Acts 4:16

What shall we do? The question need never have been debated. The Sanhedrin was sitting as a court of justice, and the verdict should have been given for or against the accused, according to the evidence. The lame man had been healed. They had seen him. The two men who had been the human instruments in the healing had stood before them, and were awaiting their decision. The members of the Sanhedrin abandoned their judicial office, and began to discuss what course to pursue, on the basis of expediency. This whole proceeding is eminently characteristic of Caiaphas (see John 11:49, 50).

Miracle. Gr. semeion, “a sign,” and by extension, “a miracle” (see Vol. V, p. 208; see on Isa. 7:14). The Jewish authorities admitted that a remarkable sign had appeared in their midst.

Manifest to all. Because the crippled beggar at the Temple gate was so widely known, there could be only two bases on which the apostles might have been considered worthy of punishment: (1) if the miracle were an imposture, but this no one in the council believed or dared to insinuate; or (2) if the miracle had been performed by some sort of magic, or other unlawful means (Deut. 13:1-5). The question of the Sanhedrin “By what power ... have ye done this?” might suggest the latter. But from the very beginning (Acts 3:13) Peter had attributed what had happened to the “God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob,” and insisted that God through Jesus Christ had made the man whole. Consequently no charge could be brought against them.

We cannot deny it. The very form of the statement betrays not only the desire to deny but also an admission of the lack of any power under the circumstances to do so. They had the evidence, but refused to follow it to its logical conclusion and accept the Christ who had shown the power. Such refusal is worse than never having known the truth.