Peter Before the Sanhedrim

Shadow of Peter. Imprisoned by the Sanhedrim. Miraculous Deliverance. Gamaliel’s Appeal. Sentence of the Court. Scourging.

“Nerved is his arm with angel-power, ’
He quails not in his trial-hour;
In face of threat, and scourge, and cell,
Christ’s hero stands invincible.”

As those who occupied the seat of Moses were themselves the murderers of the Son of God, and would not humble themselves before Him to receive even the pardon of their Bins which was offered to them by the Apostles preaching in their presence, they fell of consequence into the new sin of seeking to quench the Spirit. Yet their first decided procedure against those who announced the resurrection of the crucified Jesus, plainly evinces that a smitten conscience bore witness to them of their alienation from God and their struggle against the defenders of true piety.” — OUhausen.

“As the influences of transforming, always attaching themselves to the constitutional character of au individual, purify and ennoble it; so in this instance what Peter became by the power of the Divine life, was in a measure determined by his natural peculiarities... A capacity for action, rapid in its movements, seizing with a firm grasp on its object, and carrying on his designs with ardour, was his leading characteristic, by which he effected so much in the service of the GospeL” — Meander’s History of the Planting of Christianity.

the recent miracle of judgment. “Other signs and wonders,” we are told, were at the same time wrought among the people by his hands and those of his coadjutors.

What time elapsed between the death of Ananias and Sapphira and the incident which is now to claim our attention, it is impossible to say. Those best qualified to pronounce on chronological questions are, I think, rightly of opinion, that it may have been a period of years. The inspired Evangelist, we may feel assured, does not bring together in his narrative a succession of events quickly following in consecutive order. Rather he allows considerable gaps and intervals to occur, full doubtless of lights and shadows in the history of the young community, only gleaning here and there points of more salient interest. To have done otherwise would have demanded too wide a canvas. It is not, therefore, at all unlikely, that since we last traced the footsteps of St Peter, a considerable time intervened, during which the new Christian sect was slowly but gradually advancing, — winning its way to reputation and acceptance. If the Church still could claim but few adherents amid the more influential Jewish classes, it was unmistakably gaining favour among the common people. The prejudices of the latter were not so deep-rooted or inveterate as in the case of their ecclesiastical and social superiors. They could not resist the arguments of meekness and love, magnanimity, earnestness, and zeal, displayed amid fierce and unreasoning hostility. They were more open still to the most incontrovertible evidence of all — the possession and exercise of miraculous powers on the part of the Apostles.

A widespread popular enthusiasm, indeed, not unlike that which Peter himself could recall in connection with the great desert preacher on, the banks of the Jordan, seems to have spread, with Jerusalem as a centre, to the towns and hamlets round about. The diseased, the sick, the demon-possessed were brought in beds and couches, and lined the streets in hopes of arresting the eye of the wonder-working Apostle. They might not be so fortunate as their mendicant brother at the Beautiful Gate, in obtaining a personal interview, and the crowd would prevent them otherwise approaching; but so great was their confidence in Peter’s credentials as a heaven-sent messenger endowed with superhuman ipower, that they would risk hours of exposure to the burning Eastern sun and to the public gaze, if they could only come within his passing shadow. Nor was it the humbler class of invalids only who solicited his aid. The two words employed in the original (xXhm and xuaffidrw) rendered “beds and couches,” would indicate that the rich on their soft and costly beds, as well as the poor on their coarse and hard litters, sought these coveted positions. We can imagine the Apostle, as the sun was westering, returning from his teaching in Solomon’s Porch, the row of supplicants waiting anxiously for the healing shadow to fall, and still more anxiously for its supposed miraculous influences to follow.

It is unnecessary to remark that restoration was in no way connected with any mysterious influence emanating from the person of Peter; yet, a Greater than he seemed to have owned the simple faith of these helpless invalids, mingled though it was with superstitious feeling; for we gather from the passage that they returned cured to their several homes.8 But this outburst of popular favour roused to its depths the hostility of the Sanhedrim. The high-priest and his Sadducean councillors were beyond measure exasperated with the new successes. They felt that alike by preaching and miracle these ignorant, and as they doubtless regarded them, vulgar zealots, were supplanting themselves in the affections of the people, undermining their in-

