The transition
4.1–4
Luke occasionally uses the device of seeming to interrupt the speech he is recording, even though the speech in its cameo form is already complete (most noticeably 10.44 and 22.22). Here the interruption is from the Temple authorities and results in the arrest of Peter and John (4.1–3). This leads directly into the first formal defence of the new movement’s testimony (4.5–22). But the paragraph ends with the report of the success of the second sermon (4.4), bringing the preceding phase of the narrative to a proper close. The paragraph thus serves, in a way analogous to 1.1–11, as a transition and overlapping bracket which bonds the two halves of a single narrative together.
Luke was well enough informed to know that the Sadducees were hostile to the idea of resurrection (4.2; cf. Luke 20.27–40; Acts 23.6–9). He evidently intended to focus the opposition to the new movement in those whose power was located in and dependent on the Temple, the high priests and their supporters (4.5–6, 23 and. 5.17, 21, 27; contrast 5.33–40). This prepares the way for the decisive breach in chs 6–7, but there is no reason to doubt that Luke was able to draw on good tradition on this point, since the passion narratives in the Gospels are agreed that the opposition to Jesus was also primarily priestly in composition.
4.1 Of the three groups mentioned — priests, the captain of the Temple police (Levites) and Sadducees — the first two are obviously representatives of the Temple authorities. Of the Sadducees we know surprisingly little, but enough to know that they were the aristocratic priestly party or faction (5.17) within the land of Israel, though not all were priests; they probably named themselves after Zadok the priest (II Sam. 8.17; 15.24; I Kings 1.34). This opposition is juxtaposed over against ‘the people’, apparently listening without complaint (4.1–2). The distinction is presumably deliberate. The two groups identified in 3.17 (the audience/people and their rulers) as together responsible (in ignorance) for Jesus’ death now begin to divide. The implication is that the promise to ‘all the people’ whom Peter addressed (3.11–12) can still be fulfilled for the people (3.25–26), even if their leaders refuse to listen and thus cut themselves off from the people (3.23). The theme is continued in 4.10, 17 and 21, though 4.27 strikes a jarring counter note.
4.2 The focus of the opposition’s ‘annoyance’ is the proclamation of the resurrection. The point is carefully framed: ‘they were proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection which is from the dead’. The raising up of which Moses had spoken was ‘the resurrection (same word) which is from the dead’, not just the sending of another prophet, but a whole new category, opening up a quite different prospect. The point of the proclamation is that this raising up had happened and happened only in the one case, that of Jesus. The formulation thus provides the double emphasis: that Jesus is the defining centre of the new movement; and that his resurrection is the key point of emphasis and differentiation in its preaching (cf. 4.33).
4.3 No charge is levelled against the apostles, and Luke gives no suggestion that a riot was threatened. But Temple officials would certainly be able to exercise such arbitrary authority within the Temple precincts. The timing (‘evening’) indicates that several hours had elapsed since the ninth hour (even though Peter’s speech would have taken less than two minutes to deliver).
4.4 As already in 2.41 and regularly thereafter (4.29; 6.4; 8.4; 10.36, 44; 11.19; 14.25; 16.6; 17.11) the message preached by the first Christian evangelists is described simply as ‘the word’ (similarly ‘the word of God’ — 4.31; 6.2, 7; 8.14; 11.1; 13.5, 7, 44, 46, 48; 16.32; 17.13; 18.11; ‘the word of the Lord’ — 8.25; 12.24; 13.49; 15.35; 19.10, 20). Their response is described simply as ‘belief’, but with an implication of a commitment (in baptism) to the one preached and the community who named his name. On the number (5,000) see on 2.41.
4.5–22
The account of the first public encounter between the authorities and the spokesman for the new movement is carefully structured. The reference to ‘rulers’ (4.5, 8) links back to the first part of the two-chapter narrative (3.17), but also, and more important, the terminology used (‘the rulers were gathered’ — 4.5) directly anticipates (and thus gives more force to) the subsequent citation of Ps. 2.2 (4.26). The description of Peter as ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’ for his defence (4.8) clearly recalls the promise of Luke 11.11–12 (cf. 21.14–15). And particularly striking is the contrast between the boldness of the unlettered apostles (4.8–13, 19–20) and the confusion and weakness of all the most powerful people in the city (4.13–18, 21).
