Acts 4:5

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

I. Here is the court set. An extraordinary court, it should seem, was called on purpose upon this occasion. Observe, 1. The time when the court sat (Act 4:5) - on the morrow; not in the night, as when Christ was to be tried before them, for they seem not to have been so hot upon this prosecution as they were upon that; it was well if they began to relent. But they adjourned it to the morrow, and no longer; for they were impatient to get them silenced, and would lose no time. 2. The place where - in Jerusalem (Act 4:6); there it was that he told his disciples they must expect to suffer hard things, as he had done before them in that place. This seems to come in here as an aggravation of their sin, that in Jerusalem, where there were so many that looked for redemption before it came, yet there were more that would not look upon it when it did come. How is that faithful city become a harlot! See Mat 23:37. It was in the foresight of Jerusalem's standing in her own light that Christ beheld the city, and wept over it. 3. The judges of the court. (1.) Their general character: they were rulers, elders, and scribes, Act 4:5. The scribes were men of learning, who came to dispute with the apostles, and hoped to confute them. The rulers and elders were men in power, who, if they could not answer them, thought they could find some cause or other to silence them. If the gospel of Christ had not been of God, it could not have made its way, for it had both the learning and power of the world against it, both the colleges of the scribes and the courts of the elders. (2.) The names of some of them, who were most considerable. Here were Annas and Caiaphas, ringleaders in this persecution; Annas the president of the sanhedrim, and Caiaphas the high priest (though Annas is here called so) and father of the house of judgment. It should seem that Annas and Caiaphas executed the high priest's office alternately, year for year. These two were most active against Christ; then Caiaphas was high priest, now Annas was; however they were both equally malignant against Christ and his gospel. John is supposed to be the son of Annas; and Alexander is mentioned by Josephus as a man that made a figure at that time. There were others likewise that were of the kindred of the high priest, who having dependence on him, and expectations from him, would be sure to say as he said, and vote with him against the apostles. Great relations, and not good, have been a snare to many.

II. The prisoners are arraigned, Act 4:7. 1. They are brought to the bar; they set them in the midst, for the sanhedrim sat in a circle, and those who had any thing to do in the court stood or sat in the midst of them (Luk 2:46), so Dr. Lightfoot. Thus the scripture was fulfilled, The assembly of the wicked has enclosed me, Psa 22:16. They compassed me about like bees, Psa 118:12. They were seated on every side. 2. The question they asked them was, "By what power, or by what name, have you done this? By what authority do you these things?" (the same question that they had asked their Master, Mat 21:23): "Who commissioned you to preach such a doctrine as this, and empowered you to work such a miracle as this? You have no warrant nor license from us, and therefore are accountable to us whence you have your warrant." Some think this question was grounded upon a fond conceit that the very naming of some names might do wonders, as Act 19:13. The Jewish exorcists made use of the name of Jesus. Now they would know what name they made use of in their cure, and consequently what name they set themselves to advance in their preaching. They knew very well that they preached Jesus, and the resurrection of the dead, and the healing of the sick, through Jesus (Act 4:2), yet they asked them, to tease them, and try if they could get any thing out of them that looked criminal.

III. The plea they put in, the design of which was not so much to clear and secure themselves as to advance the name and honour of their Master, who had told them that their being brought before governors and kings would give them an opportunity of preaching the gospel to those to whom otherwise they could not have had access, and it should be a testimony against them. Mar 13:19. Observe,

1. By whom this plea was drawn up: it was dictated by the Holy Ghost, who fitted Peter more than before for this occasion. The apostles, with a holy negligence of their own preservation, set themselves to preach Christ as he had directed them to do in such a case, and then Christ made good to them his promise, that the Holy Ghost should give them in that same hour what they should speak. Christ's faithful advocates shall never want instructions, Mar 13:11.

