Chapter 4

1 The rulers of the Jews offended with Peter’s sermon, 4 (though thousands of the people were converted that heard the word,) imprison him and John. 5 After, upon examination Peter boldly avouching the lame man to be healed by the name of Jesus, and that by the same Jesus only we must be eternally saved, 13 they command him and John to preach no more in that name, adding also threatening, 23 whereupon the church fleeth to prayer. 31 And God, by moving the place where they were assembled, testified that he heard their prayer: confirming the church with the gift of the Holy Ghost, and with mutual love and charity.

1. As they spake. By this time, and ever afterward, the activities of the apostles were a matter of deep and unfriendly interest to the Jewish authorities. Apparently, news of the healing of the lame man had now spread rapidly through the city, and for the first time since the crucifixion the leaders of the Sanhedrin, who condemned the Lord, had come again in contact with Christianity. Only a few weeks had passed since the crucifixion. During this time the Jewish leaders doubtless had congratulated themselves on having got rid of Jesus for the safety of the nation, as Caiaphas had advised (John 11:49, 50). They knew that Jesus’ grave had been found empty, and, refusing to believe in the resurrection, they had busily spread the report that the disciples had stolen His body (Matt. 28:13–15). Whether some of the Jewish leaders had been present during the experience of the day of Pentecost is not known, but certainly they must have heard of the happenings of that day, and of the growth of the new church. Now two main spokesmen of the Christians were found teaching openly in the very portals of the Temple itself.

Priests. In charge, as a class, of the Temple services (see 1 Chron. 24:1–19), and naturally the first to take offense at the multitudes who in astonishment had witnessed the healing of the lame man.

Captain. Apparently one of the same officers present at the arrest of Jesus (see Luke 22:52): The OT mentions an officer whose title was “the ruler of the house of God” (1 Chron. 9:11; 2 Chron. 31:13; Neh. 11:11). A Benjamite is mentioned in 2 Maccabees 3:4 as being “governor of the temple.” Luke repeatedly mentions the “captain” of the temple (Luke 22:52; Acts 5:24, 26), and Josephus also refers to this official (War ii. 17. 2 [409]; Antiquities xx. 9. 3). The official mentioned by Josephus is quite evidently the one mentioned by Luke, and may be identical with the ones mentioned in the OT and 2 Maccabees. In later Jewish writings several officials are mentioned who might answer to the “captain of the temple” in the present passage. One of these was the Хish har habbayith, the “officer of the temple mount” (Mishnah Middoth 1. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 1). This man was not of the soldiery, but had supervision of the guard of priests and Levites who had custody of the Temple, especially at night. As an inspector he made his nightly rounds, visiting all the gates and rousing any slumberers. He seems to have had particular charge of the outer court, the area in which Peter had just made his address. Another official who more probably is to be identified with the “captain” in the present passage, was the segan hakkohanim, the “prefect of the priests.” He ranked next to the high priest, assisted him in his official functions, and had general responsibility for the Temple services and the maintenance of order throughout the Temple area.

Sadducees. See Vol. V, pp. 52, 53. The Sadducees are not mentioned frequently in the gospel story. In ch. 23:8 they are described as saying “that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit.” It was when the doctrine of the resurrection and the future life was emphasized by Jesus and His apostles that the Sadducees appeared as opponents, as in Matt. 22:23–33 and in the present instance.

When they now found His disciples preaching the resurrection, the Sadducees reacted to them as they had to the Lord Himself and became persecutors of the church. There is no record in the NT of any Sadducee accepting the gospel. Not so with the Pharisees, some of whom professed themselves believers see (Acts 15:5; cf. ch. 23:6).

Came upon them. That is, to arrest them.

2. Being grieved. Or, “being annoyed,” “being worked up.” This verb is used to describe Paul’s feeling when the young woman came crying after him in Philippi (ch. 16:18). The Jewish leaders were annoyed not only because the disciples taught the doctrine of the resurrection, so opposed to the thinking of the chief priests, who were Sadducees, but also because they taught when they were not trained or authorized to do so, even as Jesus had done (John 7:14, 15). It has been no infrequent thing for men in ecclesiastical authority to take exception to the ministry of those who have not been commissioned by themselves. Men with some power in their hands may easily fancy that only they can instruct others how to perform publicly.

That they taught. One of the objections the authorities brought against the apostles was doubtless that they were “unlearned and ignorant men” (v. 13), and so not fit to teach the people.

Preached through Jesus the resurrection. Rather, “proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection.” The apostles preached the doctrine of the resurrection “in Jesus,” that is, in terms of His resurrection, which served as proof of the general resurrection of the dead, a doctrine the Sadducees rejected. See ch. 23:8. Paul later emphasized that Christ’s resurrection was a pledge that all the righteous would rise from the dead (1 Cor. 15:16–23; Phil. 3:10, 11).

