Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 4:19
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
19. Peter and John ] Both alike express their determination to publish the news of Christ’s life and resurrection. The reason why both names are here mentioned may be that each was separately appealed to for a promise to desist. For an instance of like firmness in a good cause cp. 2Ma 7:30 .
judge ye ] Come to whatever decision you please. “We are not careful to answer you in this matter.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Whether it be right … – The apostles abated nothing of their boldness when threatened. They openly appealed to their judges whether their command could be right. And in doing this, they expressed their full conviction of the truth of what they had said, and their deliberate purpose not to regard their command, but still to proclaim to the people the truth that Jesus was the Messiah.
In the sight of God – That is, whether God will judge this to be right. The grand question was how God would regard it. If he disapproved it, it was wrong. It was not merely a question pertaining to their reputation, safety, or life; it was a question of conscience before God. We have here a striking instance of the principle on which Christians act. It is, to lay their safety, reputation, and life out of view, and bring everything to the test whether it will please God. If it will, it is right; if it will not, it is wrong.
To hearken – To hear and to hearken are often used to denote to obey, Joh 5:24; Joh 8:47, etc.
Judge ye – This was an appeal to them directly as judges and as men. And it may be presumed that it was an appeal which they could not resist. The Sanhedrin acknowledged itself to have been appointed by God, and to have no authority which was not derived from his appointment. Of course, God could modify, supersede, or repeal their authority; and the abstract principle that it was better to obey God than man they could not call in question. The only inquiry was whether they had evidence that God had issued any command in the case. Of that the apostles were satisfied, and that the rulers could not deny. It may be remarked that this is one of the first and most bold appeals on record in favor of the right of private judgment and the liberty of conscience. That liberty was supposed in all the Jewish religion. It was admitted that the authority of God in all matters was superior to that of man. And the same spirit manifested itself thus early in the Christian church against all dominion over the conscience, and in favor of the right to follow the dictates of the conscience and the will of God. As a mere historical fact, therefore, it is interesting to contemplate this, and still more interesting in its important bearings on human liberty and human happiness. The doctrine is still more explicitly stated in Act 5:29, We ought to obey God rather than man.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. Whether it be right in the sight of God] As if they had said: Worldly prudence and a consideration of our secular interests would undoubtedly induce us to obey you; but acting as before God, and following the dictates of eternal truth and justice, we dare not be silent. Can it be right to obey men contrary to the command and will of God? When he commands us to speak, dare we hold our tongue? We have received our authority from God through Christ, and feel fully persuaded of the truth by the Holy Spirit which now dwells in us; and we should be guilty of treason against God, were we on any consideration to suppress his testimony. Your own consciences testify that we should be sinners against our heavenly King, were we to act according to your orders; and the conclusion is, that we cannot but speak what we have seen and heard.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Peter and John answered; both spake by one and the same Spirit, and agreed in one and the same answer; they are not solicitous what will best bring them off at present, but
said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God, from whom nothing is hid, and who is the avenger of all wrong, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. The apostles seem to refer to a commonly received rule amongst their rabbins, which also they make use of, Act 5:29, We ought to obey God rather than men. In the greatest matters of our most holy religion, God hath not left himself without a witness, or a thousand witnesses, in our own breasts and consciences, Amo 2:11.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But Peter and John answered and said unto them,…. With great boldness and courage, and without any fear of man, but in the true fear of God
whether it be right in the sight of God; who is omniscient, and sees, and knows all things, all the actions of men, and the springs of them; who is holy, just, and true, and sits and judges among the gods, that which is right:
to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye: it is not denied that magistrates are to be hearkened to, and obeyed: but not more than God, or in things that are contrary to his nature, will, law, honour, and glory: whatever is agreeable to the law and will of God, commanded by magistrates, should be attended to, and cheerfully obeyed; but what is not should be disregarded, whatever follows upon it: and this was so just and reasonable, that the apostles appeal to the sanhedrim, or council itself, to determine.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “But Peter and John answered,” (ho de Petros kai loannes apokrithentes) “Then Peter and John responded,” replied, or gave answer. They followed the axiom that “to sit silent when they should protest makes cowards out of men,” and what is more, such makes one an enemy to the cross and church of Jesus Christ, Jas 4:3; 1Pe 5:8-9.
2) “And said unto them,” (eipon pros autous) “They said to them,” to the members of the council. What they said is here recorded for the benefit of witnesses of Christ who are yet challenged by pious religious and prejudiced civil anarchists against Jesus Christ today, 1Co 10:13; Joh 15:20.
3) “Whether it be right in the sight of God,” (ei dikaion estin enopion tou theou) “Whether or not it is righteous before the face of God,” when brought face to face with ones duty to God, to speak or not to speak in the name of Jesus, to defend your Saviour and His honor. If it be right to fight for the honor of ones mother or father’s name, how much more so to speak up and out for the name of Jesus Christ, 1Ti 5:8; Pro 22:1.
