And having called them, they charged [them] not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
The healing of a lame man had drawn a crowd, and Jerusalem's highest court now faced a miracle it could not deny. Its answer was not an argument but a gag order — so what does a believer owe to rulers who forbid what God commands?
The apostles were brought back in to hear the court's ruling, and their answer came at once.
In solemn form, no doubt, the court called the apostles in to hear its sentence... What a useless move by Annas, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and all the high priest's relatives! They had perhaps expected the apostles to submit to that order. They learned at once that the apostles refused.
The council had already admitted among themselves that the sign was real. Silencing the witnesses was the only move left.
They knew the remarkable deed the apostle had just done. They recognised it as more than a miracle — as "a sign". Yet they set themselves against the Almighty... They are well aware that "these men" claim nothing for themselves, and assert nothing but the name of Jesus. But this is the very name they themselves most fear and would banish for ever if they could.
Behind the order lay a guilt they refused to face:
Sad is the stubbornness of men who are determined not to admit their plainly shown guilt! To defend themselves they demand that God keep silence!
Notice what is forbidden. Not healing, not doing good, not teaching in general — only one name.
The early chapters of Acts bear witness to the bitter way in which the leaders tried to suppress the Name of Jesus. They could not object to the healing of the lame man. But they objected fiercely when people credited the power of that good work to the Name.
The men who issued the ban held the highest religious office in the nation. That makes it worse, not better.
So the council ordered Peter and John not to speak or teach at all in reference to (or resting on) the name of Jesus (v. 18). That charge was as bold as it was wicked. It was worse still because it came from rulers claiming the highest authority in religion. How solemn to think that without realising it they were treating their own Messiah this way!
The ban set two authorities against each other.
They admit defeat. Then they call in the apostles and charge them "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus." This command raised the most important question possible: obey God, or obey man?... Israel's religious leaders no longer explained the will of God — they opposed it.
Refusing an order is not the same as despising authority. The refusal itself has to rest on God's command, not on personal preference.
A parent's authority is sacred: suppose I were a Jew, and he tells me not to become a Christian. I disobey him because there is a higher obligation. This matters morally. We may never set aside legitimate authority out of our own will or self in any way. We may do it only on the direct authority of God. I never have a right of my own, but I ought to obey. And the point is simple. What makes me obey a parent or a magistrate, or whoever it may be, is the authority God has given them — and it does. So that authority cannot be real when it calls me to disobey God's direct command.
The order was meant to contain the story. It did the opposite.
So ended the first conflict with the religious power. The council did not come out of it victorious... What had been gained? News of the miracle had spread far more widely, and the highest religious authority in the land had set its seal on it as real.
- Cornered. The council could not deny the sign, so it stopped arguing and banned the message. It was self-defence dressed as a verdict: a demand that God fall silent.
- The Name. The healing was never the offence; crediting it to the name of Jesus was. That one name was what the rulers most feared and most wanted erased.
- The question. The ban raised the plainest issue there is: obey God, or obey man. The apostles refused to treat it as an open question.
- The limit. Human authority is real and God-given. But it stops where it orders what God forbids. Even then, refusal is right only when it rests on God's word, never on our own will.
- The result. The gag order spread the very testimony it aimed to stop. The court's own inquiry confirmed the miracle to everyone.
But Peter and John answering said to them, If it be righteous before God to listen to you rather than to God, judge ye;
Peter and John had healed a man who could not walk. The council then ordered them never to speak again in the name of Jesus. Instead of arguing, the two men handed the question back to their judges.
The command came from the rulers with the highest religious authority in the nation. That made it worse, not better.
The council ordered Peter and John not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus. That charge was as bold as it was wicked, and worse still because it came from rulers claiming the highest authority in religion. How solemn to think that they were treating their own Messiah this way without realising it! And why did they not realise it? Was the light God had given them through the prophets useless? At that very moment they admitted a clear sign in the man who was healed. They could not deny it, yet they would not believe. None are so bitter and stubborn as those who, responsible as His people to do His will, have made up their mind to do their own.
The apostles do not argue their own case. They ask the council to measure its own order by the standard a ruler is meant to keep.
This reply put the case with unanswerable plainness and moral power. A ruler, especially a religious one, must uphold what is righteous before God. Their charge amounted to listening to themselves instead of to God. They demanded not one more word in the name of Jesus, though God had just honoured that name openly and unmistakably.
Note who the apostles were refusing. These were religious leaders, not the civil government.
These religious leaders of men were opposed to Christ. The apostles were not setting themselves up against the civil power. That a Christian must never do. But Judaism was a religious system, judged by God and set aside, and here it was acting against Christ.
The word of God tells believers to obey those in authority. There is one exception, and it is narrow.
Obedience to the governing authorities is the plain direction of the word of God for His people (Rom. 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17). It is not for us to ask how that authority came to power, or what kind of person holds it. Our part is to obey. But sometimes the will of man clashes with the word of God and tries to force that will on our consciences. Then we must obey God rather than man.
Saying no to a command is one thing; fighting back is another. Commentators are careful to separate the two.
It is our duty to obey them and submit to them in all things. This holds as long as they do not call on us to disobey God or act against our conscience. If they do that, we must — what? Resist? No, but suffer.
Later the rulers had the apostles whipped for this obedience. Here is how they took it.
We may suffer for obeying God, but then this is an honour. The apostles were whipped because they were determined to obey God, and they bore the consequence humbly. For a Jew, a whipping in the council counted as a great disgrace. But they bore it quietly, and went out rejoicing that they were counted worthy to be dishonoured for the Name. This was not "passive resistance" but holy obedience — suffering the consequence without a complaint and full of joy.
Where did such boldness come from? Not from the men themselves.
The rulers did not know the presence of that Spirit who fills the weakest with a boldness no one can deny. Not for one moment would the apostles give way to man when God was in question. Nothing can intimidate the Holy Spirit, and when someone speaks as He leads, he has all the power of God on his side. What are chief priests and scribes and elders to one who has the Spirit of God with him?
- Judge — Peter does not lecture the council. He asks them to apply their own standard. A ruler must uphold what is right before God, and their order collapses under that test.
- Deny — The rulers had a healed man standing in front of them. They could not deny the sign; they simply would not believe it, and silenced the name instead.
- Submit — Outside this one point, the plain instruction is to obey those in authority. We do not weigh how they came to power or what kind of people they are.
- Refuse — Only one thing crosses the line: human will pressing against God's word to bind the conscience. Then the answer is no — never armed resistance, but willingness to suffer.
- Rejoice — When the beating came, they took it quietly and went out glad to be shamed for the Name. That is obedience carried through, and the courage for it came from the Spirit of God, not from the men themselves.