3. In hold. Or, “in custody.” This experience introduces the first persecution of the apostles.

Eventide. It will be recalled that the story of the healing of the lame man begins at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon (see on ch. 3:1). After the healing of this man Peter made his address, and then he and John were arrested. By then it was “eventide,” which doubtless began about sunset, or the 12th hour. Since it was forbidden for the Jews to pass judgment in a night session, and their day closed with the 12th hour, it was now too late for a judicial proceeding (see Additional Notes on Matt 26, Note 2). The rabbis placed this restriction on night trials because of Jer. 21:12, “O house of David, thus saith the Lord; Execute judgment in the morning.” They applied this even to deliberations concerning the declaration of the newmoon festival (Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 3. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 113).

4. Howbeit. Or, “but.” The new believers were not deterred by the arrest of the apostles.

Many … believed. That is, on Jesus, whom Peter had set forth as the prophet concerning whom Moses had spoken. Each individual who believed, thus made himself part of a growing host of converts moving into the church.

Men. Gr. aneµr, “a male,” “a man” as contrasted with a woman. Apparently only the men were counted (see on Matt. 14:21).

Was about five thousand. Or, “became about five thousand.” Luke probably means here that this was the aggregate number of the disciples, not just those converted on the day of the healing of the lame man. Three thousand had been converted at Pentecost, and since that time more believers had been added to the church daily (ch. 2:47).

5. On the morrow. This was the first opportunity for the Jewish leaders to hold a judicial investigation (see on v. 3).

Rulers. This is probably a reference to the “priests,” or “high priests,” mentioned in v. 1.

Elders. The group here mentioned were doubtless those known in Hebrew as zeqenim. They represented the lay element of the Sanhedrin, as contrasted with the scribes and priests.

Scribes. The third constituent group in the Sanhedrin was composed of scribes, who were professional jurists and recognized interpreters of the law (see Vol. V, pp. 55, 56). It is understandable that they would be resentful toward a new teaching presented by seemingly unqualified men (cf. Matt. 7:29).

6. Annas. This man (called Ananus by Josephus), son of Seth, became high priest about a.d. 6 by appointment of the Roman governor Quirinius (Cyrenius), and was deposed about a.d. 14 (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 2. 1, 2). Christ had been brought first before Annas (John 18:13), and was afterward sent by him to the current high priest, Caiaphas. This would indicate that although then not actually high priest, Annas held a place of high influence among the Jews. This is particularly understandable in view of the fact that Caiaphas was Anna’s son-in-law. It is probably impossible now to ascertain exactly the functions of the two men Annas and Caiaphas. Apparently it was customary for those who once had held the office of high priest to continue to carry the title after they had ceased to officiate. By the time of Annas’ death five of his sons had been high priests (ibid. xx. 9. 1). But his old age was clouded by the atrocities committed in the Temple by insurgents during the war of a.d. 66–73 (see Josephus War iv. 3. 78 [151–157]).

Caiaphas. Caiaphas had been appointed about a.d. 18 or 19, and was deposed about a.d. 36. He is pictured in the Gospels as a man of policy and expediency (John 18:14. See above under “Annas.”)

John. This may have been Johanan (that is, John) ben Zakkai, a Jewish leader who is said to have been at the height of his influence 40 years before the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70. After the Jewish-Roman war he was founder and president of the Council at Jamnia (see Vol. V, p. 78). However, the identification is very uncertain. Another possibility, suggested by one ancient manuscript that reads “Jonathan,” is that this man was Annas’ son Jonathan, who became high priest for a short time after Caiaphas, and again in the days of Felix (c. a.d. 52–c. 60).

Alexander. No certain identification of this man is possible.

Kindred of the high priest. The Talmud (Pesahim 57a, Soncino ed., p. 285) mentions several prominent families from which the high priests at this time were commonly drawn. The current high priest, Caiaphas, had several relatives who were highly placed (see above under “Annas”), and probably several of these men were present at the trial of Peter and John recorded here. See on Matt. 2:4.

Were gathered. Evidently the meeting had been summoned, like that of Matt. 26:3, 4, to study what course should be followed in view of the new crisis. This meeting would of course include Pharisees as well as Sadducees, but the Sadducees controlled the Sanhedrin at this time.

7. In the midst. The Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle (see Mishnah Sanhedrin 4. 3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 230). Apparently Peter and John were placed in the center.

By what power? Gr. en poia dunamei, “in what kind of power?” The word dunamis, “power,” used here, is often applied to Christ’s miracles, and frequently is rendered “mighty works” (see Matt. 11:20; Mark 6:14; Luke 19:37). The Jewish leaders admitted that the lame man had been healed by a marvelous manifestation of power; that was too obvious to deny (see on Acts 4:16). But their question implied a suspicion that it was the result of a power from below, an implication similar to the accusation once leveled against Jesus (see Luke 11:15; cf. John 8:48).

By what name? Or, “in what kind of name?” See on ch. 3:16. The Jewish leaders doubtless knew that it was in the name of Jesus that Peter and John had healed the lame man. To them, Jesus was a man who had recently been crucified as a criminal. Hence their disdainful question.

