Acts 2

CHAPTER II

THE FIRST HALF

The Gospel Among the Jews in Palestine. Chapters 2 to 12

The time: 31–44 A. D.; Pentecost to the persecution of Herod Agrippa.

The center of activity: Jerusalem.

This missionary range: Palestine, Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria.

The chief personage: Peter, besides whom appear in a secondary capacity: John, James, Stephen, Philip. Barnabas and Paul begin their activity.

Peter is prominent in six marked instances: 1) At Pentecost in his sermon, chapter 2. 2) In the miracles, that follow, chapters 3 to 5, and 9:31–40. 3) In discipline and in the appointment of deacons, 5:1–11; 6:1, etc. 4) In superintending the work in Samaria together with John, 8:4–25. 5) In bringing the gospel to the first Gentiles, chapters 10 and 11; 6) As a steadfast confessor during the first great persecution, chapter 12.

—————

The First Quarter The Gospel in Jerusalem, Chapters 2 to 7

THE COMING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Acts 2:1

1 And when the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled, they were all together at one place. Luke alone, here and in Luke 9:51, uses this verb, both times it is the present infinitive passive with ἐντῶ to designate the arriving of a period or of a point of time. In Luke 9:51 it is not the day of the ascension that is referred to but the final period of Christ’s life that culminated in the ascension. Here in Acts the Jewish day of Pentecost is referred to. The difficulty does not lie in the neat Greek phrase but in its translation as far as both sense and tense are concerned. The idea is that, by coming, this day is filling up completely a measure of time that was hitherto beginning to be filled more and more.

Yet no mere dating is intended, namely the arrival of the fiftieth day after the Jewish Passover. The phrase is too weighty for that. Luke is thinking of the Lord’s promise and of how it is now coming to fulfillment, the arrival of this day making full the measure of time the Lord contemplated when he made the promise. Hence also the present tense is employed. As the hours of this day began, the measure of this time was being filled up, and the thing promised was now due to occur, and Luke states that it did occur. Compare C.-K. 929 for the main thought.

The feminine ἡΠεντηκοστή without ἡμέρα came to be the name of the festival; hence Luke writes: “the day of the Fiftieth,” i. e., of Pentecost. It came on the fiftieth day after the Passover. Coming seven weeks after the Passover, it was also called “the Festival of Weeks.” In this year the fifteenth of Nisan, the day of the Passover, occurred on a Friday (which, of course, began at sundown on Thursday). The count of fifty starts with the next day which was a Sabbath and thus brings us to another Sabbath as the day of the Pentecost of this year.

The Christian celebration of the descent of the Spirit did not begin until years later. The name Pentecost was retained, but the count was made from the Christian Easter, which was always celebrated on a Sunday and disregarded the fact that the Jewish Passover always came on the fifteenth of Nisan, no matter what the day of the week. Thus our Pentecost is also always observed on a Sunday. Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were the great Jewish festivals that were attended by Jews from everywhere. Pentecost, however, lasted only one day. It was the Jewish harvest festival that celebrated the completion of the harvest, Exod. 23:14, etc., and the description in Lev. 23:17, etc. Long after the time of the apostles a second day was added, and the entire festival became what it is for the Jews today, a celebration of the giving of the law on Sinai.

“All” refers to the persons mentioned in 1:12–15 and certainly includes the women; but the estimate that there were 200 seems high. Here ἐπὶτὸαὑτό, following ὁμοῦ, must mean more than “together” (1:16), namely “in the same or in one place.” What Luke says is that this day found all the disciples in one place, and that none of the entire number was absent. They were ready when the Spirit came.

Acts 2:2

2 And there came suddenly out of heaven a noise as of a violent wind borne along, and it filled the whole house where they where sitting. And there appeared to them, as distributing themselves, tongues of fire, and it sat on each single one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to make utterance with different tongues even as the Spirit kept giving to them to utter exaltedly.

The Jews stood when praying; sitting implies that the assembly of disciples was listening to some discourse that was being uttered, let us say, by one of the apostles. About nine o’clock (v. 15) a violent noise sounded out of heaven, descended, and filled the entire building where the assembly was sitting on the floor in Oriental, cross-legged fashion. Luke compares the sound to that of a violent wind borne along, i. e., moving forward. It was sound alone and not a wind. The roar started in the sky but soon filled only the house. This mighty sound was surely the symbol of power, and we may recall that both the Hebrew and the Greek words for the Spirit, Ruach and Πνεῦμα, denote wind or breath, and that Jesus himself compared the coming of the Spirit to the blowing of the wind, John 3:8.

The volume of the sound denotes vast, supernatural power. The Spirit of God thus indicated his coming upon the disciples in an audible manner. But this roar also had the purpose of attracting the mass of people to the spot where all the disciples were gathered. And while the aorist “there came” registers only the fact of the coming, we take it that the roar lasted long enough to effect this necessary purpose.

Much effort is often spent in trying to prove that this οἷκος or “house” could be only one of the thirty halls in the Temple that were called οἷκοι. It is stated that this is the festival, the ninth hour, when all would be in the Temple, the great mass of people that quickly gathered and gathered so that Peter could preach to them. But why would all these disciples be sitting in one of these halls of the Temple at this hour of prayer? And would this roar not cause everybody on the entire Temple grounds to rush to this hall, all the Temple police, all the Sanhedrists likewise? Proving the house to be one of the halls of the Temple proves too much. Note the article: “the whole house,” evidently the one already referred to in 1:13, 15, where 120 persons had plenty of room.

But this was not a “house” in the modern sense of the term, a building with ordinary rooms. We, of course, lack details, but if Luke had a hall in the Temple in mind he surely would have written ἱερόν.

Acts 2:3

3 The second phenomenon was that of tongues resembling fire and distributing themselves to each person present. There was no actual fire but only a resemblance to fire. This aorist again registers only the fact and not the duration of the appearance. The crowd speaks only of what it hears and not of what it sees. We may conclude that the flamelike tongues had disappeared by the time the crowd had gathered. Luke writes, “distributing themselves,” and then adds, “it sat upon each single one of them.” Luke does not intend to write a subject just as we have none when we say, “it rains,” “it is lightning,” etc.

Perhaps we may say that the flamelike tongues appeared in a great cluster and then divided until a tongue settled on the head of each one of the disciples. Compare the phrase ἐφʼ ἕναἕκαστον, with εἷςἕκαστος in v. 6, and with the simple ἕκαστος in v. 8. Luke means “on each single one,” not a single one being excepted, men, women, old, young. These firelike tongues are plainly the fulfillment of Luke 3:16: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” Pentecost corrects all other interpretations of Luke 3:16, and of Matt. 3:11. The sound roared indiscriminately in the house, but these tongues sat individually upon each person. The Spirit fills every single believer in the church, uses every one in his mighty and blessed work.

Pentecost raises all to the same level.

Why tongues, and why like fire? May we say that these tongues point to the speaking with tongues? When the heart overflows with grace and power, the tongue is kindled into utterance. So all are to have the Spirit, to confess, to pray, and to praise. Firelike tongues may well recall the altar with its holy fire which send the offering up to God. Fire is also a symbol of purity and purification. Each disciple is to make his confession, prayer, praise, testimony a pure offering coming from a holy altar that is burning with sacred fire. Like the noise, the tongues were a supernatural, heavenly manifestation.

Acts 2:4

4 Once more Luke writes “all,” namely “all were filled with the Holy Spirit.” This is the miracle itself, the signs are only accompaniments. The emphasis is on the passive verb “they were filled,” for it was Jesus who filled the disciples with the Spirit; the aorist simply states the great fact. This is the realization of the promise, “he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” At one time the Spirit descended upon Jesus in a wondrous manner; in an analogous way the Spirit came upon and filled all these disciples of Jesus. Through the Spirit he became the Christ (the Anointed), through the same Spirit his disciples become Christians (people anointed).

Yet we must remember that they all had the Spirit even before Pentecost just as did all the saints of the Old Testament. No saving faith was ever possible without the Spirit. In the case of the eleven we must also recall John 20:22. Here, at Pentecost, Jesus sent the Spirit in a new fulfillment of the promises stated in 1:5; John 14:16, 17; 15:26; 16:7. At Pentecost the Spirit himself came to dwell permanently, throughout all the ages, in the hearts of those who constitute the Una Sancta, the Christian Church. Hitherto he had, indeed, wrought upon men with his saving power and bestowed also this or that gift; since Pentecost he actually fills the church with his powers and his gifts, and that by way of his own blessed presence.

Hence these miraculous manifestations on this day of Pentecost; hence the new influx of power into the disciples, especially into the apostles for this witness-bearing in all the world (1:8); hence also the array of spiritual and charismatic gifts which Paul lists in 1 Cor. 12:4–11. The effect was the spread of the church throughout the world and the radiation of power from the church in all the world. Once redemption was accomplished, all this could follow and did follow because of the presence of the Spirit. The great channels through which the Spirit dwelling in the church operates are the Word and the sacraments.

Luke properly records that all were filled with the Spirit before he adds that they all began to speak in new languages. The sound and the visible tongues were external, but this miraculous speaking was a personal act due to the inward presence of the Spirit. In Mark 16:17, Jesus promised this gift: “they shall speak with new tongues.” These καιναί tongues are the ones Luke here calls ἕτεραι, “other or different” tongues. “Began to make utterance” is scarcely an Aramaic pleonasm but a circumstantial way of stating so important an action. Hence also the following imperfect as the Spirit “kept giving” to them. Every word of these strange languages was an immediate gift of the Spirit. The rare verb ἀποφθέγγεσθαι describes the utterance as being made in an exalted manner.

What this speaking “with different tongues” means is stated in v. 6: “everyone heard them speaking in his own language”; and in v. 11: “we are hearing them telling with our own tongue the great things of God.” The disciples spoke in foreign languages that were hitherto unknown to them, in the very languages of the natives of the foreign lands who were presently assembled before them. This is what Luke writes, and the church has never doubted the fact and Luke’s veracity and accuracy in reporting that fact.

But serious objection is raised by some commentators who say that Luke’s words mean something else, or that he has reported the facts in a wrong way. The miraculous speaking mentioned in 10:46, in 19:6, in 1 Cor. 12:10, and in 14:2, etc., is referred to. Nearly every objector has his own peculiar view. Some even say that “tongues” means “the language of heaven”! When Luke writes “with different tongues” and later omits “different,” the omission is pointed to as proof positive for the fact that there were two entirely different kinds of speaking with tongues. The author has treated the entire subject at length in connection with 1 Cor. 12:10, and 14:2, etc.

Sometimes Luke’s sources are questioned. Yet he wrote with full knowledge of the gift of tongues. He had been in Corinth and may well have witnessed this gift in operation. He had Paul at his side who knew all about this gift. We have every reason to think that Luke also met other apostles, certainly Peter, to say nothing of some of the very disciples who here at Pentecost spoke with tongues and still others of the 3, 000 who were there to hear that speaking. Still more, the Spirit who bestowed this gift of tongues guided Luke in producing his account.

The gift of tongues is one of the proofs for divine Inspiration. The Spirit who put the words of strange languages into the mouths of the disciples wherewith to speak the great things of God had no trouble in attending to the words of the holy writers so that they recorded what he desired and in the way he desired it.

Many have thought that the confusion of tongues at Babel was counterbalanced here at Pentecost, and that is the chief import of this part of the miracle. Rocholl, Philosophie der Geschichte, 275, beautifully states this view: “The speaking with tongues by the witnesses of the Mediator celebrates the resurrection of the unity buried at Babel.… It was the first full chord, struck by a higher hand on the discordant giant harp, the strings of which are the nations of the earth,” etc. An attractive thought; and yet the diversity of languages has continued unchanged. Even Greek, a world language, did not endure. We must go deeper than Rocholl. The miracle of tongues maintains the diversity but points out into all lands, nations, and tongues exactly as Jesus does in 1:8. The miracle is prophetic, the first full chord of that symphony of confession, testimony, prayer, and praise that was soon to rise to the throne of the Redeemer from the tongues of all the nations of the world.

The gift of tongues was one of the miraculous gifts of the apostolic church and as such, together with other miraculous gifts, served its purpose in attesting the presence of the Spirit at a time when such attestation was needed. Hence it was transient and disappeared when the church grew to such proportions that its very presence and power attested the Spirit’s presence within it. The gift was not intended for preaching, and none of the believers in the apostolic church used it for that purpose. The one apostle who preached to so many nationalities did this without the gift of tongues. God had providentially prepared the vehicle of Greek, the world language of that time, for this purpose. Wherefore the New Testament also appeared in Greek.