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

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

(1.) That what they did was in the name of Jesus Christ, which was a direct answer to the question the court asked them (Act 4:9, Act 4:10): "If we this day be examined, be called to an account as criminals, so the word signifies, for a good deed (as any one will own it to be) done to the impotent man, - if this be the ground of the commitment, this the matter of the indictment, - if we are put to the question, by what means, or by whom, he is made whole, we have an answer ready, and it is the same we gave to the people (Act 3:16), we will repeat it to you, as that which we will stand by. Be it known to you all who pretend to be ignorant of this matter, and not to you only, but to all the people of Israel, for they are all concerned to know it, that by the name of Jesus Christ, that precious, powerful, prevailing name, that name above every name, even by him whom you in contempt called Jesus of Nazareth, whom you crucified, both rulers and people, and whom God hath raised from the dead and advanced to the highest dignity and dominion, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole, a monument of the power of the Lord Jesus." Here, [1.] He justifies what he and his colleague had done in curing the lame man. It was a good deed; it was a kindness to the man that had begged, but could not work for his living; a kindness to the temple, and to those that went in to worship, who were now freed from the noise and clamour of this common beggar. "Now, if we be reckoned with for this good deed, we have no reason to be ashamed, Pe1 2:20; Pe1 4:14, Pe1 4:16. Let those be ashamed who bring us into trouble for it." Note, It is no new thing for good men to suffer ill for doing well. Bene agere et male pati vere Christianum est - To do well and to suffer punishment is the Christian's lot. [2.] He transfers all the praise and glory of this good deed to Jesus Christ. "It is by him, and not by any power of ours, that this man is cured." The apostles seek not to raise an interest for themselves, nor to recommend themselves by this miracle to the good opinion of the court; but, "Let the Lord alone be exalted, no matter what becomes of us." [3.] He charges it upon the judges themselves, that they had been the murderers of this Jesus: "It is he whom you crucified, look how you will answer it;" in order to the bringing of them to believe in Christ (for he aims at no less than this) he endeavours to convince them of sin, of that sin which, one would think, of all others, was most likely to startle conscience - their putting Christ to death. Let them take it how they will, Peter will miss no occasion to tell them of it. [4.] He attests the resurrection of Christ as the strongest testimony for him, and against his persecutors: "They crucified him, but God raised him from the dead; they took away his life, but God gave it to him again, and your further opposition to his interest will speed no better." He tells them that God raised him from the dead, and they could not for shame answer him with that foolish suggestion which they palmed upon the people, that his disciples came by night and stole him away. [5.] He preaches this to all the bystanders, to be by them repeated to all their neighbours, and commands all manner of persons, from the highest to the lowest, to take notice of it at their peril: "Be it known to you all that are here present, and it shall be made known to all the people of Israel, wherever they are dispersed, in spite of all your endeavours to stifle and suppress the notice of it: as the Lord God of gods knows, so Israel shall know, all Israel shall know, that wonders are wrought in the name of Jesus, not by repeating it as a charm, but believing in it as a divine revelation of grace and good-will to men."

