Acts 4:1-12

Before we get into Acts 4, let’s just recall what has taken place. Peter & John see a lame man and they heal him

(3:1-7).

A great crowd assembled when they saw the man walking around praising God (3:8-11). Peter uses the opportunity to preach (3:12-26).

Peter’s sermon lays out important themes: Jesus is the Servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

(v 13).

He was killed and raised from the dead (3:13-15).

The people need to repent (3:19).

Jesus is the Prophet of whom Moses wrote (3:22-23).

A common feature in Acts is that speeches are often left unfinished, and they are often interrupted. About 1/3 of Acts is composed of speeches.

Luke seems to be making the point that the speeches in Acts drive the action. That seems to be a quite apt way of looking at the

Gospel in general.

The Gospel always prompts action of some sort or another. What sort of action might the Gospel prompt?

“As they spoke to the people” (v 1). Apparently John spoke as did Peter.

I’m not at all sure how Peter and John did the preaching.

It’s important to notice that they are both preaching the same message—only one sermon is recorded.

The Jewish leadership shows up while Peter & John are speaking. The message they are preaching has prompted

action.

Why does the Gospel often bring about anger? Do we sometimes make the Gospel too easy? In other

words, should the Gospel make some people angry?

Peter & John are at the temple, and their message angers those who have authority over the temple. The captain of the temple guard was the

commanding officer of the temple police force. He was second in command to the high priest.

He had oversight of the whole body of priest.

The Sadducees were Levitical priests who claimed to represent the ancient orthodoxy. They opposed any developments in biblical

law.

They also denied the resurrection.

They also believed that the Messianic Age began with the Maccabees (168-134 BC). They believed the Messiah was an ideal, rather than

a Person.

Thus, the preaching of Peter & John is going to anger them.

Two things bother the leaders: Peter & John are teaching the people.

The Sadducees were the recognized teachers of the people.

Do we sometimes fall into the trap that only certain people can be teachers?

Peter & John are teaching “in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection.

The resurrection was an Old Testament concept (e.g., Dan 12:2).

The Greek means “from the realm of the dead ones.”

How is the resurrection from the dead “in Jesus”?

It was too late in the day to begin a court hearing. It should be pointed out, however, that the time

of day had not prevented the Sadducees from giving Jesus a mock trial. It could be that the Sadducees weren’t expecting

trouble out of Peter & John.

They already had a plan in place to take care of Jesus.

The Sadducees become the first opponents of Christianity.

How should Christians respond to being opposed?

Why is Christianity so opposed?

Many of those who heard the word believed. Notice the connection between hearing the

word and believing.

Why is hearing the word such an important part of believing that word?

What might this say about our preaching & teaching?

What is the importance of believing?

The number of believers came to about five thousand men. The Greek term is for male.

In Acts 2:41, “about three thousand souls were added to them.”

The term here is not gender neutral; Luke says that these believers are all male.

I wonder why the number of males is given. Granted, women were very undervalued in that

society.

But, I wonder if this doesn’t say something about male spiritual leadership.

How should men exercise their leadership role?

Why is male spiritual leadership so important?

Peter and John are brought before the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was both the senate and

supreme court of Israel.

The council (v 15) consisted of the high priest (who served as the presiding officer) and seventy other men. The majority (the aristocrats) were Sadducees, but

there were Pharisees on the council also.

The Sadducees were considered more conservative, and the Pharisees were considered liberal.

This is the first of four times that Jesus’ followers stand before the Sanhedrin in Acts.

The other occurrences: Peter & the apostles (Acts 5:27).

Stephen (6:12).

Paul (22:30).

The Sanhedrin asks, “By what power or by what name have you done this?” (v 7). The “you” is plural here—The Sanhedrin is

addressing both Peter and John here.

Why did it really matter by what authority Peter and John had healed this man? Why did the Sanhedrin want to know by what

authority Peter and John had acted?

Does authority matter that much today?

Peter was “filled with the Holy Spirit” (v 8). This was a promise of Jesus (Lk 21:12-15).

Jesus said that the apostles would be able to use such occasions “for testimony” (Lk 21:13).

That seems to go back to Acts 1:8 where the apostles are called upon to be witnesses of the Risen Christ.

Why was it important that the apostles be “filled with the Holy Spirit” when before hostile crowds? Are there any lessons we might learn?

How can we handle hostile opponents of truth?

Peter and John are being judged “for a good deed done to a helpless man” (v 9). The man was “lame from his mother’s womb”

and was carried to the gate of the temple to ask for alms (3:2).

This man could do very little for himself. This man’s helplessness says a great deal about the

miracle—He was really healed, he couldn’t do heal himself, he couldn’t give Peter and John something in return.

Does that make a good analogy to Christianity?

Might the lame man’s helplessness say something about helping others? What are some good ways to help those who

are helpless?

Have you ever been helped when helpless?

The word “made well” in verse 9 is the word for “saved.” Throughout Scripture, this word is used to refer

to salvation from sickness, enemies, etc.

However, the usage at v 9 prepares for a more specific meaning at v 12.

Peter tells the Sanhedrin that in the name of Jesus Christ this man had been made whole. They had killed this Jesus, but they could not

deny Him forever – the miracle they had witnessed had been performed by the power of the One they had killed.

Why can people not deny Jesus forever?

It’s somewhat surprising to me that the Sanhedrin does not attempt to discredit the Resurrection. If the Sanhedrin had produced Jesus’ body, the

disciples’ claims would have been over. If the Sanhedrin had good-sounding

arguments, the disciples would have needed to meet that challenge.

Nowhere in Scripture is there any attempt on the part of Christianity’s opponents to discredit the Resurrection of Jesus.

At verse 11, we find the Messianic prophecy of this text. “This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you

builder, which has become the chief cornerstone.’”

The prophecy comes from Psalm 118. This is an important Psalm for understanding the

Messiah.

Let’s read the Psalm in its entirety to understand the text.

Psalm 118 can be divided as follows: A call to worship the LORD, for “His mercy

endures forever” (vv 1-4). Why is it interesting that a psalm which predicts the

Messiah calls on Israel to worship because God’s mercy is ever present?

The psalmist is in distress, but his confidence is in God (vv 5-9).

The psalmist details his distress (vv 10-14). The psalmist understands God’s power (vv 15-

18).

Psalm 118 can be divided as follows: An appeal for God to open “the gates of

righteousness” (vv 19-20).

The psalmist will praise God, for He is his salvation (v 21). Do we praise God enough for our salvation?

I fear many people want salvation, but they aren’t interesting in praising God.

The rejected stone has become the chief cornerstone (vv 22-24).

Praise of God for His salvation (vv 25-29).

How is Jesus “the chief cornerstone”? There are two main interpretations of this

text: Jesus is the cornerstone, the foundation of

God’s building. Is 28:16.

1 Pet 2:4-7.

Jesus is the capstone, the final piece of God’s plan. Dan 2:34-35.

Both interpretations fit Scripture.

Salvation can only be found in Jesus. This verse stands in stark contrast to the

religious pluralism so many advocate.

Why is Jesus the only way to the Father?

How can we help people understand that Jesus is the only way to God?