As they have done in the case of the gift of healing, men have tried to regain the gift of tongues. The last abortive effort started in California, leaped to Scandinavia, ran its course there and in Germany as a Pentecostal movement, and died suddenly when its chief exponents openly confessed that they had been hoaxed by devilish spirits. Those “tongues” had been gibberish, their translation pure imagination. The devilishness consisted in no small measure in attributing this folly to the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:5

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, men devout, from every nation of those under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together and were confounded because they kept hearing them speaking, every single one, in his own language. And all were in amazement and kept wondering, saying: Lo, are not all these speaking Galileans? And how do we on our part hear, every one in our very language in which we were born?

Luke is concerned only with this class of Jews who were born or reared in foreign parts but had now permanently settled in the Holy City in order to end their days there. They, of course, knew and spoke Aramaic, but they knew, in some cases even still better, the native language of the land where they had dwelt so long. How dearly these Jews loved Jerusalem is evidenced by expressions such as this: “Everyone who is buried in the land of Israel is in as good case as if he were buried under the altar.” “Men devout” brings out this idea, earnest and sincerely religious Jews who wanted to spend their last years near the Temple and join in the worship at this great sanctuary. Εὑλαβής, “one who takes hold well,” is regularly used in this religious sense. “From every nation,” etc., is not as hyperbolic as might be supposed. Few cities and towns, to say nothing of countries in the great Roman empire, were without a contingent of Jews. In his great oration in Josephus, Wars, 2, 16, 4, Herod Agrippa states only facts about the Jewish diaspora: “There is no people upon the habitable earth which have not some portion of you (Jews) among them.”

Acts 2:6

6 It was the mighty sound that brought the crowd together at the place where the disciples were gathered. The sound identified the place. We know how quickly crowds gather. Natives of Jerusalem and pilgrims from afar may have been in the crowd, but Luke has already drawn our attention to the great number of foreign-born Jews who are of special importance in this connection. They were utterly confounded “because they kept hearing them speaking, every single one, in his own language.” The imperfect brings out the continuousness of the action. Each foreign-born Jew heard his own foreign language uttered, not once or twice, but for a considerable time.

After the plural verb the singular “every single one” individualizes as this is frequently done. Luke means “in his own language” and not “dialect” just as the word used in 1:19 means “language.” The list of nations following also excludes the idea that the disciples, whose own Aramaic was the Galilean dialect, were now speaking a number of other Aramaic dialects. Compare v. 11.

Acts 2:7

7 Luke heaps up the verbs describing the effect upon the hearers. The aorist συνεχύθη states the first impression: the crowd “was confounded.” Then two imperfects describe the condition that followed: “they were amazed,” dazed by the astounding thing they were witnessing, “and kept wondering” what it could mean and how it could be explained. So the questioning began, first as to the identity of these disciples, secondly as to how they could speak as they did, the two questions belonging together. Luke states only briefly the questioning that went through the crowd.

We need not ask how the disciples were known to be Galileans. The first inquiry, no doubt, was: “Who are these people?” And someone who knew them quickly supplied the information. The question is one of astonishment as the interjection shows. So all these speaking in all these languages were Galileans! That, of course, meant neither “Christians” nor “unlearned,” connotations which “Galileans” never had; but it did mean that the disciples were not residents of Jerusalem, and it identified them as what they were. We also have no reason to think that some were not from Galilee.

Acts 2:8

8 But the fact of their being Galileans shed no light whatever on the miracle. Note that ἡμεῖς is in contrast with ἅπαντεςοὗτοι. These foreign-born Jews could certainly understand Galilean Aramaic, but how could Galileans speak all these different languages, they say, “in which we were born”? To be born “in a language” means to claim that language as one’s mother tongue.

Acts 2:9

9 The list of nationalities is in apposition to the emphatic ἡμεῖς in v. 8, and should be read: “we Parthians,” “we Medes,” and so on down the list, each group exclaiming about itself. Parthians and Medes and Elamites; and the Jews inhabiting Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, both Phrygia and Pamphilia, Egypt and the parts of Libya, those along Cyrene; and temporary residents, Romans, both Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we hear them telling with our own tongues the great things of God.

This list is neatly arranged in three groups: 3 + 8 + 3; the group of 8 in 4 pairs. The countries mentioned describe a great circle about the Holy Land, starting on the east and swinging around westward to the north and ending in the south. A map is instructive also for some of the distances. The two articulated participles head the second and the third group.

The reading Ἰουδαίαντε has always been a conundrum. How could “both Judea and Cappadocia” be so closely linked together? How could “Judea” occur in this list at all, which is to name only foreign-born Jews? Rather unsatisfactory explanations have been offered. Emendations have also been suggested; Syria, Armenia, Idumea. To Zahn belongs the credit for having cleared up this crux.

Following an old Latin version, he drops τε and changes Ἰουδαίαν into Ἰουδαῖοι “Judea” into “Jews.” Thus those in the second group (Mesopotamia to Cyrene) were Jews; but the third group consisted of “both Jews and proselytes.” This emendation makes the grouping symmetrical and at the same time reveals how easily the corruption of the text could have crept in. “Asia” is the great province of which Ephesus was the capital. The first group names nations, the second group countries, the third again nations.

Acts 2:10

10 Egypt is paired with “the parts of Libya, those down along Cyrene.” Simon, who bore the cross of Jesus, was a Cyrenian. Josephus, Ant. 14, 7, 2 cites an interesting passage from Strabo that shows how numerous the Jews were not only in Egypt but also in Cyrene.

The third group, like the second, is introduced with an articulated participle and presents temporary residents in Jerusalem (οἱἐπιδημοῦντες): Romans, Cretes, and Arabians. The participle must refer to all three. We do not think, however, that these were only pilgrims who had come for the festival, for this lasted but one day, and that they would come from a place so remote as Rome for so short a time seems improbable. These, too, “were dwelling in Jerusalem” (v. 5) but, as Luke carefully indicates, only for a time. After the 3, 000 had been converted, it was an easy matter to gather the exact data that Luke records.

It seems that the apposition “both Jews and proselytes” belongs only to “Romans” and not also to “Cretes and Arabians,” most certainly not to the entire two preceding groups as some have supposed. The Jews had two kinds of proselytes: “proselytes of the gate” who were not bound to submit to circumcision, who observed only the seven Noachian commandments against idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to magistrates, murder, fornication or incest, robbery or theft, eating of blood (Gen. 9:4), and were restricted in taking part in the worship; and “proselytes of righteousness,” Gentiles who became complete Jews. The latter seem to be referred to here.

Acts 2:11

11 When Luke records in regard to all these different nationalities: “we hear them telling with our own tongues,” he intends to repeat and thus to emphasize the statement made in v. 8. The emphasis is on the dative of means “with our own tongues,” our own because we were born in them. In v. 8 the question was raised as to how this could be, here the fact is asserted that it, indeed, is. The persons heard are put into the genitive, the things heard into the accusative. The latter are added, namely “the great things of God.” While this is a summary, we are safe in saying that the great deeds of God in Christ are referred to, plus the attributes displayed in these deeds.

In this description, which presents merely the essentials, we must retain the idea of order. All these disciples did not shout together in a Babel of foreign languages, but one spoke here, another there, and each was understood by the nationality whose language he spoke. The foreign-born Jews heard what was spoken, understood what was said. From the account it cannot be ascertained whether one disciple spoke more than one foreign language. Nor can we determine whether the disciple himself understood what he uttered and could have translated it into Aramaic. This speaking was also not preaching the gospel to this crowd.

Peter did the preaching. The tongues were just what Paul states in 1 Cor. 14:22, a sign to those who did not believe and, as he further states, one that should be followed by prophesying (preaching), even as Peter also presently began to preach and to explain this sign to all these Jews.

Acts 2:12

12 And all were in amazement and were in perplexity, saying one to another, What does this intend to be? Others, however, scoffing, were saying, They have been filled with sweet wine!

“They were all in amazement” is repeated from v. 7, and emphasizes this condition. Again an imperfect is added which describes the condition of perplexity which could not get beyond the question as to what this thing could intend to be. Some texts have the optative with ἄν, potential: “What this might intend to be?” The indicative is assured and far better, for it implies that it intended to be something although the hearers could not as yet understand what. Ἄλλοςπρὸςἄλλον is not quite reciprocal (R. 747), a Latinism (R. 692). The great bulk of the hearers were sensible; they stopped with their question, gave no hasty answer, were willing to wait for the true and satisfactory answer. They were in the presence of a great miracle that transcended all reason and all experience and deeply felt the effect of it.

Acts 2:13

13 But among these foreign-born Jews were others who were of a different character (ἕτεροι, R. 749). They, too, heard the great things of God. But they passed the whole thing off with scoffing; they called the disciples tipsy with γλεῦκος, “sweet wine,” not “new wine,” since the last vintage was four months in the past. Ἔλεγον is descriptive; they passed this scoffing remark on. The perfect “have been filled” is intensive (R. 903) and means that they have reached the point where they are full. Wise men, sensible men! When God works, and the thing is too plain, these fellows appear with their slur. But what they say reveals only themselves and the baseness of their hearts.

PETER’S PENTECOSTAL SERMON

Acts 2:14

14 We may say that the speaking with tongues continued until the maximum effect had been attained. Then the Spirit ceased to speak through the mouths of the disciples. But Peter, after stepping forth with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke exaltedly to them: Jewish men and all inhabiting Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my utterances! For not are these drunk, as you suppose, for this is the third hour of the day. On the contrary, this is what has been declared through the mouth of the prophet Joel:

And it shall be in the last days, saith God,

I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh;

And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

And your young men shall see visions,

And your old men shall dream dreams;

Yea, and on my men slaves and on my women slaves in those days

Will I pour out from my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

Σταθείς is not ἀναστάς, “having arisen,” as though all this occurred while the apostles and the disciples had been sitting. Peter “stepped forth,” “took his stand,” and the eleven with him, out in front of all the disciples, at some place where he could preach to this crowd and be heard by it. “With the eleven” means that Peter was only the spokesman for them. Matthias was with them. That the apostles should assume this leadership was the intention of Jesus when he appointed them to their office; moreover, the Spirit was now directing and empowering them. Peter had been but an ordinary fisherman, but here Luke’s sketch of his sermon shows that it was a masterly, masterful, most effective discourse that was delivered without preparation or premeditation at the decisive moment on this day before an audience of thousands. This was possible only by the aid of the Spirit. Luke indicates the dignity, the solemnity, and the exalted tone when he says that Peter stepped forth with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke exaltedly (the same verb that was used in v. 4) to the great assembly.

Peter uses the form of a complete address. Ἄνδρες is just as difficult to render here as it was in 1:16, and is just as respectful and dignified with Ἰονδαῖοι as with ἀδελφοί; but note the gradation and see how Peter draws nearer and nearer to his hearers as he continues to speak, advancing to “men and Israelites” in v. 22, and finally to “men and brethren” in v. 29 (see 1:16). “Ye men of Judea” in our versions is incorrect, for Ἰουδαῖοι = Jews, those identified with the entire Jewish nation. The Twelve were such Jews although not all were “of Judea.” Nor is it correct to say that Peter took no cognizance of the proselytes in the audience when he said “Jews,” for every proselyte of righteousness was no longer a Gentile but an out-and-out Jew.

The addition “and all inhabiting Jerusalem” should not be understood so as to exclude those who were living only temporarily in the city (οἱἐπιδημοῦντες in v. 10) but so as to include them. Nor is the idea of this expression such that those living in Jerusalem form a class that was distinct from other Jews who resided elsewhere, transient visitors in the city. What would be the object of such a distinction; and does not what Peter here says apply to all Jews, irrespective of residence, as explaining the Pentecostal miracle? “Jewish men” and “all inhabiting Jerusalem” are the same; the latter is only an apposition. It is added in the sense of the “men devout” used in v. 5. The exclamations uttered by these men showed that they were foreign-born Jews, yet their devoutness had impelled them to transfer their homes to the Holy City. Even those residing here temporarily were here because of the same motive. Peter’s address makes that plain and honors them by the statement: “All you who love Jerusalem so much as to have come here to live.” A participle in apposition has the article even when it does not occur in an address (R. 1107).

Peter, however, speaks to these devout Jews with all authority: “Let this be known to you and give ear to my utterances!” Note the same authority in 4:10 when he is facing the Sanhedrin. Here is no timidity, no uncertainty but only solid certainty and full warrant. Peter is stating divine realities and makes no apologies for them. “This” = “my utterances” = all that follows in the sermon. Peter uses excellent psychology, he meets the questioning of his auditors squarely, without circumlocution. His authoritative tone is enforced by the full impact of what he says.

