Acts 3

CHAPTER III

PETER AND JOHN HEAL THE CRIPPLE IN THE TEMPLE

The miracle is notable in itself but is recorded chiefly because of its effect. It aroused the Sanhedrin to its first opposition against the apostles. Luke has no indication as to the time that intervened between Pentecost and this miracle. For doing good Peter and John receive evil.

Acts 3:1

1Now Peter and John were going up into the Temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth. And a man, being lame from his mother’s womb, was being carried, whom they were placing day by day at the door of the Temple, the one called Beautiful, to ask alms from those going into the Temple, who, on seeing Peter and John about to go into the Temple, began requesting to receive alms.

We follow the preferred reading which has ἐπὶτὸαὑτό concluding 2:47, and not opening 3:1. The A. V. does the reverse and therefore concludes 2:47 with τῇἐκκλησία, a dative that is found in several texts. The textual evidence is in favor of the reading translated in the R. V. To put the phrase at the head of 3:1 makes it too emphatic, since the very mention of “Peter and John” shows that they were “together.” We are prepared to find them so.

In his list in 1:13 Luke has grouped them together (correct the A. V.); they act together in Luke 22:8; John 13:24, 25; 18:16, 17; 20:2, etc.; 21:21, 22. So we repeatedly find these two together in the story of Acts. A close friendship unites them. By nature they were entirely different. Peter was impetuous, John serene.

Thus they supplement each other.Diamond polishes diamond, writes Rieger, and it may well happen that each enhances the luster of the other. God often uses the friendship of believers for the good of the church, especially the friendship of highly gifted men; witness the working together of Luther and Melanchthon.

These two were in the act of going up into the Temple at the hour of prayer. In 2:15 we find mention made of the service held at 9 A. M., here the one held at 3 P. M. is referred to. The Jews counted twelve hours for the day, starting with 6 A. M.; so their ninth hour was 3 P. M. which was called the evening sacrifice. Already in 2:46 we see how the disciples adhered to the Temple and its services. They continued this practice until the Lord himself eventually made it impossible. The Jews always spoke of going “up” to or into the Temple, no matter what the elevation was from which they started. This was said in an ethical sense. The Temple did not occupy the highest elevation in the city.

Acts 3:2

2Simultaneous with their going into the Temple, as a second imperfect informs us, a lame beggar “was being carried” into it on some sort of a litter; τις is only our indefinite article “a” man. “Lame from his mother’s womb” states that he was born lame, had never walked during the forty (4:22) years of his life. He seems to have been injured at birth so that his ankle bones (v. 7) had not developed or were misshapen. His congenital lameness, especially at the age he had now reached, rendered him incurable. The first two imperfects are descriptive of actions in progress. Peter and John overtook the men who were carrying the beggar in. This very likely occurred somewhere in the large court of the Gentiles.

The imperfect in the relative clause expresses customary action as the added phrase shows: “whom they were placing day by day,” etc. Relatives or friends did this, and it was quite a task to carry the beggar such a distance and back home again. Israel was to have no beggars (Deut. 15:4), but the Jews were omitting the weightier matters of the law such as judgment, mercy, and faith, Matt. 23:23. We meet beggar after beggar.

This one had his regular station at the gate called “Beautiful,” Ὡραία (θύρα or πύλη), from ὥρα, “timely” and thus “blooming,” “beautiful.” Josephus, Wars, 5, 5, 3, describes it as being much higher than the other gates and as being adorned with magnificent silver and gold plates. The Talmud calls it Nicanor’s gate after its donor. This great gate was the only one that led from the court of the Gentiles surrounding the Sanctuary and the Temple buildings proper into the court of the women and through this to the court of the men. Opposite this gate was Solomon’s Porch, a colonnade. Fourteen steps led up to a gallery, that ran around the three sides of the women’s court, and five more steps from this gallery to the gate “Beautiful”; on two sides of the women’s court other less imposing gates afforded entrance. We at once see that, while it was work to carry the beggar so far and also up those steps, he certainly had the most promising place for begging. The infinitive with τοῦ denotes purpose.

Acts 3:3

3Not waiting until he was deposited in his usual place but already when Peter and John were about to go into the Temple, perhaps before they ascended the steps, this beggar “began requesting to receive alms.” This imperfect is not iterative (R. 884) but inchoative: the beggar “began to request,” and the tense also holds us in suspense as to the outcome of what he began which was anything but what he expected. The verb itself expresses respectful asking. There is no reason for connecting this request with the liberality manifested toward fellow believers by the Christians described in 2:44, 45, as though the beggar knew all about that and expected some of that liberality to be shown him. This man was begging in his usual way and was accosting people even before he got to his regular station. “Began requesting alms” would be enough; “to receive” is circumstantial and indicates the outstretched hand that is anxious to take whatever might be offered. Luke draws the picture well.

Acts 3:4

4Now Peter, earnestly looking on him, with John, said, Look on us! And he began to give heed to them, expecting to receive something from them. Δέ continues the story but introduces a new action which was so different from that which the beggar usually experienced. Peter is the spokesman and later performs the miracle, but John is with him in both. This earnest look of the apostles does not mean, “looking through to the innermost bottom of the heart in order to discover the proper receptivity.” Interpretations such as that are due to the view that miracles require faith in advance. This view is here carried to the point of making Peter and John look into the beggar’s very heart, which would itself be a miracle. The simple fact is that Peter and John saw only a poor, pitiable cripple and his outstretched, begging hand before them.

