CHAPTER 7

Verse 1
"Then said the high priest, 'Are these things so?'"
Stephen responds in a long and powerful discourse.

There is great diversity of opinion among commentators, as to the logical bearing and connection of this discourse. We would naturally expect to find in it -- if we regard it as properly a defense -- a formal response to the charge which had been preferred. But it contains no direct answer to any of the specifications. He neither admits nor denies what was charged in reference to the destruction of the temple by Jesus and the changing of the customs delivered by Moses; though his silence may be regarded as an admission that the witnesses had spoken the truth on these points. Neither does he formally answer to the charge of blasphemy against Moses and against God, or against the holy temple and the law. The only thing in the discourse that has even an indirect bearing in this way, is his frequent reference to facts contained in the writings of Moses, which has been understood, by some commentators, as intended to indicate a degree of respect for Moses inconsistent with a disposition to speak blasphemy against him. But if such was his purpose, it is unaccountable that he should have pursued so indirect a course, instead of distinctly avowing the sentiments he intended to indicate. Again, this supposition can not account for the introduction of so many facts connected with the persecution of various individuals.

The best statement of the drift of the discourse, I think, is this: The charge against him was hypocritically preferred, and his judges had no intention to investigate it, but were using it merely as an excuse for his predetermined condemnation to death. They were now giving him somewhat the form for a trial, to keep up appearances before the people. Under such circumstances, Stephen knew that it would be useless to offer a formal defense; and, therefore, he does not undertake it. He sees, however, that his persecutors were identifying themselves, by their proceedings, with the unbelieving and persecuting portion of their forefathers, and he determines to make them stand forth to the people in this their true position. In prosecuting this purpose he selects his material from the writings of Moses, and shows that his accusers are with the persecuting party, while his Master and himself are side by side with Moses and others whom they had persecuted: Thus he hurls back upon them, and fastens on them, effectually, the charge which they had falsely preferred against him.

Verses 2-4
We will now take up the different sections of the discourse, treating each separately, and showing their connected bearing upon his main purpose. Before exhibiting the manner in which Moses was treated by the ancestors of his audience, he first shows that the mission on which Moses came was a subject of prophesy: thus indicating, at the outset, an analogy between it and that of Christ. To do this, he must begin with Abraham, to whom this prophesy was first given; but his reference to Abraham is only for the historical introduction of his main theme. (2) "And he said: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, (3) and said to him, Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I will show thee. (4) Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and thence, after his father died, he removed into this land in which you now dwell."

Verses 5-8
Having now introduced Abraham, and brought him into the land of Canaan, Stephen quotes the prophesy, connected with the fulfillment of which he is to find the chief points of his argument. (5) "And he gave him no inheritance in it, not a footprint: and he promised to give it for a possession to him and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (6) But God spoke thus: That his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and they should bring them into bondage, and afflict them four hundred years. (7) And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage, I will judge, said God, and after these things they shall come forth, and serve me in this place. (8) And he gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac, Jacob; and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs."

The period of four hundred years is taken by Stephen from Genesis 15:13, where God expresses himself, in round terms, of a period which was, more accurately, four hundred and thirty years, as we find in Exodus 12:40,41. This was not the period of their actual sojourn in Egypt; but, as we learn from Paul, (Galatians 3:17,) and from the genealogical tables in Genesis and Exodus, it extended from the call of Abraham to the departure from Egypt.

Verses 9-16
The speaker next proceeds to recount the circumstances which brought the people down into Egypt, in order that the rejection of Joseph, and the final salvation of the whole family through him, might stand out before his hearers, and be made to bear upon his final conclusion. (9) "And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt. And God was with him, (10) and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. (11) Now, there came a famine on all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance. (12) But Jacob, having heard that there was grain in Egypt, sent out our fathers the first time. (13) And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph's kindred was made known to Pharaoh. (14) Then Joseph sent and called to him his father Jacob and all his kindred, seventy-five souls. (15) And Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, (16) and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulcher which Jacob bought for a sum of money from the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem."

There is a numerical discrepancy between moses and Stephen, in reference to the number of Jacob's family when they went into Egypt. Stephen makes then seventy-five, while Moses states them at seventy, including Joseph's family and himself. [See Genesis 46:26,27.] The Septuagint translation of Genesis agrees with Stephen. Various methods of reconciling these statements are proposed, of which the only satisfactory one is this. The number given by Moses includes all "who came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives." [46:26.] The number given by Stephen must, then, include five of their wives, who were, probably, all that were then living. The translators of the Septuagint, having some historical evidence, now lost to us, that five of their wives went with them, saw fit to fill up the number in their translation, and Stephen followed their enumeration.

It was Jacob, and not Abraham, who purchased the sepulcher from the sons of Emmor, as is certain from the history given in Genesis xxxiii: 19, 20; yet it is attributed to Abraham here in the common version, and most of the Greek manuscripts. It is far more likely, however, that the manuscripts should err, in a case of this kind, than that the error should have been committed by Stephen or by Luke. I have, therefore, not hesitated to insert the name of Jacob, instead of Abraham, in the text. Dr. Bloomfield says, "The best critics are of the opinion that Abraham is spurious."

Verses 17-29
From this glance at the leading points in the history of Joseph, Stephen advances to the case of Moses, showing that his brethren rejected him in like manner, and were also finally delivered by him. (17) "But when the time of the promise of which God had sworn to Abraham was drawing near, the people increased and were multiplied in Egypt, (18) until another king arose who knew not Joseph. (19) The same dealt craftily with our kindred, and afflicted our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, in order that they might not live. (20) In which time Moses was born, and was exceedingly beautiful. He was nourished in his his father's house three months. (21) And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. (22) And Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and was powerful in words and in deeds. (23) And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to look after his brethren, the children of Israel. (24) And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian. (25) Now he thought that his brethren would understand that God would, by his hand, give them salvation; but they did not understand. (26) The next day he appeared to them as they were fighting, and would have brought them to peace, saying, Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another? (27) But he who was wronging his neighbor thrust him away, saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? (28) Do you wish to kill me as you killed that Egyptian yesterday? (29) Then Moses fled at this word, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian where he begot two sons."

In the rejection of Moses by his countrymen, when he was seeking to deliver them from bondage, according to the promise of God, Stephen has before the minds of the Sanhedrim another case bearing upon his final conclusion. It is true, that as yet they could not anticipate the use he intended to make of it, but the obscurity of his design awakened their curiosity, and rendered their mortification the more intense when at last it was suddenly developed. If they could have anticipated it, they would have stopped his mouth at the beginning.

Verses 30-37
There were other incidents in the life of Moses fully as much to his purpose as this; and to these he proceeds to advert. (30) "And when forty years were completed, there appeared to him, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. (31) When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to observe it, the voice of the Lord came to him. (32) I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and did not dare to observe it. (33) And the Lord said to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet; for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. (34) I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and have come down to deliver them; and now, come, I will send thee into Egypt. (35) The same Moses whom they rejected, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him at the bush. (36) He led them out, after doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (37) This is the same Moses who said to the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you from your brethren like me; him shall ye hear." In this passage, the speaker has not only presented, in a most emphatic manner, the contrast between the rejection of Moses by his brethren, and his appointment by God to the very office of ruler and deliverer, which they refused him, but has also made a further advance toward his final purpose, by introducing the prophesy uttered by this same Moses concerning the Messiah. This prophesy was still more apposite, because it refuted the charge that he had spoken blasphemy against Moses, in saying that Christ would change the customs appointed by him. If Moses himself foretold the coming of a successor who should supersede him, he alone pays proper respect to Moses who submits to his successor.

Verses 38-40
To keep prominent the ill treatment received by Moses at the hands of the people, the speaker proceeds to note their conduct in the wilderness. (38) "This is he that was in the congregation in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living oracles to give to us. (39) Whom our fathers were not willing to obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back into Egypt, (40) saying to Aaron, Make us Gods who shall go before us; for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him." This instance of their rejection of Moses was much more flagrant than the first, seeing that it occurred immediately after the most splendid manifestations of God's presence with him; and that, in the very words which they addressed to Aaron, they acknowledged that it was he who had brought them out of Egypt. These circumstances also render more striking the analogy which Stephen is about to develop between him and Jesus; for he also had been rejected, notwithstanding the admission, by his enemies, that he had wrought miracles.

Verses 41-43
Stephen next shows that the same people who so often rejected the servants of God, likewise rejected God himself. (41) "They made a calf in those days, and brought sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. (42) And God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, even as it is written in the book of the prophets, O house of Israel, have you offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness? (43) You have even taken up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which you made, to worship them; and I will carry you away beyond Babylon." With this brief glance at the subsequent fate of the people who had so often rejected their deliverers, covering a period of many centuries, and terminating with their captivity in Babylon, Stephen concludes his summary of facts; but, previous to the final application, which he saw would raise a storm in the Assembly, he has a few words in reference to the temple.

Verses 44-50
Instead of either admitting or denying the charge of blasphemy against the temple, he undertakes to show the true religious value of that building. This he does, by first alluding to the movable and perishable nature of the tabernacle, which preceded the temple, and then, by showing, from the prophets, that the presence of God is not limited to temples made with hands. (44) "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, saying to Moses that he should make it according to the pattern which he had seen; (45) which also, our fathers, having received, brought in with Joshua within the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, (46) who found favor before God, and desired to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon built him a house. (48) Yet the Most High dwells not in temples made with hands, as says the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build for me? says the Lord; or what is my place of rest? (50) Did not my hand make all these things?" By this statement, the speaker intrenches himself behind undisputed facts of their own history, and the sentiments of their own prophets, in reference to the temple, and is now ready to spring upon them the whole concealed power of the carefully arranged facts from the life of Moses and of Joseph.

