Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
There is a sharp contrast between the kindly generosity of Barnabas (
ch. 4:36, 37) and the cupidity of Ananias and Sapphira (
ch. 5:1-11).
Only a truthful narrator would tell the story of Ananias and Sapphira at this point. But just as there had been a Judas among the twelve disciples, so in the infant church, pure and zealous though it was, there were found two who preferred meanness to generosity and hypocrisy to honesty. Yet the story is told calmly and dispassionately, and the reader is instructed and moved by a recital of the plain facts.
Meaning,
“Jehovah is gracious.” This is a common name, belonging also to the man who befriended Saul of Tarsus when he was first converted (
ch. 23:2; 24:1). It corresponds to the Hebrew Hananiah in
Jer. 28:1; Dan. 1:6, 7.
This name probably represents the Aramaic shappira’, “beautiful,” although some derive it from the Greek sappheiros, “a sapphire.”
Acts 5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Gr.
nosphizō, in the form here used,
“set apart for himself.” In
Titus 2:10 this verb is translated
“purloining.” It is used in the LXX (
Joshua 7:1) for the sin of Achan. The mere retention by Ananias of part of the selling price of the land was not in itself a sin. Actually, he was under no compulsion to give anything. He had professed a willingness to give, but he was not obliged to give any fixed amount. The money was his own, to give in whole or in part. But the part was brought as though it were the whole.
This was the deception. It was an acted lie.
The approval with which Luke tells the story of the self-sacrifice of Barnabas must have reflected the approval of the church. Ananias apparently thought that he could gain the same approval, but with less sacrifice on his part. The desire to please was strong enough to gain a partial victory over greed. But greed was strong enough to triumph over honesty. The impulse to sell came from the Spirit of God; the impulse to retain part of the price was evil. The act was an attempt to serve both God and mammon. The sin was in some respects like that of Gehazi (see on
2 Kings 5:20-27), but seen against the background of the miracles of Pentecost and the extraordinary progress of the church under the Spirit’s guidance, it was more heinous and was visited with severer punishment.
Sapphira was evidently a willing accomplice. Theirs was a planned offense.
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
The spokesman for the church.
If Ananias had wished, he could have resisted the temptation. Had he resisted, the tempter would have fled from him (
James 4:7).
Satan filled thine heart.
Peter traced evil to its source. His knowledge of what Ananias and Sapphira were doing came from the gift of discernment (
1 Cor. 2:14; 12:10). In sad contrast to this, Ananias had opened his heart to Satan until his mind was full of covetous and deceitful thoughts.
The Spirit had been given to guide the believers into all truth (
John 16:13), but Ananias was trying, vainly, to deceive the Spirit of truth (see on
John 14:17, 26; 16:13).
Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Ananias was not compelled to sell the land; it was expected only that he would honestly bring from the proceeds what he had pledged. The implication is that the church compelled no one to give to the common fund, but if a man did promise to give, he should give what he had promised. At every stage Ananias was free to act as he thought best. The part he tried to retain might not have been large; he could have retained much more, had he done so honestly. But this attempt to obtain a reputation for generosity without the reality of sacrifice made him guilty of sacrilege.
Literally, “put this deed.” This implies a thought-out plan on the part of Ananias. It was not a matter of yielding to a sudden temptation, but of accepting into his heart a plan which, never right, developed into an evil act. Satan had entered his heart in terms of the scheme, and had not been cast out.
This does not mean that Ananias had not lied at all to men, but that his offense lay primarily in the fact that he had presumed to deceive God. All sin is ultimately against God, although it also gravely affects men. David had recognized this, for he said,
“Against thee, thee only, have I sinned” (
Ps. 51:4). Ananias had either ignored God or thought he could deceive Him as he had hoped to deceive his fellows. On either count he was sinning against God, and Peter rightly gives this prominence.
The use of the word
“God” throws light on the Biblical teaching regarding the Holy Spirit. In
Acts 5:3 Ananias’ sin is identified as lying
“to the Holy Ghost,” and here it is described as lying
“unto God.” This suggests the unity that exists between the Spirit and the Father, and serves to warn the Christian of the heinousness of sanctimonious falsehood (see on
Matt. 12:31).
