Deeper Commentary
4:1
And as they spoke to the people, the
priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees-
The basis of their work was that they were the equivalent of the Levites
who kept guard at the gates of the temple, in order to prevent the unclean
from entering. They were defining the Jewish Christians and their message
of healing as that which was unclean.
Came upon them- This is a common word in Luke-Acts. The Jews
had likewise 'come upon' the Lord also in the same temple (Lk. 20:1). Luke
is developing his point that the Lord's experiences and sufferings are
repeated in those of believers in Him, especially in their work of
representing Him in their witness. That principle applies to this day, and
is a bridge between Him there so many centuries ago, and us here today.
4:2 Being
greatly annoyed because they taught the people-
See on 5:21 Taught. Not only are there links between Acts
and Luke, as if the preaching of the apostles continues the personal work
of the Lord in whom they lived and moved, but often Acts records the
preaching work in language lifted from the other Gospel records too (e.g.
Acts 4:2; 5:12-16 = Mt. 4:23).
And proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead- By
being "in Jesus", by baptism into Him, His resurrection becomes ours. And
this was their message. The Sadducees who made the arrest denied
resurrection, and it was endlessly irritating for them to see the growth
of the Christian movement centred around faith in the resurrection both of
Christ and ultimately of all believers in Him. The Gospels present the
Pharisees as the great opponents of the Lord's work, but some of them
converted to His cause. His criticism of them had related to matters of
personal conduct, and some clearly accepted this and repented. But the
Sadducees were under direct attack regarding a doctrinal matter, and it
seems harder to repent of a theological wrong turning than of personal
behaviour issues.
4:3 And they arrested them- Literally, 'they laid hands on
them', as in 5:18. Exactly the same phrase is used about the arrest of the
Lord (Mt. 26:50). Again, the experiences of the Lord's preachers are
framed in terms of His experiences, especially at the time of His death.
His cross therefore ceases to be something to be gazed at from a distance,
but rather is the fullest and most complete reflection of our experiences;
in that light, we can begin to attach meaning to event, which is the
existential struggle of every human soul. Man's search for meaning comes
to no higher moment than in seeing in our experiences those of God's
beloved Son.
And jailed them
until the next day; for it was now evening- 'Arrested them and
jailed them' is repeated in Acts 5:18. Clearly their experiences now were
intended to be learnt from and were consciously repeated again, just as a
good teacher repeats lessons for students. This is why there is a sense of
deja vu in our lives; it is the same Lord active in teaching us.
4:4- see on Acts 2:12.
But many of those that heard the word believed- Acceptable
decisions to believe can therefore be made having only heard the word
preached orally. The very same Greek sentence is to be found in Jn. 5:24:
"He that hears My word and believes... has everlasting life". Yet again,
the preachers of the Lord Jesus are presented as Jesus personally,
preaching as He preached and thus continuing His witness in the world.
And the number of the men came to be about five thousand- In
addition to the 3000 earlier baptized at Pentecost.
4:5
And it came to pass that the next day, their
rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem-
This is how the Sanhedrin were referred to; they are specifically called
the Sanhedrin in :15. Again we see the experience of the apostles being
portrayed in terms of that of the Lord Jesus in His final sufferings. Such
gatherings together to consider miracle workers were occasionally held, in
the spirit of Dt. 13:1-5. The doctrine of the miracle worker was
considered. Luke records three other times when the Sanhedrin met to
consider the Christian preachers: Peter and the apostles (Acts 5:27),
Stephen (Acts 6:12), and Paul (Acts 22:30). Each time they are presented
as re-living what they did to the Lord Jesus. God was really knocking on
the door of their conscience. This was presumably their first Sanhedrin
gathering after the condemnation of the Lord; the places of Joseph and
Nicodemus would have been conspicuously empty, and perhaps others too.
There is evidence that after around AD30, the Sanhedrin stopped meeting
in the temple and met in the city of Jerusalem. We note the accuracy of
the record. Any uninspired writer would have either omitted such detail,
or made some historical or locational blunders. But there are none in Acts
and the critics only reveal their intellectual desperation in the false
claims they make to the contrary. The gathering together of these people
in Jerusalem sounds as if the Psalm 2 prophecy of the Lord's enemies being
gathered together against Him was now again coming true- for His preachers
were Him.
4:6 And Annas the high
priest, and Caiaphas- Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas.
Caiaphas was the high priest, but Annas had been the high priest ten years
beforehand and was the power behind Caiaphas. The inspired record
recognizes that by calling him the high priest. Another alternative is
that the Jews at the time considered that anyone who had been the high
priest would always be called "high priest" as a title.
And John- Perhaps Johanan ben Zaccai; or the 'Jonathan' son of
Annas who was briefly High Priest AD36/37. This latter would strengthen
the impression given that this was a group of family friends and buddies.
And Alexander- Alexander Lysimachus, who according to Josephus
"was one of the richest Jews of his time, who made great presents to the
temple, and was highly esteemed by King Agrippa... He was brother to the
famous Philo Judaeus, and father of Alexander Tiberius, who married
Bernice, the daughter of Agrippa the elder, and was governor of Judea
after Cuspius Fadus".
And as many as were of the family of the high priest- Note the
lack of mention of Gamaliel by name. Luke is seeking to present the
decision makers as a group of family and friends, "as many as were of the
family of the high priest".
4:7
And when they had set them in their midst, they
enquired- The apostles surely recalled watching how the Jews
had placed a sinful woman in their midst, and then she had been vindicated
by the Lord's judgment and wisdom (Jn. 8:3,9 s.w.).
By what power, or in what name, have you done this?- It was
inconceivable for them, as it is for many legalistic religious thinkers
today, to think that individuals could have an experience with the Lord
and on their own initiative serve Him, empowered by Him in their ministry.
