Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

[Resource Manager]

The Geography of Pentecost

 

In those days Jews were as international as they are today, so Luke was able to put together an impressive list.

 

First, the eastern countries – Parthia, Media, Elam. Strictly it was unnecessary to add to these: "dwellers in Mesopotamia," for that land was part of Parthia. Presumably, here Luke was hinting at a further reversal of the Babylonian captivity, for the Jewish communities which had not joined in the aliyah of Ezra and Nehemiah were large and prosperous.

 

There is cursory mention of Judaea (but why not Galilee?), and then the northern provinces: Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia. Next, north Africa: Egypt and Cyrene.

 

Jews and proselytes from Rome were specially noteworthy. The word "strangers" might mean Jews whose homes were in Rome, (e.g. Rom. 16:7), or (as in 17:21) Roman Jews now living in Jerusalem. The latter is more likely, and Luke's term for them normally (in Acts) means a Roman citizen.

 

The mention at the tail–end of the list of Cretans and Arabians seems to be rather lame. But a consideration of the surprising omissions from Luke's list may supply a clue. Why no mention, of Galatia, Cilicia, Macedonia, Achaia, Cyprus and Syria?

 

All of these would certainly be represented in that temple crowd. Is it possible that the deliberate omissions are of the provinces where in later years Paul preached the gospel with such marked success? And in that case, are Crete and Arabia tacked on to the end of the list because although Paul certainly did proclaim the gospel there, they were his outstanding failures? It is difficult to be sure.

 

The wonderful Works of God

 

The popular reaction to the Spirit–inspired utterances of the disciples was the same in everybody there — and yet very diverse. "They were all amazed" (the words are repeated: v.7, 12), the more so because of the ecstasy with which "the wonderful works of God" were being proclaimed.

 

In the Appendix on page 389f it is argued that in accordance with their Lord's promise of the Paraclete (Jn. 14:26) the disciples were having brought miraculously to their remembrance the little–understood Hebrew text of certain psalms which celebrate the "mighty acts" (megaleia) of God, and also portions of the foreign–language liturgies heard in Diaspora synagogues in Jerusalem. If so, Psalms 105 and 126 seem to be specially appropriate.

 

"Make known his deeds among the people ... talk ye of all his wondrous works ... remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth ... he hath remembered his covenant for ever ... which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant" (105:1–10).

 

"When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like them that dream (cp. Acts 2:17). Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: then said they among the nations, The Lord hath done great things for them; whereof we are glad ... They that sow in tears (as at the crucifixion) shall reap in joy (on resurrection day and at Pentecost). He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing bringing his sheaves (as at Pentecost; Lev.23:15, 17) with him" (126). See also Note 11.

[Resource Manager]

Mockery

 

In all who heard the disciples there was much perplexity. Luke's phrase: "they were in doubt" implies, in other places (5:24; 10:17; Dan. 2:3 Sym.), a worry about the logical consequences of what was happening or had just been witnessed.

 

Some said: "What meaneth this?" But others – cynical flippant men of Jerusalem? (Is. 28:14) – dismissed the whole affair as a triviality. Not hesitating to blaspheme against this latest manifestation of the Holy Spirit, they put on it the worst construction they could think of: "These men are full of new wine!" How right they were, though not in the sense which they had meant! As they intended their jibe, it was palpably absurd, for there could be no new wine available until the month of August at the earliest. So by a neat pun in his Greek Luke implies that they were the drunks.

 

It may be that they were attempting a witty allusion to a prophecy of Isaiah's: "Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink" (5:11), in which case their cleverness was self–confuting, for the next verse goes on: "but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands. Therefore my people are gone into captivity ...". It is God's repudiation of those who repudiated His men.

 

How little these mockers realised that, all inadvertently, they were providing a superb fulfilment for another of Isaiah's prophecies. The detailed exposition of Isaiah 28 does not belong here. Just now two salient details will be sufficient.

 

"With stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (v.11). Paul applied these words to the gift of tongues (1 Cor. 14:21). The context denounces "the drunkards of Ephraim ... they have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way" (v.1, 7). So whilst the disciples were drunk with wine of the right sort, it was their critics who were fuddled in judgement.

 

One old commentator exposes the futility of the hostile criticism in these words: "Excess of wine may give men more tongue, not more tongues, and is so far from making them speak other, that it hinders the pronouncing of their own language."

 

Another — Matthew Henry — rather quaintly explains that Peter "stood up with the eleven" to prove to the crowd that he could stand up and therefore wasn't drunk!

 

Now, at the critical moment Peter, so much changed from the Peter who went to the palace of the high priest, by a special inspiration (Gk.) became chief spokesman. He had his eleven colleagues ranged alongside him, and his powerful voice filled the temple court. It may be taken as fairly certain that he spoke in Greek, and thus was understood by all.

 

His long speech – of which Acts 2 is doubtless only a précis – fell into three well–marked sections, each beginning with a personal address ("Ye men of Judaea... Ye men of Israel... Men and brethren"), and each ending with a Bible proof text.

 

His first concern was to rebuke the scoffers – local people, all of them, as his address: "Men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem" plainly shows (cp. Mt. 21:15, 16; "Gospels" p. 522; and contrast v.22).

 

So (v.14–21), he set himself to dispose of the scurrilous charge of drunkenness. Why did he bother? Had not his Lord said: "Cast not your pearls before swine" (Mt. 7:6)? But, as the outcome (v.41) was to prove, there were many here who were not in that category at all.

 

Both negatively and positively Peter repudiated the aspersion of drunkenness. "It is but the third hour of the day" – 9 a.m. The pubs are not open! And was it not a well–established rule that men go to the temple at the hour of morning prayer fasting? Therefore these, the eleven who stood up with him, were not drunk. There is implicit in this assertion that it was only the twelve who had been speaking with tongues.

[Resource Manager]

A Biblical discourse

 

"Christ's scholars never learn above their Bible,” says Matthew Henry. Therefore, for explanation let this crowd look to Holy Scripture: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel ... I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy ... And on my servants and on my hand–maidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophecy" (Joel 2:28, 29).

 

Here, both "servants" and "handmaids" mean "slaves." And since in Jewish life most slaves were of Gentile origin, this part of the prophecy implies the outpouring of God's gift on Gentiles as well as Jews, and even upon the most menial of Gentiles. But the time was not ripe for Peter to emphasize this. Indeed it may be doubted whether even he so understood this prophecy at that time.

 

There is a remarkable correspondence in ideas here with the well–known Jewish prayer (referred to by Paul in Gal. 3:28). “My God, I thank thee that I was born not a Gentile but a Jew, not a slave but a free man, not a woman but a man." Joel, Peter and Paul team up to cancel out these distinctions with their gospel theme.

 

The "wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath" found vivid illustration that day in the rushing mighty wind and in the apostle's speaking with tongues. Actually the word "signs" does not come in the Joel passage. However, as one writer put it, "God's wonders are always signs for those who have eyes to see." In fact, Jewry was given signs enough (1 Cor. 1:22; 14:22), but was too blind to see.

 

Another addition to the Joel quotation is "and they shall prophesy." This is useful as being almost an explicit interpretation of what speaking with tongues was. In David's appointments for the Sanctuary service, certain Levites were to "prophesy with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the Lord" (1 Chr. 25:3). At Pentecost those who spoke with tongues declared "the wonderful works of God" (v.11). And so also the first Gentile converts were heard to "speak with tongues and magnify God" (10:46; cp. also 1 Sam. 10:9–13; 19:20–24). These details harmonize well with what is suggested about "tongues" in Appendix 2 (page 389).

 

"The day of the Lord" is only too obviously the Second Coming (as in 1 Th. 5:2; 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil 1:10). And the word for "notable" (epiphaneia) confirms this (Lk. 17:24; cp. 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 2:8). So it is hardly adequate to refer these words to a "coming" of Christ in the judgement on Jerusalem in A.D.70. The evidence for such a reading is virtually non–existent. At best, one can see that great horror ("fire and pillars of smoke" like the annihilation of Sodom; Gen. 19:28) as a kind of prototype of yet greater judgement still to come.

 

Some try to read into the phrase: "This is that ...” an intimation that Peter meant: "This which you now witness is like that which Joel foretold." But can "This is that" have any meaning but: "This is the very thing Joel foretold"? (Compare the phrasing in 1 Jn. 4:3; 1 Pet. 1:25).

 

Certainly on the face of it, this scripture is a prophecy of the coming of the kingdom of God. The entire context shouts for that kind of fulfilment. Yet Peter's inspiration led him to apply it to the first century. Why? Indeed he went out of his way to change the Hebrew word achar, afterward, into acharith, the last days, a phrase which, with hardly an exception, belongs to the end of all Gentile times. It will not do to say that it means "the last days of Judah's commonwealth." The context in Joel bluntly disallows this. (For more on this problem, see "Revelation", by H.A.W., p.259).

 

Here, no doubt, is another scripture, like Psalm 2, with a certain degree of fulfilment in the early days of the church (Acts 4:25–27), and a more dramatic and complete fulfilment in the time of the Lord's second coming (Rev. 19:15; 2:27). But at the time Peter's inspiration led him to believe that the two would coincide. Yet he was guided to appropriate from the Septuagint Version the significant change from "pour out my Spirit" to "pour out from my Spirit," as though suggesting only a partial fulfilment in the first instance (cp. the usage in Acts 5:2). And certainly the grim signs foretold in heaven and earth, "the sun into darkness, and the moon into blood" have an admirable relevance, primarily, to the overthrow of Israel in A.D.70 (cp. Luke 21:11).

 

Whilst issuing his sombre warning against missing the essential meaning of this sensational Pentecost, Peter was tactful enough not to stress the implication behind the words: "my Spirit upon all flesh," and "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (v.21; in Rom. 10:13 Paul does not hesitate to extend this promise to Gentiles). It is easy to see why at this time Peter did not go so far. To begin now to instruct this bigoted Jewish multitude regarding a gospel for Gentiles also would have been to shut their minds for all time to the gospel of Christ. So instead he emphasized: "your sons ... your daughters ... your young men ... your old men, in the same way that Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant concerns "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" (Heb. 8:8), yet it certainly covers all the New Israel in Christ.

 

Peter was to indulge in another similar ambiguity at the end of his speech: "The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off..." (v.39). The time was not yet ripe for the opening up of these great truths. Perhaps his hearers assumed that Peter meant inclusion of Jewish proselytes in the promise.

 

There was no lack of other scriptures which Peter might have quoted; e.g. "I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will put my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring" (Isaiah 44:3; and by all means compare 32:15). And, of course, there is Psalm 68:18 – "Thou hast ascended up on high ... thou hast received gifts for men ... " – as expounded by Paul in Ephesians 4. So one is constrained to wonder if perhaps Peter did use these scriptures also.

