Acts 3

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 3 THE LAME MAN HEALED Acts 3:1-10 1 Now Peter and John were going up into the temple—This miracle is selected from among the many miracles that the apostles wrought because it brought the apostles into conflict with the au¬thorities ; opposition and persecution started at this time; this mir¬acle led to the arrest of the apostles, which was the beginning of a religious persecution as relentless, bloody, and violent as any that is known in the history of the church. “ Peter and John” are now associated, and went up “ into the temple at the hour of prayer.” Peter and John were sent together to prepare the Passover meal (Luke 22:8); they were together at the sepulcher (John 20:3); they were together fishing after the crucifixion (John 21:7); and John helped Peter to get into the palace of the high priest (John 18:16). Again they were together now going into the temple at the ninth hour, “ the hour of prayer.” “ The ninth hour” was about three o’ clock, according to our count, in the afternoon. These apostles continued to observe the hour of prayer according to the law of Jewish worship; it also furnished them the occasion to preach to the people who came to worship at that hour. 2-3 And a certain man that was lame—It was customary for the afflicted and maimed to be placed near the place of worship; this was especially true when they depended upon public charity for their living. People were more liberal when going to worship or at worship, and these unfortunates, with their friends, took ad¬vantage of the situation. This lame man was born with some mal¬formation of his ankles or feet; he was unable to walk and his friends carried him and placed him “ daily at the door of the tem¬ple” ; hence, he was a well-known and familiar character. He was placed at the “ gate” or “ door” that “ is called Beautiful.” There were nine gates used as entrance into the court, four, respectively, on the north and the south, and one on the east side; the west side had no gate. A part of the court was called the “ court of women” to distinguish it from “ the court of men.” It is thought that this gate “ called Beautiful” was an entrance which led from the “ court of the Gentiles” to the “ court of the women.” This is the only mention in the Bible of. the door which is “ called Beautiful.” When the lame man saw “ Peter and John” as they were about to enter the temple, he “ asked to receive an alms.” “ Alms” is singu¬lar number, and was in early times spelled “ almesse” ; the beggar simply asked for “ a gift” or “ gifts.” At this time he knew nothing of Peter and John except that they were Jews and had come to the temple to worship. 4-5, And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him,—Peter and John looked at the lame beggar; they looked with such a gaze that it would attract attention; then Peter said to him: “ Look on us.” This emphasized his attention on the apostles. He expected “ to receive something from them.” The expectation had been aroused by their gazing upon him and the command for him to look upon them; he naturally expected to receive some gift. He desired to receive something and this desire helped to heighten his expectation. The serious and earnest manner of the apostles confirmed his expectation. 6 But Peter said, Silver and gold have I none;—The apostles had no worldly wealth; they were endued with power to per¬form miraculous cures. They could use this power “ in the name of Jesus Christ” ; hence, they commanded him to “ walk.” Peter and John had no money; the possessions which had been sold did not belong to the apostles; such things were used for the common welfare and not for the personal use of the apostles. “ Walk” is from the original “ peripapei,” and has the idea of to begin to walk and then go on walking; the beggar is thus commanded to do that which he had never done in his life. Peter was willing and anx¬ious to give him what he could. We do not know how much time had passed since the day of Pentecost, and it is probable that this was not the first miracle that Peter had wrought. (Acts 2:43.) Peter speaks as one who has had experience; his language is firm and carries assurance. “ In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” is a common phrase and connects the Christ with the Jesus of Nazareth. According to John’ s account, the name “ Nazareth” was included in the title of the superscription on the cross (John 19:19); we know that the place was of no repute in the eyes of the Jews (John 1:46). The obscure origin as well as the shameful death of Jesus was a stumbling block to the Jew. There were other people named “ Jesus” ; there was but one “ Jesus of Nazareth.” 7 And he took him by the right hand,—He was encouraged by the extension of Peter’ s hand, and as it was grasped by the right hand of the lame man, Peter raised him to his feet. It seems that Peter had to pull him up on his feet before he would attempt to walk. Luke was a physician; and he uses words that a physician would use; he knows how a physician would deal with his patient and he gives one of those minute coincidences which go to prove that Luke the physician was the author of the Acts. The lame man “ immediately” began to walk as “ his feet and his ankle-bones received strength.” Here again we see the physician’ s description of the incident. Some think that it should be “ the soles of his feet” received strength. 8 And leaping up, he stood, and began to walk;—Again Luke gives a detailed description of the exercises that he took; he leaped up; then he stood for a moment and gained his equilibrium, then he began to walk. The progressive steps show the progress that he made. As he was assured that he could walk he went into the temple. The man had been lame from birth and did not know how to walk; it seems that he began by a jump, then a walk and went into the temple repeating the new exercises, and praised God. He was so joyful over the fact that he could walk that he “ walking, and leaping,” went to the place to praise God. He did not go into the holy place of the temple, as only priests had access to it. He was thankful for the blessing and was now ready to worship God. 9-10 And all the people saw him walking—This was the hour of prayer in the afternoon; many people had assembled or were coming to the temple for worship; they observed the man and knew that it was the one that they had seen begging at the gate. This miracle showed that the apostles had the power to heal; the man who had been healed did not praise the apostles, but God; he gave God the praise for his being able to walk. There was abun¬dance of witnesses to testify that he had been healed; they saw and could not deny that which they saw had been done. This would beget respect and confidence in the apostles as the witnesses for Christ. Everyone believed that this man who was now walking and leaping about the temple courts was the same person as the cripple; there was no charge of pretense or deception about the healing; there were too many witnesses, too many knew the facts about the deformed man for anyone to question the fact of the wonderful cure. This filled the people with wonder and amazement. It was a sign from heaven as the Jewish rulers on a former occa¬sion had demanded of Jesus. (John 6:30.) The conduct of the man clearly showed that he was now perfectly healed.