1 See Barnes in loco.

t The pas age is analogous to what is said of the touching of the hem of Christ s garment OUhautcn. “It might please God to bless such ao act of faith in a special manner at that time, in order to give additional authority to the doctrine preached by St Peter and the Apostles, and to show that they were in an extraordinary degree filled with the Holy Ghost, recently poured out upon them on the day of Pentecost.” — Wordsworth Acta. fluence, slighting their authority, and taming the decisions of their ancient tribunal into a derision and laughing-stock. Again they are roused to the necessity of pursuing no longer a policy of silence and inaction, but taking forthwith strenuous measures for stamping out the growing rampant heresy. Once more, too, we have to recognise the preponderating sway of the Sadducees in the Sanhedrim — an influence so strong as to control and dominate its decisions. They were doubtless now peculiarly indignant that their great rivals, the Phari* sees, were gaining an accession of strength from that which formed the most distinctive tenet in the teaching of the Apostles — viz., the Resurrection. This dogma had long formed the chief subject of strife and discussion between the two great ecclesiastical parties. The Pharisees could well afford to hold aloof from the “battle of creeds/1 and preserve a sagacious silence, seeing their own weapons were so ably wielded by those who had ingratiated themselves with the masses of the people.

At the instigation, then, of these leaders of the Sanhedrim, the captain of the guard and his not unwilling band again made forcible seizure of the aggressors, and put them in the prison of Antonia. As on the former occasion, the apprehension seems to have taken place in the afternoon, when it was too late or too inconvenient for the great ecclesiastical councillors to assemble; so that the examination was postponed till next day.

We can picture Peter and his old associate severed from the sympathy of friends, and with the memory in that circular hall of scowling looks and angry words, anticipating their trial on the morrow. Doubtless, as on a future occasion, which we shall come more specially to note, they would lie down in their cell that night with a good conscience. More likely would repose be chased from the uneasy pillows of those who were dogging the footsteps of innocent men, “devising mischief upon their beds, and setting themselves in a way that is not good.” But the God whom the persecuted served was “giving His beloved sleep.” They are roused; but it is by no unquiet dream of fearful apprehension. At midnight or in the early hours of morning a celestial messenger — one of those angels with whom Peter had recently been familiar on the great Easter* day — effected the escape of the imprisoned Apostles. Conducting them probably to the level platform of the Temple area and pointing to the cloisters, they commanded them there, so soon as the worshippers had begun to gather for the morning sacrifice, to resume their wonted teachings; that, too, with special reference to the new Resurrection-doctrine so obnoxious to the Sadducees, “Go, standi and speak in the Temple to the people all the words of this life” (Acts v. 20). If any remains of a coward, calculating spirit had animated these faithful men, we might expect that on breathing once more the free air of heaven, they would have been tempted to take advantage of the silence and secrecy of early morn, and put themselves beyond the power and oppression of thmr persecutors. But they were “not disobedient to the heavenly vision.” Indeed (Greek) “at the break of day” they addressed themselves to the first straggling groups that had assembled within the sacred precincts, and entered eagerly with them into converse on the one engrossing theme.

1 It has been suggested that angelic agency was employed in order, by the most irresistible of arguments, to confute the error held by the main instigators in the present persecution — for the Sadducees held that “there was no resurrection, neither an§d nor spirit” (Acts xxiii. 8).

All in ignorance of the evasion of authority, the high- priest and his civil and ecclesiastical officers had already met in the stone-chamber to put the threatening purposes of past days into execution. Again the services of the guard of Antonia were enlisted to bring the defaulters to the bar. They returned to the assembled court with the startling news, that on going to accomplish their mission, they found to their astonishment the sentinels still faithful at their vigils, unconscious of any unusual occurrence, pacing in front of the well-secured doors; neither bolt nor lock seemed to have moved: and yet, on entering the cells, the couches of the prisoners were vacant, and the unbound chains lying on the floor. There had been an escape which baffled explanation.

The high -priest and his underlings were filled with amazement. He had summoned for the occasion, not only the usual members of the Sanhedrim, but augmented the number by having also “the Senate” or Presbyters “of the children of Israel,” in order to have all the advice and aid possible in so grave an emergency. On hearing the report of the officer on duty, they can think of nothing but some boldly concocted and.adroitly executed scheme by the favouring multitude or by some interested accomplice of the Apostles, who had succeeded in bribing the soldiers on guard. Even the supposition of such a plot showed unmistakably the bias of the people. If unchecked in time, there was no calculating to what excesses such craft and artifice might lead. With their sentences thus nullified and their authority defied, “they doubted whereunto this would grow.” The captain of the Temple felt that his place and pay and honour were all at stake; for the possibility could hardly fail of being entertained, that even he and his troop may have connived at their escape — perhaps secretly favouring alike their creed and their safety.

