The following teaching is the eighth of a series on the Book of Acts by the Reverend John W. Howe of Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, Virginia. The title of this teaching is Peter and the Sanhedrin, and the scripture reference is Acts chapter 4. Reading from Acts chapter 4. And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they arrested them and put them in custody until the morrow, for it was already evening.

But many of those who heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. You may recall that last time we saw a mighty healing, a healing of a man who had been lame since his birth, and as we learn later, he turns out to be about 40 years old. So a man lame for 40 years is mightily healed just outside the gate to the temple, and that that led to a second proclamation of the gospel, very much like the first one that took place on Pentecost itself.

And the comparison is interesting to note, that on Pentecost, there were signs and wonders, unmistakable signs and wonders. It had to do with mighty rushing wind, which we compared to the sound of a freight train rushing through a tunnel, or perhaps even mightier than that, the explosion of Mount St. Helens, a mighty rushing wind, flames of fire, and finally the 120 speaking in new languages. on this occasion the signs and the wonders are in the man himself, in the man who is lame, now healed.

And that on both occasions, moving from the signs and the wonders, Peter stands up and preaches the resurrected and reigning Christ. On both occasions, thousands believe. The first occasion, about 3,000 total.

On this occasion, the number comes up to 5,000, and that's counting only the men. So you can at least double that, and then when you start adding in the children of believers, you're talking about a very considerable number of people in the city of Jerusalem are coming to believe in this gospel. We notice that the purpose of a sign is to point to Christ.

And if the first sign was these mighty atmospheric signs and wonders, The second sign in its own way is no less mighty. In both cases, they're pointing away from themselves to the Lord Jesus. And that's the shape of Peter's preaching.

He doesn't spend a whole lot of time talking about the sign itself, but takes from that the opportunity to proclaim the resurrected Christ. We ended last time noticing that the offer of forgiveness, The offer of forgiveness, which was previously just a general offer to all men and women everywhere, here is specifically extended to Annas and Caiaphas, the priests of the temple and the whole Sanhedrin. And in chapter 4, we read their answer.

It says that they were annoyed. They were annoyed at the preaching, at the teaching of the people, the proclaiming in Jesus of the resurrection of the dead. They're annoyed.

They arrested them. They bound them over for trial the next day. Now, presumably, we're talking about at least Peter and John, who are in a leadership position, and the lame man himself.

You might just enjoy that for a moment. Here this poor guy is laying outside the temple, gets healed, is thrilled to death, is cartwheeling all over the place, screaming about it, jumping up and down, And what does it get him? Clapped into jail, all right?

But he turns up the next morning at the trial. So apparently he, along with Peter and John, is being arrested. It says, on the morrow, verse 5, On the morrow their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander and all who were of the high priestly family.

Now we've mentioned a whole bunch of different categories here Priests, rulers, elders, scribes All of the high priestly family This, in a word, is the Sanhedrin And you might just bear that in mind Whenever you come across that phrase The priests and rulers Or it might say the high priests Strictly speaking There's only one high priest at any given point But they may use that as a phrase for the chief priests, the leaders of the priests, whenever it talks about that kind of a group, priests, rulers, elders, high priests, scribes, all of the high priestly family, we're talking about the Sanhedrin. And I think it'd be helpful to know something about the Sanhedrin. Sanhedrin is a council of men, 70 men, some would say 71.

It's not altogether clear whether the 70 included the high priest himself or it was 70 in addition to the high priest, but it's very clear that he presides over this council of 70 men. They are politically appointed. You need to bear that in mind.

They are politically appointed. They are not members of Aaron's family. The last member of Aaron's family fled from the city of Jerusalem around 100 B.C.

Okay? So they are of the priestly order, but they are political appointees, and they're in a position of great, great authority. They're answerable, finally, to the Roman governor, and beyond him, to Rome itself.

But as far as most civil matters, they are where the buck stops. Okay? They have absolute power except for that of the death penalty.

For the death penalty, it has to go to a specifically civil court. And that's why when Jesus was on trial, The real thing that put him to death was his religious position, his position vis-à-vis the Sanhedrin, you see. But they did not have the power to condemn him to death, and that's why he was tried before Pilate.

Pilate released him to be crucified. But apart from the death penalty itself, they have absolute civil authority, as well as religious. At this particular point in history, Annas is in control, and Annas is a very, very powerful figure.

