Bible Commentaries

Acts 4:1-12. First arrest of the Apostles. Their hearing and Defence

1. And as they spake unto the people] The movements of the Apostles had by this time become an object of concern to the authorities in Jerusalem. See their complaint (Acts 5:28). There is no note of time at the beginning of chap. 3 to indicate what period had elapsed since Pentecost before the lame man was healed. But news soon spread in the city as we can learn from the events related in the previous chapter.

the priests] Those whose duty it was at the time to take charge of the Temple services, and who probably had taken offence at the multitudes assembled in the Temple court. The division of the priests was into twenty-four courses, each of which was to serve in the Temple for a week, see 1 Chronicles 24:1-19; 2 Chronicles 23:8. It was during such service in the order of his course, that the promise of the birth of John the Baptist was made to Zechariah the priest (Luke 1:5-8). Some authorities read high priests.

and the captain of the temple] There is mentioned in the O. T. an officer whose title is “the ruler of the house of God” (1 Chronicles 9:11; 2 Chronicles 31:13; Nehemiah 11:11). He was not a military officer, but had charge of the guard of priests and Levites who watched the Temple at night. There are two titles given to such an officer in the later writings of the Jews, (1) the Memunneh (Mishna Tamid i.), a kind of prefect of the Temple guard, and (2) a higher officer called “the captain of the mountain of the [Lord’s] house.” (Mishna Middoth ii.) Rabbenu Shimshon describes this second officer as “the Commander who was set over every watch of those that watched in the less sacred portion of the Temple.” He was apparently a civil as well as religious official, for we find (Acts 5:26) that he goes with “the officers” to make the second arrest of the Apostles.

and the Sadducees] This was the name of one of the most influential sects among the Jews in our Lord’s time. Their name has been variously explained. The Jewish authorities state that the name, which they write Tsedukim, is derived from Tsadok (Zadok) the proper name, and that thus they are “the followers of Zadok.” The Zadok from whom they derive the title is said to have been a disciple of Antigonus of Socho. This Antigonus is the second in order of the Jewish Fathers whose sayings are recorded in the Pirke Aboth, and the commentators thereon mention two of his pupils, Zadok and Baithos, to the latter of whom, and to his followers, they attribute the teaching that “there was nothing for them in the world to come.” But it is perhaps more probable, from their constant connection with the priests, that the name of the Sadducees was derived from the more famous Zadok who became high priest in the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 2:35). We read of the distinction of his descendants as “the sons of Zadok” and “the priests the Levites of the seed of Zadok” even as late as the description of Ezekiel’s Temple (Ezekiel 40:46; Ezekiel 44:15). The probability of this priestly descent of the sect of the Sadducees is strengthened by the way in which they are mentioned Acts 5:17, “Then rose up the high priest and all they that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees).” The derivation which makes their name the plural of the Hebrew adjective Tsaddik = righteous, has not much authority to support it.

The teaching of the Sadducees is partly described Acts 23:8. They “say that there is no resurrection neither angel nor spirit.” In addition to this they attached no authority to the Oral Law, while the Pharisees maintained that the greater portion thereof had been transmitted to them from Moses. The Sadducees also taught the doctrine of the freedom of the will of men. The statement that they rejected all the Old Testament Scriptures except the Pentateuch has no confirmation in Josephus and has arisen from a confusion of the Sadducees with the Samaritans. Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 1. 4) says “their doctrine is accepted only by a few, but yet by those of the greatest dignity,” a statement fully borne out by the influential position in which we find them when the history of the Acts opens. They play no very prominent part in the Gospel history, because the teaching of Christ while on earth was directed more specially against the formalism and outward show of religion that prevailed among the Pharisees. It is only when the doctrine of the resurrection begins to be preached that the hostility of the Sadducees makes itself apparent.

came upon them] to arrest them. The same word is used as of the action of the chief captain (Acts 23:27), “Then came I (upon them) with an army and rescued him.” See note there.

2. being grieved] Better, being troubled. The word signifies thoroughly pained. It is used (Acts 16:18) of St Paul’s feeling when the “damsel possessed with a spirit of divination” cried after him at Philippi.

that they taught the people] One objection which the scribes and priests would feel towards the Apostles would be that they were “unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts 4:13), and so not deemed fit to teach.

and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead] Better, and published in Jesus. This would rouse the feelings of the Sadducees. The resurrection is said to be in Jesus, because His resurrection was a pledge that all should rise. “In Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). The language of the Apostles in the Acts does not dwell on this as a consequence of the resurrection of Jesus, for like all Jewish teaching, what they said was historical rather than doctrinal.

