condemned Jesus, they had thought that they had heard the last of him (Why else put him to death?). But they had reckoned without the power of the Spirit (cf. Luke 21:15), and in these Spirit-filled men Jesus in a sense stood before them again. Would they never be rid of him?
4:14 As for the healing, there were two grounds only on which Peter and John could justly be punished: The first was if it were a hoax—but not even the council thought this. The evidence of the cure was incontrovertible, since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them. Notice the word standing. He was a cripple no longer. The second was if they had worked the miracle by some unlawful means (cf. Deut. 13:1–5; Mark 3:20ff.). The council’s opening question, “By what power or what name did you do this?” (v. 7) suggests that they had been investigating this possibility. “The name” in this connection has reference to magical formulae (see disc. on 19:13 and Marshall, p. 99). But from the first, Peter had ascribed the miracle to “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (3:13). Ultimately, it was God’s power that had healed the man, and no charge could be laid for making that claim.
4:15–18 In some embarrassment, perhaps, the council chamber was cleared while the members argued the case. Their chief concern was to keep this thing from spreading (v. 17); the reference can hardly be to the miracle, news of which had already spread throughout the city, but to the teaching about Jesus and the resurrection. Since they had condemned Jesus, their credibility was at stake. But though they had been able to make some sort of case against Jesus, it was difficult to formulate a charge on which to condemn his disciples—the more so since the miracle had obviously caught the public imagination. The form in which their question is asked in the Greek, What are we going to do with these men? (v. 16) expresses their utter perplexity. In the end, the best they could do was to issue a warning that under no circumstances were the apostles to speak or to teach in (Gk. “upon”) Jesus’ name, that is, to make Jesus the basis of their teaching (see disc. on v. 2) or to claim him as their authority.
4:19–20 For their part, Peter and John declared that they had no option but to speak of what they had seen and heard of Jesus (cf. John 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16–18; 1 John 1:1.; but also John 20:29; 1 Pet. 1:8). Their first obedience was to God (cf. Luke 20:25), and they asked their judges to judge for themselves what was right in the matter—to obey them, or God. The fact that both apostles are mentioned may mean that each was appealed to by the council and that each answered to this effect.
4:21–22 The council “added threats to their warning” (the sense of the Greek), but in view of the popular interest in the miracle could do little more. Characteristically, Luke draws attention to the praise of God that flowed from this incident (see disc. on 3:8) and also to the age of the man (cf. 9:33; 14:8; Luke 2:52; 3:23; 8:42; 13:11). Luke’s own comment on the incident is expressed in his use of the word “sign” (so the Greek). A “sign” could be simply a miracle (see note on 2:22), but to Luke it was clearly a miracle that signified that the day of salvation had come.
Additional Notes
4:3 Because it was evening, they put them in jail: In the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.1, it is said, “Judgments about money may be commenced in the day and concluded in the night, but judgments about life must be begun in the day and concluded in the day.” This prohibition, based on Jer. 21:12, may explain why the apostles’ trial was held over until the next day. The Jews only used imprisonment for such precautionary purposes. It was never in itself a mode of punishment.
4:4 The number of men grew to about five thousand: Difficulty has been found with this figure, which is said to be out of all proportion to the population of Jerusalem. It is especially difficult if this was only the number of men; the figure would have to be at least doubled to give the total number of believers. But what was the population of Jerusalem at this time? Hecataeus of Abdera, in about 300 B.C., put the figure at 120,000 (Josephus, Against Apion 1.161–212). According to Josephus, it had reached 2.7 million by A.D. 65 (War 6.420–427; cf. 2.280–283), but this figure is far too high. Modern estimates of the population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus vary between 25,000 (Jeremias) and 250,000 (Hanson). The latter figure may still be too high, but improvements to the water supply effected by Herod the Great would allow for at least 70,000. It may still be thought that a figure of even 10,000 Christians is disproportionately high, but the possibility should be kept in mind that they did not all live in Jerusalem. Luke may have been giving an estimate of the number of believers in the country districts as well, including Galilee (cf. 2:41, 47; 6:7; and see disc. on 9:31).
4:10 Whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead: This construction with relative clauses is characteristic of Luke’s style in the early speeches of Acts (2:24, 32, 36; 3:13, 15; 4:27; 5:30; 10:38, 39; 13:31, 37), where reference is made to the activity of God in and through Jesus. Hanson, p. 78, thinks “it is possible that Luke is in these expressions reproducing early doctrinal formulae.”
4:11 The sentence that incorporates the quotation is very clumsily formed. The Greek has simply, “this is” (NIV he is). The reference is clearly to Jesus, but in the previous verse “this” (Gk. houtos) refers to the man who was healed. The awkwardness of the Greek may point to Luke’s use of a source.
4:15 They ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin: How did Luke get his information about what went on in the council? His narrative could have been based on deduction, but there may have been those in the council who were sympathetic to the new sect and from whom the story was gleaned. Or it may have come from Paul. It is highly unlikely that Paul was himself a member (see disc. on 7:60; 26:10), but he was close to one who was (see disc. on 5:34). Or again, Luke appears to have had access to Herodian sources, and the story may have come indirectly through them (see disc. on 13:1; cf. Luke 8:3).