Verses 51-53
As Joseph, the divinely-selected savior of his brethren, had been sold by those brethren into slavery; and as Moses, divinely selected to deliver Israel from bondage, was at first rejected by them to become a sojourner in Midian, and was then sent back by the God of their fathers to be rejected by them again and again, notwithstanding the most indisputable manifestations of God's presence with him; and as all the prophets had met with a similar fortune, so, now, the final prophet, of whom Moses and all the prophets had spoken, had been rejected and slain by the sons of these persecuting fathers. The combined power of all these facts and analogies is now concentrated in the closing paragraph of the speech, and expressed in these terrific words: (51) "Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always resisting the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (52) Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? They murdered those who announced before concerning the coming of the Just One, of whom now you have been the betrayers and murderers; (53) who received the law through the ranks of angels, and have not kept it."

The pent-up fires which had burned within the breast of Stephen from the beginning of these unjust proceedings, and had given an angelic glow to his features at the beginning of his speech, had been carefully smothered and controlled during the progress of his argument; but now that the restraints of the argument were withdrawn, they had burst forth in these scorching and blazing words.

Verses 54-60
The exasperation of the Sanhedrim was the more intense, from the fact that the denunciation hurled upon them was not a sudden burst of passion, but the deliberate and sustained announcement of a just judgment. They had not been able to resist, in debate, the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke, and now their efforts to convict him of crime had recoiled terribly upon their own heads. They had no course now left them, but the usual resort of unprincipled partisans when totally discomfited, and to this they rushed with fearful rapidity. (54) "When they heard these things, they were exasperated, and gnashed their teeth upon him. (55) But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (56) and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. (57) Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord, (58) and cast him out of the city, and stoned him. And the witnesses laid off their garments at the feet of a young man called Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen, calling on the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. (60) And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to his death."

This was a strange way for a court to break up; the whole body of seventy grave rabbis, whose official duty it was to watch for the faithful and regular proceedings of law, leaving their seats, and rushing with the wild mob, amid hideous outcries and tumultuous rage, to the sudden execution of a prisoner absolutely untried and uncondemned. But the maddest pranks ever played upon this mad earth are witnessed when wicked men set themselves in uncompromising opposition to God and his holy truth. So uniformly has this been true in history, that, at the present day, when such opposition is to be sustained, whether on great or insignificant occasion, no well-informed man expects aught else than disregard of all the rules of justice and propriety. If the infuriated scenes which have been enacted under such circumstances, in the history of Christianity, could be dramatically represented, the performance might be appropriately styled, The Madman's Drama.

The vision witnessed by Stephen, while the Jews were gnashing their teeth upon him, need not be understood as the real opening of the heavens, so that the things within them could be seen by the human eye, but only a representation to his eyes, such as those granted to John in the isle of Patmos. It was vouchsafed both for his own encouragement in the hour of death, and that the remembrance of the words in which he described it, and the hue of countenance with which he gazed upon it, might remain indelibly impressed upon the minds of those who were present. There was at least one in the audience upon whom, we have reason to believe, this impression was deep and lasting. The young man Saul never forgot it; but, long afterward, when bending under the weight of many years, he makes sad mention of the part he took in these dreadful proceedings. [1 Timothy 1:12,13.]

The death of Stephen was an event of most thrilling interest to the young Church, and well deserves the large space allotted to it by the historian. The disciples had embarked, with all their interests, both temporal and eternal, in the cause of one, who, though he proved himself mighty to deliver, while present with them, had now gone away beyond the reach of vision, and no longer held personal converse with them. They had struggled on faithfully thus far, and, amid many tears, some stripes, and much affliction, they had still found a deep satisfaction of soul in his service. It was demonstrated that their faith could sustain them in life, even amid very bitter trials; but it was not yet known how it would sustain them in the hour of death. No one of their number had yet tried the dread reality, and no man can now tell how much their spirits may have wavered in the prospect, and inclined backward toward the faith of their fathers, distrustful of the new arm of salvation. How great the strength, therefore, and how sweet the consolation imparted to every heart, when the first who died was so triumphant in the pangs of death! After witnessing the scene, they could go onward in their tear-dimmed course of suffering, without one fear or care for that within the grace, or beyond it. At the late day in which we live, which has been preceded by the happy death of millions of Christians, and which is often yet made deeply glad by their triumphs in the trying hour, we are not able to appreciate the eagerness with which the first disciples drank in the consolations of this glorious death. It was a fortuitous and most fitting preparation for the fiery ordeal through which the Church were immediately afterward called to pass.

We omit any notice of the part taken by Saul in this shocking tragedy till we come to comment on the ninth chapter, where his career becomes the leading theme of the historian.

CHAPTER 6

Verse 1
From the preceding account of the struggle, between the apostles and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the internal condition of the Church during the same period. Though the mass of the disciples had attained many of the excellencies of Christian character, they were still but men, and liable to the partialities and prejudices of men. This became manifest in a manner which at first threatened serious consequences.

(1) "Now, in those days, the disciples having multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenist against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration."
The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered largely over five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost impossible to look after the wants of all with equal care, and some unintentional oversight must unavoidably occur. The "daily ministration" is undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by the brethren, which was made "to every one according as he had need." That it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy. The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek education, and were so called because of their conformity to the manners of the Hellenes, as Greeks were called. Many of them were, perhaps, not permanent residents in Jerusalem, but had remained there after Pentecost on account of their interest in the new religion. They were the more likely to be neglected, because less familiarity known to the apostles and their assistants.

Verses 2-4
This unforeseen circumstances suggested to the apostles the propriety of insinuating a new office in the Church. Though the Holy Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional instruction was given only as circumstances required. They were not theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to dictate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the provisions which were made precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles; for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, oi neoteroi, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-appointed officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later and unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in Jerusalem existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, it follows that a Church may now exist under the written teaching alone of the same apostles. But seeing, further, that when circumstances required it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all Churches among whom similar wants arise should provide themselves in the same way. All Churches, however, will inevitably find need for such officers as the New Testament authorizes; hence they should procure them without unnecessary delay.

When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted promptly. (2) "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. (3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer and the ministry of the word." The alternative with the apostles was to "leave," in some degree, "the word of God," and serve the tables satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and "continue in prayer and the ministry of the word" as uninterruptedly as before. They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by choosing the latter course.

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole "multitude of the disciples" should take part in the selection of these officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by apostolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description. They must be men of "good repute;" not merely good men, but men whose goodness was accredited among the brethren.

They must also be men who were "full of the Holy Spirit." Whether this means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely that they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had been wrought, so far as we know, by any of the apostles, and that, immediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears "doing great wonders and miracles among the people," seem to indicate that they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but received miraculous powers when the hands of the apostles were laid upon them. On the other hand, the expression, "full of the Holy Spirit," generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain that when a disciple was "full of the Spirit" in either sense, the religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can be required in a candidate for the same office at the present day.

The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily identified with that of the deacon as described in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. The seven are not styled diakonoi, deacons, but they were selected to attend to the daily diakonia, (Acts 6:1) and their service is expressed by the verb diakoneo, (Acts 6:2) the same which expresses the duty of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:10-13. The chief duty for which they were appointed, was "to serve tables," diakonein trapezais; yet this duty need not prevent them from discharging any other functions for which they were qualified, and for which they could find time. God exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to us, and has appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the humblest disciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon after in the front rank of the defenders of the faith; while another, after the dispersion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman. Those who deny to deacons, at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction which is in direct conflict with the word of God. As to the title evangelist, afterward applied to Philip, see the "Commentary on Acts," xxi: 8.

Verses 5, 6
The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvious want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance with it, (5) "And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, (6) whom they placed before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid their hands on them." It is a remarkable proof of the generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek names, indicating that they were selected from the very party whence the murmuring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the Hellenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, not any jealousy toward you who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your hands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So generous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men.

All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned in the New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that they were subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke selected, for his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were the actors.

Of Nicolas, it is said that he was "a proselyte of Antioch," which means that he was a Gentile who had been proselyted to Judaism before he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even at this early period, the apostles had no objection to the reception of Gentiles, provided they had been circumcised.

Stephen is specially described as "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit," not because the others were destitute of these excellencies; for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that they should be men "full of the Holy Spirit." But if the seven were distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been distinguished in the same way among the seven.

The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been a subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to impart miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the ceremony of their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often conferred by the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, to say the least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but the context forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of the ceremony. The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one thing, and they themselves proposed to do another. The multitude were to "look out" the men, "whom," say the apostles, "we may appoint over this business." The part performed by the apostles was their appointment to office. But all the apostles did was to pray and lay on their hands; hence, this was the ceremony of their appointment. It stands upon record as a precedent, and should be complied with in similar cases. The fact that men can not now confer a miraculous gift by laying on hands, does not relieve them from the obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of appointment to office.

The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give no trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the Church were the official on this occasion, and so, according to the precedent, should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets one in order, should lay hands on its officers. When there are peculiar circumstances not anticipated by the precedent, they should be provided for according to the wisdom of those concerned, being careful not to violate the precedent. The example of the apostles is binding in this, as in all cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, or to the condition of the early Churches.

Verse 7
The appointment of the seven over the business of daily ministration to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency in the organization of the Church. The more efficient organization gave greater efficiency to the labors of all. (7) "And the word of God increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith." This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of religion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it is ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem.

The expression used concerning these priests, that they became "obedient to the faith," is worthy of notice as implying that there is something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered in the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as Lord; hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith. It begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship conferred upon him was "for obedience to the faith among all nations." [Romans 1:5.] Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who "obey not the gospel," whatever may be their faith, will be "destroyed from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power." [2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.]

