Opposition to Gospel
Acts 4:1-21
RELIGIOUS AND LOST
The men gathered to interrogate Peter and John were a “who’s who” of the most powerful and prominent religious leaders of Israel. These men knew the Old Testament Scriptures in painstaking detail. They were completely immersed in a world of religious ritual. They could argue theology for hours on end. The only problem was, they were spiritually lost! God, in the person of Jesus Christ, had been in their very presence, and they had missed him. Worse than that, they had killed him! Now they were blindly trying to silence the messengers of Christ. Here is a powerful demonstration of the truth that knowing about God is not enough. We must know him in a personal way. Until we encounter God through Christ and humbly receive his forgiveness, all our religious acts count for nothing.
4:2 The Sadducees’ annoyance at Peter and John’s witness to the resurrection was not so much theological as political, as was generally the case with the Sadducees. Note the wording in v. 2: not “they were proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus” but “they were proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” The idea of a general resurrection was an apocalyptic concept with all sorts of messianic overtones. Messianic ideas among the Jews of that day meant revolt, overthrow of the foreign overlords, and restoration of the Davidic kingdom. There had been such movements before (cf. 5:36–37), and the Romans had put them down. There would be many more in the future. In fact, the worst fears of the Sadducees were indeed realized when war broke out with the Romans in A.D. 66, with terrible consequences for the Jews. Here, with the large crowds surrounding Peter and John, their fears were aroused. The notes of Peter’s sermon alarmed them: resurrection, Author of life, a new Moses. These were revolutionary ideas. The movement must not spread. It must be nipped in the bud.
4:2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. Imagine these Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, listening to Peter proclaiming, right there in the temple, the resurrection of the dead. No wonder they were greatly disturbed! “Disturbed” can also be translated “annoyed, irritated, incensed.” Peter and John were refuting one of the Sadducees’ fundamental beliefs and thus threatening their authority as religious teachers. In addition, with their teaching, the apostles were upsetting the status quo and perhaps would bring the wrath of Rome (that had almost happened a few weeks earlier with Jesus—Luke 23). The religious leaders had thought this uprising would be finished with the death of its leader, so it disturbed them to find Jesus’ followers teaching the people in the temple.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RESURRECTION
Whenever the early church talked about Jesus, they strongly emphasized his resurrection. Why? For a number of important reasons. According to the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection of Christ means that he is the Son of God and that his word can be trusted. It means that his sacrifice for sin was acceptable to God, so we can be completely forgiven. It means that our Savior is alive and active, able to help us in times of need. It also means that one day we, too, will conquer death. The Christian faith rests on the basic fact of the empty tomb. Don’t neglect this essential part of the gospel when you share your faith with others.
This brought the total number of believers to about five thousand men, not counting women and children. God was mightily using Peter, for at his first sermon, three thousand people had become believers (2:41)! Estimates of Jerusalem’s population at this time range from twenty-five thousand to eighty-five thousand. Josephus recorded that there were a total of six thousand Pharisees in Palestine. Thus, a total of five thousand Jewish Christian men (not counting women and children) was a very high percentage of the population!
4:5 The next day the council of all the rulers and elders and teachers of religious law met in Jerusalem. The rulers, elders, and teachers of religious law made up the Sanhedrin, or Jewish council—the same Council that had condemned Jesus to death (Luke 22:66). This Council acted as the ruling government of Israel. They handled the local problems and religious questions but had to work under Rome’s supervision. For crimes that carried capital punishment, they had to obtain Rome’s approval. For instance, the Council had condemned Jesus to death, but it could not carry out the sentence; the Roman leader in the area alone had the authority to order an execution. That is why the religious leaders had taken Jesus to Pilate, the Roman leader in the Jerusalem area (Luke 23:1).
The Council had seventy members plus the current high priest, who presided over the group. The Sadducees held a majority in this ruling group. These were the wealthy, intellectual, and powerful men of Jerusalem. Jesus’ followers stood before this Council, just as he had.
4:6 Annas the high priest was there, along with Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and other relatives of the high priest. By listing these names, Luke was making the point that opposition to the early church came mostly from the ranks of the Sadducees. In this first trial of the apostles, the powerful Sadducees were well represented. Annas had been deposed as high priest by the Romans, who then had appointed Caiaphas, Annas’s son-in-law, in his place. But because the Jews considered the office of high priest a lifetime position, they still called Annas by that title and gave him respect and authority within the Council. John, Alexander, and other relatives of the high priest were also there, supporting the power base of the high priest’s office. (Eventually Annas would arrange for all five of his sons, his son-in-law, and one grandson to be appointed to the office of high priest.) Annas and Caiaphas had played significant roles in Jesus’ trial (John 18:24, 28). It did not please them that the man whom they thought they had sacrificed for the good of the nation (John 11:49–51) had followers who were just as persistent and who promised to be just as troublesome as he had been.