Acts 5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
Gr.
ekpsucho’,
“to expire,” a term that is found in medical literature. Death was not a coincidence. There was a close connection between Peter’s denunciation of the sin and the death of the sinner. Any doubt on this point is removed by considering the death of Sapphira (
vs. 7-10), which was foretold by Peter after his exposure of the deceit. Compare the judgment on Nadab and Abihu (
Lev. 10:2), and on Achan (
Joshua 7:20-26); see on
2 Chron. 22:8. Compare on
Matt. 27:50.
This was a terrible judgment, but we need not wonder at it. Ananias and Sapphira were members of the infant church. They had drawn near to God. They had undoubtedly tasted some of the heavenly gifts of salvation. Perhaps they had received some of the gifts of the Spirit. But by a false spirit they had committed an act of sacrilege. If not strikingly and visibly met in these early days of the church, such acts of deception might have undermined the work of the apostles. God interposed here to save His church from greater dangers and evils. The experience holds a lesson for us: “If a man attend a convention or a religious service and sing with fervor, ‘My all is on the altar’ when it is not, he is committing the sin of Ananias and Sapphira.”—G. CAMPBELL MORGAN.
Luke often associates miracles with fear in the hearts of the beholders (see
Luke 1:12, 65; 5:26; 7:16; 8:37; Acts 2:43; 19:17). But here it is evidently more than the reverential awe of
Acts 2:43. In a large company there could well have been other dishonest individuals, upon whom a sort of terror might well have fallen. To the rest must have come a deeper reverence for the God who would thus vindicate His own righteousness. The fear was immediate. It reached out among the believers before Sapphira had heard of her husband’s death. Fear of this sort would be a deterrent upon any who were not completely sincere in their profession of Christianity.
Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words.
Acts 5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
Literally, “younger men.”
Or,
“wrapped him up,” probably in the robe he was wearing at the moment. It was customary to wrap the body in a winding sheet, followed by immediate burial outside the walls of a city. Among the Jews contact with a corpse resulted in ceremonial defilement (see on
Num. 19:11). This, coupled with the desire to avoid costly embalming methods, required a prompt burial.
As is seen from the burials of Lazarus (see on
John 11:38) and Jesus (see on
Matt. 27:60), the dead were deposited in caves or tombs, which were closed by large stones. Thus little time would be needed for the burial of Ananias. For Jewish attention to funeral rites see on
Acts 8:2.
Acts 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
Literally, “an interval of about three hours,” possibly until the next hour for prayer. This was time enough for the disposal of Ananias’ body, but the news had not yet reached Sapphira.
To the room where Peter and the rest of the congregation had just witnessed the death and removal of her husband.
Acts 5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Possibly, “addressed her.” Peter’s question was not to trap a conspirator, but to give Sapphira an opportunity to show repentance. She could have prevented her husband’s trespass, but had failed to do so. She now had the chance to clear her own conscience by confession. She had misused the previous opportunity; now she failed again.
Peter’s forthright question might have warned Sapphira that their scheme was known, but she maintained the lie upon which she and her husband had agreed. She answered glibly, “Yea, for so much.” Peter may have mentioned the sum that Ananias had brought in.
Acts 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
The offense was particularly heinous because it involved premeditated deception.
That is, to
“try,” or to
“test,” whether the Holy Spirit was really a discerner of the secrets of men’s hearts. The expression
“Spirit of the Lord” is probably used in its OT sense, as the Spirit of Jehovah (cf.
2 Kings 2:16; Isa. 61:1; etc.). The combination is rare in the NT, occurring only here and in
2 Cor. 3:17.
Peter is speaking not as a judge but as a prophet. The Holy Spirit had already condemned them. In this instance the coming judgment is foretold, and the announcement barely preceded its execution. To Peter his gift of discernment showed that the young men whose footsteps he heard returning from the burial of Ananias would very soon have another task of like nature.
Acts 5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
Her death was as immediate as that of her husband.
In fulfillment of Peter’s prophecy.
There was no funeral ceremony on the occasion of this double tragedy, whatever care may have been given to the dead at other times (cf.
Luke 23:55, 56).
Acts 5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
With the exception of the doubtful reading in
ch. 2:47, this is the first occurrence of the word in Acts. Its presence indicates a development in organization. See on
Matt. 18:17. The startling death of Ananias and Sapphira would give a new significance to the society and its leaders.
These were outside of the church, but they heard of the power being exercised among its members.
Acts 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch.
This may be only the Hebrew way of expressing agency (cf.