He even uses excellent homiletics. He states his theme clearly: “This is what has been declared by the mouth of the prophet Joel.” Stating it in advance of his text is proper; you may do the same. Then comes Peter’s tremendous text. He marks the two parts of his sermon most distinctly, at v. 22 and at v. 29. They clearly expound the vital point of this text for these particular hearers—no homiletics was ever better. The conclusion is brief, direct, and powerful, v. 36. In order to get the full effect of this sermon put yourself into Peter’s place and think how you would have met the situation that morning before that audience.

Acts 2:15

15 With one stroke Peter quashes the scoffers. Only a few readers get the full force of Peter’s reference to “the third hour of the day,” our nine o’clock in the morning. Following Exod. 16:8, the Jews ate only bread in the morning; the Targum says, not until after the morning sacrifice, hence at about ten; and meat only in the evening at the δεῖπνον or main meal of the day. They drank wine only when they ate meat, which means at this evening meal. This is the sense of Eccles. 10:16, 17. The godlessness of the princes “who eat in the morning” consists in this that they eat all sorts of food, especially also meat, and with it drink wine already in the morning, hence “for drunkenness”; but godly princes “eat in due season,” meat, wine, etc., in the evening. “It is the third hour of the day.” Yet these scoffers claim that all these disciples had already partaken of a great meal, not only with wine, but with far too much of it!

The very keenness of this one word of reply shows the full clarity of Peter’s mind. Peter speaks for “these,” pointing to them; he does not need to speak for himself. Note how οὑ is placed far forward in the sentence, putting it in the strongest possible opposition to ἀλλά.

Acts 2:16

16 The idea of a drunken jargon becomes even blasphemous when Peter states the reality back of this speaking with foreign tongues: “on the contrary, this is what has been declared through the mouth of the prophet Joel,” i. e., this that Peter’s hearers have seen is the fulfillment of Joel’s great prophecy. Many times we read “it has been written,” and now in the same sense “it has been declared or spoken,” the perfect tense always has its strong present connotation: once spoken (written) the thing stands so now and forever. The speaker implied in the passive is God (v. 17: “saith God”), and διά here, as in every other case of quotation, states the medium or instrument used by God, the prophet or the mouth of the prophet. This passive plus διά, wherever they occur in Scripture, state in brief the entire doctrine of Verbal Inspiration, to wit, that in all Scripture the real speaker is God, and that the holy writers are only his media, instruments, mouthpieces.

Acts 2:17

17 Joel prophesied about 870 B. C. Peter quotes Joel 2:28–32, compare the A. V. for the Hebrew; the LXX and Peter have a few longer statements. Thus “in the last days” = “afterward,” Hebrew; “after these things,” LXX. Peter’s wording, however, is interpretative, explaining what the Hebrew “afterword” really means, namely the last period of the world which is ushered in by the first coming of Christ and continues until his second coming for judgment.

It is with this time in view that God made his promise regarding the pouring out of the Spirit. So also Peter inserts “saith God” in order to make plain that it is he who promised, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” It is this pouring out that had just occurred (v. 33). “Upon all flesh” is universal but not absolute; v. 38 shows both, “everyone” may receive the Holy Spirit but only by repentance and faith. “Flesh” = men as distinguished from angels by having flesh or a body (Rom. 1:3; John 1:14); but men in their sinfulness and their frailty. Here σάρξ is not in contrast with πνεῦμα in the ethical sense. With abstract words “every” and “all” flow together, hence ἐπὶπᾶσανσάρκα needs no article in order to mean “upon all flesh.” “I will pour out” implies the full gift of the Spirit and thus extends as far as “all flesh.” The Spirit who came upon a few disciples at Pentecost has filled others of all languages in all lands the world over and is still extending his activity to more of them. Once confined to the narrow limits of Judaism for such operations as were preparatory to Christ’s redemption, the Spirit, now that redemption was accomplished, went out to men generally and extended the church to the ends of the earth (1:8) and symbolized this at Pentecost by letting the disciples speak in many languages.

The chief effect of the Spirit’s activity is always prophesying, not in the narrow sense of foretelling future events, but in the broad and far more important sense of voicing the saving and blessed will of God to men everywhere. In 1 Cor. 14 Paul speaks of this as the best and highest gift of the Spirit; and Luther writes: “What are all other gifts together compared to this gift, that the Spirit of God himself, the eternal God, comes down into our hearts, yea, into our bodies and dwells in us, rules, guides, leads us! Thus now, as concerning this passage of the prophet, prophesying, visions, dreams are all one thing, namely the knowledge of God through Christ, which the Holy Spirit kindles and makes to burn through the Word of the gospel.” The fact that Luther is correct is shown by Peter when in v. 18 he adds to both the Hebrew and the LXX texts: “and they shall prophesy.” This is interpretative and repeats “they shall prophesy” from v. 17.

“Your sons and your daughters” is amplified by “your young men” and “your old men,” the possessives referring to the Jews to whom the Spirit first came through the apostles. The three lines of Hebrew poetry are parallel and synonymous statements, which means that all the predicates belong to all the subjects, sons, daughters, young men, old men. So the three predicates form a unit, each predicate saying the same thing with variation, as each subject is only a variation. All shall prophesy, confess, and tell the gospel, and thus the young men shall see glorious visions of its progress and its victories, and the old men shall dream dreams of its blessedness and its power, literally: “dream with dreams,” a Hebraism in the translation and not a case of a Greek cognate object.

Acts 2:18

18 In καίγε the particle is climacteric or ascensive, which we try to render by “yea and,” meaning, “on top of all that has been said.” This emphasis applies to the two phrases: “on my men slaves and on my women slaves.” In v. 17 the four ὑμῶν refer to the Jewish nation. What a blessed thing it is to have their sons and their daughters prophesy, etc. But they also have a relation to the God who made this promise and fulfills it with reference to them: they are his slaves, etc. And “slaves,” δοῦλοι, brings out the idea that they belong wholly to God, are wholly subject and obedient to his will. Jesus himself was the ʿEbed Yahweh, “Servant of Jehovah,” and all believers are in a similar position.

Are these still only Jewish believers? Some think so. Yet “all flesh” precedes, the Spirit was to reach out into all the world. Hence we are inclined to think that this “yea and” introduces all who belong to God by faith in Christ, Gentiles plus Jews combined into one. All of them shall have the Spirit and shall prophesy. The Hebrew has: I will pour out “my Spirit” (the accusative); the LXX and Peter the partitive: “of or from my Spirit.” We take the sense to be the same, for to have the Spirit is to have some of his power and his gifts, no man can assimilate all of them.

A peculiar question arises as to the difference between the Hebrew and Peter’s quotation. The Hebrew has this gradation: your sons—your daughters—your old men—your young men (these two in this order)—the (men) servants—the handmaids. The last two seem to refer only to the Jewish servants. Delitzsch calls them slaves and says that in the Old Testament no slave had the gift of prophecy. He states that the translators of the LXX could not understand how slaves should have this gift and therefore added “my,” making them God’s douloi and doulai. But this does not remove the difficulty.

For most of these slaves of the Jews were Gentiles, and for even these to receive the Spirit implied that the Gentile world would be blessed. And Peter is right: these persons would no longer be just slaves but my (God’s own) slaves, even as all believers, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, are purchased and won by Christ in order to be his own and to live under him.

Acts 2:19

19 Peter must quote Joel’s prophecy in full because the second part of it states how long the Spirit, poured out at Pentecost, will continue his work in the world, and because the last line opens the door of salvation to everyone who, in repentance and faith, calls on the Lord (v. 38).

And I will give wonders in heaven above

And signs on the earth below,

Blood and fire and vapor of smoke;

The sun shall be turned into darkness,

And the moon into blood

Before the Lord’s day comes,

The one great and manifest,

And it shall be, everyone who shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

It must be well understood that the prophets always viewed the two comings of Christ together without having the interval between the two revealed to them. We have a clear example in the Baptist who in Luke 3:16 speaks of Pentecost and in 3:17 of the final judgment. This also caused a difficulty for him. When he saw Jesus doing works of grace only and none of judgment he wondered whether another was yet to come to perform the work of judgment. Joel’s description recalls that of Jesus given in Luke 21:9–11, 25, 26. Joel combines the two, “wonders in heaven above and signs on the earth below,” and Peter adds the words “signs,” “above,” and “below” in an interpretative way.

Τέρας = “wonder,” a startling, amazing portent or prodigy. The pagan world also had such portents. It seems that for this reason the New Testament never uses “wonders” alone but always conjoins the word with “signs” or with “miracles.” Many of God’s signs are, indeed, also portentous wonders, but they are never wonders alone, they are divine indications and thus lie on a far higher plane than pagan portents. “Sign,” σημεῖον (σημαίνω, to make known by a σῆμα), is always used with a strong ethical connotation by pointing to the significance of the occurrence and not merely to its strangeness. Hence the word is also used alone. In the parallelism of Hebrew poetry the wonders are not restricted to the heavens, nor the signs to the earth, but in both spheres both shall occur and shall at the same time be astonishing and very significant. The sign language of God cannot be misunderstood, every startling and disquieting phenomenon proclaims that heaven and earth must pass away and all their affairs be wound up.

“Blood,” etc., are only specifications, a few of the arresting signs that occur on earth. “Blood and fire and vapor of smoke” appear together at the time of wars and in great calamities in nature. As far as bloody wars are concerned, we have seen this sign often enough, and the Scriptures hold out no hope that it will not be repeated until the very end.

Acts 2:20

20 The turning of the sun into utter darkness and of the moon into a blood-red glow until its light, too, is extinguished, is the ushering in of the end of the world itself as Jesus described it more fully in Matt. 24:29. In Joel’s prophecy this is indicated by the final phrase; πρίν is best regarded as an adverb-preposition, and the infinitive as a noun (R. 1091; B.-D. 395 has the older explanation). “The Lord’s day” is the final day of the world, it is peculiarly his because it is the day on which he shall judge the world. But it is no longer a mundane day of so many hours by the clock. The whole universe shall be utterly changed, and time shall have ceased. It is called “day” (the genitive “Lord’s” making it definite) because human language supplies no better word. The two adjectives are added by the article and are like an appositional climax (R. 776): “the one that is great and manifest.” “Great” in the absolute sense, the positive being stronger than a superlative would be; “manifest” as revealing what this day is to be to the whole universe.

The Hebrew adjective is “terrible,” and this was translated “manifest” by the LXX. The Spirit allowed Peter to retain the latter because it was satisfactory and appropriate. In fact, the ἐπιφάνεια of the Parousia is emphasized repeatedly, 2 Thess. 2:8. Κύριος = Yahweh; it is his day in which he will judge the world through Christ, Acts 17:31.

Acts 2:21

21 The really important statement in Joel’s prophecy is the final one which declares that during all this time, from Pentecost to the Lord’s day at the end, everyone who calls on the Lord shall be saved. It is this promise that Peter applies in v. 38. Καὶἔσται, as in v. 17, is the Hebrew vehayah and needs no connective to link it with what follows (R. 1042). “It shall be” is a promise that cannot be broken. What it includes has already existed for nearly two thousand years. “To call upon the Lord’s name” (the verb is the middle) means to call him to our aid, i. e., in our spiritual need. The ὄνομα or “name” is that by which the Lord alone is known as the One who has the help we need. This name is his gospel which must first be brought to us in order to reveal the Lord in all his grace in Christ and thus to kindle in us the desire for that grace and help and cause us to call upon his gracious name.

Note the universality in Joel’s “everyone who,” etc., and ὃςἄν (ἐάν) indicates expectancy, it is assumed that many will call on the Lord’s name. Here is the commentary on “all flesh” mentioned in v. 17. Here grace flows out also to all the Gentiles. “Everyone who” and all similar expressions of universality are like blank spaces in mighty bank drafts which are signed by the Lord and into which he invites us to write our own name by faith. If we do, the draft will without fail be honored by him. Here we meet the great verb “shall be saved,” the passive implying the Lord as the Savior. In this verb as in all its derivatives (Savior, salvation, those that have been saved) lies the idea of mortal danger, a mighty act rescuing from that danger, and then also the blessed power that continues to keep in safety forever.

The verb has its full meaning here. Its future tense is not to be dated at the last day, but this salvation begins the instant the sinner calls upon the saving name of the Lord. Peter’s sermon, as here sketched by Luke, brings to his hearers all the actuality of this great prophecy of Joel as on this Pentecostal day and hereafter applying to his auditors for their own personal salvation.

Acts 2:22

22 Israelite men, hear these words! Jesus, the Nazarene, a man accredited from God to you by power works and wonders and signs which God worked through him in your midst even as you yourselves know, him, delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you, through lawless men’s hand fastening up, made away with; whom God raised up by loosing the pangs of death for the reason that it was not possible that he be held by it.

