Opposition to the Christians' message first came from external sources, particularly the leaders of Judaism.
Luke had just referred to the apostles' teaching, to the awe that many of the Jews felt, to the apostles doing signs and wonders, and to the Christians meeting in the temple (2:43-44, 46). Now he narrated a specific incident that included these elements. The Gospel writers also chose a healing to illustrate the nature of Jesus' early ministry (Matt. 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16, 24; John 4:46-54). The healing of this man resulted in the leaders of the Jews changing their attitudes toward the disciples from favorable to antagonistic (4:1-4). The Christians were not able to continue to enjoy favor with all the people (2:47).
3:1-2 The John in view was undoubtedly the writer of the fourth Gospel, the brother of James. The temple was Herod's temple, and the Jewish hour of prayer was 3:00 p.m. (cf. 10:9, 30; Dan. 6:10; 9:21). The early Jewish Christians continued to follow their former habits of worship in Jerusalem. The lame man had been in his condition for over 40 years (4:22). Furthermore he had to be carried by others. His was a "hopeless case."
The term "Beautiful Gate"is descriptive rather than specific. We do not know exactly which of the three main entrances into the temple from the east Luke referred to.196He could have meant the Shushan (or Golden) Gate that admitted people into the Court of the Gentiles from the outside world.197He could have meant the Corinthian Gate that led from the Court of the Gentiles into the Women's Court.198Another possibility is that it was the Nicanor Gate that led from the Women's Court into the Court of Israel.199Josephus' descriptions of the temple do not solve the problem since he described both of these latter gates as very impressive.200The last two of the above options appear more probable than the first.
3:3-6 "In the East it was the custom for beggars to sit begging at the entrance to a temple or a shrine. Such a place was, and still is, considered the best of all stances because, when people are on their way to worship God, they are disposed to be generous to their fellow men."201
Peter told the beggar to look at him and John so Peter could have his full attention. Peter than gave him a gift far better than the one he expected to receive. This is typical of how God deals with needy people.202The name of a person represented that person. When Peter healed this man in the name of Jesus, he was saying that it was Jesus who was ultimately responsible for the healing, not Peter. Peter healed him in the power of and with the authority of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. v. 16).
This was the first of three crippled people that Luke recorded the apostles healing in Acts (9:32-34; 14:8-10; cf. John 5; 9). The gift of healing as it existed in the early church was quite different from the so-called gift of healing some claim to possess today. Examples of people using this gift in the New Testament seem to indicate that the person with this gift could heal anyone, subject to God's will (cf. Matt. 10:1, 8; Acts 28:8-9; et al.). The sick person's belief in Jesus Christ and in God's ability to heal him or her also seems to be a factor (v. 16; cf. Mark 6:5-6).203Jesus Christ gave this gift to the early church to convince people that He is God and that the gospel the Christians preached had divine authority. He gave it for the benefit of Jewish observers primarily (1 Cor. 1:22).
"The New Testament gift of healing is a specific gift to an individual enabling him to heal. It is not to be confused with the healing performed by God in answer to prayer.
"There is little correspondence between modern-day charismatic healings' and the healings recorded in the New Testament. The differences are so vast that many of today's healers are careful to point out that they do not have the gift of healing, but are merely those to whom God often responds with healing."204
3:7-8 Peter evidently did not touch the lame man to heal him as much as to help him to his feet. God healed this man completely and instantaneously. The healed beggar began to test the capability of his strengthened limbs immediately. He evidently followed Peter and John into whatever part of the temple they were entering praising God.
3:9-10 Almost everyone in Jerusalem would have known this beggar since he had sat for so long at an entrance to the temple. Jesus had undoubtedly passed this man many times as He walked in and out of the temple. There would have been no doubt about the genuineness of his healing. Peter performed this sign (a miracle with significance) as Jesus had healed lame people before His crucifixion. By doing it in Jesus' name it would have been evident to all that the power of Jesus was now at work through His apostles. Isaiah had predicted that in Israel's future "the lame will leap like a deer"(Isa. 35:6). The healing of this lame man, as well as the healing of other lame people in the Gospels and Acts, indicated to the Jews present that the Messiah had come. Peter claimed that Jesus was that Messiah.