4) “To hearken unto you,” (humon akouein) “To hear or give heed to you all,” to your recrimination threats and restrictions you would place on us; For men can not obey or serve two conflicting masters, Mat 6:24; Luk 16:13.
5) “More than to God,” (mallon e tou theou) “Rather than to hear God,” what He directs us to do in spiritual matters. When there appears to be a conflict between the orders, instructions, or mandates of men and the Word of God, which should be followed? Which is right? The answer is follow, obey the Word, always, Mat 6:33; Joh 15:14; 2Ti 3:16-17.
6) “Judge ye,” (krinate) “You all judge,” you decide, draw your own conclusions, Rom 14:13; 1Co 11:31. Whatever judgments men make should be based upon the Word of God interpreted in its contextual setting, for it is that by, which all men shall one day be judged of the Lord for rewards or retribution of punishment, Rom 2:16; Rev 20:11-12. On religious matters Divine law supersedes any conflicting human law.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
19. Whether it be right. Let us remember to whom they make this answer. For this council did undoubtedly represent the Church; but because they do abuse their authority, the apostles say flatly that they are not to be obeyed. And (as men use to do in an evident matter) they refer over the judgment unto their adversaries for a reproach unto them. Furthermore it is worth the noting, that they set the authority of God against their decrees; which thing should be done out of season, unless they were the enemies of God, who notwithstanding, were otherwise the ordinary pastors of the Church. Moreover, the apostles express a farther thing also to wit, that the obedience which men use toward evil and unfaithful pastors, howsoever they hold the lawful government of the Church, is contrary to God. This question doth the Pope answer pleasantly, (213) because he saith that all those things are divine oracles whatsoever it hath pleased him to blunder out un-advisedly. (214) By this means the danger of contrariety is taken away. But the bishops can challenge no more at this day than God had given then to the order of the priests. Therefore, this is a toy too childish, [viz.] that they can command nothing but that which is agreeable to the commandment of God. (215) Yea, rather the thing itself declareth evidently that there shall be no conflict then if they suffer their vain and unbridled lust to range freely, having vanquished and renounced the doctrine of Christ.
Therefore, by what title soever men be called, yet must we hear them only upon this condition, if they lead us not away from obeying God. So that we must examine all their traditions by the rule of the Word of God. We must obey princes and others which are in authority, yet so that they rob not God (who is the chief King, Father, and Lord) of his right and authority. If we must observe such modesty in politic [civil] government, it ought to be of far more force in the spiritual government of the Church. And lest, according to their wonted pride, they think that their authority is abated, when God is extolled above them, Peter draweth them away from such pleasant flattering of themselves, telling them that this matter must be determined before the judgment-seat of God; for he saith plainly before [in the sight of] God; because, howsoever men be blinded, yet will God never suffer any man to be preferred before him. And surely the Spirit did put this answer in the mouth of the apostles, not only to the end he might repress the furiousness of the enemies, but that he might also teach us what we ought to do, so often as men become so proud, that having shaken off the yoke of God, they will lay their own yoke upon us. Therefore, let us then remember this holy authority of God, which is able to drive away the vain smoke of all man’s excellency.
(213) “ Hanc quaestionem lepide diremit Papa,” the Pope wittily disposes of this question.
(214) “ Effutire,” to babble forth.
(215) “ Non posse eos nisi ex Dei mandato praecipere,” that no command can possibly proceed from them without being agreeable to the will of God.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) Whether it be right in the sight of God . . .The words assert the right of conscience, recognising a divine authority, to resist a human authority which opposes it. In theory, as the appeal judge ye showed even then, the right so claimed is of the nature of an axiom. In practice, the difficulty rises in the question, Is there the divine authority which is claimed? And the only practical answer is to be found in the rule, that men who believe they have the authority are bound to act as if they had it. If the Lord God hath spoken to them, they can but prophesy (Amo. 3:8). In cases such as this, where the question is one of witness to facts, they must not tamper with the truth, if they believe themselves commissioned by God to declare the facts, for fear of offending men. When they pass from facts to doctrines inferred from facts, from doctrines to opinions, from opinions to conjectures, the duty of not saying that which they do not believe remains the same, but there is not the same obligation to proclaim what they thus hold in various stages of assent. There may be cases in which reticence is right as well as politic. And even in regard to facts, the publicationas law recognises in relation to libelsmust not be gratuitous. There must be an adequate authority, or an adequate reason for disobedience to the human authority, which is binding until it is superseded by that which is higher than itself. And the onus probandi rests on the man who asserts the higher authority. Intensity of conviction may be enough for himself, but it cannot be expected that it will be so for others. In the absence of signs and wonders the question must be discussed on the wide ground of Reason and of Conscience, and the man who refuses to enter into debate on that ground because he is certain he is right is ipso facto convicted of an almost insane egotism. The words have clearly no bearing on the froward retention of a custom which God has not enjoined and a lawful authority has forbidden.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Unto you more than unto God The apostles here separate between God and the old theocracy, which is now of God forsaken. This Sanhedrin is to them a body of civil magistrates over a secular nation. Firmly, also, they recognise that where the decree of man contradicts the decree of God the former must give way. Government is government and law is law only and so far as divinely authorized; but no human government and no human law is authorized by the divine law to contradict and annul the divine law. No doubt this principle may be misused by disorganizers; but that can make no difference as to the intrinsic truth of the rule itself. No man has a right to sin against God because he is so ordered to do by a human government. He must obey to the last point, and of his non-obedience for righteousness’ sake he must suffer the consequences, unless, indeed, the right and obligation to revolution require open and belligerent resistance. Even heathens have acknowledged the existence of this divine law higher than human. Said the Achaean ambassadors at Rome, “We indeed revere you, O Romans! and if you so will we tremble before you; but we more revere and tremble before the immortal gods.” And Socrates is made by Plato to say: “I embrace and love you, O Athenians! but I obey God rather than you.”