The religious types expect any religious work to be done in the name or
authority of some organization.
4:8
Then Peter, filled with
the Holy Spirit, said to them: You rulers of the people and elders-
The mention of the Holy Spirit is surely to demonstrate how exactly were
the Lord's words being fulfilled: "But beware of men, for they will
deliver you up to councils and in their synagogues they will scourge you.
Yes and before governors and kings you shall be brought for my sake, for a
testimony to them, and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do
not be anxious how or what you shall speak, for it shall be given to you
at that time what to speak. For it is not you that speaks, but the Spirit
of your Father that speaks in you" (Mt. 10:17-20).
4:9 If
we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man,
by what means this man has been healed- See on 4:5
Their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together. The same
word for “good deed” is only in 1 Tim. 6:2; all believers are benefitted
by the good deed done for us in Christ. Our good deeds are a response to
the ultimate good done to us.
4:10- see on Acts 10:35,36.
Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel- This
could mean far more than 'be informed'. It could be an appeal for the
Sanhedrin to 'know' Christ. The ambition in preaching shown here is
inspirational. Peter's hope was that the Sanhedrin who had recently
condemned the Lord to death, and indeed all Israel, would know Christ. We
see the same spirit in the Lord's desire to make a witness to the priests
(Mt. 8:4); and in Paul's attempt at his similar judgment to persuade
Agrippa to become a Christian (Acts 26:28). Indeed, this may be one of
several examples of where Paul was inspired by Peter to the extent that he
even consciously pretended to him, and this even went too far, in that he
neglected his own ministry to the Gentiles in order to emulate Peter's to
the Jews. Peter took seriously his previously stated belief that when
Israel accepted Jesus as Christ, He would return, the Kingdom times of
refreshing would come with the sending of the Lord Jesus. And so he
realistically dreamt of converting all Israel. We could all do with this
spirit of ambition in witness, rather than lamely informing people of our
positions, certain nobody will be interested.
That in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom
you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in him does this man stand
here before you healed- He stood before them as if in the witness
box.
4:11
He is the stone that was rejected by you the
builders- Gk. 'set at nought'. The same word used by Luke of
how the Lord was 'set at nought' by Herod (Lk. 23:11). But Peter says that
the Jewish leaders had done this, just as He says that it was their hands,
and not so much those of the Roman soldiers, who crucified the Lord.
Repeatedly, the Lord's death was blamed on the Jews. Our arrangement of
things is counted as having done it.
Which has become the cornerstone- There could be no evidence
of this apart from if a temple was now standing upon that stone. And there
was such a temple- comprised of a few thousand believers. The existence of
the church, the body of Christ, was the witness to Christ which was before
the eyes of the Jews in the first century. We, as the body of Christ,
likewise are witnesses to the resurrected body of Christ.
4:12- see on Acts 2:36.
And in no other is there salvation; for-
Gk. the salvation, the Messianic salvation and Kingdom of the Old
Testament. This is another form of the word translated "made whole" in :9.
His 'salvation' was representative of the salvation of all men.
Neither is there any other name- According to Acts 4:12, there
is no salvation "in any other name"; this is the name "wherein we must be
saved" (RV). And the early chapters of Acts stress this theme of being "in
Christ" (Acts 4:2,7,9,10,12 RV); yet all these things that are possible
for those "in Him" require us to be baptized into Him. See on 2
Cor. 5:20.
The message they preached had an exclusive nature to it- it was radical
preaching: ‘this is the truth, and nothing, nothing else on this earth’.
Throughout the Roman empire, there was the concept of religio-
the gods were thought to bless the empire if the empire worshipped them,
and therefore everyone was expected to participate in the state religion.
However, in addition, they were quite free to practice their own religions
as well. But here, Christianity was intolerant. They preached
that there was no other name apart from Jesus through which we
might be saved- a direct and conscious attack upon the ‘religio’ concept.
Christ had to be accepted as Lord in baptism, in contradistinction to
‘Caesar is Lord’. A Christian could only serve one of two possible
masters. He had to love one and hate the other. The whole idea of “the
Kingdom of God” was revolutionary- there was to be no other Kingdom spoken
of apart from Caesar’s. But our brethren preached the Gospel of the
Kingdom of God. And those who openly accepted these principles
were inevitably persecuted- expelled from the trade guilds, not worked
with, socially shunned, their children discriminated against.
That is given among men under heaven- This is a persistent but
unfortunate translation across many English versions. En anthropos
is the same phrase in Lk. 12:8: "Everyone who shall confess me before
men". The giving of the Name among or before men was in the form of
the confession or witness made by the preachers who preached in His Name.
Luke has earlier used the term about how the Gospel speaks of God's good
will "before men" (Lk. 2:14); but that good news must be placed "before
men" by the preachers in order for it to be realized in practice.
Wherein we must be saved- An appeal for baptism "into" Christ
for salvation. 'Our' salvation was therefore prefigured in the making
whole or saving [s.w.] of the crippled man (:9 s.w.).
4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John,
and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they
marvelled; and they realised that they had been with Jesus-
The Jews looked at Peter and John “and they took knowledge of
them [i.e. recognized them, as the girl had recognized Peter], that they
[both!] had been with Jesus”. This is the very language of those who
accused Peter of having ‘been with Jesus’. John learnt his lesson, and
came out more publicly, at Peter’s side, inspired by his equally repentant
friend. It’s an altogether lovely picture, of two men who both failed, one
publicly and the other privately, together side by side in their witness,
coming out for the Lord. They saw their “boldness”, and realised they had
been with Jesus; for the very same Greek word is used in description of
the Lord’s “boldness” in witness (Mk. 8:32; Jn. 7:26; 11:14; 16:25,29;
18:20), and on the cross (Col. 2:15). Peter was an uneducated fisherman.