On the address compare v. 14 and note that the apposition “Israelites” is a name of the highest honor for Jews which recalls Jacob who prevailed and had his name changed to “Israel,” contender with God. So “Israel” and “Israelites” involved the covenant and the highest hopes of Judaism. To call his hearers “Israelite men” was an appeal that they now show themselves worthy of that name. “Hear these words” with its decisive aorist imperative for hearing that actually grasps continues the tone of authority from v. 14.

In one masterly sentence Peter presents Jesus who is back of the Pentecostal miracle and back of the whole prophecy of Joel. The directness, completeness, conciseness with which the essentials about Jesus are combined into one sentence deserve fullest appreciation. The name is put first: “Jesus, the Nazarene.” It is the ordinary name by which he was commonly known, the personal name “Jesus” with “Nazarene,” from the town of his long residence, added in order to distinguish him from others who had the same personal name: for Yehoshuʿa, later Yeshuʿa (Joshua = Jesus), was a name that was frequently chosen for sons and meant “Yahweh is help,” i. e., on or through whom Yahweh effects salvation. So also Peter says “a man,” his object being to recall Jesus to his hearers as they had seen him so often during his earthly life.

“Even as you yourselves know” appeals to the knowledge of the hearers of the tremendous fact that was so prominent in the case of Jesus: his miracles. Peter purposely uses three terms when referring to them, the three applying to each miracle, yet the three accentuating the great number of the miracles. They were δυνάμεις, τέρατα, σημεῖα, works of supernatural power, creating wonder and amazement but full of heavenly, divine significance as works of divine grace. The whole Jewish world rang with the story of these miracles. By them, Peter says, this man “has been accredited from God to you,” and he fortifies this by stating that “God wrought them through him in your midst,” οἷς being attracted from ἅ. This no honest and sincere Jew would or could deny (John 3:2; 9:31–33), and when the Pharisees attempted it by claiming they were wrought by Beelzebul, Jesus showed the senselessness of their falsehood.

The fact that God wrought the miracles does not place Jesus on the same level with the apostles who also wrought miracles. It is equally true that Jesus wrought them by his own power as no other man ever wrought a true miracle. All the opera ad extra are ascribed equally to the divine Persons. The point of here ascribing the miracles of Jesus to God is not to indicate the source of their power but to bring out their purpose in regard to Jesus: they accredited him to the Jews, for which reason also they were wrought in their midst, so all of them might accept them as accreditations. The perfect participle “having been shown forth or accredited” has its usual strong present force, “still standing thus accredited.” Note the juxtaposition: “from God to you.” As what Jesus thus still stands accredited to all Israelites worthy of the name the statement itself makes declaration, namely as sent to Israel by God to be for Israel all that he claimed to be and was.

Acts 2:23

23 The emphatic τοῦτον, “him,” “this one,” sums up all that has been said: this man so mightily and publicly accredited from God—him the Jews murdered! That was their answer to God’s seals and accreditations. Here Peter preached the law with its crushing power in order to bring about the conviction of sin and genuine contrition. He in no way softens his words since this would only defeat their purpose. He states the cold, damnable fact: “him, through lawless men’s hand fastening up (namely to the cross), you made away with,” which means murdered. The ἄνομοι are pagans who are without the Torah or νόμος and follow their pagan gods and heathen ideas. “Through the hand” is Hebraistic for “by means of.” The aorist participle προσπήξαντες is used in an absolute sense and may be rendered “having crucified”; ἀναιρέω is often used in the ugly sense of to kill, murder, make away with one.

The killing of Jesus by the Sanhedrin through Pilate was an act of the Jewish nation (Matt. 27:25) that involved every Jew who, when the act was made known to him, did not completely disavow and disallow it. Until Peter’s hearers did this, he had to uphold the charge: “him you made away with.”

But Peter has far more to say; he had to insert the claim that this bloody deed did not happen accidentally or only by the damnable will of the Jews. God could have prevented it in a second. This murder of Jesus happened only because Jesus was “delivered up (handed out to the Jews) by the deliberate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” God abandoned Jesus to the murderous Jews in order that they might wreak their hatred upon him (John 19:11); this God did for his own mighty purpose: by the death of his Son to redeem the world. Peter wisely takes his hearers step by step and leads them carefully to faith. Any sincere Jew had to agree that no one such as Jesus was could have been killed as Jesus was unless God were in some way back of his death. Nor would any Jew use this fact in order to absolve his nation of blame for the killing. Ἔκδοτον is a verbal adjective from the aorist stem of δίδωμι and is equal to a passive participle.

In what way God delivered Jesus up to die on the cross is indicated by the weighty datives of means. The success of the betrayal by Judas, which placed Jesus into the power of the Sanhedrin, was due to no cunning or power of men (Matt. 26:53, 54; Luke 22:53b). The death of Jesus was due to “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”; the perfect participle ὡρισμένῃ, “having been fixed or determined on,” places the counsel of God back into eternity. God formed his plan of salvation, which involved the sacrificial death of his Son, in eternity and therefore alone gave him over to the murderous Jews. The divine counsel comes first, and on it rests the divine, infallible foreknowledge. The relation of the two is not one of time—in God no before and after exists—but of inward connection.

When we consider the actions of men, this relation is reversed; what God determines in eternity regarding them rests on his infallible foreknowledge. “Counsel” and “foreknowledge” are not identical; to make them one and the same is to misunderstand both. The “foreknowledge” is misunderstood when it is regarded as an action of the will, a determination to do something and thus knowing it in advance. Such is the idea of C.-K. 256: im voraus gefasster Beschluss, “a decree formed in advance”; for according to C.-K. 226 βουλή means Ratschluss, and the fact that this resolve or decree was formed in advance need not be said

Acts 2:24

24 Here we have the first apostolic preaching of the resurrection of Jesus. Although it is couched in only a relative clause, its force is tremendous. You made away with him—God raised him up! You did it by crucifying him—God did the opposite by loosing the pangs of death! These were hammer blows of the law. So directly were these Jews opposed to God, and God to them.

The genitive in “pangs of death” is subjective; ὠδῖνας are birth pains. The idea is that, when Christ died, death was taken with birth pains and suffered them until God delivered death of Christ by raising him up, thus “loosing the birth pains,” ending their strain. “The birth pains of death” is generally regarded as being cited from Ps. 18:5, and Ps. 116:3, where the LXX translated cheble maveth, “snares of death,” “birth pains of death” (the English of Ps. 116:3 also has “sorrows of death”). In the plurals occurring in these two passages the word “snares” and “pains” are indistinguishable, chēbel = snare; chēbel = birth pain. But Peter is not quoting either psalm; he is using this expression of his own accord, and no one can prove that he borrowed it from a psalm, or that Luke translated Peter’s “snares of death” with the LXX’s “birth pains of death.” We need scarcely add that for Christ these pains ended at the moment of his death. A few texts have the reading “hades” instead of “death.”

Luke alone uses καθότι which here has the force of διότι, “because,” “for the reason that.” Peter states merely the fact that it was not possible that Jesus should be held by death; he then proceeds to prove this from the prophecy of David and thus once more proclaims the resurrection of Jesus and along with it his exaltation, which also is proved from David’s prophecy. Thus Peter reveals the contents of the counsel and foreknowledge of God which gave Jesus into death in order to destroy death by atoning for sin in which lies the power of death. The deity of Jesus becomes evident in this exaltation which enabled Jesus to send down the Holy Spirit with those miraculous results which Peter’s hearers see and hear (v. 33).

Acts 2:25

25 First, then, the proof that, according to the Scriptures, Jesus could not be held by death. Peter is speaking to Jews, hence he quotes a word of David’s from the Scriptures. The proof lies in the fact that what God foretold regarding Christ must come to pass. Some critics place Ps. 16 later than the time of David. Peter here contradicts them: “David says,” etc.; Paul does likewise in Acts 13:35. The testimony of Delitzsch is to the same effect.

The external marks as well as the internal (“David” in the title; the language, tone, poetical fervor, etc.) point to the Davidic authorship of this psalm. Just what situation in the life of David this psalm pictures cannot be historically determined. It was most probably recovery from a severe sickness which prevented David from entering the reconstructed castle on Zion (cf. Delitzsch on Ps. 30).

The LXX is quoted quite exactly which agrees with the Hebrew and expands only a phrase here and there for the sake of clearness. On the general subject of quotations we may say the following: Where it seems necessary the New Testament writers translate the original, or correct the LXX according to the original, or translate interpretatively, and often use the LXX without change. The Holy Spirit guided them throughout, and he has full and free power to deal with his Word in the way that best suits his purposes. He may restate in other words, add to, abbreviate, interpret, etc. We do the same, not only with our own words, but also with those of others and even with Scripture. To demand mechanical, literal exactness of the Holy Spirit and the New Testament writers is to set up for them alone a peculiar canon against which all sensible writers must rebel.

The quotation from Joel in v. 17, 18 is reproduced with greater freedom than the one now cited from David. This fact alone shows how well the writers knew their Old Testament even when they did not quote it according to the very letter. See Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Thomas Hartwell Home, 7th Ed., II, 281, where the Hebrew, LXX, and New Testament passages are printed in parallel columns, in the original and in translation, together with other helpful material.

For David says regarding him,

I saw the Lord before me always

Because he is at my right in order that I shall not be moved.

Because of this glad was my heart, and jubilate did my tongue.

And besides also my flesh shall tent on hope

Because thou wilt not abandon my soul unto hades

Nor wilt give thine Holy One to see corruption.

Thou didst make known to me ways of life;

Thou wilt fill me with gladness in the company of thy countenance.

In προορώμην, the middle voice, the imperfect tense, and the preposition πρό each contribute their part so that we have no equivalent in English: for himself, all along, every time he let his glance move in front of him, David saw the Lord ἐνώπιόνμου, right before his eyes, and that “always.” Nor had he the least difficulty, “because he was at my right” as advocates used to sit at the right side of the clients they supported, “in order that I should not be moved,” made to toss to and fro in uncertainty and in fear. The same thought is found in Ps. 23:4: “Thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.” The phrase ἐκδεξιῶν is idiomatic, has no article, always has the plural, and extends “out from” his own right side to where he saw the Lord (Yahweh) with the eyes of faith. The aorist speaks of actually being moved. All that this vision meant for David he now unfolds.

Acts 2:26

26 His heart, in the Scriptures always the center of the personality, was filled with gladness, the same verb that is used for making merry at a celebration in Luke 15:32; and his tongue jubilated, exulted in songs and expressions of praise. The Hebrew has “my glory jubilated.” But we question whether the Hebrew “heart, glory, flesh” is identical with the triad found in 1 Thess. 5:23: “spirit, soul, body.” From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; heart and tongue go together. Spirit and heart are not the same. It seems that the LXX translated “my glory” “my tongue” because “my glory” was used with reference to any illustrious bodily member, especially where this glory is said to jubilate.

Both ἔτι and δέ indicate that what is now added about “my flesh” is the counterpart to both previous statements; heart and tongue are combined as one concept, flesh is the other. “Besides” (ἔτι) what he had to say about his heart and tongue David has something great to say about even his flesh (καί), and this is naturally of a different nature (δέ) than what he had to say of his heart and tongue. His flesh, meaning his body, “shall put down its tent on hope.” The verb means “to put down a tent,” “to camp in order to rest,” and thus simply “to rest awhile.” This verb implies only a transient sojourn; a tent is not a permanent structure. “Rest” in the A. V. is more correct than “dwell” in the R. V. The temporary tenting comprises both the bodily life of David and the stay of his body in the grave. In both conditions his flesh makes its tent and camp “on hope,” on this as the ground (ἐπί).

What that hope contains follows in the next line. The point to be noted is that making camp matches hope, both continue only for a time; when hope reaches its fulfillment, it becomes joy and gratitude.

Acts 2:27

27 This hope of David’s has solid reality under it and thus cannot end in disappointment as do the hopes of the ungodly which have no other foundation than the desires of the ungodly themselves. Jehovah, who has ever been at David’s right to keep him from being shaken by doubt and by fear, will never forsake him at the time of death. His hope is sure: “Because thou wilt not abandon my soul unto hades.” When David comes to die, Yahweh will not abandon his soul or permit it to sink into hell, the place of the damned. Denn nicht preisgeben wirst du meine Seele dem Hades, Delitzsch, who also correctly defines the Hebrew verb of which ἐγκαταλείψεις is a correct translation: the abandonment here denied is not merely one which leaves a person in a terrible place after he has fallen there, but one which never even permits him to get into such a place. “It is thus the hope not to die or, dying, not to die, which David utters.”