[Resource Manager]

Saved in Jerusalem

 

Certainly he used Joel to prepare the way for his final appeal: "Whosoever shall call the Name of the Lord upon himself (cp. Jas. 2:7) shall be saved" from the judgement foretold. Did not Joel go on to assure Israel that "in Jerusalem shall be those that escape" (2:32)? Just as God had called His Name upon Israel (Isaiah 43:1; 45:4 LXX), so now the New Israel must be similarly marked out – to be "saved" in what sense? Modern evangelicals equate this with "taking the Lord Jesus to be your own personal Saviour" (to quote their well–worn and quite un Biblical jargon). Yet in fact "to the Jew salvation would mean safety in the Messianic kingdom" (Expos. Gk. Test.). And today the Christadelphian has every right in the world to insist that that is what the words still mean. To be sure, no one can be saved unto the blessings of the kingdom except he thankfully accept the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ. And it is certainly correct to read "the Name of the Lord” here with reference to the Lord Jesus, even though in Joel's text the Name is Jehovah, for has not "the Name that is above every name" been given to Christ (Phil. 2:10; Rom. 10:13), so that men will honour him even as they honour the Father (Jn. 5:23)?

 

 

Notes: 2:5–21

5. Dwelling – katoikein, not paroikein.

Every nation under heaven. Not literally, of course, but the same effective hyperbole as in Col. 1:23. That they were dwellers in Jerusalem, and not just visitors, is emphasized over and over again in Peter's speech: "A man approved of God among you ... as ye yourselves also know ... him ye have taken, and ... have crucified."

6. RV: Sound. Did the "mighty wind" develop into a trumpet blast, as in Ex. 19:16? s.w. Mt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 14:7,8; 2 Chr. 5:13.

Multitude This word (n. and vb.) comes 10 times in 9 chapters. Now note Heb. 11:12.

10. Ancient Jewish inscriptions have been found in Crimea (part of Pontus).

11. The wonderful works of God: s.w. Ps. 71:19,wherenotethecontext.TheBook of Acts is shot through with praise to God; 2:4,11,47; 4:24; 10:46; 11:18; 13:48; 16:25; 21:20; 27:35; 28:15.

12. What meaneth this? All the translators assume an idiomatic meaning here, as in 17:20. Literally, it is: What does he (God) wish this to be?

13. Others. Gk. "heteroi": others different from those just mentioned.

Mocking. cp. Jer. 20:7; Lk. 7:34.

Full of new wine. 1 Sam: 1:13,14 is another example. Gk: gleukos comes only in Job 32:19 (18). Then were these men learned enough to be making deliberate allusion to this passage?

The new wine of the Spirit comes in new bottles (men new–born in Christ), and not in old bottles used to the old wine of rabbinic tradition. (Lk. 5:38; Jn. 2:10; Jer. 23:9).

14. Said, by inspiration of the Spirit; s.w. in v.4.

Hearken. The same rhetorical appeal comes in two closely–related scriptures: Joel 1:2; Is. 28:23.

15. Suppose. This Gk. word very often means "answer."

17. Saith God. Could there be a more explicit declaration of the inspiration of O.T. prophecy? cp. Heb. 1:2. This phrase comes from Jl. 2:12, where again the context is appropriate!

Of my Spirit. Here apo may be distributive, emphasizing different gifts to different people; cp. 1 Pet. 4:10.

Pour out. Zech. 12:10 picks up this idea from Joel, where see 2:12–14, and cp. Acts 2:38.

Your daughters shall prophesy. Anticipated in Lk. 2:36. In the first century there was a greater readiness to recognize a ministry of women than in the twentieth: Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5.

19. Smoke. The word comes 12 times in Rev. describing a judgement of God, and here only. Therefore this must refer to judgement: (a) A.D.70 (b) the Last Days. In Joel 2:30, "palm trees of smoke," i.e. mushroom clouds!

20. Sun, moon. An eclipse of Israel; cp. Gen. 37:9,10; Jer. 31:35,36.

Notable. The corresponding noun epiphaneia always refers to the Second Coming. A.D.70 was not an epiphaneia.

[Resource Manager]

8. "Jesus is risen!" (2:22–28)

 

Having brushed off the flippancies of the critics and instead prepared their minds for a message of great moment, Peter addressed himself with renewed earnestness to the vast crowd before him:

 

"Ye men of Israel ..." Was it a rhetorical apostrophe, or a deliberate reminder of their great forefather who, like these descendants of his gathered before him, had come back to the Land after long years in Gentile territory? If the latter, then it was surely intended that their minds should run on to consider how, thereafter, the choicest son, elect and consecrated, was rejected and got rid of by his brethren, only to be manifest to them a long while afterwards as a mighty ruler and a saviour.

 

At the moment even the most discerning mind in that temple court would hardly achieve such a degree of insight; but later when Peter's exordium drove the lesson home: "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly ..." then doubtless they saw what he was driving at.

 

First, came the reminder of all the shame associated with the name of Jesus of Nazareth: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (Jn. 1:46). And that very reproach had been written on his cross. Yet it was also a designation for disciples to be proud of, for it identified Jesus as The Branch (nezer) of the stock of Jesse, the promised Messiah, who, nailed to that dead wood, turned it into a Tree of Life (1 Pet. 2:24). The apostle's repeated allusion to Golgotha (v.23, 36) makes it likely that from the very first he intended to remind the crowd of the crucifixion which many of them must have witnessed so recently.

 

Basic Truth about Jesus

 

Peter was not one to beat about the bush. In his first few sentences he enunciated the basic elements of the creed of a disciple of Jesus:

1. All that transpired regarding him was foreordained by God. Jesus was the fulcrum of a grand divine design for the redemption of God's people.
   
2. Jesus was a man; but he was a man who came from God, in the sense that he had a special divine mission; cp. Jn. 1:6; 3:2; 17:18.
   
3. Attention to his claims became imperative because of a multitude of miraculous meaningful marvels.
   
4. Nevertheless the nation callously crucified him.
   
5. But God raised him from the dead – inevitably so, because of his peerless character.
   

There is not a hint of trinitarianism in Peter's advocacy of his Lord's unique work and status. God did the works through him; God did not allow his interred corpse to corrupt; God raised him from the dead; during his time of trial God was at his right hand; in his ascension he was made joyful with the Father's countenance. And all this was "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God."

 

The reminder of "miracles, wonders, and signs" echoed the "signs and wonders" done by Moses before Pharaoh (Ps. 135:9), thus bidding the multitude consider Jesus as a prophet like unto Moses. But also it linked with the tokens of Holy Spirit power which they were witnessing there and then in the apostles, and were to witness in coming days (Heb. 2:8; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12).

[Resource Manager]

Guilty!

 

Yet, for the vile death of such a man as Jesus, so full of good works and graciousness, they — these men now listening to Peter – had been responsible. It took a great deal of courage to say this, and in such an environment, yet this Peter was the Peter who had quailed a few weeks before at the accusing scrutiny of a servant–girl.

 

True, these Jews had not done the foul deed themselves, but it was their crime, their guilt, nevertheless – for had they not engineered it through the hands of the Romans, men outside the Law of Moses (s.w. 1 Cor. 9:21) and therefore less accountable before God than themselves?

 

Nor did Peter stint the delineation of the horror of it. His remarkable word for "crucified" presented a picture of Jesus being stretched on the cross and nailed to it, just as a tent is made secure by a succession of tent pegs, and then, without any concern for the excruciating pain of the process, roughly set upright, exposed before all, until he died there, slain by enemies who meant to have him slain.

 

God's Purpose in Christ

 

But though it had been indisputably their purpose that this should so happen, it was also, inscrutably, God's purpose. It was "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" that all this came about: "It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief" (Is. 53:10).

 

The reconciling of this deliberate plan and purpose of God with the self–will of the evil men through whom it was brought about is not a task to be lightly undertaken. Nor is its successful accomplishment to be expected. Here in one verse Holy Scripture strongly emphasizes both sides of the problem, and without any explanation or harmonization being attempted. It is passing strange that what God's Book nowhere attempts, its readers are so often blithely willing to make good, rather than admit humbly that it is a mystery beyond their present powers.

 

The Purpose of God in this Jesus did not stop at presenting him as a sacrifice for sin. It demonstrated also the utter efficacy of such a sacrifice by his being raised from the dead: "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the birth–pangs of death."

 

Sacrifice and Resurrection

 

For this eloquent phrase Peter went to Psalm 116: "The cords of death compassed me, and the pains of Sheol gat hold upon me" (v.3). The entire psalm based on the chequered experiences of King Hezekiah, is eloquent of the trials and vindication of the Messiah. Here the use of the word "cords", appropriate to a sacrifice being bound to the altar of the Lord (Ps. 118:27), explains why Peter should speak of the birth–pangs of death being "loosed" – two figures of speech being run together.

 

The metaphor of "birth–pangs" was doubtless intended to present a picture of the grave bringing forth its Firstborn – "the firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18), "the first begotten of the dead" (Rev. 1:5). And Bible–minded men in that crowd would be stimulated to recall that their Law required all firstborn to be devoted to God (Ex. 13:2, 12).

 

But in the ears of these men the most astonishing of all Peter's confident statements was this: "It was not possible that he should be held in death's grip." It had not been possible for the omnipotence of God to remove the cup of suffering from Jesus ("Gospels", p.716). Nor, when he was slain, was it possible that he should remain in the grip of death. Why was it not possible?

[Resource Manager]

Psalm 16

 

For answer Peter went to a Scripture which the rabbis were not in the habit of expounding with reference to the Messiah. In the first place, the apostle declared, this Jesus is "the Holy One" of God; such a title was his by right, for: "I foresaw the Lord always before my face." How could a man so completely God–centred be held in the power of the Sin–Enemy he had so completely overcome? Listening to Peter that day were many who would gladly and loudly have gainsaid the apostle's declaration of this utter faultlessness of Jesus. But they knew well enough that all through his ministry the character of Jesus had been under constant hostile scrutiny by clever enemies, yet never had they been able to pin a reproach on him; no charge against his character would stick.

 

Indeed, those hearers who were familiar with the Hebrew text of Psalm 16 would recall that "I foresaw the Lord always ..." implies "made like" the Lord in whom he took such pleasure.

 

"He is on my right hand ..." seems at first sight to be inconsistent with the familiar Messianic prophecy: "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool" (Ps. 110:1). The distinction is between the days of his flesh and the time of his exaltation to heavenly glory. The ensuing phrase:" ... that I should not be moved," shows this; so also the words: "my flesh shall tabernacle in hope," all of them terms appropriate to the days of his weakness.

 

"He is on my right hand" uses the figure of a legal trial, as though he had the angel of the Lord as his advocate. Or do these words describe literal truth? – an angel at his side, not only in Gethsemane, but also when his travesty of a trial took place before the Sanhedrin?

 

The psalmist's language of rejoicing (v.26) might seem irrelevant to Peter's argument; but in fact it is highly appropriate, for not only did it blend excellently with the theme of resurrection, but also it provided the best of all reasons why Messiah's followers should be intoxicated with unquenchable joy as they now proclaimed the truth about their Lord.