(2.) That the name of this Jesus, by the authority of which they acted, is that name alone by which we can be saved. He passes from this particular instance to show that it is not a particular sect or party that is designed to be set up by the doctrine they preached, and the miracle they wrought, which people might either join with or keep off from at their pleasure, as it was with the sects of the philosophers and those among the Jews; but that it is a sacred and divine institution that is hereby ratified and confirmed, and which all people are highly concerned to submit to and come into the measures of. It is not an indifferent thing, but of absolute necessity, that people believe in this name, and call upon it. [1.] We are obliged to it in duty to God, and in compliance with his designs (Act 4:11): "This is the stone which was set at nought of your builders, you that are the rulers of the people, and the elders of Israel, that should be the builders of the church, that pretend to be so, for the church is God's building. Here was a stone offered you, to be put in the chief place of the building, to be the main pillar on which the fabric might entirely rest; but you set it at nought, rejected it, would not make use of it, but threw it by as good for nothing but to make a stepping-stone of; but this stone is now become the head of the corner; God has raised up this Jesus whom you rejected, and, by setting him at his right hand, has made him both the corner stone and the head stone, the centre of unity and the fountain of power." Probably St. Peter here chose to make use of this quotation because Christ had himself made use of it, in answer to the demand of the chief priests and the elders concerning his authority, not long before this, Mat 21:42. Scripture is a tried weapon in our spiritual conflicts: let us therefore stick to it. [2.] We are obliged to it for our own interest. We are undone if we do not take shelter in this name, and make it our refuge and strong tower; for we cannot be saved but by Jesus Christ, and, if we be not eternally saved, we are eternally undone (Act 4:12): Neither is there salvation in any other. As there is no other name by which diseased bodies can be cured, so there is no other by which sinful souls can be saved. "By him, and him only, by receiving and embracing his doctrine, salvation must now be hoped for by all. For there is no other religion in the world, no, not that delivered by Moses, by which salvation can be had for those that do not now come into this, at the preaching of it." So. Dr. Hammond. Observe here, First, Our salvation is our chief concern, and that which ought to lie nearest to our hearts - our rescue from wrath and the curse, and our restoration to God's favour and blessing. Secondly, Our salvation is not in ourselves, nor can be obtained by any merit or strength of our own; we can destroy ourselves, but we cannot save ourselves. Thirdly, There are among men many names that pretend to be saving names, but really are not so; many institutions in religion that pretend to settle a reconciliation and correspondence between God and man, but cannot do it. Fourthly, It is only by Christ and his name that those favours can be expected from God which are necessary to our salvation, and that our services can be accepted with God. This is the honour of Christ's name, that it is the only name whereby we must be saved, the only name we have to plead in all our addresses to God. This name is given. God has appointed it, and it is an inestimable benefit freely conferred upon us. It is given under heaven. Christ has not only a great name in heaven, but a great name under heaven; for he has all power both in the upper and in the lower world. It is given among men, who need salvation, men who are ready to perish. We may be saved by his name, that name of his, The Lord our righteousness; and we cannot be saved by any other. How far those may find favour with God who have not the knowledge of Christ, nor any actual faith in him, yet live up to the light they have, it is not our business to determine. But this we know, that whatever saving favour such may receive it is upon the account of Christ, and for his sake only; so that still there is no salvation in any other. I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me, Isa 45:4.

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

1. They could not deny the cure of the lame man to be both a good deed and a miracle. He was there standing with Peter and John, ready to attest the cure, if there were occasion, and they had nothing to say against it (Act 4:14), either to disprove it or to disparage it. It was well that it was not the sabbath day, else they would have had that to say against it.

2. They could not, with all their pomp and power, face down Peter and John. This was a miracle not inferior to the cure of the lame man, considering both what cruel bloody enemies these priests had been to the name of Christ (enough to make any one tremble that appeared for him), and considering what cowardly faint-hearted advocates those disciples had lately been for him, Peter particularly, who denied him for fear of a silly maid; yet now they see the boldness of Peter and John, Act 4:13. Probably there was something extraordinary and very surprising in their looks; they appeared not only undaunted by the rulers, but daring and daunting to them; they had something majestic in their foreheads, sparkling in their eyes, and commanding, if not terrifying, in their voice. They set their faces like a flint, as the prophet, Isa 50:7; Eze 3:9. The courage of Christ's faithful confessors has often been the confusion of their cruel persecutors. Now, (1.) We are here told what increased their wonder: They perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. They enquired either of the apostles or themselves or of others, and found that they were of mean extraction, born in Galilee, that they were bred fishermen, and had no learned education, had never been at any university, were not brought up at the feet of any of the rabbin, had never been conversant in courts, camps, or colleges; nay, perhaps, talk to them at this time upon any point in natural philosophy, mathematics, or politics, and you will find they know nothing of the matter; and yet speak to them of the Messiah and his kingdom, and they speak with so much clearness, evidence, and assurance, so pertinently and so fluently, and are so ready in the scriptures of the Old Testament relating to it, that the most learned judge upon the bench is not able to answer them, nor to enter the lists with them. They were ignorant men - idiōtai, private men, men that had not any public character nor employment; and therefore they wondered they should have such high pretensions. They were idiots (so the word signifies): they looked upon them with as much contempt as if they had been mere naturals, and expected no more from them, which made them wonder to see what freedom they took. (2.) We are told what made their wonder in a great measure to cease: they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus; they, themselves, it is probable, had seen them with him in the temple, and now recollected that they had seen them; or some of their servants or those about them informed them of it, for they would not be thought themselves to have taken notice of such inferior people. But when they understood that they had been with Jesus, had been conversant with him, attendant on him, and trained up under him, they knew what to impute their boldness to; nay, their boldness in divine things was enough to show with whom they had had their education. Note, Those that have been with Jesus, in converse and communion with him, have been attending on his word, praying in his name, and celebrating the memorials of his death and resurrection, should conduct themselves, in every thing, so that those who converse with them may take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus; and this makes them so holy, and heavenly, and spiritual, and cheerful; this has raised them so much above this world, and filled them with another. One may know that they have been in the mount by the shining of their faces.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act_4:5-6