". . . the similarity between Jesus' healing of the paralytic and Peter's healing of the lame man lies less in the healing itself than in the function of these scenes in the larger narrative. In both cases the healing becomes the occasion for a fundamental claim about Jesus' saving power, emphasizing its importance and general scope (on earth,' Luke 5:24; under heaven,' Acts 4:12). In both cases the healing leads to proclamation of a saving power that goes beyond physical healing. In both cases the claim is made in the face of new opposition and is directly related to the mission announced in the Scripture quotation in the inaugural speech."205
This incident and the other miracles recorded in Acts have led readers of this book to wonder if God is still working miracles today. He is. God can and does perform miracles whenever and wherever He chooses. Regeneration is one of God's greatest miracles. Perhaps a better question would be, does God still give the gift of working miracles to believers today as He gave this ability to Peter, Paul, and other first-century apostles?
Significantly each of the three periods of biblical history when God manifested this gift dramatically to selected servants was a time when God was giving new revelation through prophets.206Each period was brief spanning no more than two generations of people. When the miraculous gift was present not even those who had it healed everyone who could have benefited from it (e.g., Mark 6:5-6; Phil. 2:27; 2 Tim. 4:20; et al.).
"It seems strange, at first glance, that in his narrative Luke would place two such similar sermons of Peter so close together. But his putting the Pentecost sermon in the introductory section of Acts was evidently meant to be a kind of paradigm of early apostolic preaching--a paradigm Luke seems to have polished for greater literary effectiveness. As for the Colonnade sermon, Luke seems to have included it as an example of how the early congregation in Jerusalem proclaimed the message of Jesus to the people of Israel as a whole."207
In chapters 4-7 there is a series of similar confrontations with each one building up to the crisis of Stephen's death and the persecution that followed. The first four verses of chapter 4 conclude the incident recorded in chapter 3 ("as they were speaking,"v. 1) and introduce what follows in 4:5-31.
4:1 Evidently John spoke to the people as well as Peter ("they"). Three separate though related (5:17) individuals and groups objected to Peter and John addressing the people as they did. Jesus had also encountered opposition from leaders who questioned His authority when He taught in the temple (Mark 11:27-28; Luke 20:1-2). The captain (Gr. strategos) of the temple guard, the commanding officer of the temple police force,224apparently feared that this already excited throng of hearers might get out of control.225The Sadducees were Levitical priests who claimed to represent ancient orthodoxy. They opposed any developments in biblical law, and they denied the doctrine of bodily resurrection (23:8) and so disagreed with Peter's teaching on that subject (cf. John 12:10). They believed that the messianic age had begun with the Maccabean heroes (168-134 B.C.) and continued under their supervision, so they rejected Peter's identification of Jesus as the Messiah.226
"For them the Messiah was an ideal, not a person, and the Messianic Age was a process, not a cataclysmic or even datable event. Furthermore, as political rulers and dominant landlords, to whom a grateful nation had turned over all political and economic powers during the time of the Maccabean supremacy, for entirely practical reasons they stressed cooperation with Rome and maintenance of the status quo. Most of the priests were of Sadducean persuasion; the temple police force was composed entirely of Levites; the captain of the temple guard was always a high-caste Sadducee, and so were each of the high priests."227
4:2 Two things disturbed these leaders. First, the apostles were teaching the people. This was the Sadducees' function since they were the recognized leaders of the Jews. Second, they were teaching that Jesus had risen from the dead and that there was resurrection from the dead.
". . . a woman called and asked me to serve on a committee that was trying to clean up downtown Los Angeles. I agreed it needed cleaning up, but I told her that I could not serve on the committee. She was amazed. Aren't you a minister?' she asked. Aren't you interested in cleaning up Los Angeles?' I answered, I will not serve on your committee because I don't think you are going about it in the right way.' Then I told her what the late Dr. Bob Shuler had told me years ago. He said, We are called to fish in the fish pond, not to clean up the fish pond.' This old world is a place to fish. Jesus said He would make us fishers of men, and the world is the place to fish. We are not called upon to clean up the fish pond. We need to catch the fish and get the fish cleaned up.
"I have found that the biggest enemies of the preaching of the gospel are not the liquor folk. The gangsters have never bothered me. Do you know where I had my trouble as a preacher? It was with the so-called religious leaders, the liberals, those who claimed to be born again. They actually became enemies of the preaching of the gospel. It was amazing to me to find out how many of them wanted to destroy my radio ministry."228
4:3 It was too late in the day to begin a hearing to examine Peter and John formally, though this had not stopped the Sanhedrin from abusing Jesus (cf. Luke 22:63-66). Therefore the temple officials arrested them and put them in jail, probably the Antonia Fortress. Thus the Sadducees became the first opponents of Christianity (cf. 2:47).
