Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 5:28
saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
28. Did not we straitly command you ] The best authorities have here an affirmative sentence, We straitly charged you. The charge had been given only to Peter and John, but the council assume that it would have been by them conveyed to the rest of the twelve.
that you should not teach in this name ] They go at once to that which is the great offence in their eyes. The name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they knew to have been crucified, but who was proclaimed to be alive again, and whose followers manifested such mighty works, was the object against which their power was directed.
and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine ] A testimony from the mouth of enemies that the Apostles had laboured diligently and successfully to fulfil the first portion of Christ’s command, that their preaching begin at Jerusalem.
and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us ] Better, and ye wish to brings &c. It is a marvellous spectacle to see the judges take the place of culprits, and deprecate accusation where they would naturally be dealing out penalties. But the invocation of the people before Christ’s crucifixion, “His blood be upon us and upon our children” (Mat 27:25), was felt by the council to be likely to be brought to fulfilment.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Straitly command you – Did we not command you with a threat? Act 4:17-18, Act 4:21.
In this name – In the name of Jesus.
Ye have filled Jerusalem – This, though not so desired, was an honorable tribute to the zeal and fidelity of the apostles. When Chastens are arraigned or persecuted, it is well if the only charge which their enemies can bring against them is that they have been distinguished for zeal and success in propagating their religion. See 1Pe 4:16, If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glory God on this behalf; also Act 5:13-15.
Intend to bring this mans blood upon us – To bring ones blood upon another is a phrase signifying to hold or to prove him guilty of murdering the innocent. The expression here charges them with desiring to prove that they had put Jesus to death when he was innocent; to convince the people of this, and thus to enrage them against the Sanhedrin; and also to prove that they were guilty, and were exposed to the divine vengeance for having put the Messiah to death. Compare Act 2:23, Act 2:36; Act 3:15; Act 7:52. That the apostles did intend to charge them with being guilty of murder is clear; but it is observable that on this occasion they had said no thing of this, and it is further observable that they did not charge it on them except in their presence. See the places just referred to. They took no pains to spread this among the people, except as the people were accessory to the crime of the rulers, Act 2:23, Act 2:36. Their consciences were not at ease, and the remembrance of the death of Jesus would occur to them at once at the sight of the apostles.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 28. Did not we straitly command you] , With commanding did we not command you; a Hebraism-another proof of the accuracy and fidelity of St. Luke, who seems always to give every man’s speech as he delivered it; not the substance, but the very words. See Ac 4:17.
Not teach in this name?] That is, of JESUS as the Christ or Messiah. His saving name, and the doctrines connected with it, were the only theme and substance of their discourses.
Intend to bring this men’s blood upon us.] You speak in such a way of him to the people as to persuade them that we have crucified an innocent man; and that we must on that account fall victims to the Divine vengeance, or to the fury of the people, whom, by your teaching, you are exciting to sedition against us.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Did not we straitly command you? As indeed they had, Act 4:18; hence they aggravated the apostles crime, as done out of malice, and not out of ignorance.
This name, and this mans blood, are odious reflections, full of contumely against our blessed Saviour, as if he had not been worthy the naming by them.
To bring this mans blood upon us; they shunned not the sin of murder, but are afraid or ashamed of the imputation of it: as many scruple not to commit that wickedness which they would be loth to be thought guilty of, Blood; the punishment of his bloodshedding.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
28. intend to bring this man’s bloodupon usThey avoid naming Him whom Peter gloried in holding up[BENGEL]. In speakingthus, they seem to betray a disagreeable recollection of their ownrecent imprecation, His blood be upon us,” &c. (Mt27:25), and of the traitor’s words as he threw down the money, “Ihave sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood” (Mt27:4).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Saying, did not we straitly command you,…. Or give you strict orders, with severe threatenings,
that you should not teach in this name? the Ethiopic version reads, “in the name of Jesus”; which is what is meant, but was not expressed by the sanhedrim; see Ac 4:17
and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine; they disregarded the council, and its orders, its commands and threatenings, and preached the doctrines of the Gospel; and particularly that concerning the resurrection of Christ, and through him the resurrection of all the dead; and with such success, that great part of the inhabitants of Jerusalem received it; at least there were great numbers in all parts of the city which attended to it, and embraced it: and this they represent as a novel doctrine, devised by the apostles, and peculiarly theirs; and which Moses, and the prophets, were strangers to:
and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us; by charging us with the murder of him, and representing us as guilty of shedding innocent blood, and so stirring up the people, and the Romans against us, to take vengeance on us for it: this, as if they should say, seems to be the intention and design of your ministry, particularly in asserting, that Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified, is now risen from the dead, and was a holy, innocent, and righteous person, as his resurrection shows; and therefore, as we have been guilty in shedding his blood, the punishment of it will, one day or other, be inflicted on us; as it accordingly was, and as they themselves imprecated in Mt 27:25. It is to be observed, that they do not mention the name of Jesus, only by way of contempt, call him “this man”, as it is usual with the Jews to do, when they speak of him. So a commentator q on Ge 27:39 says of some,
“they believed in a man whom they set up for God; and Rome believed, in the days of Constantine, who renewed all that religion, and put upon his banner the form , “of that man”:”
and so another of their writers r uses the phrase several times in a few words. Judah ben Tabai fled to Alexandria,
“that they might not make him president, and in the way, with one disciple; as it happened to Joshua ben Perachiah, with , “that man”; and ye may receive it for a truth, that “that man” was his disciple–and the truth is, that “that man” was born in the fourth year of the kingdom of Jannai the Second.”