8. Peter. A few weeks before this, Peter had trembled before the servants and soldiers in the courtyard of the high priest’s house, and had denied his Lord. But since then the Spirit of God had come upon him and had changed him “into another man” (see on 1 Sam. 10:6; cf. Matt. 10:19, 20). Standing now before the highest tribunal of the Jews, he speaks, in a language of respect indeed, but also of unflinching boldness. With bitter weeping Peter had repented his denial of his Lord (Luke 22:54–62). One evidence of true repentance is to seek to repair the evil resulting from the offense repented of. Peter had brought dishonor upon his Master and His cause, in the presence of the Jews. Now, in the same city, in the presence of the same people who had been involved in the condemnation of Jesus, Peter joyfully bore his testimony to the divine mission of the Savior whom he had once denied. Here he demonstrated the validity of his later admonition, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

Ye rulers of the people. Compare this respectful salutation with Paul’s more familiar “Men and brethren” (ch. 23:1, 6). Undoubtedly Paul knew personally several members of the court, and stood therefore in less awe of them (see on ch. 9:1). Respect for men of authority is required of the Christian (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:7; 1 Peter 2:13–17).

Elders of Israel. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) between this and reading simply “elders.” See on v. 5.

9. Examined. Gr. anakrinoµ. This word often has the technical sense of a judicial interrogation, as in Luke 23:14. It is used in the NT only by Paul and Luke (Acts 12:19; 24:8; 1 Cor. 2:14, 15; 4:3, 4).

The good deed. This passage may be read, “a good deed done to an impotent man.” Both nouns are without articles. Peter emphasized the unquestionably “good deed” the Lord had accomplished through John and him. By so doing he made obvious the unreasonableness of the trial he and John were now undergoing. His words may imply that he anticipated the possibility that some other charge might also be brought against them, arising from his sermon (ch. 3:12–26), as in the case of Stephen, who was accused of blasphemy “against this holy place [the Temple], and the law” (ch. 6:13).

He. Or, “this [man].” The wording implies that the man who had been healed also was present before the Sanhedrin (see v. 14).

Made whole. Gr. soµzoµ, “to save” either physically or spiritually. This word has a strong underlying meaning suggesting spiritual as well as bodily restoration (see Mark 10:52; Luke 7:50).

10. To all the people. Peter would have all men know the important witness he is about to bear to both the leaders and the people (see ch. 2:14).

By the name. Or, “in the name.” See on ch. 3:16.

Whom ye crucified. There is a striking boldness in this declaration. Peter does not hesitate to press home the fact that although Pilate had given the formal sentence, it was they, the very men who were examining him, who had crucified their King. He does not shrink now from confessing the Nazarene as the Messiah. Peter proclaims that Christ has been raised from the dead, and continues to heal as when He was on earth.

11. The stone. This verse is a free quotation of Ps. 118:22. Some of the members of the Sanhedrin, to whom Peter was speaking, had heard Christ quote and apply these words to the skeptical Jews (Matt. 21:42–44). In their blindness they had then thought that they could defy Christ’s challenge and warning. Although by their calling they were builders of the church of Israel (see on Acts 7:38), they rejected the stone that God had chosen to be the chief Cornerstone (see Eph. 2:20). This same thought is a dominant note in one of Peter’s epistles, that the church is built of living stones upon the foundation of Jesus Christ as the “head of the corner” (1 Peter 2:6–8).

12. Neither is there salvation. Peter intimates that the physical cure of the lame man is an outward indication of Jesus’ power of salvation for the soul, which the lame man had also received. The eyewitnesses were to conclude from the results produced by the injunction, “Arise, and walk,” that the same power could just as surely bring the greater blessing of spiritual salvation (see Matt. 9:5). The salvation of which Peter was speaking was the very thing the rulers were professing to seek. Peter’s claim that Christ is the only Saviour is exactly in line with the claims Jesus Himself made as to His uniqueness (see John 3:16; 14:6).

None other name. See on ch. 3:16. Peter had learned to attach to the thought of the name the full personality and power of the possessor of the name. To those who had known and accepted Him, the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the one true source of deliverance and salvation.

We must be saved. Christ is the one way through whom we must of necessity seek salvation if we would be saved (see John 14:6; 17:3). The plan of salvation offered through Jesus Christ (1) glorifies God as moral ruler, (2) upholds God’s law as the rule of government, (3) shows the mark of its source in divine revelation, (4) provides, through the vicarious atonement, for the needs of men as sinners, who are otherwise under God’s condemnation. Christ is the one mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5).

13. When they saw. The Greek implies “considering” as well as “beholding.”

Boldness. Gr. parreµsia, from the words pan, “all,” and rheµsis, “speech”; thus the word means “freedom of speech,” and so, “boldness.” The word implies a freedom and readiness of speech such as would not be expected from one untrained in teaching. Parreµsia had been characteristic of the Lord’s teaching, which was done “openly” (Mark 8:32). From now on it was also to be a distinctive feature of the work of the apostles, as with Peter here, and with Paul (see Acts 28:31; 2 Cor. 7:4). Parreµsia was a characteristic of John in the confidence he showed in approaching God (1 John 4:17; 1 John 5:14).

Peter and John. As far as is recorded, John had not spoken, but doubtless by look and bearing, and perhaps by words not recorded, he obviously revealed similar courage.

Unlearned. Gr. agrammatos, “unlettered,” that is, “uneducated,” from the standpoint of the letters and traditions of the Jews. The scribes, on the other hand, were known as grammateis, “letter men.” The Jewish leaders, noting that Peter and John had not been educated as scribes, would naturally conclude that such ignorant men were not qualified to be religious teachers.

