(2) The obligation this knowledge brings is the obligation to repent and to turn. The two words go closely together. Repent might simply mean to change one’s mind; and it is an easier thing to change one’s mind than to change one’s life. But this change of mind is to result in turning away from the old way and making a new start.
(3) This repentance will have certain consequences. It will affect the past; sins will be wiped out. This is a vivid word. Ancient writing was upon papyrus, and the ink had no acid in it. It therefore did not bite into the papyrus like modern ink, but simply lay on top of it. To erase the writing, it was simply wiped away with a wet sponge; so God wipes out the sin of those who are forgiven. It will affect the future; it will bring refreshing times. Into life will come something which will be a strength in weakness and a rest in weariness.
(4) Peter goes on to speak of the coming again of Christ. Whatever else that doctrine means, it means that history is going somewhere.
(5) Peter insists that all that has happened has been foretold. The Jews refused to accept the idea of a chosen one of God who must suffer; but Peter insists that if they search their own Scriptures they will find it all there.
(6) Peter reminds them of their national privilege. In a very special sense, the Jews were God’s chosen people.
(7) Finally, he lays down the inescapable truth that that very special privilege brings very special duty. It is the privilege not of special honour but of special service.
ARREST
Acts 4:1–4
While they were speaking to the people, the priests, the superintendent of the Temple and the Sadducees came upon them. They were annoyed because they were teaching the people, and proclaiming, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead. So they laid hands upon them and put them under arrest until the next day, for by this time it was evening. But many who heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about 5,000.
THE healing of the lame man had taken place within a part of the Temple area which was continually crowded with people. The spotlight of publicity was inevitably focused upon the incident.
The Beautiful Gate was the gate which led from the Court of the Gentiles into the Court of the Women. The Court of the Gentiles was both the largest and the busiest of all the Temple Courts, for into it anyone of any nation could come as long as the ordinary laws of decency and decorum were observed. It was there that the money-changers had their booths and the sellers of sacrificial victims their stalls. Round the outer boundary of the Temple area ran two great colonnades meeting at a right angle in the corner of the Court of the Gentiles. One was the Royal Porch, the other Solomon’s Porch. They, too, were crowded with people who had come to worship, to learn and to sightsee. Clearly, the whole series of events would gain the widest publicity.
Into this crowded scene came the priests, the superintendent of the Temple and the Sadducees. The man whom the Authorized Version calls the captain of the Temple was an official called the sagan. He was the high priest’s right-hand man. In particular, he had the oversight of the good order of the Temple. When the crowd had gathered, it was inevitable that he and his Temple police should arrive on the scene. With him came the Sadducees, who were the wealthy, aristocratic class. There were not many of them, but they were rich and of great influence. The whole matter annoyed them very greatly for two reasons. First, they did not believe in resurrection from the dead; and it was this very truth that the apostles were proclaiming. Second, just because they were wealthy aristocrats, the Sadducean party was collaborationist. They tried to keep on friendly terms with the Romans in order that they might retain their wealth and comfort and status and power. The Roman government was very tolerant, but on public disorder it was merciless. The Sadducees were sure that, if the apostles were allowed to go on unchecked, riots and civil disorder might follow, with disastrous consequences to their status. Therefore they proposed to nip this movement in the bud; and that is why Peter and John were so promptly arrested. It is a terrible example of a party of individuals who, in order to retain their vested interests, would not listen to the truth themselves or give anyone else a chance to hear it.
BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN
Acts 4:5–12
So on the next day it happened that the rulers and the elders and the scribes were assembled in Jerusalem, together with Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander and all those who belonged to the priestly families. So they set them in the midst and asked them: ‘By what power or by what name have you done this?’ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: ‘Rulers of the people and elders, if today we are being examined about the good deed done to the infirm man, if you are asking us by what means he has been restored to health, let it be known to all of you and to all the peoples of Israel that it is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified and whom God raised from the dead – it is by this name that this man stands before you in sound health. This is the stone which was set at naught by you builders, which has now become the head of the corner; and in no other is there salvation; for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved.’
THE court before which Peter and John were brought was the Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the Jews. Even in Roman times, it had the right to arrest people. The one thing it could not do was to pass the death sentence, except in the single case of a Gentile who trespassed on the inner courts of the Temple.
The Sanhedrin had seventy-one members. The high priest was president because of his position. In the Sanhedrin there were priests, practically all of whom were Sadducees. Their one desire was to preserve the status quo so that their own benefits might not be lessened. There were scribes, who were the experts in the traditional law. There were Pharisees, who were fanatics for the law. There were elders, who were respected in the community.
There were also those described as being of ‘the priestly families’; these are the same people who are sometimes called chief priests. They consisted of two classes. First, there were ex-high priests. In the great days, the high priesthood had been hereditary and for life; but in the Roman times the office was the subject of intrigue, bribery and corruption, and high priests rose and fell, so that between 37 BC and AD 67 there were no fewer than twenty-eight. But even after a high priest had been deposed, he often remained the power behind the throne. Second, although the high priesthood had ceased to be hereditary, it was still the prerogative of a very few families. Of the twenty-eight high priests already mentioned, all but six came from four priestly families. The members of these families had a special status, and it is they who were known as the chief priests.
When we read Peter’s speech, and remember to whom it was spoken, we recognize one of the world’s great demonstrations of courage. It was spoken to an audience of the wealthiest, the most intellectual and the most powerful in the land – and yet Peter, the Galilaean fisherman, faces them rather as their judge than as their victim. Further, this was the very court which had condemned Jesus to death. Peter knew that he was taking his life in his hands.
There are two kinds of courage. There is the reckless courage, which is hardly aware of the dangers it is facing. There is the far higher, cool courage, which knows the peril in which it stands and refuses to be daunted. It was that second courage that Peter demonstrated. When Achilles, the great warrior of the Greeks, was told that if he went out to battle he would surely die, he answered in the immortal sentence: ‘Nevertheless, I am for going on.’ Peter, in that moment, knew the peril in which he stood; nevertheless, he, too, was for going on.
LOYALTY ONLY TO GOD
Acts 4:13–22