Judge ye The ye here is in contrast with we in the verse following. Judge for yourselves and take the consequences; but we See note on Rom 13:1-7.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to take notice of you rather than of God, you yourselves must judge, for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard.’
Both Peter and John were moved to reply. They basically did so in the form of a question as to whether these learned men really thought that in the circumstances it was even conceivable that they should cease to teach in the name of Jesus. God had clearly given His seal of approval on their so speaking by the healing of the lame man, and of many others of whom they were aware. Whom then should they obey? God or the Sanhedrin? Let the Sanhedrin be the judges. As for speaking of the things that they had seen and heard, they did not see that there was any alternative.
Here the disciples were on solid ground. Regularly would witnesses in the court be admonished to ‘speak only those things which they had seen and heard’. And yet here were the court forbidding them to do so. They were forbidding them to declare the facts, to reveal the truth of what really happened. Could they really believe their ears? Were the court really then telling them not to be honest witnesses? It was unthinkable. Let them themselves judge the matter for themselves. Was it not their solemn duty to declare what they had seen and heard? To bear false witness would be to break the covenant.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 4:19. Whether it be right in the sight of God As they professed to believe the being, and infinite perfections of God, they must, on their own principles, easily see the absurdity of expecting obedience to their commands from good men, who believed themselves divinely commissioned. There is a passage which bears some resemblance to this in the apology of Socrates, as recorded by Plato. When they were condemning him to death for teaching the people, he said, “O ye Athenians, I embrace and love you; but I will obey God rather than you; and if you would dismiss me, and spare my life, on condition that I should cease to teach my fellow-citizens, I would rather die a thousand times, than accept the proposal.” What are ten thousand subtilties of the antient philosophers, when compared with a sentiment like this. See Plato, Socrat. Apol. p. 23.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 4:19-22 . . . ] coram Deo , God as Judge being conceived as present: “multa mundus pro justis habet, quae coram Deo non sunt justa,” Bengel. We may add, that the maxim here expressed (founded on Mat 22:21 ) takes for granted two things as certain; on the one hand, that something is really commanded by God; and, on the other hand, that a demand of the rulers does really cancel the command of God, and is consequently immoral; in which case the rulers actually and wilfully abandon their status as organs of divine ordination, and even take up a position antagonistic to God. Only on the assumption of this twofold certainty could that principle lead Christianity, without the reproach of revolution, to victory over the world in opposition to the will of the Jewish and heathen rulers. [158] For analogous expressions from the Greek (Plat. Apol. p. 29 D; Arrian. Epict. i. 20) and Latin writers and Rabbins, see Wetstein. The is: rather ( potius , Vulgate) than, i.e. instead of listening to God, rather to listen to you. [159] See Baeuml. Partik. p. 136. The meaning of is similar to , Act 4:29 .
] Act 4:20 specifies the reason, the motive for the summons: in Act 4:19 . For to us it is morally (in the consciousness of the divine will) impossible not to speak (Winer, p. 464 [E. T. 624]), i.e. we must speak what we saw and heard namely, the deeds and words of Jesus, of which we were eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses.
] we on our part.
] after they had still more threatened them , namely, than already in the prohibition of Act 4:18 , in which, after Act 4:17 , the threatening was obviously implied. Comp. Sir 13:3 , ed. Compl. Dem. 544. 26; Zosim. i. 70.