Ignorant. Gr. idioµteµs, from idios, one’s “own.” The word here refers to a common man, a private person, in contrast with one in an official position. The disciples held no recognized rank as religious teachers. They were without a particular office or calling, or the culture required for such calling. The word idioµteµs has a curious later history. Latin reproduced idioµteµs, with scarcely an alteration in spelling, as idiota. It passed from this into modern European languages as a term to describe ignorance and the incapacity attached to it. Hence our present word “idiot.” As used by Luke, this word did not mean that Peter and John were men devoid of intellect, but rather that they were not public men. That was why the members of the Sanhedrin felt outraged that the apostles attempted to do the work of religious teachers.

Took knowledge. Rather, “recognized,” “began to realize.” Peter already had made clear to the Sanhedrin that his power came from Jesus of Nazareth. Now, as the Jewish leaders sought to account for the apostles’ boldness in teaching in spite of their lack of formal training, they came to realize that Peter’s way of speaking was also that of Jesus. Not only his power to heal, but his message and the mode of its presentation, were all derived from Christ. To the Sanhedrin it must have been as though Jesus were again living before their eyes, in the persons of His two disciples. So should it ever be with all those who truly follow the Christ. To the Christian who speaks for his Master today, the most telling conviction and power come from his having been with Jesus in prayer, in meditation, and in companionship in all the activities of life. This sort of fellowship with the divine Lord brings an inestimable privilege, a transforming power, and a grave responsibility in Christ’s service.

14. They could say nothing. Literally, “they had nothing to gainsay.” The evidence could not be disputed. The leaders of the Jews could not charge deception, as they had tried to do in the matter of the Lord’s resurrection, for the very man in question stood before them healed (see v. 16). Judging from subsequent events, probably there were men in that august company who indeed thought that God was working through the apostles. Not long after this event Gamaliel suggested that possibility (see ch. 5:34–39). It is not unlikely that there were others who, though silent, feared lest they also might “be found even to fight against God” (v. 39; cf. v. 40).

15. The council. That is, the Sanhedrin. The two disciples, and probably the lame man, were taken from the council chamber while the members of the Sanhedrin discussed what they ought to do.

16. What shall we do? The question need never have been debated. The Sanhedrin was sitting as a court of justice, and the verdict should have been given for or against the accused, according to the evidence. The lame man had been healed. They had seen him. The two men who had been the human instruments in the healing had stood before them, and were awaiting their decision. The members of the Sanhedrin abandoned their judicial office, and began to discuss what course to pursue, on the basis of expediency. This whole proceeding is eminently characteristic of Caiaphas (see John 11:49, 50).

Miracle. Gr. seµmeion, “a sign,” and by extension, “a miracle” (see Vol. V, p. 208; see on Isa. 7:14). The Jewish authorities admitted that a remarkable sign had appeared in their midst.

Manifest to all. Because the crippled beggar at the Temple gate was so widely known, there could be only two bases on which the apostles might have been considered worthy of punishment: (1) if the miracle were an imposture, but this no one in the council believed or dared to insinuate; or (2) if the miracle had been performed by some sort of magic, or other unlawful means (Deut. 13:1–5). The question of the Sanhedrin “By what power … have ye done this?” might suggest the latter. But from the very beginning (Acts 3:13) Peter had attributed what had happened to the “God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob,” and insisted that God through Jesus Christ had made the man whole. Consequently no charge could be brought against them.

We cannot deny it. The very form of the statement betrays not only the desire to deny but also an admission of the lack of any power under the circumstances to do so. They had the evidence, but refused to follow it to its logical conclusion and accept the Christ who had shown the power. Such refusal is worse than never having known the truth.

17. That is spread. The Jewish leaders feared that the story of the miracle would go throughout the city and the countryside, with the result that men might accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah and the divine Son of God. This would be the logical result, and doubtless many were led thereby to faith in Jesus.

Straitly threaten. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the omission of the word “straitly.”

In this name. Or, “about this name,” or “on the basis of this name” (see on ch. 3:16). The disciples were no longer to preach about Jesus or upon His authority.

18. They called them. Peter and John were summoned again into the council chamber to learn the results of the deliberation.

Not to speak at all. Or, “absolutely not to speak.” The very name of Jesus was not to pass their lips.

In the name. See on v. 17.

19. Peter and John. Both the apostles now joined in expressing their determination that they would announce the word of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. It is possible that each was appealed to separately by the council to desist, and each pledged his determination to continue in spite of the admonition of the council. For a like firmness compare the experience of faithful Jews in 2 Maccabees 7:30.

Whether it be right. Here an important principle is suggested. These words introduce an assertion of the right of conscience to resist human authority when it conflicts with divine authority. The apostles’ appeal, “Judge ye,” shows that they claimed this right as axiomatic. In practice, however, a difficulty often arises in establishing whether a man who claims such divine authority really has it. In cases like the present one, where the question is one of testimony to facts, if men believe themselves commissioned of God to declare those facts, they dare not tamper with the truth, even under fear of offending men.