Here ψυχή is in contrast with σάρξ, “my flesh,” and not with πνεῦμα or “spirit” and thus refers to the soul as the entire immaterial part of man which in life animates the body and also contains the spirit and personality. Thus body and soul constitute the entire human being. When psyche and pneuma are paired, the former refers to the immaterial part only as animating the body (translated “life”), the latter to the same immaterial part as representing the ἐγώ or personality and as being able to receive impressions from the divine Pneuma or Holy Spirit. From this lower sense of ψυχή the Greek derives its adjective ψυχικός for which we have no equivalent derived from “soul,” since the English does not use “soul” in this lower sense of the Greek but only as almost the equivalent of “spirit”; thus we are compelled to translate the adjective “carnal,” for it means disregarding the higher nature of the pneuma and yielding wholly to the promptings of the animated body. David says, Jehovah will not permit his soul, when at death it is separated from his body, to fall “into hades,” εἰςᾅδην (the better reading), or εἰςᾅδου, supply δόμον, “into the house of hades.”

Sheol is here translated “hades.” The word sheol is used in a wide sense: at death all men go into sheol, and around the word in this sense cluster all the dark, painful, dreadful things that we still associate with death, leaving this bright world, and entering the grave. Neither the Greek nor the English has a true equivalent for sheol in this sense; the Greek used its “hades,” we use our “grave.” It was the best that translation could do.

Sheol is, however, used also in a narrow sense. It is applied peculiarly to the wicked, and all connotations and descriptions are according. The second use complicated matters still more as far as translation is concerned. The Greek again used “hades,” but the English could not again use “grave,” it used “hell,” the place of the damned. As translations of sheol both “grave” and “hell” are interpretative and as such perfectly proper. But here confusion sets in.

Some retain the Hebrew sheol in all passages of the English Old Testament where this word occurs, and “hades” in all the New Testament passages. Pagan ideas are introduced. We are told that the Hebrews had no clearer ideas than their pagan neighbors. Their sheol was uniformly “the nether world,” the Totenreich, the realm of the dead. It was thought to consist of two parts, an upper and a lower part, the one being less terrible than the other. Everything in the Old Testament that clashes with this idea is ignored.

This procedure is carried into the New Testament, where it begins with Dives and Lazarus in Luke 16:22, etc. “Hades” is retained in the sense of sheol and is now an intermediate place between heaven and hell. Hither all the dead are still said to go, the godly into the upper part, for which the term “Paradise” is appropriated from Luke 23:43, the wicked into the lower part which is not specifically named. Again, all that disagrees with this view—and there is very much, indeed, in the New Testament—is ignored or left as a contradiction.

Fancies go still farther. At his death Jesus is thought to have entered the Paradise part of this intermediate place in order to stay there until his resurrection. Some call this his descent into hell (hades). It is also stated that he opened this place and released all the souls in it so they might enter into heaven; as a consequence this place is now vacant, the godly now going directly to heaven. But the ungodly still enter the nether part. It is not hell but only like hell. But some extend the idea still farther: in this lower part of the intermediate place conversion is still possible. A kind of infernal missionary work is said to be in progress. Jesus himself is thought to have started it in 1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6.

Not only David’s hope is thereby darkened, but the entire Christian hope as well. Two places, and only two, exist in the other world, heaven for all believers, hell with its damnation for all unbelievers. The only difference between the two Testaments is this: the New is clearer than the old on this subject as on all others. In Peter’s sermon the New is made to bring out the full reality contained in the Old.

The translation of our versions is unfortunate: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (hades).” This reads as though David’s soul would, indeed, enter hell (hades), but that God would eventually remove his soul from this place. Even a scholar like Zahn attempts to maintain this sense of the verb. He weakens the force of the Hebrew ʿazab by saying that it might mean “abandon” but claims the Greek verb must mean “to leave.” David is thus thought to say of himself and of Christ that at death their souls would enter, not heaven, but the realm where all the dead are and would be released from this place by means of the resurrection. But did Christ, according to this notion, not take all the souls of the Old Testament saints out of the upper part of this realm of the dead? And David would have been released ahead of his resurrection! And does not the Old Testament itself teach with all clearness the resurrection of also the ungodly, Dan. 12:2?

And what about the parallelism? If David’s soul entered hades (hell), then Jehovah’s Holy One saw corruption. Οὑ—οὑδέ are decisive in negating both lines and not merely the main verbs but also their objects. The soul of David did not enter hell as little as Jehovah’s Holy One saw corruption. He preserved both from both.

God, indeed, “gave out” (implied in ἔκδοτον in v. 23) Jesus to be made away with through death, but David already said, “He will not give him to see corruption.” He will be dead, indeed, and entombed as one dead, but no corruption, decay, putrefaction would touch his holy body while it lay in the tomb. Recall how the women hurried to the tomb on Sunday morning, fearing that even then they might find corruption too far advanced to handle the body. “To see” corruption means to experience it. Delitzsch notes the major sense of sight which is figuratively employed as the sensus communis by which all experiences, active and passive, are perceived. In his Biblische Psychologie, 234, he shows how by this verb and by the singulars eye and ear (not plurals) the Scriptures go back to the unit sensorium underlying all perception and all experience. We need not puzzle ourselves about shachath and its translation διαφθορά, “corruption.” The Hebrew means both “pit” and “corruption,” the noun being a derivation from two verbs (Ed. Koenig, Hebraeisches und aramaeisches Woerterbuch, 495). Note the contrast: Holy One—corruption.

Note the far more important contrast: my soul—thy Holy One. Let us admit it that the former refers to David and to Christ, the latter only to Christ as Peter also proceeds to explain. David’s body decayed; not even the slightest bit of decay touched the body of Jesus. “Holy One” (qadosh, ἅγιος) is often applied to God, especially by Isaiah; also to Christ in Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; Acts 3:14; 1 John 2:20; here and in Acts 13:35, ὅσιος (Trench: opposite of “polluted”) is used. “Holy One” thus predicates the holiness of deity of Jesus; it was thus that he did not see corruption. The body of the incarnate Holy One could not be touched by the decay which touches even the bodies of the saints because they are still sinners. David thus prophesied in regard to Christ and his stay in the tomb. And now we see the “hope” on which his flesh rested.

Death would bring corruption to his body, but at death his soul would escape hell and enter heaven because Jehovah’s Holy One would not see corruption when he would be given into death (v. 23). The body of Jesus, untouched by corruption, would arise on the third day, sin and death being conquered forever. David’s body, living or dead, thus rested in the hope, in the hope of its resurrection at the last day, and at death his soul would enter glory.

Acts 2:28

28 It is thus that the Lord made known “life’s ways” to David (the Hebrew has the singular), and we may take the genitive in either sense: “the ways that belong to life,” are characteristic of it, or “that lead to life,” i. e., life eternal. These ways are repentance, faith, obedience, and hope; and “life” (ζωή, so often in John) is the life principle itself, life in God, with God, in and with Christ who is “the Life,” i. e., the fount of life for us. “Didst make known” goes far beyond the intellect; no one can have the knowledge of life’s ways except by having that life and in its living power walking in those ways. The thought is not merely reaching that life hereafter, but having it, enjoying it, walking in its ways now.

The Hebrew: “Satiation with joys is with (or at) thy countenance,” i. e., is had where the light of Jehovah’s countenance or presence is felt, is rendered in the Greek: “Thou wilt fill me with gladness in company with (μετά) thy countenance.” The thought is the same as it is in the Hebrew. The future tense “wilt fill me” means already now and, of course, vastly more after death.

Acts 2:29

29 Peter adds an exegesis of the main point of David’s prophecy. Men and brethren (1:16; 2:14), it is permitted to state with openness to you concerning the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, as being a prophet and as knowing that God swore to him with an oath to seat one out of the fruit of his loins on his throne, foreseeing it, he made utterance concerning the resurrection of the Christ that he neither was abandoned unto hades nor did his flesh see corruption.

Peter first of all makes very clear that David’s words were not fulfilled in his own person but were prophecy and dealt with the resurrection of the Messiah. He is deferential: “it is permitted,” etc. = “permit me to state openly to you” as my brethren who know that I mean nothing derogatory when I say “concerning the patriarch David,” whom I revere with you as a patriarch, the progenitor of a royal line in Israel, first “that he both died,” ended his life, “and was buried,” these two going together, and secondly, as well known evidence of the fact, “his tomb is with us to this day.” Neh. 3:16 mentions David’s tomb; Josephus speaks of it several times. It was about a thousand years old at this time, and Dio Cassius 64, 14 reports that it fell into ruins during Hadrian’s reign in the year 133, after which it is no longer heard of. It was at Jerusalem—mute but incontrovertible evidence that Ps. 16 was not fulfilled in David. David’s body saw corruption. It was dust.

Acts 2:30

30 The possibility that David could have been mistaken in his psalm is not for one moment entertained. The conclusion (οὗν) to be drawn is far otherwise, one to which all of Peter’s hearers at once agree: “as being a prophet … he made utterance,” and that “concerning the resurrection of the Christ.” The verb ὑπάρχω is often used in the sense of “to be.” But Peter must add an important point, the one on account of which he already called David a “patriarch.” When David wrote that psalm he did it “knowing that God swore to him with an oath to seat one out of the fruit of his loins on his throne.” The form of the participle εἰδώς is perfect, but the sense is always present. “Swore with an oath” may be pleonastic but it is stronger than the verb without this dative of means (R. 1205, 531). See 2 Sam. 7:12; Ps. 132:11. The phrase ἐκκαρποῦ is partitive: “one out of the fruit,” etc., and should be regarded as the object of καθίσαι and not as the subject (R. V.); the additions found in the A. V. have far too little support to be considered.

Peter needed to say no more for Jews. They knew that “one out of the fruit of his loins” (the Greek for “loins” is always singular) referred to the Messiah. They, indeed, conceived his throne to be one of earthly grandeur only and had to be taught Luke 1:32, 33.

Acts 2:31

31 “Foreseeing it,” Peter says, David made utterance as he did. He foresaw what he recorded in Ps. 16. This psalm is quoted by Peter, and thus Peter says that David made this utterance “concerning the resurrection of the Christ.” As a prophet he spoke by revelation and by inspiration; hence ἐλάλησε, “he made utterance,” is the fitting verb. How fully David himself comprehended his own utterance is quite immaterial. It is Peter himself who tells us how far beyond the comprehension of the prophets some of their utterances were, 1 Pet. 1:10–12; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21. We have no interest in reducing this comprehension to a minimum or in searching out and speculating on its degree.

The point is that we ourselves see and believe the literal fulfillment. In the case of David the word was half fulfilled, namely only the clause that his soul would not be abandoned unto hades. In the case of the Christ both were to be fulfilled, this statement and the other that his flesh should not see corruption. Note how Peter repeats the double statement, retaining the sense but not the identical words. Most important, he uses aorist tenses where David had futures: “that he neither was abandoned unto hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” These historical aorists are in place, for they declare that the fulfillment has come in the resurrection of the Christ who is Jesus.

Acts 2:32

32 This Jesus God raised up, whereof all we are witnesses. In “this Jesus,” who is presented fully in v. 22 as to his accreditation and his death according to God’s counsel, the prophecy of David, which was unfulfilled in his own case, was truly and completely fulfilled: “This Jesus God raised up.” It is he and he alone whose flesh did not see corruption. He is the Holy One of Yahweh in David’s prophecy, the One out of David’s loins, “the Christ,” fully and gloriously proved so by God’s raising him up. By this act God sealed him as the Christ. Note that in this its very first presentation the entire apostolic message centers in the resurrection of Jesus. God centered it there already in David’s prophecy, then again in fulfilling that prophecy in the case of Jesus, 1 Cor. 15:13, etc.

All that Peter needs to add is the clause: “whereof all we are witnesses,” namely the whole body of the disciples, all of whom had seen the risen Lord, 500 at one time in Galilee; οὗ must be “of which,” of the act of raising up Jesus, and not “of whom,” of his person. In order to see the force of this clause for all these Jews, dwellers in Jerusalem, we must recall the full publicity of the death of Jesus (v. 23), plus the report on his empty tomb which the Sanhedrists tried to explain away (Matt. 28:11–15), thereby aiding the publication in the city of what had occurred in Joseph’s tomb. The lie that disciples had stolen the body from under the eyes of the Roman guard was too shallow. All that Peter needed to do was to flash the truth on those hearers in connection with David’s prophecy. To this day that empty tomb establishes the resurrection of Jesus and the fulfillment of the prophecy. “All we” recalls 1 Cor. 15:4–8, and what the risen Lord himself expounded to them regarding the prophecies of Scripture as recorded in Luke 24:27; 44–48.

