And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them,
Peter is still preaching in the temple when the officials arrive and arrest him and John. This is the first clash between the young church and the religious leaders, and it raises a question: why should a healed man and a risen Jesus lead to arrest?
The arrest did more than stop a sermon. It shut a door on Israel.
But while they were speaking, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came to lay hands on them. They were grieved that the apostles preached the resurrection, which their unbelief and their fixed system of doctrine did not accept. They put them in prison, for it was evening. The hope of Israel was set aside; the grace of God had spoken in vain, great and patient as it was. Many, however, believed their word: five thousand people already confessed the Lord Jesus.
The "captain of the temple" is an office, not a soldier's rank.
There was also a "captain of the temple" (in Greek, strategos). See Luke 22:4, 52; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:24, 26. The word literally means "the leader of an army," and Acts 16:20 uses it of magistrates. But the captain of the temple had charge of the priests and Levites, not of soldiers.
Two complaints brought this group together: one about who may teach, and one about the message itself.
Peter and John were teaching the people, a duty which belonged specially to the priests. They boldly proclaimed the Lord's resurrection from the dead. The Sadducees felt that one of their pet beliefs was touched.
The names in this verse mark a shift. During the Lord's ministry the opposition had a different face.
A new group now came forward. While the Lord lived and worked, they had stayed more in the background. Back then the Pharisees were His active enemies. They championed a defective, false righteousness, and they opposed the Righteous One. Now the enemy had another and very different group among the Jews ready: the Sadducees. A truth that exposed their complete unbelief stirred them out of their usual calm... But the resurrection, shown in the person of Jesus, was intolerable. And no one is so intolerant as the people who boast that they tolerate every shade of opinion — when the truth confronts them.
The change of opponents was no accident.
Satan had the Sadducees as his tools against the doctrine of the resurrection, just as he had the Pharisees as fitting tools against a living Christ. We must expect Satan's well-organised opposition to the truth.
The Sadducees taught that there is no resurrection. What alarmed them was not only that Jesus had risen, but where and when it had happened.
Their whole system of thought — their unbelief, to put it plainly — was in danger. At that time most of the leaders of Israel, though not the Pharisees, held that there was no resurrection... It was not only the resurrection. What made it worse was this: a resurrection that had brought the power of God into the world as it now is. A man was raised from the dead and gone into heaven right among them... Where had this mighty deed been done? Among them — in Jerusalem itself, in their own day. It was not done in a corner.
You might expect clear proof to win people over. Here it did the opposite.
From now on the Sadducees pushed hardest. For them, the resurrection of the Saviour overthrew their creed of denial. How happy they might have been to have their dreadful denials pierced by this glorious light from heaven! But in fact, the more complete the proof of the truth of the gospel, the more they were stirred up against it. If the proof had been weaker, they would surely have acted more gently. But once argument becomes impossible, the will hiding underneath comes out into the open with even more stubborn energy.
Locking up the preachers did nothing to the message they had already delivered.
The apostles went into custody that evening until the next day. But the word was not bound, and the true light was already shining. Many of those who heard believed. The number of men rose to about five thousand.
- Interrupted — Peter is stopped mid-sermon. The offer of blessing to Israel is cut short, and grace, in Darby's words, had spoken in vain.
- Officials — the captain of the temple led the priests and Levites, not troops. Teaching the people was a job the priests claimed as their own.
- Opponents — the Pharisees fought the Lord in His lifetime. Now the Sadducees step forward, because a risen Jesus destroys their denial of resurrection.
- Nearness — what enraged them was a resurrection that had happened in their own city, in their own day, not in a corner.
- Outcome — the arrest held the preachers, but not the word. The light was already shining, and the men who believed numbered about five thousand.
being distressed on account of their teaching the people and preaching by Jesus the resurrection from among [the] dead;
Peter and John were still teaching the crowd when the authorities arrested them. What made the rulers so angry, and why did the Sadducees react most of all?
Two things provoked them at once: who was teaching, and what was taught.
Peter and John were teaching the people, a duty which belonged specially to the priests. They boldly proclaimed the Lord's resurrection from the dead. The Sadducees felt that one of their treasured doctrines had been struck at.
The opposition had also changed hands. While Jesus walked on earth, a different party led the attacks.