In a dispute with civil authority the man of religious conviction must accept the burden of proof that his convictions arise from divine authority. If he wishes his case to hold, he must convince his hearers that his convictions are sound. Peter and John knew they had the authority of the Holy Spirit, already demonstrated by miracles, and by conversions; and theirs was an abiding conviction of truth, demonstrated in their preaching and its results. In this situation they could not consent to obey man rather than God (see ch. 5:29). The apostles had a command to preach, a command from the Christ who was giving them their power. No other consideration could be valid in such a situation. See AA 68, 69.

Whenever a man faces such a choice between his honest conviction regarding God’s will for him, and the commandments of men, he can afford only to follow what he believes to be God’s will. If he attempts to serve two masters, he will succeed in satisfying neither and will sell his soul for the sake of expediency. But if he steadfastly recognizes God’s prior claim to his full allegiance, no man can call him dishonest, and his soul is safe.

Judge ye. In the face of such indubitable evidence of their innocence, the apostles boldly challenged the Jewish leaders to recognize the facts. That the Sanhedrin released Peter and John without punishing them was tacit recognition that they were guiltless.

20. We cannot but speak. The Greek emphasizes the pronoun “we.” They, as Jesus’ apostles, had been especially commissioned to bear witness to Him (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8).

Have seen and heard. The apostles’ testimony was grounded on their personal experiences with Jesus. Many years later, in their epistles, both Peter and John emphasized the importance of their having been eyewitnesses to the truths they taught (2 Peter 1:16–18; 1 John 1:1–3). For the Christian today personal experience with the presence of Christ in his life constitutes one of the most convincing evidences of the practical reality of Christian truth.

21. Further threatened. More than this the Sanhedrin did not dare to venture, because everyone knew the lame man had been healed and that no charge worthy of punishment could be maintained against the apostles. With the healed man known to all, they could not assert that the story of the miracle was untrue. And since it was a good deed unshakably attested, it could not be punished. Neither could they justifiably punish the apostles for claiming that their healing was done in the name of Jesus.

They might punish. Although some of the Jewish leaders doubtless were inclined to favor the apostles (see on v. 14), in general the feeling was one of disappointment that they could find no pretext for administering punishment without enraging the people. Here again expediency seems to have been an important factor in their reasoning and decision (see John 11:49, 50).

Glorified God. Or, “were glorifying God,” portraying the current reaction of the people to the miracle. Peter’s speech in the Temple had made clear the source of the power by which the man had been healed (ch. 3:12–16).

22. Above forty years old. Comparison with ch. 3:2 shows that the man had been crippled all this time. Such a long-standing incapacity made the miracle all the more remarkable. Repeatedly Luke notes the duration of a disease or of a crippling malady healed miraculously (see Luke 8:42, 43; 13:11; Acts 9:33; 14:8). It is too much to say that all these allusions are attributable to the fact that he was a physician (Col. 4:14), though some may have been, for this same practice was common among other, nonmedical, writers, when recounting miraculous healings (Mark 5:25; 9:21; John 5:5; 9:1). Probably NT writers gave this information chiefly because it helped to show the magnitude of the miracle performed.

This miracle of healing was shewed. Rather, “this sign [seµmeion] of healing had come to pass.” For the meaning of seµmeion, here translated “miracle,” see on v. 16. The KJV has endeavored to represent the idea of a miracle as a sign by using the word “shewed.”

23. Their own company. Gr. hoi idioi, “their own.” Jewish authors writing in Greek use this expression for fellow soldiers and fellow countrymen; Paul employs it of relatives (see 1 Tim. 5:8; cf. Acts 24:23), a use that is also attested by the papyri; and John uses this expression for Jesus’ disciples (John 13:1). In the present passage, “their own” doubtless refers to the apostles’ fellow believers. Apparently they had no permanent place of meeting; at Pentecost they were probably in the upper room (see Acts 1:13; 2:1). As the church grew, they met daily in the Temple and also in one another’s houses (chs. 2:46; 12:12). Thus it was not difficult for Peter and John to find their fellow apostles and believers in a group.

Reported all. The report was made for the glory of God, and not for that of the apostles who related the account (see ch. 15:3, 4).

Chief priests and elders. See on v. 1.

24. Lifted up their voice. Upon hearing the apostles’ report the assembled Christians raised their voices in praise and adoration to the God who had intervened so remarkably. Phrases that follow suggest a chant of praise, different from ordinary speech. This was probably a hymn, and may have been uttered by Peter while the others joined in saying “Amen,” or they may have repeated it phrase by phrase after him. It appears doubtful that the Christian community already would have composed and memorized such a hymn as this as part of their liturgy. This passage has the distinction of being the first recorded utterance of corporate worship in Christian history.

Lord. Gr. despoteµs, a “master,” as contrasted with a servant. This word is used but rarely of the Lord in the NT, appearing with such a reference only six times. It is interesting to note that two of these are in the writings of Peter and John (2 Peter 2:1; Rev. 6:10), the disciples who doubtless led out in the present act of praise and worship.

Art God. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words. However, the thought of the passage remains the same. The fact that God is Creator is an eternal basis for the praise and obedience of His creatures (see Isa. 44:23–27; Heb. 1:1–5).

Heaven, and earth, and the sea. As do so many of the psalms, this ascription of praise begins by setting forth the glory of God as Creator.