3. and put them in hold] i.e. in prison. The word means ward, safe keeping. And it is worth noticing on the use of it, that the Jews only employed imprisonment for this precautionary purpose. It was not a mode of punishment with them, and where we find mention of it so used in the Scripture records, the authorities who inflicted it were not Jewish.

unto the next day: for it was now eventide] The Jews were not allowed to give judgment in the night, and their day ceased with the twelfth hour. It was already about the ninth hour when Peter and John were going up to the Temple (Acts 3:1), so that before the address of Peter and the arrest of him and John was completed it would be too late to enter on a judicial enquiry. The Rabbis founded the prohibition on Jeremiah 21:12, “O house of David, thus saith the Lord, Execute judgment in the morning.” In Mishna Sanhedrin iv. 1 it is said: “Judgments about money may be commenced in the day and concluded in the night, but judgments about life must be begun in the day and concluded in the day.” And even the rule about the declaration of the new moon, which was looked on as a judicial proceeding, is similarly regulated (Mishna Rosh ha-Shanah iii. 1), and it may not be declared unless the examination of the witnesses, and all other preliminaries enjoined before its proclamation, be completed before dark.

4. Howbeit] Better, But, i.e. not being deterred by the arrest of the Apostles.

many of them which heard the word believed] on Jesus; for Peter had set Him before them as that Prophet concerning whom Moses had spoken.

and the number of the men was] [better, came to] about five thousand] That is, the society had been increased by nearly two thousand converts since the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41).

5. And it came to pass on the morrow] When the investigation was permitted to be held.

that their rulers, and elders] Here we see that the party of the Sadducees was the party of power and influence at this time.

and scribes] For these were not only the copyists, but the interpreters and expounders of the Law to the people, and any new teaching would naturally be disliked by them. On the difference between Christ’s teaching and that of the scribes see Matthew 7:29.

6. and Annas the high priest] was there. The verb is understood. Annas (called Ananus in Josephus), son of one Seth, was made high-priest (a.d. 7) by the Roman governor Quirinus [Cyrenius], and so continued till a.d. 14 (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2. 1). We do not find that he was ever again appointed to the office, though St Luke here calls him high-priest. But the way in which he is mentioned at the time of the trial of Christ, who was brought, as we read, before Annas first (John 18:13), and sent by him afterwards bound unto Caiaphas, shews that, though not actual high-priest, yet his position in the eyes of the people of Jerusalem was one which justified them in bringing Jesus to him as soon as he was seized. It is difficult to explain from the words of the New Test, the relation of these two men in their office. Caiaphas is expressly called high-priest by St John, yet we are not told why Christ was not at once brought to him. It may be that one was acting high-priest, while the other was nasi or president of the Sanhedrin. Moreover it is not improbable that Annas, having been high-priest before, and only deposed from the office by the Roman governor Gratus, would, both during the short high-priesthood of his son Eleazar (a.d. 16), and the longer high-priesthood of Caiaphas, his son-in-law (a.d. 25–37), exercise much influence by reason of his age and experience, and might, from his former tenure of the office, even be spoken of as high-priest. It is clear that he was at the head of one of the most influential Jewish families, for before his death, five of his sons had been high-priests (Joseph. Antiq. xx. 9. 1). We can see from Luke 3:2, where both Annas and Caiaphas are said to be high-priests, that there was some laxity in the common use of the title. So far only does the New Testament carry us, but when we come to examine the Old Testament, and the records of later Jewish literature, there seems every reason to conclude that the expressions which seem somewhat hard to reconcile are exactly those which would naturally be employed. We find that Moses, who is himself counted (Psalm 99:6) God’s priest on the same level with Aaron, anointed not Aaron only, but his sons at the same time (Exodus 40:12-15) to be high-priests. Also (Numbers 31:6) Phinehas the son of Eleazar is sent to the war against the Midianites with “the holy instruments” (Le. the Urim and Thummim), which shews that he was high-priest at the same time as Eleazar his father. Again in later times (2 Kings 25:18) we have mention made of “Seraiah the chief priest and Zephaniah the second priest,” which the Targum explain as “high-priest and Sagan” or deputy high-priest. The Talmud makes it very clear that there was a special arrangement for providing on some occasions such a deputy for the high-priest. Thus (Mishna Joma i. 1) it says, “Seven days before the day of atonement they remove the high-priest from his house to the chamber of the assessors, and they provide another priest in his place lest any disqualification should befal him.” On this passage Rashi’s note is “to be high-priest instead of him.” and a little later on in the same treatise (T. B. Joma 39 a) it is said concerning the services of the day of atonement: “Rabbi Khanina the Sagan of the priests (and so one qualified to speak on the duties of the office) said: Why does the Sagan stand on the right hand of the high-priest (when the lots are being cast for the goats)?” The answer is, “So that if any disqualification should befal him, the Sagan may go in (to the Holy of Holies) and perform the service in his stead.” Cp. also Midrash Rabbah on Leviticus (par. 20 ad fin.). “If there was any defilement on Aaron, Eleazar served (as high-priest), and if there was any defilement on Eleazar, Ithamar served.” (On the slight matters which caused such ceremonial defilement, see note on Acts 10:28.) And in the same chapter we find “Had not Elisheba (Exodus 6:23, the wife of Aaron) joy in this world who saw five crowns (i.e. subjects for rejoicing) in one day? her brother-in-law (Moses) a king (Deuteronomy 33:5); her brother (Naashon) nasi, i.e. president, of the tribe of Judah; her husband high-priest; her two sons, sagans of the high-priest; and Phinehas her grandson anointed for the war.” These notices make it clear that from the earliest times down to a period posterior to the date of the Acts, there were occasions, and these not unfrequent, when two men were called high-priests at the same time.