This doctrine of the resurrection was recognised as the doctrine the apostles preached openly. It was not that the soul goes to heaven when a person dies. It was that the dead will live again. The Pharisees were the greatest enemies of the Lord while He was on earth. They were the falsely righteous ones, set against the truly Righteous One. In the same way, after His death, Satan raised up the Sadducees, who were enemies of the doctrine of the resurrection.
A risen Man left the Sadducees nothing to stand on. And it had happened where they could not dismiss it.
Their whole system of thought — their unbelief, to be exact — was in danger... They felt most deeply the proclamation of the truth that there was a man risen from the dead and gone to heaven. It overthrew their whole system... Where had this mighty deed been done? Among them — in Jerusalem itself, in their own day. It was not done in a corner. It was not done in some hidden place of the earth. It was not done where nobody had seen it and nobody had heard anything about it.
The wording matters. The apostles did not just say that the dead would rise one day. The Pharisees already believed that. They preached a resurrection out from among the dead, through the very Man these rulers had condemned. (Some translations render the phrase "the resurrection from among the dead.")
The expression is "in Jesus," and no doubt the resurrection of Jesus Himself was the great subject of the apostles' testimony. But the expression implies something more... They might have been grieved at their preaching "the resurrection of the dead." But they could hardly have laid hands on them for that. The Pharisees, a far larger group than themselves, held the same faith. What roused their fury and persecution was the exclusive resurrection — announced by Jesus, and now proclaimed through Him.
There was more to their fear than the report of a risen man. The hope preached with it drew the people.
It was not only the report of the resurrection that these Sadducees feared... They also feared the setting of such an attractive and winning hope before the people. It was a hope full of grace and blessedness: that God would grant those who followed the banner of Christ here below to rise first. The resurrection of the Lord Himself was a kind of pledge and pattern of it.
Their creed allowed nothing beyond the ordinary run of nature. One raised Man ended that.
The resurrection of Him whom man had just killed is the plain, conclusive and unanswerable proof of God's power according to His word. It is the most complete refutation of those who admit nothing beyond the natural course of things in this world. Nobody disputes the laws that govern that course. Nobody disputes the knowledge of those laws that men call science. But the resurrection proves One above those laws, which in no way control or limit His power.
A belief held in advance can shut a man's mind to evidence. The arrest that followed came too late.
Pre-conceived falsehood will blind a man with unreasoning prejudice. Peter and John were then imprisoned until the next day. However, their word had been most effective in the two hours or so they had been able to speak, and many believed.
- The offence — the apostles taught the people, work the priests claimed as their own. And they preached the one doctrine the Sadducees denied.
- The overthrow — a risen Man in heaven wrecked the whole Sadducee system. It had happened in their own city, in their own day, not in a corner.
- The precision — not the general resurrection the Pharisees also held, but resurrection from among the dead, through Jesus. That exclusive hope turned annoyance into arrest.
- The proof — resurrection shows a Power above the fixed course of nature. So it silences those who admit nothing beyond it.
- The outcome — they jailed two men for a night; in the two hours before that, many believed.
and they laid hands on them, and put them in ward till the morrow; for it was already evening.
Two men who had just healed a crippled man and preached in the temple end the day behind a locked door. The hour was late, so the officials held them overnight — and the arrest raises a question: who were they really fighting?
The officials seized Peter and John for what they had just said. One writer names the group behind the arrest and what stirred them:
Religious authority took offence. Who were these men to speak inside the temple? A mighty miracle had been done in public, and no one could deny it. But officials are sensitive to any invasion of their rights, and they tend to leave God out of the account. And now a group came forward that had stayed more in the background while the Lord lived and worked. Back then the Pharisees were His active enemies. They championed a defective and false righteousness, and they opposed the Righteous One. Now the enemy had another and very different body among the Jews ready: the Sadducees. A truth stirred them out of their usual calm. It convicted them of complete unbelief, and so of hostility to God and His word.
The account tells us what the officials did. It says nothing about how the two apostles reacted. That silence is itself telling:
The next step is the arrest and imprisonment of the two apostles. Rough hands seize them. Of the Apostles we read nothing else. They submitted. The power of the Holy Spirit now showed itself in a new way with them. They could suffer, and perhaps with great joy. In perfect peace they let themselves be taken away.