Who was he to appeal to Jerusalem’s intelligentsia? He was mocked as
speaking a-grammatos, without correct grammar and basic education
even in his own language (Acts 4:13; AV “unlearned”). The way his two
letters are so different in written style can only be because he wrote
through a scribe (2 Peter is actually in quite sophisticated Greek). So
most likely he couldn’t write and could hardly read. So humanly speaking,
he was hardly the man for the job of being the front man for the preaching
of the new ecclesia. But not only did his Lord think differently, but his
own depth of experience of God’s grace and appreciation of the height of
the Lord’s exaltation became a motivating power to witness which could not
be held in. We all know that the way God prefers to work in the conversion
of men is through the personal witness of other believers. We may use
adverts, leaflets, lectures etc. in areas where the Gospel has not yet
taken root, with quite some success. But once a community of believers has
been established, the Lord seems to stop working through these means and
witness instead through the personal testimony of His people. We all know
this, and yet for the most part would rather distribute 10,000 tracts than
swing one conversation around to the Truth, or deliberately raise issues
of the Gospel with an unbelieving family member. If we recognize this
almost natural reticence which most of us have, it becomes imperative to
find what will motivate us to witness as we ought, a-grammatos or
not. The fact they spoke a-grammatos (Gk.), without proper
grammar, the fact they weren't humanly speaking the right men for the
job... all this meant nothing to them. The height of the Lord's exaltation
and the salvation this enabled just had to be shared with others.
Peter’s confidence in preaching to the wise of this world in his
a-grammatos way is continued in the way his letters stress that the
only true knowledge is that of Christ (2 Pet. 1:5,6; 3:18). He was writing
in response to the Gnostic heresy that gnosis, knowledge,
enlivens the eternal spark within man until a man’s knowledge becomes his
‘immortal soul’. Peter didn’t leave this for the more erudite to combat.
Like an illiterate peasant farmer unashamedly challenging atheistic
evolution, Peter powerfully made his point.
The credibility of a person depended not so much on them but upon their
status and place in society- thus the witness of women, slaves, children
and poor people was discounted. We see it happening in the way that the
preaching of Peter and John was dismissed by the elders because they were
of low social status (Acts 4:13). And yet these were the very
types of people which the Lord Jesus used as His star and key witnesses in
the very beginnings of Christianity!
There was something about Peter and his fellow fishermen which made
even the most unsympathetic make a mental note ("took knowledge" AV) that
they had been with Jesus of Nazareth. This was the fulfilment of Jn.
13:35, which using the same root word, teaches that the (Jewish) world
would "know" the twelve as the Lord's men if they reflected His love.
So there must have been something in the love that somehow shone between
those men as they stood there before that court, which in a manner
impossible to describe, revealed them as Christ's. This same,
difficult-to-describe sense will exude from every one who is the Lord's,
in whatever context we are in.
“Been
with Jesus” recalls “You also shall bear witness, because you
have been with me from the beginning” (Jn. 15:27). It was exemplified in
Acts 4:13, where it was apparent from the nature of the disciples’
preaching that they “had been with Jesus”. To be with the Lord, to have
experience of Him, meant that one would witness to Him; such is the true
experience of Him that it is axiomatic that it issues in witness. All who
have truly known the Lord will witness to Him. And if we don’t... do we
know Him, have we “been with” Him...?
4:14
And seeing the man that was healed standing with
them, they could say nothing against it- The word is only
elsewhere used, again by Luke, when recording the Lord's Olivet prophecy
about the last days: "I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your
adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to contradict" (Lk.
21:15). The second coming could have been in the first century; but the
various preconditions weren't met, and so it was delayed until our last
days. But the record here is framed to indicate that in the arraignment of
the apostles before the Jews, there was a fulfilment of the Olivet
prophecy.
4:15
But when they had commanded them to leave the
council, they took advice with one another, saying- How did
Luke know the contents of this secret conversation? It could have been by
a flash of direct Divine inspiration; and yet God always seems to prefer
to work through some human mechanism. Perhaps some members of the
Sanhedrin did indeed convert to Christ as Peter had hoped; and shared the
account of what had happened with Luke who included it in his record,
albeit under inspiration.
4:16 What shall we do to these men?- It is Luke (and not the
other evangelists) who earlier records how the Jewish leadership held such
councils and said the same words about the Lord Jesus (Lk. 6:11; 19:48).
Again and again, he is making the point- that in our preaching of the
Gospel, we find the situations and experiences of our Lord repeating in
our lives. We are thereby in Him, and He in and with us.
For indeed a notable miracle has been done through them- True,
legitimate Holy Spirit miracles cannot be denied even by the cynical
critics of Christianity. The claims to perform them today sadly and
pathetically fail this test; for the claimed miracles can easily be denied
and are not admitted as "notable" even by those looking at them with open
minds. But this legitimate miracle could not be denied even by the
critics, and they even admitted so themselves.
It is obvious to all- The Greek phaneroo is usually
used in the sense of 'manifestation'. Paul uses the same words in saying
that through his witness in prison, the Gospel had been made manifest to
all (Phil. 1:13). This is one of many examples of where rabbi Paul saw
himself as following the steps and leading of illiterate fisherman Peter.
All that dwell in Jerusalem- A specific reference to how 3000
of the 'dwellers in Jerusalem' had been baptized by Peter on Pentecost.
And we cannot deny it- See on A notable miracle.
Miracles of themselves can be seen and recognized but will not inevitably
persuade people to believe.
4:17
But that it spread no further among the people,
let us warn them, that from this time forward- The Greek means
to threaten. It's the same word used of how Saul / Paul threatened the
Christians (Acts 9:1); seeing he was in Jerusalem at the time, it would
seem likely that he played a part in these threats. Presumably the threats
were quite scary. The disciples asked the Lord Jesus to "behold" those
threats and to give them boldness to not be swayed by them (Acts 4:29).