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

The Sanhedrin in the time of the apostles

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

2. There were two kinds of Sanhedrins.

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

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

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

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

, because he represented the civil and religious interests of the Jewish nation before the government abroad, and before the different Jewish congregations at home; whilst the latter was called the father of the house of judgment, because he led and controlled the discussions on disputed points. The only one ineligible for the presidency was the king, because, according to the Jewish law, subjects were not allowed to contradict or differ from the monarch. Besides these two high officials, there was a referee, who examined the cases before they were brought before the Sanhedrin. There were, moreover, two notaries, and several menial officials corresponding to lictors, who are alternately called in the New Testament servants, officers, and ministers (Mat_5:25; Mat_26:58; Mar_14:54; Mar_14:65, etc.).

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

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

6. In trials of capital offences it required a majority of at least two to condemn, and the verdict of guilty could only be delivered the day following the trial, to enable the Sanhedrin carefully to go over again the whole evidence. The Sanhedrin who found the verdict had to fast all day, and the criminal was executed the day after the sentence. This leniency, however, was not extended to one who gave himself out as the Messiah, or was proved to be a false prophet, or promulgated false doctrines. The trial of such an offender was generally reserved for the forthcoming festival, when all the Israelites came up to Jerusalem. The accused was then tied in the presence of the pilgrims; he was condemned and executed the same day on the festival (Deu_17:13). But even to such a criminal a stupefying beverage was mercifully administered before his execution, to deprive him of consciousness and lessen his pain. In latter days, however, the sentence of death passed by the Sanhedrin had to be confirmed by the Roman procurator.

7. Whatever we may think of Jewish tradition, which affirms that the Sanhedrin is a Mosaic institution based upon Exo_18:24-26; Num_11:16-24, still both the several classes and the number of members which constituted this assembly of notables are alluded to in the Old Testament Scriptures (Jer_26:8; Jer_26:16; Eze_8:11, etc.; Ezr_6:8; 2Ch_19:8; 2Ch_19:11). The chain of presidents, however, can only be traced uninterruptedly to circa 170 b.c. For about a hundred and forty years the members elected the president from one of their midst. Thirty years before Christ, however, the presidency of the Sanhedrin became hereditary in the family of Hillel I. for fifteen generations; that is, from 80 b.c. to 425 a.d.

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

1. Hillel Ib.c. 30-a.d. 102. Simon I. b. Hillel I10-303. Gamaliel I. b. Simon I., the teacher of St. Paul30-504. Simon II. b. Gamaliel I. 50-705. Gamaliel II. b. Simon II. a.d.80-1166. Simon III. b. Gamaliel II.140-1637. Jehudah I. the Holy b. Simon III.163-1938. Gamaliel III. b. Jehudah I.193-2209. Jehudah II. b. Simon III 220-27010. Gamaliel IV. b. Jehudah II.270-30011. Jehudah III. b. Gamaliel IV 300-33012. Hillel II. b. Jehudah III.330-36513. Gamaliel V. b. Hillel II. 365-38514. Jehudah IV. b. Gamaliel V.385-40015. Gamaliel VI. b. Jehudah IV. 400-425

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

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

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_4:5. Their rulers.—Not of the new converts or of the apostles, but of the people; hence the Sanhedrists. Elders,—Heads of families, Scribes,—Teachers of the law, and chief priests composed the Sanhedrin.