There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because of its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. It is said, "The word of God increased," and the specifications are, that the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such incidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: "There was a precious season of grace;" "The Lord was present in his saving power;" "A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit," etc. So great a departure from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure from scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception that conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, they are likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. But Luke, who had no such conception, saw in the increase of the disciples an increase of the word of God; by which he means not an increase in the quantity of revelation, but in its effect. The more favorable circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the cessation of recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better organization, gave greater weight to the word that was preached, and greater success was the consequence.

Verse 8
We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus briefly sketched: (8) "Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did great wonders and signs among the people." The power by which he wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was "full of faith." This accords with the fact already observed, (Acts 3:16,) that the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith.

Verses 9, 10
The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than that of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to him more especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, and one who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The opponents of the gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first persecution occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John in Solomon's Portico; the second, upon the triumphs which followed the death of Ananias and Sapphira; and the third now springs up upon the appearance of new advocates of the faith. (9) "Then there arose certain persons from the synagogue called the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians, and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen; (10) and they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke."

The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been deterred, by fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own ranks, from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, by superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all foreign-born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north of Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus.

The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun [See Acts 7:58 below.] identifies the attacking party as Pharisees; for he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and "brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel." [22:3; 23:6.] The violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been checked, in part, by the counsel of Gamaliel--the great teacher of the Pharisees--the apostles had gone on in their ministry, not merely proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part of their commission, "teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever Christ had commanded." This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the brunt of attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions were directly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The consequence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary culture and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great confidence to disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners, were naturally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born disputants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon found himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all.

This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed no opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been convinced with those which learning and ingenuity might frame against them. But now they were to hear both sides of the great question presented, with the odds of number, learning, and social position all on the side of their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, and it needs no very vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxiety with which the disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their fondest hopes were realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen had all the facts and the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke." By the "spirit by which he spoke," I suppose Luke refers to the Holy Spirit, who supplied him with whatever knowledge and wisdom he may have lacked.

In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to resist him.

Verses 11-14
When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued in the case of Jesus. (11) "Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God." This was the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes. (12) "And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, (13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; (14) For we have heard him saying, that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us."

This is the first time that "the people" are represented as taking part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the "fear of the people" had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong popular feeling in their own favor. The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy "against Moses and God," otherwise expressed, "against this holy place, and the law." The change of phraseology arises from the fact that the temple and law were the visible representatives of Moses and of God. The specifications under this charge were these: "We have heard him saying that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us." It is quite likely that Stephen was guilty of the specifications; but they fell very far short of the crime of blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, he was really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination which Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored God by receiving him whom God had sent.

Verse 15
As Stephen stood before the Sanhedrim, thus falsely and hypocritically accused, and fully aware of a determination to condemn him without regard to evidence or justice, he could but remember the similar accusation of Jesus, of Peter and John, then of all the apostles; and his heart must have swelled at the thought of being identified with them in suffering. The baseness of his persecutors--who, under pretense of zeal for Moses and the law, were violating the one and dishonoring the other, by seeking the lives of the only men who believed his words--must have filled him with indignation, while love for the truth which he was defending, and for the Redeemer for whom he was suffering, was kindled afresh, and the power of a glorious hope inspired him with the most invincible courage. Emotions so intense and so lofty spread a glow upon his countenance which attracted the attention of the whole audience. (15) "And all who sat in the Sanhedrim, looking earnestly upon him, saw his face as if it were the face of an angel." There is no need to suppose anything supernatural in his appearance, such as a halo of light enveloping his countenance; for a countenance naturally fine and expressive, when lit up by emotions so intense and heavenly as those which must then have swelled the breast of Stephen, would be sufficient to suggest such a comparison. If there were any brethren present, with what tearful delight they must then have gazed upon the hero of faith! And if any of the members of the Sanhedrim were still capable of nobler sentiments, how intense must have been their agitation!

CHAPTER 5

Verses 1, 2
In close connection with this unprecedented liberality of the brethren, we are now introduced to a remarkable case of corruption, of which it was the occasion. The praise always lavished on disinterested benevolence sometimes prompts illiberal men to make a pretense of liberality. But the mere desire of praise is incapable of subduing selfishness, so as to make a truly liberal heart; for it is itself a species of selfishness. In contrast with the course of Barnabas, we are told:

(1) "But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, (2) and kept back part of the price, his wife being also privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the feet of the apostles."
This language implies, what is distinctly avowed by the wife below, that this part was represented as the whole price of the possession.

Verses 3, 4
"But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled thy heart, to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? (4) While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Here Peter brings together the influence of Satan, and the free agency of the tempted, just as he had, in former discourses, the free agency of men, and the purposes of God. [See Com. iii: 17-18.] He demands of Ananias, "Why has Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit," and, in the same breath, "Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart?" The existence and agency of the tempter are distinctly recognized, yet it is not Satan, but Ananias who is rebuked; and he is rebuked for doing the very thing that Satan had done, showing that he is as guilty as though Satan had no existence. Indeed, he is rebuked for what Satan had done. The justice of this is manifest from the fact that Satan had no power to fill his heart with evil, without his co-operation. That he had rendered this co-operation, threw the responsibility upon himself.

Peter's knowledge of the deception was the result not of human information, but of the insight imparted to him by the Holy Spirit. This is necessary to the significance of the entire incident, as well as to the purport of Peter's own words.

Verse 5
The exposure of Ananias was very surprising, but neither the audience, nor perhaps Peter, was prepared by it for the event which immediately followed. (5) "And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and expired. And great fear came upon all who heard these things." There is no evidence that Peter had any will of his own in this matter; but it was an act of divine power exerted independent of the apostolic agency. The responsibility, therefore, attached not to Peter as an officer of the Church, but to God as the moral governor of the world. The propriety of the deed may be appreciated best by supposing that Ananias had succeeded in his undertaking. His success would not only have turned the most praiseworthy feature of the new Church into a source of corruption and hypocrisy, but it would have brought discredit upon the inspiration of the apostles, by showing that the Spirit within them could be deceived. Thus the whole fabric of apostolic authority, which was based upon their inspiration, would have fallen, and precipitated the entire cause into hopeless ruin. The attempt, therefore, presented a crisis of vital importance, and demanded some such vindication of their inspiration as could neither be mistaken nor forgotten. The immediate effect of the event was just the effect desired: "great fear came upon all who heard these things."

Verse 6
The scene was too awful for lamentation, or for needless funeral services. As when Nadab and Abihu fell dead at the door of the tabernacle with strange fire in their censers, [Leviticus 10:1-7.] there was no weeping nor delay. All were stricken with horror, as they saw the curse of God fall upon the wretch. (6) "And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him."

Verse 7
Sapphira was not present. (7) "And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in." How she remained so long ignorant of the fate of her husband, we are not informed, though it is a most extraordinary circumstance. He had died suddenly, in a manner which had excited everybody; had been buried; and three hours had passed; yet his wife, who must have been in the vicinity, has no intimation of it, but comes into the very assembly where it had occurred, without a word reaching her ear upon the subject. There is no way to account for this, but by the supposition that there was a concerted determination on the part of the whole multitude to conceal the facts from her. This was a most unnatural determination, and one difficult of execution, except on the further supposition that Peter commanded the multitude to restrain their natural impulses, and let her know nothing until he himself was ready to reveal it to her. This course was necessary in order to effectually expose her.

Verses 8-10
She came in prepared to act out fully the part which she had agreed upon with her husband. (8) "Then Peter answered her, Tell me whether you sold the land for so much? She said, Yes; for so much. (9) Then Peter said to her, Why is it that you have agreed together to put to proof the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. (10) Then she immediately fell at his feet and expired: and the young men coming in found her dead, and carried her out, and buried her by her husband." In her case, Peter knew what was about to take place, and declared it; but there is no indication that he exerted his own will or miraculous power to cause her death. We regard her death, like that of Ananias, as a miracle wrought independent of the power lodged in the apostles.

In the question, "Why have you agreed together to put to proof the Spirit of the Lord?" Peter expresses the result of their agreement, though it may not have been what they had in view. They did put the Spirit to proof, by testing his powers. If he had failed under the test, the consequences, as we have suggested above, would have been disastrous. But now that the test applied has triumphantly vindicated the fullness of apostolic inspiration, it was not likely that such another attempt could be made.

Verse 11
The failure of the plot proved as propitious to the cause of truth as its success would have been disastrous. (11) "And great fear came upon all the Church, and upon all who had heard these things." This fear was excited, not only by the sudden and awful fate of the guilty pair, but also by the fearful nature of that spirit-searching knowledge imparted to the apostles. The disciples were now filled with more just conceptions than before of the nature of inspiration, and the unbelieving masses who heard of the event were awed into respect and reverence.

Verses 12, 13
Increased activity of the apostles followed, and their office was still further magnified. (12) "And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all, with one accord, in Solomon's Portico, (13) and of the rest no man dare join himself to them, but all people magnified them." It was the apostles alone who were in Solomon's Portico, as is evident from the fact that the term apostles, in the first clause of the Acts 5:12, furnishes the only antecedent to the pronoun they, in the statement, "they were all, with one accord," etc. This being so, "the rest," who dared not join themselves to them, must include other disciples, as well as the unbelieving multitude. It need not be concluded, from this, that the disciples stood off at the same fearful distance with unbelievers; but that they were so filled with awe by the exhibition connected with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira, that they dare not approach the apostles with the familiarity which had marked their former intercourse with them. Such a feeling was at first experienced by the apostles themselves in the presence of Jesus, and was well expressed by Peter, when he and his companions made the first miraculous draught of fishes: falling down at the knees of Jesus, he exclaimed, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord." [Luke 5:8.] That such a feeling was also experienced by the whole Church, at this time, has just been stated by the historian, in Acts 5:11, where he says, "Great fear came upon all the Church."