Acts 2:33

33 But Peter cannot stop at this point. His hearers themselves are witnesses this very day. Therefore, having been exalted by the right hand of God and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he did pour out this which you yourselves see and hear. Right here and now Peter’s hearers were both seeing and hearing the great effects of the resurrection of Jesus, the miracles of Pentecost. They reveal what the resurrection involved, the exaltation of the risen Jesus, his pouring out the spirit, the miraculous evidence of which all were seeing and hearing. Peter thus goes straight to his goal: he lays up stone on stone with perfect, swift mastery until the arch is complete.

The fact that the resurrection of Jesus as the Christ was not intended to bring him back from the dead for a continuation of his former earthly life did not need to be stated. The resurrection miracle was far too great for so small an effect. Another act accompanied that of raising the incorruptible body of Jesus from the dead: he was exalted by the right of God, οὗν presenting this and what follows as resting on the resurrection. The participle presents this act of exalting Jesus as being preliminary to what follows. “Having been exalted” includes both the glorification of the body at the time of its resurrection and the ascension of that body to heaven. Peter does not say regarding this exaltation that the disciples constitute the witness of it. They saw some of it in the appearances, and the eleven saw the first part of the ascension, but none saw the exaltation in heaven. Peter will offer the other, the Scripture, proof.

The dative is called ambiguous by R. 543: to—at—by the right hand, and some puzzle about the choice to be made when interpreting. But the ambiguity is only abstractly grammatical and not exegetical. This is the dative of means: “by the right” (supply “hand”); and it has been well said that, when the right hand exalts, it does not place on the left side. In all the passages which speak of God’s right hand his omnipotence and his majesty are referred to; by these the human nature of Jesus was exalted; Eph. 1:20–23 offers the fullest description.

A second participle is added with the close connective τε which is stronger than καί and indicates that the exaltation and the reception of the Spirit are a double act. The exalted Jesus “received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father.” Here we have the Holy Trinity, for “Father” implies Jesus as the Son. The fact that the exalted Jesus receives the Spirit from the Father in order to send him forth to the disciples appears in John 15:26; 16:7; compare Acts 1:4. It is thus that the three Persons unite in working out our salvation; we may also compare Luke 3:22. On this centering of all these acts in the Father nothing beyond the fact itself can be offered. “The promise of the Holy Spirit” = the promise which is the Spirit; the genitive is appositional (R. 498). In 1:4 we, therefore, have simply “the promise of the Father.” The Spirit is the Promised One, promised as the result of Christ’s redemption, to convey that redemption to men and to appropriate it unto them.

And now Peter is back where he began in v. 16: “he did pour out this which you yourselves see and hear,” ἐξέχεεν the aorist to express the fact. While τοῦτο might refer to Πνεῦμα, the relative speaks of what Peter’s hearers are seeing and hearing, which is not the Spirit himself but the effect of his presence, the miraculous manifestations. They are poured out by the pouring out of the Spirit. Since the Spirit is a person, it is a striking expression to say that he is poured out. In v. 17, 18 we have the partitive “from or of my Spirit,” which helps to explain the figure of pouring out. The Spirit is the source and fountain of all spiritual gifts and blessings; where the Spirit is these are richly distributed and bestowed like heavenly streams of grace.

Thus both the Spirit himself is said to be poured out and all the gifts which we still see and hear. Compare the literal presentation in 1 Cor. 12:7–11.

Acts 2:34

34 Peter offers far more than his own assertions, true as they are. He at the same time offers the proof that is decisive for his Jewish hearers by again quoting the prophet David, this time Ps. 110. For David did not go up into the heavens, yet he himself declares,

Said the Lord to my Lord, Sit thou at my right

Until I place thine enemies as a footstool of thy feet.

With assurance, therefore, let all Israel’s house be realizing that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you on your part crucified.

The one thing it was necessary to prove was the exaltation of Jesus. The other needed no proof, for the miracles of the outpouring of the Spirit Peter’s hearers themselves saw and heard. They also beheld the fact that these effects of the Spirit were observable only in the disciples of Jesus who were assembled before them. The connection with Jesus was thus plain. David is merely called on to reveal just what this connection was. But this is set aside by the critics who deny that David wrote Ps. 110 by attributing it to an unknown and much later writer.

Here again we have the parting of the ways, on the one side these critics with their hypotheses, on the other hand Christ and his testimony. Matt. 22:41–46; Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44 report an untruth if the declaration of Jesus that David wrote this psalm is not reliable. The very words Peter here uses are elsewhere used in the same sense: 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13; 10:13. Other passages of the psalm are likewise used with reference to the Messiah: Heb. 5:6; 7:17, 21. If anything is Scripturally certain, it is that David penned this psalm.

He did not speak of himself in what he said in this psalm but again, as in v. 27, of another who was vastly greater than himself. Peter at once points that out. With γάρ he introduces the proof for the exaltation of Jesus. “David did not go up (ascend) into the heavens.” He died and was buried, and the tomb that contained his body was nearby when Peter spoke, had been there for a thousand years. Peter renders the Hebrew dual shamayim with the word “heavens.” “Did not go into the heavens” refers to the body of David. David ended as every other human being ends. Death separated his soul and his body, the latter rotted in the tomb, and since David was a believer, the former went to heaven to await the last day and the resurrection. In connection with v. 27 we have treated the claim that David’s soul went to hades.

And yet this very David says this wonderful thing which cannot refer to himself, which must refer to the Messiah, and which is now seen to be fulfilled in Jesus. “The Lord said unto my Lord,” Yahweh unto David’s ʾAdon. David was king and had no earthly lord above him. Who, then, was this “Lord” of David, this ʾAdon, this mighty dignitary, whom Jehovah seats at his right in eternal triumph over his enemies? All Jews knew that David was here speaking of the Messiah and by calling him “my Lord” was confessing and worshipping him. But the great point of the revelation which David makes lies in what Yahweh says to this Messiah Lord: “Be sitting (present imperative, durative) at my right,” etc. This is divine exaltation (Heb. 1:13). To only One did Yahweh ever say this.

On the idiom ἐκδεξιῶν see v. 25. God’s right and right hand (v. 33) are anthropomorphitic expressions which signify his might and his majesty; and sitting at God’s right is to exercise all this might and this majesty. Need we say that this is impossible for one who is only a human being? Need we add that it could not be said of the Son as the Second Person of the Trinity, he who in his very being is already of equal might and majesty with the Father? This was said to the Son as man. In his human nature he was exalted to rule forever with divine might and majesty.

It is as the incarnate Son that he has “enemies” (Luke 19:14). Had they not carried him to the cross? But Yahweh says he will place them all as a footstool of the feet of this Lord of David’s. The figure matches this ʾAdon’s sitting at Yahweh’s right. In this way conquering kings showed their triumph by placing a foot upon the neck of some conquered king. But here the figure is magnified—all the enemies as a unit, as a permanent footstool of the exalted Messiah.

This does not imply that the Messiah rests on the heavenly throne while the Father crushes his enemies for him. Ps. 2:9 makes that plain. The Persons join in all works. Nor is this crushing a strain. God laughs at these enemies and their silly rage against his Anointed. Delitzsch writes: “Temporal history shall end with the triumph of good over evil but not with the annihilation of evil but with its subjugation.

To this it will come when absolute omnipotence for and through the exalted Christ shows its effectiveness.”

By citing this prophecy Peter accomplished two things: he explained from David’s writings how the miracle of Pentecost occurred after having shown from Joel’s prophecy that it must occur; and he placed David before his hearers as calling the Messiah “his Lord” together with the enemies who would be made the Messiah’s footstool. These were Jesus’ disciples upon whom the Spirit promised by Joel had come with such miraculous manifestations; from whom could this Spirit have come upon them except from Jesus and except from him as exalted at God’s right even as David had said? But what about these hearers of Peter’s? Were they among the enemies of whom David, too, had prophesied? Peter struck home in the hearts of these hearers with his quotation.

Acts 2:36

36The summing up is so masterly that it could have been made only by inspiration from the Spirit even as the entire sermon bears the plainest marks of the Spirit. It has been well said regarding this last sentence: Tot verba, tot pondera. Note the same tone of authority in the imperative that was evident at the beginning (v. 14) and in the progress (v. 22) of the sermon. This final οὗν draws the deduction from the entire presentation. Take Jesus (v. 22–24), the Pentecostal miracle, the prophecy of Joel and the two prophecies of David—what do they put beyond question? “That God made Jesus both Lord and Christ,” and “let all Israel’s house be realizing it with assurance.” Any other deduction is false to both the facts and the prophecies. Note the durative present “be realizing,” γινωσκέτω. This is more than mere knowing, it is a knowing that is realization and complete conviction that grows deeper the longer it continues. “Assuredly” or “with assurance” fits this realization; note the noun in Luke 1:4, “the certainty” for Theophilus.

Peter looks far beyond his immediate hearers when appealing to “all Israel’s house.” No article is needed after πᾶς to have it mean “all” and not “every”; better than the explanation of R. 772 is that of the older grammarian Winer: οἶκοςἸσραήλ is a proper name. “House of Israel” makes all Jews one great family of the patriarch Israel, all of whose members ought to share his faith. Israel is the third great patriarch, the one from whom the whole people of Israel branched out. The reference is to the human nature of our Lord when Peter says that “God made Jesus both Lord and Christ,” this nature, of course, in conjunction with the divine. And “made” includes everything from the incarnation to the final exaltation. “Lord” is divine Lord, David’s ʾAdon, the Κύριος (1:6) and ὁΚύριοςἸησοῦς (1:21) of the apostles. The word contains power and majesty but always coupled with grace and the highest magnanimity, for this Lord is our Savior. Here the title is joined with “Christ,” Χριστός, the verbal adjective from the superior verb χρίω, “to anoint,” hence “the Anointed,” the Hebrew Mashiach.

The word refers to an office. As the Anointed, Jesus is our Prophet, High Priest, and King, and in all these offices brings us salvation.

This Lord and Christ had been the great hope of the Jews, but they had converted their expectation into one of a grand, earthly Deliverer and Ruler who would lift the Jews above all nations in supreme power and glory. Therefore they rejected “this Jesus,” Peter adding: “whom you on your part (emphatic ὑμεῖς) crucified.” God made him Lord and Christ, you crucified him. On their guilt compare v. 23. The contrast between “God” and “you” is the same as in v. 23, 24, but terser and thus stronger. Peter minced no words. He preached plenty of gospel but drove straight home with the law.

And he was content with that. There was no sentimental pleading, belaboring, begging, which so often defeats itself. No sinner does God a favor by accepting Christ. Peter preached the divine truth in all its power; the effect took care of itself.

THE EFFECT OF PETER’S SERMON

Acts 2:37

37Now on hearing it they were pierced through as to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, What shall we do, men and brethren? Δέ is metabatic or transitional, carrying the account farther. The effect of Peter’s preaching was the one intended. His sermon consisted of law and of gospel, and in normal cases it is always the law that first takes effect; yet the gospel must accompany the law, otherwise the law will effect only despair instead of contrition. It is not merely the repeated statement that these hearers of Peter’s were involved in making away with Jesus that pierced their hearts but their whole previous attitude toward this Jesus whom God had sent them as “Lord and Christ.” They had not accepted him thus, they had treated him as a mere man, many perhaps with indifference, others joined in the hostility of their Sanhedrin. Their eyes were now opened to the wickedness of their previous attitude toward Jesus. All the guilt of their unbelief was revealed through Peter’s sermon.

This shows us how we must today preach the law in connection with Jesus, the Lord and Christ of God. We must reveal the guilt of unbelief. Unless the sinner is pierced in heart with this guilt, conversion will not be wrought.

The second passive is followed by the adverbial accusative: “they were pierced through as to their hearts.” Like a sharp spear the law penetrated their hitherto hard and impervious hearts. The Greek καρδία is always the center of the personality, psychologically the mind plus the will. Far more than the feelings of the hearers were stirred or hurt. “Pierced through” means in a deadly way. By the exposure of it which Peter had made their entire previous attitude of unbelief was struck a deadly blow. These men felt utterly crushed. They were not only hurt but hurt so that they could not rally against the hurt.

Their conscience was smitten so that they could not fend off the blow. They had been in opposition to God in their treatment of his grace in Jesus. Denial on their part was impossible. The question they asked is a full admission of their guilt.

They use the plural “men and brethren,” for they realized that Peter spoke for all the apostles. On “men and brethren” see 1:16, and 2:29, and note the appeal in “brethren,” which asks the apostles to help them as brethren. They use the deliberative subjunctive in their question, thereby indicating that they are utterly at a loss as to what to do in their terrible situation. The question was not intended in a synergistic sense nor was it less than the one asked in 16:30 because “to be saved” was not added. These men were not thinking of doing something of themselves to remove their guilt. Their question implies the contrary: 1) a complete confession of their guilt; 2) a complete confession of their helplessness in regard to this guilt; 3) complete submission to the apostles in order that they who have produced the consciousness of their guilt may lead them also to deliverance from this guilt.

