Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 4:5

And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,

5. And it came to pass on the morrow ] When the investigation was permitted to be held.

that their rulers, and elders ] Here we see that the party of the Sadducees was the party of power and influence at this time.

and scribes ] For these were not only the copyists, but the interpreters and expounders of the Law to the people, and any new teaching would naturally be disliked by them. On the difference between Christ’s teaching and that of the scribes see Mat 7:29.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Their rulers – The rulers of the Jews; doubtless the members of the Sanhedrin, or Great Council of the nation. Compare Act 4:15. See the notes on Mat 2:4; Mat 5:22. The expression their rulers looks as if this book was written for the Gentiles, or Luke would have said our rulers.

Elders – Presbyters, or those who were chosen from among the people to sit in the Sanhedrin. It is probable that the rulers were those who held also some other office, but were also authorized to sit in the Great Council.

Scribes – See the notes on Mat 2:4.

And Annas … – See the notes on Joh 18:13. It is by no means certain that Annas was at that time the high priest, but he had been, and doubtless retained the title. He was father-in-law to Caiaphas, the high priest; and from this fact, together with his former dignity, he is mentioned first.

Caiaphas – Son-in-law of Annas, and now exercising the office of the high priest, Joh 18:13.

John, and Alexander … – Of these persons nothing more is known. It is clear that they were members of the Great Council, and the mention of their names shows that the men of chief authority and influence were assembled to silence the apostles. Annas and Caiaphas had been concerned in the condemnation of Jesus, and they would now feel a special interest in arresting the progress of the gospel among the people. All the success of the gospel reflected back light upon the wicked ness of the act of condemning the Lord Jesus. And this fact may serve, in part, to account for their strong desire to silence the apostles.

At Jerusalem – eis. This was the usual place of assembling the Sanhedrin. But the Jewish writers (see Lightfoot on this place) say that 40 years before the destruction of the city, on account of the great increase of crime, etc., the Sanhedrin was removed from place to place. The declaration of Luke that they were now assembled in Jerusalem, seems to imply that they sometimes met in other places. It is probable that the members of the Sanhedrin were not in the city at the time mentioned in Act 4:3, and this was the reason why the trial was deferred to the next day.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 4:5-6

And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers were gathered together.

The Sanhedrin in the time of the apostles

1. Of all the ancient Jewish institutions there is none which is of greater interest than that of the Sanhedrin. Though the name is not to be found in the Authorised Version, yet it occurs in the original no less than twenty-two times in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, where it is uniformly, but inadequately, represented by the expression council.

2. There were two kinds of Sanhedrins.

I. The great or supreme Sanhedrin consisted of seventy members and a president. Hence it is sometimes spoken of as the Sanhedrin of seventy-one members, and sometimes as the Sanhedrin of seventy, exclusive of this patriarch. To understand the constituencies from which these were chosen, it is necessary to remark that from time immemorial the Jewish commonwealth was divided into the three following classes: First, the priests. These, by virtue of their being descendants of Aaron, were the ministers of the sanctuary, and enjoyed certain privileges arising from the services they rendered in the private life of the laity. Second, the Israelites–the people at large who were distinguished by their princes or chiefs of the several tribes, and by the heads of the families called the elders of the people, or, simply, the elders, or rulers, because they managed the affairs of their respective clans. The third class consisted of the literary laity, the custodians and transcribers of the Sacred Text, hence called the lawyers, or the scribes. The first class was represented in the Sanhedrin by its four-and-twenty chiefs, the chief priests. The second class were represented by their four-and-twenty elders, whilst the scribes had two-and-twenty members.

1. To belong to one of these three classes was simply a preliminary necessity, but it was also necessary to be of unblemished moral reputation, and without any physical blemish. Blindness of one eye, or even squinting, or lameness of one foot, or even repulsive appearance, was a disqualification. The applicant had to be the legitimate offspring of Jewish parents, in the prime of life, and wealthy. One who played dice, lent money on usury, or flew pigeons to entice others, was disqualified. He had to be a father of a family, so as to be able to sympathise with domestic affairs. He had to be learned in the Divine law and secular knowledge, and foreign languages, so that the Sanhedrin might not be dependent upon an interpreter. He was, moreover, required to have been a judge in his native town, and to have been promoted thence to the Small Sanhedrin which sat at the entrance to the temple hall.

2. The newly elected member had not to go through any special ceremony, since the ordination which he had received from his teacher on his appointment to a judgeship at his native town was deemed sufficient. About thirty years before Christ, however, the power to ordain, which had up to that time been vested in every teacher, was conferred upon Hillel I., the president of the Sanhedrin. With the permission of this functionary, any member of this assembly of notables, assisted by two non-ordained persons, performed this ceremony by calling him Rabbi, and by saying, Behold, thou art ordained, and hast the authority to judge even cases involving pecuniary fines. The chain in the succession of ordination, however, was broken during the presidency of Hillel II., a.d. 330-365.

3. In the earliest times of the Jewish commonwealth the seventy-one members elected the most distinguished of their number as president, and the next in distinction as vice-president. The former was styled nasi (i.e., prince, patriarch)

, because he represented the civil and religious interests of the Jewish nation before the government abroad, and before the different Jewish congregations at home; whilst the latter was called the father of the house of judgment, because he led and controlled the discussions on disputed points. The only one ineligible for the presidency was the king, because, according to the Jewish law, subjects were not allowed to contradict or differ from the monarch. Besides these two high officials, there was a referee, who examined the cases before they were brought before the Sanhedrin. There were, moreover, two notaries, and several menial officials corresponding to lictors, who are alternately called in the New Testament servants, officers, and ministers (Mat 5:25; Mat 26:58; Mar 14:54; Mar 14:65, etc.).

4. The Sanhedrin held its sessions in the hall of squares which was situated in the centre of the south side of the temple court, between the courts of the priests and of the Israelites, and had doors into both. With the exception of the Sabbath and festivals, these sessions were held every day, from the termination of the daily morning sacrifice till the evening sacrifice. On these occasions the president sat on an elevated seat; on his right sat the vice-president, and on his left the referee, whilst the members were seated on low cushions, with their knees bent and crossed in Oriental fashion in a semicircle, according to their respective ages and attainments. They could thus see each other, and also be seen by the president and vice-president. Twenty-three, or one-third of the entire number of members, formed a quorum.

5. Besides being the depositaries of the legislative enactments which were called forth by the development of the domestic institutions and foreign relations of the Jewish commonwealth, the Sanhedrin had both to interpret and to administer the Divine law in its ecclesiastical and civil bearings upon the daily life of the community. All questions of orthodoxy or heterodoxy, morality and immorality, every pretension to prophecy or miraculous gifts, the legitimacy to perform the duties of priesthood, the necessity to extend the precincts of the temple or the boundaries of the city, the desirability of going to war, and even the conduct of the king, all these came within the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim Though sitting at Jerusalem, its jurisdiction was recognised by Jews everywhere, so that their decisions secured unity of faith and uniformity of practice.

6. In trials of capital offences it required a majority of at least two to condemn, and the verdict of guilty could only be delivered the day following the trial, to enable the Sanhedrin carefully to go over again the whole evidence. The Sanhedrin who found the verdict had to fast all day, and the criminal was executed the day after the sentence. This leniency, however, was not extended to one who gave himself out as the Messiah, or was proved to be a false prophet, or promulgated false doctrines. The trial of such an offender was generally reserved for the forthcoming festival, when all the Israelites came up to Jerusalem. The accused was then tied in the presence of the pilgrims; he was condemned and executed the same day on the festival (Deu 17:13). But even to such a criminal a stupefying beverage was mercifully administered before his execution, to deprive him of consciousness and lessen his pain. In latter days, however, the sentence of death passed by the Sanhedrin had to be confirmed by the Roman procurator.

7. Whatever we may think of Jewish tradition, which affirms that the Sanhedrin is a Mosaic institution based upon Exo 18:24-26; Num 11:16-24, still both the several classes and the number of members which constituted this assembly of notables are alluded to in the Old Testament Scriptures (Jer 26:8; Jer 26:16; Eze 8:11, etc.; Ezr 6:8; 2Ch 19:8; 2Ch 19:11). The chain of presidents, however, can only be traced uninterruptedly to circa 170 b.c. For about a hundred and forty years the members elected the president from one of their midst. Thirty years before Christ, however, the presidency of the Sanhedrin became hereditary in the family of Hillel I. for fifteen generations; that is, from 80 b.c. to 425 a.d.

8. To enable the student to see with which of the Jewish patriarchs the important events in the lives of Christ, the apostles, and the apostolic fathers synchronise, we subjoin a list of these fifteen presidents of the Sanhedrin with their dates of office:

1. Hillel I

b.c. 30-a.d. 10

2. Simon I. b. Hillel I

10-30

3. Gamaliel I. b. Simon I., the teacher of St. Paul

30-50

4. Simon II. b. Gamaliel I.

50-70

5. Gamaliel II. b. Simon II. a.d.

80-116

6. Simon III. b. Gamaliel II.

140-163

7. Jehudah I. the Holy b. Simon III.

163-193

8. Gamaliel III. b. Jehudah I.

193-220

9. Jehudah II. b. Simon III

220-270

10. Gamaliel IV. b. Jehudah II.

270-300

11. Jehudah III. b. Gamaliel IV

300-330

12. Hillel II. b. Jehudah III.

330-365

13. Gamaliel V. b. Hillel II.

365-385

14. Jehudah IV. b. Gamaliel V.

385-400

15. Gamaliel VI. b. Jehudah IV.

400-425

From the destruction of Jerusalem, however, to the death of the last president, the Sanhedrin held its sessions in different cities of Palestine.

II. There were also Small Sanhedrins, consisting of twenty-three members, who were appointed by the Great Sanhedrim. Every town or village in Palestine, which had no less than one hundred and twenty representative men, had a smaller court, which held its sittings on Mondays and Thursdays in the market-place, or in a room adjoining the synagogue. There were two such courts in Jerusalem itself; one sat at the entrance to the temple mount, and the other at the entrance to the temple hall. With the exception of certain capital offences which belonged exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Great Sanhedrin, the Small Sanhedrin had the power to judge both civil and criminal cases, and there was no appeal against their decision to the Great Sanhedrin. It was only when the judges were divided in their opinion that they themselves consulted the Great Sanhedrim In such a case the decision given by the supreme court was absolutely binding upon the judges of the Small Sanhedrin. As a rule, the members of the Small Sanhedrin were elected to fill up the periodical vacancies in the Great Sanhedrim (G. D. Ginsburg, LL. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 5. Their rulers, and elders, and scribes] Those with the high priest Annas formed the Sanhedrin, or grand council of the Jews.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Their rulers; the sanhedrim, or great council.

