Acts 4, Part 1, Verses 1-22: The Reaction of Political Power and Hardened Hearts
A perfect example of ignoring evidence we don't like. True history and so human
As this chapter opens, we see that the same people—the Jewish leaders, those with political power, those who felt most threatened by Jesus Himself (v. 1)—did not want the peasants to be reminded of what they had done. So, they had Peter and John arrested and held in custody until the next day (v. 3). Yet, there were honest hearts in the apostles’ audience who couldn’t deny the evidence before their very eyes. These good-hearted souls obeyed the gospel, and the church expanded to “about five thousand” men (v. 4).
The next day, Peter and John were brought before the “rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as Annas the high priest” (vs. 5-6), and some other Deep State tyrants, if you will allow me a modern allusion. They wanted to know, from the two apostles, “By what power or by what name have you done this?” (v. 7). Preached Jesus and healed a lame man is presumably the meaning.
Peter told them (vs. 8-12), a brief summary of what he had said as recorded in Acts 2 and 3. “You crucified Jesus,” (v. 10, please note again, Peter blames the Jews, not the Romans), but “God raised [Him] from the dead.” That was a constant theme of the apostles’ preaching in the first century, and should be ours as well. If Jesus came out of that tomb on the third day, Christianity is forever true, and there is salvation in no other (v. 12). If He didn’t come out of that tomb, then Christianity is false and as big a waste of time as every other philosophy of man.
The Jewish leaders who heard Peter were a little nonplussed (v. 13). The apostles were bold, yet “uneducated and untrained men.” Further, and more to their chagrin, they saw “the man who had been healed standing with them [Peter and John].” Good for him to come and help Peter and John. There was no way the leaders could gainsay what had been done. A miracle, an actual miracle, had been performed, and it was impossible to deny it. Everybody knew a miracle had been performed. Peter and John explained why. The rulers obviously didn’t like the explanation, but how could they deny it? What could they do?
Maybe a little Deep State lawfare might work?
They conferred for a while amongst themselves (v. 15). They had to come up with something, “for, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (v. 16). “We cannot deny it!” At least they were honest enough to admit that.
But they weren’t honest enough to do what they should have done, i.e., believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and become Christians. That would have cost them more than they were willing to pay. So, they decided to “severely threaten” the apostles and command them to “speak to no man in this name [Jesus]” (v. 17). They hoped that would end this nonsense and cow the apostles into silence.
So, they “commanded” Peter and John to quit preaching in the name of Jesus (v. 18). Peter and John, so bold now, stood before the highest authorities of the Jewish religion, and rebuffed their arrogant diktat: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge” (v. 19). “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (v. 20). These were changed men. They had seen the risen Lord. They knew the truth. Their own eternal salvation depended upon their faithfulness to Christ. They weren’t going to deny Him anymore. The leaders threatened them some more (v. 21), but they couldn’t do anything else “because of the people.” Everyone “glorified God for what had been done.” And indeed, again, the leaders could not deny the obvious. The man who Peter and John healed had been over 40 years old (v. 22). What a marvelous story.
Did the events in Acts 3 and 4 actually happen? Are they true history?
I remind the reader, as I have in almost every article in this series so far, that Luke, the historian, “traced the course of all things accurately from the first” (Luke 1:3) before he wrote his gospel and Acts. He did exactly what an historian is supposed to do, something, as an historian I have done before when I have written historical papers (of which I have written many). Luke’s claim is flawless, and no one can disprove anything he wrote.
Then why do people deny it? Two reasons, at least.
Modern skeptics have an a priori bias against miracles. Miracles do not happen, cannot happen, and have never happened. Skeptics start there, which is a close-minded conclusion; they don’t follow the evidence wherever it might lead, they simply dismiss, out of hand, the possibility of miracles ever happening. And since they do this, Luke’s account could not have occurred. Luke lied, he was deceived, he was given false information, he was part of a superstitious age—all sorts of rationales are given for rejecting what happened in Acts 3 and 4 (and all the Bible for that matter).
But Luke said he “traced the course of all things accurately from the first.” He did what an historian is supposed to do. And the only answer to that is to call him a liar. Without one shred of evidence or proof.
The second reason people deny these historical truths is, well, read chapter 4 again—why did the Jewish leaders deny it? It wasn’t a lack of evidence that fomented their rejection of Christ; it was, as noted, that accepting Jesus would have cost them too much. They would have had to give up their positions of prestige and power, they would have had to have repented of their sins and humbled themselves before a Man Whom they had killed. So, they bullied, threatened, and rationalized. How many people today reject Christ for the same reason? The adulterer doesn’t want to give up his adultery, the homosexual doesn’t want to give up his homosexuality, the liar doesn’t want to give up his lying—the “pleasures of sin” are too important to us. It costs us too much to follow Jesus. So, we just...hope...that Luke was wrong, and that none of the things he, and the other Bible writers recorded, actually happened.
Most people rationalize their actions and deny the Bible. And hope that...when they die...Jesus really didn’t come out of that tomb...that that 40+ year-old lame man really wasn’t healed, especially for the reasons Peter gave.
Hope versus historical facts recorded by a man who did his research. I, for one, will stick with history.