Why was Peter arrested in the Bible?

Answer 1

To some extent, the answer depends on what you mean by a "crime."

Israel was under the control of the Roman Empire in Peter's day, so the Jews were subject to both Roman civil law and Jewish religious law, and a given action might be "criminal" to one, but not the other. With than in mind, Peter committed at least one act that would have been criminal in Rome's eyes, and he regularly defied the Jewish religious leaders.

When the mob came to arrest Jesus, Peter "assaulted a man with a deadly weapon" (to put it in contemporary terms), cutting off Malchus' ear with his sword (John 18:20). Rome would have considered this a crime, but the mob was composed only of Jews, and Jesus healed Malchus. Since the damage was undone, the incident might as well have never happened from any legal standpoint.

Peter also "broke out" of prison (an angel released him - Acts 5:19 and 12:7, 8), and he refused to stop preaching Jesus despite being commanded to "cease and desist" (Acts 5:40-42).

These latter offenses were solely against the Jews, and the charges against Peter and the apostles were brought more from fear and envy than law (like the charges against Jesus - Mark 15:10). It would be something of a stretch to think of these offenses as "crimes." The justification for the behavior of Peter and the rest of the apostles toward the Jewish religious leaders was simple: We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29).

Answer 2

Peter was arrested in The Bible because he was preaching about Jesus, which challenged the authorities at that time. The religious leaders felt threatened by his teachings and feared losing control over the people, leading to Peter's arrest.

Answer 3

The first couple times was because he continued to preach about Jesus even though the authorities had demanded that he stop. (Acts chapters 4 and 5). Their was also a time when he was arrested due to politics, since Herod wanted to gain favor with the Jews that were opposed to Christians. (Acts 12)

Answer 4

According to Acts of the Apostles, Peter was somehow responsible for the deaths of Ananius and his wife, Saphira, merely because they had decided to keep some of the money from the sale of their own property. On the face of it, this is something of an embarrassment for the Church, and all kinds of explanations and theological reasons are given. Some say that it was not Peter, but the Holy Spirit who killed them, but this merely shifts the blame. In any case, Acts actually says that Peter told Saphira she was about to die, demonstrating his personal responsibility. Some say that this was not a crime, since it is implied that they had promised all their money to the Church when they became Christians. Nevertheless, this was so disproportionate and so opposed to free will that this defence must be rejected.

The only real defence for the Apostle Peter is that the story, of how he miraculously killed the two recent converts, was a literary invention that suits the theme of Acts but is not actually true.