Elders and scribes; the magistrates of the city, scribes, doctors, or teachers of the law, &c.; howsoever these might be distinguished, they are all as one against the doctrine of the gospel, and endeavour to put out the light as soon as it began to shine, as Herod would have killed Christ in the manger.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

5. their rulers, &c.Thiswas a regular meeting of the Sanhedrim (see on Mt2:4).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And it came to pass on the morrow,…. The disciples being kept in custody all night:

that their rulers, and elders, and Scribes; that is, their ecclesiastical rulers; the chief priests, who, with the Scribes, and elders of the people, made up the great council at Jerusalem, consisting of seventy one persons, so they are called in

Mt 26:3.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Peter and John Examined before the Sanhedrim.

      5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,   6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.   7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?   8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,   9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;   10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.   11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.   12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.   13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.   14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.

      We have here the trial of Peter and John before the judges of the ecclesiastical court, for preaching a sermon concerning Jesus Christ, and working a miracle in his name. This is charged upon them as a crime, which was the best service they could do to God or men.

      I. Here is the court set. An extraordinary court, it should seem, was called on purpose upon this occasion. Observe, 1. The time when the court sat (v. 5) —on the morrow; not in the night, as when Christ was to be tried before them, for they seem not to have been so hot upon this prosecution as they were upon that; it was well if they began to relent. But they adjourned it to the morrow, and no longer; for they were impatient to get them silenced, and would lose no time. 2. The place where–in Jerusalem (v. 6); there it was that he told his disciples they must expect to suffer hard things, as he had done before them in that place. This seems to come in here as an aggravation of their sin, that in Jerusalem, where there were so many that looked for redemption before it came, yet there were more that would not look upon it when it did come. How is that faithful city become a harlot! See Matt. xxiii. 37. It was in the foresight of Jerusalem’s standing in her own light that Christ beheld the city, and wept over it. 3. The judges of the court. (1.) Their general character: they were rulers, elders, and scribes, v. 5. The scribes were men of learning, who came to dispute with the apostles, and hoped to confute them. The rulers and elders were men in power, who, if they could not answer them, thought they could find some cause or other to silence them. If the gospel of Christ had not been of God, it could not have made its way, for it had both the learning and power of the world against it, both the colleges of the scribes and the courts of the elders. (2.) The names of some of them, who were most considerable. Here were Annas and Caiaphas, ringleaders in this persecution; Annas the president of the sanhedrim, and Caiaphas the high priest (though Annas is here called so) and father of the house of judgment. It should seem that Annas and Caiaphas executed the high priest’s office alternately, year for year. These two were most active against Christ; then Caiaphas was high priest, now Annas was; however they were both equally malignant against Christ and his gospel. John is supposed to be the son of Annas; and Alexander is mentioned by Josephus as a man that made a figure at that time. There were others likewise that were of the kindred of the high priest, who having dependence on him, and expectations from him, would be sure to say as he said, and vote with him against the apostles. Great relations, and not good, have been a snare to many.

      II. The prisoners are arraigned, v. 7. 1. They are brought to the bar; they set them in the midst, for the sanhedrim sat in a circle, and those who had any thing to do in the court stood or sat in the midst of them (Luke ii. 46), so Dr. Lightfoot. Thus the scripture was fulfilled, The assembly of the wicked has enclosed me, Ps. xxii. 16. They compassed me about like bees, Ps. cxviii. 12. They were seated on every side. 2. The question they asked them was, “By what power, or by what name, have you done this? By what authority do you these things?” (the same question that they had asked their Master, Matt. xxi. 23): “Who commissioned you to preach such a doctrine as this, and empowered you to work such a miracle as this? You have no warrant nor license from us, and therefore are accountable to us whence you have your warrant.” Some think this question was grounded upon a fond conceit that the very naming of some names might do wonders, as ch. xix. 13. The Jewish exorcists made use of the name of Jesus. Now they would know what name they made use of in their cure, and consequently what name they set themselves to advance in their preaching. They knew very well that they preached Jesus, and the resurrection of the dead, and the healing of the sick, through Jesus (v. 2), yet they asked them, to tease them, and try if they could get any thing out of them that looked criminal.

      III. The plea they put in, the design of which was not so much to clear and secure themselves as to advance the name and honour of their Master, who had told them that their being brought before governors and kings would give them an opportunity of preaching the gospel to those to whom otherwise they could not have had access, and it should be a testimony against them. Mark xiii. 19. Observe,

      1. By whom this plea was drawn up: it was dictated by the Holy Ghost, who fitted Peter more than before for this occasion. The apostles, with a holy negligence of their own preservation, set themselves to preach Christ as he had directed them to do in such a case, and then Christ made good to them his promise, that the Holy Ghost should give them in that same hour what they should speak. Christ’s faithful advocates shall never want instructions, Mark xiii. 11.

      2. To whom it was given in: Peter, who is still the chief speaker, addresses himself to the judges of the court, as the rulers of the people, and elders of Israel; for the wickedness of those in power does not divest them of their power, but the consideration of the power they are entrusted with should prevail to divest them of their wickedness. “You are rulers and elders, and should know more than others of the signs of the times, and not oppose that which you are bound by the duty of your place to embrace and advance, that is, the kingdom of the Messiah; you are rulers and elders of Israel, God’s people, and if you mislead them, and cause them to err, you will have a great deal to answer for.”

      3. What the plea is: it is a solemn declaration,

      (1.) That what they did was in the name of Jesus Christ, which was a direct answer to the question the court asked them (Act 4:9; Act 4:10): “If we this day be examined, be called to an account as criminals, so the word signifies, for a good deed (as any one will own it to be) done to the impotent man,–if this be the ground of the commitment, this the matter of the indictment,–if we are put to the question, by what means, or by whom, he is made whole, we have an answer ready, and it is the same we gave to the people (ch. iii. 16), we will repeat it to you, as that which we will stand by. Be it known to you all who pretend to be ignorant of this matter, and not to you only, but to all the people of Israel, for they are all concerned to know it, that by the name of Jesus Christ, that precious, powerful, prevailing name, that name above every name, even by him whom you in contempt called Jesus of Nazareth, whom you crucified, both rulers and people, and whom God hath raised from the dead and advanced to the highest dignity and dominion, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole, a monument of the power of the Lord Jesus.” Here, [1.] He justifies what he and his colleague had done in curing the lame man. It was a good deed; it was a kindness to the man that had begged, but could not work for his living; a kindness to the temple, and to those that went in to worship, who were now freed from the noise and clamour of this common beggar. “Now, if we be reckoned with for this good deed, we have no reason to be ashamed, 1Pe 2:20; Act 4:14; Act 4:16. Let those be ashamed who bring us into trouble for it.” Note, It is no new thing for good men to suffer ill for doing well. Bene agere et male pati vere Christianum est–To do well and to suffer punishment is the Christian’s lot. [2.] He transfers all the praise and glory of this good deed to Jesus Christ. “It is by him, and not by any power of ours, that this man is cured.” The apostles seek not to raise an interest for themselves, nor to recommend themselves by this miracle to the good opinion of the court; but, “Let the Lord alone be exalted, no matter what becomes of us.” [3.] He charges it upon the judges themselves, that they had been the murderers of this Jesus: “It is he whom you crucified, look how you will answer it;” in order to the bringing of them to believe in Christ (for he aims at no less than this) he endeavours to convince them of sin, of that sin which, one would think, of all others, was most likely to startle conscience–their putting Christ to death. Let them take it how they will, Peter will miss no occasion to tell them of it. [4.] He attests the resurrection of Christ as the strongest testimony for him, and against his persecutors: “They crucified him, but God raised him from the dead; they took away his life, but God gave it to him again, and your further opposition to his interest will speed no better.” He tells them that God raised him from the dead, and they could not for shame answer him with that foolish suggestion which they palmed upon the people, that his disciples came by night and stole him away. [5.] He preaches this to all the bystanders, to be by them repeated to all their neighbours, and commands all manner of persons, from the highest to the lowest, to take notice of it at their peril: “Be it known to you all that are here present, and it shall be made known to all the people of Israel, wherever they are dispersed, in spite of all your endeavours to stifle and suppress the notice of it: as the Lord God of gods knows, so Israel shall know, all Israel shall know, that wonders are wrought in the name of Jesus, not by repeating it as a charm, but believing in it as a divine revelation of grace and good-will to men.”

      (2.) That the name of this Jesus, by the authority of which they acted, is that name alone by which we can be saved. He passes from this particular instance to show that it is not a particular sect or party that is designed to be set up by the doctrine they preached, and the miracle they wrought, which people might either join with or keep off from at their pleasure, as it was with the sects of the philosophers and those among the Jews; but that it is a sacred and divine institution that is hereby ratified and confirmed, and which all people are highly concerned to submit to and come into the measures of. It is not an indifferent thing, but of absolute necessity, that people believe in this name, and call upon it. [1.] We are obliged to it in duty to God, and in compliance with his designs (v. 11): “This is the stone which was set at nought of your builders, you that are the rulers of the people, and the elders of Israel, that should be the builders of the church, that pretend to be so, for the church is God’s building. Here was a stone offered you, to be put in the chief place of the building, to be the main pillar on which the fabric might entirely rest; but you set it at nought, rejected it, would not make use of it, but threw it by as good for nothing but to make a stepping-stone of; but this stone is now become the head of the corner; God has raised up this Jesus whom you rejected, and, by setting him at his right hand, has made him both the corner stone and the head stone, the centre of unity and the fountain of power.” Probably St. Peter here chose to make use of this quotation because Christ had himself made use of it, in answer to the demand of the chief priests and the elders concerning his authority, not long before this, Matt. xxi. 42. Scripture is a tried weapon in our spiritual conflicts: let us therefore stick to it. [2.] We are obliged to it for our own interest. We are undone if we do not take shelter in this name, and make it our refuge and strong tower; for we cannot be saved but by Jesus Christ, and, if we be not eternally saved, we are eternally undone (v. 12): Neither is there salvation in any other. As there is no other name by which diseased bodies can be cured, so there is no other by which sinful souls can be saved. “By him, and him only, by receiving and embracing his doctrine, salvation must now be hoped for by all. For there is no other religion in the world, no, not that delivered by Moses, by which salvation can be had for those that do not now come into this, at the preaching of it.” So. Dr. Hammond. Observe here, First, Our salvation is our chief concern, and that which ought to lie nearest to our hearts–our rescue from wrath and the curse, and our restoration to God’s favour and blessing. Secondly, Our salvation is not in ourselves, nor can be obtained by any merit or strength of our own; we can destroy ourselves, but we cannot save ourselves. Thirdly, There are among men many names that pretend to be saving names, but really are not so; many institutions in religion that pretend to settle a reconciliation and correspondence between God and man, but cannot do it. Fourthly, It is only by Christ and his name that those favours can be expected from God which are necessary to our salvation, and that our services can be accepted with God. This is the honour of Christ’s name, that it is the only name whereby we must be saved, the only name we have to plead in all our addresses to God. This name is given. God has appointed it, and it is an inestimable benefit freely conferred upon us. It is given under heaven. Christ has not only a great name in heaven, but a great name under heaven; for he has all power both in the upper and in the lower world. It is given among men, who need salvation, men who are ready to perish. We may be saved by his name, that name of his, The Lord our righteousness; and we cannot be saved by any other. How far those may find favour with God who have not the knowledge of Christ, nor any actual faith in him, yet live up to the light they have, it is not our business to determine. But this we know, that whatever saving favour such may receive it is upon the account of Christ, and for his sake only; so that still there is no salvation in any other. I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me, Isa. xlv. 4.