PETER’ S ADDRESS TO THE Act_3:11-26 11 And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran—In his gratitude he held to Peter and John; he would not let them go. These apostles had been the agents through whom he had received the blessing; he wished all to know to whom he was indebted for his great blessing. While he kept near Peter and John, and as the people looked upon the man that had been healed, they must also behold Peter and John. This would draw attention to Peter and John. In the amazement of the occasion the people gathered or literally “ ran together,” and assembled “ in the porch that is called Solomon’ s.” Solomon’ s porch was on the east side of the temple; it was a covered colonnade and was named for Solomon; it over-looked the Kedron valley. Some think that it was built by Solo¬mon, hence its name. The people assembled here to see what would further occur, and see the men who had wrought such a miracle. 12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people,—When the people assembled, this gave Peter an audience, and he began at once to preach to them. He had the attention of the peo¬ple, because the man who had been held was before them. He made three chief points: (1) the miracle was the work of God to glorify Jesus; (2) the Jews denied Jesus from ignorance, but he fulfilled the prophecy; (3) therefore they should repent and be saved by the gospel. He addressed them as “ men of Israel” ; this was a respectful address. He then interrogated them as to the cause of their astonishment. He claimed no credit for what had been done, and did not want them to think that they had healed the man by their own power and godliness. It is noticed that Peter includes John in his speech. This denial that Peter makes clears the way to ascribe unto God all honor and glory. 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob,—God had revealed himself to Moses as “ the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6.) Peter by mentioning these pa¬triarchs stirred reverence in their hearts; this was a good way to begin his sermon. It was the very God of the patriarchs who had sent Jesus of Nazareth, and the same God who had glorified him. Jesus is mentioned here as “ his Servant Jesus.” This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 52:13 about the Messiah except the name “ Jesus,” which Peter adds; many think that this should be translated “ child.” Perhaps there were some in the audience who had cried out against Jesus: “ Crucify, crucify him.” Hence, the charge that they had “ delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate.” We learn here that Pilate “ had determined to release him.” It is clear from Luke 23:16-20 that Pilate had determined to release Jesus, but the multitude was persuaded by the rulers to ask Pilate to re¬lease Barabbas and crucify Jesus. (Matthew 27:20; Mark 15:11¬14.) Hence, the charge that Peter brought against them. 14-15 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One,—These Jews understood that this had reference to the Messiah. (Psalms 16:10.) The demoniacs called him by this title. (Mark 1:24.) In prophecy he is also called “ the Just,” or “ Righteous One.” (Isaiah 45:21; Zechariah 9:9.) A sharp contrast is here drawn between what the Jews did to Jesus and what God did to him; they “ killed the Prince of life,” but “ God raised” him from the dead. Frequently we have this contrast brought out by the apostles; they denied Jesus, but God owned him; they crucified him, but God raised him from the dead. If the resurrection could have been de¬nied, they would have done so. They could not deny the crucifix¬ion of Jesus, neither could they deny the resurrection. The apos¬tles were witnesses to this fact. 16 And by faith in his name—By faith in the name of “ the Prince of life” “ hath his name made this man strong.” The man was not healed by the faith of the apostles, but by the faith of the apostles and the faith of the man. The apostles had faith in Jesus; they had faith in his power, and that he would give them power to heal the man. The man had faith in the apostles and in Jesus, for he praised God for his blessing. “ Name” is equivalent to “ power” ; hence, “ in the name of Jesus” is equivalent to “ by his power.” This crippled man was above forty years old (Acts 4:22), and he must have heard of the miracles that Jesus did and those the apostles were then doing. (Acts 2:43.) Peter here in¬sisted upon three things that proved a divine agency in the mira¬cle: (1) their knowledge of the man’ s previous condition; (2) the completeness of the cure; (3) the public, open manner of the heal¬ing ; it was done “ in the presence of you all.” 17 And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance—Their ignorance is admitted; but their ignorance does not clear them of guilt. The Jews could have known that Jesus was the Messiah; they should have known that he was; but the fact still remains that they were ignorant of his divinity. Jesus while on the cross prayed: “ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34.) Paul persecuted the church in ignorance, and he said: “ I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” (1 Timothy 1:13.) Their ignorance did not justify their crime, nor excuse them; but it was ground for calling on them to repent. 18 But the things which God foreshowed—All the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ; as the types under the law fore¬showed the Christ, so the prophets pointed the people to the Mes¬siah. Even the crucifixion was foretold; Christ frequently told his apostles that he would die for the sins of the world. Their crime, though real, was carrying out God’ s purpose. (John 3:16; Acts 2:23 Acts 17:3 Acts 26:23.) Their crime in crucifying Jesus did not prevent the fulfillment of what God foreknew and foretold; in fact, their crime was foretold. Even in their ignorance and wickedness the Jews were contributing toward the fulfillment of the prophecy. Peter emphasized the fulfillment of the prophecies before this Jewish audience. 19 Repent ye therefore, and turn again,—Peter repeats in substance in this address what he had said in Acts 2: 38. Verse 38 of chapter 2 is a parallel of this verse. There he had given evi¬dence that Christ was the Son of God; they were convinced or be¬lieved his evidence; they asked what to do; Peter told them to re¬pent and be baptized, in the name of or by the authority of Christ, unto the remission of their sins, and then they should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here he tells them to “ repent” and “ turn again” “ that your sins may be blotted out,” “ so there may come sea¬sons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” In both state¬ments, after they believed, they were commanded to “ repent” ; in the first they were told to “ be baptized,” but in the second they are told to “ turn again” ; in the first they are told that their repentance and baptism were “ unto the remission of your sins,” but here after repentance and turning again they are promised “ that your sins may be blotted out.” Evidently the blotting out of sins is equivalent to the remission of sins, and being baptized is tan¬tamount to turning again. “ Blotted out” literally means “ to wipe out, rub off, erase, smear out.” “ Seasons of refreshing,” lit¬erally from the Greek, “ anapsuxis,” “ to cool again or refresh,” or “ cooling, reviving with fresh air.” The “ seasons of refreshing” depend on their repentance and turning again and having their sins erased or forgiven. 20 and that he may send the Christ—This verse has called forth much controversy. The coming of Christ the second time seems to be the meaning here. What would their repentance and turning again have to do with the coming of Christ ? Evidently the coming again of Christ, like the coming of the times of refreshing, depends upon their repentance and turning again; as people were converted, conditions would be more favorable for the coming again of Christ. Christ came the first time to redeem the world; his second coming will complete that redemption. 21 whom the heaven must receive until the times—This Jesus who is here promised to return must remain in heaven until the “ times of restoration of all things/’ Peter has told them that this Jesus whom they had crucified had ascended back to heaven, and that now the heaven must receive and retain until the time for his return; the Messiah is to reign over God’ s people until he re¬turns. “ Times of restoration” comes from the Greek, “ apokatasta- seos,” and is a double compound word composed of “ apo,” “ kata,” and “ histemi,” and is only used here in the New Testament; it seems to be a technical medical term, and means complete restora¬tion to health. The first coming of Christ marked the beginning of the period of restoration, and the second coming marks the end of that period; all who are converted and live the Christian life repro¬duce the Christ life in his church until all things are ready for the final restoration. The scope or the prophecies included both the first and the second coming of Christ, and therefore included the period known as the “ restoration” of all things. The prophecies were those mentioned by Zacharias in Luke 1:70; the writer there referred to such Messianic predictions as Psalms 111:9; Jeremiah 25:5-6 Jeremiah 30:10; Daniel 9:24-26. 22 Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God—This prophecy may be found in Deuteronomy 18:15-19, and Peter quotes it without many variations from the Septuagint, Greek version of the Old Testament; Moses was a lawgiver, leader, ruler, and deliverer, as well as a prophet; his prophecy had not been fulfilled. The Jews acknowledged that this had reference to the Messiah; they asked John the Baptist: “ Art thou the prophet?” John answered that he was not; and they asked him then: “ Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the proph¬et?” (John 1:21-25.) Here Peter identifies “ the prophet” with the Christ; this is exactly what the Jews had done. The Messiah was to be one from among the Jews; he was to bring blessings to every nation on the earth. They should obey this prophet “ in all things whatsoever” he should command them. Just as the children of Israel were to obey Moses, their deliverer, lawgiver, ruler, their leader, so the people now are to obey Christ as he is their Deliverer from sin, their Lawgiver, their Leader, their King, and Prophet. 23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken—Jesus said that Moses wrote of him. “ For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46.) The Jews could not obey Moses without obeying Christ, since Moses com¬manded them to obey the prophet that God would raise up from among them like unto him. The one who refused to obey this prophet, the Christ, should “ be utterly destroyed from among the people.” This declares that God himself would visit punishment upon those who refused to accept Christ. It was plainly expressed in the law that an apostate Israelite should be cut off from the peo¬ple. (Exodus 12:15 Exodus 12:19 Exodus 22:20; Numbers 19:13.) The New Testament language is that “ shall be cast forth into the outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12); “ shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). This expresses the fearful consequences of rejecting Christ. 24 Yea and all the prophets from Samuel—Samuel was not the first prophet in Israel; Enoch was the first prophet that we read about in the Bible (Jude 1:14-15); Samuel was the founder of the school of the prophets; hence, Peter says that “ all the prophets from Samuel” and those who came after him “ told of these days.” Samuel and every school of the prophets taught of the Messiah, and hence the days of which Peter now spoke. These prophets pre¬dicted the blessings or judgments that were to come, and especially the glories of the Messianic reign, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and “ these days.” They could not reject Peter’ s address without rejecting the Christ, and in rejecting the Christ they would be rejecting all of their prophets. 25 Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant—The Jews were “ the sons of the prophets,” and were members “ of the covenant,” not in the sense of being lineal descendants of the prophets, but in the sense of being heirs to all promises, predic¬tions, and blessings of the covenant. The promise here referred to was first made to Abraham (Genesis 12:3 Genesis 18:18 Genesis 22:18); and later to Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 26:4 Genesis 28:14). The prophet had arisen, of whom Moses had spoken, and all the promises made in the Abrahamic covenant belonged to these hearers whom Peter ad-dressed ; they were the heirs of the temporal blessings of this cove¬nant and had access to the spiritual blessings through faith in Christ. The Abrahamic promise included “ all the families of the earth” ; this would include the Gentiles as well as the Jews, but as Peter’ s hearers were Jews, special application is here made to them. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant,—Some translations have “ his Son” instead of “ his Servant.” The Greek is “ tou paida autou,” as in verse 13, as the Messiah was God’ s servant. This is in harmony with Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18. The con¬clusion of the whole matter is that salvation will come to them through their faith in Jesus and their turning from sin. In this address Peter gave the evidence that the lame man had been healed by the power of Jesus whom they had crucified and whom God had raised from the dead; he has ascended back to the Father and there will remain until the restoration of all things. Peter bore a threefold testimony concerning Christ: (1) he is the power by which all miracles are worked (verses 12-17); (2) the redeemer of all souls (verses 18-21); (3) the fulfillment of all the prophecies (verses 22-26). J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 3Act 3:1-10. Thus far, the labors of the apostles had met with uninterrupted and most astonishing success. Luke is now about to introduce us to a series of conflicts, in which success and temporary defeat alternate in the history of the Jerusalem church. (1) “Now Peter and John were going up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. (2) And a certain man, lame from his birth, was carried thither, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of those entering into the temple: (3) who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked alms. (4) And Peter, earnestly looking on him, with John, said, Look on us. (5) And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive something from them. (6) But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not; but what I have, this I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. (7) And seizing him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankles received strength; (8) and leaping forth, he stood and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. (9) And all the people saw him walking and praising God, (10) and recognized him, that it was he who had sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.” This is by no means the first miracle which had been wrought by the apostles since the day of Pentecost; for we have seen, in Acts 2:43, that many signs and wonders had been wrought, by which the people were filled with awe. But the circumstances attending this miracle were calculated to awaken, as it did, an unusual excitement. The Beautiful gate of the temple, so called because of its magnificent folding doors, fifty feet high and forty feet wide, covered with gold and Corinthian brass, was the favorite pass-way into the temple. The subject of this cure, being laid every day at this gate to beg, was well known to all who frequented the temple. From the natural curiosity of the benevolent in reference to the afflictions of those to whom they minister, it was probably known to all that he had been a cripple from his birth. Besides this, the time of the cure was when a multitude of pious people were entering the temple for evening prayer; and their attention was unexpectedly arrested by the leaping and shouting of the man who was healed. As they witnessed his ecstasy and saw him clinging to Peter and John, no one asked the meaning of the scene, for all saw at once that the cripple had been healed by the apostles, and they stood gazing in amazement upon Peter and John. Acts 3:11-15. The apostles took a position in one of the open colonnades which faced the inner side of the temple wall, called Solomon’s Portico. (11) “And while the lame man who was healed was holding fast Peter and John, all the people ran together to them on the portico called Solomon’s, greatly wondering.” The admiration of the multitude was directed toward Peter and John; and was understood by Peter to indicate that they attributed the cure rather to the singular holiness of himself and John, than to the power of their master. He determined to take advantage of the circumstances, by turning their excited thoughts into the proper channel. (12) “Then Peter, seeing this, answered to the people, Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you look earnestly on us, as though by our own power or piety we have caused this man to walk? (13) The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his son Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and rejected in the presence of Pilate, when he had determined to let him go. (14) But you rejected the holy and just, and desired a murderer to be granted to you; (15) and you killed the author of life, whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” In this passage the apostle makes the same statement, in substance, with which he introduced the main theme of his former discourse. The antithetical style adopted on this occasion gave to it a force scarcely excelled by his former discourse, while it was even more penetrating to the consciences of his hearers. The fact that the God of their fathers had glorified Jesus, is contrasted with the fact that they had delivered him up to die; their refusal to let him be released, with the cruel Pilate’s determination to let him go; their rejection of one holy and just, with their demand that a murder should be released to them; and their murder of him, with his authorship of all life. These four points of antithesis form the four steps of a grand climax. Whom the God of our fathers glorified, you have delivered up to die. Your criminality is heightened by the fact, that when even a heathen judge declared him innocent, and desired to release him to you, you rejected him.

Even this does not express the enormity of your guilt, for you yourselves knew him whom you rejected to be holy and just, and preferred the release of one whom you knew to be a murderer. But above all, in murdering him, you put to death the author of life, who has arisen from the dead. We might challenge the pages of all the classics for a climax more thrilling in its effect upon the audience, or for a happier combination of climax and antithesis. The effect upon the multitude was overwhelming. The facts declared were undeniable, except the resurrection, and of this the men who had just healed the cripple were the witnesses. Acts 3:16. But Peter does not stop short with this climax, terminating in the resurrection from the dead. He proceeds to prove his present power and glory by the facts which were then filling them with amazement. (16) “And his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong, whom ye see and know. Even the faith which is through him, has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” In this verse, there is one of those repetitions common with extemporaneous speakers, and designed to express more guardedly a thought already uttered. Perhaps the formula employed by Peter in the act of healing, “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk,” suggested to him the phraseology, “ his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong.” But lest the superstitious audience might imagine that there was some charm in the mere name of Jesus, a mistake which was afterwards made by certain Jews in Ephesus, he adds, “ The faith which is through him has given him this perfect soundness.” The faith was not that of the cripple; for it is clear, from the description, that he had no faith. When Peter said to him, “ Look on us,” the man looked up, expecting to receive alms.