They are not to speak to anyone in this name- The Jews later
forbad Paul to speak to the Gentiles (1 Thess. 2:16). Yet it was Paul, it
seems, who had been involved in forbidding these early disciples from
speaking the Gospel. What he had done was done to him; not as punishment,
but in order to help him grow spiritually himself, and also in
relationship with his brethren. Those he had persecuted, and their
families, would also notice that he had in fact suffered so much of what
he had done to them, and this would in turn have eased their relationship
with Paul and acceptance of him as a brother.
4:18
And they called them, and ordered them not to
speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus- This was
only really of power and relevance if in fact Peter and John were still
considered to be synagogue members. Likewise with Paul's beating with
rods, which was a synagogue punishment (2 Cor. 11:25). Clearly the early
believers remained within the apostate system of Judaism until they were
thrown out of it; they were not required by the Lord to stop attendance in
an apostate system as a condition of fellowship with Him. Forbidding them
to teach sounds very much like forbidding them to stand up in the
synagogue and give their opinion on Scripture- a right which was open to
all synagogue members, and one which Paul so often used in order to
introduce the Gospel to the Jews.
4:19
But Peter and John
answered and said to them: Whether it is right in the sight of God-
Luke has used this phrase earlier when saying that Zacharias and Elisabeth
were 'right before God'. We too can focus upon Biblical characters and
make them programmatic for our life decisions, wishing to emulate them in
the decisions we face. The seven previous New Testament references to the
presence / sight of God are all in Luke.
To listen to you rather than to God, you must judge- This is
quite rightly the flagship proof text for the Christian refusal to obey
Governments in ways which break God's commandments. "To listen" suggests
that Peter saw God's word as living and speaking to him in an ongoing
sense, just as much as those Jewish leaders were speaking to him. He had
made the judgment to listen to God and not men, and he invites them to
make a similar judgment.
In saying this, Peter is showing that he had learnt the lesson of the
transfiguration, "hear Him". So he told the Jewish authorities that he had
to hear God’s word rather than theirs.
4:20 For
we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard-
The basis of the Lord’s exaltation was the resurrection. When asked
why he preached when it was forbidden, Peter didn’t shrug and say ‘Well
Jesus told me too so I have to’. His response was: “We cannot but speak
the things which we have seen and heard”. It would have been like saying
that, say, sneezing or blinking was a sin. These things are involuntary
reactions; and likewise, preaching is the involuntary reaction to a real
belief in the Lord’s death and resurrection. His preaching was a
‘hearkening unto God’, not so much to the specific commission to preach
but rather to the imperative to witness which the Father had placed in the
resurrection of His Son. When arrested for preaching a second time, Peter
says the same. I’d paraphrase the interview in Acts 5:29-31 like this: Q.
‘Why do you keep preaching when it’s forbidden?’. A. ‘Jesus has been
raised, and been exalted to be a Prince and Saviour, “for to give
repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins”. We have to obey the
wonderful imperative which God has placed in these things: to preach this
wondrous message to those for whom so much has been made possible’.
It’s not that Peter was the most natural one to stand up and make the
witness; he spoke a-grammatos, but it was somehow evident from
his body language that he had “been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). In rebuking
the false teachers, he likens himself to the dumb ass that spoke in rebuke
of Balaam- i.e. he felt compelled to make the witness to God’s word which
he did, although naturally, without the imperatives we have discussed, he
would be simply a dumb ass. He told the Sanhedrin that to make true
Christians agree not to preach was simply an inappropriate suggestion,
because "we cannot but speak" out- it was something which went
part and parcel with the experience of the risen Lord Jesus. Peter was not
just an illiterate fisherman; so many of his words and phrasing indicate a
thorough familiarity with the Greek Old Testament. Here, he seems to have
Num. 24:13 at the back of his mind; Balaam says that although Balak is
forbidding him to speak, he cannot but speak what God has inspired him
with, even if it is intensely unpopular with those around him. Of course,
the Christian preacher is not inspired as Balaam was, but the principle is
the same: it is impossible to keep quiet, because of the very nature of
what we believe and who we are. John had the spirit of Peter when he wrote
(in one of his many allusions to Peter’s words) that what they had heard
and seen, that they declared / witnessed (1 Jn. 1:1,3), as if hearing and
seeing / experiencing Christ inevitably lead to witness. Peter also seems
to allude to Am. 3:8: "The Lord Yahweh has spoken- who can but speak it
forth?". The speaking of Yahweh was in the death and resurrection of His
Son, and our hearing of these words puts us all in the same position as
the Old Testament prophets. This is something which once heard simply has
to be spoken forth. If we have really grasped the Gospel, there is no way
we can hide it. We are immediately made a city set on a hill which cannot
be hid.
“We saw
and heard” is a phrase which occurs often in the Gospels. It
was not simply a case of repeating words heard. Those words were backed up
by experience, what they had seen and known in the Lord Jesus. He was the
word of hearing made flesh, made actual and visible. So often, the content
of preaching tends to be unbalanced- more on experience ['seeing'] than
the word heard, or vice versa.
4:21
And they, when they had threatened them further,
let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people-
The same words used of how no cause of death was found in the Lord at His
trial (Acts 13:28). Again, the experiences of the apostles, like our own,
were arranged to enable them to enter into the experiences of the Lord.
The phrase is only again used about how no cause of death was found in
Paul (Acts 23:29). This is one of many examples of where the ministries of
Peter and Paul are framed as being so similar. They were to take
encouragement from each other, thereby realizing that the same Heavenly
Lord was working through both of them in their parallel ministries to Jews
and Gentiles. Paul perceived this in Gal. 2:8: "For he that worked through
Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, worked through me also to
the Gentiles". Our lives are also structured in parallel with others, both
in the Biblical record and contemporary to our times. This provides the
basis for fellowship now; and also makes the Biblical record of past
believers a living word to us, preparing us for eternal fellowship with
them in God's Kingdom.