      IV. The stand that the court was put to in the prosecution, by this plea, Act 4:13; Act 4:14. Now was fulfilled that promise Christ made, that he would give them a mouth and wisdom, such as all their adversaries should not be able to gainsay nor resist.

      1. They could not deny the cure of the lame man to be both a good deed and a miracle. He was there standing with Peter and John, ready to attest the cure, if there were occasion, and they had nothing to say against it (v. 14), either to disprove it or to disparage it. It was well that it was not the sabbath day, else they would have had that to say against it.

      2. They could not, with all their pomp and power, face down Peter and John. This was a miracle not inferior to the cure of the lame man, considering both what cruel bloody enemies these priests had been to the name of Christ (enough to make any one tremble that appeared for him), and considering what cowardly faint-hearted advocates those disciples had lately been for him, Peter particularly, who denied him for fear of a silly maid; yet now they see the boldness of Peter and John, v. 13. Probably there was something extraordinary and very surprising in their looks; they appeared not only undaunted by the rulers, but daring and daunting to them; they had something majestic in their foreheads, sparkling in their eyes, and commanding, if not terrifying, in their voice. They set their faces like a flint, as the prophet, Isa 50:7; Eze 3:9. The courage of Christ’s faithful confessors has often been the confusion of their cruel persecutors. Now, (1.) We are here told what increased their wonder: They perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. They enquired either of the apostles or themselves or of others, and found that they were of mean extraction, born in Galilee, that they were bred fishermen, and had no learned education, had never been at any university, were not brought up at the feet of any of the rabbin, had never been conversant in courts, camps, or colleges; nay, perhaps, talk to them at this time upon any point in natural philosophy, mathematics, or politics, and you will find they know nothing of the matter; and yet speak to them of the Messiah and his kingdom, and they speak with so much clearness, evidence, and assurance, so pertinently and so fluently, and are so ready in the scriptures of the Old Testament relating to it, that the most learned judge upon the bench is not able to answer them, nor to enter the lists with them. They were ignorant men—idiotai, private men, men that had not any public character nor employment; and therefore they wondered they should have such high pretensions. They were idiots (so the word signifies): they looked upon them with as much contempt as if they had been mere naturals, and expected no more from them, which made them wonder to see what freedom they took. (2.) We are told what made their wonder in a great measure to cease: they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus; they, themselves, it is probable, had seen them with him in the temple, and now recollected that they had seen them; or some of their servants or those about them informed them of it, for they would not be thought themselves to have taken notice of such inferior people. But when they understood that they had been with Jesus, had been conversant with him, attendant on him, and trained up under him, they knew what to impute their boldness to; nay, their boldness in divine things was enough to show with whom they had had their education. Note, Those that have been with Jesus, in converse and communion with him, have been attending on his word, praying in his name, and celebrating the memorials of his death and resurrection, should conduct themselves, in every thing, so that those who converse with them may take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus; and this makes them so holy, and heavenly, and spiritual, and cheerful; this has raised them so much above this world, and filled them with another. One may know that they have been in the mount by the shining of their faces.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Rulers and elders and scribes ( ). The three classes composing the Sanhedrin (rulers=chief priests who were Sadducees, the scribes usually Pharisees, the elders not in either class: 24 priests, 24 elders, 22 scribes).

Were gathered together (). First aorist passive infinitive of with accusative of general reference and the subject of .

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Peter’s Address before the Sanhedrin Defense of the Gospel, V. 5-12.

1) “And it came to pass on the morrow,” (egeneto de epi ten aurion) “Now it came to pass (occurred) on the morrow; It happened on the following day, the day following the evening arrest of Peter and John in Solomon’s Porch, Act 3:11; Act 4:1-3.

2) “That their rulers, and elders, and scribes,” (auton tous archontas kai tous presbuterius kai tous grammateis) “That their rulers, elders, and scribes,” the Jewish religious hierarchy, controlled by the non-resurrection, no Spirit, no angel believing Sadducees, Act 23:8. These were known as the Sanhedrin, including priests and elders, heads of families; The Scribes were both copyists and teachers of the law of Moses, Act 5:21.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

5. It is a thing worthy to be noted in this place, that the wicked do omit no subtilty that they may blot out the gospel and the name of Christ, and yet do they not obtain that which they hoped for; because God doth make their counsels frustrate. For they make an assembly, wherein they do all things so tyrannously, that yet, notwithstanding, lust beareth a show of right, and liberty is driven far away, and at length the truth may seem to be condemned by good right. But the Lord bringeth upon them a sudden fear, so that they dare not do that which they can, and which they do most of all desire. Whatsoever the apostles shall bring in defense of their cause, that shall remain buried and shut up with the walls, where there is none which doth bear them any favor. And therefore there is no place left for the truth. Yet we see how the Lord bringeth their counsel to nought, whilst that being kept back with fear of the people, they stay themselves and bridle their fury, to the end they may avoid envy. But I marvel much why Luke doth make Annas the highest priest in this place, seeing that it appeareth by Josephus, that this honor was not taken from Caiaphas until Vitellius had entered Jerusalem to bear rule, after that Pilate was commanded to depart unto Rome. All men grant that the Lord was crucified in the eighteenth year of Tiberius. And that empire [the reign of Tiberius] did continue four years longer. And it must needs be, that there were three years complete, after the death of Christ, before Pilate was put from the office of the pro-consul. For when Tiberius was dead he came to Rome; so that Caiaphas was high priest yet three years after the death of Christ. Wherefore it is to be thought, that that whereof Luke speaketh in this place did not happen immediately after the resurrection of Christ; although the doubt cannot thus be answered. (204) For Josephus reporteth, that Jonathas was chosen into the place of Caiaphas; but because this Jonathas was the son of Annas, it is a thing not unlike to be true, that the son was called by the name of the father; as Caiaphas also had two names; for they did also call him Joseph.

(204) “ Quanquam nec sic quidem soluta erit tota difficultas,” although not even in this way will the whole difficulty be solved.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 4:5. Their rulers.Not of the new converts or of the apostles, but of the people; hence the Sanhedrists. Elders,Heads of families, Scribes,Teachers of the law, and chief priests composed the Sanhedrin.

Act. 4:6. Annas the high priest and Caiaphas.Exactly as in the gospels (Luk. 3:2; Joh. 18:13), which accord to the former the first place in the high priesthood, although his proper term of office (615 A.D.) had long since expired (Zckler), while the active duties of the high priest were performed by Caiaphas, his son-in-law (1836 A.D.). At or in Jerusalem should form part of Act. 4:5, as in the R.V. In may imply that the court met not in the temple, but in the city (Alford), but this is only a conjecture. Some MSS. read into Jerusalem, as if several of the members had resided beyond the precincts of the city, and on being summoned had hastened in overnight (Holtzmann).

Act. 4:7. In the midst.I.e., in full view, in the centre of the Sanhedrists, if, as tradition reports, these were accustomed to sit in a circle. By what power, or in what name, etc.Compare Luk. 20:2, of which the question here addressed to the apostles is supposed to be a legendary echo (Gfrrer, Zeller, and others); but why the same inquiry should not have been twice put, on different occasions, and to different individuals, is not easy to understand.

Act. 4:8. Filled with the Holy Ghost.Specially bestowed upon him for the crisis which had arisen (compare Act. 4:31; Act. 2:4; Act. 13:9; Mat. 10:19-20).

Act. 4:9. By what means.Or in whom. Is made whole.Lit., has been saved, not merely from the power of disease, but from that of sin, of which the physical malady was a fruit and sign (compare Act. 4:12).

Act. 4:10. Of Nazareth.Frequently applied to Jesus (Act. 2:22, Act. 6:14; Act. 10:38; Act. 22:8; Mat. 21:11; Joh. 1:45). Here connected with Jesus Christ (compare Act. 3:6), and used to identify the Jesus of whom Peter spoke with the Jesus whom the rulers had crucified (Joh. 19:19). Whom ye crucified; whom God raised.Peter seldom omits to exhibit the antithesis between mans treatment of Jesus and Gods. The death and the resurrection of Christ formed the two poles of Peters teaching. The one without the other would have been defective and powerless for salvation.

Act. 4:11. The stone which was set at nought, etc.Quoted from Psa. 118:22, and applied to Christ as already it had been by Curist Himself (Mat. 21:42; Luk. 20:17; compare 1Pe. 2:4; 1Pe. 2:7).

Act. 4:12. Salvation.Should be the salvation, the Messianic deliverance and blessing, which men were needing and the apostles were preaching (Act. 2:21). Given among men.Better, which is or hat been giveni.e., provided. Hence the use of must, because no other has been given or provided.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 4:5-12

The Apostles before the Sanhedrim; or, the Sheep among Wolves

I. The mustering of the court.

1. The time. On the morrow, probably with the dawning of the day, say between six and seven a.m. As in Christs case (Joh. 18:28), no time was lost in bringing the apostolic offenders to book. Wickedness can seldom afford to proceed at leisure (Pro. 6:18); it is the good man who never requires to make haste (Isa. 28:16).

2. The place. Jerusalem, in a chamber connected with the Temple. If any of the Sanhedrists lived beyond the city limitsquite a probable suppositionthey were duly summoned for the work on hand.

