Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 4:19

"But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye:" — Acts 4:19 (ASV)

Whether it is right in the sight of God . . .—These words assert the right of conscience, recognising a divine authority, to resist a human authority which opposes it. In theory, as the appeal judge ye showed even then, the right so claimed is of the nature of an axiom.

In practice, the difficulty arises in the question: Is there the divine authority which is claimed? And the only practical answer is to be found in the rule, that those who believe they have the authority are bound to act as if they had it.

If the Lord God has spoken to them, they can do nothing but prophesy (Amos 3:8). In cases such as this, where the question is one of witness to facts, they must not tamper with the truth if they believe themselves commissioned by God to declare the facts, for fear of offending people.

When they pass from facts to doctrines inferred from facts, from doctrines to opinions, and from opinions to conjectures, the duty of not saying what they do not believe remains the same. However, there is not the same obligation to proclaim what they hold in these various stages of assent. There may be cases in which reticence is right as well as prudent.

Even in regard to facts, the publication—as law recognises in relation to libels—must not be gratuitous. There must be an adequate authority, or an adequate reason for disobedience to the human authority, which is binding until it is superseded by that which is higher than itself.

The onus probandi rests on the one who asserts the higher authority. Intensity of conviction may be enough for oneself, but it cannot be expected that it will be so for others.

In the absence of signs and wonders, the question must be discussed on the wide ground of Reason and of Conscience. The one who refuses to enter into debate on that ground because he is certain he is right is ipso facto convicted of an almost insane egotism. These words clearly have no bearing on the “stubborn retention” of a custom which God has not enjoined and a lawful authority has forbidden.