Verse 14
The statement just made, that "of the rest no man dared to join himself to them," can not mean that persons dared not join the Church, for the reverse is now stated. (14) "And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." The increased awe in the presence of the apostles, with which the people were inspired, made them listen with increased respect to their testimony concerning Jesus, and brought them in greater numbers to obedience.

Verses 15, 16
The connection of Luke's next statement, introduced by the adverb so that, is somewhat obscure: but I presume he intends to state a result of all the facts just mentioned. Signs and wonders were done by the apostles; the people magnified them, and believers were the more added to the Lord. (15) "So that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. (16) There came also a multitude out of the cities round about to Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those vexed by unclean spirits, who were all healed."

Verses 17, 18
The excitement which now prevailed throughout Jerusalem and the neighboring villages, and found utterance in the most enthusiastic praise of the apostles, was too much for the equanimity of the dignitaries who had so strictly forbidden them to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. (17) "Then the high priest rose up, and all who were with him, being the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with zeal, (18) and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the public prison." Here we have the same Sadducees at work who had arrested and threatened Peter and John. They were "filled with zeal;" but it was a zeal inspired less by love for their own cause, than by hatred for that which was triumphing over it. The advocates of error will generally appear quite easy, and sometimes, even generous, when their cause is merely standing still; but their zeal is always kindled when the truth begins to make inroads upon them. The zeal of these Sadducees was fanned to its fiercest heat by recent events, and they determined to execute the threats with which they had recently dismissed two of the apostles, making all the twelve their present victims.

Verses 19-21
When they were all seized and cast into prison together, the apostles could but expect that they would now feel the entire weight of the wrath which was treasured up against them. (19) "But an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors in the night, and led them forth, and said, (20) Go stand in the temple, and speak to the people all the words of this life. (21) And having heard this they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and those who were with him, and called together the Sanhedrim, and all the eldership of the children of Israel, and sent into the prison to have them brought." The apostles were already in the temple, teaching the early worshipers as if nothing unusual had occurred, when the Sanhedrim met and sent to the prison for them.

Verses 22, 23
After some delay, the officers returned into the presence of the Sanhedrim without their prisoners. (22) "But when the officers arrived, and did not find them in the prison, they returned and announced, (23) saying, The prison we found closed with all safety, and the guards standing before the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one within." This appalling circumstance would have been sufficient, with less determined men, to stay all hostile proceedings, and even to disperse the court who had assembled for the trial for the apostles.

Verses 24-26
The startling announcement was not without serious effect even upon the stubborn Sadducees. They were staggered by it, and knew not at first what to do or think. (24) "Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these words, they were perplexed concerning them, what this might come to. (25) But some one came and announced to them, Behold, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people." This announcement relieved the perplexity of the Sanhedrim, by enabling them to proceed with business, and relieving them from the unpleasant necessity of dispersing without a good excuse. They now dispatch a more honorable guard after the apostles than they had, at first; for the captain of the temple himself takes command. (26) "Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned." The clause, "lest they should be stone," is so arranged as to furnish a reason for both the preceding statements, that they "feared the people," and that they "brought them without violence." The enthusiasm of the people had been much increased, no doubt, by the angelic deliverance, which was by this time well known about the temple.

Verses 27, 28
We have now a very lively and graphic description of the arraignment and trial of the apostles. (27) "And having brought them, they placed them in the Sanhedrim, and the high priest asked them, (28) saying, Did we not strictly command you not to speak in this name? And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." These words contain two specific charges against the apostles, disobedience to the Sanhedrim, and an effort to bring upon them the blood of Jesus.

Verses 29-32
To these charges the apostles candidly and fearlessly respond. (29) "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." This answers the first charge. They plead guilty, but justify themselves by the authority of God. Peter and John had left the Sanhedrim before, with the words, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken to men more than to God, do you judge." Now, as if that question was decided, they declare, "We ought to obey God rather than men." They then answer the second charge by a restatement of the facts: (30) "The God of our fathers had raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hung him on a tree. (31) This man has God exalted to his own right hand, a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. (32) And we are his witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him." This was repeating, with terrible emphasis, the very thing which was charged against them as a crime.

In the declaration that Jesus had been exalted a Prince and a Savior, "to grant repentance to Israel and remission of sins," it is implied that repentance, as well as remission of sins, is in some sense granted to me. But to grant repentance can not mean to bestow it upon men without an exercise of their own will; for repentance is enjoined upon men as a duty to be performed by them. How, then, can that which is a duty to be performed, be said to be granted to us? We will readily perceive the answer to this question, by remembering that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and that it belongs to God to furnish men with the facts which will awaken this sorrow. Without revelation, men would never be made to feel that sorrow for sin which works repentance; but in the revelation of Jesus Christ we are furnished with the chief of these motives, and because of this, he is said to grant repentance.

Verse 33
The Sanhedrim had been astonished at the boldness of Peter and John on their former trial, but had contented themselves with severe threatenings. Now, both their commands and their threats, having been despised, and the bold innovators daring to defy them once more, they lost, for a moment, all the restraint which had been imposed by the fear of the multitude. (33) "Now when they heard this, they were exasperated, and determined to slay them."

Verses 34-39
At this crisis the madness of the Sadducees was suddenly checked by the prudent counsel of one of the opposite party. The Pharisees were less exasperated, because their leading dogma was sustained by the apostles, and they saw that any imprudent proceedings were likely to involve the whole Sanhedrim in trouble, without regard to party; therefore, Gamaliel interposes his advice. (34) "But a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrim, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, arose and commanded to put the apostles out for a little while." This removal of the prisoners, like that of Peter and John before, was designed to prevent them from taking encouragement from any admissions which might be made during the pending discussion. They were, accordingly, withdrawn. (35) "And he said to them, Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you are about to do respecting these men; (36) For before these days, Theudas arose, declaring himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, attached themselves; who was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nothing. (37) After this man, Judas the Galilean rose up, in the days of the enrollment, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. (38) And now I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this purpose or this work is from men, it will be destroyed; (39) but if it is from God, you are not able to destroy it; lest you even be found to fight against God."

A question has been raised as to whether Luke is not guilty of an anachronism in this report of Gamaliel's speech, by making him refer to a Theudas, who is mentioned by Josephus, and who flourished many years later, under the reign of Claudius Cжsar. Such a reference could not possibly be made by Gamaliel; and if it was made by Luke, he is not only guilty of the anachronism, but, what is far worse, of giving a false report of Gamaliel's speech. Rather than admit a hypothesis involving such consequences in reference to a historian of unimpeached veracity, we must suppose that some impostor by the name of Theudas did flourish at the time here alluded to by Gamaliel. Judas the Galilean is also mentioned by Josephus, whose account of him agrees with this given by Gamaliel. The enrollment is most likely the same referred to in Luke 2:1.

Upon the fate of these two impostors, Gamaliel bases his advice to the Sanhedrim, in reference to the apostles. The moral merits of this advice may be differently estimated, according to the point of view from which he contemplate it. If we regard it as a general rule of procedure in reference to religious movements, it must be regarded as a mere time-serving policy. Instead of waiting to see whether such a movement is going to prove successful or not, before we take ground in reference to it, the lover of truth will promptly investigate and decide its merits without regard to public opinion. But if we regard Gamaliel as only giving a reason why men should not persecute a cause which they are not prepared to accept, it was certainly most judicious advice. When we have decided against a cause, we should render a reason for our decision, and then leave it to the developments of Providence, well assured that whatever is not from God will come to nothing without any violent agency on our part. We should also be afraid to resist with violence or passion any thing bearing a semblance to truth, lest we fight against God, and be ourselves overthrown.

The last clause in Gamaliel's speech, "Lest you be found even to fight against God," indicates a suspicion, on his part, that such a result was by no means impossible. In view of the many miracles which had been wrought by the apostles, and their miraculous deliverance from prison the very night before, it is strange that something more than a suspicion to this effect did not possess the mind of Gamaliel, and of all the Sanhedrim. It was, doubtless, owing to serious misgivings on this point, that the embittered Sadducees yielded so readily to advice from the opposite party.

Verse 40
There was no opposition to Gamaliel's advice. (40) "And they obeyed him; and having called the apostles, and scourged them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go." Scourging was so common in the Roman empire, even of men untried and uncondemned, and was so common a fate of Christians at the time Luke was writing, that he mentions it here rather as a matter of course. It is the first time, however, that it was experienced by the apostles, and was, probably, harder to endure than it ever was afterward.

Verses 41, 42
However painful the scourging was, it did not cause any resentful manifestations on the part of the sufferers, but they bore it cheerfully. (41) "Then they departed from the presence of the Sanhedrim, rejoicing that they were thought worthy to be dishonored for his name. (42) And every day, in the temple, and from house to house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." The Sanhedrim had now tried both threats and scourging upon the apostles without checking their activity, and as there was nothing further for them to try but death, which they were not yet prepared to inflict, they relinquished for awhile their efforts. In this first contest, therefore, the apostles were completely victorious, and compelled their adversaries to abandon the field.

The apostles taught and preached not only publicly in the temple, but "from house to house." In this they give an example to the ministry of all ages, which is well worthy of imitation. Private instruction and admonition bring the teacher and the taught into closer contact, and secure an individuality of effect not attainable in a public assembly. It can not, therefore, be well dispensed with; but he who employs it most diligently will, other things being equal, employ his energies most successfully.

CHAPTER 4

 Verses 1-3
Just at this point in Peter's discourse:

(1) "And while they were speaking to the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, (2) being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead. (3) And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day; for it was already evening."
This sudden disturbance of the interested audience, by a body of armed men rushing through their midst and seizing Peter and John, is the beginning of a series of persecutions with which Luke is about to follow the account of the first peaceful triumphs of the apostles.