Peter does not correct their question, nor did Paul do so in 16:30. He would have been in the wrong to answer, “You cannot do anything!”

Acts 2:38

38And Peter to them (the verb is to be supplied from v. 37): Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children and to all afar off, as many as the Lord, your God, shall call to himself.

Peter gives direct answer and tells these men exactly what to do. But this doing is nothing more than the divinely intended reaction of the gospel in the hearts of these men. They must repent, they must come to baptism, but only as drawn by the gospel and its power of grace. It is our will that moves and acts and yet only because God’s grace makes it move.

In μετανοεῖν and μετάνοια we have one of the great concepts of the Bible. The word originally signified to perceive or understand afterward (μετά), i. e., too late; then it advanced to the idea of a later change of mind and thus came to mean “repent.” But throughout the New Testament the word has been deepened to mean an inner change of heart that is decisive for the whole personality, one away from sin and unbelief with their guilt unto Christ, faith, and cleansing through Christ. When it is used without modifiers as here, “to repent” includes the entire inner change or contrition and faith (like ἐπιστρέφειν, “to turn,” “to be converted”); but when “to believe” is added, contrition alone is referred to but as accompanying faith. So “repent” here = turn wholly to Jesus as your Savior (“Lord and Christ,” v. 36) and accept him as such. In order to effect this change of heart Peter had placed so fully before them just who and what Jesus is. It is this Jesus who is thus to draw them to repentance.

The aorist imperative is one of authority and demands a decisive act that is to stand once for all. A present imperative would imply that the repentance is to be renewed daily even as Luther calls the Christian’s entire life a repentance.

“Repent” is plural, but “be baptized” has the distributive singular subject “everyone of you.” The two acts, however, always go together in the case of adults, and all difficulty disappears when we properly conceive them as a unit. Let us not separate them. The pathological cases of possible repentance without baptism need not concern us. Peter’s hearers knew about baptism through the work of the Baptist. Jesus continued John’s baptism (John 4:1, 2). This baptism was not only symbolical. As practiced by both John and Jesus and then as being appointed for all nations it bestowed the remission of sins and was thus a true sacrament. The Twelve, as far as we know, had been baptized only with John’s baptism.

“In the name of Jesus Christ” for the first time uses “Jesus Christ” as a personal designation, combining the personal “Jesus” with the official “Christ.” This later became the regular usage. As in v. 21 and in all these expressions, ὄνομα, “name,” designates the revelation by which Jesus Christ is known so that we rely on him. To be baptized “in his name” means to be baptized “in connection with the revelation he has made of himself,” the application of water (as instituted by him) placing us into union with him by means of his name or revelation. Baptism seals us with this name and revelation and gives us all this name and this revelation contain, and by receiving baptism we accept it all. A refusal of baptism would be a repudiation of Christ and of all the gifts contained in his name. He who wants a piece of property wants and accepts the deed to it: if he will not have the deed he may be quite certain he does not really care for the property, especially since both property and deed are a gift.

The church has never considered “in the name of Jesus Christ” the formula to be used when baptizing; it employs only the words occurring in Jesus’ own command: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The εἰς is static and does not mean “into” but, as so frequently in the Koine, “in.” What words are we to use: some selected by ourselves, one person using this, another that formula? Would our words be better than Christ’s own? The holy name is like a signature and deeds to us all that the revelation centering in this name intends to convey. Are signatures to deeds something immaterial, to be changed ad libitum? Banks certainly do not think so. When we baptize, all doubt as to the genuineness of the act is always to be excluded. That is done by the use of the name Jesus gave; it is not done by substituting words of our own even though these be other words taken from Scripture.

“Everyone of you” makes repentance and baptism personal in the highest degree. Salvation deals with each individual. Note the universality: “everyone,” no matter what his condition or position may be. One door is open to all, one only. Baptism is pure gospel that conveys grace and salvation from God through Christ; it dare not be changed into a legal or legalistic requirement that is akin to the ceremonial requirement of Moses such as circumcision. God does something for us in baptism, we do nothing for him. Our acceptance of baptism is only acceptance of God’s gift.

This is emphasized strongly in the addition: “for or unto remission of your sins.” It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether εἰς is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to ἐν), R. 592, or, as is commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, or better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in εἰς. This preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys nothing real.

In order to make baptism such a symbol, we are told that Peter’s phrase means only that baptism pictures remission, a remission we may obtain by some other means at some later day. But this alters the force of Peter’s words. Can one persuade himself that Peter told these sinners who were stricken with their terrible guilt to accept a baptism that pointed to some future remission? Had he no remission to offer them now? And when and how could they get that remission, absolutely the one thing they must have? And how can Ananias in 22:16 say, “Be baptized and wash away thy sins!” as though the water of baptism washed them away by its connection with the Name?

Ἄφεσις, from ἀφίημι, “to send away,” is another great Biblical concept: “the sending away” of your sins. How far away they are sent Ps. 103:12 tells us: “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” Measure the distance from the point where the east begins to the point where the west ends. Nor does David say, “as far as the north is from the south,” lest you think of the poles and succeed in measuring the distance. Again Micah 7:19: “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” Even today the sea has depths that have never been sounded. The idea to be conveyed is that the sins are removed from the sinner so as never to be found again, never again to be brought to confront him. God sends them away, and he would thus be the last to bring them back.

When the sinner appears before his judgment seat, his sins are gone forever. This is what our far less expressive “forgiveness” really means. Nor does the guilt remain, for sin and guilt are one: sin gone, guilt gone!

“And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” means in and by repenting and being baptized. The genitive is appositional; as in v. 33 the promise is the Holy Spirit, so here the gift is the Holy Spirit. In Peter’s sermon the Spirit came to work upon the hearers from without, but by bringing them to repentance and to baptism he would actually enter their hearts, be their heavenly gift, and thus put them into actual communion with God. This gift is bestowed upon each and every repentant and baptized soul and cannot, therefore, refer only to charismatic gifts of the Spirit, speaking with tongues, healing, etc., but denotes the gift of grace and salvation which is always present in the heart which the Spirit enters. We do not read that any of the 3, 000 spoke with tongues, yet they all received the Holy Spirit.

Here again we must not separate repentance, baptism, the Spirit. Not at some later time were these people to receive the Spirit; not in some later sudden, mysterious seizure; not as a later “second blessing” that would produce a total sanctification or sinlessness by a sudden transformation. Luther wrote against the Anabaptists: “This doctrine is to remain sure and firm, that the Holy Spirit is given through the office of the church, that is through the preaching of the gospel and baptism. There must seek him all who desire him, must not despise the little band in which the preaching of the gospel resounds, but must hold to that band, gathered and staying together in Christ’s name.”

Acts 2:39

39In order to draw all his hearers unto repentance and baptism Peter assures them: “For to you is the promise and to your children,” to them first as Jews. “The promise” is the Holy Spirit, “promise” occurs in this sense in 1:4, and in 2:33. It was the intention of God to bestow his Spirit upon the Jews first. “To you” is emphatic and thus stresses the thought that, if God so graciously purposed to bless them with his Spirit, they should surely not despise his intention. “And to your children” is a most significant addition when we bear in mind that the Old Covenant included children. Certainly, the New Covenant would include them likewise. But how are children to receive the Holy Spirit except by baptism? “Your children” allows no restriction as to age. How the Holy Spirit enters their hearts by baptism is his concern only, ours is to administer that baptism, in no wise doubting, otherwise we could not answer to God.

“And to all afar off” includes all other nations and, of course, also their children, εἰςμακράν (ὁδόν), a pharse that is made a substantive by the article with εἰς being static (R. 593). These “afar off” cannot be restricted to the Jewish diaspora, especially not in view of “all flesh” in v. 17; compare Isa. 49:1, 12; 57:19. “As many as the Lord, our God, shall call unto himself” in no way limits the universality. These are not persons who are chosen by a mysterious decree of election but those who are called by the gospel. Others, too, are called but reject the call in permanent obduracy; these are won by the call and its grace. The aorist subjunctive is futuristic and views the entire calling as a unit that includes all those won by the call as one body. ΚύριοςὁΘεός = Yahweh Haelohim, and ἡμῶν means that this covenant Lord and omnipotent God exercises his power in favor of Israel. By means of this possessive Peter unites himself with his Jewish hearers; the God of the Old Covenant is also the God of the New. It is worth noting, both here in Peter’s words and beginning with the Baptist, that the Three Persons are mentioned with utmost freedom, and all Jews accepted this Trinity of God without a question.

Acts 2:40

40And with many other words he adjured and kept urging them, saying, Be saved from this crooked generation! Luke himself tells us that he is reporting only the essentials. Perhaps Peter had to answer questions and make further explanations literally “with other more words (statements),” more than the ones recorded. The verb is strong: “to protest earnestly,” “to adjure,” the aorist to express the fact. But the imperfect “he kept urging them” (thus M.-M. 484) describes the chief point of this adjuration, the urging: “Be saved from this crooked generation!” The aorist imperative is passive, and there is no reason for not regarding it so. Some passive forms are to be taken in a middle sense, but scarcely this passive. One might make it permissive, “let yourselves be saved,” but scarcely the reflexive middle, “save yourselves.”

Here “generation” is to be taken in an ethical sense as the adjective “crooked” plainly shows. The Hebrew dor and the Greek γενεά are often so used although this has often been denied in connection with Luke 21:32. The generation here referred to is the entire succession of unbelievers with the Sanhedrin at its head. From it Peter’s hearers are to be saved by repenting and by being baptized. “Crooked” is made emphatic by means of a second article (R. 776); σκολιός (Deut. 32:5; Ps. 78:8 = LXX 77:8; Phil. 2:15) is used figuratively. It refers to a warped piece of timber which the carpenters must throw out as being useless. “Be saved” implies that the crooked generation is bound for destruction.

Acts 2:41

41They, accordingly, who received his word were baptized; and there were added on that day about three thousand souls. Οἱμὲνοὗν is clearer here than in 1:6; for the article is to be construed with the participle: “those receiving his word” and not all those present on this occasion. Receiving, “consenting to the word, giving it entrance” (C.-K. 281), was one act, hence the aorist participle; “his word” (λόγος) is the substance of what Peter said. All these “were baptized.”

This leads us to a consideration of the question of baptism by immersion. When Luke writes, “They were baptized, and about three thousand were added on that day,” he certainly intends to say that they were added by baptism on that very day and not that they were added that day but were baptized later on. Those who accept the plain sense of Luke’s statement must show where 3, 000 could be immersed in Jerusalem in about half a day. Some speak of the brook Kidron or of one or the other of the pools, but Kidron is bone-dry the greater part of the year, and the pools are not ponds. For several reasons none of the pools that have been mentioned in this connection can be considered. Those who are informed regarding the water facilities of Jerusalem, therefore, regard Luke as saying that the reception took place “on that day,” but that the baptizing took place later, namely at the Jordan.

But we may wonder why Luke did not then write: “Those who received his word were added on that day, and there were baptized about three thousand.” Even this might well mean that they were also baptized on that day. Luke, however, wrote as he did: baptized—added that day. Even the long journey to the Jordan is taken for granted although Luke should then have written, “were baptized in the Jordan,” which he, however, did not add.

The question at issue is, however, much more extensive. It involves all other baptisms mentioned in the New Testament beginning with that of John. We have treated the latter in the Gospels (which see). Neither John’s nor any other baptism mentioned in the New Testament was administered by immersion. All the evidence is to the contrary, often overwhelmingly so. The issue in regard to the 3, 000 who were baptized at Pentecost is vital.

This grand baptism, the first in the Christian Church, undoubtedly established the mode also for all future baptisms. Soon the membership in Jerusalem rose to 5, 000 men (not counting women and children, 4:4); then Luke loses all count and says only that further “multitudes” were added (5:14), and after that “the number of the disciples were multiplied” (6:1), and again “multiplied,” even “a great company of priests” believing (6:7). Were all these thousands also taken to the Jordan for baptism? The claim is often made that all the men among the 120 or more disciples helped the Twelve to baptize the 3, 000. This is done in support of immersion, especially when the baptism is placed in Jerusalem and when Luke is thought to say that it occurred “on that day.” Immersion requires so much strength that many men would be needed for immersing 3, 000. But who alone stepped forth to deal with this multitude?

In v. 14 it is “Peter with the eleven,” and in v. 37 the multitude speaks to “Peter and the rest of the apostles.” This is Luke’s answer. Here the apostles functioned in their high office for the first time.

How, then, were the 3, 000 baptized? We do not know. The Spirit has withheld the answer. Why? Because the mode is not essential. In order to make it essential the Spirit would have had to state it in plain terms.