3. The members. Seventy one persons in all, chosen from

(1) the elders, or heads of families, among whom were included both priests and laymen;
(2) the scribes, or teachers of the law, professional jurists who mostly adhered to the party of the Pharisees, as the priestly members commonly belonged to the Sadducees; and

(3) the chief priests and their families. Of these the first mentioned is Annas, or Hanangraciousthe aged head of the high priestly house before whom Christ had been set for examination (Joh. 18:13), whom Josephus pronounced the most fortunate man of his time, because for upwards of half a century he and five of his sons had occupied the highest ecclesiastical position in the country, but whom the most unsuspected sources compel us to recognise as nothing better than an absolute, tyrannous, worldly Sadducee, unvenerable for all his seventy years, full of serpentine malice and meanness which utterly belied his name (Farrar, The Life of Christ, chap. lviii., p. 639). Associated with him was Caiaphas, of evil fame, his bold and unscrupulous son-in-law, who first suggested the expediency of Christs removal by death (Joh. 11:49-50), and eventually put the crown upon his criminality by pronouncing Christ guilty of blasphemy (Mat. 26:65), and handing Him over to Pilate for crucifixion (Joh. 18:28). Other members of the court were John and Alexander, about neither of whom is anything known, and as many as were of the high priests family, from which perhaps it may be inferred that not only Nicodem us and Joseph of Arimathea were absent, but also Gamaliel, Pauls celebrated teacher, who honourably figured at a later meeting (Act. 5:34). In short, it was a packed assembly, and one not calculated to reassure the apostles, or even promise them an honest trial.

II. The examination of the prisoners.Placed in the centre of the circle which according to tradition the Sanhedrists formed, the apostles were asked two questions.

1. By what power they had wrought the miracle on the lame man? This amounted to a practical admission that the miracle had been wrought (compare Act. 4:16), a serious difficulty in the way of those who deny the possibility of miracles. Had the Sanhedrists been able to show that no miracle had been wrought, who can doubt that they would cheerfully have done so? The fact that they did not so much as attempt this proves that in their judgment the miracle was undeniable. Even so the higher miracles of the gospel can as little be challenged.

2. In what name they had performed the wonder? The Sanhedrists were perfectly acquainted with the name, but wanted to convict Peter and John of sorcery, by having worked a miracle not in the name of God, but in that of a crucified malefactor (Spence). One marvels how they did not perceive that if a crucified malefactors name could work miracles, the so-called malefactor must have been other than they deemed Him. It is noticeable that the Sanhedrists avoid saying anything about what grieved them most, the apostles teaching the doctrine of the Resurrection. Was this due to the mixed composition of the tribunal, as afterwards in Pauls case (Act. 23:7)? Possibly.

III. The reply of the apostles.Given in Johns name as well as his own, and delivered by Peter, under the guidance of the Spirit. This consisted of three propositions.

1. That the miracle in question had been done in the name and by the power of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had crucified but God had raised. The apostles themselves had been nothing but instruments in the hands of the exalted Redeemer, whose existence and power were certified by the miracle they had wrought and none could deny. The utter absence of self glorification on the part of Peter and John is remarkable, only surpassed by their splendid confidence in and absolute surrender to Jesus.

2. That they, the Sanhedrists, who were supposed to be temple builders for Jehovah, in crucifying Christ, had really rejected Him whom Jehovah had chosen to be the Head Stone of the Corner. Their mistake had been the most appalling that persons in their position could commit. God by raising up Christ had demonstrated Him to be the true Messiah, whom they should have been the first to recognise and welcome, but whom nevertheless they had despised and rejected (Joh. 1:11). Mans judgment and Gods do not always coincide in spiritual things, so much the worse of course for mans judgment. Even those who from their privileges and training might be expected to be men of light and leading sometimes turn out blind leaders of the blind. As in the former proposition the humility of the apostles was conspicuous, so in this stands out strikingly their boldness.

3. That in no other name than Christs could salvation be found. The salvation of which Peter spoke was not temporal and corporeal healing merelyalthough Christs name could effect that alsobut spiritual and eternal healing for the soul, the Messianic deliverance and blessing; and of this as of that, the Risen Christ was the sole fountain and source. His was the only name given under heaven among men whereby the soul could be saved. This was sufficient proof of the completely certain knowledge which the apostles possessed of the nothingness of all other pretended ways of salvation (Harless, System of Christian Ethics, p. 159, E. T.). N.B.A statement like this pronounces no judgment on the question whether one who has never heard Christs name, like the heathen, or having heard it has not understood it like infants and imbeciles, can be saved; it simply asserts that Christs is the one saving name, and that all who are saved must be saved through Him. Equally arresting in this third proposition is the Apostles insight.

Learn.

1. The impotence of man when he conspires against God.
2. The fortitude of those the Holy Ghost inspires.
3. The all-sufficiency of Christs name for salvation.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 4:11. The Builders and the Stone.

I. The Church as a building or house.

1. A spiritual house (1Pe. 2:5).

2. Divinely planned (Heb. 3:1-6).

3. Erected by human instrumentality.
3. Variously used. As

(1) a dwelling house (Psa. 76:2; Eph. 2:22);

(2) a treasure house (Mal. 3:17;

(3) a banqueting house (Son. 2:4).

II. Christ as the corner stone.

1. Of Gods choosing (1Pe. 2:4).

2. Of Gods approving (Mat. 3:17).

3. Of Gods trying (Isa. 28:16).

4. Of Gods laying (Isa. 28:16; 1Co. 3:11).

III. The rejection of the stone by the builders.This proceeded from:

1. Blindness as to the excellency of Christs person.
2. Ignorance of the mystery of redemption and salvation through Him.
3. Mistaken views of the nature of Messiahs kingdom.

IV. The exaltation of the stone by God.Implying:

1. Christs victory over all His enemies.
2. His institution as King and Head of His Church. 3. The resting on Him of the whole fabric of the Church. 4. His distinction as the centre of unity for and chief ornament of the Church.Compiled from Ebenezer Erskine.

The Rejected Corner Stone.

I. The sin of the builders.

1. The Builders. The ecclesiastical leaders of the Jewish people. The place occupied and the function performed by them have now passed into the hands of the pastors and teachers of the Christian Church. 2. The building. The temple of Gods kingdom on the earth, symbolised in ancient times by the Hebrew nation, in modern days by the Christian Church. 3. The stone which the builders rejected. Christ, who was despised by the Jewish authorities because of His obscure personality and lowly condition, and who is sometimes slighted and passed over still by Church teachers, who corrupt the true doctrine of a crucified Saviour, or attempt to build on another foundation than that of His person and work.

II. The glory of the rejected stone.

1. It had been prepared by God. The Hebrew builders had not perceived, and Christian builders occasionally forget this. The incarnation, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus were successive steps by which God fitted Him to be a sure and tried foundation for His Church. 2. The supposed defects about the stone were its best qualifications, for the place it was intended to fill. The Jewish leaders could not away with a Messiah who was meek and lowly in His character, as well as spiritual and heavenly in His mission, who was to suffer, die, and rise again; but these were the very facts about Christ that fitted Him to be the Saviour and Head of His believing Church. Modern teachers who feel offended at a crucified and risen Redeemer should ponder this.

3. The stone which the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner. Christ crucified, dead, risen, and exalted, is the sole source and author of salvation to a perishing world, and the sole foundation and support of His Church.

Act. 4:12. Salvation in Christ alone.

I. There is no salvation out of Christ.

1. No other name but that of Christ has been given among men for this purpose.
2. If any are saved, whether in gospel or heathen lands, it is through the name of Christ.

II. There is salvation in Christ.

1. Salvation in fullest measure.
2. Salvation on the easiest terms.
3. Salvation with the greatest certainty.

None other Name.

I. No higher name than that of Christ, the glorified Son of God.

II. No abler name than that of Him who can save to the uttermost.

III. No surer name than that of Him who has been given for the purpose.

IV. No sweeter name than that of Him who is not ashamed to call men brethren.

V. No easier name than that which asks only faith to be exercised in it.

No Salvation out of Christ.

I. No other system of salvation maintains the glory of Gods character as moral Governor.Two principles in the character of God that can never be disjoined in their exercise are Justice and Mercy. In their manifestation these principles are naturally sympathetic and invariably coincident. Just at this point every other system breaks down, whereas in the gospel scheme both are harmonised.

II. No Other system of salvation upholds the honour of Gods law as the rule of moral government.The law of God, being the counterpart of Gods nature, can never change. It must therefore be upheld in its exercise of justice, before mercy can be shown to the sinner. The gospel scheme alone magnifies the law and makes it honourable.

III. No other system of salvation bears the stamp of Gods sanction as a Divine Revelation.An axiomatic truth that no system of salvation is worthy of acceptation which does not bear as its credential the imprimatur of God. This the gospel scheme alone has. Whatever may be the pretentiousness and plausibility of other systems, they have no force or validity, for they cannot put into their preamble, Thus saith the Lord.

IV. No other system of salvation meets mans exigencies as a sinner under the Divine condemnation.The salvation man needs is one which shall,

1. Cancel the guilt which has necessitated his condemnation. Whence then is this salvation to come? Not certainly by the law.

2. Make provision for the renewal of his whole nature after the image of God. And where is the earthly alembic that can transmute its character from pollution to purity? Every other system, save that of the gospel, seems to contemplate a salvation in sin and not a salvation from sin.R. T. Jeffrey, M.D.

The Only Salvation.That in Christ. Because

I. Glorifies the divine character.By securing the salvation of the sinner without any rent in the divine character, or collision of the divine attributes.

II. Magnifies the divine law.

1. Vindicates it by the vicarious sacrifice of Christ.

2. Amplifies it by an actual addition to its attributes, by the introduction of mercy as an element of its jurisprudence.

III. Verifies the divine word.Gives truth, substance, and significance to all the divine disclosures contained in scripture.

IV. Qualifies for the divine glory.By imparting

1. A right and title, and

2. A meetness for heaven.R. T. Jeffrey, M.D.

Act. 4:8-12. The Characteristics of a Good Preacher.As exhibited by Peter.

I. Undaunted courage.He addresses the rulers of the people and the elders of Israel without trepidation. Preachers should fear the face of no man (Eze. 2:6).

II. Genuine candour.He is willing to be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man. Preachers should never shun investigation into either themselves, their doctrines, or their deeds (1Co. 10:15).

III. Clear exposition.Be it known unto you all, etc. Preachers should have nothing to hide, and ought to leave nothing obscure (2Co. 4:2).

IV. Profound humility.Peter gave the glory of the miracle entirely to Christ, reserving none for himself. Preachers should always say, Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name be the glory! (Psa. 115:1).

V. Immovable conviction,Peter had no doubt as to the place occupied and the part played by Christ in the scheme of salvation. Preachers should not instruct others before they know the truth themselves (Joh. 3:11; 2Co. 4:13).

VI. Evangelical fervour.The sum of Peters preaching was Christ. Preachers that have no room for Christ in their sermons should seek some other calling (1Co. 2:2).

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

7.

BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN. Act. 4:5-22.

Act. 4:5

And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem;

Act. 4:6

and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest.