We would naturally, at first thought, expect to find the parties to this violent proceeding identical with the chief persecutors of Jesus, supposing that the same motives which had excited opposition to him would perpetuate it against his disciples. But the Pharisees were his most bitter enemies, the Sadducees being comparatively indifferent to his pretensions, while here we see the Sadducees leading the attack upon the apostles, and we will soon see the leader of the Pharisees interfering to save them from threatened death. [Acts 5:34 below.] In order to appreciate this unexpected change in the aspect of the parties, we must note a little more carefully the ground of opposition in each case.

The supposition sometimes entertained that Jesus was hated by men simply because there is in human nature an innate aversion to truth and holiness, is not less false to the facts of history than to the nature of fallen men. It is disproved by the fact that it was not the mass of his cotemporaries who hated him, as the supposition would require, but chiefly, and almost exclusively, the Pharisees. That portion of the people who were most depraved, according to external appearances, heard him gladly, and delighted to praise him, while the Pharisees, who were most of all noted for their piety, were the men who hated him most. Neither were they actuated simply by an aversion to his holiness; for they had a more substantial, if not a better reason for hating him. If he had been content merely to go about doing good, and teaching righteousness, "letting other people alone," he might have passed his days in peace. But such was not his sense of duty. He knew that his teaching could not have proper effect unless the erroneous doctrines of the Pharisees, who were then the chief teachers of Israel, were dislodged from the public mind, and the mask of hypocrisy, which had secured them their great reputation for piety, were stripped off. He undertook, therefore, an offensive warfare upon their doctrinal tenets and their religious pretensions. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew contains an epitome of this warfare on his part, than which there is not a more withering philippic on record in all literature. Such denunciation necessarily provoked the most intense hatred on the part of such Pharisees as were too deeply imbued with the prevailing spirit of the party to be reached by the truth. By this very fact, however, they made it more evident to the people that they deserved all the denunciation which he hurled against them. On the other hand, the Sadducees were so well pleased with his successful assaults upon their hereditary and too powerful enemies, that they forgave, in some degree, his known opposition to their favorite doctrine, and felt for him some friendly sympathy.

With the apostles the relations of these parties were as naturally reversed. Instead of assaulting, in detail, the doctrinal tenets of any party, they confined their labors, at first, to testimony concerning the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. This confirmed the chief distinctive doctrine of the Pharisees, who believed in a resurrection, and it left their other tenets, for the time being, unnoticed. But the whole force of this preaching was leveled against Sadduceean infidelity in reference to the resurrection, and it therefore aroused this party to an activity never exhibited before. They rushed in and arrested Peter and John, "being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead." They were seconded in this violent movement by the priests who were at the time officiating in the temple, and who were either identified with the Sadducees, or were enraged because the apostles, in the very midst of the temple, were drawing away the people from waiting upon their services. The "captain of the temple," with his guard, was doubtless subject to the orders of the chief of the officiating priests, and executed the arrest.

Verse 4
The audience who had been listening to Peter must have been thrown into intense excitement by the arrest, and the disciples among them, doubtless, expected to see re-enacted, in the persons of Peter and John, the murderous scenes which had terminated the life of their master. Notwithstanding this excitement, however, the words of Peter were not without a decided effect upon the hitherto unbelieving portion of his hearers; for Luke says: (4) "But many of those who were hearing the word believed, and the number of the men became about five thousand." Whether this number includes the three thousand who were added on Pentecost or not, has been a matter of some dispute, but it is generally agreed by critics that it does. If those who believed on the present occasion were alone intended, the writer would have said the number en, was, instead of egenethe, became, about five thousand.

Verses 5, 6
The prisoners having been arrested late in the afternoon, all further proceedings were adjourned till the next day, and Peter and John had the quiet of a night in prison for reflection and mutual encouragement ere they were brought to trial. (5) "And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes, (6) and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in Jerusalem." This assembly was the great Jewish Sanhedrim, and the parties here named are the different officials who constituted that tribunal. Who John and Alexander were is not now known. Annas and Caiaphas are historical characters, conspicuous in the history of the trial of Jesus, and also prominent on the pages of Josephus. Between the latter and Luke there is an apparent discrepancy, in reference to their official position at this time, Luke calling Annas the high priest, and Josephus attributing that dignity to Caiaphas. According to Josephus, Valerius Gratus, the immediate predecessor of Pontius Pilate, had removed Annas from the high priesthood, and after having appointed and removed three others, one of them, Eleazar, the son of Annas, finally left Caiaphas in office, when he was superseded by Pilate. [Jos. Ant. B. xviii, chap. 2.] The Apostle John informs us that Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas. [John 18:13-24.] According to the law of Moses the high priest held office during life; hence, in deposing Annas, the Roman governor violated the Jewish Law, and the act was religiously null and void. Annas was still high priest by right, and for this reason is so styled here by Luke. The Jews, also, recognized his right, by taking Jesus before him for trial, though he, not daring to claim the office, sent them to Caiaphas. In his former narrative, Luke also mentions them both as being high priests at the same time. [Luke 3:2.] This is best explained by the fact that one was rightfully entitled to the office, and the other was exercising it by illegal appointment.

The "kindred of the high priest" embraced not only the chief members of his immediate family, but also some of the deposed high priests, who were all, in great probability, connected with the one high priestly family, and thereby entitled to seats in the Sanhedrim.

Verse 7
When the court was assembled, the prisoners were introduced, and the cripple, who had been healed had the boldness to appear by their side. (7) "And placing them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have you done this?"

This is not the first time that Peter and John had been together in the presence of this august assembly. As they gazed around for a moment, and recognized the faces of their judges, they could not fail to remember that terrible morning when their masters stood there in bonds, and they themselves, full of fearful misgivings, stood in a distant part of the hall, and looked on. The fall, and the bitter tears of Peter, on that occasion, were now a warning and a strength to them both, and their very position brought to mind some solemn words of Jesus which had never acquired a present value till now. "Beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in the synagogues, and you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what you shall say. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your father that speaks in you." [Matthew 10:17-20.] Cheered by this promise, they now stand before their accusers and judges with a boldness unaccountable to the latter.

The prisoners had been arrested without a formal charge being preferred against them, and the court was now dependent upon what might be extorted from them, for the ground of their accusation. The question propounded to them is remarkable for its vagueness. By what power, or, in what name, have you done this? Done what? might have been the answer. Done this preaching? or this miracle? or what? The question specified nothing. There was no one particular thing done by Peter, on which they dared fix attention; but they frame an indefinite question, in attempting to answer which they evidently hoped he would say something on which they might condemn him.

Verses 8-10
They could not, however, have asked a question which suited Peter any better. It left him at liberty to select any thing he had done as the subject of reply, and, therefore, he chose to select that deed, which, of all that had been done, they were most unwilling to hear mentioned. He frames his answer, too, with a more direct reference to the other terms of their question, than they either desired or anticipated. (8) "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (9) If we are examined this day concerning the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he had been saved, (10) be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him doth this man stand before you sound." This statement needed no proof, for the Sanhedrim could not deny, with the man standing before them, that the miracle had been wrought, nor could they, with plausibility, attribute the deed to any other power or name than that assumed by Peter. To deny that it was a divine power would have been absurd in the estimation of all the people; but to admit that the power was divine, and yet reject the explanation given by those through whom it was exercised, would have been still more absurd.

Verses 11, 12
Realizing the advantage which he had now gained, Peter pushes his adversaries into still closer quarters, by adding: (11) "This is the stone which was despised by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved." In this passage, he places his proud judges in the ridiculous attitude of searching about vainly for a stone to fit the corner of the foundation, while persistently rejecting the real corner-stone, without which the building can be reared. And, leaving the figurative language of David, he more fully declares, that there is no salvation for man except in the name of the very Jesus whom they had crucified. This proposition is universal, and shows that the redemption effected by Jesus will include every human being who shall finally be saved.

Verses 13, 14
Instead of answering evasively and timidly, as was expected of men in their social position, when arraigned in such a presence, the apostles had unhesitatingly avowed the chief deed of yesterday's proceedings, with the name in which it had been done, stating all in the terms most obnoxious to their hearers. (13) "Now, seeing the freedom of speech of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were illiterate and private men, they were astonished, and recognized them, that they had been with Jesus. (14) But beholding the man who was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it." There was total silence for awhile, when Peter ceased speaking. Not a man in the Sanhedrim could open his mouth in reply to Peter's brief speech. He had avowed every obnoxious sentiment on account of which they had been instigated to arrest him, yet not one of them dares to contradict his words, or to rebuke him for giving them utterance. The silence was painful and embarrassing.

Verses 15, 16
Finally, the silence was broken by a proposition that the prisoners be withdrawn. (15) "And having commanded them to go aside out of the Sanhedrim, they conferred among themselves, (16) saying, What shall we do to these men? For that, indeed, a noted miracle has been wrought by them, is manifest to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we can not deny it." This admission, in their secret deliberations, shows the utter heartlessness and hypocrisy of their proceedings, and it is astonishing that they could any longer give each other countenance in such a course.

Verse 17
The real motive which controlled them, and under the influence of which they kept each other in countenance, was an unconquerable desire to maintain their old influence with the people. This is manifested in the conclusion to which they came. (17) "But, that it may be spread no further among the people, let us strictly threaten them, that they speak, henceforth, to no man in this name." The man who made this proposition no doubt thought that he had most satisfactorily solved a difficult problem, and the majority were too well pleased to find some means of escape from their present awkward predicament, to look very shrewdly into the probable success of the measure proposed. It was a safe course, if not a very bold one, and as there was no obstacle in the way but conscience, the could find no difficulty in pursuing it.

Verse 18
The resolution was no sooner formed than acted upon. (18) "And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus." How Luke learned the particulars of the secret consultation which resulted in this injunction, we are not informed, though it is not difficult to imagine. Gamaliel, Saul's teacher, and perhaps Saul himself, was present as a member of the Sanhedrim; and a great company of the priests themselves afterward became obedient to the faith. [Acts 6:7, below.] These and other conversions from the ranks of the enemy opened up channels for such information in abundance.