But why this earnest and intent look? We know of but one answer. The apostles had often seen this cripple begging at the gate “Beautiful,” they may even have dropped him a coin now and then. To heal him had not entered their minds. Why not? Because the Lord had not put it into their minds to do such a thing.

The apostles did not perform miracles just when and where they thought advisable. In every case they were moved to do so by the Lord and by his Spirit. It is because the Lord so moved them that they now fixed their full attention on the cripple whom they had seen so often on previous days.

Hence also their order to the beggar to look on them which was uttered with the peremptory and authoritative aorist imperative. This beggar must pay close attention to the apostles.

Acts 3:5

5And he does. “He began to give heed to them,” ἐπεῖχεν (supply τὸνοῦν), but only in the same way as any man might do when his attention is thus aroused. So little was the thought of faith of any kind in his mind that he supposed only that something would now be given to him, something more than the ordinary small coins he usually received. This is one of a number of plain cases in which faith does not and is not intended to precede but rather follows the miracle.

Acts 3:6

6But Peter said: Silver and gold is not mine; but what I have I give to thee. In the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, be walking! And having grasped him by the right hand, he raised him up, and at once his feet and ankles were made firm. And leaping up, he stood and began to walk. And he went with them into the Temple, walking and leaping and praising God.

Peter speaks of “silver and gold,” the more valuable coins, because the beggar evidently expected an unusually valuable gift from them and because he thought them wealthy. It is a rather hasty conclusion on the basis of this word to suppose that the apostles were themselves dependent on alms; for John had a home and was able to support Jesus’ mother (John 19:27). Peter means, “I have no wealth.” But the cripple has no time to be disappointed, for Peter immediately adds, “But what I have I give to thee,” leading the cripple to wonder what that might be. He had his gift from the Lord—miraculous healing as the seal of the gospel message, that definite form of healing for this particular person as it was indicated to both these apostles by the Lord.

Without adding a single word of explanation, without doing anything to awaken or to increase faith, Peter utters the command that conveys its own power of compliance: “In the name,” etc. Here again is this pithy and significant phrase ἐντῷὀνόματικτλ., which is so often interpreted in inadequate ways. It does not mean “by the authority of,” etc. (R. 649); nor does it mean this in some places and something else in others. See ὄνομα in 2:21 and this phrase in 2:38. Here, as always, the sense is: “in connection with the revelation of Jesus,” etc. In addition to what has been said when considering 2:21 and 38 we may state that “name” in the sense of “revelation” not only comprehends Jesus and all his power and grace but also conveys him to us for our apprehension.

Paul is acquainted with the phrase “in Christ” or “in the Lord,” and uses it often; in the expression “in the name of Jesus Christ” “name” stresses the vital connection with the person Jesus Christ. The power and the grace that make him “Jesus Christ” (“both Lord and Christ,” 2:36) are revealed in all that truly makes us know him, that shines out from him, and that is his NAME, the source from which all blessings, also this miracle of healing, flow. On “Jesus” see 2:22; on “Christ,” 2:36; the two combined in 2:38; on “the Nazarene,” 2:22. “In the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene,” suddenly brought to the cripple’s mind all that he had ever heard about this wonderful person.

“Be walking!” is the present imperative to express enduring action; he is to have the power of walking now and always. Here is no “if” or “but”; here is no process or slow mending. We all know that even when limbs are sound, no human being can at once walk, leap, caper, jump, who has never done so before. The thing must first be learned. But the cripple is not to learn, he is to walk perfectly from the very first instant. Let that feature of the miracle have its just due. In no way did the miracle depend upon the man’s faith or will or understanding. Of course, he was to know, to believe, and to act, but all these came about as a result of the healing, they were not conditions or requisites to the healing.

Acts 3:7

7Peter grasped him by the right hand, the very hand he was holding out for alms, only in order to raise him up, to make him stand and to walk at once. If Peter and John had walked away, the cripple would have discovered that his feet and his ankles were normal and that he could walk. But no interval was to occur. Peter’s effort raised the man from the ground; instantly his limbs were firm, sound, strong, ready to serve their natural purpose. The member grasped is properly in the genitive: took hold “of the right hand.”

Acts 3:8

8Peter did not need to exert much effort, of himself the restored cripple, “leaping up, stood and began to walk” (inchoative imperfect). Luke’s description is vivid. R. 1116 writes: “It is not clear why the present participle occurs, ἐξαλλόμενος, unless it is to note that he kept on leaping and walking alternately.” One would expect the aorist, “having leaped up, he stood.” The aorist “stood” is constative: without falling he stood upright. Then the imperfect notes that he began to walk, to do just what Peter had told him to do.

He accompanied the apostles as they proceeded up the steps and on through the gate Beautiful, walking, of course, but also leaping and jumping every now and then, overjoyed at the blessing given him even without his asking, praising God who had made him so rich in Jesus’ name. But what about us who have enjoyed sound limbs all our lives? So many blessings, so little realization and gratitude! The cripple’s first walk took him into the Temple, the very purpose for which we should use our feet, keeping them always in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

Acts 3:9

9And all the people saw him walking and praising God; moreover, they kept recognizing him that this was the one sitting for the alms at the Gate Beautiful of the Temple, and they were filled with amazement and excitement at what had come to him. But he holding to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them at the porch called Solomon’s, dumbfounded.

It seems that v. 9, 10 describe what occurred before the Temple service, and v. 11 what occurred after it was over and the people had dispersed. When Luke says that all the people saw him “walking and praising God” he tells us that the man drew general attention to himself. Even after the restored cripple had come to the men’s court he continued walking around instead of standing still like the other men and kept calling out words of praise to God. Thus everybody saw him.