By morning the council had a problem. One writer looks in on their private discussion:
The arrest had evidently been a great mistake, for they found that they could do nothing to the Apostles. A court can never afford to take up a case in haste and then find it must drop it. That course is bound to bring it into disrepute and discredit before men. Yet what had they done? They had kept two men in custody for a whole night for a good deed done to a crippled man! That was the light in which Peter put it, and against which they could urge nothing.
The prison door closed on the preachers, but the sermon had already done its work. The very next verse counts the harvest of a message that was cut short:
The apostles were put in custody that evening till the next morning. But the word was not bound. The true light was already shining. Many of those who heard believed. The number of men rose to about five thousand.
The same pattern held later on. Another writer follows the work forward, to the point where the Jewish ruling council pressed harder:
Nothing could stop the work that had started this way. A little later the opposition of the Sanhedrin grew sharper. Even then the writer of Acts tells us how the work marched on: "And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith."
The apostles did not treat this arrest as a personal grievance. In prayer they named the real enemy and the real target:
Satan hates the One who captured him too much to stay hidden, so from time to time he comes out of ambush to give battle. The Lord's servants knew his schemes. They traced the effects back to the right cause. Crying to God, they owned that the opposition was aimed not at them, but at God's Christ.
For the nation, the evening arrest carried a heavier meaning. One writer reads it as the moment Israel's leaders answered the offer of mercy:
They put them in prison, for it was evening. The hope of Israel was set aside; the grace of God had spoken in vain, great and patient as it was. Many, however, believed their word: five thousand persons already confessed the Lord Jesus.
- Cause. The officials seized them for preaching a risen Jesus, not for healing a man. That truth exposed the Sadducees' unbelief and set them against God's word.
- Conduct. Rough hands seized them; they submitted. Suffering quietly was the new proof that the Spirit was at work in them.
- Custody. Evening stopped the sermon. The council held two men all night "for a good deed done to a crippled man," and could never justify it.
- Contrast. The preachers were bound; the word was not. Five thousand men believed from a message the authorities cut off.
- Consequence. Behind the priests stood an older enemy, aiming at Christ Himself. By refusing the messengers, Israel's leaders set aside the grace God still offered them.
But many of those who had heard the word believed; and the number of the men had become [about] five thousand.
Peter's sermon at the temple ends with an arrest. Luke closes the scene not with the prison door but with a count of new believers. So who decides what preaching achieves — the authorities who silenced the speakers, or God, who had already sealed their work?
The chapter opens with hostile officials seizing Peter and John. One writer sets the arrest and the harvest side by side:
Satan stirs up the same hatred of man that led to the crucifixion of Christ. In Acts 4 we find three sets of attackers coming against the men who preached Jesus... For that serious offence "they laid hands on them, and put them in custody until the next day." But God had put His seal on their ministry. And "many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand."
Another writer states the same contrast in one sentence:
But if the apostles were put in custody that evening until the next day, the word was not bound, the true light was already shining.
One writer points out what did this work, and where it happened:
In the very town where the Lord had been crucified so recently, the work of gathering together those who should be saved began (Acts 2:47); and the Word did it. The movement did not begin in some obscure village of Galilee and then show itself to the world once it could boast of numbers. Just six weeks after the crucifixion of the Lord, the words of life were spoken in the very centre of Judaism — in the capital city Jerusalem, under the shadow of the temple. Those words bowed hearts to confess the crucified One as their Saviour and their Lord. Nothing could stop the work that started this way.
At Pentecost Peter's hearers cried out in alarm. Here they believe instead. One writer traces the difference to what Peter said about the risen Christ each time:
In Acts 2 Peter lifts up the risen Christ as Moses brought in the budding rod in Numbers 17 to shame the people. There it is a startling object, full of judgement on a rebellious people. Israel cries out under the weight of this, "Brothers, what shall we do?"... In Acts 3 he publishes the name of the same risen Jesus for the healing of these people. That name is set for salvation, not for judgement... Under this preaching the people do not cry out. Instead, "many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand." Peter had declared that he preached Jesus for blessing.
The count is not a total of everyone present:
Many of those who heard believed. The number of men rose to about five thousand. This means there were also quite a few women and children present. There is no good reason to take "men" in any sense other than its usual exact one.
Read that way, the number marks real advance on Pentecost rather than a restatement of it:
Their word had been very effective in the two hours or so they were able to speak. Many believed, so that the number of men alone had become about 5000. That was a marked increase since the day of Pentecost, when 3000 souls came to faith — not men only.