4:4 Belief was the key factor in many more becoming Christians (cf. 3:19), not believing and being baptized (2:38). Note that Luke wrote that they "believed"the message they had heard. The total number of male converts in Jerusalem now reached 5,000 (cf. 1:15; 2:41) because of Peter's message.229Normally most of the people in the temple courtyard who would have witnessed these events would have been males. Estimates of Jerusalem's total population range from 25,000 to 250,000, though the lower figure seems more probable.230
4:5 The "Council"(v. 15) before which soldiers brought Peter and John the next day was the Sanhedrin, which was the senate and supreme court of Israel. It consisted of the high priest, who served as its presiding officer, and 70 other men. Its aristocratic members, the majority, were Sadducees, and its lay leaders were Pharisees. Most of the experts in the Jewish law were Pharisees who were also nationalistic, but the Sadducees supported Rome. The Sadducees were more conservative, though rationalistic theologically, and the Pharisees were more liberal since they accepted oral traditions as authoritative in addition to the Old Testament.
The Sanhedrin normally held its meetings, including the one described in this chapter, in a hall adjoining the southwest part of the temple courtyard, the Chamber of Hewn Stone.231"Rulers"were priests who represented the 24 priestly courses (cf. 23:5; Matt. 16:21), "elders"were tribal and influential family heads of the people, and "scribes"were teachers of the law. Individuals from these three groups made up this body (cf. Luke 9:22). The rulers and elders were mainly Sadducees while most of the scribes were Pharisees.
"The Sanhedrin was acting within its jurisdiction when it convened to examine Peter and John. The Mosaic Law specified that whenever someone performed a miracle and used it as the basis for teaching, he was to be examined, and if the teaching were used to lead men away from the God of their fathers, the nation was responsible to stone him (Deut. 13:1-5). On the other hand, if his message was doctrinally sound, the miracle-worker was to be accepted as coming with a message from God."232
4:6 Annas, whom Luke called the high priest here (v. 6), was technically not the high priest at this time. He had served as high priest from 6 to 15 A.D., but since 18 A.D. his son-in-law Caiaphas had been the high priest. However, Annas continued to exert great influence (cf. Luke 3:2; John 18:13-24). He was so powerful that Luke could refer to him as the high priest even though he was only the power behind the office (cf. Luke 3:2; John 18:13; Acts 7:1). At this time in Israel's history, the Roman governor of Palestine appointed the high priest. "John"may refer to Jonathan, a son of Annas who succeeded Caiaphas as high priest in 36 A.D. Luke did not mention Alexander elsewhere, and he is presently unknown.
The High Priests of Israel
(c. 6-66 A.D.)
Annas (c. 6-15 A.D.): the co-high priest with Caiaphas during Jesus' trial (Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24), and the high priest who, with Caiaphas, tried Peter and John (Acts 4:6)
Eleazar (c. 16-17 A.D.): the son of Annas
Caiaphas (c. 18-36 A.D.): the son-in-law of Annas, the high priest during Jesus' earthly ministry (Luke 3:2; Matt. 26:3, 57; John 11:49-50), and the high priest who with Annas tried Peter and John (Acts 4:6)
Jonathan (c. 36-37 A.D.): the son of Annas, and possibly the "John"of Acts 4:6
Theophilus (c. 37-41 A.D.): the son of Annas
Matthias (c. 42 A.D.): the son of Annas
Ananias (c. 47-59 A.D.): tried Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea (Acts 23:1-10; 24:1-23)
Annas (c. 61 A.D.): the son of Annas
Matthias (c. 65-66 A.D.): the son of Theophilus, grandson of Annas
4:7 The healed lame man was also present (v. 14), though we do not know if he had been imprisoned with Peter and John or was simply brought in for the hearing. The Sanhedrin wanted to know by what authority or in whose name (with whose jurisdiction) Peter and John (plural "you") had behaved as they had.
4:8 Jesus had promised that when the disciples stood before hostile adversaries God would give them the words to speak (Luke 21:12-15). This special filling appears to be in view in verse 8. Again, filling reflects control by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit filled (controlled) Peter as he served as a witness in obedience to Jesus (1:8).233Peter addressed all the Sanhedrin members as "rulers and elders"of the Jews.
4:9-10 Peter referred to the "trial"as a preliminary hearing (Gr. anakrinomai), which it was. Jewish law required that people had to be informed of the consequences of their crime before being punished for it.234Peter's answer was straightforward and plain: the power of Jesus had benefited a sick man by healing him. This was good news not only for the Sanhedrin but for all the people of Israel. Peter used a Greek word that means saved (sothenai), which the translators have rendered "made well."His use of this word prepares for the use of the same word in verse 12 where it has a broader meaning. Peter's intent was obviously to prick the consciences of these men too (cf. 2:23, 36; 3:13-15). He laid the guilt for Jesus' death at their feet and gave witness that God raised Him from the dead.