Act. 4:7

And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?

Act. 4:8

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders,

Act. 4:9

if we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole;

Act. 4:10

be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Act. 4:11

He is the stone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner.

Act. 4:12

And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.

Act. 4:13

Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Act. 4:14

And seeing the man that was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.

Act. 4:15

But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,

Act. 4:16

saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.

Act. 4:17

But that it spread no further among the people, let us threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.

Act. 4:18

And they called them, and charged them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Act. 4:19

But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye:

Act. 4:20

for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard.

Act. 4:21

And they, when they had further threatened them, let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people; for all men glorified God for that which was done.

Act. 4:22

For the man was more than forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was wrought.

120.

Why is the statement made in Act. 4:4 of particular encouragement?

Act. 4:5-6 The night passed. In the public ward there ascended, no doubt, prayers, songs and supplications from the hearts of Peter and John. The other apostles and the church in Jerusalem were probably also gathered to petition the throne of grace on behalf of Peter and John.

The morning came and at about ten oclock, as was the custom, the Sanhedrin was called to assemble. Luke is very explicit as to who were present as authorities in this trial. He first describes the assembly in a general statement, the rulers and the elders and scribes; then explicitly, when he tells us there were present: Annas the high priest and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest. Annas and Caiaphas were related, Caiaphas being the son-in-law of Annas. The predecessor of Pilate had deposed Annas of his rightful position as high priest and had put his son-in-law in his place. The people, however, did not recognize this unlawful procedure and considered Annas as the high priest as did Luke when he recorded this word. There is no historical information as to who John and Alexander were. We can only know that they were men of position and authority in the Sanhedrin. As many as were kindred of the high priest came out to see and hear what they could of this strange trial. And they were not to be disappointed.

The Sanhedrin before whom the apostles were arraigned consisted of seventy men (or seventy-oneseventy members plus Moses. Num. 11:16). The Sanhedrin was composed of twenty-four priests, twenty-two lawyers (not lawyers as we understand that term) and twenty-four elders. These were the rulers and elders spoken of earlier. This council was the highest court in the Jewish state. They had no power to pass the death sentence but their recommendation to Herod carried real weight. The cases before this court were all of a religious nature. (Suffice to say here that this Sanhedrin gathered in a semicircle and set the apostles before them to be tried).

121.

What relation to the assembled council do the words rulers and elders and scribes have?

122.

Tell of the relationship of Caiaphas and Annas.

Act. 4:7. Note carefully that there was no charge made by the council. In a move of subtle strategy they framed a question, the answer of which they hoped would contain a basis for a charge. Here is the question:

By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?
Done what? Yes, so it was, that if the apostles had broken any law they would, in their answer to this question, confess their guilt and try to defend themselves.

Act. 4:8-12 However, the time had come for the words of Jesus to find fulfillmentBut when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. (Mat. 10:19-20.)

And so it was that Peter, full of the Holy Spirit, said the very thing that would offer to the Sanhedrin a defense that had no answer. Here are the thoughts of his defense. What have we done? We have healed a poor impotent man. This we would consider a good deed. Now if we this day are to be examined concerning this deed, I am perfectly willing to face the charge. In what power was this miracle wrought? Why, be it known to you and to all the children of Israel that in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God also raised from the dead, even in Him does this man stand before you whole. He is the stone which was set at nought of you, the builders, who was made the head of the corner; and in none other is there salvation, for neither is there any other name under heaven given among men wherein we must be saved.
What a marvelous progression of thoughts. Note them: (1) He calls attention to the man who was healed, he was standing with them. How did he come to be thus? (2) Through Jesus of Nazareth. Who is He? You know. He is the one whom you crucified. He is the one God raised from the dead; yea, He is the very stone which was set at nought of you, the builders.
This last statement was full of meaning to these rulers. Peter pictures the rulers as the builders of the temple of God and then points out to them that they are like the builders of a temple who, coming upon the rock that has been hewn out to be the cornerstone, fail somehow to recognize it as such and set it aside to go ahead with the construction of the building without it. The fact that Jesus came as the prophets had foretold, as a root out of a dry ground, as a servant and not as a Lord, no doubt had to do with the failure of the rulers of Israel to see in Him the chief cornerstone.
But more especially had their greed, pride, lust and covetousness blinded their eyes to this wonderful truth. If Jesus was indeed the Christ, if He had been raised from the dead, if He was the chief cornerstone, then Peter could say with force and truth that: In none other is there salvation, that God had not provided any other means or person under heaven wherein salvation could be found.

123.

What was the Sanhedrin? What cases did they try?

124.

What subtle strategy does the question of the council reveal?

125.

What words of Jesus were fulfilled upon this occasion?

126.

How did Peter answer the question of the Sanhedrin?

127.

Give a brief outline of Peters defense.

128.

Why did the words of the apostles concerning the cornerstone have particular application to those who heard?

129.

What reasons could you give for the failure of the Jews to see in Jesus the chief cornerstone?

130.

Why were the words in Act. 4:12 especially appropriate?

131.

Why could the defense of Peter and John be called a bold defense?

Act. 4:13-18 Whatever else the rulers beheld or understood on that day, one thing they did not miss, and that was the boldness of Peter and John. In the face of judgment and death, they were unafraid to lay the charge of the death of Jesus at the feet of the very ones who were judging them. They were unafraid to call upon the leaders in Israel to find salvation in the name of the very one they had slain.

There could not but arise both admiration and wonder for these men, and especially so when they knew that they were unlearned and ignorant men, i.e., unlearned in the learning of the Rabbinical school; ignorant of the various intricate points of the law and tradition. Some men are prone to set at nought all others as ignorant and unlearned, who have not been trained in just the way and manner they have. (From all of these things, dear Lord, deliver us).
There could be but one answer to the bold logic and appeal of the words of Peter and Johnthey had been with Jesus. The wisdom of Jesus was admitted by them and now all they could say was that they must have been with Jesus and from Him imbibed His spirit and wisdom. The one fact they failed to realize was that not only had they been with Jesus but that Jesus was now in them.

These rulers were placed in a position of great embarrassment for they had no charge to begin with and they could find no flaw in the defense of Peter; and finally, they could say no word against what had been donefor the man who was healed stood in their very midst and the people were highly in favor of what had occurred. The name of God was being exalted as a result of this incident. What could they do? And so it is with all attempts to cover up hypocrisy and sin with a cloak of apparent righteousness.

132.

What is meant by the thought that Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant men?

133.

What reason did the rulers assign for their boldness? What was right about it? What had they failed to see?

The council did the only thing they couldthey stalled for time that they might consider their dilemma. So, commanding the apostles to go outside of their council, they conferred among themselves. But their private conversation only brought to light the facts of the case which they all knew to be so. Here were the points in the case:

1.

A notable miracle had been wrought through the apostles.

2.

It was manifest unto all those of Jerusalem.

3.

There would be no need to deny it.

What will be done with these men?

No punishment beyond a mere charge could be given. And in this charge, they could give no reason for not speaking any more in this name. The real reason, of course, was the desire of the Sadducees to stop this teaching and to put down this movement that was offering so much competition by way of popularity and influence. But these things could not be spoken of in a gathering of the mighty Sanhedrin. So they called in the apostles and gave them the simple charge, backed by the Sanhedrin:
Not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

134.

Show how the defense of Peter placed the Sanhedrin in a dilemma.

135.

What was the immediate action of the council? What were the facts of the case brought to their attention from the private conference?

136.

What was lacking in the charge given as punishment?

137.

What was the real reason back of the charge?

Act. 4:19-20 If this council expected the apostles to cower because of their power and position they were sadly disappointed, for Peter and John immediately answered that it was not a matter of obeying men, even though it was the Sanhedrin. What they were speaking and doing was in obedience unto God Himself. The statement of Peter and John was formed in such a way as to appeal to the judgment of those present; to appeal to their honesty before God. Their words were in essence:

Put yourselves in our place; suppose God told you to do one thing and man told you not to do itwhich one would you obey? Well, that is exactly our situationJesus Christ whom we beheld risen from the dead, commissioned us to tell of His resurrection and saving power; now you tell us not to speak of the very thing the risen Christ has told us to speak. You be the judge; to whom should we hearken?

138.

Why did not Peter and John keep quiet and then go on preaching in spite of the charge?

139.

What was the answer of Peter to the request of the Sanhedrin? To what did it appeal?

Act. 4:21-22 But the council had made a decision and to it they must be true; hence, we see them further threatening the apostles (they promised them punishment if they disobeyed this charge). But they let them go with no punishment, not because they wanted to, but because they feared the people. The common folk, who had no position to maintain, no name to uphold, were glad to behold the power of God and to give Him the glory. Luke gives us one more fact about this man who started all this chain of eventsHe was, says Luke, more than forty years old.

140.

Why werent the apostles given a severe punishment?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(5) And it came to pass on the morrow . . .Better, that there were gathered together the rulers, elders, and scribes in Jerusalem. The two last words are misplaced in the English version by being transferred to the end of the next verse. The later MSS. give, however, unto Jerusalem. The meeting was obviously summoned, like that of Mat. 26:5, to consider what course was necessary in face of the new facts that had presented themselves, and was probably the first formal meeting of the Sanhedrin that had been held since the trial of our Lord. On its constitution, see Notes on Mat. 5:22; Mat. 26:57; Mat. 27:1. This meeting would, of course, include the Pharisee section of the scribes as well as the Sadducees.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

5. On the morrow The night brought their imprisonment, the morning (probably early morning, note on Luk 21:38,) brought their arraignment.

Rulers elders scribes The two apostles are now before the SANHEDRIN, for an account of which body see our note to Mat 26:3. The case before them belongs to their jurisdiction over all cases of alleged miracle, their duty being to examine and decide, 1, whether the miracle be real, and, 2, whether it be a truly divine miracle or otherwise.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And it came about on the next day, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the close relatives of the high priest.’

The next day a meeting of the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish authority and court, was called, made up of around seventy men taken from among the rulers (chief priests), the elders (important lay persons) and the Scribes (mainly but not entirely teachers of the Pharisees). They included a number of close relatives of the High Priests. Annas was High Priest according to Jewish Law, but he had been replaced as High Priest by Caiaphas under Roman Law. Many of the people thus still considered Annas to be the true High Priest. Along with them were John, possibly the Jonathan who succeeded Caiaphas, and Alexander, of whom we know nothing. Both were no doubt close relatives of the High Priests. In fact Annas was probably still deliberately and defiantly called ‘Annas the High Priest’ by the people, and Luke may simply here be citing this popular designation. Luke is not suggesting that Caiaphas was not the High Priest as well. (According to the Jews once a person was High Priest he was High Priest until death. Even a substitutionary High Priest who had to stand in if the High Priest was prevented for some reason from conducting the Day of Atonement ritual, was seen as High Priest from then on, even if he never officiated again. Anyone therefore who had conducted the Day of Atonement was necessarily High Priest).