Out of the whole history from about 6 to about 64 A.D., roughly, there are only five families in authority. That's an enormous amount of time to be controlled by so small a family. Annas himself is high priest for about 14 years, and for the rest of his life he exercises control over who is high priest.

and it passes on to his son-in-law Caiaphas. And there is, in fact, some confusion about that. As you read about it, you're not altogether clear whether it's Annas or Caiaphas, who is the high priest at any given point, because it's really Annas who's calling the shots.

Now, these 70 or 71 men met in a room right in the temple area itself. It was called the Chamber or the Room of Hewn Stones. a chamber of hewn stones.

It was located on the south side of the great court of the temple. And they sat in a huge semi-circle so that they could see each other's faces. They could talk to each other.

You can picture it on a much larger scale, somewhat like our Supreme Court, a semi-circular seating where they can talk to each other. The prisoner or the accused comes and stands right dead center. And they levy the charges against him And he has to answer them.

Now, one other terribly important fact here. The Sadducees is composed... Sorry, the Sanhedrin is composed of Sadducees.

Okay? The Sanhedrin is composed of Sadducees. And it says so up in the first verse of the chapter.

The priests and the captain of the temple. Isn't that an interesting phrase? They were so important, they had their own police force.

All right? The temple is such a critical area, and it's so large. If you haven't been there, you probably can't really imagine it.

It's a huge area, and it is so critically important that they have their own police force. The priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees. You're aware of the fact that there were two major divisions within the political and religious power structure.

The Pharisees is actually the larger of the two, but vis-a-vis the temple, it's the Sadducees who are calling the shots. And the Sadducees are a group which, in many ways, is a theologically liberal group. And specifically, they denied the resurrection.

As a tenet of faith, as a tenet of theology. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection. The Sadducees denied it.

Do you remember at one particular point when the group comes to Jesus and they try to trap him with a little set-up question? They talk about a woman who marries a man and he dies, and so she marries his brother, and he dies, and so she marries the next brother, and the next brother, and the next brother, and she goes through seven brothers. Remember?

And then it says, and the woman died, and well, she might. And it's the Sadducees who are setting this question up, see? and they say, okay, now tell us, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be?

They don't really want an answer. They're mocking Jesus. They're making fun of him.

They think they've come up finally with one that he can't answer because obviously this poor woman can't be married to seven men at once. Bad enough to have them in succession, right? And Jesus gets out of that very neatly, and you can go back and read about it for yourself in Mark chapter 12 and various parallels to it.

The Sanhedrin is composed of Sadducees. It is a tenet of their faith that there is no resurrection. All right?

You need to bear that in mind. You can see the implications now of Peter standing up right in the middle of the court of the temple and proclaiming the resurrection in Jesus. They are about to have excedrin headache number one.

Okay? Bear in mind, bear in mind, this is really going to come alive when you get this. You're going to see, bear in mind, this same group of men presided over by the same president just a few weeks earlier, sat in the same room and passed judgment on Jesus.

You got that? Okay. And now there is a terrible sense of deja vu.

I mean, here was Jesus who answered not a word, you know. And here's Peter who's answering not a word. He's not playing the game by their rules.

Here there was other lame men healed. And now we've got a lame man being healed. There was a boldness there.

There was a lack of intimidation. There was a proclamation of victory over death in the grave. And here it's all happening again.

All right. in the same room, the same issue. Well, Peter's speech comes in response to this.

And I want to, I'm not going to hit this another time, but just today, and then I'm going to let go of it for you. But I've emphasized with some frequency that when Peter spoke, he had a seven-point gospel. And if you look for it, you're going to find it yet again.

Even in his, if you will, he's on trial here. He's making a defense. seven points are yet again made. This is the last time I'm going to call it to your attention.

First point was what the prophets said, right? And in this speech, he alludes to Psalm 118 and verse 22. In verse 11, he quotes it exactly.

This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. You recognize that phrase? If you go back into the 118th Psalm, it appears in its initial reference to be a historical statement.

In Psalm 118, it appears to be they're referring back to the actual literal building of the temple. And somehow, just as a historical footnote, there was a stone that was passed over by the builders. We don't want that stone, for whatever reason.

We're not given any detail. We don't want that stone. but then on second look that's the exact stone we're looking for we need that stone and it became the cornerstone of the temple and it's simply a historical statement in Psalm 118 but Jesus picked up on that historical statement and he treated it as if it had been a prophetic word about himself and he quotes it about himself on several occasions have you not read the stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.