Act_4:6. Annas the high priest and Caiaphas.—Exactly as in the gospels (Luk_3:2; Joh_18:13), which accord to the former the first place in the high priesthood, “although his proper term of office (6–15 A.D.) had long since expired” (Zöckler), while the active duties of the high priest were performed by Caiaphas, his son-in-law (18–36 A.D.). At or in Jerusalem should form part of Act_4:5, as in the R.V. “In” may imply that the court met not in the temple, but in the city (Alford), but this is only a conjecture. Some MSS. read into Jerusalem, as if several of the members had resided beyond the precincts of the city, and on being summoned had hastened in overnight (Holtzmann).

Act_4:7. In the midst.—I.e., in full view, in the centre of the Sanhedrists, if, as tradition reports, these were accustomed to sit in a circle. By what power, or in what name, etc.—Compare Luk_20:2, of which the question here addressed to the apostles is supposed to be a legendary echo (Gfrörer, Zeller, and others); but why the same inquiry should not have been twice put, on different occasions, and to different individuals, is not easy to understand.

Act_4:8. Filled with the Holy Ghost.—Specially bestowed upon him for the crisis which had arisen (compare Act_4:31; Act_2:4; Act_13:9; Mat_10:19-20).

Act_4:9. By what means.—Or in whom. Is made whole.—Lit., has been saved, not merely from the power of disease, but from that of sin, of which the physical malady was a fruit and sign (compare Act_4:12).

Act_4:10. Of Nazareth.—Frequently applied to Jesus (Act_2:22, Act_6:14; Act_10:38; Act_22:8; Mat_21:11; Joh_1:45). Here connected with Jesus Christ (compare Act_3:6), and used to identify the Jesus of whom Peter spoke with the Jesus whom the rulers had crucified (Joh_19:19). Whom ye crucified; whom God raised.—Peter seldom omits to exhibit the antithesis between man’s treatment of Jesus and God’s. The death and the resurrection of Christ formed the two poles of Peter’s teaching. The one without the other would have been defective and powerless for salvation.

Act_4:11. The stone which was set at nought, etc.—Quoted from Psa_118:22, and applied to Christ as already it had been by Curist Himself (Mat_21:42; Luk_20:17; compare 1Pe_2:4; 1Pe_2:7).

Act_4:12. Salvation.—Should be the salvation, the Messianic deliverance and blessing, which men were needing and the apostles were preaching (Act_2:21). Given among men.—Better, which is or hat been given—i.e., provided. Hence the use of must, because no other has been given or provided.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_4:5-12

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

I. The mustering of the court.—

1. The time. On the morrow, probably with the dawning of the day, say between six and seven a.m. As in Christ’s case (Joh_18:28), no time was lost in bringing the apostolic offenders to book. Wickedness can seldom afford to proceed at leisure (Pro_6:18); it is the good man who never requires to make haste (Isa_28:16).

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

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

(1) the elders, or heads of families, among whom were included both priests and laymen;

(2) the scribes, or teachers of the law, professional jurists who mostly adhered to the party of the Pharisees, as the priestly members commonly belonged to the Sadducees; and

(3) the chief priests and their families. Of these the first mentioned is Annas, or Hanan—“gracious”—the aged head of the high priestly house before whom Christ had been set for examination (Joh_18:13), whom Josephus pronounced “the most fortunate man of his time,” because for upwards of half a century he and five of his sons had occupied the highest ecclesiastical position in the country, but whom “the most unsuspected sources” compel us to recognise as “nothing better than an absolute, tyrannous, worldly Sadducee, unvenerable for all his seventy years, full of serpentine malice and meanness which utterly belied his name” (Farrar, The Life of Christ, chap. lviii., p. 639). Associated with him was Caiaphas, of evil fame, his bold and unscrupulous son-in-law, who first suggested the expediency of Christ’s removal by death (Joh_11:49-50), and eventually put the crown upon his criminality by pronouncing Christ guilty of blasphemy (Mat_26:65), and handing Him over to Pilate for crucifixion (Joh_18:28). Other members of the court were John and Alexander, about neither of whom is anything known, and “as many as were of the high priest’s family,” from which perhaps it may be inferred that not only Nicodem us and Joseph of Arimathea were absent, but also Gamaliel, Paul’s celebrated teacher, who honourably figured at a later meeting (Act_5:34). In short, it was a packed assembly, and one not calculated to reassure the apostles, or even promise them an honest trial.