And even when Peter told him, in the name of Jesus, to rise up and walk, he did not attempt to move till Peter “ took him by the right hand, and lifted him up.” He exhibited no faith, either in Jesus, or in Peter’s healing power, till after he found himself able to stand and walk. We must locate the faith, therefore, in the apostles; and in this we are sustained by the fact that the exercise of miraculous power, by those in possession of spiritual gifts, was always dependent upon their faith; Peter was empowered to walk upon water; but, when his faith wavered, he began to sink, and Jesus said, “ O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Nine of the apostles, once, having failed to cast out a demon, asked Jesus, “ Why could we not cast him out?” He replied, “ Because of your unbelief.” In answer to their prayers, also, many miracles were wrought, but it was only “ the prayer of faith” which could heal the sick. It must be here observed that faith was necessary to the exercise of spiritual gifts, already imparted, and that no faith, however strong, ever enabled the uninspired to work miracles. The notion, therefore, which has existed in some minds, from time to time, ever since the apostolic period, that if our faith were strong enough, we, too, could work miracles, has as little foundation in scripture as it has in experiment. Acts 3:17-18. At this point in the discourse there is a marked change in Peter’s tone and manner, which we can attribute to nothing else than some visible indication of the intense pain produced by what he had already said. He had made a most terrific onslaught upon them, and exposed their criminality in unsparing terms; but now, induced by some perceptible change in their countenances, he softens his style, and extenuates their fault. (17) “And now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. (18) But those things which God had before announced through the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled.” That they acted in ignorance of the real character of Jesus was an extenuation of their crime, but it did not render them innocent; for the preceding remarks were intended to convict them of crime, and in his preceding discourse he charged that with wicked hands they had crucified and slain him. Peter assumes, what none of them could honestly deny, that it was by wicked motives they were impelled to the fatal deed. In connection, with this assertion of their criminality, he states another fact hard to be reconciled with it in the philosophy of man, that, in the commission of this crime, God was fulfilling what he had declared through his prophets should be done. Once before, in speaking of this same event, Peter had brought these two apparently conflicting facts, the sovereignty of God, and the free agency of man, into juxtaposition, when he said, “ Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.” That God had predetermined the death of Jesus can not be denied without contradicting both the prophets and the apostles; and that they acted wickedly in doing what God had determined should be done, Peter affirms, and three thousand of them on Pentecost, with many more on this occasion, admitted it. If any man can frame a theory by which to philosophically reconcile these two facts, we will assent to it, if we can understand it; but unless both facts, unaltered have a place in the theory, we must reject it. We reject every man who denies either of the facts; but while he admits them both, we will not dispute with him about the theory upon which he attempts to reconcile them. This much, fidelity to the word of God on the one hand, and brotherly kindness on the other hand, demand of us. In the mean time, it is better to follow Peter’s example.

He lays the two facts side by side, appealing to the prophets for the proof of one, and to the consciences of men for the proof of the other, and there he leaves them, seeming not to realize that he had involved himself in the slightest difficulty. It is folly to attempt to climb where we are certain of a fall. Acts 3:19-21. Having now fully demonstrated the Messiahship of Jesus, and exposed the criminality of those of who had condemned him, the apostle next presents to his hearers the conditions of pardon. (19) “Repent, therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, and that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, (20) and he may send Jesus Christ, who has before preached to you, (21) whom heaven must retain until the time of the restoration of all things which God has spoken, through the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began.”Here, as in his former statement of the conditions of pardon, the apostle makes no mention of faith. But, having labored, from the beginning of his discourse, to convince his hearers, they necessarily understood that his command, based as it was, upon what he had said, implied the assumption that they believed it. A command based upon an argument, or upon testimony, always implies the sufficiency of the proof, and assume that the hearer is convinced. Moreover, Peter knew very well that none would repent at his command who did not believe what he had said; hence, in every view of the case, he proceeded, naturally and safely, in omitting mention of faith. In the command, “ Repent and turn,” the word “ turn” expresses something to be done subsequent to repentance. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, unless we suppose that turn is equivalent to repent; but this is inadmissible, because there could be no propriety in adding the command turn, if what it means had been already expressed in the command repent. We may observe, that the term reform, which some critics would employ instead of repent, would involve the passage in a repetition not less objectionable. To reform and to turn to the Lord are equivalent expressions, hence it would be a useless repetition to command men, Reform, and turn.In order to a proper understanding of this passage, it is necessary to determine the exact scriptural import of the term repent. The most popular conception of its meaning is “ godly sorrow for sin.” But, according to Paul, “ godly sorrow works repentance in order to salvation.” Instead of being identical with repentance, therefore, it is the immediate case which leads to repentance. Paul says to the Corinthians, in the same connection, “ Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance.” This remark shows that it is sorrow which brings men to repentance, is also implies that there may be sorrow for sin without repentance.

That there is a distinction between these two states of mind, and that sorrow for sin may exist without repentance, is also implied in commanding those on Pentecost who were already pierced to the heart, to repent. It is also evident from the case of Judas, who experienced the most intense sorrow for sin, but was not brought to repentance.

His feeling is expressed by a different term in the original, which is never used to express the change which the gospel requires, and is equivalent to regret, though sometimes, as in his case, it expresses the idea of remorse.In thus tracing the distinction between “ godly sorrow” and “ repentance,” we have ascertained the fact that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and this must constitute one element in the definition of the term. Whatever it is, it is produced by sorrow for sin. Is it not, then, reformation? Reformation is certainly produced by sorrow for sin; but, as we have already observed, turning, which is equivalent to reforming, is distinguished, in the text before us, from repenting. The same distinction is elsewhere apparent. John the Immerser, in requiring the people to “ bring forth fruits meet for repentance,” clearly distinguishes between repentance and those deeds of a reformed life which he styles fruits meet for repentance.

With him, reformation is the fruit of repentance, not its equivalent. The distinction is that between fruit and the tree which bears it.

When Jesus speaks of repenting seven times a day, he certainly means something different from reformation; for that would require more time. Likewise, when Peter required those on Pentecost to repent and be immersed, if by the term repent he had meant reform, he would certainly have given them time to reform before they were immersed, instead of immersing them immediately. Finally, the original term is sometimes used in connection with such prepositions as are not suitable to the idea of reformation. As a general rule it is followed by apo, or ek, which are suitable to either idea; but in 2 Corinthians 12:21, it is followed by epi with the dative: “ Many have not repented, epi, of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed.” Now men do not reform of their evil deeds, neither will the preposition, in this case, bear a rendering which would suit the term reform. Reform, then, does not express the same idea as repent, but, as we have seen above, reformation is the fruit or result of repentance. Seeing now that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and results in reformation, we can have no further difficulty in ascertaining exactly what it is; for the only result of sorrow for sin which leads to reformation, is a change of the will in reference to sin. The etymological meaning of metanoia is a change of mind; but the particular element of the mind which undergoes this change is the will. Strictly defined, therefore, repentance is a change of the will, produced by sorrow for sin, and leading to reformation. If the change of will is not produced by sorrow for sin, it is not repentance, in the religious sense, though it may be metanoia, in the classic sense. Thus, Esau “ found no place for metanoias, a change of mind, though he sought it carefully with tears.” Here the word designates a change in the mind of Isaac in reference to the blessing which he had already given to Jacob; but this change did not depend upon sorrow for sin, hence it was not repentance, and should not be so translated. Again, if the change of will, though produced by sorrow for sin, is one which does not lead to reformation, it is not repentance; for there was a change in the will of Judas, produced by sorrow for sin, yet Judas did not repent.

The change in his case led to suicide, not to reformation; it is, therefore, not expressed by metanoeo, but by metamelomai. Our definition, therefore, is complete, without redundancy. We can now perceive, still more clearly than before, that in the command, “ Repent and turn,” the terms repent, and turn, express two distinct changes, which take place in the order of the words. Their relative meaning is well expressed by Dr. Bloomfield, who says that the former denotes “ a change of mind,” the latter “ a change of conduct.” Mr. Barnes also well and truly remarks: “ This expression (‘be converted,’) conveys an idea not at all to be found in the original. It conveys the idea of passivity— BE converted, as if they were to yield to some foreign influence that they were now resisting. But the idea of being passive in this is not conveyed by the original word. The word properly means to turn— to return to a path from which one has gone astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to forsake them.” That turn, rather than be converted, is the correct rendering of the term, is not disputed by any competent authority; we shall assume, therefore, that it is correct, and proceed to inquire what Peter intended to designate by this term. As already observed, it designates a change in the conduct. A change of conduct, however, must, from the very necessity of the case, have a beginning; and that beginning consists in the first act of the better life. The command to turn is obeyed when this first act is performed. Previous to that, the man has not turned; subsequent to it he has turned; and the act itself is the turning act. If, in turning to the Lord, any one of a number of actions might be the first that the penitent performed, the command to turn would not specially designate any of these, but might be obeyed by the performance of either. But the fact is that one single act was uniformly enjoined upon the penitent, as the first overt act of obedience to Christ, and that was to be immersed.

This Peter’s present hearers understood. They had heard him say to parties like themselves, “ Repent and be immersed;” and the first act they saw performed by those who signified their repentance, was to be immersed.

When, now, he commands them to repent and turn, they could but understand that they were to turn as their predecessors had done, by being immersed. The commands turn, and be immersed, are equivalent, not because the words have the same meaning, but because the command, “ Turn to the Lord” was uniformly obeyed by the specific act of being immersed. Previous to immersion, men repented, but did not turn; after immersion, they had turned, and immersion was the turning act.We may reach the same conclusion by another course of reasoning. The command Turn occupies the same position between repentance and the remission of sins, in this discourse, that the command Be immersed had occupied in Peter’s former discourse. He then said, “ Repent and be immersed for the remission of sins;” now he says, “ Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out.” Now, when his present hearers heard him command them to turn in order to the same blessing for which he had formerly commanded them to be immersed, they could but understand that the generic word turn was used with specific reference to immersion, and the the substitution is founded on the fact that a penitent sinner turns to God by being immersed.This interpretation was first advanced, in modern times, by Alexander Campbell, about thirty years ago, and it excited against him then an opposition which still rages. The real ground of this opposition is not the interpretation itself, but a perversion of it.

The word conversion being used in popular terminology in the sense of a change of heart, when Mr. Campbell announced that the word incorrectly rendered in this passage, be converted, means to turn to the Lord by immersion, the conclusion was seized by his opponents that he rejected all change of heart, and substituted immersion in its stead.

He has reiterated, again and again, the sense in which he employed the term convert, and that the heart must be changed by faith and repentance previous to the conversion or turning here commanded by Peter; yet those who are determined upon doing him injustice still keep up the wicked and senseless clamor of thirty years ago. The odium theologicum, like the scent of musk, is not soon nor easily dissipated. There are always those to whose nostrils the odor is grateful. There are several facts connected with the use of the original term, epistrepho, in the New Testament, worthy of notice. It occurs thirty-nine times, in eighteen of which it is used for the mere physical act of turning or returning. Nineteen times it expresses a change from evil to good, and twice from good to evil. The term convert, therefore, were retained as the rendering, a man could, in the scriptural sense, be converted to Satan as well as to God. But be converted can never truly represent the original, though it is so rendered six times in the common version. The original is invariably in the active voice, and it is making a false and pernicious impression on the English reader to render it by the passive voice.