4:11 Peter showed that this teaching did not lead the people away from God but rather fulfilled something that God had predicted. In quoting Psalm 118:22 Peter applied to Jesus Christ what David had said about the nation Israel (cf. Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17). Israel's leaders had rejected Jesus as an unacceptable Messiah, but He would prove to be the most important part of what God was building.
Some scholars believe Peter meant that Jesus was the cornerstone, the foundation of what God was building (cf. Isa. 28:16; 1 Pet. 2:7). Others believe he meant the capstone, the final piece of what God was building (cf. Dan. 2:34-35).235If the former interpretation is correct, Peter was probably anticipating the church as a new creation of God (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-8). In the latter view, he was viewing the Messiah as the long expected completion of the house of David. Since Peter was addressing Israel's rulers, I think he probably meant that Jesus was the capstone, their Messiah. These rulers, the builders of Israel, had rejected their Messiah.
4:12 The verses immediately following Psalm 118:22 in the Book of Psalms refer to Messiah's national deliverance of Israel. It seems that Peter was referring to both national deliverance and personal salvation in this address, as he had in the previous one. The former application would have been especially appropriate in view of his audience here. The messianic age to which the Jews looked forward could only come if Israel's leaders repented and accepted Jesus as their Messiah.
Peter boldly declared that salvation comes through no one but Jesus, not the Maccabean heroes or the Sadducees or anyone else.236He stressed that Jesus was a man: He lived "under heaven"and "among men."Jesus, the Messiah, the Nazarene (v. 10), is God's only authorized savior. Apart from Him there is no salvation for anyone (cf. John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5).
". . . when we read the speech of Peter, we must remember to whom it was spoken, and when we do remember that it becomes one of the world's great demonstrations of courage. It was spoken to an audience of the wealthiest, the most intellectual and the most powerful in the land, and yet Peter, the Galilaean fisherman, stands before them rather as their judge than as their victim. But further, this was the very court which had condemned Jesus to death. Peter knew it, and he knew that at this moment he was taking his life in his hands."237
4:13-14 The Sanhedrin observed in Peter and John what they had seen in Jesus, namely courage to speak boldly and authoritatively without formal training (cf. Matt. 7:28-29; Mark 1:22; Luke 20:19-26; John 7:15). They may also have remembered seeing them with Jesus (John 18:15-16). These powerful educated rulers looked on the former fishermen with contempt. What a change had taken place in the apostles since Peter had denied that he knew Jesus (Luke 22:56-60)! The rulers also observed facility in handling the Scriptures that was extraordinary in men who had not attended the priests' schools. The examining board could not dispute the apostles' claim that Jesus' power had healed the former beggar. The obvious change in the man made that impossible. They had no other answer. Unwilling to accept the obvious, the Sanhedrin could offer no other explanation.
Several details in the stories of the apostles' arrests recall Jesus' teaching concerning the persecution that the disciples would experience (cf. Luke 12:12 and Acts 4:8; Luke 21:12 and Acts 4:3 and 5:18; Luke 21:13 and Acts 4:8-12 and 5:29-32; Luke 21:15 and Acts 4:14).
4:15-17 Evidently someone in the Sanhedrin, or someone else present in the room who was then or later became a Christian, reported the information in these verses to Luke. Perhaps Gamaliel told Paul, and Paul told Luke. The most the Sanhedrin felt it could do was to warn and try to intimidate the apostles. The Sanhedrin members acknowledged that a miracle had taken place.
It seems clear that the Jewish leaders could not disprove the miracle. They were completely silent about the apostles' claims that Jesus was alive. After all, the simplest way to discredit the apostles would have been to produce Jesus' body or in some other way prove to the people that Jesus had not risen.
4:18-20 The Sanhedrin ordered the apostles not to speak or teach at all as Jesus' spokesmen. This order provided a legal basis for further action should that be necessary (cf. 5:28). Peter and John saw the command of the Sanhedrin as contradicting the command that Christ had given them (1:8; Matt. 28:19-20). They could not obey both, so they had to obey God (cf. Jer. 20:9). This is the only basis for civil disobedience that Scripture permits. In all other matters we must obey those in authority over us (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17).238Speaking what one has seen and heard (v. 20) is the essence of witnessing (1:8). Contempt and threats have silenced many witnesses, but these tactics did not stop the Spirit-filled apostles.239
4:21-22 Even in the face of open defiance the Sanhedrin could do no more than threaten the apostles again. Peter and John had done nothing wrong. Furthermore they had become popular heroes by this healing. By punishing them the rulers would have antagonized the people.