So an heretic is said to be one that confesses “that man”; and heretics are the disciples of “that man”, who turned to evil the words of the living God s. Thus blasphemously and contemptuously do they speak of Christ.
q Aben Ezra, Vid. ib. in Dan. xi. 14. r Juchasin, fol. 16. 2. s Migdal Oz & Hagehot Maimoniot. in Maimon. Teshuba, c. 3. sect. 7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
We straitly charged ( ). Like the Hebrew idiom (common in the LXX), though found in Greek, with charging (instrumental case) we charged (cf. same idiom in Lu 22:15). Somewhat like the cognate accusative. The command referred to occurs in Acts 4:17; Acts 4:18 and the refusal of Peter and John in 4:20.
To bring upon us ( ‘ ). Note repetition of . Second aorist active infinitive of , old verb, but in the N.T. only here and 2Pet 2:1; 2Pet 2:5. The Sanhedrin gladly took the blood of Christ on their heads and their children to Pilate (Mt 27:25). Paul tried to save the Jews (Acts 18:6; Acts 22:20). “This man ” ( ). Contemptuous slur and refusal to call the name of Jesus as in the Talmud later.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Did not. The best texts omit ouj, not, and the question.
We straitly charged. So Rev. [ ] . Lit., we charged you with a charge. See on Luk 22:15, with desire I have desired. Intend [] . Or ye want. See on willing, Mt 1:19.
This man’s. The phrase is remarkable as furnishing the first instance of that avoidance of the name of Christ which makes the Talmud, in the very same terms, refer to him most frequently as Peloni, “so and so.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Saying, Did not we straitly command you,” (logon paramgellia parengeilamen humin me) “Saying, (with intense feeling) we charged you with a charge strictly (very plainly) did we not?” as if they had been indicted for a crime and broken probation.
2) “That ye should not teach in this name?” (didaskein epi to onomati touto) “Not to teach in (upon) the authority of this name?” The name of Jesus any more at all, Act 4:18-21. Yet, they had their commission from a higher source – – that mandate was to make, baptize, and teach disciples in the name of Jesus only, Mat 28:18-20; Joh 20:21; Act 1:8; Act 4:12; Col 3:17. It was not necessary to explain what was meant by “this name,” Act 4:12.
3) “And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem,” (kai idou peplerokate ten lerousalem) “And behold you all have filled the Jerusalem area,” a compliment, for it was the very place they were mandated to begin their Holy Spirit empowered world-wide and age-long witnessing ministry, Luk 24:49; Act 1:8.
4) “With your doctrine,” (tes didaches humon) “With your teaching or doctrine; Note that the doctrine or teaching of Jesus had become, was embraced by, and being obediently received and spread by the apostles and the church, their enemies themselves bearing witness, Act 17:5-6; Pro 21:30.
5) “And intend to bring this man’s blood upon us,” (kai boulesthe epagagein eph’ hemas to haima tou anthropou toutou) “And you all intend (or are determined in mind) to bring this man’s blood upon us,” Act 3:14-15, or lay blame for His death on us, Act 2:36; but notice they did not even call His name because they disdained or despised Him so much, Isa 53:3; Mat 27:25; Mat 27:30-31.