Verses 19, 20
The apostles, if at all anxious concerning their personal safety, might have received this stern command in silence, and retired respectfully from the assembly. (19) "But, Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right, in the sight of God, to hearken to you rather than to God, do you judge. (20) For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard." This was an open defiance of their power, with a direct appeal to their own consciences for a vindication of it. The apostles were not willing that their silence should be construed into even a momentary acquiescence in such a command, and they spoke in such a manner as to be distinctly understood.

Verses 21, 22
It was a sore trial to the haughty spirits of the Sanhedrim to brook such defiance; but a desire to conciliate the people, mingled, no doubt, with a secret fear of the consequences of putting to death men who had exercised such power, restrained their wrath. (21) "And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, not finding how they might punish them, because of the people; for all glorified God for what was done. (22) For the man on whom this miracle of healing was wrought was more than forty years of age."

Verses 23-30
The apostles had now humbled the pride of their adversaries, and went away from the assembly in triumph. But they were uninflated by their present prosperity, as they had been undaunted by their recent danger. They had now attained that lofty degree of faith and hope which enables men to maintain a steady calmness amid all the vicissitudes of life. The course they immediately pursued is worthy of remembrance, and of all imitation. (23) "And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported what the high priests and the elders had said to them. (24) And when they heard it, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said: Sovereign Lord, thou God who hast made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them; (25) who through the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? (26) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his anointed. (27) For, of a truth, against thy holy son Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontus Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (28) to do what thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (29) And now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant to thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, (30) by stretching out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy son Jesus." This prayer was uttered by one of the brethren, and the expression, "they lifted up their voice with one accord," indicates the perfect unity of sentiment with which they followed the words of the leader.

In all the prayers of the apostles, we observe strict appropriateness, in the ascription to God with which they open, and a remarkable simplicity in presenting the exact petition, and no more, which the occasion demands. On a former occasion, they had set before him two men, that he might choose one for the apostolic office, and they addressed him as the "heart-knower;" now they desire his protecting power, and they style him the "Sovereign God who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that is in them." They remind him that, according to his own words by David, kings and rulers, in the persons of Herod and Pilate, had risen up against his anointed while the people and the Gentiles were imagining vain things; and they pray him to "behold the threatening," and grant to his servants boldness to speak the word in defiance of all opposition.

In these days of passion and war, in which it is common for prayers to be filled with earnest entreaties for victory over our enemies, and sometimes with terrible maledictions against those who are waging war against our supposed rights, it is quite refreshing to observe the tone of this apostolic prayer. These men were not in danger of losing some mere political power or privilege, but the dearest and most indisputable right they had on earth was denied them, and they were threatened with death if they did not relinquish it; yet, in their prayers, they manifest no vindictive nor resentful spirit; but, in reference to their enemies they simply pray, Lord, behold their threatenings. Their gentle spirits never could have conceived that unblushing impiety which now so often brings men upon their knees for the very purpose of pouring out in the ears of God those violent and destructive passions which he has forbidden us to allow a place even within our hearts. By such prayers men seek to make God a partisan in every angry contention among men, as though he were nothing more than themselves. Much needs to be said upon this unhappy theme, but it can not be said here.

In praying for boldness the apostles give an intimation of the manner in which they expected it to be imparted to them. It was not by some direct and internal spiritual impact, but by external manifestations of his continued presence and favor: "by stretching out his hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be wrought through the name of Jesus."

Verse 31
The prayer for boldness was answered at once, and in the way they had requested. (31) "And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness." The shaking of the house, attended by a conscious renewal of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, gave them the boldness for which they prayed, because it assured them that God was still with them.

Verses 32-35
From this brief account of the first conflict of the young congregation, Luke again turns, to view more minutely the internal condition of the Church. Their religious life was now more fully developed, than at the period glanced at in the close of the second chapter, and his description is more in detail. (32) "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did one of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. (33) And with great power the apostle gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among them who lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to each, as any one had need."

Considering the immense numbers of this congregation, and that they were so suddenly drawn together from every class of society, it is certainly remarkable, and well worthy of a place in this record, that they were "of one heart and of one mind." But the most signal proof of the power of the gospel among them was the almost entire subsidence of selfishness. Among the heathen nations of antiquity, systematic provision of the wants of the poor was unknown; and even among the Jews, whose law was watchful for the welfare of the poor in many respects, those who became insolvent were sold into temporary bondage to pay their debts. It was, therefore, a new thing under the sun, to see a large community selling houses and lands to supply the wants of the poor. It could but give additional weight to all that was said by the apostles, and for this reason Luke breaks the thread of his statements concerning it, to throw in the remark, that "With great power the apostles gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was among all." This remark does not mean that the testimony of the apostles was more distinct or positive, or that it was sustained by more signal miracles than before; for neither of these is possible. But it means that their testimony had more power with the people; and this is attributed to the harmony observed within the Church, together with their unheard-of benevolence, which combined to give them "great favor" with the people.

The fact that distribution was made to each as he had need, shows that it was only the needy who received any thing, and that there was no equalization of property. The sale of property and consecration of the proceeds was voluntary with each individual, and not an established law of the Church. This is evident from the question of Peter to Ananias, below: "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?" [See also 6:1.]

Verses 36, 37
After stating that many brethren who had property sold it, and gave up the proceeds, Luke now gives an individual instance of this liberality, introduced, no doubt, on account of the subsequent celebrity of the individual. (36) "Now Joses, who was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles, (which is, when translated, son of exhortation,) a Levite, a Cyprian by birth, (37) having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles." This surname was given to Joses on account of his excellence in horatory address, and not on account of the consolation which he afforded by his liberality. The original term paraklesis, rendered consolation in the common version, is a verbal noun used to express both the act of the verb parakalein and the effect produced by it. We have no one word in English to represent it in these two senses; but exhortation expresses the act, and consolation the effect. We have, therefore, exhortation eight times in the common version, when the paraklesis is connected with the agent, [13:15; Romans 12:8,1Co+14:3,1Th+2:3,1Ti+4:13; Hebrews 12:5; 8:17.] but always consolation when the reference is to the recipient. As Barnabas is contemplated at the agent, in this case, it should be exhortation, not consolation. This criticism is confirmed by the history of Barnabas. When the Church in Jerusalem heard that a congregation was planted in Antioch, they sent Barnabas thither, who "exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to the Lord." [Acts 11:23.] This exhorting being the object for which he was sent, his selection for the mission indicates his superiority in that kind of talent. Perhaps it was chiefly on account of this talent, in which Paul was deficient, that Barnabas became the traveling companion of this apostle. It is a talent much more rare than mere logical power, and has always been highly prized by the Churches.

It is quite probable that the land sold by Barnabas constituted his whole estate. Having no family dependent on him, he consecrated his life to unrequited missionary labor. [1 Corinthians 9:6.]

CHAPTER 3

Verses 1-10
III. 1-10. Thus far, the labors of the apostles had met with uninterrupted and most astonishing success. Luke is now about to introduce us to a series of conflicts, in which success and temporary defeat alternate in the history of the Jerusalem church.

(1) "Now Peter and John were going up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. (2) And a certain man, lame from his birth, was carried thither, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of those entering into the temple: (3) who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked alms. (4) And Peter, earnestly looking on him, with John, said, Look on us. (5) And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive something from them. (6) But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not; but what I have, this I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. (7) And seizing him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankles received strength; (8) and leaping forth, he stood and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. (9) And all the people saw him walking and praising God, (10) and recognized him, that it was he who had sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him."
This is by no means the first miracle which had been wrought by the apostles since the day of Pentecost; for we have seen, in Acts 2:43, that many signs and wonders had been wrought, by which the people were filled with awe. But the circumstances attending this miracle were calculated to awaken, as it did, an unusual excitement. The Beautiful gate of the temple, so called because of its magnificent folding doors, fifty feet high and forty feet wide, covered with gold and Corinthian brass, was the favorite pass-way into the temple. The subject of this cure, being laid every day at this gate to beg, was well known to all who frequented the temple. From the natural curiosity of the benevolent in reference to the afflictions of those to whom they minister, it was probably known to all that he had been a cripple from his birth. Besides this, the time of the cure was when a multitude of pious people were entering the temple for evening prayer; and their attention was unexpectedly arrested by the leaping and shouting of the man who was healed. As they witnessed his ecstasy and saw him clinging to Peter and John, no one asked the meaning of the scene, for all saw at once that the cripple had been healed by the apostles, and they stood gazing in amazement upon Peter and John.

Verses 11-15
The apostles took a position in one of the open colonnades which faced the inner side of the temple wall, called Solomon's Portico. (11) "And while the lame man who was healed was holding fast Peter and John, all the people ran together to them on the portico called Solomon's, greatly wondering." The admiration of the multitude was directed toward Peter and John; and was understood by Peter to indicate that they attributed the cure rather to the singular holiness of himself and John, than to the power of their master. He determined to take advantage of the circumstances, by turning their excited thoughts into the proper channel. (12) "Then Peter, seeing this, answered to the people, Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you look earnestly on us, as though by our own power or piety we have caused this man to walk? (13) The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his son Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and rejected in the presence of Pilate, when he had determined to let him go. (14) But you rejected the holy and just, and desired a murderer to be granted to you; (15) and you killed the author of life, whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses."

