Acts 4:5-12

CRITICAL REMARKS

Acts 4:5. Their rulers.—Not of the new converts or of the apostles, but of the people; hence the Sanhedrists. Elders,—Heads of families, Scribes,—Teachers of the law, and chief priests composed the Sanhedrin.

Acts 4:6. Annas the high priest and Caiaphas.—Exactly as in the gospels (Luke 3:2; John 18:13), which accord to the former the first place in the high priesthood, “although his proper term of office (6–15 A.D.) had long since expired” (Zöckler), while the active duties of the high priest were performed by Caiaphas, his son-in-law (18–36 A.D.). At or in Jerusalem should form part of Acts 4:5, as in the R.V. “In” may imply that the court met not in the temple, but in the city (Alford), but this is only a conjecture. Some MSS. read into Jerusalem, as if several of the members had resided beyond the precincts of the city, and on being summoned had hastened in overnight (Holtzmann).

Acts 4:7. In the midst.—I.e., in full view, in the centre of the Sanhedrists, if, as tradition reports, these were accustomed to sit in a circle. By what power, or in what name, etc.—Compare Luke 20:2, of which the question here addressed to the apostles is supposed to be a legendary echo (Gfrörer, Zeller, and others); but why the same inquiry should not have been twice put, on different occasions, and to different individuals, is not easy to understand.

Acts 4:8. Filled with the Holy Ghost.—Specially bestowed upon him for the crisis which had arisen (compare Acts 4:31; Acts 2:4; Acts 13:9; Matthew 10:19).

Acts 4:9. By what means.—Or in whom. Is made whole.—Lit., has been saved, not merely from the power of disease, but from that of sin, of which the physical malady was a fruit and sign (compare Acts 4:12).

Acts 4:10. Of Nazareth.—Frequently applied to Jesus (Acts 2:22, Acts 6:14; Acts 10:38; Acts 22:8; Matthew 21:11; John 1:45). Here connected with Jesus Christ (compare Acts 3:6), and used to identify the Jesus of whom Peter spoke with the Jesus whom the rulers had crucified (John 19:19). Whom ye crucified; whom God raised.—Peter seldom omits to exhibit the antithesis between man’s treatment of Jesus and God’s. The death and the resurrection of Christ formed the two poles of Peter’s teaching. The one without the other would have been defective and powerless for salvation.

Acts 4:11. The stone which was set at nought, etc.—Quoted from Psalms 118:22, and applied to Christ as already it had been by Curist Himself (Matthew 21:42; Luke 20:17; compare 1 Peter 2:4; 1 Peter 2:7).

Acts 4:12. Salvation.—Should be the salvation, the Messianic deliverance and blessing, which men were needing and the apostles were preaching (Acts 2:21). Given among men.—Better, which is or hat been given—i.e., provided. Hence the use of must, because no other has been given or provided.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 4:5

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

I. The mustering of the court.—

1. The time. On the morrow, probably with the dawning of the day, say between six and seven a.m. As in Christ’s case (John 18:28), no time was lost in bringing the apostolic offenders to book. Wickedness can seldom afford to proceed at leisure (Proverbs 6:18); it is the good man who never requires to make haste (Isaiah 28:16).

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

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

(1) the elders, or heads of families, among whom were included both priests and laymen;
(2) the scribes, or teachers of the law, professional jurists who mostly adhered to the party of the Pharisees, as the priestly members commonly belonged to the Sadducees; and

(3) the chief priests and their families. Of these the first mentioned is Annas, or Hanan—“gracious”—the aged head of the high priestly house before whom Christ had been set for examination (John 18:13), whom Josephus pronounced “the most fortunate man of his time,” because for upwards of half a century he and five of his sons had occupied the highest ecclesiastical position in the country, but whom “the most unsuspected sources” compel us to recognise as “nothing better than an absolute, tyrannous, worldly Sadducee, unvenerable for all his seventy years, full of serpentine malice and meanness which utterly belied his name” (Farrar, The Life of Christ, chap. lviii., p. 639). Associated with him was Caiaphas, of evil fame, his bold and unscrupulous son-in-law, who first suggested the expediency of Christ’s removal by death (John 11:49), and eventually put the crown upon his criminality by pronouncing Christ guilty of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65), and handing Him over to Pilate for crucifixion (John 18:28). Other members of the court were John and Alexander, about neither of whom is anything known, and “as many as were of the high priest’s family,” from which perhaps it may be inferred that not only Nicodem us and Joseph of Arimathea were absent, but also Gamaliel, Paul’s celebrated teacher, who honourably figured at a later meeting (Acts 5:34). In short, it was a packed assembly, and one not calculated to reassure the apostles, or even promise them an honest trial.

