25

Acts 5:27-33 THE APOSTLES ON TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN COUNCIL

 

Introduction:

 

    This was the same court which had been responsible for the death of Jesus

Christ.  They had met in an illegal session before daylight and pronounced Jesus

worthy of death.  Then they had met after daylight for a second session to

rubber-stamp the earlier decision and give it some semblance of legality.  Then

they carried Jesus off to the Roman governor and pressured him into sentencing

Jesus to death by crucifixion. 

 

I. Earlier Council action against the apostles

 

    This was the same council which had arrested Peter and John after they had

been used of God in giving sight to a blind man.  They had commanded that Peter

and John stop speaking in the name of Jesus.  Thus they forbid them to perform

any more miracles in the name of Jesus.  They forbid them to tell people that

Jesus is the Son of God and had been raised from the dead.  They forbid them to

tell people that it was by the power and authority of Jesus that they were able

to heal the sick.  They threatened Peter and John with severe punishment if they

were to disobey this command.  The response of Peter and John to this command

had been to ask the counsel whether they should obey man or God.  In other

words, they had no intention of obeying this command. 

    It was soon thereafter that all twelve of the apostles were in the temple

preaching and teaching Jesus to the people and throughout the city of Jerusalem

they were healing great numbers of sick and afflicted who were brought to them. 

    It was the Sadducee wing of the Sanhedrin Council, along with the high

priest who had arrested all twelve of the apostles on the day prior to this

court session.  They had arrested them intending to bring them to court  before

a full session of the court this very day. 

    They had already met earlier in the morning and had sent for the apostles

to be brought before the court, but the officers who were sent to bring them had

brought news that all twelve of the prisoners were gone.  To their dismay, they

discovered that the apostles were in the temple doing the very thing that the

court had told Peter and John not to do.  They were preaching and teaching that

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of men.  Furthermore they were

telling the people that Jesus had risen from the dead and that it was through

His power that they, His apostles, were able to perform miracles.  So they had

just sent officers to the temple to arrest them again.

 

II.  A question that needs to be answered

 

    This brings a question to our minds that needs to be answered.  The

question is:  What was the benefit of having the angel set the apostles free

just to have them go to the temple the very next morning to be arrested again

and brought to trial?  It would appear at first glance is that all that was

accomplished was that they had a night of freedom and that the trial was delayed

perhaps an hour or two. 

    I said that at first glance, this was all that was accomplished.  However,

when we take a second look, we can see that a great deal more was accomplished. 

For one thing, they had gotten to witness to a great crowd of people in the

temple under the very best of circumstances.  The people to whom they were

speaking knew that they had been arrested on the previous day and they would

want to know what accounted for them being free to come to the temple the very

next morning.  This would give the apostles the opportunity of telling the

people about the angel of God which had come to the prison and had set them

free.  This would be a very believable explanation.  The great miracles which

the apostles had been doing was evidence that God was with them.  They would

find it easy for them to believe the apostles when they said that an angel of

God had set them free from the prison.  It would also make their message about

Jesus more believable to the people.  It would make it easier for them to

believe the apostles when they told the people that Jesus has been resurrected,

that Jesus is the promised Christ of God, the coming King and the Savior of men. 

So even though their trial had been delayed only a short space of time yet their

deliverance by the angel of God helped them to witness for Jesus in a much more

powerful way and I am convinced that they were able to win many people to Jesus

in that short space of time. 

    A second thing that was accomplished by that very short reprieve was that

they would now have a much greater support from the common people.  The members

of the Sanhedrin Council had a high regard for public opinion.  It had been

their fear of the general public that had caused them not to put Peter and John

to death when they had been arrested.  Instead of putting them to death, the

Council members had just threatened them and set them free.  Now that the

apostles had been in the temple speaking before a great crowd of people, public

opinion would be on the side of the apostles, at least for a little while.  That

would most certainly be a deterrent to the Council members in their effort to

put a stop to the ministry of these apostles. 

    A third thing that must have been accomplished by the deliverance by the

angel is that they must have been much more at ease when they were brought

before the Sanhedrin Council.  The appearance of that angel and the fact that he

set them free even though it had been only for a little while let them know that

the presence and power of God would be with them now as they would stand before

this powerful court.  The power of this court did not compare to the power of

the angel of God nor did it compare with the power of God who had sent the

angel.  So they were not nearly as frightened as they must have been after that

fist arrest. 