Peter sought their salvation, not the revenge of the people upon them for their part in the crucifixion of Christ. He preached with fervor that the blood of Christ was shed for their redemption and that they were personally responsible for receiving it for their sins, 2Pe 3:9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
28. The chief priest layeth two crimes to the charge of the apostles, for he accuseth them of contumacy or stubbornness, (265) because they obeyed not the decree of the council. In the second member he betrayeth an evil conscience, or, at least, he showeth that he handled rather a private business than any public cause, for he complaineth that the apostles will cause the priests and the scribes to be hated for the death of Christ. Behold, therefore, what that is which nettleth them, because they fear the revenge and punishment of wicked murder. He pretendeth, at the first, doctrine; but we may gather out of the end that he was not so careful for doctrine. In the mean season, he accuseth the apostles of sedition; for he taketh that for a thing which all men, for the most part, did grant, (266) that Christ was put to death justly. Notwithstanding this is the principal point of the accusation, that they did not obey the commandment of the priests. It was an heinous offense not to obey the chief priest; how much more heinous was it, then, to despise the whole order? But the chief priest doth not consider what is his duty towards God and the Church; (267) he abuseth his authority tyrannously, as if the same were not under any laws, as the Pope dealeth with us at this day; for seeing that he taketh to himself an unbridled authority and government, he feareth not to condemn us for schismatics, so soon as he seeth us refuse his decrees; for he catcheth at these sentences: “He which despiseth you despiseth me,” (Luk 10:16😉 and thereupon he concludeth that we will rebel (268) against God. But if he will be heard as the ambassador of Christ, he must speak out of the mouth of Christ.
Now, forasmuch as he doth manifestly play the minister of Satan, he borroweth authority, without shame and color, of the name of Christ; yea, the very form of speech which the chief priest useth doth prove how carelessly spiritual tyrants who usurp such authority and lordship as is not subject to the word of God, dare grant liberty to themselves to attempt whatsoever pleaseth them. With a commandment (saith he) have we commanded. Whence cometh such strait rigor, save only because they think that all that must be received without exception which they shall command?
(265) “ Inobedientiae et contumaciae,” of contumacy and disobedience.
(266) “ Pro confesso sumit,” he takes for granted.
(267) “ Vicissim,” in his turn, is omitted in the translation.
(268) “ Esse rebelles,” are rebels.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(28) Did not we straitly command you . . .?The Greek presents the same Hebrew idiom as in Act. 4:17, and suggests again that it is a translation of the Aramaic actually spoken.
Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine.Better, with your teaching, both to keep up the connection with the previous clause, and because the word is taken, as in Mat. 7:28, in its wider sense, and not in the modern sense which attaches to doctrine as meaning a formulated opinion.
To bring this mans blood upon us.There seems a touch, partly of scorn, partly, it may be, of fear, in the careful avoidance (as before, in this name) of the name of Jesus. The words that Peter had uttered, in Act. 2:36; Act. 3:13-14; Act. 4:10, gave some colour to the conscience-stricken priests for this charge; but it was a strange complaint to come from those who had at least stirred up the people to cry, His blood be on us and on our children (Mat. 27:25).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
28. Saying The high priest institutes not first inquiry into miracle, though that may afterward come up. He takes high ground upon charge of disobedience to the sacred magistracy. And here the sceptic asks, How did this court dare attempt to arraign men of miraculous powers? Could not beings who had set dungeon bars and bolts at naught bring down the roof of the council house upon their heads? And how happens it that not the slightest reference is made to the wonderful miracle by which they had nullified the power of the court? No old English court, we reply, ever hesitated to try a sorcerer however mighty his supernatural powers. The Sanhedrin doubtless believed itself possessed of divine authority by the Mosaic law to try the genuineness of a miracle. No prophet or wonder-worker of the Old Testament, whether supernal or infernal, was supposed to be empowered arbitrarily to work miracles at his will so as to endanger the court divinely authorized to try him.
This name this man’s blood Phrases that show a dread to mention the solemn name of Jesus.
Straitly Strictly.
Filled Jerusalem with your doctrine With the cowardice of guilt, these men imagine that all Jerusalem is about to turn up Nazarene.
Bring this man’s blood upon us The adherents of this high priest did at the crucifixion utter the awful imprecation, His blood be upon us and our children; and it is no wonder that he fears its awful fulfilment.