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

1. By what power they had wrought the miracle on the lame man? This amounted to a practical admission that the miracle had been wrought (compare Acts 4:16), a serious difficulty in the way of those who deny the possibility of miracles. Had the Sanhedrists been able to show that no miracle had been wrought, who can doubt that they would cheerfully have done so? The fact that they did not so much as attempt this proves that in their judgment the miracle was undeniable. Even so the higher miracles of the gospel can as little be challenged.

2. In what name they had performed the wonder? The Sanhedrists were perfectly acquainted with the name, but “wanted to convict Peter and John of sorcery, by having worked a miracle not in the name of God, but in that of a crucified malefactor” (Spence). One marvels how they did not perceive that if a crucified malefactor’s name could work miracles, the so-called malefactor must have been other than they deemed Him. It is noticeable that the Sanhedrists avoid saying anything about what grieved them most, the apostles’ teaching the doctrine of the Resurrection. Was this due to the mixed composition of the tribunal, as afterwards in Paul’s case (Acts 23:7)? Possibly.

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

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

2. That they, the Sanhedrists, who were supposed to be temple builders for Jehovah, in crucifying Christ, had really rejected Him whom Jehovah had chosen to be the Head Stone of the Corner. Their mistake had been the most appalling that persons in their position could commit. God by raising up Christ had demonstrated Him to be the true Messiah, whom they should have been the first to recognise and welcome, but whom nevertheless they had despised and rejected (John 1:11). Man’s judgment and God’s do not always coincide in spiritual things, so much the worse of course for man’s judgment. Even those who from their privileges and training might be expected to be men of “light and leading” sometimes turn out “blind leaders of the blind.” As in the former proposition the humility of the apostles was conspicuous, so in this stands out strikingly their boldness.

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

Learn.—

1. The impotence of man when he conspires against God.
2. The fortitude of those the Holy Ghost inspires.
3. The all-sufficiency of Christ’s name for salvation.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 4:11. The Builders and the Stone.

I. The Church as a building or house.—

1. A spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5).

2. Divinely planned (Hebrews 3:1).

3. Erected by human instrumentality.
3. Variously used. As

(1) a dwelling house (Psalms 76:2; Ephesians 2:22);

(2) a treasure house (Malachi 3:17;

(3) a banqueting house (Song of Solomon 2:4).

II. Christ as the corner stone.—

1. Of God’s choosing (1 Peter 2:4).

2. Of God’s approving (Matthew 3:17).

3. Of God’s trying (Isaiah 28:16).

4. Of God’s laying (Isaiah 28:16; 1 Corinthians 3:11).

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

1. Blindness as to the excellency of Christ’s person.
2. Ignorance of the mystery of redemption and salvation through Him.
3. Mistaken views of the nature of Messiah’s kingdom.

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

1. Christ’s victory over all His enemies.
2. His institution as King and Head of His Church. 3. The resting on Him of the whole fabric of the Church. 4. His distinction as the centre of unity for and chief ornament of the Church.—Compiled from Ebenezer Erskine.

The Rejected Corner Stone.

I. The sin of the builders.—

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

II. The glory of the rejected stone.—

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

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

Acts 4:12. Salvation in Christ alone.

I. There is no salvation out of Christ.—

1. No other name but that of Christ has been given among men for this purpose.
2. If any are saved, whether in gospel or heathen lands, it is through the name of Christ.

II. There is salvation in Christ.—

1. Salvation in fullest measure.
2. Salvation on the easiest terms.
3. Salvation with the greatest certainty.

None other Name.

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

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

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

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

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

No Salvation out of Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Only Salvation.—That in Christ. Because—

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

II. Magnifies the divine law.—

1. Vindicates it by the vicarious sacrifice of Christ.

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

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

IV. Qualifies for the divine glory.—By imparting

1. A right and title, and

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

Acts 4:8. The Characteristics of a Good Preacher.—As exhibited by Peter.

I. Undaunted courage.—He addresses “the rulers of the people and the elders of Israel” without trepidation. Preachers should fear the face of no man (Ezekiel 2:6).

II. Genuine candour.—He is willing to be “examined of the good deed done to the impotent man.” Preachers should never shun investigation into either themselves, their doctrines, or their deeds (1 Corinthians 10:15).

III. Clear exposition.—“Be it known unto you all,” etc. Preachers should have nothing to hide, and ought to leave nothing obscure (2 Corinthians 4:2).

IV. Profound humility.—Peter gave the glory of the miracle entirely to Christ, reserving none for himself. Preachers should always say, “Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name be the glory!” (Psalms 115:1).

V. Immovable conviction,—Peter had no doubt as to the place occupied and the part played by Christ in the scheme of salvation. Preachers should not instruct others before they know the truth themselves (John 3:11; 2 Corinthians 4:13).

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