If we render it truthfully by the term convert, we would have such readings as these: “ Repent and convert;” “ lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and should convert, and I should heal them,” &c. In a correct version of the New Testament, the expression be converted could not possibly occur; for there is nothing in the original to justify it. Not less worthy of observation is the fact, that while the change called conversion is popularly attributed to a divine power, as the only power capable of effecting it, and it is considered scarcely less than blasphemy to speak of a man converting another, or converting himself, yet the original word never does refer either to God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit, as its agent. On the contrary, in five of its nineteen occurrences in the sense of a change from evil to good, it is employed of a human agent, as of John the Immerser, Paul, or some brother in the Church; and in the remaining fourteen instances, the agent is the person who is the subject of the change. Thus, men may be properly said to turn their fellows, yet the subjects of this act are never said to be turned, but to turn to the Lord. The term invariably expresses something that the sinner is to do. These observations show how immeasurably the term convert has departed, in popular usage, from the sense of the original which it so falsely represents, and how imperious the necessity for displacing it from our English Bibles. The word turn corresponds to the original in meaning, in usage, in inflections, and translates it unambiguously in every instance. Peter commands his hearers to repent and turn, in order to three distinct objects: first, “ That your sins may be blotted out;” second, “ That seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;” third, “ That he may send Jesus Christ who was before preached to you.” It is supposed, by the commentators generally, that the last two events are contemplated by Peter as cotemporaneous, so that the “ seasons of refreshing” spoken of are those which will take place at the second coming of Christ. That there will be seasons of refreshing then, is true; but there are others more immediately dependent upon the obedience here enjoined by Peter, to which the reference is more natural. The pardon of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which were immediately consequent upon repentance and immersion, certainly bring “ seasons of refreshing,” which might well be made the subject of promise to hearers supposed to be trembling with guilty apprehension. The reference of these words is, doubtless, to the gift of the Spirit; for they occupy the same place here that the gift of the Spirit did in the former discourse. Then, after repentance, immersion, and the remission of sins, came the promise of the Holy Spirit; now, after the same three, somewhat differently expressed—i. e., repentance, turning to the Lord, and blotting out of sins— comes the promise of “ seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” They are, then, the fresh and cheering enjoyments of him whose sins are forgiven, and who is taught to believe that the presence of the approving Spirit of God is with him. The third promise, that God would send Jesus Christ, who was before preached to them, was dependent upon their obedience, only in so far as they would thus contribute to the object for which he will come, to raise from the dead, and receive into glory, all who are his. It is qualified by the remark, “ whom heaven must retain until the times of the restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” It is difficult to determine the exact force of the term restoration in this connection. It is commonly referred to a state of primeval order, purity, and happiness, which, it is supposed, will exist just previous to the second coming of Christ. But the apostle speaks of a restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets. Now, there are many things spoken of by the prophets beside those which refer to the final triumphs of the truth, and all these are included in the expression. Some of these things will not consist, individually considered, in restoration, but in destruction.

Still, the prevailing object of all the things of which the prophets have spoken, even the destruction of wicked nations and apostate Churches, is to finally restore that moral saw which God originally exercised over the whole earth. It is doubtless this thought which suggested the term restoration, though reference is had to the fulfillment of all the prophesies which are to be fulfilled on earth. Not till all are fulfilled will Christ come again. Acts 3:22-23. For the twofold purpose of giving confirmation to the claims of Jesus, and warning his hearers as to the consequences of rejecting him, the apostle next introduces a well-known prophesy of Moses. (22) “For Moses, indeed, said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up for you, from among your brethren, like me: him shall ye hear in all things, whatever he shall say to you. (23) And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.” Whether Peter was right in applying this prophesy to Christ depends upon the likeness between him and Moses. This likeness may be traced in many subordinate incidents of his history, but lies chiefly in that which distinguishes both Moses and Christ from all other prophets. Moses as a deliverer of his people, and an original lawgiver. No prophet had been like him in these two particulars. The chief mission of the other prophets, so far as their cotemporaries were concerned, was to enforce the law of Moses.

But Christ had now come, speaking by his our authority, offering a more glorious deliverance to the people than that from Egypt, and issuing new laws for the government of men. This proved that he, and he alone, was the prophet spoken of by Moses, and Peter’s hearers now perceive that the authority of Moses himself binds them to the authority of Jesus, and that they must hear him, on the penalty of destruction if they refuse. Acts 3:24. Not content with bringing to bear the testimony of Moses, Peter adds to it the combined voices of all the prophets: (24) “And, indeed, all the prophets, from Samuel, and those following in order, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days.” This declaration is to be understood only of those prophets whose predictions are recorded in the Old Testament, for to those alone could Peter appeal in proof of his proposition. It was conceded by the Jews, that all the prophets had spoken of the days of the Messiah, and it was already proved, by Peter’s preceding remarks, that Jesus was the Messiah; hence the argument is now complete. Acts 3:25-26. Having completed his argument, in which the Messiahship of Jesus was demonstrated by the miraculous cure they had witnessed, and by the testimony of all the prophets, from Moses and Samuel down to Malachi, Peter next makes a powerful appeal to his hearers, based upon their veneration for the fathers of their nation, and for the covenant which God had made with them. (25) “You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kingdoms of the earth be blessed. (26) Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, has sent him to bless you, in turning away each one of you from his iniquities.” This was a tender appeal to their national sympathies, made more effective by the statement that to them first because of their relation to the prophets and to Abraham, God had sent his risen Son to bless them, before visiting the rest of the world. The use here made of the promise to Abraham shows the true interpretation of it. It is to be fulfilled, according to Peter, in turning living men away from their iniquities. Those only, therefore, who, under the influence of the gospel, turn away from their iniquities, can lay claim to the blessings contemplated in this promise. That all the kindreds of the earth were to be blessed does not affect this conclusion, except to extend its application to those of all nations who should, at any period of time, turn from their iniquities. The Universalian view of this promise is contradicted by all the apostolic comments upon it; for they all unite in denying the blessing to any but those who in this life believe and turn to the Lord.