For all men glorified God for what was done-
Luke uses this term of how the shepherds glorified God after seeing the
baby Jesus (Lk. 2:20). But "saw and heard" in the previous verse :20 is
also used by Luke of how the shepherds "saw and heard". Again Luke is
demonstrating that the incidents of the Gospel records repeat in essence
in the experiences of those who follow the Lord in later years.
4:22
For the man was more than forty years old on whom
this miracle of healing was done- A strange way to put it, if
simply referring to 'the healing'. The healing was a semeion, a
sign, of healing. The man was representative of all Israel; hence the
mention of his age. For effectively, Israel were 40 years in the
wilderness, unable to enter the promised land without Joshua-Jesus. Just
as the man was left lame at the entrance to the temple for the same
period.
4:23
And being let go, they came to their friends, and
reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them-
The ecclesia was a growing family; the apostles returned ‘to
their own’ when they came out of court (Acts 4:23 Gk.). Each baptism was
and is a birth into our family. Visiting brethren were gladly
received, as one would receive a relative; it was the logical thing to
seek out the believers in a town and stay with them (21:7,17; 27:3; 28:14;
3 Jn. 5).
4:24
And they, when they heard it, lifted up their
voice to God with one accord, and said- All the
believers, hearing what the disciples had been told by the priests and
elders, immediately each made the connection with Psalm 2, and all came
out with it at once. This is an example of the spontaneous fellowship of
the Spirit, based around both God's word and also common experience. Such
fellowship experience is not based on documents or agreements.
O Lord, you that made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all
that are in them- Quoting from Ps. 146:6. The Psalm goes on to exult
that "Yahweh frees the prisoners" (Ps. 146:7), which is what had just
happened in that the apostles had been set free (:21 'Let... go"). Paul
uses the same reference to Yahweh as creator of heaven, earth and sea and
all that is in them (Acts 14:15)- another example of Peter's influence
upon Paul. I have suggested elsewhere that Paul imitated Peter partly from
respect, partly from perceiving that his ministry was parallel to Peter's;
and partly from a desire to pretend to Peter's ministry to the Jews.
The prayer of Acts 4:24-31 speaks of the God who made heaven and earth
and the sea and everything in it- a classic Jewish liturgy used in the
temple prayers. The point being, such prayers didn’t have to be made in
the temple through the Jewish priests. Further, there is extra-Biblical
evidence (from Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian) that the third, sixth and
ninth hours were the times for prayer amongst the early Christians- but
these were the very hours of prayer in the temple! One major obstacle for
Jewish minds would have been their perception that prayer and worship were
to be carried out in the Jerusalem temple. This would have been a
particular barrier for the many Jews in Jerusalem who converted to Christ.
Whilst initially it appears the believers did attend the temple services,
it is also significant that Acts repeatedly brings out the parallels
between prayers and worship performed in the temple, and those
performed in the ordinary homes of believers. Some passages about worship
in the temple appear to be in parallel with others about such worship in
homes. Luke seems to emphasize how important was the home as a place for
prayer. Cornelius is presented as praying at home at the ninth hour, which
was the hour of temple prayer (Acts 10:3,30). This would have been so hard
to accept to the Jewish mind- that your own humble home [hence Luke
stresses meetings and prayers in homes so much] was the house of
God. It had been so drummed into the Jewish mind that the temple was “the
house of prayer” (Is. 56:7; 60:7 LXX)- but now they were faced with the
wonderful reality that their own home was that house of prayer. Only those
brave enough to really reach out for a personal relationship with the God
of Heaven would have risen up to this challenging idea. And yet the very
height and thrill of the challenge inspired so many to do so.
4:25 Who by the Holy Spirit- A classic statement of the Divine
inspiration of David's Psalms.
And by the mouth of our father David your servant, did say-
Ps. 2:1,2, a prophecy about opposition to Jesus personally, is here
appropriated to those who preach Him, because they are in Him.
Why did the Gentiles rage and the peoples imagine
vain things?- It is a theme of the Apostolic preaching in early
Acts that the Jews are paralleled with the Gentiles in their
responsibility for the Lord's death. This was doubtless to counter the
thought that the blame could be put upon the Romans. In order to bring
about repentance and conversion, the Jews had to allow themselves to be
fully convicted of their individual and national guilt. So often we as
small people assume that the guilt for wrong behaviour is somehow on a
group level. But we as individuals empower the group decisions, and this
was never clearer than in the Lord's death. The Lord makes a similar
allusion to Psalm 2 when He assures Paul that He will deliver Paul "from
the people [of Israel] and the Gentiles" (Acts 26:17). This again is
encouraging Paul to understand that his mission to the Gentiles was
parallel to Peter's to the Jews, and the same deliverance would be given
him, and Psalm 2 would be true for Paul as it had been for Peter here in
Acts 4, and as it was ultimately for the Lord Himself. Yet it seems Paul
didn't totally take the point, because he veered towards pretending to
Peter's ministry to the Jews, rather than taking encouragement from it in
his own ministry.
4:26- see on Acts 9:15.
The kings of the earth took their stand, and the
rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ-
The disciples understood this to refer to the Lord Jesus (:27) and yet
they quote it about their experience before the assembled elders, who were
also "gathered together" (:6, s.w.). Thus the early brethren appropriated
prophecies of Jesus personally to themselves as they witnessed to Him
(also in Acts 13:5,40). The same Greek words are also used in Luke and
Acts about the work of Jesus and those of the apostles later; and also,
the same original words are used concerning the deeds of the apostles in
the ministry of Jesus, and their deeds in Acts. Thus an impression is
given that the ecclesia’s witness after the resurrection was and is a
continuation of the witness of the 12 men who walked around Galilee with
Jesus. He didn’t come to start a formalised religion; as groups of
believers grew, the Holy Spirit guided them to have systems of leadership
and organization, but the essence is that we too are personally following
the Lamb of God as He walked around Galilee, hearing His words, seeing His
ways, and following afar off to Golgotha carrying His cross.