It is the name of Jesus, however, which continues to be the central linking thread of the narrative. The question regarding the healing of the lame man is posed to Peter in terms of the name: ‘By what name did you do this?’ (4.7). And Peter’s reply focusses almost entirely on the name, attributing to it not only the success of the healing, but also, astonishingly, exclusive power of universal salvation (4.10, 12). Likewise in the second phase of the hearing it is the name of Jesus which the authorities are shown to fear: the point is underlined by the technique of narrating the warning not to speak in the name of Jesus twice (4.17–18). In contrast, in the immediate sequel, Peter’s community is shown to express unabashed confidence in the power of the name of Jesus (4.30).
In all this the sovereign perspective of the storyteller is evident: the early details show awareness of what is to follow; and he knows the inner debates of the council, even though Peter and John had been put outside (4.15–17). At the same time Luke was aware that the initial opposition to the new movement was mainly priestly in motivation. The description of Peter’s and John’s super confidence is stylized but could also reflect the burgeoning boldness of those still swept along on a wave of spiritual enthusiasm. And though the claims made in 4.11–12 seem to express the product of a longer period of reflection than the narrative has allowed, the ‘stone testimonial’ (Ps. 118.22) did become an important Christian proof text, most notably linked to the name of Peter (I Peter 2.7), and the sweeping claim of 4.12 has the ring of enthusiastic hyperbole. Here again, then, we may assume that Luke is providing what would have been regarded in his own time as a highly responsible historical account.
4.5–6 The historical facts behind this description are unclear. It is usually assumed that a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin is being described, but we simply do not know how much of the formal constitution of the Sanhedrin as described in later rabbinic sources applied prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. The Greek term, sunedrion (used in 4.15) may be better taken to describe simply a ‘council’, a gathering of some senior figures called together by the high priest and his immediate advisers. Why, after all, would the highest court in the land be formally convened to deal with a minor matter (not even a disturbance) as related in Ch. 3?
Luke’s account may therefore be more firmly rooted than at first appears. The elders (leading citizens) and scribes (lawyers) could be involved in either case. But the mention of Annas in lead position (despite having been succeeded by his son-in-law, Caiaphas, as High Priest in AD 18) and of the other members of ‘the high priest’s family’ (John may also have been a son of Annas) catches well both the considerable political power which was vested in a few families and the degree to which the council may simply have been a rather ad hoc gathering instigated by the family of Annas.
The mention of Jerusalem is just a reminder to the reader that the focal point for everything so far has been Jerusalem, with all the overtones of continuity with Israel’s history and heritage (see Introduction to Ch. 1).
4.7 The question provides the cue for what follows. Note again the way ‘power’ and ‘name’ are used as almost synonymous (see on 3.6).
4.8 The description of Peter as ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’ clearly envisages a welling up of inspired speech, and provides one of the several parallels between Peter and Paul (13.9; see Introduction to Ch. 3). The fact that the phrase is used prior to this utterance, rather than prior to Peter’s two previous speeches, obviously indicates the influence of Luke 12.11–12 in Luke’s narrative. Since Luke goes on to describe a further filling with the Spirit in 4.31 he obviously felt no inconsistency between these descriptions and the previous account of the Pentecostal filling (2.4). This need not mean that he saw all these fillings as merely temporary, as though the Spirit departed as quickly as it came. The imagery of the language suggests more an occasional ‘topping up’ of a Spirit once for all bestowed at Pentecost. Or perhaps we should simply recognize language expressive of spiritual experience, where crises of varying magnitudes can call forth an unexpectedly confident response, with an enabling sensed to be not of one’s self. In movements of spiritual or charismatic renewal, experiences of inspired utterance have not been uncommon.