. . .] because they found nothing, namely how they were to punish them . The article before whole sentences to which the attention is to be specially directed. Comp. Khner, II. p. 138; Mar 9:23 ; Luk 1:62 ; Act 22:30 .
is not, with Kuinoel and others, to be explained qua specie, quo praetextu ; the Sanhedrim, in fact, did not know how to invent any kind of punishment , which might be ventured upon without stirring up the people. Therefore , on account of the people, i.e. in consideration of them, is not to be referred, as usually, to , but to . . .
. . . ] So much the greater must the miracle of healing have appeared to the unprejudiced people, and so much the more striking and worthy of praise the working of God in it. . Comp. Mat 22:23 ; Plat. Apol. p. 17 D, and Stallb. in loc. ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410 f.
[158] Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. 310. Observe withal, that it is not the magisterial command itself and per se that is divine, but the command for its observance is a divine one, which therefore cannot be connected with immorality without doing away with its very idea as divine.
[159] Inconsistently the Vulg. has, at v. 29, magis .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
Ver. 19. Whether it be right, &c. ] This was a principle held very fast by the heathens. Antigona in Sophocles saith, Magis obtemperandum est Diis apud quos diutius manendum erit, quam hominibus, quibuscum admodum brevi tempore vivendum est. Better obey God with whom we must ever live, than men with whom we have but a while to continue. And Euripides saith well (in Phaenissis), “Should we not obey the commands of princes?” Non, si impia, iniusta, et male imperata sint: No, if they command evil things. And in Iphigenia, Obediemus, inquit, Atridis honesta mandantibus; sin vero inhonesta mandabunt, non obediemus.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19 22 .] THE APOSTLES’ ANSWER AND DISMISSAL.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 4:19 . Parallel sayings may be quoted from Greeks and Romans, and from Jewish sources, see instances in Wetstein, cf. Plato, Apol. , 29, ., the famous words of Socrates: , and Livy, xxxix., 37; Jos., Ant. , xvii., 6, 3; xviii. 8, 2; on see Act 4:10 ; = , Act 5:29 , and cf. Act 3:22 , Luk 10:16 ; Luk 16:31 ; = potius, cf. Rom 14:13 , 1Co 7:21 . : this appeal to the Sadducees could only be justified on the ground that the Apostles were sure of the validity of their own appeal to a higher tribunal. No man could lay down the principle of obedience to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king or to governors, more plainly than St. Peter (1Pe 2:13 , cf. Rom 13:1 ), and he and his fellow-disciples might have exposed themselves to the charge of fanaticism or obstinacy, if they could only say . ; but they could add ., cf. Act 1:8 . The same appeal is made by St. John, both in his Gospel (Act 1:14 ) and in his First Epistle (Act 1:1-2 ), in vindication of his teaching; and here the final answer is that of St. John and St. Peter jointly.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts
OBEDIENT DISOBEDIENCE
Act 4:19 – Act 4:31
The only chance for persecution to succeed is to smite hard and swiftly. If you cannot strike, do not threaten. Menacing words only give courage. The rulers betrayed their hesitation when the end of their solemn conclave was but to ‘straitly threaten’; and less heroic confessors than Peter and John would have disregarded the prohibition as mere wind. None the less the attitude of these two Galilean fishermen is noble and singular, when their previous cowardice is remembered. This first collision with civil authority gives, as has been already noticed, the main lines on which the relations of the Church to hostile powers have proceeded.
I. The heroic refusal of unlawful obedience.
This first instance of persecution is made the occasion for the clear expression of the great principles which are to guide the Church. The answer falls into two parts, in the first of which the limits of obedience to civil authority are laid down in a perfectly general form to which even the Council are expected to assent, and in the second an irresistible compulsion to speak is boldly alleged as driving the two Apostles to a flat refusal to obey.
It was a daring stroke to appeal to the Council for an endorsement of the principle in Act 4:19 , but the appeal was unanswerable; for this tribunal had no other ostensible reason for existence than to enforce obedience to the law of God, and to Peter’s dilemma only one reply was possible. But it rested on a bold assumption, which was calculated to irritate the court; namely, that there was a blank contradiction between their commands and God’s, so that to obey the one was to disobey the other. When that parting of the ways is reached, there remains no doubt as to which road a religious man must take.
The limits of civil obedience are clearly drawn. It is a duty, because ‘the powers that be are ordained of God,’ and obedience to them is obedience to Him. But if they, transcending their sphere, claim obedience which can only be rendered by disobedience to Him who has appointed them, then they are no longer His ministers, and the duty of allegiance falls away. But there must be a plain conflict of commands, and we must take care lest we substitute whims and fancies of our own for the injunctions of God. Peter was not guided by his own conceptions of duty, but by the distinct precept of his Master, which had bid him speak. It is not true that it is the cause which makes the martyr, but it is true that many good men have made themselves martyrs needlessly. This principle is too sharp a weapon to be causelessly drawn and brandished. Only an unmistakable opposition of commandments warrants its use; and then, he has little right to be called Christ’s soldier who keeps the sword in the scabbard.