 

"My flesh shall tabernacle in hope" does not describe a cold corpse awaiting resurrection in the third day; it describes how Jesus was buoyed up during his ministry. Nor is it without significance that in many OT. passages the word "hope" is specially associated with the hope of children! This follows on admirably from the allusion to his birth–pangs as the firstborn of a New Creation.

 

There is a superb and valuable literalness about the prophecy: "neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." This certainly implies resurrection before corruption could set in (on this see Jn. 11:39). But there is more in it than this.

 

In Israel the normal mode of interment was cave–burial. After several generations it was by no means uncommon for the remains to be cleared into a remote corner so that the cave could be used over again. But not so with the burial of Jesus. With strong tautological emphasis it is recorded that he was laid in "a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid" (Jn. 19:41). Thus it was literally true that Jesus did not see corruption in his resurrection, for no one else had been buried there.

 

"Thou hast made known to me the ways of life" emphasizes resurrection not merely to another mortal existence, like Lazarus, but to immortality. And ascension to the Father's presence is surely required by the words: "thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance."

 

But why did Peter's quotation apparently stop there? for the last words of the psalm are also relevant to Peter's claims on behalf of Jesus: "at thy right hand (ascension is implied here also!) there are pleasures for evermore." More than this, these words prophesy an out–pouring of heavenly gifts now exemplified in the remarkable powers of the apostles. Perhaps Peter did finish the quotation, for his later comment (v.33) reads like an interpretation of the above–mentioned phrase: "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear."

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 2:22–28

22. Approved. A word with a two–fold idea: (a) open demonstration; (b) steering from one to another. Here, very subtly, both surely. And the Gk. perfect tense implies: "and he is still approved", even though brought to the grave.

Wonders. Concerning Jesus or the apostles this word never comes alone, but always in combination one or two of "miracles, signs, powers."

23. The determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Cp. 3:18; 1 Pet. 1:2,20.

Crucified. The same word without its prefix comes in Ex. 33:7; 2 Sam. 6:17 LXX; Heb. 8:2.

Ye have taken. Highly inaccurate if indeed this crowd were made up of visitors to Jerusalem. Cp. v.5: "dwelling."

24. The pains of death. The same phrase comes also in Ps. 18:4,5 LXX. Note the psalm title: "Of the Beloved, the servant of the Lord ... in the day that the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Sh'ol."

25. In Acts 13:35,36 Paul quoted the same psalm, and then expounded it in just the same way.

Concerning him is, literally, unto him, i.e. looking unto him.

I foresaw the Lord always before my face. The word always was important for Peter's argument, as showing that the real reference was not to David; note v.29.

26. This verse appears to describe a risen Christ bubbling over with gladness – a concept not normally emphasized. LXX and Peter use "tongue" for "glory", recognizing the figure of synecdoche, by which the glory (praise and thanks) given to God is put for the tongue which utters it; cp. Ps. 108:1; 30:12; 57:8.

27. Soul. Here cp. psuché with psuchos, cold (the cold dead body).

Holy One. Cp. Dt. 33:8 – priest!

28. Made known. This phrase disallows any personal pre–existence of Christ.

With thy countenance. Gk: meta, not sun which a doctrine of co–equality would surely call for. There is a marked contrast with Moses; Ex. 33:20.

[Resource Manager]

9. "Both Lord and Christ" (2:29–36)

 

Peter's forthright accusations about guilt for the death of Jesus, combined with the not–to–be–evaded accuracy of the prophecy he had quoted had by this time made the multitude restive with resentment. So now, as though with the skilled art of a practised orator, he–fisherman Peter! – proceeded to sway them in his favour with a friendly appeal: "Men, brethren–." Thus he sought to soothe their indignation. 'You find this topic an uncomfortable one? Then, I pray you, give me leave to talk instead about David, the great king of our nation. Here, too, I have every reason for boldness.'

 

David and Messiah

 

Immediately they settled down to listen once again, only to realise before long that David was to be a witness to them not only of the resurrection of Jesus but also about its impact on themselves.

 

"The patriarch David," said Peter. Normally the term was reserved for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve fathers of the twelve tribes; but here "first father" was as appropriate a title as could be, for Peter wanted to talk about David as the first in a great line of kings leading on to the promised Messiah (cp.v.36).

 

"David is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day," a landmark in the city of Jerusalem, almost within sight from the southern gate of the temple. Men often talked about the way it had been plundered by John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabees, to finance one of his military adventures. £360 million pounds! so they said. But Josephus was a great one for unmitigated exaggeration when it came to figures. That lively author goes on to tell how Herod the Great also looted the tomb of whatever of value Hyrcanus had left — and had two of his men mysteriously struck dead in the process. According to Jerome the mausoleum of David was still identifiable in the fourth century.

 

Listening, how many in that crowd bethought them of the frantic fuss there had lately been in Jerusalem about another tomb, known to have been found empty; yet without question Jesus, Son of David, also was known to have been "dead and buried"!

 

Peter forged ahead with his first proof that the psalm he had already quoted was not about David but about Messiah.

 

Virgin Birth?

 

'David was a prophet – no doubt about that! – and he knew that his prophecies related to the Messiah, for had not God sworn an oath (Ps. 132:2,11) that His great Promise about a Son of David would in no wise fail. It was a great Promise, truly, for when else had God sworn with an oath? Only when He made a like Promise to Abraham? (Gen. 22:16–18). David's Son, according to the flesh – but did not God also say: I will be his Father, and he shall be my son"? How could a man be Son of David and Son of God at the same time? And, remarkably, the Promise did not say "out of thy loins" but "out of thy bowels." Also, in that psalm which echoed the Promise (132:11) the words were "out of thy womb."! In all other places, the word is "loins."

 

As Peter mentioned in succession such strange things as these, were there some present who wondered uneasily about the extraordinary speculations there had been regarding the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Resurrection

 

Peter went remorselessly on: 'According to the Promise, is not Messiah to reign for ever? Then does it not require that he live for ever? Yet how can a mortal man live for ever except he be raised from the grave to triumph over death? And isn't that just what the Promise said? "I will raise up (LXX) thy Seed after thee ..." (2 Sam. 7:12). And does not the psalm say: "Rise up, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength" (132:8). So, you see, that sixteenth psalm which I quoted you, cannot be about David, for he has seen corruption. It must be about Messiah, because other Scriptures, stress that he must rise from the dead.'

 

'Now, although there were plenty of details in their inspired words which the prophets could make little sense of (1 Pet. 1:10–12), David did know that these things which he was guided to see beforehand were about Messiah. It was concerning the Jesus we now proclaim that he prophesied: His flesh shall not see corruption. And now the words have been fulfilled This Jesus whom we proclaim, was raised from the dead. All of us believers assembled here are personal witnesses to that fact, and you must believe us. You must!'

[Resource Manager]

Heavenly Glory

 

'But, you say, if that be true, where is he now? why do we not see him for ourselves? The answer to that is in another of David's prophecies: "Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool." This, plainly, is not about David himself, for you know well enough that no man goes to heaven, not even David. That Scripture is clearly about David's Lord, the Messiah, and according to this he is to continue in the presence of God until the time of his open manifestation in power. That is why we do not see him now. But beware! for does not that psalm say that those who are his foes will one day be made his footstool?'

 

'Even now, as I speak to you, he shares the Glory of God. The proof of this is before you today in the powers you are now witnessing in us, his disciples. Moses, you recall, ascended into the mount and there received authority to give to men rescued from captivity a share of the divine gift imparted to him (Num. 11:25; Ps. 68:18). Here now is a prophet greater than Moses who has ascended to the very presence of the Almighty to receive from Him these greater gifts now imparted to us. In the sight of you all he has poured them forth upon us, precisely as Joel prophesied. You know that Jesus of Nazareth worked miracles and wonders and signs. Now you may expect to witness the same signs in us, his followers. Even now you see a change in us from the ordinary men we were, and you hear us speaking in the holy tongue, and in languages you are familiar with, and with powers of Biblical exposition such as you never dreamed of - and this from men untrained for such exalted work. It is the power of the Holy Spirit - nothing less?'

 

Peter's confident use of Psalm 110 sprang not only from a consciousness of the Spirit at work but also from the memory of how he had heard his Master employ just the same argument to the utter confusion of his Pharisee and Sadducee adversaries (Mt. 22:41–46). Then the emphasis had gone on the higher status of this promised Son of David: "my Lord." Yet how could he be David's Lord, except he be also Son of God, and therefore born of a virgin? Now the emphasis was on the fact that he sits at God's right hand. He is therefore risen from the dead, and ascended to heaven, the Messiah sharing divine Glory, precisely as the earlier quotation from Psalm 16 had made plain.

 

'Therefore, from now on, those who have been his foes must become his humble suppliants, worshipping at his footstool (Ps. 132:7).'

 

So early in the proclamation of the good news it was hardly tactful for Peter to press the implication behind Joel's word: "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (v.21; Joel 2:32; Rom. 10:12, 13), as meaning a gospel for Gentiles as well as Jews. For the present he was content to address himself to "the whole house of Israel": 'You men of Jerusalem crucified Jesus; there is to be no evading that heinous guilt. But today I have shown you past gainsaying that this same Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to God's right hand. He is not only David's Lord but yours also. He is not just the Messiah, an anointed King – he is also an anointed High Priest, as Psalm 110 indisputably says. And today he anoints his men with Holy Spirit power. Face frankly the facts concerning him and concerning your own unparalleled sin, and consider what you must now do regarding this grievous guilt'.

 

The apostle paused to let the message sink in.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 2:29–36

29.–31. In 13:35–37 Paul's argument follows exactly the same lines.

29. Dead and buried. Here is Peter's first proof that Psalm 16 is not about David.

30. Being a prophet. Gk: huparcho, probably intended to stress that from earliest days David was constantly under divine inspiration, and not just once. In Psalm 110:1, n'um means "by inspiration."

According to the flesh. Cp. Rom 1:3,4 where the human and divine aspects of Messiah, clearly implied in 2 Sam. 7:12–16, are similarly distinguished. This phrase and "to raise up the Christ" are omitted by RV and other modern versions, mistakenly surely, for whilst textual evidence is fairly evenly balanced Peter's argument seems to require inclusion.

Sworn with an oath. There were other oaths of God, some of them very terrible: Dt. 1:34 (Heb. 3:11); 1 Sam. 3:14; Is. 45:23; 54:9; 62:8; Jer. 22:5; 44:26; 49:13; 51:14; Am. 4:2; Ex. 17:16.

31. Seeing this before. Gal. 3:8 s.w., referring to the earlier oath of God.

The resurrection of the Christ, that is, the eternal Messianic kingdom can only come about after the Messiah is risen from the dead.

His soul. An emphatic way of saying: he was not left. Note the parallelism: Neither his flesh did see corruption.

32. Jesus. Both angels and disciples speak of him in this way: 1:11; 2:32,36; 17:3. But so also did his enemies, with very different emphasis.