Acts 3:10

10For a man to act thus was unusual, yet in itself such conduct would not have attracted so much attention. People would only have wondered as to what made him act in this way. By means of the iterative imperfect Luke tells us that, as he thus moved about, group after group recognized him as the very man they had so often seen “sitting for the alms,” the article to indicate the alms they had given him from time to time at the Gate Beautiful. They had not seen him sitting thus with his deformed feet and ankles this afternoon—here he was among them, walking around and praising God. Luke uses two nouns to convey the effect; both are strong: θάμβος, “amazement” that came with a shock, and ἔκστασις, “excitement” that throws the mind off its balance. They stared uncomprehendingly at the change that had come over the man.

Acts 3:11

11What happened when the service and the worship were conducted is not stated. But these are evidently now over, and all the men pass out of the Temple through the court of the women. Instead of making their exit by one of the side portals, all those present stream through the main eastern portal called “Beautiful,” down the steps to the court below, “at the porch called Solomon’s,” ἐπί with the dative, not into this porch, but in front of it. This stoa consisted of a span of roof which rested on magnificent pillars extended along the entire eastern outer wall of the Temple area. It was named after Solomon, because this side of the Temple area perhaps rested on the old massive foundation walls which rose several hundred feet from the valley beneath and had been left undemolished since Solomon’s time. As they went out, the healed cripple clung tightly to Peter and to John.

The three got no farther than this court facing Solomon’s porch. Everybody ran out to this and surrounded them in a packed crowd. And ἔκθαμβοι, “dumfounded” with amazement, describes the state of their minds; the “greatly wondering” of our versions is far too weak.

Acts 3:12

12The beggar clings to Peter and to John. Attention is centered on all three. Amazement with its silent questioning looks to them for an answer and an explanation. The Lord had timed this miracle so as to bring this whole audience before Peter, literally compelling him to preach to these people. His words are straight to the point: Not we have done this but the risen Jesus. While the question seems to be one that is wholly about the beggar, Peter turns it into a matter that is entirely personal to everyone of his hearers.

God is attesting this Jesus whom they crucified as the Savior promised by prophecy. Let them repent and share in his blessings! And again we see the authority, the mastery, the effectiveness of this sermon, which strikes straight home into the consciences and the hearts of Peter’s hearers.

Now on seeing it, Peter made response to the people: Israelite men, why are you marvelling at this man, or why are you gazing on us as though by our own power or godliness we have made him to walk? The verb “made response” is used with reference to any situation that requires an explanation, and here certainly was such a case.

Ἄνμδρες is used as it was in 1:16, and 2:14, and “Israelites” as in 2:22 which employs the religious name of honor for the Jews with its appeal to their highest hopes and motives. They are to view this miracle as true Israelites should. Thus they are not to marvel at this man and to stop with their amazement—they are to let their thoughts go much farther. The neuter “at this thing” is out of place because τοῦτῳ is in contrast with ἡμῖν, persons. So also they are not to gaze on the apostles “as though” (concessive ὡς, R. 1140) they had made this man walk (object infinitive with τοῦ, R. 1168) by their own power (effective cause) or with their godliness (meritorious cause, John 9:31, 33) The power did not emanate from the apostles, nor was power given them as a reward of their godliness. To understand that power these people will have to look elsewhere.

Acts 3:13

13The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his Servant Jesus whom you delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, he having judged to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked for yourselves that a man, a murderer, be granted unto you, but the Author of life you killed, whom God raised up from the dead, of which we on our part are witnesses. And on the basis of the faith of his name this man, whom you behold and know, his name made firm; yea, the faith, that through him, did give to him this entire soundness in the presence of you all. This true explanation of “what has come to this man” (v. 10) all Israelites should know, for it means everything to them personally.

Peter is speaking to Israelites, hence he employs the great covenant name which God gave himself in Exod. 3:6, “the God of Abraham,” etc. It is no mere heaping up of words when Peter adds the apposition, “the God of our fathers,” for he intends to designate God as the God also of all the descendants of the patriarchs who in times past shared the covenant and the faith with them. “Our” links also Peter and John with all these “fathers.” It is to sink into the minds of Peter’s hearers that he whom their nation worshipped in all past ages in their covenant relation with him, he it is who as this God and in this covenant of his “glorified his Servant Jesus.” It is the same glorification which Peter preached on Pentecost in 2:30–36, namely the resurrection and the exaltation at God’s right hand. Not only the miracle is referred to and the fact that God gorified Jesus in and by that. For in v. 15 Peter himself specifically mentions the resurrection, and in v. 16 the miracle is ascribed to the name of Jesus, i. e., to the name of this glorified Jesus. Παις is never used in the sense of “Son of God”; this thought is always expressed by the words υἱὸςΘεοῦ. The marginal note of the R. V., “Child,” should be cancelled here and in all other passages where it occurs. This παῖς is the great Ebed Yahweh of Isaiah, chapters 40–66, the mighty “Servant” of Jehovah, who is his Son, indeed, but the Son who by his incarnation became “his Servant” to work out our salvation.

Now comes the personal turn of Peter’s words which is sudden and startling, direct and crushing. On the one side, God and what he did, namely glorified Jesus; on the other side, these Jews and what they did, namely denied, rejected, disgraced Jesus. Note the emphatic ὑμεῖς: “whom you on your part delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, he having judged to release him.” Note the balance in μέν and δέ (v. 14). Peter is a master in making these terrible contrasts between God and the Jews; compare 2:23, 24, 36; 4:10, 30, 31. When stating the terrible action of his hearers Peter names only the chief points and these in the order in which they occurred: “they delivered Jesus up” to the pagan governor with the demand that he be crucified, they wanted him made away with forever; then “they denied him before the face of Pilate,” boldly, shamelessly, to his very face, declaring that he was not their King (Luke 23:2; John 19:14, 15), disowning him utterly. And this they did after Pilate “judged” or declared his verdict that he would release him, ἐκείνου is far stronger than αὑτοῦ and places pagan Pilate into contrast with the Jews.