"Yet a legal precedent had been set that would enable the council to take, if necessary, more drastic action in the future."240
4:23-28 After hearing the apostle's report, the Christians sought the Lord (Gr. Despota, sovereign ruler) in prayer.
"Three movements may be discerned in this prayer of the early church: (1) God is sovereign (v. 24). (2) God's plan includes believers' facing opposition against the Messiah (vv. 25-28). (3) Because of these things they petitioned God to grant them boldness to preach (vv. 29-30)."241
They contrasted God's position with that of His servants David (v. 25), Jesus (vv. 27, 30), and themselves (v. 29).242The opening reference to God's creative power in the disciples' prayer (v. 24) has many parallels in other Old Testament prayers (e.g., Exod. 20:11; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 146:6; Isa. 42:5; cf. Acts 14:15; 17:24). This was a common and appropriate way to approach God in prayer, especially when a request for the exercise of that power followed, as it did here (cf. 2 Kings 19:15-19; Isa. 37:15-20).
Note the testimony to the divine inspiration of Psalm 2 contained in verse 25. God is the author of Scripture who has worked through human instruments to announce and record His revelations (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).
The believers saw a parallel to Jesus' crucifixion in the psalmist's prophecy that Messiah would experience opposition from Gentiles and leaders. This prophecy will find its fullest fulfillment in events still future from our time in history. God anointed Jesus at His baptism (cf. 10:38). David's references to Gentiles, the peoples, kings, and rulers (vv. 25-26) applied to the Roman Gentiles, the Israelites, Herod, and Pontius Pilate (v. 27). However the believers saw God's sovereign hand (the ultimate cause) behind human actions again (the secondary cause, v. 28; cf. 2:23a; 3:18).
"They see in this beginning of persecution the continued fulfilment [sic] of Scripture which had been evident in the Passion of Jesus."243
4:29-30 The disciples called on God to note the threats of the Sanhedrin. They may have done so to stress their need for more of His grace rather than to call down His wrath on those rulers. The will of God was clear. The disciples were to witness for Christ (1:8; Matt. 28:19-20). Consequently they only needed enablement to carry out their task. They did not assume that God would automatically give them the courage to witness boldly, as He had done in the past. They voiced a fresh appeal for this grace since additional opposition and temptations lay ahead of them (cf. Mark 9:29). They also acknowledged that God, not they, was doing a spiritual work. In these respects their prayer is a helpful model for us.
"It might have been thought that when Peter and John returned with their story a deep depression would have fallen on the Church, as they looked ahead to the troubles which were now bound to descend upon them. The one thing that never even struck them was to obey the Sanhedrin's command to speak no more. Into their minds at that moment there came certain great convictions and into their lives there came a tide of strength."244
4:31 It is not clear whether we should understand the shaking of the place where the disciples had assembled literally or metaphorically (cf. Exod. 19:18; 1 Kings 19:11-12; Isa. 6:4; Acts 16:26). In either case those assembled received assurance from this phenomenon that God was among them and would grant their petition.
"This was one of the signs which indicated a theophany in the Old Testament (Ex. 19:18; Isa. 6:4), and it would have been regarded as indicating a divine response to prayer."245
The same control by the Spirit that had characterized Peter (v. 8) and the disciples earlier (2:4) also marked these Christians. They now spoke boldly (Gr. parresias, with confidence, forthrightly; cf. v. 13, 29) as witnesses, as Peter had done. Note that tongues speaking did not occur here. This was not another baptism with the Spirit but simply a fresh filling.
"In Luke 22:39-46, just before Jesus' arrest and just after Peter's assertion of readiness to suffer, Jesus urged the disciples to pray in order that they might not enter into temptation. Instead, the disciples fell asleep and were unprepared for the following crisis. In Acts 4:23-31 Jesus' followers are again confronted with the dangerous opposition of the Sanhedrin. Now they pray as they had previously been told to do. As a result they receive power from God to continue the mission despite the opposition. We have already noted that Peter's boldness before the Sanhedrin in Acts contrasts with his denial of Jesus in Luke. The church in Acts, finding power for witness in prayer, also contrasts with the disciples who slept instead of praying in Luke. These contrasts contribute to the narrator's picture of a dramatic transformation in Jesus' followers."246