Meanwhile a messenger reaches the court, and announces to the assembled heads of the nation that the incarcerated Galileans are in the most public place of the city pursuing their old vocation, and gathering around them listening crowds in the Temple cloisters. However reluctant these proud authorities would be to believe it, many of them at all events could not help suspecting — dreading — that by a notable miracle the accused had evaded justice and escaped from prison. The Captain and his band are instantly despatched to secure the persons of the troublesome teachers. They perform their errand with as little demonstration as may be; for portent added to portent was intensifying the popular sympathies, and anything like violence or coercion might have precipitated a tumult. The form which reprisals would take is specially noted: “They feared the people lest they should have been stoned.” Some fragments of stone would probably be lying about in the uncompleted cloisters, as they were left by the workmen; — -similar weapons which a few weeks hence were to be employed in initiating the long roll of the Church’s martyrdoms. The Apostles, by resisting the present exercise of authority, might easily have hastened on a riot, and thus effected their own escape or rescue. But unresistingly they obey the summons of the authorities, and in a few minutes find themselves once more in their old position, encountering the gaze of these seventy-two sages in the court of justice. In addition to the company of John, Peter seems now to

2 A have had all the Apostles arraigned along with him. It is a new opportunity afforded them to give publicity to the Name and cause they love. Conscious that they have on their side the right though not the might, they would be ready to say in the spirit of the noble words with which Paul, on a future day, braved his unjust judge and accusers in Caesarea, “If I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die” (Acts xxv. 11).

The High-priest stood up. and amid the hush of the assembly addressed the inculpated Apostles. In brief but stern words he charged them with contumacy, and the animus of the speaker is sufficiently manifested by the unworthy and contemptuous way, as if with a sarcastic sneer, he refers to the Divine Being whose teachings were the cause and occasion of all the present excitemeut : — “This Name;” “this Man’s blood.” He reminds them that the court of which he was president had, under threat of penalties, demanded that they should teach no more in the name of Jesus; adding, that the whole city was ringing with these doctrines. Nor did he conceal what was felt to be the most dangerous of their statements — viz., that in public they had ventured to make the Jewish authorities (himself and his coadjutors) responsible for the blood that was shed on Calvary. The association of their names with a hideous crime might, owing to the growing acceptance of the Christian teaching, draw down upon them at any moment popular vengeance.

Peter was in no wise disconcerted either with the scene in that court-room, nor with the accusation that was hurled against him and his brethren. He uses no exculpatory or apologetic speech; he does not attempt either to modify or to deny the charge laid at their door, or disclaim the strong language in which the accusation against them was couched. In one of those sentences of terse, epigrammatic power so common in his addresses and writings, he utters the great maxim by which his future teaching and conduct were to be regulated — a supreme regard to Divine authority: “We ought to obey God rather than man.” And then, the Rock-man, placing his foot on this firm foundation, hurls back the old charge on his persecutors of personal complicity in the guilt of. the Crucifixion; — that they were not only “murderers, but had inflicted on their beloved Lord murder in its basest, most ignominious form — “Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” He farther refers indirectly to the hated doctrine of his Master’s resurrection. Nay, not His resurrection merely, but to the glory which had followed: — that God had exalted Him to the highest heavens “as a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” Then, with an array of supernatural attestations to point to — from the gift of varied tongues on Pentecost and the crowds of sick that had been healed, to the prison-doors that had been recently thrown open — he can confront his irate judges with the challenge, “And we are His witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him” (Acts v. 32). Deau Alford well remarks, regarding the brief reply of the Apostle — “The whole is a perfect model of concise and ready eloquence, and of unanswerable logical coherence, and a notable fulfilment of the promise, * It shall be given you in that same hour, what ye shall speak’” (Matt. x. 19).