God glorified Jesus, Pilate wanted at least to release him, but the Jews demanded his death. Even pagan Pilate was better than the Jews. See 2:23 as to how it was possible for Peter to blame all the Jews.

Acts 3:14

14Now follows another and a different contrast which is suggested by the word “deny.” Jesus they denied, Barabbas they chose in his place. “The Holy and Righteous One” they rejected “and asked for themselves that a man, a murderer, be granted unto them.” Being murderers themselves, that was the man they wanted. Note the chiasm which brings the two verbs that have a similar sound but an opposite sense strikingly together: ἠρνήσασθε—ή. Compare what is said in 2:27 on “thine Holy One.” Holy and righteous are often found together in the sense of separate from sin and pronounced guiltless by the divine Judge. Him who in all his life and his work was spotless and approved of God the Jews denied and thereby declared that they would have nothing to do with him; but they considered it a favor that a vicious murderer be released for them. The middle of αἰτέω is used in business transactions. Here and in Matt. 27:20, and Luke 23:25, the middle brings out the idea that the custom gave the Jews a right to ask for Barabbas, while in Matt. 14:7 this form emphasizes the right of request because of Herod’s oath.

Acts 3:15

15The word “murderer” leads to another still mightier contrast (δέ). Over against this murderer Peter places “the Author of life,” τὸνἀρχηγὸντῆςζωῆς, life’s cause and originator (Heb. 12:2; also C.-K. 179). A murderer takes life although it be only the earthly life; this Author of life has divine life in himself and has thereby become the fountain of spiritual and everlasting life for us. The contrast rises to a tremendous climax: the one destroys the lower life, the other bestows the highest life. To this climax there is added the paradox, “you killed the Author of life.” How can life’s own Author be killed? One might ask further, “How can Jesus become the Author of life by being killed?” This is one of those great Scriptural statements that cannot be brushed aside by calling it a praedicatio verbalis, mere verbal play. “The Author of life” is a divine name for the person of Jesus, yet something human is predicated of him.

The Scriptures also have the reverse. And this means that everything human as well as everything divine may be predicated of Jesus, no matter how his person is designated, whether by a human or by a divine name. This can be done because in Jesus a communication of natures and also of their attributes exists—he is the Godman.

Luther points out the practical value of Peter’s word for us: “We Christians must know that if God is not also in the balance and gives the weight, we sink to the bottom with our scale. By this I mean: If it were not to be said, God has died for us but only a man, we should be lost. But if ‘God’s death’ and ‘God died’ lie in the scale of the balance, then he sinks down, and we rise up as a light, empty scale. But, indeed, he can also rise again or leap out of the scale; yet he could not sit in the scale unless he became a man like us so that it could be said: ‘God died,’ ‘God’s passion,’ ‘God’s blood,’ ‘God’s death.’ For in his nature God cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is correctly called God’s death when the man dies who is one thing or one person with God.” Concordia Triglotta, 1029, etc. In brief, the entire value of Christ’s being killed for us lies in his being the Author of life, God.

Peter now returns to his original contrast: the clash between the deed of the Jews and the act of God. They killed the Author of life “whom God raised up from the dead.” And this divine act is more than a contrast to the deed of the Jews; at one stroke God nullified all that the Jews had done. He contradicted and condemned all that they had done; he approved and sealed his great Servant as being in fact the Author of life, the destroyer of death. God accepted all of Christ’s work and sacrifice as being full, complete, sufficient and crowned Jesus with infinite glory.

The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν, like so many other fixed Greek phrases, needs no article. The absence of the article also stresses the noun. The expression never means “out from among the dead” so that all the other dead are regarded as still lying in their graves. The idea expressed by this combination is one of separation alone, R. 598. The phrase occurs thirty-five times with reference to Christ, a few times with reference to other individuals, and also in a figurative sense. Two of these passages refer to the resurrection of a number of the dead, and in them this standard phrase can have no other meaning than the one indicated.

No wonder that the phrase is never used with reference to the ungodly; such usage, to say the least, would be gravely misleading. When they are called from their graves, this return to life is not an escape of their bodies from death but an entrance of their bodies into a state that is far worse than decay in the grave. The idea of this expression is not that, when Christ arose, he left all the other dead behind. God took Christ out of death and returned him to life. That is what the phrase means literally and actually.

“Of which we on our part are witnesses” is the same statement found in 2:32 with the pronoun being neuter (not masculine); compare 1:8. The mighty evidence that the power of the crucified Jesus was still operative was before Peter’s hearers in the person of the miraculously healed beggar. No personal power of Peter’s and of John’s had wrought this miracle. It was like so many that were wrought by Jesus prior to his crucifixion. How was it wrought? Here are the witnesses to testify as to the how. By the power of the risen and the glorified Jesus.

Acts 3:16

16Peter is even more explicit. Besides clearly stating the ultimate cause of the miracle, he states also the intermediate, or we may say, mediate cause: “his name made this man firm,” made his feet and his ankles strong and firm to bear his body, the verb being used as in v. 7. And united with this “name” is “faith” in the name. Hence both name and faith are mentioned twice and are thus made emphatic. This takes us back to v. 6, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” and we must recall what was said regarding “name” as designating the revelation which brings Jesus to us. Name and faith are correlatives, the name (revelation) is intended for faith, intended to awaken trust, to be received and held by confidence of heart.