Raised up. Anticipated: Mt. 16:21; 17:9.

We all. 1:8, might imply restriction here to the Twelve.

Witnesses. "It is not proposed as probable, but deposed as certain" (Matthew Henry). Remarkably, Zeph. 3:8 LXX reads:

"Until the day of my resurrection for witness."

33. Exalted. Is. 52:13 LXX s.w., and also – very differently – Jn. 3:14. In 5:31 Peter was to argue again very similarly.

By the right hand. It is difficult to be sure that this is the correct translation. True, Ex. 15:6,12; Ps. 18:35; 60:5 etc. use exactly the same Gk. in LXX. But v.34 suggests the equally correct: "to the right hand."

Promise, Put by metonymy for the thing promised.

Shed forth this. A further answer to v.12,13. Not inappropriately, Zech. 12:10 LXX has the same word.

See. Can this refer to the phenomenon of v.3? If so, there would surely have been no satirical comment. But what alternative?

34. Sit thou on my right hand. Not true of David. On one occasion he "sat before the Lord" (2 Sam. 7:18).

Psalm 110 had been used also by Jesus at his trial; Lk. 22:69. And some of those now present must have heard and would now remember.

36. Assuredly. 16:33 s.w. Then is the implication here: You need not fear persecution (from men) or retribution (from God)?

Whom ye crucified. Cp. 4:10; 5:30; 7:9; but contrast the change of pronoun in 13:29.

[Resource Manager]

10. "Repent and be baptized" (2:37–41)

 

Peter's appeal proved wonderfully effective. Opposition was silenced, and many were conscience–stricken as never before in their lives: "they were pricked in their heart." Peter had just brought home to them their guilt regarding "Jesus whom ye crucified." Now, with a fine touch of literary artistry Luke uses a word katanusso closely akin to the word used for the piercing of Jesus on the cross – nusso (Jn. 19:34).

 

"Men, brethren" – they were returning to Peter his own friendly address to them (v.29) – "what shall we do?" Can such a sin as ours ever be forgiven? How do we escape judgment for it?

 

It was a characteristic Jewish reaction. These who had lived all their lives believing that a man can please God only by what he does inevitably responded with: "What shall we do?"

 

To their astonishment, doubtless, Peter's answer was: 'Yes, your great sin is forgivable. But not by what you choose to do. To receive remission of this sin and of all other sins, repent forthwith (Gk. aor.) and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ' (cp. Lk. 24:47). The essence of a Jewish conversion must be a sincere conviction that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah.

 

Here Roman Catholic versions read: "do penance," a palpably bad translation, especially since the next phrase implies: "resting upon, or showing your dependence upon, Jesus Christ."

 

In this crowd were some who had shouted: "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Mt. 27:25). Now — the marvel of it! – through repentance and baptism his blood would be on them and on their children, but how differently!

 

How well Thomas Fuller, Puritan parson, comments on this situation:

 

"Was this well done of him (Peter) to add grief to grief? What, more repentance still? Why further pain, to such as were pricked to their hearts? Was this any valour, to beat them with more blows, who al ready cried out for fair quarter? ... He prescribed them the same receipt he lately took himself; having found the great fruit thereof, when on his hearty sorrow, he obtained pardon for denying his Master. No sermons so sovereign as those which proceed from the minister's comfortable experience."

 

Joel, who had prophesied the coming of the gift of the Holy Spirit, had included in his message a like eloquent appeal for repentance:

 

"Turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: and rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Who knoweth if he will not turn and repent ..." (Joel 2:12–14 – and 15–17).

 

"Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you" (Pr. 1:23).

 

Peter's urgent "Repent!" meant, in this context: 'Change your mind and attitude towards Jesus. Cease to think of him as an impostor or a deluded demagogue, forget the shame of his crucifixion, and in your mind acknowledge him as Lord and Christ, the promised Messiah, through whom there is the forgiveness of sins and this gift of the Holy Spirit.'

 

John's message

 

People impressed with the burning sincerity of John the Baptist had come to him, saying: "What shall we do?" (Lk. 3:10, 12, 14). And John, bidding them abandon the blatant immorality of their lives, had called them to the waters of Jordan to receive "the baptism of repentance for (into) the remission of sins" (Lk. 3:3).

 

Between that baptism and the rite now proclaimed by Peter there was no essential difference ("Gospels," chapter 16, by H.A.W.). John's baptism had pointed forward to "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." But now the baptism of the penitent looked back, as it still does, to that sacrifice which Peter had been expounding.

 

Baptismal formula

 

But why, it may be asked, did Peter call it baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" (the first time that this name is mentioned in the teaching of the early church)? Elsewhere Paul refers to those who had been "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Rom. 6:3 RV). Matthew's gospel records baptism into the three–fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (28:19).

 

These variations have provoked no small amount of discussion. The very fact that such variations are known to have existed at least makes clear that no desperate importance attached to any one formula. It is the idea behind the words, the conviction in the mind of the convert, which is all–important. "We are all baptized into the one body" (1 Cor. 12:13). It has been suggested that Jews, who needed only to be convinced regarding the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, would be baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus" or "in the name of Jesus as Christ;" but that the baptism of Gentiles would call for the more complete declaration of faith in the three–fold Name. Evidence one way or the other is hardly decisive, but the idea is attractive.

[Resource Manager]

Problems

 

There is another problem here, more important and more difficult of solution: ". . . and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off (Zech. 6:15 LXX), even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

 

The questions calling for answer are these:

 

1. Is the "promise" the oath sworn to David (v.30), or is it the gift of the Holy Spirit?
   
2. Is it possible that the phrase: "and to all that are afar off," is intended to limit the promise to Jews in the Land and Jews of the Dispersion, not to Gentiles?
   
3. If the gift is Holy Spirit, does it necessarily involve the characteristic charismata of tongues, healing, prophesying, and so on? Or could it be some non–miraculous sign of God at work in the life of the individual?
   
4. Was this gift to be the endowment of every member of the church, or was it to be given to selected individuals in positions of responsibility?
   
5. Does the promise "to you and to your children" mean just two generations, or does it mean every generation who follow in your footsteps!?
   
6. And if this latter alternative, can it be construed as meaning: 'If the gift of the Spirit is not experienced now in this mortal life, the promise nevertheless will be fulfilled in Messiah's kingdom'?
   

 

And now, to attempt answers to these:

 

1. Both alternative identifications of the "promise" are possible, but the balance of probability is distinctly in favour of the second. There is Peter's actual phrase: "the promise of the Holy Spirit" (v.33), whereas the covenant with David is not referred to here specifically as a promise. Also, in v.39 the immediate context (v.38b) is "Holy Spirit."
   
2. There seems to be no adequate evidence for taking "them that are afar off" as meaning the Dispersion. The normal reference seems to be to Gentiles (Is. 57:19; Acts 22:21; Eph. 2:13, 17). But there is one place where the same phrase (LXX) is used in connection with the promise to David: "Thou hast spoken concerning thy servant's house unto far off" (2 Sam. 7:19). Is this a far–off time or people far–off in time? Here in Acts 2 the form of the phrase precludes the former of these meanings. Peter probably meant reference to Gentiles who would come to the gospel (cp. Joel's "whosoever;" v.21; Joel 2:32; Rom. 10:11), but he knew better than to say that explicitly so early in his preaching.
   
3. Modern "Pentecostalists" take the promised gift of the Spirit as meaning the full charismata of the Spirit, available in every generation, including of course the present day. Neither Biblically nor by results do they prove their point. But others who know the truth of the gospel believe with fair reason that the Spirit is active today in the lives of believers, but not charismatically. Are they right to quote these words in support of their conviction? This is very doubtful, for Peter was emphasizing Christ's promise of "that which ye now see and hear — a very different thing from the much less perceptible guidance which these words have been quoted to prove.
   
4. This is a question which can hardly be regarded as settled. On the one hand, there is the apparent force of the Joel quotation: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh ... sons, daughters, young men, old men, servants, handmaidens." On the other hand, the evidence of the pronouns, when carefully observed, appears to limit the gifts in the first instance to the Twelve (and later those to whom they communicated them; 8:17; but here "whomsoever" – v.19 – might imply a limited number); Lk. 24:33.48.49; Acts 2:1 (looking back to 1:22–26?); 2:7, 32, 33, 43. But in any case, the indications are that the expression of Holy Spirit powers was intermittent, according to present need (Mt. 10:1; 17:16,19; and compare Num. 11:25 RV). There is hardly room for certainty regarding this.
   
5. Those who read "to you and to your children" as meaning two generations only, and then a withdrawal of Spirit gifts, have a strong case. It is clear (from Acts 8:17–19) that when the apostles were dead there would be no one else able to pass on the gifts to others. Taking the phrase "your children" idiomatically to mean all in succeeding generations following the same faith, is a difficult conclusion here.
   
6. The solution to these uncertainties which has commended inself to some is to adhere rigidly to the idea of charismatic gifts, but to project the fulfilment of this promise into the Messianic kingdom. On reflection, this is not too satisfactory. For if Peter really meant the blessing of immortality in the age to come, why should he not say so plainly instead of concentrating on one limited or indirect aspect of it?
   

 

Another approach to the problems involved in this passage enables it to be taken completely at its face value, but at the cost of involving a difficulty of a different sort. Thus:

 

Peter, along with the rest of the early church, looked for the Lord's return at an early date. Plenty of New Testament passages express this anticipation. With due emphasis on this idea it is easy to understand the apostle as meaning that the gifts of the Spirit would be available to all believers right up to the time of their Lord's return, which was expected in the first century.

 

From this point of view no difficulty remains apart from that which crops up in two or three dozen places in the New Testament–inspired expectations of a Second Coming within the lifetime of the apostles, expectations which were not fulfilled. This problem, which has been diligently skirted round for several generations is discussed at length in "Revelation — a Biblical approach" (Appendix, page 259).

[Resource Manager]

Exhortation

 

"With many other words did he (Peter) testify, and exhort" the people before him. The report in Acts is thus specifically declared to be only a summary of the apostle's argument and appeal. The "other words" were doubtless different but equally relevant Scriptures to those he had already used so effectively. Both the verbs "testify" and "exhort" are continuous, implying a sustained effort at persuasion, the first of them meaning that he went on protesting solemnly the truth of his message — or it may indicate that his exhortation was getting through to them.

 

Reminding his hearers of the "great and notable day of the Lord" foretold by Joel (v.19, 20), he bade them: "Save yourselves from this untoward (twisted) generation" – literally: "Be saved," i.e. accept the salvation God is now providing for you. There was here a clear implication that "not all Israel are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6). The entire nation was, in effect, being put out of fellowship and at the same time was being urged to make application for re–acceptance on better terms. A tough message to be proclaimed by a mere fisherman! And the element of election involved in "even as many as the Lord shall call," today makes the message tough for those who grope after its meaning.