Ex. 35:29; Lev. 8:36; etc.). But in the NT Christ’s hands are often shown as the instrument of His miracles (see
Mark 6:2, 5; Luke 4:40; etc.). The promise to Christ’s followers was:
“They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover” (
Mark 16:18). Therefore, the expression here may well be literal, although
Acts 5:15 shows that the people believed that cures could also be wrought without the use of the apostles’ hands.
See on
Mark 16:17, 18; John 14:12; Acts 2:22. The early church was born, even as Christ’s ministry was conducted, in the setting of the miraculous. The tragedy of Ananias and Sapphira was followed by miracles of healing and blessing.
Rather, “were being wrought,” in other words, time after time, upon repeated occasions.
See on
chs. 1:14; 4:24. Luke takes great satisfaction in emphasizing the unity of the disciples. Since Solomon’s Porch is mentioned, this description may refer to meetings conducted by the apostles at the usual hours of prayer, about 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M.
See on
John 10:23 and
Acts 3:2; 11. This was a favorite place for teachers to gather with their listeners. There is no evidence, however, that the Christians had taken over this portico as a regular place for their exclusive worship (cf.
ch. 3:11).
Acts 5:13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.
Or,
“but,” stressing the contrast between the believers in
v. 12 and those who did not believe, in
v. 13.
Commentators have suggested several explanations of this passage. The seeming contrast with “the people” in the last part of the verse suggests that the upper, ruling classes may be meant.
Fear of sharing the fate of Ananias and Sapphira deterred those who were not willing wholeheartedly to follow Christ.
Gr.
kollaō,
“to glue,” “to fasten firmly together.” Compare on
ch. 9:26.
That is, on the other hand, emphasizing the favorable reaction of “the people.”
More exactly translated, “esteemed them [that is, the apostles] highly.”
Acts 5:14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
Rather, “kept being added.” Conversions occurred almost daily.
Grammatically, in the Greek, these words can be attached to “kept being added,” or to “believers,” giving “believers in the Lord.”
The specific mention of women suggests that there were large numbers of them coming into the church. For the prominence of women in Luke’s narratives see on
Luke 8:2. Luke also mentions women as suffering under the persecution that arose after the death of Stephen (
Acts 8:3).
Acts 5:15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
The thought is continued from the first part of
v. 12, the intervening sentences being parenthetical.
Compare
Mark 1:32-34. It was not enough for the disciples to heal in public places and in the homes; relatives of the sick brought them out into the streets, that they might have attention the more quickly. The whole amazing work of healing was carried on in the most public fashion possible. Not only throughout the city of Jerusalem, but also to the surrounding towns (
Acts 5:16) did the news of the extraordinary activities of the apostles and their fellow believers spread, and great was the harvest of souls.
Peter alone is mentioned here, and perhaps he did the major part of the healing work. In
v. 12, however, all the apostles are distinctly credited with a share in performing the miracles. The people healed had faith, not in Peter and his companions, but in the Lord, whom the apostles represented.
Acts 5:16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of “unto.” The inhabitants of the surrounding towns brought out their sick, but did not necessarily carry them into Jerusalem. The verse may cover a fairly long period of time, during which the apostles could have visited a considerable number of “the cities round about” Jerusalem.
The Greek verb here translated
“vexed” is found in the NT only here and in
Luke 6:18, but is used frequently in the works of Greek medical writers. It is therefore just such a word as one would expect Luke the physician to use.
See on
Matt. 12:43, 44. Christ gave His disciples power to cast out such evil spirits (see
Matt. 10:1). The Seventy had already exercised that power (
Luke 10:17), and the Twelve had doubtless performed similar miracles. But now, in the full power of the Holy Spirit, they were doing the
“greater works” that Jesus had promised (
John 14:12; Mark 16:17).
Compare
Matt. 8:16; 12:15; DA 241 concerning the similar results arising from Christ’s medical ministry. How extraordinary it must have been to see whole families, and possibly whole communities, free from sickness. The fame of the church and its leaders spread far and wide.
Acts 5:17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Rather, “but,” pointing out the contrast between the multitudes flocking to the disciples for healing and the high priest preparing to subject the disciples to a second persecution.
Perhaps a more comprehensive expression than that used in
ch. 4:6:
“as many as were of the kindred of the high priest” (see on
ch. 4:6). The opposition had had time to gather larger forces.
