There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Have you seen the musical or movie version of Hairspray? Characters in the drama face struggles on several levels, but the central issue grows from cultural change played out against racial tensions in Baltimore during the 1960s. The story illustrates how powerful and relentless change can be: the notion of racial integration as well as the emergence of Rhythm & Blues music faced strong resistance from the entrenched and powerful white establishment. Those who embraced the new order could not be deterred, however, as illustrated by the high-energy musical finale called “You Can’t Stop the Beat.”

Our text reflects another powerful cultural shift, as the first-century religious establishment tried to squelch the message of Jesus, both before and after his death and resurrection. The leaders of the temple sought to silence the newly invigorated apostles, but nothing they tried could stop the gospel beat.

A rude interruption

(vv. 1-4)

Today’s text is a story of conflict that continues the narrative trajectory that began in the previous chapter. Peter and John had met a man with paralyzed legs who was begging outside the temple. Instead of giving him money, they offered him healing in the name of Christ. When the man started dancing and praising God, a crowd of curious onlookers gathered, giving Peter a perfect opportunity to preach. [DD]

Peter’s sermon challenged his Jewish audience to recognize Christ as the fulfillment of the messianic hopes arising from the Hebrew Scriptures. That message was not music to the ears of the religious authorities in charge of the temple, so they came out to put a stop to it. 

Luke names three individuals or groups of people who sought to silence Peter’s preaching: “the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees” (v. 1). The priests were in charge of religious teaching and administration. The “captain of the temple,” roughly analogous to the “head usher” in some contemporary churches, was responsible for overseeing both the daily collections and for maintaining order on the temple grounds.

The Sadducees were an influential organization of leaders, both priests and laity, who sought to keep the Jews in line under Roman rule. There was not a “Sadducee” position in the temple, but in the first half of the first century, the High Priest was always a member of the Sadducees.

Theologically, the Sadducees were very conservative, accepting only the Torah as Scripture and opposing the emerging belief, popular among the Pharisees, in the resurrection of the dead. It was only natural that Sadducees would be “much annoyed” with Peter and John, “because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus is resurrection of the dead” (v. 2).

Angered by Peter’s preaching, the temple leaders arrested him and John (v. 3), continuing the contentious relationship with Jesus’ followers that they had developed with Jesus, who had also taught in the temple, had spoken about resurrection (Luke 19:47-48, 20:27-40, 21:37-38), and had been arrested by “chief priests and officers of the temple” (Luke 22:52).

The temple leaders had sufficient authority to arrest and hold other Jews accused of violating religious laws, so they were within their power when they commanded Peter to desist and led them off to a holding cell, “for it was already evening.”

But they didn’t stop the beat. Luke relates that as the authorities sought to silence the resurrection message, many who had heard their message came to believe it, so that the number of believers reached about 5,000 men, apparently not counting women and children (v. 4). [DD]

A loaded question

(vv. 5-7)

At some point the next day, their captors marched them before a gathering of “rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem” (v. 5), an apparent reference to the Supreme Sanhedrin, the official ruling body of the Jews. Individual towns had local Sanhedrins, but the one in Jerusalem had supreme authority. [DD]

The head of the Supreme Sanhedrin was the High Priest, whom Luke names as Annas, even though Annas’ son-in-law Caiaphas held the position at the time (Matt. 26:3, 57; John 18:13). Some commentators suggest that Annas remained the real “power behind the throne” even though Caiaphas officially held the seat.

Luke also names “John and Alexander,” with no other identification. They must have been notables among “all who were related to the high priestly family” (v. 6). Luke’s intent is to emphasize that the highest officials in early first-century Judaism were all arrayed against Peter and John, who were set in their midst and called to account for daring to teach something contrary to the official position of the temple. [DD]

One might have expected the questioning to begin with the disciples’ teaching about the resurrection. Instead, their accusers brought out the man whose healing had drawn the crowd to whom Peter had preached on the previous day. They asked, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” (v. 7).

A bold answer

(vv. 8-12)

Peter could have given a straightforward answer: he had told the man to rise up and walk “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” (3:6). But the apostle, filled with the Holy Spirit, began by reframing the complaints against them. Politely addressing the “rulers of the people and elders,” he asked if they were being charged with doing good, with bringing a sick man to health (v. 9). The clear implication would have been “Is it wrong to do good by healing someone?”

Peter’s reference to the man’s healing is double-edged: the word translated “healed” is the same verb that can mean “saved” (sōzō). Whether the religious authorities caught it or not, Peter’s phrasing suggested that the man had been healed spiritually as well as physically.

Having thus turned the question in a more positive direction, Peter gave his accusers the name that they wanted: “this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth …” (v. 10a).

Without pausing, Peter then gave them more than they wanted, identifying Jesus Christ as the one “whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead” (v. 10b). In these few words, Peter proclaimed the heart of the gospel: though rejected and killed by humans, Christ was accepted and raised from the dead by God.

To shore up his claim, Peter called on scripture, quoting Ps. 118:22 as a foreshadowing of Jesus as a stone that was rejected by builders before later becoming the cornerstone upon which the remainder of the building rests.

In citing this text, Peter was following the example of Jesus, who had quoted the same words when the same authorities had questioned him about teaching on the temple grounds (Luke 20:2). Jesus had responded with a parable in which the greedy tenants of a vineyard beat the messengers sent to collect the owner’s share and then killed his son in hopes that they could take ownership of the vineyard.

Jesus declared that the owner would take the vineyard away from the unworthy tenants and give it to others, then concluded the parable with the same reference to the rejected stone that became the cornerstone (Luke 20:17). [DD]

With amazing boldness for a village fisherman called before the highest court in Judaism, Peter drew out the double meaning of the word he had used earlier for healing/salvation. “There is salvation in no one else,” he said, “for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (4:12).

Peter believed that with the coming of Christ, the old way of relating to God through temple ritual and keeping the law belonged to the past: any who sought the healing of salvation and the hope of resurrection would find it upon the cornerstone of Christ alone.

Our text stops here, though the story continues. With the well-known and newly healed paralytic standing strong and happy before them, members of the Sanhedrin knew they could not afford to punish the disciples, who had become profoundly popular with the people. So, they discussed the matter among themselves and rather lamely instructed Peter and John to stop preaching or teaching in the name of Jesus (vv. 13-18).

Peter, of course, refused to promise any such thing, despite further threats (vv. 19-22). “We cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard,” he proclaimed (v. 20).

On one level, we may think this story no longer applies to us. Do we know anyone who feels threatened by the religious authorities of Judaism? No—but there is always the possibility of confrontation between those who trust the rule-bound religion of former days, and those whose experience with the fresh wind of Christ’s Spirit leads them to push for a more relevant understanding of both faith and practice.

Have you ever had such an experience with Christ that you could not keep from speaking about what you had seen and heard?

Despite the resistance of entrenched authorities in any age, can anyone ultimately “stop the beat” of the good news we have in Christ? If not, is there any good reason not to sing along?