4.9–10 In the midst of the explanation by reference to the power of the name of Jesus the same kerygmatic core as in 2.23–24 and 3.13–15 is summarily inserted — ‘whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead’ (see on 2.23 and 24). The full name, ‘Jesus Christ the Nazarene’ echoes 3.6, the only other time it is used (but see also 2.22; 6.14; 22.8; 26.9). Again Luke takes the opportunity to reiterate that the significance of this name is for ‘all the people of Israel’ (see on 3.6).
4.11 The sentence is almost a direct quotation from Ps. 118.22, but the middle clause has been made more forceful and turned into a repetition of the charge of rejection (as in 3.13–14) — not just rejected (passed over as unsuitable), but rejected with contempt (as in Luke 23.11 where the same verb is used), ‘by you the builders’. This passage from Ps. 118 was one of the Old Testament verses which must have sounded with immediate and amazing relevance in the ears of the first Christians — far more so than the usually contrived interpretations read into the prophets in the Qumran commentaries. It is appended to the parable of the wicked tenants in all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 21.42; Mark 12.10–11; Luke 20.17) and cited by I Peter 2.4, 7, where it makes a natural pair with another ‘stone testimony’ (Isa. 8.14).
4.12 The ‘healing’ (sozein) of the lame man (4.9) by the name of Jesus now becomes the basis for the most sweeping and extravagant claim that ‘salvation’ (the same word) is henceforth not possible by any other name. That such a flush of exclusivist triumphalism should have been expressed thus so early is not impossible in the wave of enthusiasm which launched Christianity, but its character as an expression of enthusiastic hyperbole (whether Peter’s or Luke’s) should be noted. In fact, however, the saying is just an exaggerated and more pointed expression of what had already been attributed to Jesus in Luke 7.22–23: that healing of the lame was a particularly potent image of the power of the new age to come; and that this power in marked degree was focussed in and channelled through Jesus himself. It should also be noted that 4.12 is formulated as a confession (‘by which we must be saved’), rather than as an evangelistic either-or (believe this or lose salvation). Moreover, it is formulated as a yielding to the same divine sovereignty (‘must’) which has been a feature of Luke’s account so far (Acts 1.16, 22; 2.23; 3.18, 21; also 5.29; 9.6, 16; 14.22; 16.30; 17.3; 19.21; 23.11; 27.24); Jesus is now to be seen as the central vehicle for God’s saving purpose on a universal scale.
4.13 ‘Boldness’ now becomes a key term linking this phase of the narrative to its climax in 4.29–31. It also foreshadows the boldness with which Jesus will continue to be proclaimed beyond the end of Acts (28.31). The contrast with their uneducated state is strongly drawn, but does reflect the astonishing fact that Christianity began with a small group of Galileans whose level of educational attainment cannot have been very high. We should not ourselves overexaggerate the contrast however: Peter and John were from artisan class (John’s father had a small business with hired help, according to Mark 1.20); so they were hardly ‘country bumpkins’.
What has made the difference, the narrator informs us, is that ‘they had been with Jesus’. How much this tells us of the authorities’ information regarding the new movement we can hardly say. The point is theological: that it was the influence of Jesus which had made the difference. This also illuminates their use of Jesus’ name: it was not simply the utterance of a formula which anyone could use, far less use to their own ends; on the contrary, they could use Jesus’ name precisely because they knew Jesus and thus what his name expressed and what it could be used for. The point will be later reinforced by the half-amusing half-frightening story in 19.13–16.
4.14–18 As part of the inquiry, the (formerly) lame man has been brought in also. The value of miracle as proof of saving/healing power is taken for granted by Luke: they could not speak against it. Luke of course knew well that a response was possible (as in Luke 11.15), but it is the overwhelming effect in these first days of the new movement’s manifest spiritual power which he wants to underline in these chapters. The feebleness of the response (4.17), the response of the rulers and leading authorities in the land, is the appropriate dramatic corollary which highlights the main theme all the more strikingly.
