Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 4:13

"Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." — Acts 4:13 (ASV)

Boldness. This word properly denotes openness or confidence in speaking. It contrasts with hesitancy and with equivocation in declaring our sentiments. Here it means that, despite danger and opposition, they declared their doctrines without any attempt to conceal or disguise them.

Peter and John. It was they alone who had been involved in the healing of the lame man (Acts 3:1).

And perceived. When they realized that Peter and John were unlearned. This might have been determined either by report or by their manner of speaking.

Unlearned. This word properly denotes those who were not acquainted with letters, or who had not had the benefit of an education.

Ignorant men—idiwtai—. This word properly denotes those who live in private, in contrast to those who are engaged in public life or in office.

Since this class of persons is commonly supposed to be less learned, talented, and refined than those in office, the term comes to mean those who are rude and illiterate. The idea intended here is that these men had not had opportunities for education and had not been accustomed to public speaking; hence, the council was surprised at their boldness.

This same characteristic is consistently attributed to the early preachers of Christianity (compare 1 Corinthians 1:27; Matthew 11:25). The Galileans were regarded by the Jews as particularly rude and uncultivated (Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70).

They marvelled. They wondered that men who had not been educated in the schools of the Rabbis, and accustomed to speak, should declare their sentiments with so much boldness.

And they took knowledge. This expression simply means that they knew, or that they obtained evidence or proof, that Peter and John had been with Jesus.

It is not stated in what way they obtained this evidence. However, the connection leads us to suppose it was by the miracle they had performed, by their firm and bold declaration of the doctrines of Jesus, and perhaps by the irresistible conviction that no one would be so bold who had not been personally with him and who did not have the firmest conviction that he was the Messiah.

They had not been trained in the council's schools, and their boldness could not be attributed to the arts of rhetoric. Instead, it was the natural, sincere, and courageous exhibition of a deep conviction of the truth of what they spoke. That conviction could only have been obtained by their having been with him and having been satisfied that he was the Messiah.

Such conviction is of far more value in preaching than all the mere teachings of the schools; and without such a conviction, all preaching will be cold, hypocritical, and useless.

Had been with Jesus. This means they had been his followers and had personally attended his ministry. They gave evidence that they had seen him, been with him, heard him, and were convinced that he was the Messiah. We may learn here:

1. If people wish to be successful in preaching, their preaching must be based on a deep and thorough conviction of the truth of what they deliver.

2. Those who preach should give evidence that they are acquainted with the Lord Jesus Christ; that they have absorbed his Spirit, reflected on his instructions, studied the evidences of his Divine mission, and are thoroughly convinced that he was from God.

3. Boldness and success in the ministry, as well as in everything else, will depend far more on honest, genuine, thorough conviction of the truth than on all the endowments of talent and learning, and all the arts and skill of eloquence. No one should attempt to preach without such a thorough conviction of truth; and no one who has it will preach in vain.

4. God often employs the ignorant and unlearned to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27–28). But it is not by their ignorance. It was not the ignorance of Peter and John that convinced the Sanhedrin. It was done in spite of their ignorance; it was their boldness and their honest conviction of truth.

   Besides, though not learned in the schools of the Jews, they had been under far more important training: under the personal direction of Christ himself for three years. Now they were directly endowed by the Holy Ghost with the power of speaking with tongues. Though not taught in the schools, there was an important sense in which they were not unlearned and ignorant men.

   Their example should not, therefore, be pleaded in favor of an unlearned ministry. Christ himself expressed his opposition to an unlearned ministry by teaching them himself, and then by granting them miraculous endowments which no learning at present can furnish. It may be remarked, further, that in the single selection he made of an apostle after his ascension to heaven—when he came to choose one who had not been under his personal teaching—he chose a learned man, the apostle Paul. He thus demonstrated his purpose that there should be training or education for those who are appointed to the sacred office.

5. Yet, in the case before us, there is a striking proof of the truth and power of religion. These men had not acquired their boldness in the schools; they were not trained for argument among the Jews; they did not meet them with cunning sophistry but came with the honest conviction that what they were saying was true.

   Were they deceived? Were they not competent to bear witness? Did they have any motive to attempt to impose a falsehood on people? Infidelity must answer many such questions as these before the apostles can be convicted of deception.