Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 4:26

The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

The kings of the earth – The Psalmist specifies more particularly that kings and rulers would be opposed to the Messiah. This had occurred already by the opposition made to the Messiah by the rulers of the Jewish people, and it would be still more evinced by the opposition of princes and kings as the gospel spread among the nations.

Stood up – The word used here paristemi commonly means to present oneself, or to stand forth, for the purpose of aiding, counseling, etc. But here it means that they rose, or presented themselves, to evince their opposition. They stood opposed to the Messiah, and offered resistance to him.

The rulers – This is another instance of the Hebrew parallelism. The word does not denote another class of people from kings, but expresses the same idea in another form, or in a more general manner, meaning that all classes of persons in authority would be opposed to the gospel.

Were gathered together – Hebrew, consulted together; were united in a consultation. The Greek implies that they were assembled for the purpose of consultation.

Against the Lord – In the Hebrew, against Yahweh. This is the special name which is given in the Scriptures to God. They rose against his plan of appointing a Messiah, and against the Messiah whom he had chosen.

Against his Christ – Hebrew, against his Messiah, or his Anointed. See the notes on Mat 1:1. This is one of the places where the word Messiah is used in the Old Testament. The word occurs in about 40 places, and is commonly translated his anointed, and is applied to kings. The direct reference of the word to the Messiah in the Old Testament is not frequent. This passage implies that opposition to the Messiah is opposition to Yahweh. And this is uniformly supposed in the sacred Scriptures. He that is opposed to Christ is opposed to God. He that neglects him neglects God. He that despises him despises God, Mat 10:40; Mat 18:5; Joh 12:44-45; Luk 10:16, He that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. The reasons of this are:

1. That the Messiah is the brightness of the Fathers glory, and the express image of his person, Heb 1:3.

(2)He is equal with the Father, possessing the same attributes and the same power, Joh 1:1; Phi 2:6.

(3)He is appointed by God to this great work of saving people. To despise him, or to oppose him, is to despise and oppose him who appointed him to this work, to contemn his counsels, and to set him at naught.

(4)His work is dear to God. It has engaged his thoughts. It has been approved by him. His mission has been confirmed by the miraculous power of the Father, and by every possible manifestation of his approbation and love. To oppose the Messiah is, therefore, to oppose what is dear to the heart of God, and which has long been the object of his tender solicitude. It follows from this, that they who neglect the Christian religion are exposing themselves to the displeasure of God, and endangering their everlasting interests. No man is safe who opposes God; and no man can have evidence that God will approve him who does not embrace the Messiah, whom He has appointed to redeem the world.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 26. Against the Lord and against his Christ.] should be translated, against his ANOINTED, because it particularly agrees with , whom thou hast ANOINTED, in the succeeding verse.

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

These words do not vary in sense from what we read, Psa 2:2, but are the same for substance.

The kings; not only such who in a strict sense we call kings, but any chief governors, as Herod and Pilate were.

The rulers; the sanhedrim, or great council of the Jews.

Against the Lord; God looks upon it as done against him, whatsoever is done against them that fear him; thus the Israelites are said to be

gathered together against the Lord, Num 16:11, who were gathered against Moses and Aaron.

And against his Christ; our Saviour was at the right hand of his Father, but they who afflict his members afflict him; he cries from heaven to Saul, Why persecutest thou me? Act 9:4; and had before told his disciples, He that despiseth you despiseth me, Luk 10:16.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

23-30. being let go, they went totheir own companyObserve the two opposite classes,representing the two interests which were about to come into deadlyconflict.