 

III.  On trial again before the Council

 

 V. 27-28, “And when they had brought them, they set [them] before the council:

and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye

should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your

doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.”

    Let us first take a look at the question which the high priest asked the

apostles.  He asked them if the Council had not already instructed them not to

teach any more in the name of Jesus.  I can just imagine some slick trial lawyer

of our day dealing with this question.  He would surely point out that only the

Apostles Peter and John had been given such instruction.  He would point out

that the other ten apostles had never been given such instruction.  And I

strongly suspect that such a technicality would prevail in today’s court.  It

did not prevail, however, in the Sanhedrin court.  They knew full well that only

Peter and John had been given such command, but they meant for that command to

apply to all Christians and that was that. 

    They said, “You have ignored the decree of this court and you have filled

Jerusalem with your teachings about Jesus.  As far as these court members were

concerned, this was a capital offense.  It was worthy of death and that is

exactly what the Council members wanted to happen to the apostles. 

    V. 29, “Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to

obey God rather than men.”  It seems that the Apostle Peter was the first to

speak in answer to the question and the charge by the high priest.  When he and

John were before this court earlier and had been commanded not to teach or speak

any more in the name of Jesus, they at that time had give virtually the same

answer as they gave now.  The difference was that they had been very mild with

their answer at that time.  On that occasion they had said the court, “Whether

it would be right for us to obey men rather than God, you be the judge.”  But

this time they spoke much more forcefully.  They said, “We ought to obey God

rather than men.”  All of the other apostles agreed with what Simon Peter said. 

    As for the charge that the apostles were seeking to bring the blood of

Jesus upon the members of the Sanhedrin Council, this charge was utterly false. 

It is true that in speaking to the members of the Sanhedrin Council the apostles

had accused them of killing the Christ, the Son of God.  They had made this

accusation against them in an effort to get them to see that they had committed

a dreadful sin in order that they might repent of their sin and be forgiven. 

But they had never up to this time gone out to the general public trying to turn

the general public against the Council members.  They had never tried to incite

a mob to take vengeance on the Council members. 

    Instead, it had been the Council members, themselves who had willingly

taken upon themselves the guilt of shedding the blood of Jesus.  When Jesus had

been on trial before Pilate, Pilate said in effect. “I wash my hands of His

death.  I am ordering His crucifixion at your request.  His blood will not be on

my hands.”  The members of the Council said, “His blood be on us and on our

children.”  It is ridiculous that now they want to appear to be free from that

guilt. 

    Then once more the apostle witnessed to the men of the Sanhedrin Council

and once again the accusations which them made against them were made in an

effort to bring them to an awareness of their wrong doing and to bring them to

repentance before God.  V. 30, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye

slew and hanged on a tree.  Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a

Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 

And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom

God hath given to them that obey him.” 

    V. 33, “When they heard [that], they were cut [to the heart], and took

counsel to slay them.”  The apostles were trying to reach the heart of these men

to bring them to repentance.  They reached their heart all right, but their

words did not bring them to repentance.  Rather it stirred their anger all the

more against the apostles and made them more determined than ever to put them to

death.  It seems impossible that religious leaders could be so hard hearted. 

 

IV.  WHAT IF WE WERE ON TRIAL?

 

    What if it were us who is on trial?  What if we were accused of speaking

up for Jesus?  If you were brought before the court and were charged of being a

follower of Jesus, how would you plead?  Would you plead innocent or guilty?

    What if you were charged with witnessing for Jesus?  What if you were

being charged with telling people that Jesus is the Son of God?  What if you

were being charged with telling people that Jesus has been raised from the dead? 

What if you were being charged with telling people that Jesus is the Savior of

the world, that Jesus is the only hope of any man staying out of the fires of

hell and going to heaven?  Would you plead innocent or guilty?

    What if you were being charged with filling the Pleasant Hill community

and the cities around us with the gospel of Jesus Christ and with its related

truths?  Would you plead innocent or guilty?

    When was the last time that you ever spoke to anyone about Jesus Christ? 

When was the last time that you bore witness to a lost soul that Jesus has saved

you soul and that you are sure He would same that person if he would only call

upon Jesus and ask Him to do so? 

    If you were charged before the court of being a Christian, would there be

enough evidence to convict you?