 

Response

 

Many welcomed it. The word "gladly" might even imply "with singing" (v.47), such was their exhilaration. The strong witness to the resurrection of Jesus, combined with the powerful testimony of one Scripture after another, superbly expounded, had gone home, so that that Day of Pentecost augmented the number of believers by no less than three thousand converts.

 

It is not necessary to assume that in the course of that one day all this great number were painstakingly interviewed and then baptized. Even the mere act of administering baptism to so many could scarcely have been got through in the time. Probably the record means that that day three thousand signified their decision to be disciples. The baptisms would be spread over ensuing days.

 

And as to personal interrogation before baptism, it needs to be remembered that all these applicants would already have an adequate knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures so that only a simple personal confession would be needed: "I believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah." Since then, times have changed!

 

It is interesting to note that the word for "added unto them" is one which in the Old Testament describes Levites joining the tabernacle service (Num. 18:2), and also Gentile's joining Israel (Is. 14:1; Esth. 9:27 LXX). On this day of Pentecost many Jews realised with dismay that before God they were Gentiles. Now, eagerly, they set themselves to join the true Israel.

 

There is a sharp contrast between this three thousand and the few hundred (at most) whom Jesus succeeded in teaching loyalty to himself. Here was a first fulfilment of the Lord's enigmatic prophecy: "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to my Father" (Jn. 14:12).

 

After the five thousand and the four thousand mentioned in the gospels (Mt. 14:21; 15:38), this three thousand is followed by the accession of two thousand more (4:4). The phenomenon is similar to that of the Feast of Tabernacles' sacrifices (Num. 29:13ff). Is the expected one thousand to be found in the "great company of priests obedient to the faith" (6:7)?

 

 

Notes: 2:37–41

37. Pricked in their hearts. For the Greek, cp. Isaiah's: "Woe is me, for I am undone" (6:5 LXX); Ps. 4:4; 109:16 LXX; the latter of these is difficult to co–relate. For idea, cp. Heb. 4:12; Jn. 16:8.

38. Gift, dorea. used as equivalent to charisma, gift, in 8:20; 10:45; 11:17: Heb. 6:4.

39. All that are afar off. Quoting Is. 57:19?

40. Untoward generation. Ps. 78:8; Dt. 32:5 LXX; also Phil. 2:15.

41. Three thousand. "Peter's sermon (as set down) contained not so many words as it converted souls" (Fuller).

[Resource Manager]

11. The first ecclesia (2:42–47)

 

The summary of life and activity in the early church with which Luke rounds off his account of the Day of Pentecost is admirable not only for its literary excellence but also, and more especially, for the attractiveness of its picture of the lovely new life into which the converts moved.

 

Its basics were "the apostles' doctrine and fellowship." The first of these sums up the fundamental truths to be believed about redemption in Christ and his coming kingdom. But is it just coincidence that emphasis on doctrine comes after baptism (v.41, 42)?

 

Doctrine and fellowship became in turn the basis for the spiritual life binding the brethren more closely together. The order of these most significant terms is important. Experience has proved over and over again that fellowship not based on a general agreement regarding essential truth concerning Christ is a fragile thing (though there is indeed the difficult problem of how we distinguish between fundamental truth and what is peripheral).

 

Luke's phrasing here strongly suggests the idea of a fellowship centring on the sacramental remembrance of a Lord who has gone away from his church: "the Breaking of Bread and the prayers." The sequence of definite articles in this passage seems to point to the use of these expressions as "technical terms" with a specialised meaning of their own: the Memorial of Christ and the accompanying prayers of thanksgiving for the Bread and Wine.

 

There is an interesting correspondence between these details and the outstanding features of the Holy Place in the Tabernacle:

1. Doctrine — the Candlestick and its light.
   
2. Bread and Wine – the Table of Shewbread with its loaves and flagons of wine.
   
3. Prayers – the Altar of Incense.
   

There is a good deal of textual support for a rearrangement of the details that follow, thus:

 

"And many wonders and signs (v.19) were done by the apostles in Jerusalem; and (as a result) great fear was upon them all." In no less than ten places Luke has this connection between 'signs and wonders' and the fear they provoked.

 

Apparently the outstanding gifts of power were restricted to the apostles. And those who feared would be the dwellers in the city who held off from yielding the loyalty which both message and miraculous gifts made imperative.

 

"All things common"

 

After this cursory mention, the spotlight of Luke's narrative focuses again on the happy condition of the Jerusalem ecclesia. There is here the first description of what has often, but most inaccurately, been called "the early church's experiment in communism."

 

"They that believed were together". If this means 'in the same place – the temple – such a practice must have been made possible through the good offices of some of the influential men in Jerusalem – men such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Barnabas, Gamaliel. But could three thousand believers assemble in one place? More probably epi to auto emphasizes unanimity of spirit. Isn't this what the context requires?

 

One expression of this was that the brethren "had all things common." This phrase does not necessarily mean that they shared everything out equally, but more probably that they were all content with a modest ordinary way of life.

 

There were so many believers who were desperately poor that even this was only maintained because the better–off brethren "sold their possessions (what they had made for themselves) and goods (what they had inherited), and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

 

The important thing to remember about this operation is that in every respect it was a voluntary arrangement in which a man joined just so far as conscience led him. The clearest detail on this is Peter's word to Ananias: "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (5:4). So whilst the pattern was clearly one of whole–hearted generosity by all who had money or goods to spare, it was left to each man to decide how far his own beneficence should go.

 

The need for this carefully organized charity was probably due to the fact that the chief priests, holding the purse–strings of the vast revenues of the temple and already building up a strong resentment against these Nazarenes, had promptly cut off from those schismatics all material aid normally distributed to the poor.

 

This fine spirit of sharing in the first ecclesia, involving the sale of property, is often represented as a failure leading to a general impoverishment of the community in later days. This view is mistaken.

 

It is not to be gainsaid that in later days the problem of poverty amongst the brethren in Jerusalem and Judaea became acute. But the main reason for this (besides that already suggested) was the plundering of the Christians during the fierce persecution organized by Saul of Tarsus — hence Paul's ceaseless efforts throughout his missionary journeys to make some amends by means of the welfare fund which steered considerable Gentile contributions to the brethren in Jerusalem.

 

If it be asked: Why do not believers today have all things common, as did the early brethren? the answer is: They do. The method of contribution adopted in these days may be somewhat different, but the nett result is the same: no one goes short.

 

Not without a certain amount of repetitiousness, Luke expatiates on the almost idealistic tone of this happy ecclesia in Jerusalem.

[Resource Manager]

The ecclesia and the temple

 

"And, continuing steadfastly in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people."

 

It is known that in the Breaking of Bread service the early church followed fairly closely the same pattern of procedure as the Last Supper. First, a meal of fellowship (they called it the Agape, the Love Feast), and then at or near its conclusion came the memorial Bread and Wine, preceded of course by appropriate prayers. It seems likely that in the temple court the brethren regularly and publicly had worship and fellowship on these lines. It is even possible that each day a communal meal was provided for all the brethren who cared to take part, by having the wealthier members sacrifice peace–offerings most of which, according to Lev. 7:12. would be given back to the offerer as a holy meal for himself and his friends. In a certain part of the temple court there were picnic tables set apart for the eating of peace–offerings, and these would be available for the disciples as well as for other worshippers.

 

The only other allusion to the brethren being actively involved in the temple service is in connection with Paul and the Nazirites (21:26, but see also v.20 there). However these instances are sufficient to establish that for a long time, probably right up to the siege of Jerusalem, the believers continued to find plenty of room in their devotions for both temple and ecclesia.

 

But had not their Lord angrily declared to the Pharisees: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (Mt. 23:38)? With these words was he not abandoning the Holy House and, in effect, bidding his disciples do the same?

 

It seems likely that this solemn declaration was really a prophecy (expanded in 24:2 ff) of what Jesus saw as inevitable of fulfilment within a generation (v.36).

 

The joy of fellowship

 

The expression: "breaking bread" (v.46; cp. v.42) is used in the New Testament – with at most one or two doubtful exceptions – only of the memorial of Christ or, in the gospels, of the feeding of a multitude; and in John 6 Jesus had already given such miracles a sacramental significance.

 

The practice of frequent observance of the holy meal in this way was extended also to the homes of the brethren, only – of course – without any sacrificial accompaniment. "From house to house" is the correct reading.

 

In all this there was intense gladness – the joy of rich fellowship. The "singleness of heart" mentioned along with this really describes a plain, simple, humble way of life. Indeed it may be possible to go further and read into the Greek word an implication of "without stones," as though suggesting that this gospel soil was not stony ground (Mt. 13:5,20,21); there was no Judas, as at the Last Supper; all was unanimity and zeal.

 

There is also the implication that the high spiritual tone of the assembly was not marred by any spirit of self–seeking–converts joining the ecclesia for the sake of material personal benefit. In modern times the caution has been not infrequently uttered about the danger of insincere converts being drawn in by the prospect of "loaves and fishes". Of course, the early brethren had the wit to be aware of this possibility. But apparently they were prepared to take the risk, and even to put up with the abuse. It was only when an Ananias–and–Sapphira situation arose that it became needful for the Holy Spirit to take drastic measures.

 

In the temple court the Breaking of Bread would take place in the presence of a considerable crowd of spectators, thus anticipating the spirit of Paul's word: "As oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). "By this (said Jesus) shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have the Agape among yourselves" (Jn. 13:35).

 

The mention of praise implies the public singing of hymns and psalms in the temple court. But what did Luke intend by their "having favour with all the people"? If this translation would stand, there would be little difficulty. But in the New Testament Charis hardly ever carries this rather vague meaning of "favour." Its three common meanings are with reference to Holy Spirit gifts, the forgiveness of sins, and giving thanks. Thus, there are here these alternatives:

 

1. "displaying the powers of the Spirit before (Gk: pros) all the people;"
   
2. "receiving forgiveness of sins (at the Breaking of Bread) before all the people;"
   
3. "giving thanks (for the Bread and Wine) before all the people."

It is difficult to decide between these. They are all very suggestive. The third is perhaps the most likely.

 

"And the Lord kept on adding in the same place (i.e. in the temple) daily such as were being saved (or, just possibly, such as were saving themselves)" (cp. v.21,40;1 Cor. 3:6).

 

This concluding expression is matched by six others dotted through the Book of Acts at fairly regular intervals (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 26:5; 19:20; 28:31). They are obviously inserted at these points by design. But what kind of division are they intended to draw attention to? One modern scholar has made the interesting suggestion that Luke adopted this device to mark off his book into five–year periods — from A.D.30 to A.D. 60. He could well be right.

 

Notes: 2:42–47

42. In Mt. 28:19,20 Jesus had desired that priority be given to teaching. Here the Western text has: the fellowship of the Breaking of Bread, in this context reference to ordinary meals would be both futile and unnecessary. Luke's usage here is, of course, the same as Paul's, as in so many other instances; cp. 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24; Acts 20:7; 27:35; and see 9:19; Lk. 24:30.