4.19–20 The boldness of Peter and John (4.13) is dramatically illustrated. The scene would not be an unfamiliar one to Luke’s wider readership. In a classic parallel (much quoted by commentators), and no doubt widely known, Socrates had told his judges, ‘I will obey God/the god rather than you’ (Plato, Apology 29d). The boldness of saints and martyrs before much more threatening power is a favourite theme in Jewish and Christian writings (e.g. Dan. 3.16–18; II Macc. 7). To recognize this, of course, is not to consign the whole tradition to the level of artistic or novellistic striving for effect. The tradition, already well documented before this, could be inspiration as much for a Peter and John in a lesser confrontation as for Luke the dramatic historian. At the same time Luke takes the opportunity to underline that the preaching from the first was a witness bearing, a testifying to personal experience and born of personal involvement: ‘it is not possible for us to remain silent about what we have seen and heard’.
4.21–22 The weakness of the authorities’ position (but also their self-restraint within the law) is re-emphasized for a final time. And the contrast between a hostile leadership and a responsive people is reiterated. But the final emphasis is on the effect of the miracle. This healing was a ‘sign’ — all the more effective as being wrought on someone who had been lame for forty years. And it had been recognized as such by ‘the people’ who all glorified God because of it. Any scope for questioning the ‘sign’-ificance of the claimed miracle is completely overwhelmed by the undisputably beneficial effect of what had happened.
The sequel
4.23–31
The climax to the long narrative (stretching from 3.1) is now reached. The central feature, the prayer of 4.24–30, is an excellent example of Luke’s skill in providing a passage which dramatically ties the whole sequence together, wonderfully fits the mood of the scene and is highly appropriate to the time and circumstances. (1) The prayer functions as a kind of choral finale: they all praise and pray with one voice (4.24). It would be foolish to ask how they could have said in unison a prayer which was obviously so fitted to the occasion (and so not a traditional and well known liturgical form). As in 2.7–11, Luke is using the liberty of a dramatic historian, not attempting to act as a modern archivist.
(2) The passage is used to bring to a climax and round off a number of motifs which have formed the warp and woof of the narrative and which provide continuity of theme with preceding episodes: (a) David as a primary resource of prophetic inspiration (1.16; 2.25; 4.25); (b) ‘the rulers gathered together’ (4.26) echoes the roll call at the beginning of the previous scene (4.5); (c) this alliance of Gentile and Jewish rulers, including Herod (Antipas) and Pilate, ties the account back to Luke’s passion narrative (Luke 23.1–25; the episode with Herod is peculiar to Luke), and provides the counterpoise to the repeated assertion that the divine purpose was wholly in control throughout (4.28; cf. 2.23; 3.18; 4.12); (d) the theme of boldness in witnessing (4.13, 29, 31) and use of ‘the word’ absolutely for the message proclaimed (4.4, 29, 31); (e) healing, ‘signs and wonders’ (2.19, 22, 43; 4.16, 22, 30); (f) the repeated filling with the Spirit (2.4; 4.8, 31); and not least (g) the final clinching reference to the most important leitmotif, the name of Jesus (3.6, 16; 4.7, 10, 12, 17–18, 30).
(3) As usual, however, Luke seems to have been able to draw on earlier material. (a) The model provided by prayers recorded in similar circumstances (particularly Isa. 37.16–20) may have inspired several early prayers in the highly charged early days of the new movement as it understood itself by means of such precedents. That one such prayer became established in early Christian worship where Luke encountered it and from which he drew the opening and the overall model is not at all far-fetched. (b) Noteworthy is the fact that the prayer is directed to God (4.24), and that ‘Lord’, not only in the Old Testament text quoted (4.26), but also in the prayer itself (4.29), refers clearly to God and not to Jesus (in contrast to 2.21, 36 and 4.33), with Jesus clearly designated as God’s holy servant through whom God works (4.29–30; cf. 2.22). (c) Striking again are the use of pais, ‘servant’, for Jesus (in the New Testament it appears as a title for Jesus only in 3.13, 26 and 4.27 and 30) and the clear awareness of the original force of the title ‘Christ’, the anointed one (4.26–27). (d) In view of the positive role of ‘the people’ earlier (4.1–2, 21), the unusual phrase (‘the peoples of Israel’) and their association with the Gentiles in opposition to Jesus (4.27) may belong more to the material Luke takes over than to Luke’s own contrivance. (e) It may even be possible to discern early tradition behind the dramatic experience referred to in 4.31 (the place where they were being physically shaken). It is the reports of such events, rather than necessarily the events themselves, which attest the sense of immediacy of divine presence and power characteristic of the early days of prophetic or revival movements.