The turning of these hearers drew a line through the nation. One writer follows the two sides:
The repentance of the Jews... made a clear division between them and the leaders of their nation. Those leaders held on to their unbelief, and soon began to persecute the followers of Jesus of Nazareth... Those who believed were "added to the church." Those who refused the offered forgiveness kept their place and position in the world that hated the Father and the Son.
- Bound — The authorities could lock up Peter and John. They could not stop the word already spoken, for God had set His seal on that ministry.
- Heard — Spoken words did all this, in the very city where Christ was crucified weeks before. Nothing could stop what they started.
- Believed — This message held out Jesus for blessing and healing, not for judgement. So the hearers did not cry out in alarm. They believed.
- Counted — "Men" means men, so women and children stand outside the five thousand. Set against Pentecost's three thousand souls, the numbers were climbing.
- Divided — God added the believers to the church. The leaders who refused forgiveness kept their standing in a world that hated the Father and the Son.
And it came to pass on the morrow that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together at Jerusalem,
The morning after the arrest, Israel's whole religious leadership meets in Jerusalem. Their business is two fishermen and one healed man. They meet as judges, and God turns their court into the place where the leaders of the nation hear the name of Jesus.
Rulers, elders and scribes together made up the governing body of the nation. The men in that room already knew this case. One commentator names them and shows what their meeting achieved without meaning to:
The arrest of Peter and John called for a large gathering of the Jewish rulers, elders and scribes, including Annas and Caiaphas (in practice a joint high priest with Annas). These were the same men who had condemned the Lord Jesus to death. Of course it was the preaching of Jesus risen from the dead that angered them. But they could not ignore the striking miracle of the healing of the lame man... So their gathering was a God-ordained means of their hearing the truth about Christ risen from among the dead — the truth they did not want to hear.
The word "elder" has a long history. Here it does not yet mean what it will later mean in the church.
The word "elder" comes down from the earliest family days of Israel (Ex. 3:16). The family was the model of government, and in the family the father, as the elder, had authority. The nation then took the same pattern: the heads of houses became the heads of the nation. In this sense the word appears often in the Gospels and Acts (Matt. 26:3, 47, 57, 59; Acts 4:5, 8). In Acts 11:30 we find the first use of the word for the leaders in the Church of God.
Two fishermen from Galilee had never stood in such a place. The size of the assembly may have been the point.
The two apostles were kept in custody for the night, since it was evening when they were arrested, and they were to appear before the council the next day. These two Galilean fishermen stood for the first time as defendants before the leading people of their nation... The sight of that assembly could well have overwhelmed the prisoners. Perhaps such a display was meant to intimidate them. But did it? Their position was new to them, yet the Lord had foreseen it. He had warned them that they would stand before kings and rulers for His sake. He had also encouraged them with the promise that the Holy Spirit would teach them what to say.
They called it a trial. It became a preaching platform. One commentator traces the order across the two chapters:
The common people had the Gospel presented to them in the third chapter, the leaders are going to get it now in the fourth.
The charge was absurd, and the best witness for the defence stood in the room:
But did you ever hear of such utter folly as putting a man in prison, and trying him for a good deed — healing a cripple? God brings the man in, as it were, to give witness to that council. I do not suppose the council invited him, for he was an awkward witness. Look at him now, whole!
Earlier Peter had allowed that ignorance played a part. Before these men he drops that word, and one commentator explains why:
Now that he has these guilty leaders in front of him, he does not say, "I know that through ignorance you did it." They were now making it perfectly clear that there was a will — a wicked will. So he allows no excuse, and it is always so with God. When He first meets souls, He meets them as they are, with nothing but grace. When they go on rejecting Christ, there is no use denying that there is a rebellious will.
One writer sums up the whole day, from the gathering to Peter's answer:
On the next day the religious authorities crowded together, from the highest down through every grade, and they challenged the two apostles. Peter answered in the power of the Spirit Who filled him. The good deed was done in the name of the One they had crucified, and God had raised Him from the dead. His word describes Him as the Stone, thrown aside by the builders, yet made the head of the corner — the rejected but exalted Messiah.
- Gathered against Him — the rulers, elders and scribes were the same men who had condemned Jesus to death. The case had reopened itself.