And faith needs the name or revelation as the sure ground on which to rest. All other ground is sinking sand.

We thus get Peter’s thought. He gives all the credit to “his name” for making firm “this man whom you behold and know.” The power that wrought the miracle lies in the name, for it reveals him who himself is in and with his name. Yet the name is not suspended in the air, the revelation must reveal to some heart, somebody must hold to the name and revelation by faith. So Peter adds the thought that the beggar was healed “on the basis (ἐπί) of the faith of his name” (the objective genitive); and again, “the faith, that (faith) through him” gave the man “this entire soundness in the presence of you all.” So the object of this faith is the name and revelation; but this faith is “through him,” mediated and brought about by Jesus who is revealed by his name. Peter says that only in this way are he and John connected with the miracle. It certainly ought to be clear that the faith which Peter is here speaking of is that which he and John have and not a faith which the beggar had.

We have discussed this point when considering v. 4. Yet the view is held that this beggar had to have faith before he could be healed; that his believing was essential; that his faith cooperated with that of the apostles, etc. But the whole account, v. 1–7, places this healing into that class of miracles where faith is intended to follow, and not to precede the miracle. The view that faith must always precede a miracle is a deduction from only a fraction of the facts.

Note the emphasis on “this man whom you behold and know.” The man is physical, visible, tangible evidence of the power of the glorified Jesus as mediated by his name and by faith in him and his name. And this man is but a sample of what that power of the risen Christ does in the hearts of men to this very day. It is a continuation of the miracle by which he attested his power and his grace throughout his own ministry. These attestations, once made, stand for all time. To demand their constant repetition is to declare that the recorded attestations do not fully attest, that the seals which the Lord deemed sufficient are not sufficient. We note, too, that the miracle justified the faith of Peter and of John, justified the faith of all who through it came to believe (4:4), justifies our faith today.

It is unwarranted to regard Luke’s account as a myth, to assert that the early church added its own ideas and conceptions to some perfectly natural occurrence. If Luke’s account portrays only the fancies of Peter and of John or those of the early church, then our faith is as vain as theirs was, and the sensible thing to do is to drop the whole matter and to be satisfied with our ethics.

Acts 3:17

17Peter plainly marks the transition to the second part of his address. The first part is objective and states the great facts and, of course, includes also those of the rejection of Jesus; the second is subjective and reaches into the hearts of the hearers in order to win them to repentance. Yet the second rests on the first and could not exist independently. And now, brethren, I know that you committed it in accord with ignorance as also your rulers. “Now” is not temporal but logical: taking the situation as it is. The word of address, “brethren,” marks the turning point in the sermon and voices the love that now accompanies its appeal. “Brethren” is to be taken in the sense of “our fathers” in v. 13, “fellow Israelites,” and not as “Christian brethren.”

Peter says that he well knows that what these hearers of his as also their rulers had committed (πράσσω is often used with reference to evil acts) was done “in accordance with ignorance.” But he does not thereby retract his previous statement regarding the ungodliness of their action (v. 13–15). It was directly against God, and not one particle of the damnableness of it all can be subtracted. Κατὰἅγνοιαν refers to the Old Testament distinction between sins for which sacrifices can be made (Num. 15:27–29) and sins for which the sinner’s soul is cut off (Num. 15:30, 31); sins done “ignorantly,” sins done “presumptuously” (“with a high hand”). On the former note Lev. 4:2, 27; 5:18; 22:14; and notably Heb. 9:7 compared with 10:26. Jesus made this distinction when he hung on the cross, Luke 23:34; Paul repeats it in 1 Cor. 2:8; Peter speaks of the sins committed prior to conversion as being done in ignorance, 1 Pet. 1:14. The point to be noted is that pardon is possible for such sins; and of that Peter intends to assure his hearers. The popular notion that ignorance excuses sin so that it is without guilt is wholly un-Biblical.

Acts 3:18

18Moreover, what things he announced in advance through all the prophets’ mouth that his Christ suffer, God did thus fulfill. This presents another consideration for Peter’s hearers, hence δέ, “moreover.” He restates in other words what he has said in 2:23. Not by accident did God’s Christ suffer. If the Jews did not know what they were doing by making Jesus suffer, God knew what he was doing when he gave “his Christ” as a lamb for the slaughter, as the sacrifice for the sins of the world. In fact, God had announced in advance “through all the prophets’ mouth,” making them all speak with one mouth and voice, that the Messiah was to suffer. Only thus could his Messianic work and purpose be accomplished.

And what God had thus announced this he, indeed, did fulfill in just that way. The Jews acted in ignorance, God with full intelligence. Peter states the facts as they are. God did not cause the ignorance. But God’s grace and wisdom work in spite of human ignorance, yea, in and through that wicked ignorance they bring about its cure and deliverance from its guilt. On “Christ” see 2:36; “his Christ,” sent by God and wholly his, is used in 4:26; Luke 9:20; Rev. 11:15; 12:10.

The Greek prefers to place οὕτως in the emphatic position at the end. God gave Jesus to suffer as his Christ and thus also glorified him (v. 13).

Acts 3:19

19This rich gospel and effective law lead straight to the gospel call; Repent, therefore, and turn again for the blotting out of your sins, in order that there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ who has been appointed for you, Jesus; whom heaven must receive until the time of the restoration of all things, of which God made utterance through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.