Verse 1 This chapter develops the story of the healing of a congenital cripple by the apostles Peter and John. Now Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. (Acts 3:1) Peter and John … How great must have been the friendship, of these two men. They had been partners in the fishing business on Galilee when Jesus called them to be “fishers of men,” and both of them had earned the distinction of membership in the inner circle of the Twelve who witnessed such events as the Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus’ daughter, and the agony in Gethsemane. Here, it would seem that they were following the pattern of going “two by two,” as when the Lord had first sent them on their apostolic mission. Into the temple … Christians, for some considerable time after Pentecost, continued to frequent the temple, especially at the hours of prayer, not merely for the purpose of praying, but also, it may be supposed, for the opportunities afforded by such occasions for preaching Christ to the people. In time, God would remove the temple; and the separation from Judaism would become complete. Ten reasons why, it may be concluded, that God destroyed the temple are discussed in my Commentary on Mark, Mark 13:2. Regarding the chronology of just when the event described in this chapter occurred, some have been quite anxious to suppose that a long period had elapsed since Pentecost, Ramsay declaring that “It is not made clear at this point whether weeks or months or years had passed,"[1] evidently preferring the longest interval possible. He made a preposterous deduction from this, affirming that whereas, in Peter’s speech on Pentecost, “the way of salvation was described as consisting of three steps, repentance, baptism, and remission of sins … now the nature of this process is better understood … the idea of faith is fundamental in this address. Through faith comes healing”[2]Ramsay’s exegesis, above, is ,the classical example of the lengths to which men will go in their efforts to get baptism out of the plan of redemption, Ramsay’s argument includes these affirmations: (1) that Peter did not properly understand the plan of redemption on Pentecost, (2) that he mistakenly included baptism as a precondition of salvation, (3) that a very long period elapsed between chapters two and three, giving Peter time to learn the truth he did not know earlier, (4) that when Peter announced the terms of salvation in chapter three he stressed “faith” (Ramsay apparently did not notice that Peter made no mention at all of faith in the announcement offering salvation inActs 3:19). It would be impossible to imagine a more fallacious exegesis based upon this chapter, the most astounding thing in the exegesis being the denial absolutely of Peter’s inspiration on Pentecost immediately after his baptism in the Holy Spirit! The hour of prayer … “The hours of prayer were the third (Acts 2:15) when the morning sacrifice was offered, the sixth (noon), and the ninth, the time of the evening sacrifice."[3] The Jewish method of counting time was followed in the temple, of course, the ninth hour being 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon. [1] Sir William M. Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 19. [2] Ibid., p. 20. [3] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 822. Verse 2 And a certain man that was lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered the temple.The cripple in view here had been disabled from birth, being at the time of his healing more than forty years old (Acts 4:22); the fact of his having to be carried showed how complete was his disability. Beautiful … There were nine doors to the temple, all being 45 feet high, except the gate of Nicanor which was 75 feet high, facing eastward, and very richly adorned. It is thought by many that this was the door mentioned here. Of it, Josephus says: It was adorned after a most costly manner, as having much richer and thicker plates of silver and gold … it was made of Corinthian brass. The gold had been poured upon it by Alexander, the father of Tiberius.[4]ENDNOTE: [4] Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 784. Verse 3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked to receive an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something from them.The beggar is not here represented as having any faith in Christ, or indeed that he had any other concern than the hope of receiving gifts from those entering the temple. McGarvey flatly declared that “It is evident from the account of the cure that previous to it he had no faith at all."[5]ENDNOTE: [5] J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), p. 55. Verse 6 But Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but what I have, that give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.Silver and gold have I none … This clause is not strictly grammatical; and as Campbell noted: However use may have sanctioned it, this cannot be justified. “None” is an abbreviation of “not one,” which does not apply to these metals named … “Silver and gold I have not” was strictly true, and more eloquent.[6]The legendary story of Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent II comes to mind in connection with this verse. Aquinas surprised the Pope and came upon him while he was counting great stacks of silver and gold coins, whereupon the Pope said, “Brother, you see that Peter can no longer say, Silver and gold have I none.'" Aquinas replied, "Quite true; and neither can he say to the lame man, Rise and walk!’” In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk … This means “by the authority of” Christ, showing that Peter and John were acting in a manner consonant with Christ’s will, as being in him and identified with him. There does not exist any other authority in the Christian religion; all things are to be done by the authority of Christ. Even the baptismal ceremony (Matthew 28:18-20) is not “in the name of” the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but “into” that triple name, but still done by the authority of Christ. ENDNOTE: [6] Alexander Campbell, Acts of Apostles (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House), p. 20. Verse 7 And he took him by the right hand, and raised him up: and immediately his feet and ankle-bones received strength.The beggar did not respond by trying to rise up; but the apostle took him by the hand and raised him up, whereupon the strength came. Clearly, the faith of the apostles did the healing in this case, the beggar being absolutely passive in it until the strength came; and, at this point, the miracle had already been accomplished. Such a comment as this, that “He sprang up and found his feet for the first time in his life."[7]fails to take note of the fact that the beggar did not spring up at all; he was lifted up. The reference to ankle-bones shows the perceptive and inquiring mind of the sacred historian, Dr. Luke. ENDNOTE: [7] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 85. Verse 8 And leaping up, he stood, and began to walk; and he entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God.This was the signal for all to behold that the Messianic age indeed had come upon the world. Isaiah had written of the times of Messiah that “Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing” (Isaiah 35:6). Thus began to be fulfilled the promise of Jesus to the Twelve that great “signs” would accompany them on their apostolic mission (Mark 16:17 ff), this being another of several such mighty “signs” recorded in Acts, the miracle of Pentecost being the first. Verse 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God: and they took knowledge of him, that it was he that sat for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened to him.These verses report the impression the miracle created among the people who were witnesses of it, the understandable result being the wonder and amazement of all; nor is there any hesitancy on the part of this writer to use the word miracle as descriptive of what happened here. Even the priestly enemies of Jesus admitted that it was a notable miracle they could not deny (Acts 4:16). Verse 11 And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon’s, greatly wondering.He held Peter and John … Clinging to the apostles was a natural expression of the beggar’s gratitude; also, perhaps a childish fear had seized him, making him fearful that the healing might not last if he permitted the apostles out of his sight. All the people ran together … Thus the utility of the wonder is apparent in the gathering of a mighty throng of people who would hear the gospel. There was always a design in everything that God did. Porch that is called Solomon’s … This porch is named twice in Acts, the other place being Acts 5:12, and once in John 10:23. It was located in the court of the heathen on the eastern side of the temple. The opinion has long been, and still is, that it was placed on the spot where Solomon had made the entrance to the old temple, but still retained its name …. Some distinguished moderns think it was the identical porch Solomon built.[8]ENDNOTE: [8] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 21. Verse 12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this man? or why fasten ye your eyes on us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made him walk?When God does mighty things through his servants, the natural man is strongly tempted to glorify the servant rather than the Lord. So it was here, as it was with Paul and Barnabas at Lystra (Acts 14:12); but Peter quickly moved to correct their error. Verse 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.The God of Abraham, etc. … This was the ancient Jewish formula for calling God’s name; and Peter used it here, perhaps, for its appeal to Jewish minds. Whom ye delivered up … denied … The wickedness of the conduct of the chosen people was dramatized by Peter by his emphasis upon their conduct before the heathen governor, and in the face of that governor’s determined efforts of release Jesus. In the light of Peter’s charge here, there is no way to soften the guilt of Israel, although, to be sure, Pilate was equally guilty. Servant Jesus … By these words, Peter clearly identified our Lord as the suffering Servant of Isa 42:1 Isaiah 52:13; and Isaiah 53:11; thus taking this exceedingly important understanding of the prophecies back to the very door of that first Pentecost. This, of course, is not a denial that Jesus was also the Son of God. As Campbell noted, “Jesus was personally a son, officially a servant."[9]Glorified his Servant Jesus … As Root observed, God glorified Jesus repeatedly: In acknowledging him at his baptism and transfiguration, by working through him the mighty miracles, and further by working the present miracle of healing which had been called forth in the “name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth."[10][9] Ibid., p. 22. [10] Orin Root, Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 23. Verse 14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of Life; whom God raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.Asked for a murderer … This was another factor that aggravated the guilt of Israel, and it was proper that Peter should have mentioned it here. The choice of Barabbas by the Jewish populace was as tragic an event as ever occurred, for it was part and parcel of the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus. The consequences of it were also of colossal proportions. Within a generation, an entire company of the most reprobate robbers infested Jerusalem, taking charge of the temple itself, and filling the Holy of Holies with dead bodies. This is fully discussed in my Commentary on Mark, Mark 13:2. The Prince of Life … This pleasing expression is actually a mistranslation, the true reading being “Author of Life Eternal."[11] McGarvey also supported this translation, pointing out that the word here rendered “Prince” also occurs in Hebrews 5:9 Hebrews 12:2, where it is properly translated “Author."[12]Whom God raised from the dead … As always, the burden of apostolic preaching was the resurrection of the Son of God; and here Peter stressed it, together with the fact of the apostles being witnesses of it. [11] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 22. [12] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 53. Verse 16 And by faith in his name hath his name made this man strong, whom ye behold and know: yea, the faith which is through him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.In this verse appears the only mention of faith in this whole narrative; and it is mentioned here, not as a condition of receiving salvation (although it is so, of course) but as an explanation of the power that had healed the cripple, the faith in view being not of the cripple at all, but of the men who healed him. Following this explanation, Peter went on with his sermon; and, somewhat later, when again he would announce terms of redemption to men, his words (Acts 3:19) were in perfect agreement with what he had announced on Pentecost. The conceit that Peter’s mention of faith in this verse was due to his having discovered by some means or other that baptism was no longer a condition of salvation is founded upon a denial of the sacred text. The terms of redemption are not in view at all in this verse; but what is taught is that the apostles (already saved) had performed this wonder by reason of their faith in Jesus Christ; and, at this point in the narrative, Peter had not told either the healed beggar or the multitude what to do to be saved. He would do that later (Acts 3:19). Another important corollary of this verse is: The power of performing miracles was given to the apostles by virtue of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but they needed to exercise faith before this power could be used.[13]ENDNOTE: [13] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 59. Verse 17 And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But the things which God foreshadowed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, be thus fulfilled.In ignorance ye did it … This extenuation of the guilt of Israel was mentioned by Peter for the sake of a more persuasive appeal to his hearers; and, of course, what Peter said of their being ignorant is true. However, Peter was not specific about the area of their ignorance, which was limited, especially as regards the rulers. The leaders of Israel knew that Christ was the long-expected Messiah, a holy and righteous man, and that he was the heir of the theocracy, and the rightful claimant of the throne of David - all this they most certainly knew; because, as Jesus said of them that they said among themselves, “This is the heir; come let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours” (Mark 12:7). The exact point of their ignorance regarded the fact of Jesus’ being God come in the flesh, the very person who would judge them in the last day; THAT they did not know. The infinite patience and forbearance of God appear in Peter’s making every possible allowance in softening the guilt of Israel’s rejection of Christ. That his Christ should suffer, be thus fulfilled … Moreover, Peter stated here that their ignorant rejection had also fulfilled the prophecies of Jesus’ sufferings. Having thus tempered, to the extent it was possible, the guilt of those who rejected and crucified the Christ, Peter at once appealed to them to obey the gospel, announcing the very same terms of salvation which he had previously spoken on Pentecost. Verse 19 Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.On Pentecost (Acts 2:38), Peter had preached: (1) repent ye, (2) and be baptized, (3) for the remission of sins, and (4) ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Exactly the same four factors are in view here: (1) repent, (2) turn again, (3) that sins may be blotted out, and (4) that refreshing from the Lord’s presence would follow. It is universally admitted that (1), (2), and (4) of the above factors in both sequences are synonymous; and, if we had known nothing at all concerning any of these things, the incidence of “be baptized” and “turn again” in exactly corresponding places in these sequences would prove that they mean the same thing. As De Welt expressed it: The thought behind “turn again” was nothing short of baptism. The Jews no doubt had witnessed the baptism of persons every day (Acts 2:47); and thus when Peter called upon them to “repent and turn again,” they knew exactly what he inferred.[14]Boles also agreed, declaring that: “The blotting out of sins is equivalent to remission of sins; and being baptized is tantamount to turning again."[15]It is, however, to the great Restoration preacher, Benjamin Franklin, that we turn for one of the most impressive analyses regarding “turn again.” It actually means “be converted,” as the translators of the KJV rendered it in three different passages thus:

1. The heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted (turn again), and I should heal them (Acts 28:27).
2. At the same time came the disciples unto him, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. … Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted (turn), and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:1 Matthew 18:3).
3. Repent ye therefore, and be converted (turn again), that your sins may be blotted out (Acts 3:19). Significantly, the command, however it is read, whether “turn again” or “be converted,” was used by the inspired writers to indicate something that men must do; and the status of those to whom these several words were addressed shows what was meant. In (1), the people commanded to be converted were unbelievers; in (2) they were already believers; and in (3) the people were already believers and had been commanded to repent; and therefore, “converted” in this instance refers to some further action following repentance and faith. Thus it is clear that “turn again” may refer to any of the necessary actions by which one becomes a Christian. In (1) it means that he should believe, repent, and be baptized; in (2) it meant that the apostles should repent; and in (3) it has the meaning that people who had already believed and repented were yet required to be baptized. Thus the actual meaning of “turn again,” as used by the inspired writers, is “complete whatever is lacking” to bring one into Christ. In this verse, the thing lacking after faith and repentance was most certainly their being baptized into Christ. But the question arises, Why did Peter use this rather indirect way of stating what they must do, especially in view of what he had so flatly said on Pentecost? The answer must lie in the fact of his inspiration. God always gives the skeptic, the willful, and the unbeliever a way out. Our Lord said shortly before raising the daughter of Jairus, “The maid is not dead, but sleepeth!” (Mark 5:39), thus leaving men room to make their own moral decision. So it is here. If one is determined to reject baptism as clearly binding upon all men, this verse gives him a straw to catch at, the excuse to refuse what is morally impossible for him already. The notion advocated by Ramsay and discussed earlier in this chapter, to the effect that Peter switched his position to new ground in this passage, “stressing faith,” is refuted by the simple truth that faith is not even mentioned here. Just as it was on Pentecost, the people already believed; and Peter was concerned here with further instructing men regarding how they might “save themselves” by complying with the God-given terms of redemption. For those who desire a fuller discussion of the questions regarding this verse, reference is made to J. W. McGarvey’s New Commentary on Acts. [14] Ibid., p. 60. [15] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 59. Verse 20 And that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus, whom the heavens must receive until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been of old.Whereas in Acts 2:38 Peter had promised that remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit would follow their obeying the gospel, there is here assigned another consequence, namely, that (God) may send the Christ, etc. Christ had already come and completed the work of his First Advent, making this a reference to the Second Coming, which in this verse is promised as an event that would be hastened by the people obeying the gospel, indicating, as McGarvey said, that: A certain amount of work in the saving of men was to be accomplished before his coming. This is indicated by the qualifying remark, “whom the heavens must receive until the restoration of all things whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets."[16]There is a definite hint here that Christ’s Second Advent will not appear until a certain number of souls have been redeemed; and, that being true, one of the reasons for the severe weeping of Jesus over the fate of Jerusalem due to their rejecting him is evident. IF the Jews had received Christ, there can be no doubt that Christianity would have been the choice of far greater numbers of men, and God’s purpose could have been realized much sooner; and Peter definitely says as much right here. The tragic rejection of Israel, however, had the effect of extending the long agony of mankind, vastly increasing the numbers of men who would be born, and thus fulfilling the curse upon Eve that God would “multiply thy sorrow and thy conception” (Genesis 3:16). Thus, the human race blew its second chance in Israel’s rejection of the Christ, the same being a disaster for humanity, fully comparable to the original debacle in Eden. Here, Peter pleaded with the people to obey the gospel that God might send the Christ, etc., in his Second Advent. Whom the heavens must receive … means that Jesus will not appear again until a certain time future, at which time “the restoration of all things,” in one sense, shall have been completed, and to be followed by certain other restorations. Here again one thinks of the primary and secondary arches of the rainbow, as so often in prophecy. Until the times of the restoration of all things … The primary and immediate thing in view here is the accomplishment of all those things which had been prophesied by the Old Testament prophets, Acts 3:21 b being a qualifier of the things to be restored; and, concerning those things, the Second Advent will be at the end, not the beginning of the restoration. The premillennial views are not supported by this text. Christ explained that John the Baptist’s coming to “restore all things” was fully accomplished (Matthew 17:11-12); and men “knew him not.” Also, none of the outlandish things the Jews thought would happen when Elijah “restored all things” ever took place. It is, in all probability, certain that the “restoration of all things,” as taught by the prophets, is now going on under the reign of Christ, and that all shall be accomplished without the majority of mankind ever being in the slightest degree aware of it. Jesus himself made the work and the events of John’s ministry, in certain particulars, typical of his own. Just as John was killed, so would Jesus be crucified, etc. Despite this, there is the definite suggestion in places like this of a further restoration of “all things,” following the judgment. As Dummelow believed: “It means the restoration of the whole universe to its original and planned perfection … as in the `new heavens and the new earth’” (2 Peter 3:13).[17][16] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 63. [17] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 823. Verse 22 Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me; and to him shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you. And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.THE PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSESPeter pressed his appeal by his presentation of Christ as the mighty Prophet like unto Moses. This quotation is from Deuteronomy 18:15 ff, which emphasizes the typical qualities in the life of the great Lawgiver of Israel, Moses. This is an extensive area of study, because there were many likenesses between Moses and Christ. Both were sons of virgin princesses, Moses by adoption, Jesus by the virgin birth, etc., etc. For a rather extended enumeration of these, please see my Commentary on Hebrews, under Hebrews 3:2, where nineteen likenesses and thirteen contrasts between Moses and Christ are presented. Significantly, Moses was rejected by Israel, but Moses ruled them despite that; and the inference from Peter’s mention of this prophecy is that Jesus, despite the fact of his being rejected, will nevertheless be the ruler of God’s true Israel. Destroyed from among the people … In its spiritual application, this means that all who do not hearken to that Prophet, who is Christ, shall be lost eternally. Verse 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days.Peter’s words here show that all of the Old Testament writers bore witness to the coming of Christ and to qualities and events of the kingdom he would receive. Some have questioned whether Samuel spoke of Christ, but of course he did. It was he who anointed David king and delivered the prophecy of David’s perpetual throne (2 Samuel 7:12-16), all of which was fulfilled in Christ. Some 333 prophecies of the Old Testament, embracing practically every aspect and feature of Christ’s coming and of his life, sufferings, death, burial, resurrection, glorification, etc., and of the kingdom he received, - all are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Verse 25 Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.Sons of the prophets … seems to distinguish among the sons of Abraham, as between the secular descendants like the Pharisees, and those of the true spiritual likeness, here called “sons of the prophets,” who were also posterity of Abraham, but in the more meaningful sense. Sons of the covenant … clearly refers to the true Israelites, the spiritual seed of Abraham, such as Nathaniel and Zacchaeus. In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed … The promise to Abraham is recorded inGenesis 12:3; 22:18; 26:4; and 28:14. “All the families of earth …” envisions the blessing being poured out upon Gentiles as well as Jews; and “in thy seed” is not a promise that the multitudes of Abraham’s posterity will bless mankind, but that the blessing shall come through the seed singular, which is Christ (Galatians 3:16). Alexander Campbell commented on the Jews being sons of the prophets, taking a slightly different view, thus: They were educated by the sixteen Jewish prophets, the same being read in their synagogues weekly. Hence, we presume, they were called sons of the prophets; and therefore ought to have recognized and acknowledged their own Messiah.[18]ENDNOTE: [18] Alexander Campbell, op. cit., p. 24. Verse 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.Unto you first … “To the Jew first …” (Romans 1:16). This was the invariable rule of apostolic preaching; but the words inherently contain a prophecy that others shall receive the gospel also; and Peter’s use of this slogan in context is a warning that the right to receive or reject the gospel never pertained to the Jew only, but to the Jew first; and afterward the Gentiles would also be called. In turning … from your iniquities … The great blessing Jesus came to deliver was not a re-establishment of the old Solomonic empire, but a spiritual blessing marked by the forgiveness of sins, the reception of God’s Spirit, and a turning of the people away from their wickedness. It is not hard to understand why secular Israel wanted no such blessings; millions of men in all generations are just like those ancient Israelites. Yet, significantly, many of the fleshly Israel were Israelites indeed; and they, along with the apostles, made up the original church of Jesus Christ in this world; and it may well be supposed that in all ages many people who literally descended from Abraham are now in the kingdom of Christ; although, to be sure, the acceptance of Christianity by one who is called a Jew leads at once to his loss of identity as a Jew, afterward being, not a Jew, but a Christian.

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Three IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To study the healing of the lame man, noting various aspects of the miracle

2. To examine Peter’s second gospel sermon, his call to repent and the blessings to follow

SUMMARY The chapter opens with Peter and John going to the temple where they encounter a man lame from birth begging for alms at the gate called Beautiful. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Peter commands him to rise up and walk. Taking the lame man by the right hand and lifting him up, the man is healed instantly and completely. Walking, leaping, and praising God, he accompanies Peter and John into the temple to the wonder and amazement of the crowd (Acts 3:1-11).

On Solomon’s porch, Peter explains that the healing occurred by faith in the name of Jesus. God has glorified His Servant Jesus, the Holy One and the Just, the Prince of life, whom they denied and killed, but whom God raised from the dead as witnessed by Peter and John. While their crimes were done in ignorance, even foretold and fulfilled by God, they are commanded to repent and turn. Those that do are promised to have their sins blotted out and experience other blessings from Jesus who will remain in heaven until the times of restoration of all things. Those who do not heed Jesus will be utterly destroyed as foretold by Moses (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15 Deuteronomy 18:18-19). As sons of the prophets, and of the covenant God made with Abraham to bless all families through his seed (cf. Genesis 22:18), to them first God has sent Jesus to bless them in turning them away from their iniquities (Acts 3:12-26).

OUTLINE I. THE HEALING OF THE LAME MAN (Acts 3:1-11) A. THE MIRACLE AT THE TEMPLE GATE (Acts 3:1-8)1. Peter and John go to the temple a. At the hour of prayer b. Which was the ninth hour (3 p.m.) 2. The lame man at the temple gate called Beautiful a. Lame from his mother’s womb b. Carried daily to the gate to ask for alms c. Seeing Peter and John, asks them for alms 3. Peter heals the lame man a. They fix their eyes on the man, and Peter tells him to look at them b. The man gives them his attention, expecting to receive something c. Peter has no gold or silver, but gives what he has

1. He commands the lame man in the name of Jesus to rise up and walk
2. He takes him by the right hand and lifts him up d. Immediately his feet and ankle bones receive strength
3. Leaping up, the man stands and walks
4. He enters the temple with Peter and John 3) He is walking, leaping, and praising God

B. THE OF THE CROWD (Acts 3:9-11)1. The people see the lame man walking and praising God 2. The people know him as the one who begged alms at the Beautiful Gate 3. They are filled with wonder and amazement at what happened 4. As the lame man holds on to Peter and John, the people run to them in Solomon’s Porch

II. PETER’S SECOND SERMON (Acts 3:12-26) A. THE MIRACLE (Acts 3:12-16)1. Peter questions why the crowd marveled a. Why look at Peter and John so intently? b. As though by their own power or godliness they made the man walk? 2. God has glorified His Servant Jesus a. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of their fathers b. Has glorified Jesus

1. Whom they delivered up and denied a) In the presence of Pilate b) When he was determined to let Him God
2. The Holy One and the Just a) Whom they denied b) And asked for a murderer to be granted to them
3. The Prince of life a) Whom God raised up b) Of which Peter and John are witnesses

3. It was through faith in His name that made the man strong a. A man whom they see and know b. Faith which comes through Jesus has given him perfect soundness in their presence

B. THE CALL TO REPENT AND BE (Acts 3:17-26)1. Peter knows they and their rulers crucified Christ in their ignorance a. Those things God foretold by the mouth of His prophets b. How Christ would suffer, God has fulfilled 2. Peter commands them to repent and be converted a. That their sins may be blotted out b. That times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord c. That God might send Jesus Christ

1. Who was preached to them before
2. Whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things a) Which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets b) Since the world began

3. Even as Moses warned the fathers (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15 Deuteronomy 18:18-19) a. That God would raise up for them a Prophet from their brethren b. Whom they should hear in all things, whatever He says c. Those who will not hear that Prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people d. As all the prophets foretold these days, from Samuel and those who followed
4. They are the sons of the prophets, of the covenant God made with their fathers a. Saying to Abraham, “And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed” b. To them first, God sent His Servant Jesus to bless them

1. Having raised Him up
2. To turn every one of them from their iniquities

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- The healing of the lame man (Acts 3:1-11)

• Peter’s second sermon (Acts 3:12-26)

2. When did Peter and John go up to the temple? (Acts 3:1)- At the hour of prayer, the ninth hour (3 p.m.)

3. What was the name of the gate of the temple where the lame man begged for alms? (Acts 3:2)- Beautiful

4. When Peter and John spoke to the lame man, what he expecting? (Acts 3:3-5)- To receive something from them

5. As Peter prepared to heal the lame man, what did he say? What did Peter then do? (Acts 3:6-7)- “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”

• Took the lame man by the right hand and lifted him up

6. How soon was the lame man healed? How did the lame man respond? (Acts 3:7-8)- Immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength

• Leaping up, stood, walked into the temple, leaping and praising God

7. Who saw the lame man walking in the temple? What was their reaction? (Acts 3:9-10)- All the people, who knew he had been the lame beggar at the gate Beautiful

• Filled with wonder and amazement

8. Where did the crowd gather in the temple area? (Acts 3:11)- Solomon’s porch

9. What did Peter first deny? (Acts 3:12)- That by their own power or godliness they made the man walk

10. What had God done through this miracle? (Acts 3:13)- Glorified His Servant Jesus

11. Of what did Peter accuse of the crowd concerning Jesus? (Acts 3:13-15)- They delivered and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, who wanted to let Him go

• They denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for murderer to be granted to them
• They killed the Prince of life

12. What did Peter then proclaim regarding Jesus? What evidence does he provide? (Acts 3:15)- God raised Him from the dead; he and John as witnesses

13. To what does Peter attribute the healing of the lame man(Acts 3:16)? - The name of Jesus and faith in His name

14. What does Peter say regarding their guilt? What else about their actions? (Acts 3:17-18)- They did it in ignorance, as did their rulers

• It was foretold by God through His prophets, which God has now fulfilled

15. What two commands does Peter give to the people? (Acts 3:19)- Repent

• Be converted (lit., turn)

16. What three blessings are extended to those who obey? (Acts 3:19-20)- That your sins may be blotted out

• That times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord
• That He may send Jesus Christ

17. How long must Christ remain in heaven? As described by whom? (Acts 3:21)- Until the times of restoration of all things

• God, by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began

18. What did Moses promise to the fathers? What did he also warn them? (Acts 3:22-23)- God would raise up a Prophet like him whom they should hear

• Those who do not hear Him will be utterly destroyed

19. Who else foretold of these days? (Acts 3:24)- All the prophets, from Samuel and those who followed

20. How did Peter describe his audience? (Acts 3:25)- As sons of the prophets

• As those of the covenant God made with their fathers

21. What promise did God make to Abraham? (Acts 3:25)- “And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

22. How was God seeking to bless the people? (Acts 3:26)- Having raised up Jesus, sending Him to bless them in turning people away from their iniquities THIRD CHAPTER OF ACTS by I.A. DouthittAct_3:1-26I. THE LAME MAN HEALED, Acts 3:1-10.

1. Review the events of the preceding chapter.
2. So far the apostle’s labors had been uninterrupted and a great success.
3. The temple is still the place of meeting of the apostles.
4. Many pious Jews came to the temple at the hour of prayer, Peter’s opportunity.
5. A cripple of long standing and well known, review the healing, Acts 3:2-7 cf. Acts 4:22.
6. Picture some good friends carrying this cripple there daily.
7. Imagine how anxious he was to receive “alms” from Peter and John. He was told to look and he did, then imagine his disappointment when he learned they were poor people without any money.
8. “But what I have, that I give thee”, Acts 3:6. (1) There arc many things that are more important to give than silver and gold. (2) If we could all learn the lesson to give what we have, how it would help! (3) Beys and girls can give to the Lord a legacy far more valuable than silver and gold. They can give time to talk to sinners, they can help the needy, they can give a clean life that gold can’t buy, they can give their prayers, they can attend prayer meeting and help sing, they can give themselves to Christ. (4) Silver and gold is the least gift we can make. Your singing, prayers, co-operation, and such as you have may help this church more than anything you could buy for it, even tho you were rich. (5) What Peter and John gave was more valuable than silver and gold and so will be your gifts if you will only give such as you have. Who is it that does not have a rich gift for the church if they would give the best they have? (6) Your influence may help my child more than all the money of this world.
9. Peter and John are now the center of attraction. That is the result when one gives Jesus the best powers he has. You don’t know how much you might bless humanity if you would determine that the Lord should have the best you have. II. PETER’S SECOND SERMON, Acts 3:11-26.(1) HIS WAS TO EXPLAIN THE MIRACLE, Acts 3:11-16.
10. People ran together and stared at them as tho they had done it, Acts 3:11-12.
11. Peter gives God the glory thru Christ, Acts 3:13.
12. Peter makes the same charges that he had in his first sermon, Acts 3:13-14 cf. Acts 2:22-24.
13. He does not fail to tell them how guilty they are, Acts 3:13-14.
14. Pilate, a heathen, said he was innocent and YET YOU murdered him. (1) God glorified Jesus and you have denied him, the holy one. (2) Pilate said he was innocent, and you preferred a murderer to the innocent one. (3) Pilate released him, and you refused to have him released. (4) He is the author and the prince of life, and you have killed him.
15. Peter preached the resurrection, Acts 3:15 cf. 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. This is the only charge that was not well known to all these people.
16. By faith in his name is this man made whole, 16. Peter’s faith and not the faith of the cripple for he had none. God allowed men of faith at that time to perform miracles, Mark 16:17-20; Matthew 14:31 Matthew 17:20; James 5:15. (II) OF SINS OFFERED THRU CHRIST, Acts 3:17-21.
17. Peter changes to a tender spirit to lead them to repentance and deliverance.
18. You were ignorant, but that does not excuse you, Acts 3:17.
19. He offers pardon according to the law of the commission, Acts 3:19-21.
20. Re knew they believed and he said repent, Acts 3:19. What repentance is and how produced.
21. “Turn again”. This means to come back to a state of justification and forgiveness which was done thru baptism, Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:26-27. Baptism then must have been the turning act for that is the way to have sins blotted out or forgiven, Acts 2:38. III. THESE THINGS ARE MATTERS OF AND PROMISE, Acts 3:22-26.1. Peter knew the Jews would accept prophecies made by their own prophets. We, like the Jews, are prejudiced to our own, people will sometimes defend error from “their own”. It makes a difference whose “sister it is”.
22. Christ, like Moses, was a deliverer and a law giver. Moses was given power above all other prophets in that when he made an order no one could add to it nor take from it. If they obeyed Christ they were obeying Moses and if they rejected Christ they were rejecting Moses also. Moses spoke of Christ and to receive him was to receive Moses, Acts 3:22-23.
23. All of your prophets told of these days and if you reject him you are rejecting all of your prophets, Acts 3:24.
24. Probably Peter quoted many of their prophets here as he exhorted in Acts 2:40.
25. Peter appeals to their national feelings, Acts 3:25-26. (1) He compliments them with the first opportunity and they then were to take it to others, Acts 3:26. (2) He was sent that you might turn away.
26. Peter was stopped by his enemies and did not get to finish his sermon and exhort the people to obey the gospel as he did in the first sermon, 2:39-40.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 31. Which of the apostles are now introduced ? 2. Into what building did they enter? 3. State the importance of this building. 4. At what time of day did they enter at this time ? 5. What institution made this hour conspicuous? 6. Why should the apostles observe this hour? 7. Who was carried to this place? 8. From what time had he been lame ? 9. Was this his first appearance here? 10. At what entrance was the man laid? 11. For what purpose was he carried here? 12. Did this consist in spiritual, or temporal things? 13. To whom did he make a direct appeal? 14. What was he told to do? 15. State what he expected of them. 16. Why should he expect only this? 17. What was Peter’s condition financially? 18. Tell what general promise was first made to the man. 19. What name did Peter then call over the place? 20. State what the man was then told to do? 21. What further assistance did Peter give him? 22. Tell what happened to the man. 23. How much time did it require? 24. What indicated the man’s genuine recovery? 25. How did he show his gratitude? 26. Who witnessed his activities ? 27. Did they recognize him? 28. How were they affected at what they saw? 29. What was wonderful about the circumstance? 30. Describe the lame man’s attitude to the apostles. 31. At what place did they then arrive? 32. Who gathered here also at this time? 33. What was their frame of mind? 34. To whom were they disposed to give the credit ? 35. By whom were they corrected? 36. Whose God did he mention to them? 37. What were these men in relation to this crowd? 38. Who else beside God did Peter introduce ? 39. What had God done for him? 40. Of what did Peter accuse these people? 41. Who is antecedent of last ‘ die” in verse 13 ? 42. Cite the account of this “ determination” . 43. What had this people done towards the holy one? 44. Who was the murderer of verse 14? 45. Who is the Prince of verse 15 ? 46. Of what life is he a Prince ? 47. How did he come to be alive now? 48. Was this the God the Jews claimed to worship? 49. Of what were the apostles witnesses ? 50. Was it “ his name” or faith that healed the man? 51. Identify the two “ trims” of verse 16. 52. What concession did Peter make the people? 53. To what special class did he extend the admission? 54. What things did Christ’ s sufferings fulfill ? 55. Compare verses 19 and 2: 38. 56. When would their sins be blotted out? 57. Who was to be sent from heaven? 58. Would this be immediately? 59. What must be fulfilled first? 60. State the meaning of “ world” in 21st verse. 61. What prophet does Peter then quote? 62. Locate this prophecy. 63. Of what people was the new prophet to be? 64. Like whom must he be? 65. What about those refusing to hear him ? 66. Was this,the only prophecy of this nature? 67. What significance by beginning at Samuel ? 68. Of whom and what were these people the children 69. Give the central thought in this promise. 70. How was the risen Christ to bless these people?

Acts 3:1

1 Act 3:1. The ninth hour was 3 o’clock in the afternoon. There is no ordinance in either Old or New Testament that designates any certain time as the hour of prayer. Some pious Jews formed a practice of praying daily at regular hours (Psalms 55:17; Daniel 6:10), but it was a voluntary service. The “daily sacrifice” was required by the law of Moses (Numbers 28:3-6), and this called for two lambs each day. The second one was offered “at even,” and the margin words it, “between the two evenings,” which was the same as our 3 o’clock, called the ninth hour in the present verse.

The Jews formed the practice of going into the temple and engaging in a prayer service at that time, while the priests were out at the altar performing the sacrifice. The apostles were going up to the temple at that time because they knew they would have opportunity of meeting the people, to whom they could preach the Gospel.

Acts 3:2

2Act 3:2. As the apostles approached the temple the following events took place. An “object of charity” was lying just outside of the temple, where the people coming and going would see him and perhaps bestow upon him a gift of money. This man was forty years old and had been a cripple from birth. The Old Testament does not give the special name of beautiful to any gate of the temple. The passage says it was called that, which indicates that the people had come to speak of it in that way, which probably was because of its appearance after Herod had remodeled and adorned the building (Luke 21:5). Robinson has the following to say of this gate: “Supposed by some to have been the large gate leading from the court of the Gentiles to the court of the Israelites, over against the eastern side of the building, called by the Rabbins the gate of Nicanor, and described by Josephus as covered with plates of gold and silver, and very splendid and massive.”

Acts 3:3

3Act 3:3. The original word for alms means generally any favor or mercy or pity bestowed upon an unfortunate person, but its most specific definition is, “a donation for the poor,” and this is what the lame man asked of Peter and John.