45. Possessions; s.w. Pr. 23:10; 31:16 LXX.

46. Breaking bread. In the early Christian Didache (14:11; 9:7,9) this identical expression is used for the Memorials.

47. Having favour with all the people. If this is insisted on, then what a lovely parallel with Lk. 2:52 (but the important preposition is different there).

[Resource Manager]

12. On the Day of Atonement (ch. 3)

 

Before embarking on a detailed consideration of the healing of the lame man, it will help to a better understanding of the high significance of this incident if first of all the evidence is considered that the miracle took place on the Day of Atonement, four months after the excitement of Pentecost. There is, of course, no explicit statement to this effect, but the accumulation of relevant detail available indirectly suggesting such a conclusion is fairly impressive:

 

Acts 3

1. Every phrase of verse 19 takes on fuller meaning when read with reference to the Day of Atonement: "Repent ... your sins anointed out (reference to the high priest splashing the sacrificial blood on the mercyseat) ... times of refreshing (the high priestly blessing; or, possibly, an allusion to the prayer offered on this day by the high priest for "a year with abundance of rain, of sunshine, and of dew") from the presence of the Lord (the Holy of Holies). "Sins anointed out" is a straight quote from Is. 44:22 where "as a thick cloud" certainly refers to the dense cloud of incense surrounding the high priest in the Holy of Holies (Lev. 16:12,13). Note here also: "Return unto me." Peter's "Be converted" is the exact equivalent of this.
   
2. "Every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people" (v.23) quotes Lev. 23:29, a passage about the Day of Atonement (see v.28).
   
3. "I wot that through ignorance ye did it" (v.17). This reads like an allusion to the comprehensive cover for sins not hitherto atoned for which the Israelite now had in the sin–offering of the Day of Atonement.
   
4. "Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you" (v.14). There seems to be here a reference to the two goats – Jesus the sin–offering, and Barabbas sent away into the wilderness (and his nationalist people with him).
   
5. "Sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (v.26). Here is the function of the Day of Atonement, and also the high–priestly blessing.
   
6. "Whom the heaven must receive ..." (v.21) – a picture of the high priest going into the sanctuary.
    
   Acts 4
   
7. Verse 11 quotes from Ps.118, which at that time was used in the Day of Atonement service. In Herod's temple there was no ark of the covenant, but only a block of stone "which the builders rejected" (Ps. 118:22).
   
8. The delay (v.3, 5) in making a decision about Peter and John is readily explained as almost certain to happen because this was a day of complete fasting; so, as soon as sunset came, everyone would be eager for a meal. Indeed, for the high priest rabbinic tradition specifically prescribed it. The prisoners could wait.
   "They let them go" (v.23) might be a reminiscence of the Azazel goat being let go (Lev. 16:22). It was regarded as bearing a curse. The apostles would be thought of in the same light.
   
9. -
   
10. "They laid hands on them" (v.3) corresponds to the action of the high priest in laying his hands on the head of the goat (Lev. 16:21).
    
11. The context (v.6) puts special emphasis on the high priest.
    
12. "Neither is there salvation in any other" (v.12). The all–important sacrifice, like that on the Day of Atonement.
    
13. "By stretching forth thine hand to heal" (v.30). This unusual expression takes on much more meaning when read with reference to the high priest's blessing of the people on the Day of Atonement.
    

Nearly every bit of this evidence is inferential, but it is fairly copious. This kind of thing is characteristic of the allusiveness of Scripture; e.g. Isaiah 58, 59 are certainly based on the Day of Atonement ("Isaiah", H.A.W.), but without explicit mention of it. So also Hebrews 9, 10.

 

It is interesting now to note the special relevance of Is. 59:7 (a Day–of–Atonement Scripture): "that thou bring the poor that is cast out to thy house" – "He entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God."

[Resource Manager]

13. A lame man healed (3:1–10)

 

If the suggestion advanced in the previous chapter is correct, then in more ways than one there seems to be special point in the timing of this sensational miracle. It was "the hour of prayer, the ninth hour," the time of the evening sacrifice which was offered "between the two evenings," that is, between mid–afternoon and sunset. This seems to imply that Peter and John had deliberately refrained from being present earlier in the day at the highly–important rites of the Day of Atonement, as though declaring by their absence that now, since the Lord's sacrifice made at Golgotha, they had no further need of Mosaic priesthood or sacrifice, but there was still need for prayer, now mediated by a better High Priest.

 

They came to the temple by the gate called Beautiful, about the identification of which there is a good deal of uncertainty. It may have been the big Nicanor gate on the east, with Solomon's porch (v.11) close by, or it may have been the Shushan gate, supposedly called that because it was a survival from the temple built after the Captivity by those who returned from Shushan.

 

Life–long disabilities

 

The lame man who became the focus of this remarkable witness to Christ was over forty (4:22) and doubtless a well–known character in Jerusalem, for evidently he had friends who regularly carried him to one of the temple gates to implore the charity of the worshippers. This would be his only living.

 

It is impressive to consider that, although he had probably sat there facing the temple gate some hundreds of times, he had never been into even its outer court! For ever since the days of David it had been laid down that "the blind and the lame shall not come into the House" (2 Sam. 5:8). One is left wondering how it came about that he never had the blessing of healing from Jesus in the course of the Lord's temple ministry during one of the feasts. Especially, how did he fail to be included in that mighty healing of the lame and the blind after the occasion of the Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mt. 21:14; "Gospels", H.A.W., p.562).

 

Apostolic almsgiving

 

It would be surprising if the lame man had not already identified Peter and John as disciples of Jesus of Nazareth (would he not remember them from the days of the Lord's ministry?), and from Pentecost some four months earlier he would know them as leaders of the new sect. Now, confident of a gracious response from the apostles, he asked and asked again, whilst they stood hesitating and uncertain what they should do. Then at Peter's urgent word: "Look on us," he was all eager expectation.

 

Peter's next word must have startled him: "Silver and gold have I none." The Lord's commandment had been: "Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses" (Mt. 10 .9). The apostles were now taking this instruction literally. The earlier passage about the selling of goods and giving the proceeds liberally for the benefit of their poor brethren (2:45) can be read as referring in the first instance to the twelve. The later repetition of this detail (4:34) with reference to "as many as were possessors of lands or houses" may mean that the apostolic example came to be followed by others. This would explain the repetition.

 

"No silver or gold: But such as I have (Peter was using a different word this time), give I thee: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk."

 

But Jesus was known by all to have been crucified. Then if his was the power now at work, must he not be alive again to exercise it now? Here was a renewed declaration of the resurrection, and the title "Christ" also asserted him to be the Messiah.

 

A dramatic moment

 

"Rise up and walk!" – it was a challenge to him to cooperate in faith. Would he make the effort or scornfully reply: 'What's the use?'? But here was Peter offering him the right hand of fellowship in Christ, and he took it. With a firm grip the apostle pulled him to his feet. There was no sign of demurring disbelief. The man responded. Even before he stood, he felt the change in the condition of his feet. And so complete was his confidence of imparted blessing that instead of a tentative hesitant attempt at standing, he actually leaped to his feet.

 

Excitement

 

And knowing himself to be fully and completely healed, with loud praises and thanksgiving on his lips he forthwith joined the apostles entering the temple court. His was now a double inexpressible delight – for the first time in his life mobility, the mobility of an athlete; and for the first time in his life the fulfilled aspiration of entering the temple for worship. He was glad, indescribably glad, when they said unto him (quite unnecessarily), Let us go into the House of the Lord.

 

So his unrestrained exuberance expressed itself in active agility such as he had always longed for but never known – he not only walked but also jumped vigorously, up and down, with all the delight of a child in a new accomplishment.

 

When the feet and ankle bones of a little child receive strength, he still has to learn, bit by bit over a matter of weeks, how to walk. But now there was the added miracle of an immediate faculty of balance and perfect control. Peter had not done his Lord's work by halves.

 

The sequence is pointedly picked out in Luke's account – 1. He leaped on his feet. 2. He stood. 3. He walked. 4. He entered by the Beautiful Gate. 5. He walked and leaped in the temple court. 6. He praised God.

[Resource Manager]

A miracle with meaning

 

Luke doubtless wants his readers to see more than the surface meaning in "leaping and praising God." 2 Samuel 5:8 had banned the lame man from the temple. Now 2 Samuel 6 became relevant, for he, like David, now "danced before the Lord with all his might." It was on such a day when, like a high priest, David had been girded with a linen ephod, and had blessed the people in the name of the Lord (2 Sam. 6:14, 18).

 

Now beautiful (LXX: hora, cp. horaios) upon the mountains of Zion were the feet of this man bringing to all the people good tidings, publishing salvation (4:12) and declaring, Thy God reigneth! (Isa. 52:7).

 

An integral part of this personal witness was the familiarity of so many of the people with the man who made it. The Greek text implies a long sequence of recognitions and acknowledgements that in very truth an astonishing miracle had been wrought. Slowly but surely a reluctant people was being made to realise – though, alas, not to confess – that God was at work amongst them in the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Is it possible that, that day, some of the more discerning men of the temple saw yet further meaning in this extraordinary occurrence — that in an acted parable they were being taught the time was now ripe for Christ to call Gentiles also to share the blessedness of his New Israel? So many of the details are significant:

 

1. A man lame from birth,
    
   
2. and barred from the temple,
    
   
3. is nevertheless a man of faith and a proselyte of the gate (cp. Lk. 16:20, which has a similar meaning).
    
   
4. After God's Day–of–Atonement sacrifice,
    
   
5. he seeks the aid of Christ's apostles,
    
   
6. and finds himself "redeemed, not with silver and gold" (1 Pet. 1:18).
    
   
7. Now he can enter God's temple as by right,
    
   
8. imitating David himself in his praise and rejoicing.
    
   
9. Against a certain amount of apostolic reluctance
    
   
10. he holds on to them (v.11),
     
    
11. and stands with them when they face Jewish persecution.

Peter hints at an interpretation of this sort by describing the man as "saved" (4:9), not "healed". And even the Lord's enemies made another unconscious prophecy by declaring the miracle to be a "sign" (4:16).

 

Notes: 3:1–10

2. The miracles of Peter and Paul go very much in step. With this incident by all means compare the identity of phraseology in 14:8–10. See Page297

Carried. The imperfect tense here either means that this was customary or else that just then he was being carried to this advantageous place. At the gate. Gk: pros, towards – as though more intent on the temple than on the charity he hoped for.

6. Silver and gold. Note Peter's contempt for these esteemed commodities: 1 Peter. 1:18; 3:3.

Such as I have. Did he mean: It isn't much, but it's the best I've got?

Rise up. A test of his faith – and he responded.

7. Took him. The word often means "capture." This verse has three well–recognized medical terms, such as would be normal in Luke's vocabulary.