The double command, to repent and to turn again, points to the necessary result (οὗν) of Peter’s address. He had dispelled the ignorance of his hearers, they saw the wickedness of their killing Jesus and the blessedness of God’s making him their Messiah. This should surely draw them to repentance unless they intended to continue their opposition to God in full consciousness and thus place themselves beyond pardon. “Repent!” is explained in 2:38. “Turn again” merely re-enforces “repent”; it is our “convert” which is used to indicate the change from sin to pardon in conversion.

The clause with εἰςτό states what the immediate purpose of repentance is: “for the being blotted out of your sins,” the passive denoting God as the one that blots out the sins. See the same figure in Col. 2:14; Ps. 51:9; Isa. 43:25. The aorist indicates one erasure. The figure conceives the sins as being written into a record, which charges them against the sinner. The reality back of the figure is God’s recalling to mind the sins and bringing them to judgment; blotting them out means that he forgets them so that all trace of them is removed. On “remission” see 2:38.

The clause with ὄπωςἄν states the purpose of repentance that follows upon the blotting out of the sins; ἀν is seldom used with this conjunction (B.-D. 369, 5), and its presence here in no way modifies the sense as the older grammars suppose. “Seasons of refreshing or cooling from the presence of the Lord (Yahweh)” are longer or shorter periods of spiritual enjoyment when men who repent and are justified are given times in which to feel the sweetness of God’s grace in Christ Jesus without disturbance. They come from God’s presence or countenance like sunshine and pleasant breezes. The old legalism of Pharisaism knew nothing about such seasons, for all work-righteousness is like the drive, heat, and sweat of slavery. Difficult times, even fiery trials, alternate with such pleasant seasons. Chiliasts think that these seasons are the millennium, and the absence of the article with both nouns is overlooked by them: Erfrischungszeiten, “refreshment seasons.” Nor do they notice that Peter makes these seasons the proximate purpose of repentance and not one that is remote.

Acts 3:20

20The ultimate purpose is that the Lord (Yahweh) “may send the Christ who has been appointed for you, (namely) Jesus.” The participle means, “to take to hand” and thus “to appoint” (M.-M. 556); the perfect passive states that, once having been appointed as the Messiah, he remains so. “Jesus” is an apposition which states who this appointed Christ or Messiah is. Compare 2:36. The Lord will send Jesus at the end of the world, and what that means is next stated. Peter also shows how the purpose of our repentance centers in the great Parousia of Jesus. Chiliasts overlook the fact that Peter places the refreshing seasons ahead of the sending of Jesus for his great return (1:11).

Acts 3:21

21Peter makes the matter plain by means of the relative clause. The Greek ἃνοὑρανὸνδέξασθαι may, however, be understood in two ways, the accusative being either the subject or the object: “who must receive heaven,” or, “whom heaven must receive.” Luther chooses the former, our versions the latter. Some think that the latter translation conveys the idea that heaven received Christ’s human body and nature in such a manner as to confine them to that place and thus to make it impossible for him to be present anywhere else. It is said that he was like Elijah who, when he is in heaven, is nowhere else and who, when he came to Jesus on the mount, was there only and not in heaven. But the thought is that heaven had to receive Jesus until the day of his return and not that he received heaven for that period of time. Δεῖ stresses the necessity of God’s plan which glorified Jesus, permitted him to work with divine power on earth until the consummation is reached, and then sent him as appointed for us (ὑμῖν, as believers).

Thus Christ rules from heaven in glory “until the times of the restoration of all things,” those times (ὧν = χρόνων) of which all the prophets of old have spoken. Ἀποκατάστασις means placing things back into their former condition: “in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory,” Matt. 19:28. Compare Rom. 8:18, etc. 2 Pet. 3:13. “We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” Rev. 21:1, 5: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth.” “Behold, I make all things new.” Paradise will be restored. Here again ἄχριχρόνων has no article, but the plural does not speak of separate times with intervals between them but refers to eternity but speaks of it in a human way as “times”; for after the restoration has been effected, it will remain forever.

Peter’s expression has been misunderstood. Although the Greek terms “seasons” (periods) and “times” always have distinct meanings, these two words have been identified in this passage and referred to the millennial era. At least the term “times” has been referred to this era. So also not only are the seasons placed after the sending of the Christ, but this sending is placed after the times. The old fancy of Origen has also been revived that “all things” must include even Satan and all the damned.

If ὦν refers to πάντων, it becomes restrictive: “only all those things which.” It must refer to χρόνων: “those times which the prophets have made utterance about”; the genitive is due to the antecedent and is attracted from ἅ. God mentioned (ἐλάλησεν) these times of the consummation through the mouth of the old prophets, compare Isa. 11:6–9; 35:1–10, etc. Here, as in v. 18, we have διά which is so significant for the Biblical conception of Verbal Inspiration. God is always the speaker, the prophets are always the media or instruments “through” whom he speaks. It is the “mouth” of the prophets which God uses, for the very words they speak are those desired by God, and the “mouth” is mentioned although the written word is referred to. The prophets are called “holy” as being set apart and belonging to God who makes them his mouthpiece.

The neat Greek phrase ἀπʼ αἰῶνος, literally, “from the eon,” means all along during the past era of the world. The noun denotes an age or eon and includes both the time and what transpires in and distinguishes that time. The R. V. gives a long circumscriptive translation: “which have been since the world began”; far better is that of the American Committee, “from of old.”