In this passage the apostle makes the same statement, in substance, with which he introduced the main theme of his former discourse. The antithetical style adopted on this occasion gave to it a force scarcely excelled by his former discourse, while it was even more penetrating to the consciences of his hearers. The fact that the God of their fathers had glorified Jesus, is contrasted with the fact that they had delivered him up to die; their refusal to let him be released, with the cruel Pilate's determination to let him go; their rejection of one holy and just, with their demand that a murder should be released to them; and their murder of him, with his authorship of all life. These four points of antithesis form the four steps of a grand climax. Whom the God of our fathers glorified, you have delivered up to die. Your criminality is heightened by the fact, that when even a heathen judge declared him innocent, and desired to release him to you, you rejected him. Even this does not express the enormity of your guilt, for you yourselves knew him whom you rejected to be holy and just, and preferred the release of one whom you knew to be a murderer. But above all, in murdering him, you put to death the author of life, who has arisen from the dead. We might challenge the pages of all the classics for a climax more thrilling in its effect upon the audience, or for a happier combination of climax and antithesis. The effect upon the multitude was overwhelming. [See below, on verse 17.] The facts declared were undeniable, except the resurrection, and of this the men who had just healed the cripple were the witnesses.

Verse 16
But Peter does not stop short with this climax, terminating in the resurrection from the dead. He proceeds to prove his present power and glory by the facts which were then filling them with amazement. (16) "And his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong, whom ye see and know. Even the faith which is through him, has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all." In this verse, there is one of those repetitions common with extemporaneous speakers, and designed to express more guardedly a thought already uttered. Perhaps the formula employed by Peter in the act of healing, "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk," suggested to him the phraseology, "his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong." But lest the superstitious audience might imagine that there was some charm in the mere name of Jesus, a mistake which was afterwards made by certain Jews in Ephesus, [Acts 19:13.] he adds, "The faith which is through him has given him this perfect soundness." The faith was not that of the cripple; for it is clear, from the description, that he had no faith. When Peter said to him, "Look on us," the man looked up, expecting to receive alms. And even when Peter told him, in the name of Jesus, to rise up and walk, he did not attempt to move till Peter "took him by the right hand, and lifted him up." He exhibited no faith, either in Jesus, or in Peter's healing power, till after he found himself able to stand and walk. We must locate the faith, therefore, in the apostles; and in this we are sustained by the fact that the exercise of miraculous power, by those in possession of spiritual gifts, was always dependent upon their faith; Peter was empowered to walk upon water; but, when his faith wavered, he began to sink, and Jesus said, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Nine of the apostles, once, having failed to cast out a demon, asked Jesus, "Why could we not cast him out?" He replied, "Because of your unbelief." [Matthew 17:19,20.] In answer to their prayers, also, many miracles were wrought, but it was only "the prayer of faith" which could heal the sick. [James 5:15.] It must be here observed that faith was necessary to the exercise of spiritual gifts, already imparted, and that no faith, however strong, ever enabled the uninspired to work miracles. The notion, therefore, which has existed in some minds, from time to time, ever since the apostolic period, that if our faith were strong enough, we, too, could work miracles, has as little foundation in scripture as it has in experiment.

Verses 17, 18
At this point in the discourse there is a marked change in Peter's tone and manner, which we can attribute to nothing else than some visible indication of the intense pain produced by what he had already said. He had made a most terrific onslaught upon them, and exposed their criminality in unsparing terms; but now, induced by some perceptible change in their countenances, he softens his style, and extenuates their fault. (17) "And now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. (18) But those things which God had before announced through the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled." That they acted in ignorance of the real character of Jesus was an extenuation of their crime, but it did not render them innocent; for the preceding remarks were intended to convict them of crime, and in his preceding discourse he charged that with wicked hands they had crucified and slain him. Peter assumes, what none of them could honestly deny, that it was by wicked motives they were impelled to the fatal deed.

In connection, with this assertion of their criminality, he states another fact hard to be reconciled with it in the philosophy of man, that, in the commission of this crime, God was fulfilling what he had declared through his prophets should be done. Once before, in speaking of this same event, Peter had brought these two apparently conflicting facts, the sovereignty of God, and the free agency of man, into juxtaposition, when he said, "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain." That God had predetermined the death of Jesus can not be denied without contradicting both the prophets and the apostles; and that they acted wickedly in doing what God had determined should be done, Peter affirms, and three thousand of them on Pentecost, with many more on this occasion, admitted it. If any man can frame a theory by which to philosophically reconcile these two facts, we will assent to it, if we can understand it; but unless both facts, unaltered have a place in the theory, we must reject it. We reject every man who denies either of the facts; but while he admits them both, we will not dispute with him about the theory upon which he attempts to reconcile them. This much, fidelity to the word of God on the one hand, and brotherly kindness on the other hand, demand of us. In the mean time, it is better to follow Peter's example. He lays the two facts side by side, appealing to the prophets for the proof of one, and to the consciences of men for the proof of the other, and there he leaves them, seeming not to realize that he had involved himself in the slightest difficulty. It is folly to attempt to climb where we are certain of a fall.

Verses 19-21
Having now fully demonstrated the Messiahship of Jesus, and exposed the criminality of those of who had condemned him, the apostle next presents to his hearers the conditions of pardon. (19) "Repent, therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, and that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, (20) and he may send Jesus Christ, who has before preached to you, (21) whom heaven must retain [Receive (common version) is the literal meaning of the originaldekasthai, but it is certainly used here in the sense of retain. Heaven had already received him; it was yet toretain him.] until the time of the restoration of all things which God has spoken, through the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began."

Here, as in his former statement of the conditions of pardon, the apostle makes no mention of faith. But, having labored, from the beginning of his discourse, to convince his hearers, they necessarily understood that his command, based as it was, upon what he had said, implied the assumption that they believed it. A command based upon an argument, or upon testimony, always implies the sufficiency of the proof, and assume that the hearer is convinced. Moreover, Peter knew very well that none would repent at his command who did not believe what he had said; hence, in every view of the case, he proceeded, naturally and safely, in omitting mention of faith.

In the command, "Repent and turn," the word "turn" expresses something to be done subsequent to repentance. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, unless we suppose that turn is equivalent to repent; but this is inadmissible, because there could be no propriety in adding the command turn, if what it means had been already expressed in the command repent. We may observe, that the term reform, which some critics would employ instead of repent, would involve the passage in a repetition not less objectionable. To reform and to turn to the Lord are equivalent expressions, hence it would be a useless repetition to command men, Reform, and turn.

In order to a proper understanding of this passage, it is necessary to determine the exact scriptural import of the term repent. The most popular conception of its meaning is "godly sorrow for sin." But, according to Paul, "godly sorrow works repentance in order to salvation." [2 Corinthians 7:10.] Instead of being identical with repentance, therefore, it is the immediate case which leads to repentance. Paul says to the Corinthians, in the same connection, "Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance." This remark shows that it is sorrow which brings men to repentance, is also implies that there may be sorrow for sin without repentance. That there is a distinction between these two states of mind, and that sorrow for sin may exist without repentance, is also implied in commanding those on Pentecost who were already pierced to the heart, to repent. It is also evident from the case of Judas, who experienced the most intense sorrow for sin, but was not brought to repentance. His feeling is expressed by a different term in the original, which is never used to express the change which the gospel requires, and is equivalent to regret, though sometimes, as in his case, it expresses the idea of remorse.

In thus tracing the distinction between "godly sorrow" and "repentance," we have ascertained the fact that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and this must constitute one element in the definition of the term. Whatever it is, it is produced by sorrow for sin. Is it not, then, reformation? Reformation is certainly produced by sorrow for sin; but, as we have already observed, turning, which is equivalent to reforming, is distinguished, in the text before us, from repenting. The same distinction is elsewhere apparent. John the Immerser, in requiring the people to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance," clearly distinguishes between repentance and those deeds of a reformed life which he styles fruits meet for repentance. With him, reformation is the fruit of repentance, not its equivalent. The distinction is that between fruit and the tree which bears it. When Jesus speaks of repenting seven times a day, [Luke 17:4.] he certainly means something different from reformation; for that would require more time. Likewise, when Peter required those on Pentecost to repent and be immersed, if by the term repent he had meant reform, he would certainly have given them time to reform before they were immersed, instead of immersing them immediately. Finally, the original term is sometimes used in connection with such prepositions as are not suitable to the idea of reformation. As a general rule it is followed by apo, or ek, which are suitable to either idea; but in 2 Corinthians 12:21, it is followed by epi with the dative: "Many have not repented, epi, of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed." Now men do not reform of their evil deeds, neither will the preposition, in this case, bear a rendering which would suit the term reform. [For the suggestion of this criticism, I am indebted to my friend andbrother, H. T. Anderson.] Reform, then, does not express the same idea as repent, but, as we have seen above, reformation is the fruit or result of repentance.

Seeing now that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and results in reformation, we can have no further difficulty in ascertaining exactly what it is; for the only result of sorrow for sin which leads to reformation, is a change of the will in reference to sin. The etymological meaning of metanoia is a change of mind; but the particular element of the mind which undergoes this change is the will. Strictly defined, therefore, repentance is a change of the will, produced by sorrow for sin, and leading to reformation. If the change of will is not produced by sorrow for sin, it is not repentance, in the religious sense, though it may be metanoia, in the classic sense. Thus, Esau "found no place for metanoias, a change of mind, though he sought it carefully with tears." [Hebrews 12:17.] Here the word designates a change in the mind of Isaac in reference to the blessing which he had already given to Jacob; but this change did not depend upon sorrow for sin, hence it was not repentance, and should not be so translated. Again, if the change of will, though produced by sorrow for sin, is one which does not lead to reformation, it is not repentance; for there was a change in the will of Judas, produced by sorrow for sin, yet Judas did not repent. The change in his case led to suicide, not to reformation; it is, therefore, not expressed by metanoeo, but by metamelomai. Our definition, therefore, is complete, without redundancy. [In perfecting this definition, I am indebted to Prof. W. K. Pendleton, of Bethany College, for valuable suggestions.]