- Gathered by Him — they called it a trial. It became "a God-ordained means of their hearing the truth" they refused to hear.
- Gathered to intimidate — the crowded court may have been meant to frighten two fishermen. But the Lord had told them they would stand before rulers, and promised the Spirit to give them words.
- Gathered to be told — chapter 3 brought the good news to ordinary people. Chapter 4 brings it to the leaders, with the healed man standing there as an awkward witness.
- Gathered as builders — Peter allows them no excuse of ignorance. They are the builders who threw the Stone aside, and God has made it the head of the corner.
and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of [the] high priestly family;
The morning after their arrest, Peter and John faced the men Luke names here — Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and the rest of the high priest's family. Why list a court that achieved nothing, and why call Annas high priest when he no longer held the office?
These men were not new opponents. One writer points out that their meeting served a purpose they never intended.
The arrest of Peter and John called for a large gathering of the Jewish rulers, elders and scribes. It included Annas and Caiaphas, who was almost a joint high priest with Annas. These were the same men who had condemned the Lord Jesus to death. What angered them was the preaching of Jesus risen from the dead. Yet they could not ignore the striking miracle of the healing of the lame man... So their gathering was God's own way of making them hear the truth about Christ risen from among the dead — the truth they did not want to hear.
Annas lost the office years before, yet Luke gives him the title first. Commentators differ on the reason. One answer is that the title stayed with him as an honour:
Annas became high priest in A.D. 7. Cyrenius, or Quirinus, the governor of Syria, appointed him. In the reign of Tiberius he lost the office, and four men followed him in quick succession, the last being Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law. It is thought that people still called Annas high priest out of courtesy, since he had once held the office.
Another writer would rather admit ignorance than correct Luke:
The Lord's questioning before Annas (John 18) shows that Annas still had authority in a moral sense, though not in fact. So people may have gone on calling him high priest (see Luke 3:2), because he had once held that office. We are sure that Luke writes about what he had searched out for himself. So if we cannot explain why Annas is called high priest here, it is because there is something we do not yet know. It is wiser to admit our ignorance and wait for fuller light than to accuse the historian of ignorance, until we are quite sure we know better than he did.
The confusion over titles points to a deeper disorder. Rome now decided who served as high priest. One writer traces this in the career of Caiaphas.
Caiaphas was a Sadducee. He received his office in A.D. 17 or 18 from the Roman governor Valerius Gratus, who made and unmade high priests, you might say, as he pleased... God's order in the high priesthood was set aside. It seems that a Gentile, Valerius Gratus, appointed whichever man of the house of Aaron he chose.
Nothing certain is known about John and Alexander. That silence carries its own lesson.
Everyone knows the names of the two men on trial, and Scripture keeps the record of their service forever. The story of John and Alexander was well known at the time, but it has almost completely faded away. The great people of the earth are often nearly forgotten, while God's servants of the same day are remembered and honoured.
Two fishermen now stood before the whole ruling family. The Lord had prepared them for this moment.
For the first time these two Galilean fishermen stood on trial before the leading men of their nation... The sight of that assembly could easily have overwhelmed the prisoners. Perhaps such a display was meant to frighten them. But did it? Their position was new to them, yet the Lord had foreseen it. He had warned them that men would bring them before kings and rulers for His sake. He had also encouraged them by promising the Holy Spirit, who would teach them what to say... Had these rulers stamped out the movement? It had taken new life since its Founder's death.
The council saw Peter and John as untrained men. One writer turns that verdict back on the judges.
They saw the boldness of these men, but they also saw that they were untrained and uneducated. It was not that Peter and John were ignorant of the truth. The judges were the ignorant ones. It was not that Peter and John knew little of the Scriptures. Caiaphas and Annas and the others were the ones who knew little of the Scriptures... It showed, so to speak, the power and the grace of God made perfect in weakness.
- Assembled — the same court that condemned Jesus now judges two of His followers.
- Appointed — Annas keeps the title without the office. Rome made and unmade high priests at will, and God's order in the priesthood was set aside.
- Arranged — the size of the court may have been meant to frighten. But the Lord had warned His disciples about rulers and promised the Spirit to teach them what to say.
- Answered — the men the council called untrained knew the Scriptures better than their judges. God's power was made perfect in weakness.
- Anonymous — John and Alexander were famous then and forgotten now. Scripture keeps the service of the two prisoners forever.