25. By the mouth. The earliest manuscripts of this passage present a difficult Greek text that appears to have been garbled. Later manuscripts contain a number of variants that apparently were attempts by scribes to repair the text. The earliest extant text is probably best translated, “Who through the mouth of our father David, thy servant, through the Holy Spirit, said …,” or perhaps, “Who through our father David, thy servant, the mouth of the Holy Spirit, said …”

The heathen rage. The quotation in vs. 25, 26 is from Ps. 2:1, 2, which doubtless had its primary application to some revolt against a king of Israel. During David’s reign mention is made of such conflicts with Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, and others engaging in vain revolt (2 Sam. 8). Here the psalm is presented as a parallel to the Jewish leaders’ fighting against the Lord of the church. An ancient Jewish application of Ps. 2:1, probably at least from the 2d century a.d., interprets the “heathen” as Gog and Magog, who in Jewish thinking were to oppose the Messiah when He should come (Talmud ФAbodah Zarah 3b, Soncino ed., pp. 8, 9). If such an application of this verse was current in the apostles’ day, as it well may have been, it is understandable that Ps. 2:1 might appropriately be applied by the apostles to those who already were opposing the Messiah.

26. The kings. In this instance the Romans (see on v. 27).

Christ. Gr. Christos, properly, “anointed [one].” The LXX used this word to translate the Heb. mashiach, “anointed [one],” which was applied in the OT to kings (Ps. 18:50; Isa. 45:1), priests (Lev. 4:3), and pre-eminently to the coming Saviour. Consequently He is known by the anglicized form of the word, the Messiah. Those who followed Jesus recognized Him to be this Saviour and consequently called Him Christos, “Christ.” Inasmuch as the present passage is a quotation from the LXX, Christos here is probably best translated in its OT sense, “anointed one.”

In its primary application in Ps. 2:2, mashiach doubtless refers to the king of Israel. But the fact that the word also might be used of the Messiah made this passage a striking one for the apostles to apply to Christ. That they consciously made this application is indicated by Acts 4:27, where they speak of Christ as the One “whom thou hast anointed.”

27. Of a truth. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) adding the words “in this city.” Such a statement would be most natural inasmuch as the apostle here applies the language of the psalmist to the events preceding the crucifixion.

Child. Gr. pais, a word that may mean either “child” or “servant” (see on ch. 3:13). The word is the same as that used of David in v. 25, and as it unquestionably means “servant” there, it is probably best taken in that sense here. So understood, it is reminiscent of the servant of the Lord in Isa. 52:13.

Herod. The two civil rulers before whom Jesus was tried, Herod the king and Pilate the governor, are mentioned as noteworthy examples of the “kings” and “rulers” of v. 26 (from Ps. 2:2). For a further discussion of Herod Antipas see Vol. V, pp. 64, 65. It is interesting to note that Luke, the author of the present account, is also the only gospel writer to record the role of Herod in Jesus’ trial (Luke 23:7–15).

Pontius Pilate. For a discussion of this Roman governor see Vol. V, pp. 67, 68.

Gentiles. This doubtless refers to the Romans who shared with the Jews the burden of guilt for the crime of the crucifixion.

People of Israel. The sequence Herod, Pontius Pilate, Gentiles, Israel, completes a parallelism with the previous sequence of heathen, people, kings, and rulers (vs. 25, 26). This is an inverted parallelism, a characteristic Hebrew poetic form (see Vol. III, pp. 23–27).

28. Whatsoever thy hand. The apostles had quoted from the second psalm and had applied it to the crucifixion of Christ. Now they recognized that even in their sin against the Son of God, the Jews and Romans had helped to fulfill God’s purpose for Christ in His work of salvation. A divine will manifests itself in the government of the world, and the salvation of individual souls. This does not rule out man’s free will. History, particularly sacred history, testifies that the will of each agent is free, and that each man stands or falls by the part he has taken in the unfolding plan of redemption. See on Dan. 4:17.

The man who is surrendered to God works to accomplish His divine will. He who is not so surrendered finds himself working against a God, who, in spite of man’s disobedience, works out His own divine, ultimate will. Rebellious, evil, and disobedient men play into God’s hands. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee” (Ps. 76:10).

29. Lord, behold. The context shows that the prayer of the church is addressed to God the Father. Under the threatenings of the Jewish leaders the apostles were not disheartened, but drew nearer to the God who could aid them in whatever danger they faced. The threats of the Jews were ultimately directed against God (see on ch. 9:4, 5).

Servants. Gr. douloi, “slaves.”

Boldness. Gr. parreµsia (see on v. 13). The apostles had shown “boldness of speech” before the Sanhedrin (v. 13), and now their prayer, as though showing consciousness of natural weakness, is for a yet further bestowal of that gift of courage (see Luke 21:15). They realized it was now needed more than ever, for both themselves and the entire church.

Speak thy word. It is not enough that the godly life be lived by the Christian, as a testimony to the power of Christ. The doctrine of salvation in Jesus Christ must also be given utterance (see Rom. 10:13–17).