Gr.
hairesis,
“choice,” hence,
“opinion,” by extension,
“party,” or
“faction.” The word found its way into English as
“heresy,” but did not originally possess the undesirable meaning soon attributed to it by ecclesiastical authorities. In
chs. 15:5; 26:5 hairesis is applied, in a nonderogatory way, to the Pharisees. In
chs. 24:5; 28:22 it is applied to the Nazarenes (Christians) in derogation of them.
Gr. zēlos, “zeal,” and in a bad sense, as here, “jealousy,” or “envy.”
Either of these meanings could be applied here. Here was an intense outbreak of strong party feeling. There was anxiety as to what the followers of the Nazarene might do. Both Pharisees and Sadducees might experience this feeling. There was resentment because the untutored apostles were presuming to teach the people. Both Pharisees and Sadducees experienced this resentment. But the Sadducees felt a special antagonism because the apostles were teaching that there was a future life—a belief that the Sadducees rejected. The fact that the Pharisees agreed with the apostles on this point did not please the Sadducees (see Vol. V, pp. 51-53).
Acts 5:18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.
the Sadducean authorities were thoroughly aroused, and the apostles—possibly all the Twelve—were seized. This makes it clear that although Luke has been generally mentioning only the speeches of Peter, with some slight notice of the activities of John, the rest of the apostles had been publicly active.
Gr. en tērēsei dēmosia, which may be translated either “in prison publicly” or “in the public prison.” Later, rabbinic use of the word dēmosia as “prison” favors the latter translation.
Acts 5:19 But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said,
Emphasizing the contrast with
v. 18. The authorities imprisoned the apostles, the angel released them. It would seem as though this was a divine protest against the actions of the Sadducees, who taught that there was
“neither angel, nor spirit” (
ch. 23:8).
Luke is obviously recording what he considers a supernatural occurrence. Those who do not accept that view, and who yet wish to maintain the historicity of the narrative, are driven to suggest that the
“angel” was some zealous and courageous disciple; and that the apostles, in the darkness of the night and the excitement of their liberation, mistakenly ascribed their rescue to the intervention of an angel. But there is no possibility of adequately explaining Luke’s words in any other terms than a miraculous deliverance. The human aid of Gamaliel, at a later hour, is freely and openly recorded (
vs. 34-39). But here the aid is frankly described as supernatural. Although the apostles were arrested again only a few hours later (
v. 26), God had demonstrated His power, the apostles had the comfort of heavenly intervention on their behalf, and the Sadducees had been given an opportunity to know that they were fighting against supernatural powers. Surely the angels are
“ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (
Heb. 1:14).
Rather, “during the night.”
Doors, even the firmly fastened doors of prisons, are no problem to the angels of God. The apostles were taken out from under the very eyes of the keepers, either under the cover of deep darkness or because the eyes of the guards were
“holden” (cf.
ch. 12:6, 7). The doors were left secured, or were locked again, leaving everything as it had been before the angel came (cf.
ch. 5:23).
Acts 5:20 Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.
The thought is that they were to present themselves publicly and boldly, for the Temple was the most public of places. There they had first been arrested (
chs. 3:1, 11; 4:1-3).
The adjective
“this” is significant. It refers to the life the apostles were advocating—life in Christ. This life begins in the present world, and continues into eternity (cf.
John 17:3). This teaching was especially unacceptable to the Sadducees because of their disbelief in an afterlife. See Vol. V, p. 53.
Acts 5:21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Note the immediate obedience of the apostles.
Rather, “about dawn.” The Mishnah indicates that the sacrifices began to be offered in the Temple in the morning as soon as the sky was light (Yoma, 3. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 131; Tamid, 3. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 18).
This is what the Sadducees in council had forbidden the apostles to do (
ch. 4:17, 18). These haughty rulers were enraged by the fact that the untrained and unauthorized Galileans were teaching, that they taught the resurrection, and that they witnessed to Jesus Christ as the One who, having been crucified, had risen from the dead. But the apostles were under divine orders. The church has a teaching mission to perform, the mission of presenting the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to a sin-sick world. That task it must never neglect.
That is, into the council chamber, to decide what should be done with the imprisoned apostles. The council had not yet learned of their mysterious release.
For comment see on
v. 17.
That is, the Sanhedrin (see Vol. V, p. 67). Evidently the case before them was considered so important that no effort was spared to gather together as full a membership as possible. Gamaliel’s presence indicates that not only Sadducees but also Pharisees and others were called to this meeting (see
v. 34).