He dreads lest the rising of the people, becoming Christian, should inflict the punishment due to his crime, or even, perhaps, that, being divinely empowered, these apostles may bring a divine judgment upon his head.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 5:28. This man’s blood upon us, That is, the odium and the guilt of it. See Mat 27:25.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
Ver. 28. And intend to bring this man’s blood upon us ] They pretend the doctrine, but this was the thing that most troubled them; they should be counted kill-Christs. It is but just that , : they that do things not honest, should both hear and bear things not delightful. (Eurip.) But wicked men love not to be told their own; neither accept they of the punishment of their iniquity, Deu 28:43 . They report me to suck blood (said Bonner in open court) and call me Bloody Bonner! whereas, God knows, I never sought any man’s blood in all my life. The very same day wherein he had burned good Mr Philpot, being drunk with blood, and not well knowing what he did, he delivered Richard Woodman with four more (whom but two days before he had threatened to condemn, and the very morrow after he sought for again, yea, and that earnestly), requiring of them but to be honest men, members of the Church Catholic (which they promised), and to speak good of him; and no doubt (saith Woodman) he was worthy to be praised, because he had done the devil his master such doughty service. A certain unknown good woman in a letter to him did him right. Indeed, said she, you are called the common cutthroat, and general slaughter slave to all the bishops of England, &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
28 .] , ; , . . . Chrys. The same shyness of open allusion to the names or facts connected with Jesus and the spread of his doctrine may be traced in the , and the , and is a strong mark of truth and circumstantiality. ‘Fugit appellare Jesum: Petrus appellat et celebrat, Act 5:30-31 .’ Bengel.
. ] not meaning, that divine vengeance would come on them for the murder of Jesus: but with a stress on that the people would be incited to take vengeance on them , the Sanhedrim, for that murder. The preceding clause ( . . . .) shews this to be their thought. Compare the pointed address of Peter to the Sanhedrim, ch. Act 4:8-12 , and the distinction between them and the people in Act 4:21 . This being so, the resemblance between this expression and the imprecation of the people in Mat 27:25 must not be too closely pressed, though the coincidence is too striking to escape notice.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 5:28 . : for the Hebraism cf. Act 4:17 , “we straitly,” etc., R.V. (and A.V.), expressing intensity “commanding, we commanded you,” Wycliffe. The T.R. makes the clause a question, commencing with , but the evidence is too strong against it, evidently it was occasioned by the , but St. Chrysostom adopts it, see Hom. , xiii., 1. Bengel remarks on , “pudet dicere minando , Act 4:17 , nam non poterant punire” But St. Chrysostom rightly notes that they ought to have asked , i.e. , from the prison, but they ask as if nothing had happened. , Act 4:17 , here as there the Council do not mention the name of Jesus, perhaps because they disdained it; in sharp contrast stands not only St. Peter’s mention of the name, but his glorying in it, Act 5:30-31 . : fem. here and elsewhere, cf. Gal 4:25 , Rev 3:12 , so in Mat 2:3 , Blass, Grammatik des N. G. , p. 32; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 153. , “teaching,” R.V., cf. Mat 7:28 . : the charge was untrue the wish was their own, not that of the Apostles, cf. Mat 27:25 . St. Peter’s earnest desire was that they should be saved. , Act 18:6 , Act 22:20 , and 2Sa 1:16 , cf. 2Pe 2:1 ; 2Pe 2:5 ; nowhere else in N.T. : to bring His blood upon us, i.e. , the vengeance of the people for His murder, pro , Hebraistic no thought of divine punishment from their point of view; cf. LXX. Gen 20:9 , Exo 32:34 , Jdg 9:24 , and cf. Jos 23:15 (in N.T., Mat 23:35 , Rev 18:24 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
straitly command. Literally command with a command. Figure of speech Polyptoton. App-6. A Hebraism.
name. See note on Act 2:38.
intend. Greek. boulomai. App-102.
bring Greek. epago. Only here and 2Pe 2:1, 2Pe 2:5. Compare their own invocation in Mat 27:25.
this, &c. = the blood of this Man (Emph.)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
28.] , ; , … Chrys. The same shyness of open allusion to the names or facts connected with Jesus and the spread of his doctrine may be traced in the , and the , and is a strong mark of truth and circumstantiality. Fugit appellare Jesum: Petrus appellat et celebrat, Act 5:30-31. Bengel.