30. By stretching forth. Rather, “while thou stretchest forth.” It was God who did the mighty works of which the present miracle was an instance. Nicodemus, himself a member of the Sanhedrin, had said that no one could do such works except “God be with him” (John 3:2).

Signs and wonders. For a discussion of these words see Vol. V, p. 208; see on Acts 4:16; 2 Cor. 12:12.

By the name. See on ch. 3:16.

Child. Rather, “servant.” See on chs. 3:13; 4:27.

31. They had prayed. A constantly repeated exercise in the church (see chs. 1:14, 24; 2:42; 6:4).

The place was shaken. In view of further remarkable manifestations of the powerful presence of the Spirit of God, it may be concluded that this shaking was not an earthquake, but a supernatural experience. It was a renewal of the wonder of the day of Pentecost, but apparently without the appearance of the tongues of fire. Thus the Christians knew at once that the God of all nature to whom they had appealed (v. 24) was among them. In view of their direct need God gave them an immediate answer as a token that He had heard their prayers.

They were all filled. See on ch. 2:4. As on the day of Pentecost, the disciples knew again an infilling of the power of the Spirit. It gave them an assurance that they could speak with boldness the words they were commissioned to proclaim. The fact that the disciples had received the Spirit at Pentecost did not mean that further unction in times of special need might not be given. In fact, the primary bestowal of the Spirit had prepared them for such further outpourings. So also with the Christian today; the life begun in the Spirit, as signified by baptism, is dependent for its continuance upon constant communion and continually renewed supplies of spiritual grace.

They spake … with boldness. Endowed with boldness by the power of the Spirit, for which they had prayed, from now on the apostles proclaimed the gospel whenever and wherever they found opportunity, refusing to be stopped by threats of any kind.

32. Of one heart. Textual evidence may also be cited (cf. p. 10) for the interesting addition, “And there was no discrimination among them whatever.” As with similar pairs of expressions, “heart” and “soul” often overlap in meaning and should be taken here to express a totality of character rather than any minute distinctions. Oneness of heart in Hebrew thought indicated complete accord (see Jer. 32:39; cf. 1 Chron. 12:38). It was not only Peter and John and the other apostles, but the entire multitude of believers, who participated in this accord.

Neither said any of them. Each individual felt that his possessions were held by him as though a trust from God, to be given up upon request. This could only be the result of a deep love for one another, foretold by Christ as a mark of His disciples (John 13:35). Idealists who have endeavored to picture in theory a perfect society, as Plato in his Republic and Sir Thomas More in his Utopia, have proposed, as a condition of their perfect commonwealth, a community of goods similar to that practiced in the early church. To succeed, such a commonwealth requires perfection in its participants. Undoubtedly the believers’ expectation of their Lord’s soon return, together with their unity of thought and feeling, made them willing to part with their material possessions. However, as shown in the case of Ananias (see Acts 5:4), they were under no compulsion to do so.

All things common. This statement is parallel to ch. 2:44, as indeed vs. 32–35 of the present chapter restate generally what has been recorded in ch. 2:43–45. This restatement is probably made by Luke to supply a setting for his story of Barnabas’ liberality (vs. 36, 37) and Ananias’ selfishness (ch. 5:1–11). Luke is pleased to dwell upon this community of goods as an ideal expression of the equality and fraternity manifested in the early church. The rights of property were voluntarily suspended by the spontaneous conduct of the members of the Christian community, under the operation of the law of love. Their benevolence was free and full, without hope of material reward. They thought of themselves, not as possessors for self, but as stewards for the good of others.

33. With great power. The witness of the apostles was presented, not in their own strength, but in a power they could never have engendered within themselves. Theirs was the energizing of the Divine Spirit.

Gave. Gr. apodidoµmi, “to deliver [that which is due].” The form of the verb used here may be understood to mean that the apostles “continued to deliver” the witness they had already given on Pentecost and in the Temple. The apostles felt themselves under an inner compulsion to bear witness. They had seen the wonderful works of Jesus. They had seen Him die. They had seen what they had not believed could happen—the Lord had risen from the dead. This crowning miracle constituted the climactic point of the apostolic preaching. The apostles could tell the story as eyewitnesses to a resurrected Lord, and tell it they did “with great power.”

Grace. Gr. charis (see on Rom. 3:24). Charis here may be taken in the sense of “favour” (as in Luke 2:52), and so indicate that the favor of the people toward the Christians still continued. However, in view of the context, which emphasizes the spiritual gift of power that they received, it is probably better to understand charis in its more technical sense of divine grace (as in Luke 2:40).

34. That lacked. Rather, “that was in need.” The Greek seems to connect this verse with the previous one by the conjunction gar, “for,” which is not translated in the KJV. Gar suggests the close relationship that existed between the Christians’ liberality and the grace they enjoyed (see on v. 33).

Possessorsof lands. Some of the new Christians were persons of substantial means. The genuineness of their brotherly love manifested itself in self-sacrifice for the welfare of their less fortunately situated brethren.