Led by the captain of the temple guard (1), that is, the chief of the temple police, who was responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and who held a priestly rank second only to the high priest, they seized Peter and John and, because it was evening and too late to convene the council, they put them in jail overnight
THE COUNCIL’S INQUIRY (4:5–7)
4:5 The next morning the council convened to hear the apostles, just as they had tried Jesus in a morning session (Luke 22:66). At this point Luke did not use the term Sanhedrin, but it appears at v. 15. The term was also used of minor, local courts; but the reference here was to the supreme court of the land, which held the jurisdiction over the temple area. Exactly where it met is uncertain. Josephus indicated that it met outside the temple precincts and just to the west of it, while the rabbinic sources placed it within the temple area in a room especially designated for it on the south side of the forecourt. Its origin seems to date to Hellenistic times when Israel was a client-nation and no longer had a king as its supreme political authority.
Matters regarding local jurisdiction were entrusted by the Hellenistic overlords to a council of Jews, which developed into the Sanhedrin of New Testament times. It seems to have consisted of seventy-one members, based on Num 11:16, counting the seventy elders mentioned there plus Moses as presiding officer. The presiding officer in the New Testament period was the high priest. At first the Council seems to have consisted primarily of the leading priests and lay elders from the aristocracy. From the time of Queen Alexandra (76–67 B.C.), however, Pharisees were admitted on the Council. Probably always in the minority, the latter still had considerable clout because of their popularity with the people (cf. Josephus, Ant.13.298).
The picture of the assembly here in v. 5 comports well with the known composition of the body. It consisted of the ruling priests, the elders, and the scribes. Luke used the term “rulers,” but this almost certainly refers to the priestly representation on the Sanhedrin. Verse 6 mentions four of these plus an unspecified additional number of members from the high-priestly families. The “elders” were the lay members from the Jewish aristocracy, probably comprising the bulk of the entire body and being of Sadducean persuasion. The “teachers” were the scribes, students of the law and responsible for interpreting it before the body. Most scribes were of Pharisaic outlook, so it was likely in this group that the Pharisees were represented on the Sanhedrin.
4:8 The question as to the “name” behind their preaching was a question of accreditation and authorization, but Peter could not let this one get by. The lame man was healed by the name of Jesus. If the Sanhedrin wanted to know about that name, he would tell them all about it. Instead of the expected defense, Peter gave them a sermon. In fulfillment of Jesus’ promise (Luke 12:11f.), he was given a special endowment of the Holy Spirit to bear his witness with boldness.
Verses 9–12 comprise a minisermon on “the name that brings salvation.” It begins with the reference to the name raised by the Sanhedrin and repeated by Peter (vv. 7, 10), which is linked to the word “saved” with regard to the healing of the man (v. 9). These two concepts are brought back together at the conclusion, with the reference to salvation in no other name (v. 12). The crux of the sermon is a play on the Greek word sōzō, which means both physical “salvation” in the sense of healing (v. 9) as well as the spiritual, eschatological sense of salvation (v. 12). The physical “salvation” of the lame man through the name of Jesus is thus a pointer to the far greater salvation that comes to all who call upon his name in faith
4:12 All Peter’s sermons to this point ended with an appeal, but there seems to be none here. The appeal, however, is present implicitly. If there is salvation in no other name (v. 12), then obviously one must make a commitment to that sole name that brings salvation. But the appeal is even stronger than that. Peter switched to the first person at the end of the verse, “by which we must be saved,” amounting to a direct appeal to the Sanhedrin. Peter had been bold indeed. He had come full circle. They asked for the name in whom his authority rested. He answered their question. It was the name, the power of Jesus. He directed the charges. The Council had rejected the one who bore this powerful name. The ultimate verdict rested with them. Would they continue to reject the one whom God had placed as the final stone for his people, the only name under heaven in which they would find their own salvation? The final verdict would rest in their own decision
The Sanhedrin, the supreme court and administrative body of the Jews, consisted of 71 members, including the high priest. Most of them were Sadducees. In Acts this was the first of four times some of Jesus’ followers were brought before the Sanhedrin (cf. Peter and the apostles, 5:27; Stephen, 6:12; and Paul, 22:30).
REJECTING REJECTION
Although the evidence was overwhelming and irrefutable (changed lives and a healed man), the religious leaders refused to believe in Christ and continued to try to suppress the truth. We shouldn’t be surprised if some people reject us and our positive witness for Christ. When hearts are hard and minds are closed (blinded by Satan—see 2 Corinthians 4:4), even the clearest and most passionate presentation of the facts won’t be heard. But this doesn’t mean we should give up. We must pray fervently for those who are opposed to the truth.