The articulate refusal in Act 4:20 bases itself on the ground of irrepressible necessity: ‘We cannot but speak.’ The immediate application was to the facts of Christ’s life, death, and glory. The Apostles could not help speaking of these, both because to do so was their commission, and because the knowledge of them and of their importance forbade silence. The truth implied is of wide reach. Whoever has a real, personal experience of Christ’s saving power, and has heard and seen Him, will be irresistibly impelled to impart what he has received. Speech is a relief to a full heart. The word, concealed in the prophet’s heart, burned there ‘like fire in his bones, and he was weary of forbearing.’ So it always is with deep conviction. If a man has never felt that he must speak of Christ, he is a very imperfect Christian. The glow of his own heart, the pity for men who know Him not, his Lord’s command, all concur to compel speech. The full river cannot be dammed up.
II. The lame and impotent conclusion of the perplexed Council.
III. The Church’s answer to the first assault of the world’s power.
The prayer of the Church was probably the inspired outpouring of one voice, and all the people said ‘Amen,’ and so made it theirs. Whose voice it was which thus put into words the common sentiment we should gladly have known, but need not speculate. The great fact is that the Church answered threats by prayer. It augurs healthy spiritual life when opposition and danger neither make cheeks blanch with fear nor flush with anger. No man there trembled nor thought of vengeance, or of repaying threats with threats. Every man there instinctively turned heavenwards, and flung himself, as it were, into God’s arms for protection. Prayer is the strongest weapon that a persecuted Church can use. Browning makes a tyrant say, recounting how he had tried to crush a man, that his intended victim
‘Stood erect, caught at God’s skirts, and prayed,
So I was afraid.’
Their courage is strikingly marked by their petition. All they ask is ‘boldness’ to speak a word which shall not be theirs, but God’s. Fear would have prayed for protection; passion would have asked retribution on enemies. Christian courage and devotion only ask that they may not shrink from their duty, and that the word may be spoken, whatever becomes of the speakers. The world is powerless against men like that. Would the Church of to-day meet threats with like unanimity of desire for boldness in confession? If not, it must be because it has not the same firm hold of the Risen Lord which these first believers had. The truest courage is that which is conscious of its weakness, and yet has no thought of flight, but prays for its own increase.
We may observe, too, the body of belief expressed in the prayer. First it lays hold on the creative omnipotence of God, and thence passes to the recognition of His written revelation. The Church has begun to learn the inmost meaning of the Old Testament, and to find Christ there. David may not have written the second Psalm. Its attribution to him by the Church stands on a different level from Christ’s attribution of authorship, as, for instance, of the hundred and tenth Psalm. The prophecy of the Psalm is plainly Messianic, however it may have had a historical occasion in some forgotten revolt against some Davidic king; and, while the particular incidents to which the prayer alludes do not exhaust its far-reaching application, they are rightly regarded as partly fulfilling it. Herod is a ‘king of the earth,’ Pilate is a ‘ruler’; Roman soldiers are Gentiles; Jewish rulers are the representatives of ‘the people.’ Jesus is ‘God’s Anointed.’ The fact that such an unnatural and daring combination of rebels was predicted in the Psalm bears witness that even that crime at Calvary was foreordained to come to pass, and that God’s hand and counsel ruled. Therefore all other opposition, such as now threatened, will turn out to be swayed by that same Mighty Hand, to work out His counsel. Why, then, should the Church fear? If we can see God’s hand moving all things, terror is dead for us, and threats are like the whistling of idle wind.
Mark, too, the strong expression of the Church’s dependence on God. ‘Lord’ here is an unusual word, and means ‘Master,’ while the Church collectively is called ‘Thy servants,’ or properly, ‘slaves.’ It is a different word from that of ‘servant’ rather than ‘child’ applied to Jesus in Act 4:27 – Act 4:30 . God is the Master, we are His ‘slaves,’ bound to absolute obedience, unconditional submission, belonging to Him, not to ourselves, and therefore having claims on Him for such care as an owner gives to his slaves or his cattle. He will not let them be maltreated nor starved. He will defend them and feed them; but they must serve him by life, and death if need be. Unquestioning submission and unreserved dependence are our duties. Absolute ownership and unshared responsibility for our well-being belong to Him.