And he applies it to himself that you who are rejecting me, you builders, you Pharisees, you Sadducees, you priests, you leaders of God's people, you who are supposed to be building the living temple of God's people, you who are rejecting me, you're doing exactly what was done when they built that physical temple a thousand years ago. you are rejecting the very stone which God is about to make the chief cornerstone and build his temple upon me. That's how Jesus uses that verse.

They have heard that verse before. They have heard it used in exactly that reference before. All right?

And now Peter quotes it yet again to them, and in Peter's mouth he's saying, it has been fulfilled. Jesus warned you. You didn't heed his warning.

Now God has done exactly what Jesus said he would do. The stone which you rejected has, in fact, become the cornerstone. This temple?

Nothing. You chief priests? Nothing.

It's all over. Your days are numbered. And as a matter of fact, they're already past.

God has started something new. Right here in your midst, there's a new building being built. You rejected the chief cornerstone, and God is going ahead and building it anyway.

What Jesus did was the second point in this proclamation. And what he did, as we've already seen in the previous sermon, what Peter is now saying he did is he healed this man. The continuing acts of Jesus Christ.

What he did is he healed this man. verse 10, the end of verse 10, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. What you did, we've just seen, is crucify him.

What God did, nonetheless, is raise him from the dead. What we are doing now is bearing witness to him, both by being the instruments of his power and by this very examination, which we're now undergoing. Do you remember that Jesus promised them that when they drag you before courts and councils, you don't need to prepare in advance.

I will give you the words to speak in that hour. That's exactly what's happening. Jesus is supplying by his Holy Spirit the words, and the words are themselves a fulfillment of that prophecy.

We're bearing witness to what God has done in Jesus Christ. What you may do is find salvation, wholeness in him. Verse 12, there is salvation in no one else.

There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we may be saved. and the result is, by implication, that if you will take your place in the living temple built upon him, all of that which is his is yours. So you see, there's a consistency to the way in which Peter preaches.

There is a common message, but notice how God gives him the anointing to give what is essentially an evangelistic message even whilst he's on trial here. There is no other name given under heaven by which you may be saved. If you don't put your trust in him, you're finished.

Can this possibly be the same Peter that a month and a half ago slunk off into the darkness when his hero and leader was on trial in this same place? who in front of a little servant girl, three times denied that he even knew the man. What has happened to Peter?

And what I love about this chapter is the reverberating silence that follows upon his speech. They've got nothing to say. You want to talk about evidence for the resurrection.

just think about the fact that if the body of Jesus Christ was anywhere to be had it would have ended right here and now these crazy men proclaiming a resurrection all the chief priests have to do all the Sadducee leadership has to do is drag out that dead, ugly, moldering body of Jesus and put it up on mocking display somewhere and the Christian proclamation is finished they couldn't do it they didn't have it it's gone and they know it and here Annas and Caiaphas are sitting here and they know perfectly well what happened on Easter morning and how they went back to the Roman guard and bribed them to perjure themselves and say that the disciples stole the body let me tell you something friends I know of no instance in history where a conspiracy that would involve as many people as are here involved has deliberately lied and risked their necks in the process for what they knew to be false. Now, men have died for untruth, but they sincerely believed it. I mean, if you believe as I believe that the whole Nazi enterprise was a horrendous untruth, We see that people die for an untruth.

But you better believe they were sincere in their commitment to it. But you're going to tell me that Peter and John knew perfectly well that somehow they had snuck in on the morning of Easter, overpowered a crack Roman guard, moved a stone too big for three women to budge, stolen away the dead, rotting body of Jesus and gotten rid of it somewhere else, and then stood up and proclaimed the resurrection having absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose, it just doesn't wash and they knew it and they've got nothing to say there is no way to silence these men by evidence there is no evidence to overthrow the proclamation of the of the of the resurrection they don't have it and the best they can do is to try to threaten them into silence and That's exactly what they do. Now, when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were uneducated common men, that simply means not formally trained.

They were never trained in theology. They were never trained for the rabbinate. What did they do?

They wondered. A sign and a wonder. They wondered.

They wondered. What's happening? And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

Amen. I would be very happy if they put on my tombstone he was with Jesus. But seeing the man that had been healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition.

They commanded him to go outside. They conferred with one another. They said, what in the world are we going to do with these guys?

A notable sign has been performed through them that is manifest to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name. So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.