We can now perceive, still more clearly than before, that in the command, "Repent and turn," the terms repent, and turn, express two distinct changes, which take place in the order of the words. Their relative meaning is well expressed by Dr. Bloomfield, who says that the former denotes "a change of mind," the latter "a change of conduct." Mr. Barnes also well and truly remarks: "This expression ('be converted,') conveys an idea not at all to be found in the original. It conveys the idea of passivity--BE converted, as if they were to yield to some foreign influence that they were now resisting. But the idea of being passive in this is not conveyed by the original word. The word properly means to turn--to return to a path from which one has gone astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to forsake them." That turn, rather than be converted, is the correct rendering of the term, is not disputed by any competent authority; we shall assume, therefore, that it is correct, and proceed to inquire what Peter intended to designate by this term.

As already observed, it designates a change in the conduct. A change of conduct, however, must, from the very necessity of the case, have a beginning; and that beginning consists in the first act of the better life. The command to turn is obeyed when this first act is performed. Previous to that, the man has not turned; subsequent to it he has turned; and the act itself is the turning act. If, in turning to the Lord, any one of a number of actions might be the first that the penitent performed, the command to turn would not specially designate any of these, but might be obeyed by the performance of either. But the fact is that one single act was uniformly enjoined upon the penitent, as the first overt act of obedience to Christ, and that was to be immersed. This Peter's present hearers understood. They had heard him say to parties like themselves, "Repent and be immersed;" and the first act they saw performed by those who signified their repentance, was to be immersed. When, now, he commands them to repent and turn, they could but understand that they were to turn as their predecessors had done, by being immersed. The commands turn, and be immersed, are equivalent, not because the words have the same meaning, but because the command, "Turn to the Lord" was uniformly obeyed by the specific act of being immersed. Previous to immersion, men repented, but did not turn; after immersion, they had turned, and immersion was the turning act.

We may reach the same conclusion by another course of reasoning. The command Turn occupies the same position between repentance and the remission of sins, in this discourse, that the command Be immersed had occupied in Peter's former discourse. He then said, "Repent and be immersed for the remission of sins;" now he says, "Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out." Now, when his present hearers heard him command them to turn in order to the same blessing for which he had formerly commanded them to be immersed, they could but understand that the generic word turn was used with specific reference to immersion, and the the substitution is founded on the fact that a penitent sinner turns to God by being immersed.

This interpretation was first advanced, in modern times, by Alexander Campbell, about thirty years ago, and it excited against him then an opposition which still rages. The real ground of this opposition is not the interpretation itself, but a perversion of it. The word conversion being used in popular terminology in the sense of a change of heart, when Mr. Campbell announced that the word incorrectly rendered in this passage, be converted, means to turn to the Lord by immersion, the conclusion was seized by his opponents that he rejected all change of heart, and substituted immersion in its stead. He has reiterated, again and again, the sense in which he employed the term convert, and that the heart must be changed by faith and repentance previous to the conversion or turning here commanded by Peter; yet those who are determined upon doing him injustice still keep up the wicked and senseless clamor of thirty years ago. The odium theologicum, like the scent of musk, is not soon nor easily dissipated. There are always those to whose nostrils the odor is grateful.

There are several facts connected with the use of the original term, epistrepho, in the New Testament, worthy of notice. It occurs thirty-nine times, in eighteen of which it is used for the mere physical act of turning or returning. Nineteen times it expresses a change from evil to good, and twice [Galatians 4:9,2Pe+2:21.] from good to evil. The term convert, therefore, were retained as the rendering, a man could, in the scriptural sense, be converted to Satan as well as to God. But be converted can never truly represent the original, though it is so rendered six times in the common version. The original is invariably in the active voice, and it is making a false and pernicious impression on the English reader to render it by the passive voice. If we render it truthfully by the term convert, we would have such readings as these: "Repent and convert;" "lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and should convert, and I should heal them," &c. In a correct version of the New Testament, the expression be converted could not possibly occur; for there is nothing in the original to justify it.

Not less worthy of observation is the fact, that while the change called conversion is popularly attributed to a divine power, as the only power capable of effecting it, and it is considered scarcely less than blasphemy to speak of a man converting another, or converting himself, yet the original word never does refer either to God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit, as its agent. On the contrary, in five of its nineteen occurrences in the sense of a change from evil to good, it is employed of a human agent, as of John the Immerser, Paul, or some brother in the Church; [Luke 1:16,17; Acts 26:18; James 5:19,20.] and in the remaining fourteen instances, the agent is the person who is the subject of the change. Thus, men may be properly said to turn their fellows, yet the subjects of this act are never said to be turned, but to turn to the Lord. The term invariably expresses something that the sinner is to do. These observations show how immeasurably the term convert has departed, in popular usage, from the sense of the original which it so falsely represents, and how imperious the necessity for displacing it from our English Bibles. The word turn corresponds to the original in meaning, in usage, in inflections, and translates it unambiguously in every instance. [It is gratifying to observe that the incipient version of the AmericanBible Union corresponds to the views here expressed.]

Peter commands his hearers to repent and turn, in order to three distinct objects: first, "That your sins may be blotted out;" second, "That seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;" third, "That he may send Jesus Christ who was before preached to you." It is supposed, by the commentators generally, that the last two events are contemplated by Peter as cotemporaneous, so that the "seasons of refreshing" spoken of are those which will take place at the second coming of Christ. That there will be seasons of refreshing then, is true; but there are others more immediately dependent upon the obedience here enjoined by Peter, to which the reference is more natural. The pardon of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which were immediately consequent upon repentance and immersion, certainly bring "seasons of refreshing," which might well be made the subject of promise to hearers supposed to be trembling with guilty apprehension. The reference of these words is, doubtless, to the gift of the Spirit; for they occupy the same place here that the gift of the Spirit did in the former discourse. Then, after repentance, immersion, and the remission of sins, came the promise of the Holy Spirit; now, after the same three, somewhat differently expressed -- i. e., repentance, turning to the Lord, and blotting out of sins -- comes the promise of "seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord." They are, then, the fresh and cheering enjoyments of him whose sins are forgiven, and who is taught to believe that the presence of the approving Spirit of God is with him.

The third promise, that God would send Jesus Christ, who was before preached to them, was dependent upon their obedience, only in so far as they would thus contribute to the object for which he will come, to raise from the dead, and receive into glory, all who are his. It is qualified by the remark, "whom heaven must retain until the times of the restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." It is difficult to determine the exact force of the term restoration in this connection. It is commonly referred to a state of primeval order, purity, and happiness, which, it is supposed, will exist just previous to the second coming of Christ. [Hackett.] But the apostle speaks of a restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets. Now, there are many things spoken of by the prophets beside those which refer to the final triumphs of the truth, and all these are included in the expression. Some of these things will not consist, individually considered, in restoration, but in destruction. Still, the prevailing object of all the things of which the prophets have spoken, even the destruction of wicked nations and apostate Churches, is to finally restore that moral saw which God originally exercised over the whole earth. It is doubtless this thought which suggested the term restoration, though reference is had to the fulfillment of all the prophesies which are to be fulfilled on earth. Not till all are fulfilled will Christ come again.

Verses 22, 23
For the twofold purpose of giving confirmation to the claims of Jesus, and warning his hearers as to the consequences of rejecting him, the apostle next introduces a well-known prophesy of Moses. [Deuteronomy 18:15-19.] (22) "For Moses, indeed, said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up for you, from among your brethren, like me: him shall ye hear in all things, whatever he shall say to you. (23) And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people." Whether Peter was right in applying this prophesy to Christ depends upon the likeness between him and Moses. This likeness may be traced in many subordinate incidents of his history, but lies chiefly in that which distinguishes both Moses and Christ from all other prophets. Moses as a deliverer of his people, and an original lawgiver. No prophet had been like him in these two particulars. The chief mission of the other prophets, so far as their cotemporaries were concerned, was to enforce the law of Moses. But Christ had now come, speaking by his our authority, offering a more glorious deliverance to the people than that from Egypt, and issuing new laws for the government of men. This proved that he, and he alone, was the prophet spoken of by Moses, and Peter's hearers now perceive that the authority of Moses himself binds them to the authority of Jesus, and that they must hear him, on the penalty of destruction if they refuse.

Verse 24
Not content with bringing to bear the testimony of Moses, Peter adds to it the combined voices of all the prophets: (24) "And, indeed, all the prophets, from Samuel, and those following in order, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days." This declaration is to be understood only of those prophets whose predictions are recorded in the Old Testament, for to those alone could Peter appeal in proof of his proposition. It was conceded by the Jews, that all the prophets had spoken of the days of the Messiah, and it was already proved, by Peter's preceding remarks, that Jesus was the Messiah; hence the argument is now complete.

Verses 25, 26
Having completed his argument, in which the Messiahship of Jesus was demonstrated by the miraculous cure they had witnessed, and by the testimony of all the prophets, from Moses and Samuel down to Malachi, Peter next makes a powerful appeal to his hearers, based upon their veneration for the fathers of their nation, and for the covenant which God had made with them. (25) "You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kingdoms of the earth be blessed. (26) Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, has sent him to bless you, in turning away each one of you from his iniquities." This was a tender appeal to their national sympathies, made more effective by the statement that to them first because of their relation to the prophets and to Abraham, God had sent his risen Son to bless them, before visiting the rest of the world.

The use here made of the promise to Abraham shows the true interpretation of it. It is to be fulfilled, according to Peter, in turning living men away from their iniquities. Those only, therefore, who, under the influence of the gospel, turn away from their iniquities, can lay claim to the blessings contemplated in this promise. That all the kindreds of the earth were to be blessed does not affect this conclusion, except to extend its application to those of all nations who should, at any period of time, turn from their iniquities. The Universalian view of this promise is contradicted by all the apostolic comments upon it; for they all unite in denying the blessing to any but those who in this life believe and turn to the Lord. [See Galatians 3:7-9, et al.) ]