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

The kings of the earth stood up,…. Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, sometimes called a king, Mr 6:14 and Pilate the Roman governor, who represented his master Caesar; these stood, or rose up in an hostile manner, and set themselves against, and opposed themselves to the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth:

and the rulers were gathered together; the Jewish rulers, Annas, Caiaphas, and the rest of the members of the sanhedrim, who met together more than once; and particularly at the high priest’s palace, to consult how they should take Jesus and put him to death; and who also gathered together at the same place, when he was taken, to arraign, examine, and condemn him. And this opposition, and these conspiracies and consultations, were

against the Lord: Jehovah, the Father of Christ, who sent him, and anointed him; so that what was done against Christ, was done against the Lord, their views and designs, their interest and glory, being the same:

and against his Christ; or anointed one, who was anointed by him, with the Holy Ghost, from his birth, and at his baptism, to be prophet, priest, and King.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Set themselves in array (). Literally, stood by.

Against his Anointed ( ). Against his Messiah, his Christ.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “The kings of the earth stood up,” (parestesan hoi basileis tes ges) “The kings of the earth came to stand alongside each other,” against Jesus Christ and His church; Herod first, then Archelaus, Mat 2:7; Mat 2:12; Mat 2:16; Mat 2:22; Act 4:5-6; Act 4:13-18.

2) “And the rulers were gathered together against the Lord,” (kai hoi archontes sunechthesan epi to auto kata tou kuriou) “And the rulers came together in colleague, consort, or collusion against the Lord; The rulers here refers to the religious rulers, the chief priests, elders, and captains of the temple, who composed the Sanhedrin in executive session, in entrapment collusion against Jesus Christ in His church, Mat 21:23; Mat 26:57; Mat 26:59.

3) “And against His Christ,” (kai kata tou Christou a utou) “And against His anointed one,” the Christ of Him. To persecute and stand against the church is tantamount to persecuting and standing against the Christ that He promised to be with to the end of the ages, Mat 26:60-68; Mar 14:55.

Those of the church company who offered this prayer of gratitude, (Act 4:24-26) saw in their organized opposition no strange thing, but considered it the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and the words of their Lord in His preparation of them for such an experience, Psa 2:1-2; Joh 15:20; Mat 5:11-12.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

26. Against the Lord, and his Christ. The Spirit teacheth by this word, that all those do make war against God which refuse to submit themselves to Christ; they do full little think this oftentimes, notwithstanding it is so that because God will reign in the person of his Son alone, we refuse to obey him so often as we rebel against Christ, as the Lord himself saith in John, “He which honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father.” Wherefore let the hypocrites profess a thousand times that they mean nothing less than to make war against God, yet shall they find this true, that God is their open enemy, unless they embrace Christ with his gospel. The use of this doctrine is double, for it armeth us against all the terrors of the flesh, because we must not fear, lest they get the victory of God which withstand the gospel. Again, we must beware, lest, through the contempt of godly doctrine, we advance ourselves against God to our own destruction.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(26) And against his Christ.The question whether the word Christ should be used as a proper name, or translated, is commonly answered by accepting the former alternative. Here, perhaps, to maintain the connection with the Psalm and with the verb in the next verse, it would be better to say, against His Anointed. The Lord stands, of course, for the Supreme Deity of the Father.

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

26. Heathen, people, kings, rulers, are all in array against Jehovah and his Anointed, (Psa 2:2,) that is, his Messiah or Christ.

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

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

Ver. 26. Gathered together ] Heb. Took counsel together. They plot and plough mischief to the Church, but all in vain, Psa 37:12 ; Job 4:8 .