They ordered them not to speak. I want to pause on that point and remind you that the Sanhedrin was the final religious authority and it was the final civil authority. And in a very real sense, the Sanhedrin stood in a position of spiritual headship to Peter and John.

They were the shepherds. You can say very, very bad shepherds, but they were the shepherds. and by a whole bunch of teaching that's going around the church today, you have a prima facie case here.

It's very clear what Peter and John should have done. In response to that, well, our shepherds, our authority, have told us not to preach. I guess we better not preach anymore.

Have you heard that kind of teaching? That we are to obey our shepherds? That we are to obey those in authority over us?

even if they're wrong, that if the civil authority tells you to do something, you better do it. And you are absolved of any guilt in the process because they're responsible for that decision and you are simply following orders. If somebody in a position of spiritual authority over you tells you to do something and you have a conflict with that, you're absolved of conflict because it's their responsibility, they're in authority, and you are to submit to them.

If you run into that, it's very widespread and it's very pernicious. And I praise God for the answer of Peter. Peter, let me tell you something.

Peter, more than any other author in the New Testament, talks about submission. Paul has a very great deal to say about it. Romans 14 and elsewhere.

Peter, even more than Paul, it's Peter who says, submit yourself for the Lord's sake to every human institution in his first letter. So what does it mean to submit? okay that's the question what does it mean to submit for the Lord's sake to every human institution may I say to you it does not mean to obey not necessarily submission is not necessarily obedience look at his answer Peter who says submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution whether civil or religious okay goes right on instance and demonstrates what that means.

You with me? You excited? But Peter and John answered them, whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge.

For we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard. And when they had further threatened them, they let him go finding no way to punish them because the people for all men praised God for what had happened for the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than 40 years old. May I suggest to you that submission biblical submission is the recognition that those in authority are in authority and they have the power to pass judgment over me and if their judgment is wrong they are answerable to God for that.

They may clap me into prison if they don't like what I'm doing. And I will treat them with respect and honor. I will serve them in love, but I will not necessarily obey them.

Because I am answerable for my obedience to the Lord. I am recognizing they have the right to pass judgment over me. But it's not a matter of my right.

It's my responsibility to do what God tells me nonetheless. Do you follow that? That's exactly what you see Peter saying.

You are in power. We cannot but speak of the things that we have seen and heard. All right?

Now, you have the authority. If you want to throw us into jail, if you want to take our money, if you want to put us on the rack, if you want to crucify us, you go right ahead and do it. But we are going to preach what God has given us to preach.

We will not be silent. You go ahead and do whatever you like, and we honor you for the office that you occupy. And we will treat you with respect, and you do what you must, but we will not obey because we're under obligation to obey God.

Okay? Do you follow that? I've seen Christian wives who are married to non-Christian husbands whose husbands are forbidding them coming to church or forbidding them getting involved in a Bible study or forbidding them speaking in tongues and they're saying, He's my authority and I've got to submit.

Yes, you do. You have to submit. That means treat them with respect, honor Him.

It does not necessarily mean obey. You do what God tells you to do. Okay?

You better be sure God is telling you to do it. Okay? that's another question there is a brand of teaching abroad in the church today it is absolutely destructive and some of you know who I'm talking about and I'm not going to mention it by name but there is a brand of teaching abroad in the church today that the whole thing ought to be a rigid hierarchy the Roman Catholic Church never dreamed of such rigidity that you don't do one blessed thing without checking it out with your shepherd and he in turn has to check it out with his shepherd all the way up the line to a pope who has more power than the pope.

That is occult. God's will is that we come into freedom, responsiveness to His Spirit. Shepherds are to shepherd as to care for, to nurture.

They are not to become little demigods telling us what we may and may not do. I am responsible before God for what he is telling me to do now how far does authority extend any authority okay husband authority over wife parents authority over children pastors authority over flock civil authority any authority how far does it extend it extends to the point of contradiction of what God has said when the one in authority presumes to tell me that I must do what God has forbidden or forbids me to do what God has commanded, it's not a matter of I have the right to disobey. I have the responsibility I must not obey.

Okay? And I am responsible to God. And if they crucify me, they crucify me.

That's their privilege. Let them crucify me. Whether it is right for you to judge me, go ahead.

But we cannot but preach what God has said to us. Praise God for Peter's answer. And the implication you don't see immediately.

But let's quit at this point and turn your finger over to chapter 6. And I'll just tantalize you with verse 7. And the word of God increased and the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

You don't see it now, but the Sanhedrin is beginning to crack.