One mode, however, was not used: immersion. Why, then, should we use it? The church has selected the simplest mode, one that is probably much like the one that was employed in Jerusalem. To insist on one mode and to condemn all others is rather presumptuous. We may add that all the pictorial and the archaeological evidence regarding the mode of baptism in the early church has been gathered by Clement F. Rogers, M.

A., Baptism and Christian Archaeology, Oxford, Clarendon Press. This man approached his investigation with the conviction that immersion was the primitive and original mode. He found the exact contrary to be true. The most ancient tracings and carvings portray the act of baptism as being carried out by pouring. In this way John baptized Jesus, and in this way other baptisms were administered. All the fonts found in ruins and in excavations are shallow, a few steps down.

In some of these immersion could have been possible, but only by laying the person down flat in the font, and then he dared not have been very corpulent. This mass of evidence invalidates the assumption, so often met with, that immersion was the mode of baptism in the early church.

To this day it is by means of baptism that people are added to the church. In the Greek “were added” is enough and needs no phrase which states to whom they were added; the same is true in regard to v. 47. Luke’s ψυχαί are “souls” in the sense of “persons.” The statement that all of these were men must be denied in view of 4:4, where Luke counts only “men,” ἄνδρες, and omits women and children. “Souls” does not exclude children, especially in view of “your children” in v. 39 and of the entire Old Covenant which included children. In 7:14, where the family of Jacob is mentioned, “souls” positively includes every child. The effort to take “your children,” τέκνα, in the sense of adult descendants only is ineffectual. All these details, however, must not dim the tremendous fact which Luke here records.

Think of 3, 000 coming to faith and to baptism on one day, the very first day of what may be called the Christian Church! Thus on one day the great mother church of all Christendom was founded. The first Christian congregation starts off with 3, 000 members.

THE FIRST PICTURE OF THE MOTHER CONGREGATION AT JERUSALEM

Acts 2:42

42Luke gives us several of these pictures in due succession, and each is intensely interesting. The Spirit begins his saving work, we are subject to it today. Jesus labored for three years and at last had only some 500 disciples (1 Cor. 15:6); here 3, 000 were added at one stroke, fulfilling John 4:37, 38. And they continued steadfast in the teaching of the apostles and in the fellowship, in breaking the bread, and in the prayers.

The entire sketch is presented by means of descriptive imperfects, thus painting the picture. ΙΙροσκαρτερέω means “to adhere with strength” to something, the periphrastic imperfect stressing the continuance. We have four datives in two pairs and do not regard the last two as a unit apposition to “fellowship.”

The fundamental activity of the first congregation is this firm, continued adherence “to the teaching of the apostles.” They were the called teachers and preachers and they began their work at once, there being about 300 hearers to each apostle. This work went on continuously, and all these people not only attended the meetings faithfully but also earnestly adhered to what was taught. Διδαχή is both the work of teaching and the doctrine taught. In this case both meanings flow together.

The deduction should not be made from this passage that people may be received into the church only on their willingness to enter it and that teaching may be postponed until later. These converts were Jews who were fully conversant with the Scriptures as Peter’s quotations from Joel and from David show. The one thing they needed was the conviction that Jesus was the Christ. That Peter wrought in them on Pentecost. Thus they were fully prepared for baptism and for membership; they had what we must now first give to those who have never been properly instructed. This teaching after Pentecost was that which we now perform Sunday after Sunday, the teaching and the preaching in public worship.

They adhered “to fellowship,” and Luke adds no genitive, nor is “of the apostles” to be understood; this is the fellowship of all the members with each other as well as with the apostles. They were one spiritual body, inwardly one by faith in Christ, inwardly and outwardly one by confessing Christ and by adhering to the one doctrine of Christ that was taught by the apostles. And so they kept together as one body and treated each other accordingly. One faith and one teaching, and thus one body in one fellowship. No parties, schisms, inwardly. Κοινωνία is here communio and not communicatio or impartation of alms. That point Luke also notes later; it would be out of place so far forward in this account. Already that fact settles the question as to the next two datives; they are not appositions to koinonia.

They adhered “to breaking the bread.” There is no necessity for stressing the article in the sense of “their bread,” that eaten at a joint meal. Even then the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper would be involved, since at this early time it was always celebrated at the end of a meal (1 Cor. 11:33, 34 in connection with what precedes). Luke is speaking of the greatest things done in this first congregation and characterizes the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by use of the expression that was common at that time: “breaking the bread.” To stress this phrase so as to exclude the cup from the Sacrament is just as unwarranted as to have the phrase mean only partaking of a joint meal. The apostles cannot be charged with mutilation of the Sacrament. 1 Cor. 11:23–29. “Breaking” has been made an essential feature of the Sacrament, yet there is no counterpart for the wine. Breaking was practiced only for the purpose of distribution, the bread of that time never being cut in our fashion. Krauth, Conservative Reformation, 723, shows the impossibility of letting the breaking of bread symbolize the killing of a man; see the words of institution in the Gospels and in 1 Cor. 11.

They adhered “to the prayers,” i. e., to the worship in their own gatherings, 4:24, etc., and to the stated devotions in the Temple, 3:1, etc. It seems that this word is used to designate the entire service or worship and not merely the praying. We thus see how Luke first pairs teaching and the fellowship it involves and secondly the Sacrament and the worship which parallels it.

Here we have a brief description of the religious life of the first Christian congregation. All the essentials are present and are in proper order and harmony. The church has always felt that this is a model. One wishes that Luke had said more. Where did this large congregation assemble, for it grew tremendously (4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7)? Many think of the halls of the Temple. But this was scarcely the case. The one thing certain is that no difficulty was encountered regarding a meeting place. Were these “prayer meetings” in the modern sense of that term? We shall see that only on special occasions were gatherings for the purpose of praying held. The dominating feature is the teaching (Word) and the Sacrament.

Acts 2:43

43Moreover, on every soul fear kept coming; and many wonders and signs through the apostles kept occurring. Here and again in v. 44 δέ adds something different. The reason for referring “every soul” to non-disciples who came into contact with the congregation is the contrasting subject in v. 44, “all those believing.” These outsiders kept experiencing “fear” in the sense of awe. They felt that higher powers were at work among the disciples. It is one thing to have such impressions, quite another to act properly upon them. With the close connective τε Luke adds the “wonders and signs” that were connected with this fear; see v. 19 regarding the two terms.

The miracles were intended to impress those that were on the outside. The statement is summary and is placed at the head of the activity of the apostles because Luke does not intend to recount these miracles but to confine himself only to notable instances. Let us not overlook the fact that these were “many,” astonishing as τέρατα and significant as σημεῖα. But the apostles were only the instruments (διά) through whom One who was far higher wrought. This differentiates all the apostolic miracles from those of Jesus. God, indeed, wrought those of Jesus (v. 22) but only as the divine Persons work together.

Acts 2:44

44And all those believing kept together; and they were having all things as common and were selling their possessions and goods and distributing them to all according as anyone had need. This translation reproduces the correct reading. “All those believing” (present participle) “were,” in the sense of “kept,” together (the phrase is to be understood as it was in 1:16). The imperfect ἧσαν is iterative; the believers made a practice of meeting together. Remember in what different countries they had been born. The Temple had drawn them to live in Jerusalem, and now their believing drew them together in a different, deeper, and far truer way. Faith in Christ was the bond which made one body of these believers even outwardly.

This must be added to “the fellowship” mentioned in v. 42. Some think that these thousands lived together, others reduce the number. Both views are unacceptable. The fact that they all found room for their frequent meetings Luke considers it unnecessary to explain.

Acts 2:45

45As they were thus drawn together, so they treated each other. “They were having or holding all things as common,” κοινά is predicative. This states the main idea, namely how they considered and treated their possessions, not as belonging to the owner only, but as something in which the rest were to share as need arose. This was not communism but the product of something that communism does not understand. The following imperfects are iterative (R. 884): this selling and this distributing took place from time to time and was individual and wholly voluntary as 5:4 plainly states. It occurred “according as anyone had need.” The use of a conjunction with ἄν (or ἐάν) with the iterative imperfect is the classic construction, which is, however, retained in the Koine only in subordinate clauses (C.-K. 367; R. 922). As needy cases arose they were taken care of in this manner.

It is a fair conclusion that most of these Jews who had moved to Jerusalem from distant lands and were now believers were well off and were living on their wealth. Yet they had changed their entire attitude toward their wealth and were now using it in fine Christian charity. Volunteers came forward, such as Barnabas mentioned in 4:37, sold some possession or goods, and placed the proceeds at the disposal of the apostles. The fact that among so many believers instances of need occurred is only natural.

The old Mosaic law provided ways and means for taking care of all cases of poverty among the Jews; but the number of beggars referred to in the New Testament shows that these laws were no longer enforced. This old spirit was revived in the first congregation in Jerusalem and chose this means for letting no fellow believer suffer need. It is unfair to say that the Christians thought that their property was insecure because of the hostility of the authorities and therefore gave it away, or that they expected Christ’s return in the immediate future and therefore dealt so lavishly. So also the poverty of the mother congregation which was found there at a later date is often attributed to what Luke here records, but this was due to the fact that the Herodian persecution scattered this first congregation to the four winds while famine and hard times set in and caused distress. What Luke describes is a fine display of Christian charity. The same motive is still active in the church today. Many rich still offer large sums, and the rest still bring their portion, and Christian need never waits long for relief.

Acts 2:46

46Day by day both continuing steadfast with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread house by house, they were partaking of their food in exultation and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with the whole people. Moreover, the Lord kept adding together day by day the saved.

The descriptive imperfects continue. Luke sketches the daily life of the first congregation. The three κατά phrases are distributive: “day by day,” “house by house”; τε … τε correlate the first two participles (R. 1179), “both … and.” The believers both visited the Temple and broke bread house by house at home. The daily visits to the Temple were made for the purpose of participation in the Temple worship; we see Peter and John thus engaged in 3:1. The separation from the Temple and the Jews generally developed gradually and naturally. Until it was effected, the Christians used the Temple which Jesus had honored and which typified him (John 2:19–21) as they had used it before. Its spacious colonnades and halls afforded them room for their own assemblies.

Many think that “breaking bread” again refers to the Sacrament, but in a brief sketch such as this Luke would scarcely repeat in this fashion. The addition “house by house” would add nothing new since it is self-evident that the Temple was not the place for the Sacrament. “Breaking bread” also refers to all the meals and not merely to such as might precede the Sacrament as an agape. “House by house” is like “day by day.” It does not mean merely “at home” but in each home. Wherever there was a Christian home its residents partook of their food “in exultation of heart,” with high delight in the grace vouchsafed them, and “in simplicity or singleness of heart,” rejoicing in the one thing that filled their hearts with such joy. This noun is derived from an adjective which means “without a stone,” hence perfectly smooth and even, metaphorically, a condition that is undisturbed by anything contrary.

Acts 2:47

47“Praising God” was the natural expression of their hearts for the supreme blessing they had found in Christ. So also they enjoyed “favor with the whole people.” Taken as a whole, the people of the city thought well of all these disciples. Their fervor in the Temple worship commended them, and their happy conduct with praise to God on their lips made the Jews like them. What a beautiful picture of this morning hour of the church! The goodness of the Lord gave his disciples this period of undisturbed peace in which to grow and increace. The favorable disposition of the populace helped to bring many to faith.

So the Lord often gives his church days of peace—do we always use them as did the first church in Jerusalem? Soon the skies would become clouded and the storm of persecution descend to scatter the flock.

In v. 41 we have the passive “they were added,” here we see the agent in that passive: “the Lord kept adding together,” ἐπὶτὸαὑτό occurs in this sense (1:16). The Lord alone can add new members. Those who lay stress on numbers bring in many in ways which they devise. We want numbers, but such as the Lord adds and records in his book, and none, if we can help it, whose names would be only on our books. He adds only by filling the heart with the gospel. “Day by day” in a brief space of time the congregation grew from 3, 000 souls to 5, 000 men, or some 10, 000 souls (4:4). Those added are significantly called “the saved,” οἱσωζόμενοι.

The substantivized present participle is timeless and expresses quality or condition and nothing more. “The saved” are those who are in a saved condition. “Such as should be saved” (A. V.) is incorrect and introduces a wrong idea; “those that were being saved” (R. V.) is also incorrect, for it suggests the thought that salvation was still in the future; “those that were saved” (R. V., American Committee) is still faulty in so far as it introduces the past tense. An aorist participle would point to the saving act, and a perfect participle (and this is at times used) to that act and the saved condition resulting. The present participle stops with a statement of the quality or condition: “the saved.” On the readings found in the A.

V. see 3:1.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.