We may gather from Luke’s description that he was not over-impressed with the fairness of the situation. The Sanhedrin was overloaded with the men in whose name the charges had been brought.

‘In Jerusalem.’ The point is that the Jerusalem that was to be the launching pad for the Gospel (Act 1:8) was also the Jerusalem where these men met to impede its progress. There was opposition at the very heart of the place from which the word of God was to go out to the world (Isa 2:4).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Sanhedrin is convened:

v. 5. And it came to pass on the morrow that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,

v. 6. and Annas, the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

v. 7. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power or by what name have ye done this?

The next morning excitement ran high in official circles at Jerusalem; for were they not about to stamp out the hated sect that was gaining adherents with such alarming rapidity in their midst? So it was a very formal and very full session of the Sanhedrin which came together as soon as they could all be notified; for the text seems to indicate that some lived outside of the city. There were the rulers and the elders and the scribes, that is, the most prominent and influential members of the priesthood, chiefly Sadducees; those whose age and learning set them apart from the rest; and the professional lawyers, who generally belonged to the Pharisees. But outranking them all were the members of the high-priestly family: Annas, although retired by the Romans, yet retaining many of the rights and obligations of the office; Caiaphas, his son-in-law, and the high priest actually in charge; John, Alexander, and whoever else belonged to the relatives of the high priest. “Annas, whom Luke both here and in his former narrative calls high priest, was the lawful high priest, but he had been deposed by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pilate, and Caiaphas, his son-in-law, had been, by the same unlawful procedure, put in his place, so that, while the latter was holding the office, the other was lawfully entitled to it, and was recognized as high priest by the people. ” After the council had been formally opened, with its members seated in a semicircle, the two apostles were placed in the midst before them. It seems from verse 14 that the former cripple, not willing that his benefactors should be accused or made to suffer without his presence and sympathy, also appeared and took his position beside them. The accused were now formally asked to give an account of their action: By what power and in what name have you done this? The miracle itself could not be denied. What the supercilious and somewhat pointed question intended to bring out was what kind of power and authority the apostles were assuming; in virtue of what name they dared to perform such deeds. It appears that the court wanted to fasten the accusation of divination or sorcery upon the apostles. See Deu 13:1-18. Incidentally, the Jewish leaders may have hoped that Peter and John would speak unguarded words in answering the purposely indefinite question, and thus furnish real ground for a trial.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Act 4:5 . ] But it came to pass that , etc. Comp. Act 9:3 ; Luk 3:21 ; Luk 16:22 . So also in classical writers (Hes. Theog. 639; Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 11). See Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 587.

] refers not to the believers, but, as is presumed to be obvious of itself, to the Jews , whose people, priests, etc., were named above, Act 4:1 , and to whom those who had become believers belonged. Comp. Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 183].

. . . . .] the Sanhedrists and elders and scribes . A full meeting of the Sanhedrim was arranged, at which in particular the members belonging to the classes of representatives of the people and scribes were not absent. Comp. on Mat 2:4 .

] not as if they had their official residence elsewhere (as Zeller suggests in the interest of proving the narrative unhistorical); but certainly many were at this most beautiful period of summer (soon after Pentecost) at their country residences. So, correctly, Beza (“arcessitis videlicet qui urbe aberant, ut sollennis esset hic conventus,” but only by way of suggestion), Bengel, Winer, and others. Most of the older commentators, and Kuinoel, erroneously assume that stands for , in which case, moreover, a quite superfluous remark would be the result.

] also (in order to mention these specially).

.] As at this time not Annas, but his son-in-law Caiaphas, was the ruling high priest , an erroneous statement must be acknowledged here, as in Luk 3:2 , which may be explained from the continuing great influence of Annas. See the particulars, as well as the unsatisfactory shifts which have been resorted to, on Luk 3:2 . Comp. Zeller, p. 127. Baumgarten still, p. 88 (comp. also Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 96, and II. p. 55), contents himself with justifying the expression from the age and influence of Annas, a view which could not occur to any reader, and least of all to Theophilus, after Luk 3:2 .

Nothing further is known of John and Alexander , who, in consequence of their connection with Caiaphas and with the following . . ., are to be regarded as members of the hierarchy related to Annas . Conjectures concerning the former (that he is identical with the Jochanan Ben Zaccai celebrated in the Talmud) may be seen in Lightfoot in loc. ; and concerning the latter (that he was the brother of Philo), in Mangey, Praef. ad Phil. ; and Pearson, Lect. p. 51; Krebs, Obss. p. 176; Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap. p. 5, Exo 2 .

.] of the high-priestly family . Besides Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, all the other relatives of the high priest were brought into the assembly, a proceeding indicative of the special importance which was ascribed to the pronouncing judgment on the dangerous prisoners.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, (6) And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. (7) And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?

What an awful Council this was become, composed of such awful characters. The Reader should be told, that this Council consisted, or ought to have consisted, of seventy Persons, the true Elders of Israel. It was first formed, by the Lord himself. See Num 11:16-17 . But, now we find a motley crew; Scribes, and Pharisees, and Sadducees. For their character, as given by our Lord himself: See Mat 23 throughout: See also Act 23:8 . Before such awful characters, the highly honored servants of the Lord Jesus Christ was brought. And I would have the Reader remark the blessedness of being so brought, because it afforded the opportunity for the Apostles to preach, and the Church, in all after ages, to read the record of what they said, under the teaching of God the Holy Ghost. And I beg the Reader to remark with me how upon numberless occasions the Lord permits, yea, appoints the malice of men, to proceed to a desperate length sometimes, for the greater manifestation of his glory, and his peoples’ good. If the Reader will turn to a single verse in one of the Psalms, and beg of the Almighty Author of Scripture, even God the Holy Ghost, to write it in the tablets of his heart, to have recourse to as may be needed; he will find great blessedness in it. The verse is Psa 105:25 . He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtly with his servants. Oh! how often hath this sweet Scripture taught my soul to look through the cobweb malice of men; and to discern the hand of a gracious, wise, and love ordering Lord, Eze 1:26-28 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,

Ver. 5. On the morrow ] Malice is restless. Stephen Gardiner would not sit down to dinner till he had heard of the bishops burnt at Oxford.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

5 12 .] THE APOSTLES EXAMINED BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. PETER’S SPEECH.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

5. ] , of the Jews ; a construction frequently used where there can be little chance of mistaking to whom or what the pronoun refers, see Joh 8:44 , note; Rom 2:26 ; Winer, edn. 6, 22. 3. 3 b. In this place, however, it has been mistaken: for Meyer refers to the believers just mentioned, inasmuch as they were Jews: absurdly enough.

. . . . .] The Sanhedrim : see Mat 2:4 ; Mat 26:59 ; ch. Act 5:21 .

] Why is this specified? The difficulty of accounting for it has led in some MSS. to being altered to , so as to imply that certain of them who dwelt out of town (Lightf. &c.) were summoned to Jerusalem , I believe it merely implies that the meeting was not held in the temple , but in the city .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 4:5 . : the formula is another characteristic of St. Luke’s style, Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium , p. 13, also Dalman, Die Worte Jesu , pp. 26, 29. Compare for the type of construction, according to which what takes place is put in the infinitive mood, depending upon , Act 9:32 ; Act 9:37 ; Act 9:43 , Act 11:26 , Act 14:1 , and other instances in Dr. Plummer’s exhaustive note, St. Luke , p. 45 : here only and in Luk 10:35 , in N.T. For the temporal use of Act 3:1 , i.e. , the Sanhedrim, here = , who are mentioned first as a rule, where the N.T. enumerates the different orders of the Sanhedrim, whilst is an interchangeable expression, both in the N.T. and in Josephus (see, for instance, Schrer, Jewish People , div. ii., vol. i., pp. 177, 205, E.T.), although there are two instances in which both words occur together, Luk 23:13 ; Luk 24:20 . Whatever may have been the precise significance of the term , Schrer, u. s. , pp. 203 206, E.T., it included, beyond all doubt, the most prominent representatives of the priesthood, belonging chiefly, if not entirely, to the Sadducean party. : those members were known simply by this title who did not belong to either of the two special classes mentioned. : the professional lawyers who adhered to the Pharisees, Jos., Ant. , xvii., 6, 2. Even under the Roman government the Sanhedrim possessed considerable independence of jurisdiction, both civil and criminal. Not only could it order arrests to be made by its own officers, but it could dispose, on its own authority, of cases where the death penalty was not involved, Schrer, u. s. , p. 187, E.T., and Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation , p. 103 ff. : Weiss would restrict . to the scribes of Jerusalem to distinguish them from the scribes of Galilee, but it is doubtful whether the words can bear this (see also Rendall, who favours the same view as Weiss). Holtzmann and Wendt, on the other hand, defend , and suppose that the members of the Sanhedrim were obliged to hurry into the city from their country estates. Zckler applies . not only to , but also to the other members of the Sanhedrim, and sees in the words an intimation that the sitting was hurriedly composed of the members actually present in Jerusalem.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 4:5-12

5On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; 6and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. 7When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” 8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, 9if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the deadby this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief cornerstone. 12And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

Act 4:5 “their rulers and elders and scribes” The Sanhedrin (i.e., the Council, Act 5:21, from the Jerusalem area; the Council of the elders, Act 22:5) was made up of seventy Jewish leaders. It was the highest political/religious body (which Rome allowed) within Judaism of Jesus’ day. The concept was begun (i.e., Jewish tradition) by Ezra and the “men of the Great Synagogue.” It is usually identified in the NT by the phrase, “the scribes, elders and high priests” (cf. Luk 23:13; Act 3:17; Act 4:5; Act 4:8; Act 13:27). See Special Topic following.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE SANHEDRIN

Act 4:6 “Annas” His name in Greek is Hannas; Josephus calls him Hannanos (Jonathan). The name seems to come from the Hebrew “merciful” or “gracious” (hnn, BDB 336).

In the OT the high priesthood was for life and stayed in the lineage of Aaron. However, the Romans had turned this office into a political plumb, purchased by a Levitical family. The high priest controlled and operated the merchandising in the Court of the Women. Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple angered this family.

According to Flavius Josephus, Annas was the High Priest from A.D. 6-14. He was appointed by Quirinius, governor of Syria and removed by Valerius Gratus. His relatives (5 sons and 1 grandson) succeeded him. Caiaphas (A.D. 18-36), his son-in-law (cf. Joh 18:13), was his immediate successor. Annas was the real power behind the office. John depicts him as the first person to whom Jesus is taken (cf. Act 18:13; Act 18:19-22).