That one who had been high-priest should still retain the title may be seen from the principle laid down in several places in the Talmud, (see Mishna Shekalim vi. 6, ed. princ. Jerus.), viz. that “you may elevate in a sacred office or service, but you cannot bring down,” as with us “once a Bishop, always a Bishop.” The illustration given is that you might lay the shewbread on a marble table first, and afterwards on a golden one, but the contrary order of proceeding was forbidden. (For another illustration, see note on Acts 6:3.) Therefore Annas, having been high-priest, could, according to Jewish usage, never be called by any lower title.

The relationship between Annas and Caiaphas and the seniority of the former is enough to explain the conduct of the crowd in bringing Jesus to him first: while the omission of the word high-priest (Acts 4:6) with the name of Caiaphas is no more a proof that he was not also known to be high-priest, as well as Annas, than the words of St Mark’s Gospel (Acts 16:7), “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter,” can be made evidence that Peter was not one of the disciples. For a similar phrase cp. Acts 5:29 and the note there.

and Caiaphas] He was also called Joseph, and was son-in-law to Annas.

and John] This is the same name as Johanan, and Lightfoot concludes that this person was the famous Johanan ben Zaccai, who by his influence with Vespasian procured permission for many of the Jews to settle in Jamnia (Yavneh) after the destruction of their city, and himself became head of the synagogue there.

and Alexander] of whom nothing is known more than can be gathered from this mention of him.

and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest] And these would probably all be of the Sadducees’ party.

were gathered together at (MSS. in) Jerusalem] These words which A. V. places at the end of Acts 4:6 are in the Greek a part of Acts 4:5, and it is better to insert them there, because the MSS. of most authority make the names in Acts 4:6 all nominatives and subjects to a new verb. It may have been that some of the authorities were not residents in Jerusalem, but had to be summoned.

7. And when they had set them in the midst] The council or Sanhedrin was assembled as the Beth-din, in the house of judgment.

they asked, By what power, or by what name, &c.] For power, the original has the same word as is used so often of Christ’s miracles, and generally rendered mighty works. Name is = authority. The force of the expression is perhaps felt better, if the preposition ἐν be rendered literally in rather than by; certainly so in the second member of the sentence.

8. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost] The Spirit of God upon him had changed him “into another man.” Cf. 1 Samuel 10:6.

said unto them, Ye rulers of the people] For this was the highest judicial tribunal which the Jews had.

and elders of Israel] The best authorities omit of Israel. The council was composed of the chief priests, i.e. the heads of each of the twenty-four classes into which the priests were divided, the scribes, men who were skilled in all the Jewish law, and the elders, grave and learned men chosen to complete the number, which is stated to have been in all seventy-one.