Such bold, persistent words were too much for that haughty Conclave, accustomed as they were to deferential reverence and unquestioned submission. To be charged anew with the blood of the Nazarene! to hear the statement that that Galilean who had lived a peasant’s life and died a felon’s death, was now enthroned jn glory a “Prince and Saviour!” and perhaps, worse than all, to be told that “Israel” — the covenant people — to whom pertained such exceptional prerogatives, needed “repentance and forgiveness of sins” — that forgiveness coming from this crucified Man 1 What an insult to their self-righteousness and national pride! It was like the sword-thrust of an assassin: “They were cut to the heart.” With an impulse of instantaneous revenge, these inquisitors of the first ages conferred together in subdued tones. One thought takes possession of every heart — “death to the zealots!” Nor would it have been any mere verbal, idle threat. Such was the temper of that unworthy judicature, that the counsel to slay would have been followed by cruel deed, and the death of the protomartyr Stephen would have been anticipated in equally dreadful form by the sword of the executioner, or by the rocky missiles lying ready on the slopes of Jehoshaphat. The averting of the doom, and alteration of verdict, came from a very different quarter from what they might have expected.

Though he had surrendered his place to the high-priest as a matter of official courtesy, the true leader of the Sanhedrim was a man who stood highest of all his contemporaries (and specially in that deliberative assembly), .for caution, wisdom, learning, and moderation. Gamaliel, called Eabban Gamaliel, the Elder, the highest title of honour amongst the Jews (the same with which Mary Magdalene first hailed her risen Lord), was of distinguished lineage. He was grandson of the great Hillel, and supposed by many, though on doubtful authority, to have been son of the aged father of the Temple who took up the child Jesus in his arms, and sang the “Nunc diimttis” It is the same illustrious personage whose name is farther associated with the early life and training of the future, Apostle of the Gentiles. Young Saul was said to sit at the feet of this learned expositor of the law of Moses, and interpreter of its traditions; and the leading youth of Jerusalem doubtless did the same. His rabbinical learning, his character, birth, and piety, entitled him to wield an enormous influence in the counsels of the nation. We have no reason to suppose, from what is here recorded (although Some of the early Fathers have ventured oii the assertion), that though ostensibly a Pharisee and noted expounder of their tenets, he was secretly and in heart a convert to the new faith; indeed, that he soon openly professed it, and was baptized by Peter and John. Such an idea would seem to be negatived by the fact, that it was under his subsequent teaching that the youthful student of Tarsus had his mind so imbued with hatred of the Christians, that he was said to “breathe out threatenings and slaughter” against them. We have indeed reason rather to adopt an opposite conclusion regarding Gamaliel’s final religious views. If we credit the genuineness of the following prayer, which has been attributed to him, for the destruction of heretics, he died a bigoted Pharisee —” Let there be no hope to them who apostatise from the true religion; and let heretics, how many soever they be, all perish as in a moment. And let the kingdom of pride be speedily rooted out and broken in our days. Blessed art thou,

O Lord God, who destroyest the wicked, and bringest down the proud.” 1

Be this as it may, he was at all events, at present, a singular exception to the intolerance of the sect to which he belonged; — liberal in his views, rising above party prejudices, and, for the time being, we cannot resist thinking, profoundly staggered, as a man of high principle and dispassionate candour might well be, by all he had seen and heard. On the occasion of which we now speak he rose in his place in the assembly. All the more readily would he command a deferential hearing because, unlike most of his coadjutors, who were detested by the masses, he had conciliated the goodwill and opinion of all outside the Sanhedrim, for he was “had in reputation of all the people.” It was customary in this great tribunal, when a case was being adjudicated, that after the parties had been heard and the cause pleaded, the accused were asked to retire, in order to allow the court time to deliberate on the sentence. In the turmoil and confusion this seems at first to have been omitted. But at Gamaliel’s suggestion the Apostle-prisoners withdraw. Like the too close proximity of fire with inflammable material, their very look and presence might perhaps have tended to precipitate an extreme issue, making, had they remained, any attempt to act as intercessor unavailing. Gamaliel then proceeds to address his fellow-judges in words of rare wisdom and conciliation. Too plainly did he himself