“Caiaphas” He was appointed high priest by Valerius Gratus, procurator of Judea (cf. MS D, ‘Inathas, cf. NEB, NJB) from A.D. 18-36.

“John” This may refer to “Jonathan,” who Josephus tells us was also one of Annas’ sons who became High Priest in A.D. 36 after Caiaphas. However, the UBS4 has ‘Ianns (i.e., John) as an A rating (certain); even the REB goes back to “John.”

“Alexander” Nothing is known about this man, but he, like John, was probably a member of Annas’ family or a leading member of the Sadducean party.

Act 4:7 “When they had placed them in the center” The members of the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle on a raised platform.

“they began to inquire” This is an imperfect tense, which means either (1) continuous action in past time or (2) the beginning of an action.

“By what power, or in what name” They insinuated that the healing was done by magical power (cf. Act 19:13). They tried this same trick on Jesus (cf. Luk 11:14-26; Mar 3:20-30). They could not deny the miracles so they attempted to impugn the method or source of the power.

Act 4:8 “filled with the Holy Spirit” The Spirit was the source of wisdom and boldness for the Apostles (cf. Luk 12:11-12; Luk 21:12-15). Remember this was the same man who only a few days earlier had denied the Lord out of fear (cf. Act 4:13). Notice that Peter was “filled” (cf. Act 2:4; Act 4:8; Act 4:31). This shows that it was a repeatable experience (cf. Eph 5:18). See full note at Act 5:17.

Act 4:9 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence which is assumed true for the author’s purpose.

“if we are on trial today” This Greek term literally means “examined by a court” (cf. Act 12:19; Act 24:8; Act 28:18; Luk 23:14). It was used of the Berean Jews examining the Scriptures to see if Paul was accurately interpreting them (cf. Act 17:11).

“for a benefit done to a sick man” Peter is asserting the inappropriateness of this official trial with such a hostile environment concerning a wonderful miracle of healing and mercy. They should be praising God instead!

“has been made well” This is a perfect passive indicative, meaning complete health and restoration of his legs.

Act 4:10 “Let it be known to all of you and all the people of Israel” This is a perfect active imperative. The Spirit has emboldened Peter. He is not intimidated by the judicial setting. These leaders could not keep Christ in the tomb and they could not deny the healed man standing in front of them!

“by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene” Peter picks up on their question and answers specifically how the miracle occurred. See SPECIAL TOPIC: JESUS THE NAZARENE at Act 2:22.

“whom you crucified” This was the obvious truth. They instigated His death. Notice “by you” in Act 4:11, which also asserts their guilt.

“whom God raised” The NT affirms that all three persons of the Trinity were active in Jesus’ resurrection:

1. Spirit, Rom 8:11

2. Jesus, Joh 2:19-22; Joh 10:17-18

3. Father, Act 2:24; Act 2:32; Act 3:15; Act 3:26; Act 4:10; Act 5:30; Act 10:40; Act 13:30; Act 13:33-34; Act 13:37; Act 17:31; Rom 6:4; Rom 6:9

This was confirmation of the truth of Jesus’ life and teachings about God and also the Father’s full acceptance of Jesus’ substitutionary death. This was a major aspect of the Kerygma (i.e., sermons in Acts, see Special Topic at Act 2:14).

“this man stands here” This is a word play on “stands.” The lame man stands up and stands before them.

Act 4:11 This is a quote from Psa 118:22, but not from the Masoretic text or Septuagint (cf. Eph 2:20; 1Pe 2:4 ff). Jesus uses this of Himself in Mar 12:10 and Luk 20:17, taken from the Septuagint. It signifies the fulfillment of OT prophecy of a rejected Messiah who has become the very heart of God’s eternal plan for the redemption (see Special Topic at Act 1:8) of Israel and the world. This was a shocking statement for these Jewish leaders (cf. 1Ti 2:5).

NASB”the chief corner stone”

NKJV”the chief cornerstone”

NRSV, NJB”the cornerstone”

TEV”stone. . .the most important of all”

SPECIAL TOPIC: CORNERSTONE

Act 4:12 “there is salvation in no one else” This is a strong double negative. There is no salvation in Abraham or Moses (cf. Joh 14:6; 1Ti 2:5; 1Jn 5:10-12). What a shocking claim! It is very restrictive but also very obvious that Jesus believed that only through a personal relationship with Himself can one know God. Peter boldly proclaims this to that elite Jewish leadership. This has often been called the exclusivistic scandal of Christianity. There is no middle ground here. This statement is true or Christianity is false!

“there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men” The participle “has been given” is a perfect passive. God has ordained this! Jesus is His answer to mankind’s spiritual need. There is no Plan B! For a good book on the exclusivistic claims of Christianity see H. A. Netland, Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth.

“among men” Notice the universal element (cf. Joh 3:16; 1Ti 2:4; 2Pe 3:9).

“by which we must be saved” This phrase has two verbals.

1. dei, present active indicative, “we must” (see full note on dei at Act 1:16)

2. sthnai, aorist passive infinitive of sz, “to be saved”

The word for “save” has two usages in the NT.

1. physical deliverance (OT sense, cf. Mat 9:22; Mar 6:56; Luk 1:71; Luk 6:9; Luk 7:50; Act 27:20; Act 27:31; Jas 1:21; Jas 2:14; Jas 4:12; Jas 5:20)

2. spiritual salvation (NT usages, cf. Luk 19:10; Act 2:21; Act 2:40; Act 2:47; Act 11:14; Act 15:11; Act 16:30-31)

The lame man experienced both. The religious leaders needed to trust Jesus as their only hope for acceptance and forgiveness! Humans need to be saved (cf. Rom 1:18 to Rom 3:20) and Jesus is the only way for this to be accomplished (cf. Rom 3:21-31). The OT quote in Act 4:12 shows He has always been God’s plan (cf. Isa 8:14-15; Isa 28:14-19; Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

it came to pass. A Hebraism, very common in Luke, about fifty times in his Gospel, and some fifteen times in the Acts.

rulers, &c. An assembly of the Sanhedrin. Compare Mat 26:3. Mar 14:53, and see note on Mat 2:4.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

5-12.] THE APOSTLES EXAMINED BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. PETERS SPEECH.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 4:5. , of them) viz. the Jews.- , rulers and elders and scribes) who were conspicuous in authority, counsel, and doctrine.- , to Jerusalem) from the neighbourhood: unless be put for .[34]

[34] And indeed the Germ. Vers. prefers the reading , after the margin of both Greek Editions.-E. B.

is the reading of ABDE Vulg. Theb. Rec. Text has no very old authority for .-E. and T.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

on: Act 5:20, Act 5:21, Mic 2:1, Mat 27:1, Mat 27:2

rulers: Act 4:8, Act 5:34, Act 6:12, Isa 1:10, Mar 15:1, Luk 20:1, Luk 22:66, Luk 24:20

Reciprocal: Psa 2:2 – rulers Psa 11:3 – what Psa 56:6 – gather Psa 94:21 – gather Isa 1:23 – princes Jer 19:1 – the ancients of the people Jer 20:3 – Pashur Eze 14:1 – certain Dan 6:7 – have consulted Hos 9:15 – all Mat 2:4 – scribes Mat 26:3 – Caiaphas Mat 28:12 – General Mar 11:27 – the chief Mar 14:53 – and with Luk 12:11 – General Joh 1:24 – Why Joh 11:47 – gathered Act 22:5 – and all

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6

Act 4:5-6. This paragraph shows a meeting of the council or Sanhedrin (verse 15), to see what could be done about the stir that was being caused over the work and preaching of the apostles. According to Thayer, the rulers were leading men of the Jews who were members of the Sanhedrin. The elders in this case is defined by Thayer, “Members of the great council or Sanhedrin,” then explains “because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from the elderly men.” Scribes came to have a very influential position in the time of Christ and the apostles. A full description of the word is given with the comments at Mat 13:52. Annas and Caiaphas are both mentioned in connection with the high priesthood. That was due to some interference by the secular government in the affairs of the Jews. (See the comments at Luk 3:2.) All we know of John and Alexander is that they were leading men in Jerusalem at this time, and related in some way to the high priest. Others of the high priesthood who were not so outstanding are merely referred to as such.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Arraignment before the Sanhedrim, 5-7.

Act 4:5. Their rulers. Their refers not to the apostles, but to the Jewish people; rulers, to the Sanhedrists in general. The Sanhedrim is then further described as consisting of three orders:

(1.) Elders. Heads of families who had a seat in the great council.

(2.) Scribes. Recognised teachers and interpreters of the divine law. Certain representatives of this important class in the Jewish state had seats in the supreme council. Wordsworth, on Mat 2:4, quotes a supposition of Lightfoot that the scribes were Levites, and masters of colleges and schools.

(3.) Annas the high priest . . . and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest. In the other passages where the Sanhedrim is alluded to, this third order consisting of priests is termed the chief priests, and occupies the first place These chief priests included the reigning high priest, with others of his house who had borne the title (see note below), and possibly also the heads of the twenty-four courses of priests. Maimonides (quoted by Alford on Mat 2:4) speaks of the Sanhedrim as consisting of seventy-one members made up of priests, Levites, and Israelites. Each of these three-orders is represented in the meeting of the Sanhedrim recounted in this passagethe priests, in the persons of Annas, Caiaphas, etc.; the Levites, by the scribes, if we adopt the supposition of Lightfoot given above; and the Israelites, by the elders, who, being heads of families, would represent Israel generally.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here observe, 1. What a combined force did unite and join together of rulers, Scribes, elders, high priests, high priests kindred, and who not? They all, though of different interests, yet hold together as one, to extinguish and put out the light of the gospel, as soon as it began to shine forth. Need we wonder that the devil struggled so hard at the dawning of the reformation to blow out the light of the gospel; when we consider what opposition he discovered against the first plantation and propagation of the gospel? As Herod would have strangled Christ in his cradle, so would the high priest have stifled Christianity in its infancy. They all gathered together at Jerusalem. Sad! that a message of such glad tidings as the gospel, should meet with so bad entertainment.

Observe, 2. How the apostles are here arraigned and questioned. By what name and authority; that is, by what power or virtue they had done this? Some think, they suspected the apostles to have wrought by the black art, being assisted by the devil. But did not this miracle give a sufficient convincing light to demonstrate that it was heaven-born, and shewed evidently that it was wrought by a supernatural and divine power? Cursed men! who accounting it a credit for themselves to do evil, make it a crime for the apostles to do good: Was there any reason for their asking, by what power, when the thing itself proclaimed it to be done by the power of God?

