Acts Chapter 4 verse 19 Holy Bible
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:
read chapter 4 in ASV
But Peter and John in answer said to them, It is for you to say if it is right in the eyes of God to give attention to you more than to God:
read chapter 4 in BBE
But Peter and John answering said to them, If it be righteous before God to listen to you rather than to God, judge ye;
read chapter 4 in DARBY
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
read chapter 4 in KJV
read chapter 4 in WBT
But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves,
read chapter 4 in WEB
and Peter and John answering unto them said, `Whether it is righteous before God to hearken to you rather than to God, judge ye;
read chapter 4 in YLT
Pulpit Commentary
Pulpit CommentaryVerse 19. - Rather for more, A.V.
Ellicott's Commentary
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(19) Whether it be right in the sight of God . . .--The 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 rises in the question, Is there the divine authority which is claimed? And the only practical answer is to be found in the rule, that men who believe they have the authority are bound to act as if they had it. If the Lord God hath spoken to them, they can 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 men. When they pass from facts to doctrines inferred from facts, from doctrines to opinions, from opinions to conjectures, the duty of not saying that which they do not believe remains the same, but there is not the same obligation to proclaim what they thus hold in various stages of assent. There may be cases in which reticence is right as well as politic. And 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. And the onus probandi rests on the man who asserts the higher authority. Intensity of conviction may be enough for himself, 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, and the man 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. The words have clearly no bearing on the "froward retention" of a custom which God has not enjoined and a lawful authority has forbidden.