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

Act 4:26 . : not necessarily of hostile intent, although here the context indicates it; R.V., “set themselves in array,” lit [162] “presented themselves,” an exact rendering of the Hebrew , which sometimes implies rising up against as here, Psa 2:2 , and cf. 2Sa 18:13 (R.V. margin). Of the generally accepted Messianic interpretation of the Psalm, and of the verses here quoted, there can be no doubt, cf. Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah , ii., 716 (appendix on Messianic passages), and Wetstein, in loco . The Psalm is regarded as full of Messianic references (Briggs, Messianic Prophecy , pp. 132 140, and 492, 493), cf., e.g. , the comment on this verse of the Psalm in the Mechilta (quoted in the Yalkut Shimeoni , ii., f. 90, 1 Sch. p. 227), Perowne, Psalms (small edition), p. 16; and Edersheim, u. s . The Psalm carries us back to the great Davidic promise in 2Sa 7:11-16 , and it reflects the Messianic hopes of the Davidic period. That hope the N.T. writers who quote this Psalm very frequently or refer to it, cf. Act 13:33 , Heb 1:5 ; Heb 5:5 , see fulfilled in Christ, the antitype of David and of Solomon. Thus the gathering together of the nations and their fruitless decrees find their counterpart in the alliance of Herod and Pilate, and the hostile combination of Jew and Gentile against the holy Servant Jesus, the anointed of God, and against His followers; although the words of the Psalm and the issues of the conflict carry on our thoughts to a still wider and deeper fulfilment in the final triumph of Christ’s kingdom, cf. the frequent recurrence of the language of the Psalm in Rev 12:5 ; Rev 19:15 , and cf. Rev 1:5 ; Rev 2:26-27 .

[162] literal, literally.

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.

We shall probably not do injustice to John if we suppose that Peter was spokesman. If so, the contrast of the tone of his answer with all previously recorded utterances of his is remarkable. Warm-hearted impulsiveness, often wrong-headed and sometimes illogical, had been their mark; but here we have calm, fixed determination, which, as is usually its manner, wastes no words, but in its very brevity impresses the hearers as being immovable. Whence did this man get the power to lay down once for all the foundation principles of the limits of civil obedience, and of the duty of Christian confession? His words take rank with the ever-memorable sayings of thinkers and heroes, from Socrates in his prison telling the Athenians that he loved them, but that he must ‘obey God rather than you,’ to Luther at Worms with his ‘It is neither safe nor right to do anything against conscience. Here I stand; I can do nothing else. God help me! Amen.’ Peter’s words are the first of a long series.

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.

How plain the path is when only duty is taken as a guide, and how vigorously and decisively a man marches along it! Peter had no hesitation, and his resolved answer comes crashing in a straight course, like a cannon-ball. The Council had a much more ambiguous oracle to consult in order to settle their course, and they hesitate accordingly, and at last do a something which is a nothing. They wanted to trim their sails to catch popular favour, and so they could not do anything thoroughly. To punish or acquit was the only alternative for just judges. But they were not just; and as Jesus had been crucified, not because Pilate thought Him guilty, but to please the people, so His Apostles were let off, not because they were innocent, but for the same reason. When popularity-hunters get on the judicial bench, society must be rotten, and nearing its dissolution. To ‘decree unrighteousness by a law’ is among the most hideous of crimes. Judges ‘willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,’ are portents indicative of corruption. We may remark here how the physician’s pen takes note of the patient’s age, as making his cure more striking, and manifestly miraculous.

III. The Church’s answer to the first assault of the world’s power.

How beautifully natural that is, ‘Being let go, they went to their own,’ and how large a principle is expressed in the naive words! The great law of association according to spiritual affinity has much to do in determining relations here. It aggregates men, according to sorts; but its operation is thwarted by other conditions, so that companionship is often misery. But a time comes when it will work unhindered, and men will be united with their like, as the stones on some sea-beaches are laid in rows, according to their size, by the force of the sea. Judas ‘went to his own place,’ and, in another world, like will draw to like, and prevailing tendencies will be increased by association with those who share them.

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.’

The contents of the prayer are equally noteworthy. Instead of minutely studying it verse by verse, we may note some of its salient points. Observe its undaunted courage. That company never quivered or wavered. They had no thought of obeying the mandate of the Council. They were a little army of heroes. What had made them so? What but the conviction that they had a living Lord at God’s right hand, and a mighty Spirit in their spirits? The world has never seen a transformation like that. Unique effects demand unique causes for their explanation, and nothing but the historical truth of the facts recorded in the last pages of the Gospels and first of the Acts accounts for the demeanour of these men.