Gr.
gerousia, the name of Sparta’s assembly of old men, or elders. The word was used for the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem (see Vol. V, p. 67). Here it is an official group of elders, qualified by age and experience to give counsel on special occasions. It may have been a gathering corresponding to
“all the estate of the elders” of
ch. 22:5.
Gr.
desmōtērion,
“a place where bound men are kept.” This is a different word from that used in
v. 18, possibly suggesting that the apostles had been bound soon after their arrest.
Acts 5:22 But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned and told,
Gr.
hupēretai, literally,
“underrowers” on a galley; later
“servants,” and then
“officers” serving under the Sanhedrin. See also on
Luke 4:20; Acts 4:1.
There was no external evidence of their escape from the prison (see on
vs. 19, 23).
Acts 5:23 Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within.
If the angel had unlocked the doors, he locked them after freeing the apostles. The guards at the gates seem not to have been aware that the prisoners had escaped. Compare release of Peter (
ch. 12:6-10), but contrast the furor and drama of Paul and Silas’ experience in Philippi (
ch. 16:25-30).
Acts 5:24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.
Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of this expression.
Probably the heads of the 24 priestly courses, and not to be confused with the high priest.
Rather, “these words,” referring to the report that the police had brought back.
Rather, “perplexed,” “at a loss,” and not without reason. The Jewish leaders’ repressive efforts had failed, a miracle had liberated their victims, and the Christian way was gaining ground.
Acts 5:25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.
By this time the morning must have been well advanced. The Sanhedrin had been called, and was assembled, yet was still ignorant of the apostles’ whereabouts. In the meantime the news of the apostles’ activities had spread abroad, and was now reported to the Sanhedrin.
This came almost as a taunt to the Jewish leaders: You put them in prison, but they are busy doing in the Temple what you have forbidden them to do anywhere.
The clause reads literally,
“In the temple standing and teaching,” referring to the command of the angel (
v. 20). They were acting like men who knew what work they must do, a work that had been temporarily interfered with, but to which they came back as quickly as possible. Their teaching of the people was the offense that so much incensed the Sadducees. Had the apostles simply worshiped, keeping their new-found faith to themselves, they might have been left undisturbed. But they had received a commission, and were impelled to carry it out. They must propagate their faith. To suffer persecution for sharing the treasure of faith is far better than to suffer a guilty conscience for hiding it
“under a bushel” (
Matt. 5:15).
Acts 5:26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
The captain with the officers.
The apostles set an example of unresisting acquiescence, even though with the tide of feeling evidently in their favor they might easily have raised a popular tumult. The miracles recently wrought through them, and their ideal communal life, had helped to win favor for the new faith. In their attitude of nonresistance they followed the example of their Master. In coming peacefully before the Sanhedrin they had the best opportunity to proclaim the gospel to ears that otherwise might never have heard the saving message.
Compare on
Matt. 21:26, 46. There was abundant evidence of the favor in which the people held the believers at this time.
Apparently the people were as ready to stone the officers as the priests were to stone the apostles.
Acts 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
As far as the record shows, the Sanhedrin avoided the topic of the apostles’ release. They either did not believe there was supernatural intervention in this case or demurred referring to it. Their attitude is not surprising, for they had already refused to believe in a greater miracle—the resurrection of the One whom they had crucified.
Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading,
“we commanded you with a command.” This expression is an echo of a common Hebrew idiom, and suggests that Luke may be giving a literal translation of a question originally put in Aramaic. The charge had been given to Peter and John only (
ch. 4:18), but word of it had gone to all the Twelve. The apostles had declared that they would not abide by the command, and had continued to preach with boldness (
ch. 4:19, 20, 31). They were obeying a higher authority, their Lord (
Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8).
Compare on
chs. 3:16; 4:17. This was the apostles’ great offense. The Jews had commanded that the name should not even be mentioned. It was the name of Him whom they knew they had crucified, who was now being proclaimed as alive, and whose followers were doing mighty works that could not be denied. This name, and the activity centering on it, was the point of the Sadducees’ attack.
Here was an unconscious testimony from their enemies themselves that the apostles had worked faithfully and successfully to fulfill the first part of Christ’s command (cf.
ch. 1:8), by proclaiming the gospel in Jerusalem.
Rather,
“teaching,” the same word in the original that is translated
“doctrine” in
Matt. 7:28. But the
“teaching” in general was rapidly taking on the quality and meaning of doctrine in the modern sense, as illustrated in
1 Tim. 4:16.
Rather, “ye want.” This was not true. Peter wanted their salvation, not their condemnation.