In arguing that both Jew and Gentile were gathered together against the
Lord (God) and His Christ on the cross, Peter thus makes a connection
between the Father and Son on the cross. Those who reproached Jesus there
reproached the Father (Ps. 69:9).
The cross of Christ is the gathering point for His people (see on Jn.
12:32; 17:21). But it is also associated with the gathering together of
all God's enemies (Acts 4:26). Even Herod and Pilate were made friends at
that time (Luke 23:12). The cross divides men into two united camps; they
are gathered together by it, either in the Lord's cause, or against Him.
The crucifixion was the judgment seat for this world (Jn. 12:31). Likewise
the day of judgment will be a gathering together, either against the Lord
(Rev. 16:16; 19:19), unto condemnation (Jn. 15:6); or into the barn of His
salvation (Mt. 13:30). And likewise, in anticipation of the judgment, the
breaking of bread is a "gathering together" either to condemnation or
salvation (1 Cor. 11).
4:27 For truly in this city- Mentioned because Psalm 2
suggests that the gathering together against the Lord would occur in
Jerusalem.
There were gathered
together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod
and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles- Herod claimed to
be Jewish, so perhaps Peter sees in this the fulfilment of Jew and Gentile
gathering together to destroy the Lord. We recall that Pilate was
unwilling to crucify Him; but all the same, he did it, and Peter very much
considers that to be Pilate's guilt. So arguing that we sinned but against
our will, making excuses kilometres long, doesn't finally justify us.
And the people of Israel- Peter's appeals were for individuals
to repent. But he emphasizes the collective guilt of all Israel. He was
seeking to convict individuals of the serious sin of empowering a
collective decision, helping them to see that a member of the crowd still
shares the guilt of the collective crowd. And on this basis, individuals
were indeed convicted of their sin and baptized into the One they had
effectively crucified.
4:28 To do whatever Your hand and Your counsel foreordained to
happen- The fact the Lord's death had been in some sense
predetermined by God and was according to His will did not in any sense
mitigate against personal guilt; see on :27 The people of Israel.
4:29
And now Lord, look upon their threats, and-
They were surely inspired by the praying of Hezekiah in 2 Kings
19:16 using the same words. And these examples ought to specifically fire
our prayer life, too. We can discern how their thinking developed; in :25
they perceived the relevance of Psalm 2 to the Lord's trials and to their
own. But they then recalled the historical application of Psalm 2 to
Hezekiah surrounded by the raging Assyrians within Jerusalem. Meditating
upon him, they remembered his prayer- and that too became an inspiration
and pattern for their prayer. This is how familiarity with the Bible text
works in practice; this is what the mind of the Spirit is about.
Grant- They believed that psychological attitudes such as
boldness could be given. It was and is a gift of the spirit / mind.
To your servants- They spoke of themselves as God’s servants
in the same breath as they speak of Jesus as being His Servant (Acts
4:29,30). They realized that all that was true of the Servant was true of
them too.
To speak Your word with all boldness- This prayer for a spirit
/ attitude of mind, involving faith, disregard of consequences and
confidence, was given- for in :31 we read that "when they had prayed, the
place was shaken wherein they were gathered together, and they were all
filled with the Holy Spirit; and they spoke the word of God with
boldness". That holy spirit which was given them was surely more a spirit
/ attitude of mind. And such psychological strengthening of the human
spirit is available and experienced today. The shaking of the place,
presumably by an earthquake, was to reflect the movement or out surge of
power / spirit which was going on. It was a reflection in visible terms of
the internal empowering going on within their minds, in response to their
sincere prayer.
4:30- see on Acts 3:7.
While You stretch out Your hand to heal- As the apostles
preached (:29), in parallel the Lord would stretch out His hand in doing
miracles. The miraculous gifts were to support the preaching of the word
by the apostles- a specific thing at a specific time. The stretched out
hand of God was a Hebraism speaking of God's covenant with men. The same
phrase occurs in the LXX of Num. 14:30 and Neh. 9:15 "the land for which I
stretched out My hand to establish you upon it" (see too Ps. 55:20). As
the apostles presented God's outstretched hand through teaching the
Gospel, so He Himself would stretch out His hand in appealing to Israel
through doing miracles. Yet the majority of the 150 or so times in the LXX
we read this phrase about God's hand stretched out, it is His hand
stretched out to judge sin. Hence the significance of asking God to
stretch out His hand to heal, when Israel deserved His hand
stretched out yet again in judgment. The miracles were therefore to be
seen as a special sign of God's grace to Israel at this time.
The stretching out of the Lord's hand to save is clearly allusive to
what He had done to Peter as he sunk into the waves on Galilee that night.
But now, Peter is framed as Jesus, in that he too stretched out his hand
to save others as Jesus had done to him (Mt. 14:35 = Acts 5:15,16; Mt.
14:31 = Acts 3:7), bidding them come through the water of baptism as Jesus
had done to him. As Jesus was worshipped after saving Peter, so men tried
to worship Peter (Mt. 14:33 = Acts 3:11). So Peter went through what we
all do- having been saved by Jesus, having come to Him and having been
rescued by the outstretched arm, he responds to this by doing the same for
others.
Peter felt that all the work he did by his own hand was effectively the
Lord "stretching forth His hand to heal" (Acts 4:30). He realized that his hand
was now the hand of Jesus, the same hand which had stretched forth [s.w.