4.23 The return to friends (not just the twelve) after a crisis is a natural action which features elsewhere in the Acts narratives (12.12; 16.40).
4.24 The opening of the prayer echoes a regular theme in Jewish confession and worship of the one God, creator of all (see Ex. 20.11; II Kings 19.15; Neh. 9.6; Ps. 146.6; Isa. 37.16). Luke resumes the motif later in 14.15 and 17.24. Luke uses the address ‘sovereign Lord’ (despotes) again in Luke 2.29.
4.25 The allusion to David as speaking under inspiration is another means of underlining the continuity between the Spirit active in the scriptures and the Spirit inspiring contemporary testimony (4.8, 31). It is the same Spirit. The point is reinforced by the fact that David is also designated as God’s servant (pais). Implicit is a claim that Jesus is another David, another pais (4.27, 30).
4.25–26 This is the only time Ps. 2.1–2 (from LXX) is cited as a proof text in the New Testament, so it is not possible to say whether its place here is something Luke drew from tradition or whether he drew it in himself in constructing the narrative beginning with the echo of Ps. 2.2.
4.27–28 Once again the attribution of fault to the Jewish and Gentile authorities is balanced by the assertion that what happened was fully in accord with God’s own predetermined counsel and action. In the New Testament, thought of the divine counsel is particularly Lukan (Luke 7.30; Acts 2.23; 5.38–39; 13.36; 20.27). Here it is reinforced (as in 2.23) by a ‘fore-’ compound (‘foreordained’), another regular feature of Lukan theology and style (cf. 1.16; 2.31; 3.18, 20; 7.52; 10.41; 13.24; 22.14; 26.16).
4.29–30 What is asked for is a cooperative outreach, but with God as the prime mover: that he will grant his servants (douloi) to speak his word boldly; and that he himself will exercise healing and miraculous power through the name of his servant (pais) Jesus. A theological balance is also maintained between word and action; it is typical of Luke — the actions in view are healings, signs and wonders (see on 2.22) — but it could well reflect the balance of emphasis sought by the first enthusiastic believers themselves (cf. 6.1).
4.31 For Peter, presumably, this was the third time he had been filled by the Spirit (2.4; 4.8)! What is in view is primarily an experience of being inspired, of speaking with a spontaneity and boldness which transcended normal speech. Despite the association of bold speech and signs and wonders in the previous two verses, the almost invariable manifestation of the Spirit in Acts is inspired speech (2.4; 4.8; 6.10; 10.45–46; 13.2, 9; 18.25; 19.6; 20.23; 21.4, 11), whereas, somewhat surprisingly, the miracles of Acts are never attributed to the Spirit as such (though note 10.38).
Another snapshot of the earliest community
4.32–37
Luke evidently thought it important to give such an extensive account of one brief episode (3.1–4.31), no doubt because for him it caught the spirit of the new community who now ranged themselves under the name of Jesus. But now he ‘fast forwards’ again, as he had after the previous episode of Pentecost (2.43–47), to give another overall impression of the community as a whole. The same impression (as in 2.43–47) of an idyllic scene rouses the same suspicion that Luke looks back through rose-tinted spectacles. But all generations tend to view the past as ‘the good old days’, and the founding epoch of such a movement, continuing steadily to grow through Luke’s own time, would naturally tend to evoke impressions of a golden age. The sense of looking back through a golden haze, with the picture painted in impressionistic rather than portrait terms, will be partly deliberate, partly inevitable. To complain that the details are obscure in a ‘broad brush’ style is like complaining that the details of Monet’s famous water lilies lack all precision.