Sold … brought. The forms of the verbs used here suggest that this was an occurrence that happened repeatedly as one after another the believers parted with their possessions for the common good of the church. In doing this, their motives were love, and the impulsions of benevolence. Although Luke makes no mention of it, the possibility also exists that the Christians were impressed by their Lord’s warnings of wars and coming troubles (Matt. 24:5–12), and thus with the fact that earthly possessions are unstable. Certainly land and property in Palestine must often have been valueless when the troubles the Lord prophesied became fact. Just as Jeremiah had shown his faith in the future restoration of his people to Palestine by his purchase of a field at Anathoth (Jer. 32:6–15), so the Christians showed by a reverse process in the sale of their property a proof of their faith in the certainty of the message to which they witnessed.

35. Laid them down. Laying the results of the sales at the disciples’ feet was a significant act, showing that they gave the apostles entire control over the proceeds. For a similar use of this expression see Ps. 8:6. Cicero uses the same figure when he speaks of gifts being placed “before the feet of the praetor” (Pro Flacco xxvii. 68). The words apparently reflect the custom that when gifts or offerings were made to a king, or priest, or teacher, they were not placed in his hands, but at his feet.

As he had need. Or, “as any had need.” No doubt many of the Christians were not in need and took care of themselves. The beneficiaries would be those who were unable to earn a livelihood because of sickness and perhaps because of loss of employment owing to their change of religious faith (see John 9:22, where those who accepted Christ were threatened with excommunication), widows, and newcomers who had not yet become established in the city. There may also have been those to whom the apostles felt justified in rendering material support because of their spiritual activity in propagating the faith, although Luke makes no specific mention of this. Here was a as wise, planned material ministry to bodily needs, which has ever been a credit to the church whenever it has been thus conducted (see 1 Tim. 5:5–16, 21).

36. Joses. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the reading “Joseph.”

Barnabas. This is the first reference to Barnabas, the man who was to travel with the apostle Paul on his First Missionary Journey. The name Barnabas is interpreted by Luke as meaning in Greek huios parakleµseoµs, which may be translated, “son of consolation,” or “son of exhortation.” Scholars are not agreed as to the Hebrew or Aramaic words represented by this name. They may have been bar nebuХah, “son of prophecy.” In any case his surname would imply that Barnabas was characterized by his gift of exhortation (see ch. 11:23). When Barnabas became a Christian is not known. Since he was a Levite, he may have taken part in the service of the Temple, and may have heard the Lord or the apostles preaching there. He was a relative of John Mark (Col. 4:10) who lived in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). A tradition recorded by Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata ii. 20) lists Barnabas as one of the Seventy sent forth by Jesus (Luke 10:1; see also on Acts 9:27).

Extant is an epistle bearing the name of Barnabas, which the 3d-century Christian writers Clement of Alexandria and Origen believed was written by this apostle. However, the contents of the epistle show this to be untrue. It consists mainly of anti-Judaistic, allegorical interpretations of OT narratives. The epistle takes a position against the seventh-day Sabbath and in favor of the observance of the “eighth-day,” Sunday. It was probably written by a now-unknown hand about the middle of the 2d century a.d.

Cyprus. The island still so called, in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. Jews were settled there at least as early as the Maccabean period (1 Maccabees 15:23). Christian teachers were driven there from Jerusalem by the persecution that accompanied the death of Stephen (Acts 11:19). On their First Missionary Journey Paul and Barnabas visited Cyprus, probably at the request of Barnabas.

37. Land. Or, “a field.” In the early Hebrew polity the Levites held no private property, but lived in cities and on land held in common and were supported by tithes paid by the people (Num. 18:20, 21). But the case of Jeremiah (Jer. 32:7–12) shows that there was nothing to hinder a priest or a Levite from acquiring land by purchase or inheritance. Also, Barnabas may have held land by marriage. We are not informed as to the location of the field that Barnabas sold. Barnabas’ aunt Mary also had property, and although she did not sell her house, she made it available for the use of the Christian community (Acts 12:12).

Barnabas afterward seems to have worked for his livelihood, as Paul also did (1 Cor. 9:6). Barnabas may have been chosen as an example of the liberality of the early Christian body because of something out of the ordinary in the kind of gift or in the nature of the sacrifice which he made.

Ellen G. White comments

1 DA 827; Ed 95; ML 58; MM 201; 8T 191

1, 2 AA 37, 39; COL 120; Ed 95; Ev 697; TM 170; 5T 252

1–4GC ix; SR 242; TM 66; 7T 31

1–47AA 35–46; SR 241–247; 9T 196

2 7T 213

2–4ML 60; 8T 15

3–5AA 39

4 DA 821; EW 24; 7T 213; 8T 26

5 AA 87

5–8SR 243

6–8, 13AA 40

13–16TM 66

14–18AA 41

17 EW 78; GC 611

19 PP 110

21 GC 611; ML 62

22–25AA 41

23 FE 535

25–27SR 244

26, 27, 29 AA 42

29 GC 546

30 1T 203

31, 32 AA 42

34 GC 546

36 AA 165

37, 38 SR 245

37–39AA 43

38 SC 23

38, 39 GC ix

39 8T 57

41 AA 22, 44; COL 120; DA 275, 770, 827; Ev 35, 699; ML 61; SR 245; 8T 15, 21, 26

41–47WM 271

43 Ev 35

46 AA 45

46, 47 MB 137; 5T 239

47 COL 121; EW 174; GC 379; 7T 32