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

1. By what power they had wrought the miracle on the lame man? This amounted to a practical admission that the miracle had been wrought (compare Act_4:16), a serious difficulty in the way of those who deny the possibility of miracles. Had the Sanhedrists been able to show that no miracle had been wrought, who can doubt that they would cheerfully have done so? The fact that they did not so much as attempt this proves that in their judgment the miracle was undeniable. Even so the higher miracles of the gospel can as little be challenged.

2. In what name they had performed the wonder? The Sanhedrists were perfectly acquainted with the name, but “wanted to convict Peter and John of sorcery, by having worked a miracle not in the name of God, but in that of a crucified malefactor” (Spence). One marvels how they did not perceive that if a crucified malefactor’s name could work miracles, the so-called malefactor must have been other than they deemed Him. It is noticeable that the Sanhedrists avoid saying anything about what grieved them most, the apostles’ teaching the doctrine of the Resurrection. Was this due to the mixed composition of the tribunal, as afterwards in Paul’s case (Act_23:7)? Possibly.

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

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

2. That they, the Sanhedrists, who were supposed to be temple builders for Jehovah, in crucifying Christ, had really rejected Him whom Jehovah had chosen to be the Head Stone of the Corner. Their mistake had been the most appalling that persons in their position could commit. God by raising up Christ had demonstrated Him to be the true Messiah, whom they should have been the first to recognise and welcome, but whom nevertheless they had despised and rejected (Joh_1:11). Man’s judgment and God’s do not always coincide in spiritual things, so much the worse of course for man’s judgment. Even those who from their privileges and training might be expected to be men of “light and leading” sometimes turn out “blind leaders of the blind.” As in the former proposition the humility of the apostles was conspicuous, so in this stands out strikingly their boldness.

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

Learn.—

1. The impotence of man when he conspires against God.

2. The fortitude of those the Holy Ghost inspires.

3. The all-sufficiency of Christ’s name for salvation.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_4:11. The Builders and the Stone.

I. The Church as a building or house.—

1. A spiritual house (1Pe_2:5).

2. Divinely planned (Heb_3:1-6).

3. Erected by human instrumentality.

3. Variously used. As

(1) a dwelling house (Psa_76:2; Eph_2:22);

(2) a treasure house (Mal_3:17;

(3) a banqueting house (Son_2:4).

II. Christ as the corner stone.—

1. Of God’s choosing (1Pe_2:4).

2. Of God’s approving (Mat_3:17).

3. Of God’s trying (Isa_28:16).

4. Of God’s laying (Isa_28:16; 1Co_3:11).

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

1. Blindness as to the excellency of Christ’s person.

2. Ignorance of the mystery of redemption and salvation through Him.

3. Mistaken views of the nature of Messiah’s kingdom.

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

1. Christ’s victory over all His enemies.

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

The Rejected Corner Stone.

I. The sin of the builders.—

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

II. The glory of the rejected stone.—

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

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

Act_4:12. Salvation in Christ alone.

I. There is no salvation out of Christ.—

1. No other name but that of Christ has been given among men for this purpose.

2. If any are saved, whether in gospel or heathen lands, it is through the name of Christ.

II. There is salvation in Christ.—

1. Salvation in fullest measure.

2. Salvation on the easiest terms.

3. Salvation with the greatest certainty.

None other Name.

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

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

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

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

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

No Salvation out of Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Only Salvation.—That in Christ. Because—

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

II. Magnifies the divine law.—

1. Vindicates it by the vicarious sacrifice of Christ.

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

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

IV. Qualifies for the divine glory.—By imparting

1. A right and title, and

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

Act_4:8-12. The Characteristics of a Good Preacher.—As exhibited by Peter.

I. Undaunted courage.—He addresses “the rulers of the people and the elders of Israel” without trepidation. Preachers should fear the face of no man (Eze_2:6).

II. Genuine candour.—He is willing to be “examined of the good deed done to the impotent man.” Preachers should never shun investigation into either themselves, their doctrines, or their deeds (1Co_10:15).

III. Clear exposition.—“Be it known unto you all,” etc. Preachers should have nothing to hide, and ought to leave nothing obscure (2Co_4:2).