Peter opens a grand prospect to his hearers which is far beyond his own former conception and that of all other Jews and their earthly Messianic kingdom. Repent, etc., and there shall follow cancellation of all sins, then seasons of spiritual refreshing, finally Christ’s glorious return, and the fulfillment of all prophecies concerning the final restoration. The apostles were never afraid to place their admonitions on the mightiest possible base or to appeal to the most powerful motives.

Acts 3:22

22Peter instances Moses, Deut. 18:15, 18, 19. Moses said: A Prophet will the Lord God raise up for you out of your brethren like me. Him shall you hear according to all things whatsoever he shall utter to you. Moreover, it shall be, every soul which shall not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from the people.

This is not μέν solitarium (R. 1151), for δέ follows in v. 24, which balances Moses and all the prophets since Samuel. In v. 23 δέ is a part of the quotation. The quotation is freely reproduced from the LXX by slightly changing the order of the words in the first part and following the Hebrew in the second part. On quoting see 2:25. Moses had special importance for Peter’s hearers. This passage of Deuteronomy was well known and was also by the Jews referred to the Messiah. Peter quotes it for two purposes: as presenting Jesus the Prophet-Messiah foretold by Moses, and as emphasizing the admonition to repent, this being what the Prophet-Messiah has to say to all Israelites. Moses “said” means in his writings.

“The Lord God” is used for the Hebrew as in 2:39 and implies his covenant relation and his power. What God told Moses about the Prophet, Peter repeats as being told to the Israelites by Moses. “Out of your brethren” has peculiar force. When did God ever raise up a prophet for the Israelites from any people except their own brethren? Why, then, add the words that this future prophet would come “out of their brethren”? This is a reference to the human nature of Jesus, but by mentioning it in such a peculiar manner God implies that there will be something about him that is far higher than his Jewish birth. The phrase points to this Prophet’s deity.

Therefore also he will be only like Moses and not like all the other prophets. Moses was a mediator-prophet, the mediator of the covenant made on Sinai, for which task a man was sufficient. The promised Prophet would also be a mediator but of a still higher covenant, the one that superseded the first and centered in Golgotha. The Jews kept looking for this prophet although in their own way, John 6:14; Luke 17:16. Jesus himself referred to this prophecy of Moses’ in John 5:46, 47.

Hence also the gravity of the command and the threat. “Him shall you hear!” the genitive of the person after a verb of hearing, the future tense with the imperative sense of laws: thou shalt; thou shalt not. The sense is “hear and obey” by doing exactly what he says. Peter adds the next phrase and clause as interpreting what this command includes: hear “according to all things whatsoever he shall utter to you.” The aorist is constative and sums up all his utterances into a unit, while “all things as many as” distributes them as to their number. The indefinite ὅσαἄν conveys the thought that, no matter what this Prophet may say, unquestioning obedience is demanded. Certainly, all of God’s prophets must be obeyed; yet of none is this said with such peculiar emphasis as of this supreme Prophet.

Acts 3:23

23Hence also the threat is made prominent in the same strong manner. Ἔσται, like ἐγέντο, is used without a connective; and “every soul” is to be taken in the sense of “every person.” In ἥτιςἄν with the subjunctive there lies the idea that someone may, indeed, not hear that Prophet, may dare to reject the message that he brings by the disobedience of unbelief. Such conduct shall be fatal for him. His doom is sealed in advance. The Hebrew reads, “I will require it of him”; the LXX, “I will execute vengeance upon him.” Instead of either of these expressions Peter uses the strong formula which occurs frequently in the Pentateuch beginning with Gen. 17:14: “shall be utterly destroyed from the people.” He shall be sundered from the λαός, from God’s people, by the death penalty without forgiveness, to be cast out and rejected forever in the final judgment. The threat could not be made stronger The moment we realize wherein all the things Jesus came to proclaim centered, namely in faith and forgiveness, we see how absolutely fatal the rejection of unbelief necessarily is.

Acts 3:24

24And, on the other hand, all the prophets from Samuel and those in succession on, as many as made utterance, also announced these days. After μέν in v. 22 we now have δέ, for which “on the other hand” is cumbersome yet reproduces the idea. Moses on the one hand, and not merely one but all the others on the other hand. In one grand chorus they proclaimed “these days,” those of the great Mediator-Prophet foretold by Moses, who would grant the seasons of refreshing until the times of the restoration of all things, the days of the entire Messianic era. Peter attributes to all the prophets a vision of the New Testament era up to and including the Parousia. All their prophecies related to these days in one way or in another; for none of them would have prophesied if these days had not been promised.

The prophets after Moses are reckoned from the time of Samuel and his school of prophets. Samuel was not only himself great, he also founded a school of prophets, for which reason the Talmud calls him magister prophetarum. The adverb καθεξῆς, “successively,” “in succession or due order,” is made a substantive by the article. If “those in succession” are Samuel’s pupils, the construction is quite regular. Samuel and his pupils in order after him would justify Peter’s making the count begin with them and their great teacher, “as many as made utterance” would include the rest. The alternative is to find a mixed construction here: 1) “all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken”; and 2) “all the prophets, Samuel and those in order, as many,” etc. The two statements would be combined into one, which is not satisfactory. 1 Sam. 2:10 contains a notable prophecy which names “his Anointed.” When we are thinking of Samuel we should not forget his anointing of David, the type of Christ, and his relation to the kingdom that began with Saul.

Acts 3:25

25All that has been said about Moses and the prophets Peter now drives home. You yourselves are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God covenanted with your fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. This appeal to the highest motives is powerful. Nothing could be more effective psychologically. The pronoun “you” is emphatic, and the predicate with the article makes it identical and interchangeable with the subject (R. 768); in other words, there are none others who are sons of the prophets. The connotation in “sons” as compared with “children” is that of legal standing, of heirship, and thus of succession in carrying on that for which the fathers stood.