Further, the view of Christ’s relationship to God is the same as occurs in other of the early chapters of the Acts. The title of ‘Thy holy Servant Jesus’ dwells on Christ’s office, rather than on His nature. Here it puts Him in contrast with David, also called ‘Thy servant.’ The latter was imperfectly what Jesus was perfectly. His complete realisation of the prophetic picture of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is emphasised by the adjective ‘holy,’ implying complete devotion or separation to the service of God, and unsullied, unlimited moral purity. The uniqueness of His relation in this aspect is expressed by the definite article in the original. He is the Servant, in a sense and measure all His own. He is further the Anointed Messiah. This was the Church’s message to Israel and the stay of its own courage, that Jesus was the Christ, the Anointed and perfect Servant of the Lord, who was now in heaven, reigning there. All that this faith involved had not yet become clear to their consciousness, but the Spirit was guiding them step by step into all the truth; and what they saw and heard, not only in the historical facts of which they were the witnesses, but in the teaching of that Spirit, they could not but speak.
The answer came swift as the roll of thunder after lightning. They who ask for courage to do God’s will and speak Christ’s name have never long to wait for response. The place ‘was shaken,’ symbol of the effect of faithful witness-bearing, or manifestation of the power which was given in answer to their prayer. ‘They were all filled with the Holy Ghost,’ who now did not, as before, confer ability to speak with other tongues, but wrought no less worthily in heartening and fitting them to speak ‘in their own tongue, wherein they were born,’ in bold defiance of unlawful commands.
The statement of the answer repeats the petition verbatim: ‘With all boldness they spake the word.’ What we desire of spiritual gifts we get, and God moulds His replies so as to remind us of our petitions, and to show by the event that these have reached His ear and guided His giving hand.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
answered and said. App-122.
Whether = If. Greek. ei. App-118.
more = rather.
judge. Gr . krino. App-122. Figure of speech Anacoenosis. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19-22.] THE APOSTLES ANSWER AND DISMISSAL.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 4:19. , having answered) openly and in plain terms. They employ no artifice, with a view to being let go.- , in the sight of God) The world accounts many things as right, which in the sight of God are not right: and vice vers.-) to hearken to, for to obey. He who does not comply, even hears with reluctance.-, rather) On the part of the courageous saints the authority of those rulers (high priests) alone is respected, who establish or command nothing that is contrary to GOD.-, judge ye) The figure Communicatio [leaving the judgment of a matter to the hearers, or even to the very adversaries themselves]. The world cannot readily maintain their own laws against the cause of GOD with so great perverseness, as that natural equity should be utterly stifled.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Whether: 2Co 4:2, Eph 6:1, 1Ti 2:3
to hearken: Act 5:29, Exo 1:17, 1Ki 12:30, 1Ki 14:16, 1Ki 21:11, 1Ki 22:14, 2Ki 16:15, 2Ch 26:16-20, Dan 3:18, Dan 6:10, Hos 5:11, Amo 7:16, Mic 6:16, Mat 22:21, Heb 11:23, Rev 13:3-10, Rev 14:9-12
judge: Psa 58:1, Joh 7:24, 1Co 10:15, Jam 2:4
Reciprocal: Gen 27:8 – General Num 23:26 – General Jos 1:9 – Have Jdg 6:25 – thy father 1Sa 22:17 – would not 1Ki 13:19 – General 2Ki 16:16 – General 2Ch 22:3 – his counsellor 2Ch 30:12 – by the word Ecc 8:5 – keepeth Jer 13:15 – for Jer 26:12 – The Lord Eze 2:6 – be not Eze 37:7 – I prophesied as Dan 3:15 – we are Dan 3:28 – and have Mic 3:8 – I am Mat 2:12 – they departed Mat 10:26 – Fear Mat 15:5 – ye say Mar 12:17 – and to Luk 6:11 – communed Luk 9:49 – we saw Luk 20:25 – unto God Joh 19:13 – heard Act 1:13 – Peter Act 6:2 – It Act 10:42 – he commanded 1Co 14:32 – General 2Co 5:14 – constraineth Gal 1:10 – do I now Phi 1:28 – in Heb 11:35 – not accepting 1Pe 3:6 – and
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE DECISIVE TEST
Whether it be right in the sight of God.
Act 4:19
This decisive test must always be used as to every action, Whether it be right.
And the world wanted then, and the world wants to-day, sons and daughters who are bold enough to stand side by side with those two grand men at Jerusalem, and live and act in the sight of God, asking always this question: Whether it be right? The world, I say, wants it now.
I. Take for example our business life, that which we call business life, in what does it consist? It consists in the making, the handling, the producing, the buying and the selling of material things; and what would you suppose ought naturally to be the most important condition? Would it not be that men should be able to trust each other implicitly? But is this so? What is the meaning of all our complicated system of lawyers and courts and police, if it were not that this trust, this character, is not very common? Why? Because righteousness does not take quite the proper place in our thinking.
II. Then, again, just consider for a moment our social life, our social entertainments. Now our social entertainments are not things that can possibly stand altogether outside of our Christian faith. Christianity has not got to ask leave to go and be present. The aim and object of Christianity must be to sweeten and to purify and to ennoble, and if there is any entertainment whatever where Jesus Christ could not be present, if it is too bad for His Presence, it is too bad for you, and too bad for me.