IV. Profound humility.—Peter gave the glory of the miracle entirely to Christ, reserving none for himself. Preachers should always say, “Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name be the glory!” (Psa_115:1).

V. Immovable conviction,—Peter had no doubt as to the place occupied and the part played by Christ in the scheme of salvation. Preachers should not instruct others before they know the truth themselves (Joh_3:11; 2Co_4:13).

VI. Evangelical fervour.—The sum of Peter’s preaching was Christ. Preachers that have no room for Christ in their sermons should seek some other calling (1Co_2:2).

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 4:5. Αὐτῶν, of them) viz. the Jews.—τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ γραμματεῖς, rulers and elders and scribes) who were conspicuous in authority, counsel, and doctrine.—εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ, to Jerusalem) from the neighbourhood: unless εἰς be put for ἐν.[34]

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

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

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_4:5. Ἐγένετο … συναχθῆναι] But it came to pass that, etc. Comp. Act_9:3; Luk_3:21; Luk_16:22. So also in classical writers (Hes. Theog. 639; Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 11). See Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 587.

αὐτῶν] refers not to the believers, but, as is presumed to be obvious of itself, to the Jews, whose people, priests, etc., were named above, Act_4:1, and to whom those who had become believers belonged. Comp. Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 183].

τοὺς ἄρχοντ. κ. πρεσβ. κ. γραμμ.] the Sanhedrists and elders and scribes. A full meeting of the Sanhedrim was arranged, at which in particular the members belonging to the classes of representatives of the people and scribes were not absent. Comp. on Mat_2:4.

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

καί] also (in order to mention these specially).

Ἄνναν τὸν ἀρχιερ.] As at this time not Annas, but his son-in-law Caiaphas, was the ruling high priest, an erroneous statement must be acknowledged here, as in Luk_3:2, which may be explained from the continuing great influence of Annas. See the particulars, as well as the unsatisfactory shifts which have been resorted to, on Luk_3:2. Comp. Zeller, p. 127. Baumgarten still, p. 88 (comp. also Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 96, and II. p. 55), contents himself with justifying the expression from the age and influence of Annas,a view which could not occur to any reader, and least of all to Theophilus, after Luk_3:2.

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

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

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These were they that made the Sanhedrin, which were all of the tribe of Judah, until Herod used that cruelty against David’s stock.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

their rulers, &c.--This was a regular meeting of the Sanhedrim (see on Mat 2:4).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(5) And it came to pass on the morrow . . .—Better, that there were gathered together the rulers, elders, and scribes in Jerusalem. The two last words are misplaced in the English version by being transferred to the end of the next verse. The later MSS. give, however, unto Jerusalem. The meeting was obviously summoned, like that of Mat_26:5, to consider what course was necessary in face of the new facts that had presented themselves, and was probably the first formal meeting of the Sanhedrin that had been held since the trial of our Lord. On its constitution, see Notes on Mat_5:22; Mat_26:57; Mat_27:1. This meeting would, of course, include the Pharisee section of the scribes as well as the Sadducees.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

and scribes] For these were not only the copyists, but the interpreters and expounders of the Law to the people, and any new teaching would naturally be disliked by them. On the difference between Christ’s teaching and that of the scribes see Mat_7:29.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

that their rulers, and elders, and Scribes; that is, their ecclesiastical rulers; the chief priests, who, with the Scribes, and elders of the people, made up the great council at Jerusalem, consisting of seventy one persons, so they are called in Mat 26:3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

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

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

Scribes - See the notes on Mat 2:4.

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

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

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

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

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Their rulers, &c. The chief of them, and Annas, the high priest; perhaps he had lately succeeded Caiphas, high priest of the year before. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Their rulers; the sanhedrim, or great council.

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

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. On the morrow—The night brought their imprisonment, the morning (probably early morning, note on Luk_21:38,) brought their arraignment.