They avoided mentioning the name of Jesus. This may have been through scorn, because they despised the crucified Galilean, or through guilt, because they knew their responsibility for His death, or through fear, because they knew how powerful the name had proved to be. Peter had previously and without hesitation charged them with crucifying this Jesus (
chs. 2:36; 3:13-15; 4:10), making their scorn empty and their fear reasonable. Had their position been just, these priestly judges would have been dealing out penalties; but they found themselves in the position of culprits who were anticipating accusation. In their ears must have rung the terrible cry they uttered in Pilate’s judgment hall,
“His blood be on us, and on our children” (
Matt. 27:25). They had already brought
“this man’s blood” upon themselves.
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Peter and the other apostles.
Literally, “Peter and the apostles.” The wording “Peter and the apostles” does not imply either that Peter was excluded from the apostles or that he was superior to them. Undoubtedly, he was the most active in all the foregoing scenes, and his name and personality are naturally prominent in the narrative.
Rather,
“We must,” with a sense of moral compulsion (cf.
ch. 1:16). This is an even plainer statement of the argument previously used by Peter and John (
ch. 4:19), with a yet greater stress upon the fact that they could not do other than choose to obey God, regardless of consequences. They had the command of Jesus in the Great Commission, and the challenge to be witnesses for Him (
ch. 1:8), and more lately, the explicit command of the angel (
ch. 5:20). Jesus had laid down the principle that both Caesar and God were to be obeyed. Caesar must be obeyed in respect to what is his due, and God in respect to what is His due (
Matt. 22:21). But the Christian cannot serve two masters (
Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13). Since only one master can receive ultimate allegiance, that master must be God. This basic principle Peter is making very clear. Just as the leaders of the Sanhedrin had not deigned to mention the name of Jesus, so Peter does not set their names in the wording of this principle. He simply says
“men,” even such men of authority as those before whom he is standing. He regards the members of the Sanhedrin as men who once were agents of God, but who have now lost sight of their duty to God.
Luther declared at the council of Worms, “My conscience has been taken captive by the word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen” (quoted in E. G. Schwiebert, Luther and His Times, p. 505). These are noble words, illustrating a noble principle, revealing a noble experience. May presentday Christians emulate it.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
The apostles did not disassociate themselves from Israel. They were serving the same God as the Sanhedrin claimed to serve (cf.
ch. 3:13).
There are two possible interpretations of these words. They may refer to God’s gift of Christ in the Incarnation (cf.
ch. 3:22), or they may refer to God’s act in raising Christ from the dead (cf.
chs. 10:40; 13:37). Both interpretations are admissible.
In the Greek, “ye” is emphatic, contrasting their action with what the Lord had done. The word “slew” intimates that the guilt of the crucifixion was as strongly upon the Jews as if they themselves had performed the act.
The phrase reads literally,
“ye slew, having hanged upon a tree.” The expression describes the Roman mode of execution, not the Jewish. This wording is found in the LXX of
Deut. 21:23, where it is used in a wider sense, including such forms of punishment as hanging or impaling. However, the Jews hanged only those who were already dead (
Deut. 21:22, 23; Joshua 10:26). The phrase
“hanged on a tree,” used once more by Peter (
Acts 10:39), does not occur again in the NT. However, in his description of the vicarious atonement (
1 Peter 2:24), Peter uses the word
“tree” for
“cross”:
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” See on
Acts 16:24; cf.
Gal. 3:13. But the sinner, seeking his Lord, knows that the blame cannot be fastened on Jew or Roman, but rather that it was his own sins that slew his Lord. Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us, that by a pricelessly gracious exchange we might receive the righteousness of God through Him (
2 Cor. 5:21).
Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Gr.
hupsoō, a word used in
John 3:14; 12:32 in the sense of
“lifted up,” and in Phil 2:9 and the LXX of
Isa. 52:13, with the meaning
“exalted.” Peter has referred to these two definitions (cf.
Acts 2:33), and now he proceeds to deal with the second.
Or,
“at his right hand” (see on
ch. 2:33). The right hand is a common Biblical figure for authority and might (cf.
Ex. 15:6).
See on
ch. 3:15. The title of sovereignty is closely united with the title that pledges salvation. Christ desires to rule over men that He might be their Saviour. We cannot have Him as our Saviour unless He rules over us, and if He governs our lives He will save us. His two offices are inseparable.