. ] not meaning, that divine vengeance would come on them for the murder of Jesus: but with a stress on -that the people would be incited to take vengeance on them, the Sanhedrim, for that murder. The preceding clause (. …) shews this to be their thought. Compare the pointed address of Peter to the Sanhedrim, ch. Act 4:8-12, and the distinction between them and the people in Act 4:21. This being so, the resemblance between this expression and the imprecation of the people in Mat 27:25 must not be too closely pressed, though the coincidence is too striking to escape notice.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 5:28. , with injunction) He is ashamed to say, with threatening: with which comp. ch. Act 4:17; for they were not able to punish them (Act 4:16).-, we enjoined) See the coarse cunning of the enemies of the Gospel! They, according to their own pleasure, both make and wrest aside and invent edicts, laws, and prohibitions, which cannot but be broken by the witnesses who obey the GOD of truth, in order that the innocent may be punished as if they were guilty. O the injustice of such men!–, in this name-of this man) He avoids using the name Jesus. Peter uses the name, and does it honour; Act 5:30-31.- , Jerusalem) in which, say they, we keep watch.-, ye wish) An invidious word. The apostles did not wish that; but they taught according to the truth, that Jesus was impiously murdered by the Jews, and at the same time they showed a way whereby the latter might experience the power (virtue) of Jesus blood in imparting grace and salvation.-) So Jdg 9:24, – .- , upon us) They themselves had a little before taken upon themselves the blood of the Just One in words, Mat 27:25; and in actual deed, presently after, Act 5:30, they took the reed and smote Him on the head. [This is the custom of adversaries. Having obtained their opportunity, they show themselves fierce, mad, and unrelenting: then, when the victory inclines to the opposite side, they are unwilling to admit that they have sinned either in deed or intention.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Did not: Act 5:40, Act 4:18-21
intend: Act 2:23-36, Act 3:15, Act 4:10, Act 4:11, Act 7:52, 1Ki 18:17, 1Ki 18:18, 1Ki 21:20, 1Ki 22:8, Jer 38:4, Amo 7:10
blood: Jer 26:15, Mat 21:44, Mat 23:35, Mat 23:36, Mat 27:25, 1Th 2:15, 1Th 2:16
Reciprocal: Exo 1:12 – grieved Num 16:41 – Ye have Psa 21:11 – imagined Ecc 10:13 – beginning Isa 30:10 – say Jer 26:9 – Why Jer 29:27 – therefore Jer 36:29 – Why Jer 37:15 – the princes Jer 38:1 – heard Dan 3:12 – not regarded thee Amo 2:11 – and Amo 7:13 – prophesy Mic 2:6 – Prophesy ye Mat 10:27 – that preach Mat 23:13 – for ye shut Mar 12:7 – This Luk 9:49 – we saw Joh 1:24 – Why Joh 2:18 – seeing Joh 7:7 – because Joh 11:48 – we let Joh 12:19 – Perceive Act 4:7 – by what name Act 4:17 – let Act 6:1 – when
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
Act 5:28. The faithfulness of the apostles in preaching the Gospel of Christ was proved by the statement of these enemies, that they had filled Jerusalem with it. Bring this man’s blood upon us. These rulers knew that if the people were fully informed of the story of Jesus as he was dealt with in Jerusalem, they would hold them (the Jewish rulers) responsible for His death. In a threatening attitude, they reminded the apostles of their order not to teach in the name of Christ.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 5:28. Did not we straitly command you, that ye should not teach in this name? and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this mans blood upon us. A concealed dread underlies the whole of the high priests accusation. He never asks them how they came to be in the Temple teaching that morning, though he knew the evening before they were securely lodged in the state prison. He carefully, too, avoids mentioning the sacred name of Jesus, no doubt uttering with fierce contempt the words, this name, your doctrine, this mans blood. The charge against them really was one of direct disobedience to a decree of the Sanhedrim: this plain command, said the high priest, these men, Peter and his companions, had disobeyed in the hope that they might excite the people to rise against the Sanhedrists, as the murderers of an innocent man; in fact, had not unexpected friends been found in the midst of the sacred assembly itself, no popular favour without could have saved the apostles then from a most severe sentence of long and rigorous imprisonment, perhaps of death; for in their public teaching, the high priest and his assessors in the council were charged with the awful accusation of murdering the Messiah (sec Act 5:33). Nor was the manifest favour in which they were held by the people generally without, and the powerful intervention of the Pharisee party in the council, sufficient to procure the acquittal of the accused. The council, in spite of these, condemned the teaching and severely punished the leaders before letting them go (see Mat 27:25).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 27
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 28
This man’s blood. This contemptuous mode of designating the Savior shows that their feelings towards him remained unchanged.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
5:28 {9} Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend {k} to bring this man’s blood upon us.
(9) It is the characteristic of tyrants to set down their own commandments as right and proper, be they ever so wicked.
(k) Make us guilty of murdering that man whom yet they will not condescend to name.