Observe, 3. The bold and resolute answer of St. Peter, to the foregoing malicious and ridiculous question.

Where note, 1. His holy courage.

2. The cause of it.

He was filled with the Holy Ghost. In the 5th and 6th verses, we find a full bench, not of justices, but of professed enemies, enough to have dashed ten prisoners at the bar out of countenance. But behold the ingenuous and holy boldness of a good Christian in a good cause. St. Peter, who formerly, when full of himself, was baffled by a damsel, and frighted into a denial of Christ by a silly wench; now being filled with the Holy Ghost silences and confounds his most potent and malicious accusers.

Lord! how woefully weak are we when we rely on our own strength, but how able to do all things when Christ strengthens us! In te stas et non stas, says St. Austin. “Thou art sure to come down when thou stands on thine own legs; but shall be mightily upheld and carried on, when supported and conducted by God’s hand.”

Observe, 4. A singular instance of the apostles’ boldness: namely, in preaching Jesus Christ to them that had imprisoned them. Be it known unto you, that this Jesus whom ye crucified, is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, and is become the head of the corner; neither is ther salvation in any other &c.

Where note, 1. The title given to the rulers of the Jewish church, Builders; So they were by office, and here are called so, to remind them of their duty; namely, to increase, strengthen, and beautify the building, the church of God; not to demolish, weaken, or deface it.

Note, 2. The contempt which these builders cast upon Christ the chief corner stone; they refused him and set him at naught, according to the prophecy, Psa 118:22 which was a prophecy of the rejection of the Messiah, though the Jews would not so understand it; for they dreamt of such a pompous Messias coming according to their hearts desire, that it should be incredible that any Jews should ever reject or despise him.

Note, 3. the title given to Christ, the corner stone; so called, because he supports and sustains the whole building; and as the corner stone is equally necessary for both sides of the building, which are united to it and borne up by it, in like manner both Jew and Gentile are united in Christ, and saved by him.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Their Day In Court

Luke’s description makes it clear that Peter and John were brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin the next day. Ash says, “It was the high court of seventy members, plus the high priest, that oversaw matters concerned with the temple and its worship. It was, in fact, the chief political force among the Jews. Most were Sadducees.” He went on to note that the scribes were students of the law, including most of the Pharisees on the council. Annas had been, Caiaphas was and, it appears, John was to be the High Priest ( Luk 3:2 ). So, the incident in the temple was taken very seriously. Significantly, they did not question whether or not the miracle took place, but under whose authority it was performed. Ash observes that the Greek indicates they actually asked how men like them could have done such a thing.

Peter, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” answered with a succinct defense of Jesus’ power as the resurrected Lord (compare Mat 10:17-19 ). It was through Jesus, the one they rejected and crucified, that the man was made well, or saved, and Peter wanted the council and all of Israel to know that profound truth. Then, quoting from Psa 118:22 , to show that the Sanhedrin, as the religious builders, had rejected the very stone which was chosen by God to be the head of the corner (see Mat 21:42 ; 1Pe 2:4-6 ). Then, the inspired apostle went on to state that anyone who would ever receive spiritual healing, or salvation, would do so under the authority of Jesus Christ ( Act 4:5-12 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 4:5-7. And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, &c., were gathered together There was a general assembly held of those who constituted the sanhedrim, and a court formed at Jerusalem. And Annas the high-priest, and Caiaphas The meaning seems to be, Annas, who had been high-priest, and Caiaphas, who was so then; and John, and Alexander It is very evident that these were persons of great note among the Jews at that time, but who they were, is to us quite uncertain. And as many as were of the kindred of the high-priest Or, as others render it, of the pontifical family. Dr. Hammond explains this of the twenty-four members of the Aaronic family, who presided over the twenty-four courses. Others refer it to those who were nearly related to Annas and Caiaphas: but Grotius thinks it includes the kindred of those who had lately been in the office of high-priest, which, he says, made them members of the sanhedrim. And when they had set them in the midst Had ordered them to be brought before them, and set in the midst of the assembly; (it being the custom of the sanhedrim to sit almost in a circle;) they asked, By what power Human or diabolical, angelic or divine, have you cured this man? Whose name have you invoked to the working of this miracle? Or, from whom had you your authority to preach so publicly unto the people? From us you had it not, though we alone have the authority to give a commission to any man to do so. It will cast light on this inquiry of the rulers to observe, that Josephus speaks of some of the Jews working cures by invoking the name of Solomon. And the Talmud relates some ridiculous stories of working miracles by the tetragrammaton, or the unutterable name; that is, by mentioning the word Jehovah. The seven sons of Sheva, mentioned Act 19:13-17, had the same opinion of working miracles by the mention of a name, when they pretended to cure a possessed person by invoking the name of Jesus, whom Paul preached.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

5, 6. The prisoners having been arrested late in the afternoon, all further proceedings were adjourned till the next day, and Peter and John had the quiet of a night in prison for reflection and mutual encouragement ere they were brought to trial. (5) “And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes, (6) and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in Jerusalem.” This assembly was the great Jewish Sanhedrim, and the parties here named are the different officials who constituted that tribunal. Who John and Alexander were is not now known. Annas and Caiaphas are historical characters, conspicuous in the history of the trial of Jesus, and also prominent on the pages of Josephus. Between the latter and Luke there is an apparent discrepancy, in reference to their official position at this time, Luke calling Annas the high priest, and Josephus attributing that dignity to Caiaphas. According to Josephus, Valerius Gratus, the immediate predecessor of Pontius Pilate, had removed Annas from the high priesthood, and after having appointed and removed three others, one of them, Eleazar, the son of Annas, finally left Caiaphas in office, when he was superseded by Pilate. The Apostle John informs us that Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas. According to the law of Moses the high priest held office during life; hence, in deposing Annas, the Roman governor violated the Jewish Law, and the act was religiously null and void. Annas was still high priest by right, and for this reason is so styled here by Luke. The Jews, also, recognized his right, by taking Jesus before him for trial, though he, not daring to claim the office, sent them to Caiaphas. In his former narrative, Luke also mentions them both as being high priests at the same time. This is best explained by the fact that one was rightfully entitled to the office, and the other was exercising it by illegal appointment.

The “kindred of the high priest” embraced not only the chief members of his immediate family, but also some of the deposed high priests, who were all, in great probability, connected with the one high priestly family, and thereby entitled to seats in the Sanhedrim.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

SANHEDRIN

5-7. The judgment hall of the Sanhedrin stands on Mt. Zion, about a thousand rods from the city wall, on the brow of that mountain. I was in it three years ago, my guide certifying to its identity. Jesus was arraigned there. Here we see both Annas, the high priest, endorsed by the Romans, and Caiaphas the high priest, endorsed by the Jews, and all the magnates belonging to the family of the high priest, as well as the Scribes and the Elders, were assembled in this council. Why were two illiterate rustics more than a match for this grave assembly of learned preachers and doctors of divinity, having on their side of the controversy all the scholarship, official dignity, ecclesastical authority and money power of the age? There is but one answer: Peter and John were men full of the Holy Ghost; so, fear not, little flock, it is your Fathers good pleasure to give unto you the Kingdom. If you are filled with the Holy Ghost you are more than a match for all the powers of earth and hell. God has never changed. Good Lord, help us to get back to the Acts of the Apostles.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Act 4:5-12. A full meeting of the Sanhedrin takes place in the morning. Annas and Caiaphas are known to us; the former was high priest, A.D. 615; Caiaphas, his son-in-law, A.D. 1834. John and Alexander are otherwise unknown. These and the other high-priestly aristocrats belonged by tradition to the Sadducees (Schrer, ii. 1:178). The court sits in a semicircle, the accused stand in the middle. The interrogation (Act 4:7) shows that no serious charge is brought against them; it is the same that was put to Jesus (Mar 11:28, Luk 20:2) over the Temple cleansing. The name in which they acted was notorious; as to the power by which they had made the lame man walk, Mar 3:22 shows what views might prevail as to the origin of cures; the men who ask were not unconnected with that shameful charge. But the question serves to introduce the speech of Peter (Act 4:8-12). The Holy Spirit descends on him (Mat 10:19 f., Act 1:8; Act 2:3 f.); he speaks before rulers. He is being examined as to the means by which the impotent man has been restored to health. The means is the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean (full style of the name as in Act 3:6*); here also the Jews are charged with the guilt of Christs death, and the benefits which accrue from His Resurrection and Ascension are pointed out. Thus strikingly is the text (Psa 118:22) fulfilled which speaks of the rejection by the builders of the stone which God has raised to honour (Mar 12:10, 1Pe 2:7). Jesus, Peter asserts, is that stone. From the declaration that the cure was wrought by means of the name of Christ he advances (Act 4:12) to the general assertion that this name is the only instrument given to men for accomplishing such cures or generally for saving men from any ill.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their {c} rulers, and elders, and scribes,

(c) These were those who were members of the Sanhedrin, who were all from the tribe of Judah, until Herod came to power.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Peter’s explanation before the Sanhedrin 4:5-12

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The "Council" (Act 4:15) before which soldiers brought Peter and John the next day was the Sanhedrin, which was the senate and supreme court of Israel. It consisted of the high priest, who served as its presiding officer, and 70 other men. Its aristocratic members, the majority, were Sadducees, and its lay leaders were Pharisees. Most of the experts in the Jewish law were Pharisees who were also nationalistic, but the Sadducees supported Rome. The Sadducees were more conservative, though rationalistic theologically, and the Pharisees were more liberal since they accepted oral traditions as authoritative in addition to the Old Testament.

The Sanhedrin normally held its meetings, including the one described in this chapter, in a hall adjoining the southwest part of the temple courtyard, the Chamber of Hewn Stone. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 5:4:2.] "Rulers" were priests who represented the 24 priestly courses (cf. Act 23:5; Mat 16:21), "elders" were tribal and influential family heads of the people, and "scribes" were teachers of the law. Individuals from these three groups made up this body (cf. Luk 9:22). The rulers and elders were mainly Sadducees while most of the scribes were Pharisees.

"The Sanhedrin was acting within its jurisdiction when it convened to examine Peter and John. The Mosaic Law specified that whenever someone performed a miracle and used it as the basis for teaching, he was to be examined, and if the teaching were used to lead men away from the God of their fathers, the nation was responsible to stone him (Deu 13:1-5). On the other hand, if his message was doctrinally sound, the miracle-worker was to be accepted as coming with a message from God." [Note: Kent, pp. 45-46.]

This is the first of four times some of Jesus’ followers stood before the Sanhedrin according to Acts. The others were Peter and the apostles (Act 5:27), Stephen (Act 6:12), and Paul (Act 22:30).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)