III. There are times when the asking of this question will demand considerable courage.We are not now in danger of the stones and the torture, which might, indeed, have been used against St. Peter and John; but many a man, and many a woman, too, has to face a certain amount of ridicule, the refined sneer, or the coarser jeer, and these things are sometimes harder to bear with courage than downright persecution.
IV. This courage will never be ours unless we have certain positive convictions as to truth; unless in our heart of hearts we believe that the truth that we profess is worth defending at all costs. The man who has no convictions of truth may be a very pleasant person in a drawing-room or a club, but he is not a man who will ever bear any strong, or high, or holy witness to God and Christ.
V. Another condition is consecration to God.We cannot bear a true witness to our Blessed Lord unless we ourselves have knelt at His Feet and laid our sins before the Mercy Seat. If we wish to influence others, we ourselves must have consecrated our own hearts to Christ.
Prebendary J. Storrs.
Illustration
I wonder very much whether the participators in many of our entertainments, the managers, the caterers, and those that attend them, ask the question: Whether it be right in the sight of God? How often do we bring up our acceptances, our refusals, our indulgences, our rejections, our expenditure, our dress, our drink, to the criterion of the Christian conscience, and ask ourselves whether it be right in the sight of God? I wonder how often we ask ourselves about this particular thing, whether it may be harmful, not only to ourselves, but to others who are more exposed to temptation than we are?
ST.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
9
Act 4:19. The apostles made a respectful but firm reply to the order against speaking in the name of Christ. They made no reference to the threat, doubtless regarding such a subject such a petty thing that it was beneath their dignity. But they put the issue in its true light by showing that the leaders of the Sanhedrin were demanding more consideration for themselves than they allowed the apostles to show for God.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 4:19. In the sight of God. The Eternal is appealed to as the ever-present Judge,as sitting invisible in that august council before whom they were then pleading.
Whether it be right to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye. Act 4:20. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. The point of the apostles reply was, that they were not teaching the people as self-appointed Rabbis, but were only acting as witnesses of Jesus. Their words may be thus paraphrased: The love of Christ constrains us; we cannot drown the voice we know to be Gods voice, which forbids us to suppress our message, as ye would have us do, which tells us to bear our public witness to those mighty works we saw and heard during our Masters life on earth. The noble words of Socrates, perhaps the greatest of the Greek philosophers, when he was pleading before his judges, who condemned him to death, bear a striking resemblance to the bold, faithful utterance of these unlearned Galileans: Athenians, I will obey God rather than you; and if you would let me go, and give me my life on condition that I should no more teach my fellow-citizens, sooner than agree to your proposal I would prefer to die a thousand times (Plato, Apol. p. 23 B).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here the prudence and integrity of the apostles in referring it back to the judgment of their very adversaries, whether it was reasonable to obey their command, when they charged them to preach no more in the name of the Lord Jesus.
As if the apostles had said, “We have received a command from God to preach, Go teach all nations, Mat 28:19 and we have received a command from you not to preach: now we leave it with you whether it be fittest and most reasonable to obey God or you?” It is a strong way of conviction to refer a matter to their judgment and conscience, against whom we make opposition.
Learn, That when the commands of God’s vicegerents run counter to the commands of God himself, God is to be obeyed, and not man.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Compelled to Preach
Peter and John made it clear that in their view the Sanhedrin had no authority to countermand a command from God. Further, they felt compelled, by the power of the things they had witnessed, to proclaim to all the good news. Because the miracle was such common knowledge and had caused so many to glorify God, the council had no other recourse but to let the apostles go without any further punishment. They simply added a few more threats and let them go rather than risk the people taking the apostles’ side (compare Mar 12:12 ). After all, a man who had been lame forty years was now walking ( Act 4:19-22 )!