Acts 4:30] to save him on the lake that night. Our experience of
salvation simply has to be re-enacted by us towards others. There is great
emphasis in the Gospels upon the hands of Jesus- so often stretched out to
heal, save and bless; the hands out of which no sheep can be taken, the
hands into which all power has been given by the Father, the hands which
were nailed through by men in their ignorance and rejection of God's
salvation. And those hands are our hands. Think through this again- the
Lord “stretched forth his hand” to save Peter (Mt. 14:31); and this is the
very phrase used by Peter in Acts 4:30, speaking of how the Lord’s hand is
“stretched forth to heal”. Peter saw himself on the lake as typical of all
whom the Lord saves. Yet, it was Peter, not the Lord Himself, who
stretched forth his hand to do the Lord’s healing work on the lame man
(Acts 3:7). Again, Peter is thinking back to the incident on the lake and
perceiving that he is now Christ manifest as he had intended to be then.
Thus it was the principle of God manifestation which inspired Peter to
reach out of his comfort zone so dramatically; and properly appreciated,
it can motivate us likewise.
That signs and wonders may be done through the
name of Your holy servant Jesus- This is strictly speaking a
just about legitimate translation of pais, but the word basically
means 'a boy'. "Servant" would really be the translation of doulos,
and this is the word used about the Lord in the 'servant' passage about
Him in Phil. 2:7. The AV is not far off with "holy child". Their image of
Jesus had something in it which reflected that child-likeness about Him
which still stuck in their memories. Jn. 5:19 gives a window into the
Lord's self-perception here. He says that whatever He sees the Father /
abba / daddy do, He does "in like manner". It is the language of a young
child mimicking their father. And He speaks of Himself as an adult
behaving just like this. There was a child-likeness about Him in this
sense. And the disciples seem to have noticed this and perhaps reflect it
in this otherwise rather strange title for the Lord.
4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they
were gathered together- Presumably by an earthquake. But they were
unharmed. The same scenario is found when Paul was in trouble with the
authorities in Philippi. In response to his midnight prayers, the place
was shaken by an earthquake (Acts 16:26 s.w.). Paul was hereby confirmed
in seeking to emulate Peter's ministry; for now something beyond his
conscious imitation occurred, i.e. an earthquake after prayer, which
reinforced his understanding of his ministry as being based upon Peter's.
His willing taking humble Peter for his example was an essay in humility.
See on 4:29 To speak Your word with all boldness.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit- The situation
is intended to recall that in Acts 2. Here, they are gathered together in
one place, presumably that same upper room. They prayed, and were filled
with Holy Spirit. I suggested on 4:29 that this was more in the form of
internal strengthening. But I think it was also in chapter 2, but there
was visible manifestation for emphasis. In this case, the more physical
manifestation of the Spirit was in the earthquake. We also observe that
being filled with the Holy Spirit was an experience which had to be
repeated; they had been filled with it in chapter 2, and were now filled
with it again. It gave specific strength at specific times.
And they spoke the word of God with boldness- See on 4:29
To speak Your word with all boldness. When Paul is recorded as
speaking the word with boldness (Acts 13:46) and praying that he would
speak the world boldly as he ought to (Eph. 6:20), surely he was allowing
himself to be inspired by Peter's example and consciously seeking to
follow it. This huge respect for Peter by Paul is a powerful essay in
humility. For they were from very differing social, cultural and
educational backgrounds; in secular terms, Paul the Roman citizen was born
far higher than Peter the Galilean fisherman.
4:32- see on Acts 2:44.
And the full number of those who believed were of
one heart- Sitting there in Babylonian captivity, God
offered His people a new covenant (Ez. 11:19,20,25 cp. Heb. 10:16); they
could have one mind or heart between each other, and a heart of flesh. But
Israel would not, and it was only accepted by those who turned to Jesus
Christ in accepting the new covenant in Him. Their being of “one heart”
after baptism was a direct result of their acceptance of this same new
covenant which Judah had rejected. In the hearing of offer of the new
covenant, we are essentially in the position of those of the captivity,
hearing Ezekiel’s words, and deciding whether or not to remain in cushy
Babylon, or make a painful and humanly uncertain aliyah to Zion.
And soul- The phrase only occurs again in Phil. 1:27, where
Paul writes that having "one mind striving together for the faith of the
Gospel" is an outcome of a way of life appropriate to "the gospel of
Christ". Such unity, encompassing now around 5000 people, was a
psychological phenomenon. It was only possible on account of joint belief
in the Gospel. It is a lack of focus upon that basic Gospel and working
together for it which allows all manner of issues to creep in which then
cause disunity.
And not one of them said that anything of the things which he
possessed was his own- As a result of this, many sold what
superfluous things they had. But those who didn't, we later learn, had
their possessions and lands stolen during the persecution of the Hebrew
believers that soon followed (Acts 11:19 cp. Heb. 10:32-34). God took back
what He had lent them, even before their death. Their realization that
they owned nothing was not just a temporary height of enthusiasm; they
appreciated a principle which was true before, then and now. That
principle applies today just as much as it did then.
In the early church, “not one of them said that any of the things
which he possessed was his own”. I wonder- and maybe I’m clutching at
straws and justifying us all- if the emphasis is upon the word “said”.
Their attitude was that they didn’t personally possess anything.
As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, we are to buy and sell and deal in this
world, as if we didn’t really buy anything or gain a thing, as if it’s all
somehow performed by us as in a disconnected dream. See on Lk. 14:33. This
attitude that nothing is personally ours is a great freedom- from worry
about what we have, about security, changes of values, and from coveting
what we might be able to own.