[Resource Manager]

14. The guilt of Israel (3:11–18)

 

Peter and John, remembering how their Lord had many a time sought to avoid every smallest hint of sensation–mongering in connection with his own miracles, were now strongly inclined to leave the healed cripple in the midst of his outburst of joy and thanksgiving. Their wish now was to lose themselves in the crowd of worshippers, or even to get out of the temple faster than they had entered it. But the erstwhile beggar knew that it was the power of Christ by which he had been so completely restored and that to keep close to Christ he must keep close to his men.

 

So he grabbed the apostles, refusing to be parted from them. However, he held them only for a matter of seconds, for almost at once the three of them became so completely hemmed in by the curious and the startled and the sceptical that evasion of all this public attention was now a sheer impossibility.

 

The Lord Jesus did not intend that these apostles of his should neglect such an opportunity for witness to his Name. And indeed it must have taken no time at all for Peter to recognize that the Holy Spirit was at work in him not only to heal but also to preach.

 

So he struggled to a place of some eminence in the cloister close by, called Solomon's Porch, and had instant attention from the dense throng which had gathered.

 

It was here that, soon after the healing of the blind man, Jesus had an unpleasant encounter with some of the rulers. "Other sheep I have (he had said) which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice" – and this healing of the lame man now pointed to the blessing of Gentiles with the gospel. There also Jesus had said: "If ye believe not me, believe the works" – and here now was another of his works, an undeniable witness. But "the Jews took up stones again to stone him" – and on this occasion also the forces of persecution were very soon to go into action again (4:3; Jn. 10:16, 31, 38).

 

Jesus – the suffering Servant

 

Recognizing some eminent men in the sea of faces before him, he addressed them respectfully.

 

'Gentlemen! Israelites! Let me answer some of the questions now filling your minds and being spoken by many of you. There is no need to marvel at this man standing here, nor should you be staring so intently at us two, as though you could expect to see in us some marked sign of outstanding godliness or divine power. lt is not anything special about us that has given this fellow, so familiar to many of you (v.16), the power to walk (cp. Gen. 40:8). The God of our forefathers promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob a wonderful Seed through whom His great Purpose with Israel is to be fulfilled. That Seed is also the Messiah, the Servant of the Lord, foretold in many diverse pictures by Isaiah and the other prophets.'

 

'That Seed, that Servant of Jehovah, is the Jesus of Nazareth whom you crucified. You remember? Just six months ago your leaders arrested him and handed him over to the Roman governor whom you hate. Pilate decided he was "Not guilty!" and was about to set him at liberty. But you shouted Pilate down, execrating Jesus as a blasphemer and treasonous, and so – imagine it! – you got him crucified. Now, this miracle, done by his power, bears witness to the fact that he is alive. He was the Holy One foretold by David, and the Righteous Servant foretold by Isaiah. Let me quote you some of the familiar words:

 

"Behold my Servant shall ... be exalted, and lifted up and be very high ... Many were astonied at thee ... To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ... He is despised, and we esteemed him not ... He was taken from prison and from judgement ... Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief ... My righteous Servant shall justify many ... he shall divide the spoil with the strong." 'The correspondences between the prophecies and the experience and character of Jesus surely proclaim him the Messiah, first suffering for sins, and then glorious. And today you have further witness, for does not Isaiah foretell that in Messiah's kingdom "the lame man shall leap as an hart" (35:6)? So it is his power and holiness, not ours, which has made this man walk.'

[Resource Manager]

 

More Old Testament witness

Peter's eloquence and Biblical reasoning were now in full spate. He was not to be deterred. And the crowd listened to him for the best part of three hours (3:1; 4.13).

Isaiah 49, another of the Servant prophecies, was likewise laid under contribution: "Thou art my Servant, in whom I will be glorified ... Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I (the Messiah) be glorious in the eyes of the Lord."

And, most of all, Isaiah 55:
 

Isaiah 55	Acts 3
4. A Leader and Commander to the people.	15. The Prince of Life.
5. They shall run unto thee.	11. All the people ran together.
5. The Holy One of Israel.	14. The Holy One and the Just.
5. For he hath glorified thee.	13. The God of Abraham hath glorified his Servant Jesus.
7. Let the wicked forsake his way ...	19. Repent.
7. And let him return unto the Lord.	19. And be converted.
7. For he will abundantly pardon.	19. That your sins may be blotted out.
10. Rain ... and snow from heaven ... watereth the earth, that it may bring forth and bud.	19. Seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.
8. My thoughts are not your thoughts.	17. This ignorance.
13. An everlasting sign.	4:16. Indeed a notable miracle (sign).

Peter, encouraging a spirit of repentance, went on to picture the magnitude of the national crime against Jesus. He whom God had vindicated and approved in a multitude of ways they had rejected and murdered, and in his place had clamoured for a notorious murderer as their special festal gift.

Yet that same Jesus was now risen from the dead by the power of God. Peter and his fellows were unshakable witnesses to the truth of this, and the powers they had exercised that day were a further witness. God had glorified His despised and suffering Servant. The miracle just witnessed had been done "in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth." Then why not believe the evidence that he was alive? – the Christ of God, a Christ whom it behoved to suffer as a Saviour and Sacrifice, but also a Christ who must one day reign in glory. It may be that Peter even went on to stress an incisive parallel between Jesus and Joseph, the first Saviour of the nation. "The Prince of life" may be Peter's equivalent for Joseph's Egyptian name, Zaphnath–paaneah (Gen. 41:45). Certainly there is an emphatic resemblance between Peter's interpretation, that the rejection of Jesus was all part of God's plan and purpose, and the words of Joseph to his brethren: "Now therefore, be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life."

It seems highly probable that interwoven with the powerful witness educed from Isaiah 55, there was also pointed exhortation from Isaiah 1. The "perfect soundness" of the lame man contrasted forcefully with the spiritual condition of the nation: "no soundness (LXX — only occurrence of the same Greek word) ... but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores ... A sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity ... Righteousness lodge in her (Jerusalem), but now murderers." 

[Resource Manager]

Through "ignorance"

 

As Peter now led up to the climax of his speech, he succeeded in bequeathing to later generations a problem of no small magnitude:

 

"And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers."

 

On the face of it this is a comforting extenuation of their crime, as who should say: 'There is every excuse for both rulers and people because neither had any idea of the magnitude of the sin being committed.'

 

The problem is how to square this interpretation with the picture presented in the gospels of rulers confronted with the plainest of plain evidence that Jesus was the Son of God and not only acknowledging the facts but choosing quite deliberately to fly right in the face of them. "This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours" – this is a parable which the Lord's enemies had understood (Lk. 20:14,19). And after the raising of Lazarus, and the Lord's own witness to himself, at the trial before the Sanhedrin, how could they possibly miss the truth concerning him?

 

It has been suggested that when Peter said: "through ignorance ye did it", he meant ignorance of these Scriptures which he was now hammering away at.

 

Can it be said that this idea removes the difficulty, for did not Jesus in one discourse after another labour at Biblical demonstration of the truth of his claims (e.g. Mt. 21:4,5, 16,42–44; Jn. 10:11,12,34; 12:37–41)?

 

There is an alternative approach to this problem which seems, rather strangely, to have been overlooked. In the Septuagint this word translated "ignorance" and its corresponding verb certainly carry the meaning of "an act done by oversight or through ignorance of its seriousness", but it is also used as a synonym for blameworthy sin or iniquity (cp. Souter's Lexicon), and particularly for an act calling for the sacrifice of a guilt offering; as when Saul confessed to David: "I have sinned ... I will no more do thee harm" (1 Sam. 26:21); so also when Asa was denounced for his foolish pact with the king of Syria: "Herein thou hast done foolishly; therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars" (2 Chr. 16:9). Cp. Ps. 25:7; Dan. 9:15,16; 2 Chr. 28:13. This idea of culpable ignorance is required in several places in the New Testament also; e.g. "For they (Israel) being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness ..." (Rom. 10:13).

 

Thus, when Peter said: "I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers," he was not excusing or comforting, but rebuking with point–blank censure. An immediate call for repentance was the logical next step.

 

 

Notes: 3:11–18

11. The porch that is called Solomon's. The present participle here implies that Acts was written before A.D.70 when the entire temple was destroyed. Solomon's porch is said, rather dubiously, to have dated back to Solomon. Another suggestion is that it was called this as being the resort of wise rabbis.

13. The God of our fathers. Is there a hint here of Joseph and his brethren and of all that was foreshadowed through their experience?

His son. Gk: boy, lad – used also (in the sense of 'garcon') for 'servant' (Isaiah 52:13; 53:11; Jer. 23:5; and see 49:3).

Glorified, in his resurrection (v.15) and also in this miracle (v.16; cp. Jn. 11:4). The remarkable thing is that apparently this was not the first sensational sign wrought by the apostles' Spirit–power; 2:43.

In the presence of. The Greek implies opposition.

Determined, meaning: had pronounced judgement.

14. The Holy One and the Just. Remarkably, this description was also used about John the Baptist; Mk. 6:20.

A murderer. The Greek implies: 'a notorious murderer". On the Day of Atonement the two goats were always chosen to look as alike as possible. Now note that Barabbas means 'son of a Father (i.e. a rabbi)' and his other name was Jesus (Mt. 27:17– Syriac, Armenian, Origen, and one ancient uncial manuscript). Barabbas claimed to lead his men to salvation, yet he led two of them to crucifixion!

15. The Prince of life. Gk: archegos, a title used in the first century for (a) the founder of a family (cp. Heb. 2:10); (b) Caesar's heir. Rather remarkably, Zeph. 3:8 LXX reads; "Therefore wait upon me ... until the day of my resurrection for witness." Was this another of Peter's proof–texts?

16. The Greek of this verse is a bit strange, but there is no missing the emphasis on the Name (i.e. character and work) of Christ and on faith in him. Perhaps the meaning is: His Name, borne by us 'Nazarenes', has operated through this man's faith in his Name to heal him. The implication seems to be that the cripple knew Peter and John as disciples, and in faith responded to their word.

This perfect soundness, both physical and spiritual; s.w. Jas 1:4.

18. All the prophets spake as with one mouth!

His Christ (RV) This phrase comes in Ps. 2:2, and nowhere else in the Old Testament. Another of Peter's proof–texts! Cp. 4:26; Rev. 11:15; 12:10.

[Resource Manager]

15. "Repent ye therefore" (3:19–26)

 

In bringing conviction to his hearers concerning Jesus, Peter's work was only half–done. He still needed to impress on them the supreme need for personal loyalty to this rejected Leader who had been so signally demonstrated to be the Christ. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted," that is, turn to the Lord instead of away from him. This had been Joel's appeal, woven into his message of judgement and Holy Spirit blessing (2:12ff), and it was to become the substance of Paul's preaching: "that they should repent, and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance" (26:20).

 

The consequences of repentance

 

This repentance was not only imperative but urgent (Greek aorists!), so that three much–desired results might follow:

1. "That your sins may be blotted out" (even their sins against Christ!)
   
2. "That there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord."
   
