Acts 4:17Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

They did so in an empty and childish form, yet they acknowledged it. But now they do not believe and are troubled, taking counsel about what to do with the apostles. Was not the very fact that they spoke with such boldness enough to persuade them to do nothing to them? Why do you not believe, tell me, O Jew? You ought to have attended to the miracle that had occurred and to the words of the apostles, not to the malice of the crowd. But why do the Jews not hand them over to the Romans? Because they were already hated by them for what they had done to Christ. Thus they harmed themselves all the more by delaying the accusation against them. It was not so with Christ. Seizing Him in the middle of the night, they immediately led Him to judgment and did not delay, because they greatly feared the people. But they did not dare act so with the apostles. They do not lead them to Pilate, fearing and being anxious over what had happened before, lest they be accused for that also. Such is malice, bold and shameless. “Let us strictly threaten them.” What are you saying? Do you really hope to stop the preaching by a threat? Authority is everywhere hard and troublesome in this way. You killed the Teacher and did not stop the preaching. Do you now hope by your threats to restrain us from it? Bonds did not make us speak with less boldness. Will you do so, when we count your threats as nothing?

The apostles were asked, “By what power, or by whose name, have you done this?” Perhaps they did not expect them to dare speak before the Sanhedrin as openly as before the common people. Yet the apostles, without hesitation, declared that the lame man who had lain at the temple had been raised by them in the name of Jesus. He was the One crucified by them, that is, according to the decree of the Sanhedrin. They added that this Jesus, as He Himself had declared to them, is indeed the stone rejected by the builders, which has become the head of the corner. They were recognized. John was known to one of the chief priests. Their boldness amazed the members of the Sanhedrin. Yet it was impossible to deny the miracle. The people were on their side, since they were not disposed toward the Sadducees. Therefore they decided only to forbid them to preach any longer to anyone “in this name.” Peter and John answered that they must obey God rather than men. They were merely threatened and released with the same command.

But the healed man, who was there with the apostles, stood as silent and irrefutable confirmation of the truth of the apostolic testimony. Then, having sent the accused out, they conferred about how to proceed. The opponents of Christ openly confessed among themselves that the truth was on the side of the accused. Nevertheless, after calling the apostles back, they strictly forbade them to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. But the apostles answered: “Judge whether it is right before God to listen to you rather than to God. We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (vv. 19-20). The apostles had received directly from Christ Himself the appointment to be His witnesses throughout the whole world, and first of all in Jerusalem. Yet Christ Himself had once said: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do” (Mt 23:2-3). Therefore the apostles had to show obedience to the Sanhedrin as guardian of this order. They owed this not only according to their former purely Jewish concepts and beliefs. They owed it also on the basis of the Lord’s teaching that, even with the opening of the New Testament, the Old Testament order of things would continue for a time. Thus two duties were demanded of the apostles at the same time. These duties stood in such a relation to one another that, by fulfilling one, they violated the other. Yet the apostles did not deliberate over how to escape this difficulty. Calmly and firmly they declared that in this case they could not be obedient. They had to fulfill a higher commandment, the commandment of God Himself. On the other hand, their own conscience did not permit them to be silent. It did not permit them to conceal the truth concerning that of which they were firmly and unquestionably convinced by experience.

Knowing that Christ had risen, and having in this the proof of His Godhead, they hoped by their plots to hide the glory of Him whom death could not hold. What can compare with this madness? And do not be surprised that they again devise something impossible. Such is the nature of malice: it looks at nothing, but everywhere falls into confusion” (Chrysostom).

Therefore the threat could no longer have force. “What madness!” Saint John Chrysostom exclaims on this occasion. “Knowing that Christ had risen, and having in this the proof of His Godhead, they hoped by their plots to hide the glory of Him whom death could not hold. What can compare with this madness? And do not be surprised that they again devise something impossible. Such is the nature of malice: it looks at nothing, but everywhere falls into confusion.” Blessed Theophylact asks, among other things, this question: “Why do they not bring the apostles to Pilate, but judge them themselves, the priests? Because they were ashamed and blushed over what had happened before, and feared that the apostles would accuse them.”