The Bridge / Intro:
While Peter and John were speaking to the people, they were confronted by the priests, the captain of the Temple guard, and some of the Sadducees. These leaders were very disturbed that Peter and John were teaching the people that through Jesus ther e is a resurrection of the dead. They arrested them and, since it was already evening, put them in jail until morning. But many of the people who heard their message believed it, so the number of believers now totalled about 5,000 men, not counting women and children.
The next day the council of all the rulers and elders and teachers of religious law met in Jerusalem. Annas the high priest was there, along with Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and other relatives of the high priest. They brought in the two disciples and demanded, “By what power, or in whose name, have you done this?”
Acts 4:1-7
Now for the remaining questions on the Bridge / Intro
- Why does Luke tell us Peter and John were speaking?
- “Peter and John were teaching” and yet we don’t know what John said?
Luke makes it clear that both Peter and John were speaking but we don’t know what John said. It appears to be a case of Peter being the spokesperson for them both although John clearly spoke and taught as well. Therefore it stands to reason that John focused on similar things with his words and supported what Peter had to say. The matter of who said what is a minor issue. Clearly whatever either of them said it was taken as a collective voice anyway. Why? Because Luke makes it clear that both spoke and taught and the end result was that both Peter and John were taken before the council because of what they had said. Clearly both spoke about the resurrection or they would not have both been brought before the council. I might add at this point that the manner in which they were arrested was rough and forceful. The word [epiballo] is literally ‘to throw hands on’ and suggests a violent action. It was clearly not leaders themselves who did the arresting but those who were a part of the detachment of temple guards who were present with their captain. The leaders, and therefore their underlings, were angry and confrontative so it is clear that those who represented them in the arrest were in a similar mood.
It is interesting that Peter and John went to the temple at 3:00 pm, the time of afternoon prayers. We were told that at the beginning of Chapter 3. Yes, this has been a long account of what happened with this man’s healing. Prayers started at 3:00. When they finished about an hour later, there is a commotion because of the fact that the man all were familiar with had been healed. It must have taken a while for them to leave the temple area and proceed to Solomon’s Porch area. Everyone had gathered there and were wanting to hear all about what happened. Following the initial interactions Peter and John use the opportunity to explain to the crowd what had happened and more importantly, why. Clearly it is connected to everything that has been happening since Pentecost and all the strange events taking place. Obviously something out of the ordinary was going on. While Peter was still speaking the words Luke recorded for us, (the verb is clearly a present participle) suddenly the leaders and the guard appear. I imagine that the word got back to the leaders, the High Priest and the others that these Galilean upstarts were at it again. In a short period of time they gather themselves and appear with the detachment of the Temple guard. At this point, Luke tells us it was already evening. It may not necessarily mean that night had fallen but rather it was certainly late afternoon. The day for the Jew closed at 6:00 pm when light was fading. So we could be talking perhaps 5:00 pm (a mere two hours after afternoon prayers) or it could be that three hours had gone by and it was now 6:00 pm. Remember there were also two preachers / teachers. So the time sequence here is not questionable. It is in accord with what we might expect.
The reason they could only put them in jail until morning was because it was not lawful for them to be tried or a hearing conducted at night. Does that take you back to the trials of Christ, pre-crucifixion? Yes, holding a clandestine night trial for Jesus was completely out of order and highly illegal according to the Jews own law. So they hold Peter and John overnight without charge. It is not that Peter and John have been put in prison as such. That comes later (Chapter 5) but this action is most likely to be a holding cell or perhaps merely just placing them under the supervision of the Temple guard. Note this was the Temple guard, not the the Roman authorities. This was a Jewish religious matter, not a matter of threat to the Roman Empire or a civil case.Why couldn’t they have simply been required to appear before the council in the morning? I think it is clear that the Jewish leaders didn’t want these men to be free to continue to speak to the crowd and teach them things contrary to what this group of predominantly Sadducees permitted. Hence, better to hold them overnight to limit their influence on the people of Jerusalem. But notice there is no charge made against them. I am sure the Sadducees didn’t want to make the issue clear. Besides, the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ was not a concept of justice that was prevalent in those days. The legal term, Habeas Corpus did not come into full force until the time of the Magna Carta in the 17th Century although early notions of it surfaces in the 14th Century. The Latin means the “right to hold the body” or the legal right to hold a person in prison without charge.
Notice the next day that all factions of the Sanhedrin were present – the rulers, elders and teachers of the Law. Everyone was gathered. Added to that group were certain members of the High Priest’s household. All those with vested interest were gathered like vultures. So what is the charge? Or if there was no charge, at least what is the issue they wanted to hold Peter and John overnight for and then confront them the next day? Did you see there was no charge laid against Peter and John? They were not charged with anything specific. Notice too that only Peter and John were called to give an account to the leaders. One significant witness was omitted from the proceedings. Namely the man who was healed. In a sense he was rendered irrelevant. The issue was not about the healing. Normally in the case of a healing, the state of the man prior to healing was ascertained, witnesses were called, including the one healed and his or her family. The priest then investigated the state of the “healed” person to ascertain as to whether they could be pronounced healed and enter back into society. The healing was not the issue here. In fact, I am sure the religious leaders didn’t want to go anywhere near the issue of his healing. It was clearly supernatural and therefore problematic for them. Luke tells us although the healed man was not called to the hearing, he was present in the crowd (verse 14). Seeing the man within earshot of the proceedings, the religious leaders steer clear of making the healing an issue. Rather, they curiously focus on the power or authority behind the healing. It becomes a religious issue, not a medical one.
Look at the original sentence:
ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει ἢ ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι ἐποιήσατε τοῦτο ὑμεῖς
In what power or in what name {you did} this you
Notice the two things in focus here:
- the power
- the name or authority
Again this Gems has grown so I will pull all the pieces together in a subsequent Gem. In closing, allow me to draw your attention to the emphasis of the last sentence. Notice the emphatic place of the second “you”. It is almost with derision that the leaders question Peter and John over their authority for doing these things. In what name, under what authority? In the name of the Sanhedrin? In the name of the Caesar of Rome? By whose authority? I will now leave the notion hanging for a while.
Notice there is only one of my initial questions not yet addressed. Did you notice it? Have you been thinking, “Ian hasn’t dealt with that question yet? I wonder if he has forgotten?” Or is it that you have forgotten? That will be what we focus on next. Do you know what it is?
Anytime you try to judge what you’ve no authority over, you’re out of your jurisdiction!
Bob Gass
The task ahead of us is never as great as the power behind us.
Anon
The greatness of a man’s power is the measure of his surrender.
William Booth
The manifestation of the power of God is proof that the Kingdom of God is present because God is present. That’s possible because Holy Spirit is now present.
Ian Vail