Peter says, “you are the sons,” meaning that this honor and this high position now rest on these his hearers. All that the prophets gave them as sons is theirs to have, hold, and pass on. In all the world none others are found who have a right to this position. The prophets are the spiritual fathers of the Israelites and even the physical fathers of their blood.

“And of the covenant” is added in order to bring out the idea of the full blessedness, greatness, and nobility of this sonship. The position which was once occupied by the prophets as their fathers they now hold as their successors. More than this, the fathers had only the promises of the covenant, these sons are to have the great fulfillment of those promises. Being sons and heirs, the inheritance is now to be paid out to them. Διαθήκη is the Hebrew berith, noun and verb being the same: “the covenant which God covenanted.” The middle voice also corresponds with the noun: God disposed of what was his, disposed of it as he saw fit (ἧς is attracted from ἧν).

Always it is God who covenanted and never Abraham. It is always God’s covenant and not Abraham’s; nor are the two ever coordinated. God did the bestowing, Abraham only received. This covenant was “with your fathers,” πρός being used to indicate living relationship and intimate intercourse (R. 625.) Since it was made with Abraham, the covenant included all the fathers, for they were Abraham’s sons and heirs even as Peter’s hearers now are.

Peter quotes the words of the covenant from Gen. 22:18, but deviates from the LXX by placing “in thy seed” first and by substituting “all the families” (ποτριαί) for “all the nations” (ἔθνη), which is evidence that Peter translates the Hebrew independently. Gal. 3:16 establishes the vital point that τὸσπέρμα of this covenant promise is Christ; in that passage Paul stresses the use of the singular rather than the plural σπέρματα. God said “seed,” not “seeds.” The great covenant blessing of redemption and salvation was in connection with (ἐν) Christ and not in connection with all the descendants of Abraham. That Seed, that great son of Abraham, had now appeared, and all the blessing promised in him was now actually present. Abraham and the fathers had died in the faith and the hope of it, seeing it from afar and thus appropriating it; Peter’s hearers have it right before them. The healed beggar is a sample of that blessing; Peter’s sermon is the offer of all the spiritual riches of that blessing.

With παρειαί Peter echoes πρὸςτοὺςπατέρας in its connection with οἱυἱοί. The word refers to families in the widest sense as being derived from one father as the head. We might translate “tribes or clans.” But “of the earth” extends the covenant promise and blessing beyond Judaism (1:8), and this universality is intensified: “all the families of the earth.”

We challenge the claim that Gal. 3:16 does not apply, and that “seed” is a collective term for the descendants of Abraham, so that they bring the blessing to all the families of the earth. That is the contention of the Jews today: they, the Jews collectively, are the Messiah for all nations, Judaism is the salvation of the world. Isaiah’s Ebed Yahweh, Servant of Jehovah, is Jewry. The commentators do not, of course, have this in mind; they refer to Christ but associate him with the Jews as a nation. Not only is salvation of the Jews (John 4:22), it is still bound up with the Jews. Zahn writes “that the redemption of humanity depends on whether Israel after its errings will yet finally reach the goal of its destiny,” i. e., in a final, national conversion. We, of course, cannot agree with such views.

Acts 3:26

26To you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him blessing you in turning each one from your wickednesses. After the strong ἡμεῖς at the head of v. 25 we now have the equally strong ὑμῖν at the head of this verse: “you,” what you are by reason of God’s past grace—“to you,” what comes to you by means of God’s present grace. Note the three great words placed together: “to you—first—God.” “First” places Peter’s hearers at the head of the vast host and the procession of “the families of the earth.” They alone had the “Seed,” the great “Servant” of Jehovah in their midst, παῖς as in v. 13. “Having raised him up” refers to the entire ministry and mission of Jesus as God’s Servant and is thus construed with “sent him to you.”

The present tense εὑλογοῦντα causes the grammarians some difficulty. R. 1116 and 1128 regards it as expressing purpose and assumes that the context makes this clear. Such a significance would seem to call for the future participle or the present infinitive. The present participle is descriptive of αὑτόν, “him,” and is durative because he blesses continuously. Its present tense is without relation to the aorist of the main verb. Ἐντῷ with the infinitive is a favorite usage of Luke’s although it is Semitic (R. 1072). It is usually temporal, “while,” but also has other meanings: indem, dadurch dass (B.-D. 404, 3). Here we translate, “By turning each one,” etc. This is the turning of repentance as in v. 19. The supreme blessing for any sinner is that Christ turn him “from his wickednesses.”

Ἀποστρέφειν is regarded as intransitive by B.-D. 308: “in that each one turn from your wickedness.” But this gives the sentence the unsatisfactory sense: Christ blesses when each one turns. The infinitive is transitive: Christ blesses by turning each one. Peter individualizes, for conversion is a personal matter; Christ turns us, but so that we ourselves turn, Jer. 31:18. Peter is using Old Testament phraseology when he speaks of turning from wickedness; note Ezek. 3:19; 18:27; 33:14; Jonah 3:10. With πονερά Peter uses no soft words; it is “wickednesses” in the sense of Bosheiten, Schurkerei, active and vicious evil. The plural leads us to think of all the fruits of unbelief.

To turn from them means to turn to Christ in a new life. At this point Peter is interrupted by some of the very wickedness against which he was warning. Yet he had said enough to bring a host of his hearers to faith.

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

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

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.