4:33
And with great power gave the apostles their
witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon
them all- This is paralleled with "great [s.w.] grace"
being with them. Charis, "grace", means a gift, and is often used
about the gifts of the Spirit. We may simply be learning that there were
great gifts of Holy Spirit power to perform major miracles. But the
parallel between "great power" and "great grace" may mean that the
disciples appreciated very deeply God's grace given to them, and this gave
a convicting power to their witness to it. John the Baptist had the grace
of God "upon" him (Lk. 2:40 s.w.) but "John did no miracle". So this
passage doesn't have to refer to miraculous support of their testimony.
Our experience of grace will likewise give great power to our witness.
This is why the most powerful preachers are often those who perceive the
most deeply their experience of grace.
The early brethren had seen and known Jesus, despised, hated, dropping
from exhaustion in the boat, slumping dehydrated at a well, covered in
blood and spittle, mocked in naked shame. And now they knew that He had
risen, that He had been exalted to God's right hand so as to make the
salvation of men possible, and surely going to return. They spoke this
out, because they knew Him. And yet through the Gospels and with the eye
of faith, we know Him too. And this must be the basis for our witness.
4:34
For neither were there
among them any that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or
houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold-
We note that this was not in response to any particular appeal for
funds. The need was the call, and the experience of God's gift quite
naturally elicited this response. The referent is to the great multitude of 5000 believers (:32); not just
to the apostles, for the sellers put the money at the feet of the
apostles. Whether 5000 people really did sell all their property in a
relatively short period of time... is somewhat doubtful. Surely we are
being presented with an idealized picture of the early church, just as
inspiration at times presents a positive take on things, e.g. the early
Kingdom of Solomon as recorded in 1 Kings.
“Sold
them” is the same word translated "things which he possessed"
in :32 is to be found in Lk. 12:33 "Sell that which you have and give
alms". This verse was surely hammering in their conscience as they sold
their goods. The implication is that they realized the capital quickly.
But in the East, especially in the first century, no commercial
transaction was done quickly. They would have sold for low prices;
reflecting their radical devaluing of possessions. There was no specific
command given to them to sell their goods, or at least, the Acts record
doesn't record it. Rather was their motivation 'just' one word from the
Lord Jesus in Luke's Gospel. This should be the power to us of 'just' one
recorded word from the Lord, now staring at us from a page of thin paper
or a screen, the radical demands of 'only' one verse...
“Brought
the proceeds” is Gk. 'carried the value'. As they apparently
sold things quickly, payment was likely not only in coinage but in
material goods, which they brought to the apostles.
4:35 And laid them at the
apostles' feet- The same words in Greek used about how God would
make (s.w. "laid down") His Son's enemies a stool for His feet.
Peter has just been preaching this in Acts 2:35, and I commented there
that being at the footstool meant worship and repentance. Peter quotes the
passage in an appeal for Israel to repent and come to the stool of the
Lord's feet. So it could be that following hard on from this idea being
preached, the new converts saw the apostles as the manifestation of the
Lord, and brought the symbols of their humanity to His feet. Such giving
up of materialism is indeed part of repentance and truly coming on our
knees to the Lord.
And distribution was made- The apostles had before them a huge
and unexpected pile of precious metals, coins, garments and other items of
value. And now they had to distribute them. The word occurs in describing
how the Lord gave the loaves to the apostles and they distributed them to
the crowds (Jn. 6:11). He led them, as He does us, through one experience
in His service in order to prepare them for another.
Time and again, it becomes apparent that the Lord especially designed
incidents in His men’s experience which they would learn from, and later
be able to put to use when similar experiences occurred after He had
ascended. This was essential to the training of the twelve disciples. Thus
He made them distribute the food to the multitude (Jn. 6:11); yet
now, after His ascension, we meet the same Greek word here in Acts 4:35,
describing how they were to distribute welfare to the multitude of the
Lord’s followers.
To each- Welfare aid is best given directly to the needy
person by the donor, rather than through their representatives.
According to anyone’s need- Not according to what they were
asked to give, but in response to need.
4:36
And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed
Barnabas (we say Son of exhortation)- An example of the
Biblical record going along with the incorrect perceptions of faithful men
is to be found in the way the apostles nicknamed Joseph as ‘Barnabas’
“under the impression, apparently, that it meant ‘son of consolation’. On
etymological grounds that has proved hard to justify, and the name is now
generally recognized to… mean ‘son of Nabu’”. Yet the record ‘goes along’
with their misunderstanding. In addition to this, there is a huge
imputation of righteousness to human beings, reflected right through
Scripture. God sought them, the essence of their hearts, and was prepared
to overlook much ignorance and misunderstanding along the way. Consider
how good king Josiah is described as always doing what was right before
God, not turning aside to the right nor left- even though it was not until
the 18th year of his reign that he even discovered parts of God’s law,
which he had been ignorant of until then, because the scroll containing
them had been temporarily lost (2 Kings 22:2,11).
A Levite, a man of Cyprus by race-
Levites weren't supposed to own property; so they owned land
outside the territory of Israel. He realized that this was just getting
around God's intention. But how quickly he managed to sell it is
remarkable. Perhaps he sold the title deeds for a knockdown price to
someone in Jerusalem. Note that although Barnabas was Jewish, he is
identified as "a man of Cyprus by race". This explains why there were
devout Jews, Hebrew speakers, living in Jerusalem- who spoke of how they
heard the Gospel in their own languages in which they were born.
4:37 Having
a field, sold it; and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet-
Perhaps he was motivated by how all Judas could buy for his pieces of
silver was a field. He too had a field, held illegally before God. And he
wanted to get rid of it quickly. He brought money [cash] for it to the
apostles, whereas :34 speaks of others carrying the proceeds of what they
sold [as if those proceeds weren't simply cash]. I would conclude from
this that he sold the title deeds quickly, for a cheap price, to someone
in Jerusalem. Otherwise we are to imagine him sailing to Cyprus, finding a
buyer, and then returning- which at the speed business was done in the
East, would've taken maybe a year. The field however may not have been in
Cyprus.
Previous
