saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
English Standard Version (ESV)
These religious leaders are actually pointing out their own guilt by their careful avoidance of Jesus' name. Their phrase "this man's blood" reveals a deep discomfort, a subconscious acknowledgement of their own desperate attempt to shed that very blood and their fear of being held accountable for it.
saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
English Standard Version (ESV)
The religious leaders are furious because the apostles, despite being explicitly told not to teach about Jesus, have continued to preach boldly throughout Jerusalem. They accuse the apostles of stirring up trouble and trying to hold them responsible for Jesus' death, a charge that clearly weighs on their consciences and makes them fearful of the crowds. This confrontation shows the growing tension between the apostles' unwavering faith and the authorities' attempts to suppress the burgeoning Christian movement.
Why would the religious leaders, when confronting the apostles, deliberately avoid saying Jesus' name? What does this evasiveness reveal about their hearts?
Notice how the leaders, in their confrontation, refer to Jesus as "this name" and "this man." They are consciously avoiding the name of Jesus.
The Power of a Name
In the ancient world, a name carried immense significance, representing a person's character, authority, and very identity. For these leaders, the name 'Jesus' had become deeply problematic. It was the name of a man they had crucified, yet his followers were proclaiming Him as the resurrected Lord.
Acknowledging Without Admitting
Their refusal to say 'Jesus' is a subtle but powerful admission. It hints at their discomfort and perhaps even their fear. By referring to Him as "this name" or "this man," they attempt to diminish Him, but in doing so, they inadvertently highlight their own guilt and the growing influence of the very movement they sought to suppress.
The Uncomfortable Truth
This avoidance is a stark contrast to the apostles, who boldly proclaimed Jesus' name. The leaders' strategy of euphemism doesn't erase the reality of Jesus' identity or His followers' message; it only exposes their own internal conflict and the weight of their actions.
Ask a follow-up
The leaders accuse the apostles of intending to bring 'this man's blood upon them.' What's really at stake in this accusation, and why are they so fearful?
The phrase 'bring this man's blood upon us' carries heavy implications, revealing the leaders' deep-seated fear and guilt.
Accusation and Defense
The apostles' teaching about Jesus, including His crucifixion and resurrection, directly challenged the religious establishment. The leaders perceived this teaching as an accusation, suggesting that they were responsible for the innocent death of Jesus. They felt the apostles were trying to stir up the people and possibly incite divine judgment against them.
Echoes of Their Own Words
Commentators note that this accusation eerily echoes the crowd's cry at Jesus' trial: 'His blood be on us and on our children!' (Matthew 27:25). The leaders here seem to be experiencing a panicked self-awareness, fearing that the apostles' message is indeed bringing the consequence of that earlier, rash imprecation upon them.
Divine Justice and Human Fear
Ultimately, the leaders fear the spiritual and potentially political consequences of their actions. They understand that the apostles' message implicates them in a profound injustice, and they are terrified of being held accountable, both by the people of Jerusalem and by God.
Understand the original words
didaskō · Greek Verb
The act of proclaiming the truth about God, Jesus Christ, and the kingdom of heaven, which is a central calling for those commissioned by Christ.
haima · Greek Noun
A central theme in the New Testament referring to the judicial and moral accountability for the death of Jesus, often associated with the rejection of the Messiah.
The Sanhedrin's accusation reveals their fear and denial, as they try to shift blame for Jesus' death onto the apostles, while simultaneously avoiding the name of Jesus themselves, betraying their own guilt and fear of divine judgment.
c. AD 30
Crucifixion of Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth is crucified by Roman authorities at the request of Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.
c. AD 30-33
Early preaching in Jerusalem
Following Jesus' resurrection and ascension, his disciples begin preaching in Jerusalem, proclaiming him as the Messiah and Lord.
c. AD 32
Apostles Peter and John arrested
Peter and John are arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin for teaching about Jesus.
c. AD 32
Sanhedrin issues warning
The Sanhedrin commands Peter and John not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus, threatening them with punishment.
c. AD 32— this verse
Apostles arrested again
The apostles are arrested by the high priest and council for continuing to preach and heal in Jesus' name.
c. AD 32
Divine intervention and release
An angel frees the apostles from prison, and they immediately return to teaching in the Temple.
c. AD 32
Apostles before the Sanhedrin
The apostles are brought back before the Sanhedrin, where they boldly declare their obedience to God over human commands.
This passage directly echoes the leaders' fear here, as it recalls the crowd's cry, 'His blood be on us and on our children!' showing their own guilt and the self-inflicted prophecy they now dread coming true.
Acts 2:23Peter's powerful sermon here declared Jesus was crucified by the 'hands of lawless ones,' directly charging the Jewish leaders and fulfilling the very fear they express in Acts 5:28 about Jesus' blood being brought upon them.
John 18:36Jesus Himself stated His kingdom is not of this world, highlighting the spiritual nature of His 'teaching' and the distinct message the apostles preached, which the religious leaders misunderstood as a political threat.
Acts 4:18This passage shows the Sanhedrin's initial, explicit command to Peter and John 'not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus,' providing the direct context for their angry accusation in Acts 5:28.
Romans 8:34The leaders' accusation that the apostles intend 'to bring this man's blood upon us' starkly contrasts with Christ's role as intercessor, who is now at God's right hand pleading for us, not condemning us.
jfbActs 5:28: "Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
- intend to bring this man's blood upon us—They avoid naming Him whom Peter gloried in holding up [Bengel]. In speaking thus, they seem to betray a disagreeable recollection of their own recent imprecation, His blood be upon us," &c. (Mt 27:25), and of the traitor's words as he threw down the money,…
vincentActs 5:28: "Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
Did notThe best texts omit οὐ, not, and the question.We straitly chargedSo Rev. (παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαμεν). Lit., we charged you with a charge. See on Luke 22:15, with desire I have desired.Intend (βούλεσθε)Or ye want. See on willing, Matthew 1:19.This man'sThe phrase is remarkable as furnishing t…
These religious leaders are actually pointing out their own guilt by their careful avoidance of Jesus' name. Their phrase "this man's blood" reveals a deep discomfort, a subconscious acknowledgement of their own desperate attempt to shed that very blood and their fear of being held accountable for it.
The religious leaders are furious because the apostles, despite being explicitly told not to teach about Jesus, have continued to preach boldly throughout Jerusalem. They accuse the apostles of stirring up trouble and trying to hold them responsible for Jesus' death, a charge that clearly weighs on their consciences and makes them fearful of the crowds. This confrontation shows the growing tension between the apostles' unwavering faith and the authorities' attempts to suppress the burgeoning Christian movement.
The religious leaders are furious because the apostles, despite being explicitly told not to teach about Jesus, have continued to preach boldly throughout Jerusalem. They accuse the apostles of stirring up trouble and trying to hold them responsible for Jesus' death, a charge that clearly weighs on their consciences and makes them fearful of the crowds. This confrontation shows the growing tension between the apostles' unwavering faith and the authorities' attempts to suppress the burgeoning Christian movement.
"saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”" — These religious leaders are actually pointing out their own guilt by their careful avoidance of Jesus' name. Their phrase "this man's blood" reveals a deep discomfort, a subconscious acknowledgemen…
Get the original Greek and Hebrew, verse-by-verse context, and related passages inside the app.
Last reviewed October 2026