Note the basic unity of the teaching of the apostles with that of John the Baptist and of Jesus (see on
Matt. 3:2; 4:17). The record of apostolic teaching presents a more complete revelation of the way in which forgiveness had been provided— through the vicarious death of the Saviour.
Rather,
“the taking away of sins” (see on
ch. 2:38). Repentance is a necessary prelude to forgiveness. Forgiveness is a joint gift from the Father and the Son (see on
Mark 2:7-11). A righteous and just God cannot accept a sinner into His presence except as the sinner by faith knows Jesus Christ as the sin bearer (
1 Peter 2:24) and accepts Him as his personal Saviour (
Rom. 3:23-26). Through His work as sin bearer the sins of the repentant one are remitted, or taken away (see on
John 1:29), and he stands justified in His sight.
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for omitting
“his,” and also for the addition of
“in him” or
“to him.” See on
ch. 1:8.
“These things” refers to the great facts of salvation—the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus—as mentioned in
ch. 5:30, 31.
Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) omitting
“also.” Christ had declared while on earth that the Holy Ghost
“shall testify of me” (
John 15:26; see on
John 16:13, 14). The Holy Spirit did this for the apostles by bringing
“all things” to their
“remembrance” (
John 14:26), and by giving them enlightenment as to how Christ’s experience on earth had fulfilled the prophecies. However, the Holy Spirit was also witnessing for Christ through the powers that had possessed the apostles since the outpouring at Pentecost. The Spirit also gave inward witness to the resurrection, in the believers’ hearts. See on
Acts 4:33.
Not only to the apostles but to all who sincerely follow God’s guidance, and therefore obey Him. The obedience of the creature to the Creator is the foundation and essence of right relations with God. The angels obey God (
Ps. 103:20, 21), but in love, not in cold, legal formality (MB 109). Men are to obey (
Ps. 103:17, 18; Eccl. 12:13), but in love (
John 14:15). Obedience is better than any sacrifice (
1 Sam. 15:22). Truth (
Rom. 2:8), right doctrine (
Rom. 6:17), and the gospel (
2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17) are to be obeyed. Eternal salvation, offered by grace and received by faith (
Eph. 2:5, 8), is available to those who obey, who are submissive to the will of God (
Heb. 5:9). Compare on
Acts 5:29. True obedience is revealed by loving obedience to God’s holy commandments (
1 John 5:3).
Acts 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.
Gr.
diariō,
“to saw asunder,” that is, with rage, as in
ch. 7:54, the only other place in the NT where this verb is found. Their rage bore eloquent testimony to the truth of the apostles’ bold accusations.
Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) between this and the reading “wished.” Already responsible for the blood of Jesus, they now wished to take the lives of His twelve chief followers.
They wished to put the apostles to death for disobeying the Sanhedrin and for accusing it of Christ’s death.
Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
Rather,
“but” (cf. on
v. 13).
In contrast with the high priest’s party, which was Sadducean (
v. 17). The two religious groups were opposed to each other.
Derived from the Heb.
Gamli’el,
“my reward is God.” Gamaliel was the grandson of the famous Hillel (see Vol. V, p. 97), and a renowned teacher and prominent Pharisee in his own right. The mantle of Hillel appears to have fallen upon his shoulders, and he exercised leadership in his party from about A.D. 25 to 50. There seems little basis for the claim that he was one of four presidents of the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, since the supreme office was always held by the high priest in the times prior to A.D. 70 (see
v. 27). But there is no doubt that he was an influential man and greatly honored by the Jews. He was the first to receive the title of Rabban. This indicates the esteem in which his countrymen held him. Jewish tradition reveals him as the ideal Pharisee, a worthy representative of Hillel’s school, which was more tolerant and less legalistic than the opposing school of Shammai. Paul was privileged to study under him (
ch. 22:3). The teacher’s influence may possibly be traced in the development of his famous pupil. This Gamaliel was known as
Haz-Zaqen,
“the Older,” to distinguish him from his grandson,
“the Younger,” who flourished about A.D. 90.
Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) between this and the reading
“men,” which would accord more exactly with Gamaliel’s words. Gamaliel wished them to be out of the council room while he and his colleagues discussed freely what should be done. The practice of thus deliberating in the absence of the accused seems to have been common (cf.
ch. 4:15). The report of what occurred while the apostles were out of the room may have come to Luke from some member of the council, such as Nicodemus (AA 104, 105), or directly by inspiration.