Rulers… elders… scribes—The two apostles are now before the SANHEDRIN, for an account of which body see our note to Mat_26:3. The case before them belongs to their jurisdiction over all cases of alleged miracle, their duty being to examine and decide, 1, whether the miracle be real, and, 2, whether it be a truly divine miracle or otherwise.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Were gathered together in Jerusalem for at (ver. 6), A.V.; or, as it should rather be rendered, to some of them probably living in the country. This clause is placed in the A.V at the end of ver. 6 because, in the T.R., Annas, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander are in the accusative ease, whereas, in the R.T., they are in the nominative case; for which reason the R.V. supplies the words "was there" in ver. 6. We see here the differentclasses which composed the Sanhedrim.

Vers. 5-12. The servants in the footsteps of their Lord.

I Compare the CIRCUMSTANCES of this testimony with those in which Jesus stood. Some of the same were present. Actuated by similar feelings against the truth. But notice:

1. Called together on the ground of one specific fact the miracle done (ver. 7) undeniably real.

2. Without any accusation as in the Lord"s case. No false witnesses called.

3. In appearance, at least, orderly and candid; inquiring, "By what power, or in what Name, have ye done this?" certainly evincing, as does the sequel, considerable reaction from the fury of the Crucifixion. Conscience was at work. A sign that the gospel was already beginning to lay hold of Jerusalem.

II Consider the TESTIMONY borne by the apostle.

1. The substance of it. It pointed to the signs of Divine power present; connected those signs with the Name and authority of Jesus Christ; clearly announced the fulfillment of Scripture, and invited all to rejoice in the blessings of the gospel.

2. The inspiration of it; seen in its simplicity, boldness, wisdom, and yet supreme gentleness and love. A perfect respect for the old, and yet an entire acceptance of the new with all its consequences. It was not the address of a criminal excusing himself, or of a suspected man putting by the misconstructions of enemies; it was the appeal of a herald and inspired ambassador, fulfilling his Divine office to be a witness to Jesus. There was in it a sublime indifference to human opposition, and yet a confidence in the sufficiency of the gospel which could not have been of merely human origin. Peter spoke as one "filled with the Holy Ghost," the Spirit of truth, life, and love; as a true Israelite, without one word of disparagement of what was represented in that Sanhedrim; and yet as a true apostle of Christ; as the priest of that restored temple, of which Jesus was henceforth the Corner-stone; and as a true prophet, able to connect the present with the past and the future, and say, "Thus saith the Lord. R.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rulers, and elders, and scribes - Who were eminent for power, for wisdom, and for learning.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Sanhedrin is convened:

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

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

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

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

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

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

Where note, 1. His holy courage.

2. The cause of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

SANHEDRIN

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

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. Their rulers, and elders, and scribes. A meeting of the Sanhedrim, the great council of seventy, is meant. These classes, with the priests named in the next verse, constituted it. The members of the Sanhedrim were usually called rulers; the elders were old men, selected for the place on account of wisdom; the scribes were the lawyers, or theologians.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

The rulers question Peter and John who answer without fear.

General Information:

Here the word "their" refers to the Jewish people as a whole.

It came about ... that

This phrase is used here to mark where the action starts. If your language has a way for doing this, you could consider using it here.

their rulers, elders and scribes

This is a reference to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling court, which consisted of these three groups of people. (See: Synecdoche)

John, and Alexander

These two men were members of the high priest's family. This is not the same John as the apostle.

By what power

"Who gave you power"

in what name

Here the word "name" refers to authority. AT: "by whose authority" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

rule

elder

scribe

Jerusalem

Annas

high priest

Caiaphas

Peter

John (the apostle)

power

name

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

5. ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον, on the morrow, when the investigation was permitted to be held.

τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους. Here we may see that the party of the Sadducees was at this time the party of power and influence.

καὶ τοὺς γραμματεῖς. Not only did the Scribes copy, but they also expounded the Law. And the teaching of the followers of Jesus would probably differ as much as did His own from the lessons of the Scribes. Cf. Mat 7:29.

ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. This is the preposition in the best MSS. Some of the authorities may have resided away from the city, and had to be summoned. Hence συναχθῆναι, to be gathered together.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5-12.] The Apostles examined before the Sanhedrim. Peter’s speech.

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

ἄρχ. κ. πρεσβ. κ. γρ.] The Sanhedrim: see Mat 2:4; Mat 26:59; ch. 5:21.

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

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.