Acts 5:27-28 27And when they had brought them, they set them before the Sanhedrin. And the high priest questioned them, 28saying, “We forbade you not to teach in this name, and look, your teaching has filled Jerusalem, and you intend to bring upon us this man’s blood.”
After the apostles were escorted before the Sanhedrin, the high priest lectured them about their teaching. The atmosphere must have been tense. This meeting was different than the previous one because now all the apostles (as far as the text implies) were present, as well as the full ruling council. The Sanhedrin was a large group that was made up of 71 members. Other elders may have been present for this hearing. It would have been easy to be intimidated in such a setting.
Luke’s summarizing statement in verse 28 reveals three thoughts about what the high priest and the council were thinking. One is that they recognized the name of Jesus but did not state his name out loud. They knew something powerful was at work but would not attribute that to the man they had crucified.
Second, the teaching of the apostles had become known throughout Jerusalem. They were strategic in where they chose to preach the gospel: in the temple courts, where there would be sincere seekers of God. The temple was the center of activity in the city and the place of God’s presence. Most of those who visited there wanted to encounter God. Word of miracles would also attract more people who either would be hoping for healing or want to witness the miracle.
Third, the high priest tried to relieve the guilt of having killed an innocent man. The whole Sanhedrin was guilty of this, but the high priest held the highest guilt for his scheming and bad influence. Logic and evidence clearly indicated that the Jewish leaders were guilty for Jesus’ death, but they would not recognize that and accept responsibility.
Notably absent in the accusation of the high priest is a reference to the miraculous escape and any other miracles done by the apostles. The miracles could not be denied factually, only denied spiritually, which is what the high priest was doing. Although we are far removed from the events of the New Testament, the historical evidence of the truth of its claims must be dealt with. The grand wager of time is to believe or not believe what the apostles and writers of the New Testament taught. Either Jesus is true, and everything written about him is true, or it is the story is made up. For the Jewish leaders, they had the clear evidence, even firsthand testimony of the empty tomb (Matthew 28:11-15). Their only excuse was a hardened and rebellious heart that would not heed the voice of the Holy Spirit.
For older posts, click here.