Upon their release, Peter and John went back to their companions and related the whole story of their arrest and the words of the council. The entire group lifted up their voices in praise to the Almighty Creator. Their expression of praise included a recognition of God’s providential working in the death of Jesus. Then, they asked the Father to give them all the strength to preach the truth in spite of the threats of the Sanhedrin. Additionally, they asked that God continue to work miracles through them which would clearly demonstrate the authority of Jesus Christ the Lord. Immediately, the place where they were gathered was shaken, they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to preach the word with boldness ( Act 4:23-31 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Act 4:19-20. Peter and John Feeling themselves animated in this arduous circumstance with a courageous zeal, which would not permit them to be silent, lest that silence should be interpreted as a promise to quit the ministry; answered, Whether it be right A righteous thing; in the sight of God To whom we are all accountable; to hearken unto you That is, to obey you; more than God, judge ye Ye cannot but know in your own consciences on which side the superior obligation lies; and you must therefore expect that we shall act accordingly. As these rulers professed to believe the being and infinite perfections of God, they must, on their own principles, easily see the absurdity of expecting obedience to their commands from good men, who believed themselves divinely commissioned. Was it not by the same spirit that Socrates, when they were condemning him to death for teaching the people, said, O ye Athenians, I embrace and love you, but I will obey God rather than you; and if you would spare my life on condition I should cease to teach my fellow- citizens, I would die a thousand times rather than accept the proposal. For we cannot but speak, &c. For though we respect you as our civil rulers, and are heartily willing to obey you, as far as we lawfully can, yet, since God hath charged us with the publication of this important message, on which the eternal salvation of men depends, we dare not be silent; and therefore are free to tell you, that we must speak the things which we have seen and heard Which God hath manifested in so miraculous a manner, and which he hath commissioned us to declare.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
19, 20. The apostles, if at all anxious concerning their personal safety, might have received this stern command in silence, and retired respectfully from the assembly. (19) “But, Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right, in the sight of God, to hearken to you rather than to God, do you judge. (20) For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” This was an open defiance of their power, with a direct appeal to their own consciences for a vindication of it. The apostles were not willing that their silence should be construed into even a momentary acquiescence in such a command, and they spoke in such a manner as to be distinctly understood.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
19. Peter and John responding, said unto them, If it is righteous before God to hear you rather than God, judge ye. Lord, help us all to follow the example of the Apostles, and in every case obey God rather than men. When ecclesiastical law is in harmony with God as revealed to us by His Word, Spirit and providence, then we are in harmony with the rulers of our church. When their decision is out of harmony with Gods truth and will thus revealed to us, if we do not follow the Apostolical example and obey God rather than men, we will have trouble at the judgment bar. I propose to take mine here, God helping me. This very ordeal is spurring on the holiness people this day from the Atlantic to the Pacific. God help us to be true. My disciplinary obligation administered to me in my ordination vows reads: Following most gladly their godly judgments. Suppose their judgments are not godly, i. e., contrary to the will of God as revealed to me by His Word, Spirit and providence, do you not see the legitimate force of my ordination vows? They simply require me to obey my rulers when in harmony with God, but with equal force am I obligated to disobey them when out of harmony with God. We are living in the last days, which try mens souls. Every young preacher is brought face to face with the ordeal of Peter and John, Will you obey God or man? When you obey God, of course you obey all human authority which is in harmony with God. Here at Jerusalem we have the pastors and leading preachers in the popular church arrayed against the followers of our Savior and doing their best to prohibit them from preaching. We have parallel cases this day on all sides claiming to be the true ministers of God and doing their utmost to prohibit the spread of the gospel. What were the apostles preaching? The doctrines and experience which Jesus taught and they received at Pentecost; for they were, in fact, in the midst of Pentecost. You can not gainsay the identity of the cases; we have the inspired record of Pentecost. Preach it as we read it.
The people enter into the experiences. The clergymen in authority oppose us and forbid us to preach in what they call their territory, just like they forbade the apostles at Jerusalem. What shall we do? We here have the answer given by Peter and John, Obey God rather than men. I tell you, brethren, if you will be true to God, you can always know the divine guidance. It is three-fold, His Word, Spirit and providence. His Word is for your intellect, His Spirit for your spirit, and His providence for your body. If we give way to the ecclesiastical usurpation, now everywhere interdicting the full, free gospel, we will offend God and lose our souls. Good Lord, help us to be true and obey God rather than men. If we do not, God will cast us away and give the glory to others. God helping me, I will be true and obey God rather than men. There is no such a thing as ecclesiastical law per se. God is the only Law-giver and the Bible the only code of laws in all the world. As all the truth symbolized in the Old Testament is literalized in the New, and we are living under the New Testament dispensation, therefore we may consider the New Testament as our code of laws for church and state. It is bad enough for the wild beast governments [for such are all human governments, according to Daniel and John] to employ drunken legislators to enact laws instead of enjoying the benignant government of our Heavenly Father, who desires to rule all of His creatures in righteousness and love. This state of things we must endure till the Ancient of Days descends to execute righteous judgments against the wicked nations and fallen churches (Dan 7:9). But it is simply preposterous for the Church of God to assume legislative power. All such assumption is usurpation and rebellion. No ecclesiastical court has a right to enact a law de novo. All they can do is to recognize and enforce the laws of God, plainly written in the New Testament. Modern ecclesiastical councils are bold to enact laws not only unknown in the New Testament, but positively antagonistical to the letter and spirit of the same. All such so- called ecclesiastical laws deserve only the contempt of Gods people.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
4:19 {7} But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
(7) We must obey men to whom we are subject, but especially and before all things we must obey God.