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

The kings. i.e. Gentiles.

rulers. i.e. Jews.

together. See note on Act 1:15.

Christ. i.e. Messiah. App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Act 4:26. , the kings of the earth) All the kingdoms of the world have at some time or other assailed the Gospel.- , the rulers) Pilate was the representative of these; as Herod was of the kings. The prophecy and the event accurately correspond. Subsequently we read of Herod, not Pilate, having afflicted also the apostles.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Lord Jehovah. Psa 2:2.

Christ Anointed. Psa 2:2.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

kings: Psa 83:2-8, Joe 3:9-14, Rev 17:12-14, Rev 17:17, Rev 19:16-21

against his: Rev 11:15, Rev 12:10

Reciprocal: Lev 3:2 – kill it Jos 9:2 – gathered 2Ch 23:11 – anointed him Ezr 6:6 – be ye far Psa 59:3 – the mighty Psa 69:12 – They Psa 76:10 – Surely Jer 5:5 – but these Dan 6:7 – have consulted Zec 13:7 – smite Luk 2:34 – for a Act 5:17 – the high 2Co 10:5 – down Jam 2:6 – and

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6

Act 4:26. This verse is somewhat indefinite, meaning that the powers of government in various domains among men would be arrayed against the Lord (the Divine Ruler) and his Christ (or Anointed One).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 4:26. The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his anointed. The 2d Psalm, the first two verses of which are woven into the earliest fragment we possess of Christian public worship, was interpreted originally by the Jews as referring to King Messiah. Only in later times, when the well-known circumstances of the history of Jesus of Nazareth seemed so exactly to correspond to what the Psalm relates of the Anointed of Jehovah, Jewish learned men tried to do away with the received Messianic interpretation, which they were obliged at the same time to confess was originally admitted generally. Rabbi D. Kimchi, for instance, says: According to the interpretation of some, the Anointed is King Messiah, and so our blessed Rabbis have expounded it. Raschi makes the same statement as to the ancient interpretation, and then adds how in his opinion it is better to keep to the literal sense, and to explain it of David himself, that we may be able to answer the heretics, i.e. Christians. In the mind of the writer of the Psalm at first an earthly king is present, and the circumstances of his own (Davids) chequered career supply the imagery; but his words are too great to have all their meaning exhausted in David or any Jewish monarch. Or ever he is aware, the local and the temporal are swallowed up in the universal and eternal. The king who sits on Davids throne has become glorified and transfigured in the light of the promise. The picture is half ideal, half actual; it concerns itself with the present, but with that only so far as it is typical of greater things to come. The true king, who to the prophets mind is to fulfil all his largest hopes, has taken the place of the visible and earthly king. The nations are not merely those who are now mustering for the battle, but whatsoever opposeth and exalteth itself against Jehovah and against His Anointed (Dean Perowne, Introd. to Psalms 2).

There is an exact correspondence between the leading enemies mentioned in the Psalm, who arose against the Lord and His Anointed, and those who were present at the scenes of the condemnation and death of Jesus. The heathen (or Gentiles) were represented by the Roman soldiery and officials of the great Gentile empire; the people, by Israel. The kings of the earth, by king Herod; the rulers, by Pontius Pilate the governor. The Lord in the Psalm corresponds to the Maker of heaven and earth, to whom the prayer is addressed; and the Lords Anointed, to Thy holy child Jesus. There is a very remarkable Jewish comment (see Perowne on this Psalm) on the words, against Jehovah and against His Anointed, in the Mechilta quoted in the Jalkut Schimoni: Like a robber who was standing and expressing his contempt behind the palace of the king, and saying, If I find the son of the king, I will seize him, and kill him, and crucify him, and put him to a terrible death; but the Holy Spirit mocks at it, and saith, He that dwelleth in the heavens laughs.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

See notes on verse 23

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)