Acts 3:4

4Acts 3:4. When Peter told the lame man to look on us, he should have concluded that some kind of favor was in store for him other than a gift of money, for such an action would not have required that he look at them.

Acts 3:5

5Acts 3:5. But the lame man had never been treated to anything but the kindness of those who carried him to the place daily, and the alms that people bestowed on him. Hence he did not form the conclusion here suggested, but instead he gave the apostles an earnest look, expecting to receive some money.

Acts 3:6

6Acts 3:6. Silver and gold have I none. We are not to suppose that the apostles were paupers, but they had no occasion for carrying supplies of money around with them, for Jesus had assured them that the necessities of life would be given them. In the present case however, if Peter had possessed an abundance of money, it would not have benefited the lame man physically as to his infirmity. He told the man to rise up and walk, but preceded the order with a statement as to the source of the power. We should understand that not only did Peter derive his ability to heal the man from the Lord, but he wished him also to know upon whom he was to trust for his recovery.

Acts 3:7

7Acts 3:7. Miraculous cures may be performed with or without any outward cooperation on the part of the patient. Jesus required the blind man to go wash the clay off his eyes, but He previously had put the anointment on the eyes of the patient. Peter commanded the lame man to rise up and walk, but he encouraged him by taking the initiative and grasping his hand and helping him to arise. This verse tells us in what way the man was lame; it was a weakness in his feet. The mere act of taking him by the hand did not heal him, for any other person could have done that; there had to be some miraculous power exerted by the apostle.

It is stated that the healing was immediate, which was always the case with genuine miraculous cures. Professed divine healers of today always require “time and patience” for their cases, which proves they are frauds.

Acts 3:8

8 Acts 3:8. A lame man might use enough will power to come to his feet, but he would not be able to show much energy in the enforced action. This man leaped up, and he did not stop with that; he walked and leaped alternately, and continued his movements along with the apostles, so that he entered with them into the temple. While doing all this he was praising God. Why did he do that, when it was Peter who had lifted him up? The answer is in the statement of the apostle that he was to arise in the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

The man had been carried each day and laid by the gate. He knew that in that act those men had used more physical force upon him than Peter did, as far as the outward performance was concerned, and yet no improvement in his condition had ever been experienced. The only conclusion he could reach was that it was God working through Peter, and that caused him to give his praise to the right one.

Acts 3:9

9Acts 3:9. The whole event was so evident and public that all the people saw it, and that means there were a great many who witnessed it, for it was in a prominent spot, and there were thousands of Jews in the city at that time.

Acts 3:10

0Acts 3:10. They knew it was the man who had been seen at the gate of the temple, for he had appeared there daily for a long time, and it was easy to recognize him. The natural effect upon the people was that they were filled with wonder and amazement. They knew it was not their own imagination that was affecting them, nor could it have been a forced action on the part of the lame man, for they were too well acquainted with the nature of his case to allow such a conclusion.

Acts 3:11

1Act 3:11. Held is from KRATEO, and Robinson defines it in this place, “So to hold one fast, i. e., to hold fast to him, to cleave to him.” Thayer defines it in the same way then gives the explanation, “To hold one fast in order not to be sent away.” This action was perfectly natural. The man had been a cripple since his birth, and had to depend upon alms for a living. Now he was healed and had become an able-bodied man so that he could be on his own. However, since the condition was another one that might be described by the familiar phrase “too good to be true,” he had a feeling of dependency that made him afraid to leave the apostles. Another thing that should be considered about his action, it emphasized the part the apostles had in the recovery.

When the people saw this man clinging so firmly to the apostles, it announced publicly that they were the actors in the deed, and that the former lame man knew it. Another result that was natural was the gathering of all the people near the scene, for it was an extraordinary thing that had happened. Solomon’s porch was a convenient and comfortable place for the crowd to gather; a description of this porch is given at John 10:23.

Acts 3:12

2Act 3:12. Peter was able to speak with inspiration, but ordinary reasoning would have brought the conclusion indicated here. The people could see the lame man holding fast to the apostles, and as they were greatly wondering, it was because they thought these men had caused the patient to be cured through some mysterious virtue of their own. It would have been easy for them to obtain a following from this multitude because of the frame of mind that possessed them. But Peter was the faithful apostle of Christ, and humbly told the crowd that it was not in them (the apostles) that the lame man had found his recovery.

Acts 3:13

3Act 3:13. The circumstance gave Peter another opportunity for preaching Christ to the people. The crowd was composed of Jews, and they were the people who were responsible for the condemnation of Jesus. They were acquainted with the Old Testament (John 5:39), and knew about the promise that was made to the fathers that a descendant of theirs was to come into the world to bless the nations of the earth. Now Peter connected that promise with the very man they of this audience had caused to die. Peter showed them as being worse even than Pilate, who would have been willing to let Jesus go.

The apostle told them that God had glorified that very man in spite of their intended destruction of his great plans. Glorified is from DOXAZO, which Thayer defines in this passage, “To exalt to a glorious rank or condition.” It was a stinging rebuke to these people, not only to accuse them of condemning Jesus, but to be told that God had over-ruled their malicious attempt and had exalted their victim to a rank in glory.

Acts 3:14

4Acts 3:14. This verse names two distinct crimes the Jews committed, either of which would have entitled them to the serverest condemnation. It refers to the time when they were to name the prisoner to be released under a custom of that season (Luke 23:16-21). They denied freedom to a holy and just person against whom no charge had been sustained. In their choice of prisoners they did not name one who was even an ordinary evildoer, but called for a man who was a murderer and a member of a seditious gang.

Acts 3:15

5Acts 3:15. The Jews could not lawfully put any man to death, and did not personally put Jesus on the cross. But Peter told them they had killed Him, and it was because they were the ones who caused it to be done. Prince is from a word that means the author or leader in an important movement. That is true of Christ as announced by John, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). The apostles almost invariably mentioned the resurrection of Jesus when ever they told of his death.

Many persons have been killed by the people who were objectionable to them for some reason, but none of them ever lived again until the event of Christ. He not only came back to life, but God did the raising of him, thereby defeating the plans of the Jews who pretended to believe in Him, while disbelieving in his Son. Peter was not relating this to the multitude on some mere hearsay, but declared we are witnesses.

Acts 3:16

6Acts 3:16. Through faith in his name. The name and power of Jesus would not have caused this man to be healed, had he not manifested faith in that name by making what attempt he could to arise. The faith which is by him. Not only was the lame man required to have faith in the name of Jesus, but Peter could perform the miracle only because he also had faith in the name of Jesus.

Acts 3:17

7Acts 3:17. Ignorance does not excuse anyone in wrongdoing, but it may explain how it came about. The word is from AGNOIA, which Thayer defines, “Want of knowledge.” The idea is different from being lacking in common intelligence, for then they might not have been held so strictly to account. But the information was available had they made use of it; they did not, and were like Israel of old who did not know, simply because they did not consider (Isaiah 1:3). Wot is an obsolete word for “know” as the apostle was considering his own frame of mind. As to the rulers, they were the ones in power and who were chiefly responsible for the death of Jesus.

Acts 3:18

8Acts 3:18. The Jews were condemned for having Jesus slain, because they had an evil motive in the act. But Peter informed them that in doing so, they fulfilled the words of the prophets concerning the fate that was to come upon the Son of God.

Acts 3:19

9Acts 3:19. The first Gospel discourse is in chapter 2, which consists mainly of the story of Jesus, and closes with an exhortation for the hearers to recognize Him as the Lord. The present passage is the second discourse that is recorded, and consists of the same matter as the first, although the wording is somewhat different. The present verse corresponds with chapter 2:38 in thought. “Repent and be baptized” is equivalent to repent and be converted. “For the remission of sins” is the same as that your sins may be blotted out. “Gift of the Holy Ghost” corresponds with times of refreshing, and of course it all comes from the presence of the Lord.

Acts 3:20

0Acts 3:20. Peter then deviates slightly in his subject matter, and speaks of the sending of Jesus Christ which refers to His second coming to earth; the same Jesus who was preached (prophesied about) before in the Scriptures.

Acts 3:21

1Act 3:21. The next phase of this discourse explains some things that must take place before Jesus comes again. Receive is used in the sense of giving a guest continued hospitality or reception, until it is the desired and proper time for him to leave. In the case of Jesus, that time will not come until certain things that were predicted of him have been fulfilled. Robinson defines the word in the Greek for restitution, “full establishment,” and Peter tells us that he refers to the predictions that had been made by the holy prophets, that were to be accomplished by Christ. We understand these things were to be brought to pass through the services of the apostles, while Jesus is still on his Father’s right hand it) Heaven.

Acts 3:22

2Act 3:22. Peter next specifies one of the predictions that Moses made concerning the prophet who was to come up from among the Jewish people (Deuteronomy 18:18-20). That prediction called upon the people to hear the prophet in whatever he said to them.

Acts 3:23

3Act 3:23. The fate of all who refused to hear (heed) that prophet was that he be destroyed from among the people. The form of that threat is based on the usages of the times of Moses, when the “law of sin and death” was in force (Romans 8:2). Its meaning under Christ is that all who refuse to hear him, will be condemned as disobedient in this world, and will be “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” when he comes again (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

Acts 3:24

4Acts 3:24. Prophets, from Samuel. There were other men before the days of Samuel who made prophetical statements, so there must have been a special sense in which he was regarded as one. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: “Samuel was not only a prophet like others, but he was also the first of the regular succession of prophets.” 1 Kings 19:16 says God spoke to Elijah as follows: “Elisha the son of Shaphat shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room,” which verifies the quotation from the Encyclopedia, and shows there was a succession of national prophets. The mention of Samuel by Peter indicates that he was the first of the prophets in that succession. Other prophets after Samuel spoke of the time when the promise made to the fathers would be fulfilled.

Acts 3:25

5Acts 3:25. Covenant in this verse is the same as the promise in chapter 2:39. Children of the prophets and of the covenant. How could men be children of a covenant? The word children is from HUIOS, and Thayer explains that one meaning of the word is, “One to whom anything belongs; those to whom the prophetic and covenant promises belong; for whom a thing is destined.” Peter meant that the people to whom he was speaking were intended by the Lord as among those who were to be benefited by the covenant. It is the same as the statement in chapter 2:39 that” the promise is unto you and your children.”

Acts 3:26

6Acts 3:26. Unto you first. Peter was speaking to Jews, and he meant to tell them that they were to receive the blessings of the promised seed of Abraham before the Gentiles. (See Acts 13:46; Romans 1:16.) Turning away every one of you from his iniquities in this discourse, corresponds with “save yourselves from this untoward generation,” in Acts 2:40.