Acts 5:35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
A familiar and persuasive form of address, used in speaking to equals (cf.
ch. 2:22). Contrast Peter’s approach when addressing the same body of men (
ch. 4:8).
Acts 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
Possibly a contraction of the Greek name Theodorus, “gift of God.” The only known non-Biblical reference to a man of this name comes from Josephus. He tells of an insurrection led by a Theudas who, claiming to be a prophet, persuaded “a great part of the people” to follow him. He promised to divide the Jordan and give them an easy passage. The procurator, Cuspius Fadus (A.D. 44 or 45), quickly suppressed the rising, captured and executed its leader, and sent his head to Jerusalem (Antiquities xx. 5.1).
Now, according to Gamaliel, who is quoted by Luke, Theudas came before Judas of Galilee (
v. 37), who rebelled
“in the days of the taxing,” that is, in A.D. 6 or 7. It is not possible, therefore, to make the accounts of Luke and Josephus refer to the same event. Few scholars would attribute error to Josephus at this point, and there is no valid reason to accuse Luke of a factual error here. Luke, quoting Gamaliel, speaks of 400 men joining themselves to Theudas, whereas Josephus distinctly mentions that
“a great part of the people” followed the false prophet. Some have seen in this a suggestion that the two writers refer to different events.
Acts 5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
That is, after the rebellion of Theudas.
There was such a rebel, whom Josephus (Antiquities xviii. 1. 1) calls a Gaulonite, that is, of the country east of Galilee. But in other passages (ibid. xx. 5. 2; War ii. 8. 1 [118]) he is called a Galilean, so there is no conflict between Luke and Josephus here. The insurrection of Judas, which aimed at the complete independence of
Israel from Rome, was a serious one. The movement forbade any payment of taxes to Caesar. Any weapons might be used in the cause of freedom. The war was described as a religious war. Judas and his followers were affiliated with the Pharisees, and his movement, although defeated, and the leader killed, gave origin to the sect, or party, of the Zealots (see Vol. V, pp. 54, 55).
Rather,
“enrollment,” or
“census.” See on
Luke 2:1. This was not the one mentioned in
Luke 2:2. The revolt of Judas came about seven years later (Josephus
Antiquities xviii. 1. 1; cf. Vol. V, p. 241). Judas declared that this taxation was the beginning of slavery, and called on the whole nation to assert its liberty.
Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) among “much people,” “many people,” and simply “people.”
Josephus does not record the fate of Judas and his party, but Gamaliel could have known his end, and was qualified to give the details preserved in this verse.
Acts 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Literally, “stand off.” Gamaliel’s argument was logical enough. Resistance to the movement represented by the apostles was either needless or hopeless. If needless, why waste the energy? If hopeless, why face the risk?
Rather,
“be overthrown.” This also serves to emphasize the repetition of the same verb in the succeeding clause in
v. 39.
Acts 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Gamaliel’s typically rabbinic advice at least leaves room for the divine origin of the apostles’ work.
Gr. theomachoi, “God fighters.”
Acts 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
The Sadducees would probably have preferred a more vigorous course, but there were many Pharisees in the Sanhedrin, and the middle course, which Gamaliel had recommended, was adopted.
That is, back into the judgment hall.
Probably with 39 stripes (see on
Deut. 25:1-3; 2 Cor. 11:24), a painful ordeal. The Sanhedrin evidently judged the apostles worthy of punishment, either for disobeying the command of
Acts 4:18, or for disturbing the peace by preaching in the Temple (
ch. 5:25), or for having escaped from prison—or on all counts. This appears to be the first taste of physical suffering endured by the church.
The same prohibition as in
ch. 4:18, with the added sting of the lash to emphasize it.
Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
Not back to prison, but to freedom.
Thus exhibiting the spirit of the final beatitude,
Matt. 5:11, 12. In contradiction of the usual emotions, they were glad to suffer; indeed, they felt honored to suffer in Christ’s cause. This spirit animated countless martyrs who followed them. The Twelve were not unprepared for such treatment. They must have remembered their
Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
Note their boldness. They returned to the place in which they had been arrested on two occasions (
chs. 3:11; 4:3; 5:26).
Gr. kat’ oikon, “house by house,” or “at home,” “privately.” This probably refers to the Christian assemblies held in private homes.
They needed no urging in their work of witness.
Rather, “teaching and preaching,” with an emphasis on continuity.
Literally, “the Christ Jesus.” They taught and preached that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This was the constant content of the message given by the early church.