3. "That he may send the appointed—for—you—beforehand Christ, even Jesus."
   

The Greek text plainly requires the reader to see each of these three consequences as depending on the right spiritual reaction of those to whom the message came. But what did Peter mean?

 

The first hardly needs explaining. But it is remarkable that the apostle harnessed another fine passage from Isaiah: "I have blotted out, as a thick cloud (on the Day of Atonement; Lev. 16:12, 13), thy transgressions, and, as a cloud (of incense) thy sins: return unto me (be converted); for I have redeemed thee) ls. 44:22, and v.23 has a picture of the promised "seasons of refreshing"; and cp. 49 .9).

 

Precise identification of these "seasons of refreshing" is less easy. The phrase could mean respite from retributive judgement for the despite done to Jesus (cp. Jon. 3:4, 10). Or it could be a promise of spiritual comfort, in the spirit of Jeremiah's great promise; "and ye shall find rest for your souls" (6:16). But, more likely, according to the acted parable of the Day of Atonement, the reference is to the blessings of the kingdom of the Messiah when he "shall come from the presence of the Lord" (cp. Heb. 9:28). This conclusion seems the more likely since the second and third promises – (b) and (c.) above – are introduced by the same single conjunction.

 

Repentance and the Second Coming

 

This third item is so simply expressed that it can mean only one thing — the Second Coming. But very unhappily the A.V. has failed to preserve the important connection with Peter's positive exhortation: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted ... that he may send Jesus Christ." There can be no evading the dependence of the final clause on what precedes. The time of the coming of the Lord depends on the proper spiritual reaction of those to whom he comes.

 

Rackham's commentary — the best yet written on the Book of Acts – puts it this way:

 

"Like the apostles (1:6) they wanted to know the times and seasons of the restoration. Peter's answer is that the delay was due to themselves, for an essential condition of the restoration was their own repentance." (Cp. "The Time of the End", H.A.W. ch.2.). This idea was familiar to his hearers, for the rabbis taught that 'if all Israel together repented for a single day, redemption through the Messiah would come'. It is a principle the late Islip Collyer was known to teach, but which, alas, the New Israel is reluctant to believe, much less apply.

 

To the end of his days Peter stressed the same basic truth:

 

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise (of a Second Coming), as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us–ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Pet. 3:9). In other words, any seeming delay in the return of Christ is to be interpreted as a token of God's graciousness in affording unrepentant sinners a further opportunity for their own forgiveness.

 

The same idea is implicit in the words: "and account that the long–suffering of our Lord is salvation" (v.15); i.e. the grace of God holds back fulfilment so that those in Christ may yet come to thorough repentance.

 

The converse of the proposition also stands true, that the believers' holy way of life and godliness hastens the coming of the day of God (v.11, 12 RV mg — AV text here hardly makes sense).

 

The resurrection and ascension of Jesus had been indirectly yet forcefully proclaimed that day by the healing of the lame men. In particular, his ascension had been the necessary prelude to the outpouring of Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

 

Now, Peter emphasized, it is needful that Christ continue in the heavenly glory "until the times of restitution of all things."

[Resource Manager]

"Restitution of all things"

 

It is possible to establish the precise meaning of this expression by the careful comparison of two cognate Scriptures. "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things," Jesus had said, using almost identical Greek. His allusion was to the familiar Malachi prophecy: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord (this in turn quotes Joel's famous prophecy; 2:31): and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers ..." (Mai. 4:5,6; On this detail see "The Time of the End," p. 14; "Studies in the Gospels", p.11). Whatever its specific meaning, this is a prophecy of repentance in Israel. So it would be a mistake to read Peter's words with reference to the material benefits of Messiah's kingdom. Indeed, such an interpretation makes the sequence of ideas anything but smooth.

 

The meaning is, rather, that there can be no Second Coming until there are signs in Israel of a spiritual readiness to receive Jesus as the nation's deliverer.

 

This is a theme which "God hath spoken by the mouth of his prophets since the (Jewish) world began," for the first of such warnings and promises is to be found in Leviticus (26:40–42 – words spoken to the nation by Moses within a month of the setting up of the Tabernacle.

 

That the message concerning Jesus had been announced beforehand by the prophets was now being stressed by Peter for the third time. It was to take up all the rest of his discourse. Those who heard him could only disallow the force of his arguments by throwing away their own Holy Scriptures.

 

A Prophet like Moses

 

His next specific Biblical testimony was Moses' famous prophecy of how God would "raise up" a prophet like himself. Peter doubtless meant his hearers to catch the double meaning in that "raise up".

 

Yet another double meaning was probably intended in the phrase: "like unto me." The expression comes twice in the Hebrew text (Dt. 18:15, 18) in what is virtually the same form. Yet it is translated in the Septuagint in two different ways. The form Peter chose to use has the implication brought out in RVm: "as he raised up me (Moses)", that is, as Moses was rejected (see Acts 7:25 RV) and went away into a far country, took to himself a Gentile bride and then returned with power and authority to be a deliverer, so also would be the experience of the Prophet like unto Moses.

 

Peter did his duty faithfully. He went on to quote also the ominous warning of dire judgement on the head of the individual who rejects Christ. But instead of: "I will require it of him," he added more specifically "shall be destroyed from among the people."

 

There, in Jerusalem, the attitude of each man and woman in the crowd was become literally a matter of life and death.

 

Samuel and the prophets

 

Nor was Moses the only witness. Through many centuries they had had the testimony of other Scriptures: "all the prophets from Samuel ... have likewise foretold of these days." All the inspired men raised up by God — every single one of them ("as many as") – had spoken concerning Christ, yes, even such prophets as Hosea, Nahum, Zephaniah, Obadiah.

 

But when Peter said "these days" did he mean the ministry of Jesus, or these later days of Holy Spirit witness, or the future blessings of Messiah's kingdom, or the judgement of God to be let loose against the rejection of His Son?

 

And why should Peter begin his catalogue of Messianic prophets with Samuel who had bequeathed no specifically prophetic writings of his own? Yet the Psalm of Hannah was the first Scripture to use the word "Messiah" (1 Sam. 2:10). And Samuel was the first to denounce the sin of the people in rejecting God from being their King (as they had more recently rejected His Son).

 

And in his history in Judges and Ruth had not Samuel set down some remarkable types of Messianic deliverance?

 

But if indeed he had been warning of coming Judgement, Peter now swung back to a further reminder of the blessings offered them in Christ: "Ye are the sons of the prophets, and (the sons of) the covenant which God made with our fathers."

 

That phrase: "sons of the prophets" was neatly chosen to carry a double meaning. Peter not only meant: 'all that they promised is now to become your inheritance through Christ', but also, recognizing in the crowd some of the nation's learned men, he made indirect allusion to the colleges of "the sons of the prophets," founded by Samuel, who had become the spiritual ancestors of the rabbis and scribes of later times.

 

Then, if faithful to their trust, ought they not to give special heed to the full Messianic message bequeathed to them?

[Resource Manager]

The Covenant with Abraham

 

And before ever the prophets said or wrote a word about the Messiah, he was already there in Genesis, the key to the great covenant God made with Abraham.

 

The climax of the Promise came in these words: "And in thy Seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:18).

 

Some of the promises made to Abraham were about a multitudinous seed (e.g. 15:13–16; 17:4, 16; 22:17ab), but not this, for did not the angel of the Lord promise: "and thy Seed shall possess the gate of his enemies" (22:17c)?

 

Peter proceeded to expound step by step: "Unto you first God, having raised up (as He brought back Isaac from death) his Servant Jesus (here is the Seed), sent him to bless you." And the blessing is specified – not the material advantages of a Messianic kingdom but by "turning away every one of you from his iniquities;" that is, the forgiveness of sins, through a sacrifice more efficacious than any offered on the Day of Atonement (cp. again v.19). Peter emphasized the greater value of the blessing by his use of a continuous form of the verb. All the sacrifices under the Law declared their limited value by the need for repetition, but here in Christ was a covenant–sacrifice providing a continuing forgiveness for the sinner oppressed by his own continuing need for forgiveness.

 

By his use yet again of the title "Servant" Peter alluded to Isaiah once more, this time to the Servant prophecy in chapter 49: "I will give (i.e. appoint) thee for a covenant of the people (Israel)" (v.8). But the same Scripture included this: "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (v.6).

 

This, too, Peter hinted at with his quotation: "all kindreds of the earth," and also his comment: "unto you first ..." Here was plain implication of an extension of blessing to Gentiles also (Rom. 1:16; 2:9). But the point was not developed or made explicit; for at this stage of gospel preaching it would hardly have been tactful to fly in the face of strong Jewish prejudice by insisting that henceforward God would accept Gentiles on exactly the same terms as Jews. Indeed, it may be doubted (in the light of Peter's later uncertainty; Acts 10; Gal. 2) whether at this time he himself could see clearly how, because of insurmountable Jewish prejudice, the blessing of the gospel was to come on Gentiles before the return of Jesus as Messiah.

 

What he did emphasize was the responsibility of each separate individual in the crowd before him; "in turning away each one of you from your iniquities." This grammatical solecism, fully attested by the texts, was deliberate, first as an appeal for individual response, but also as stressing the corporate guilt of the entire nation in rejecting Jesus – a guilt which lay on them all.

 

Doubtless Peter intended the climax of his speech to be as it had been on the day of Pentecost, an exposition of baptism as the only way by which his hearers might "turn from their iniquities" to a God–provided righteousness in Christ. But he was not allowed to get so far, for there came a rough interruption.

 

The temple guard appeared, and leading him away, they threw him in jail, and John and the healed man with him.

 

 

Notes: 3:19–26

19. Repent and be converted. Peter's own experience. Lk. 22:32,62.

From the presence of the Lord. This Greek phrase is always in an adverse sense (2 Th. 1:9; Rev. 6:16; 12:14; 20:11; Acts 5:41; Ps. 97:5), except here. Remarkable! But note v.23.

21. Receive until ... An explicit denial of any doctrine of transubstantiation.

Restitution. Josephus uses this emphatic and unusual word for the restoring of the Land to Jews returning from the captivity (Ant. 11.3,8,9).

Mouth, not "mouths". i.e. all the prophets spoke with one mouth.

22. This quotation of Dt. 18:15,18 runs also right through John's gospel; e.g. 1:21, 25; 6:14; 7:40; 12:49; 17 (apart of a sustained parallel).

24. Note Samuel's strong lead towards national repentance, and the deliverance given by God: 1 Sam. 7:3, 6, 9, 10. And does 9:13 suggest a Day of Atonement?

From Samuel. Perhaps hinting at the first great prophecy after Samuel – by Nathan: 2 Sam. 7:12ff.

25. Covenant. Was Peter leading them to see Jesus as the necessary covenant–sacrifice?

26. To bless you. Gk. – present participle indicates present, not future, blessing. Paul likewise expounds Gen. 22:18 with reference to forgiveness of sins. His phrase is "justification by faith" (Gal. 3:8).