i Home’s Introduc. in Joe 80 highly did he stand in the estimation of his countrymen, that the Mishna declares with his death the glory of the law terminated. His funeral was one of imposing and costly splendour, one of his pupils burning on the occasion seventy pounds of frankincense. His death took place eighteen years before the fall of Jerusalem. — See aUe Howton and Conybeare, toL i., p. 62. perceive the delicacy and danger of their own position. A rash and violent act might prove, alike politically and ecclesiastically, disastrous. Violence towards the accused, in the present increasingly favourable bias of the people towards them, might lead to riot and bloodshed. With admirable tact and sagacity he counsels to abstain from violent measures, quoting two precedents abundantly familiar to his auditors. It was the case of two zealot upstarts, political fanatics, who, after a brief career of success, in which they succeeded in rallying numbers around their standard, were unmasked as deceivers, and all, as many as obeyed them, were scattered and brought to nought. He grounds on the supposed failure of these insurrectionists a plea for non-interference in the present juncture: “Be f rain from these men.” He argues that if the doctrine propounded by them, as he would fain wish it to be, were of mere human origin — the work of demagogues or impostors, or shallow and vulgar enthusiasts — it would perish by reason of its own intrinsic weakness, and its adherents would be numbered with other manifold extinct sects which in the course of Jewish history had struggled through a transient life. On the other hand, if the teaching be of Divine origin, authenticated by miracle and portent, no coercive power of Synagogue, or Sanhedrim, or Council could overthrow it It would outlive all human attempts to doom it to annihilation. It would triumph by virtue of its own inherent strength and vitality: — so much so, that to fight against it would

1 So Gamaliel imagined when he cited the illustration; bat many years afterwards the sect of Judas, as we have noted in Chap. I., which was Imagined to be suppressed by the Soman power, renewed the insurrection of former years with the success of desperation, and it was only extinguished by the conquering arnty of Titos, and the fall of Jerusalem, be the vain endeavour to “fight against God,” and wage an unequal contest with Omnipotence. Olshausen’s remarks are judicious: “He regarded Christianity neither as a thing plainly objectionable, nor yet as a thing to be entirely approved of; he knew not what to think of this new phenomenon; and therefore he left the explanation of it to time, which could not fail to develop fully its true character. Had he perceived it to be decidedly objectionable, then he would have felt con* strained to crush it; had he perceived it to be decidedly good, then he would have been obliged to recognise it openly as such. He had instituted researches, though without being able to come to a decision.” 1

The appeal of the wise senator was irresistible. The passions of the assembly are for the moment assuaged. By the temperate counsels of their sagacious chief the threatening storm was changed into a calm. The Apostles were anew summoned to the bar; and again the futile order was addressed to them that, while receiving their liberty, they were to refrain from speaking in the name of Jesus. The sentence, moreover, was coupled with an act of illegal baseness. The magnanimity displayed by Gamaliel would surely prevent him, at all events, from being a consenting party. But the innocent men were ordered to undergo the cruel and ignominious torture of scourging; receiving each, according to the usual Jewish regulation, thirty-nine stripes. We are almost led to infer from the narrative, that the sentence was carried out within the precincts of the court itself; as if those who saw meet to inflict it were apprehensive, that if the prisoners once got outside the walls they might escape altogether the penalty.

1 OUkausen on the Acts, p*. 419, 420.

Possibly they dreaded also lest dismissal from the bar, without any mark of disapproval or degradation, might tend to weaken their own authority in the eyes of the people, and leave the impression that victory was on the side of the Apostles; or, if we may venture yet another supposition, they may have entertained the hope that the disgrace associated with scourging would, more than anything else, deter the prisoners persisting for the future in their public teaching.

With trembling limbs and lacerated backs, the victims of impotent rage left the presence of their persecutors. But noble is their mien in the midst of these cruel sufferings and humiliations. Would they not remember Him who, in saying to one had said to all, “Follow thou Me “? Would they not remember Him (they were afterwards Peter’s own written words) “who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously” 1 (1 Peter il 23.) What but fellowship with the Master in His sufferings could have presented to us such a picture and delineation as that with which the narrative closes) No hands lifted in vengeful imprecation; no passionate tears shed; no cowardly resolve for the future. With unabashed countenance, and hymns on their lips, “they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name” (Acts v. 41).

Nor has the threatening charge of the Sanhedrim effected any alteration of heroic purpose. They had obtained that very night a fresh token of encouragement, that 44 the angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them.” Nay, that they had One on their side mightier than hosts of angels, “who hath broken the gates of brass, and cat the bars of iron in sunder. 99 The zeal of self-sacrificing love continues unabated, for “daily,” we read, “in the Temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.”

It was evident now that the Church, and specially its acknowledged valiant leader, occupied a large space in public estimation. The good seed, sown with prayerful hands, had already yielded an abundant reaping in Jerusalem. We shall soon hear of the faithful labourers entering on other and more distant fields, that were white unto harvest