Yet, one episode does stand out from the general hazy impression, an episode which evidently impressed itself on the corporate memory of the first believers and which Luke was able to retrieve with some precision of detail (4.36–37). A prominent landowner, a diaspora Jew, had evidently made a successful career before buying land in and around Jerusalem. Having allied himself to the new movement, through faith commitment and baptism in Jesus’ name, he sold one of his fields and contributed the proceeds to the common fund. The episode was readily recalled, no doubt, since Barnabas became such an important figure in the early church (see on 4.36–37). But it may very well also be the case that he was the first man of substantial wealth and position who became a member of the Jesus people and that his contribution was the first substantial gift to the common fund. Another reason why Luke uses it here, of course, is that it provides an immediate link into the next episode (5.1–11).
4.32 Luke liked to emphasize the unanimity of mind and purpose of the first believers (see 1.14 and the similar emphasis of the earlier summary account in 2.46). Looking back, he saw the sort of spirit which Paul encouraged among his churches (I Cor. 10.24, 33; 13.5; Phil. 2.4) to have been literally lived out in the first church. Charismatic movements, particularly in the first flush of enthusiasm, are capable of building a communal life on such altruistic principles. For the description ‘the believers’ see 2.44.
4.33 Once again at the centre of the testimony given is ‘the resurrection of the Lord Jesus’ (see on 1.8 and 4.2). As in 2.47 the great Pauline term ‘grace’ (the outreach of God’s generous power) is used in a rather un-Pauline way (‘grace upon them’).
4.34–35 The term ‘needy’ (only here in the New Testament) may be a deliberate allusion to Deut. 15.4: the new congregation of the Nazarene fulfilled Israel’s hope for a people blessed by the Lord.
As with 2.45, the tenses used for the verbs (imperfect in Greek) indicate not a one-off sale of all property, but a continuing practice where financial needs of the new group were met by individuals selling off property from time to time and contributing the proceeds to the communal fund. One naturally wonders whether part at least of the rapid growth of the movement was made up of ‘rice Christians’, those attracted to Jesus’ disciples by the prospect of free handouts. The question is not so sceptical as it might seem, since Luke himself goes out of his way in the next two chapters to report that the idyll had several darker features.
4.36–37 Enter one of the most attractive figures from the earliest days of Christianity. Joseph Barnabas features regularly later on in Acts as an absolutely crucial figure in the early expansion of Christianity beyond Israel and out to the Gentiles. According to Acts, he gave Saul /Paul decisive backing following his conversion and drew him into the apostolic company, despite their natural reservations (9.27). He was the bridge man who as representative of the Jerusalem church was able to ensure that the new breakthrough at Syrian Antioch kept on the right lines (11.22). Thereafter he brought Saul /Paul to join the leadership at Antioch (11.25–26). He was the initial leader of the mission team who undertook what became the first significant penetration of the gospel into the Gentile world (13.1–2, etc.), and together with Paul was able to hold the line at the Jerusalem council on behalf of the Gentile believers (ch. 15). His vital role in keeping the expansion linked to the Jerusalem church is attested not only in 11.30, but also in Gal. 2.1, 9. The rupture with Paul (Acts 15.39; Gal. 2.13) does not seem to have lasted (cf. I Cor. 9.6; Col. 4.10). The warmth of the testimony on Barnabas’ behalf, both here (‘son of encouragement’) and in 11.24 (‘a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith’) is unusual even in Acts and surely indicates a man of rare quality, a community builder, able to promote and sustain warm and constructive personal relations.
The description of Barnabas as ‘a Levite, a native of Cyprus’, both sets him in contrast with the hostile priests of 4.1, and points forward to the future mission beyond the land of Israel (ch. 13).
The repetition of the phrase ‘laid at the apostles’ feet (4.35, 37; 5.2) may indicate an element of formality which became established in the practice of making substantial contribution to the fund.