Deeper Commentary
3:1
Now Peter and John were going into the temple-
See on 2:46.
At the hour of prayer, at the ninth hour-
The time of the evening sacrifice. Their presence for this indicates they
were fairly serious in their connection with Judaism still.
3:2
And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom
they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful
Gate, to ask alms of those entering the temple- He had been
daily laid there for around forty years (Acts 4:22). The Lord Jesus surely
passed Him by, for He told the Jews that He had taught them daily in the
temple; but He didn't heal him. Perhaps his faith hadn't grown to the
required level; or maybe the Lord consciously left this work for His
followers to do. For Acts is the account of all that the Lord began
to do. The man apparently recognized Peter and John; because when he
saw them, he asked them for assistance. They were known as
Jesus-followers.
3:3
Seeing Peter and John about to enter the temple,
he asked for alms- If he was daily laid at the temple gate, he
presumably would have seen the Lord and His disciples many times as they
entered the temple- which had been a frequent occurrence. There is no
evidence that the man believed. And we note the Lord must have walked by
him many times without healing him. His focus was not on simply meeting
human need of the moment.
3:4
And Peter, looking straight at him (as did John)
said: Look at us- See on Acts 14:9. The lame man responded, and
the people were amazed at the subsequent miracle. But Peter then tells
them: “You men of Israel, why do you marvel at this man? or why do you
fasten your eyes on us [i.e., why do you ‘look on us’], as though by
our own power or godliness we had made him to walk? The God of Abraham,
and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
Servant Jesus” (Acts 3:12,13). I wonder if Peter was here publicly
acknowledging an inappropriate turn of phrase, when he had asked the lame
man to ‘Look on us’- and immediately, he humbly and publicly
corrected himself, redirecting all glory and all eyes to the Father and
Son.
3:5
And he gave them his attention, expecting to
receive something from them- His motivation was material. He is an example of
how the Lord through His Spirit at times just comes into a person’s life,
taking all the initiative, rather than responding to their apparent
seeking for Him.
3:6 But Peter
said: Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, that I give you. In
the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk!-
Peter later alludes to this in a way that means he saw that man as
typical of all his converts: "Knowing you were redeemed, not with
corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life" (1
Pet. 1:18). Life before conversion for us all was as vain as the man
sitting there lamely begging for silver and gold, in a temple structure
unable to save him. See on 3:7.
Peter told the lame man: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise
up and walk"; but the healing was because of Peter's faith in
Christ's Name (Acts 3:6,16). The Jerusalem Bible makes this apparent: "It
is the name of Jesus which, through our faith in it, has brought back the
strength of this man". The RV has: "By faith in his name hath his name
made this man strong"- as if the power of the name of Jesus is waiting to
be activated by human faith.
3:7
And he took him by the right hand and raised him
up; and immediately his feet and his ankle-bones received strength-
The word is used of the strengthening of the early converts, also
by the Spirit (Acts 16:5 "So the churches were strengthened in the
faith"). Again the idea is that the man was representative of the wider
ecclesia; see on 3:6.
Luke has a favourite Greek word, often translated “forthwith…
immediately” (Acts 3:7; 5:10; 9:18; 12:23; 13:11; 16:26,33). This is quite
some emphasis; and Luke uses the very same word a lot in his Gospel, as if
to show that the speed and power and achievement of the Lord’s ministry is
continued in that of His ministers now (Lk. 1:64; 4:39; 5:25; 8:44,47,55;
13:13; 18:43; 19:11; 22:60). The word is scarcely used outside Luke’s
writing, although using different words, Mark also notes the speed and
immediacy of the Lord's ministry. And Luke uses many other words to stress
the speed and urgency and fast moving nature of the Lord’s work. They are
worth highlighting in your Bible; for our ministry is a continuation of
that of our early brethren (Acts 9:18-20,34; 10:33; 11:11; 12:10; 16:10;
17:10,14; 21:30,32; 22:29; 23:30).
Peter understood what it was to be in Christ. All that he did, all that
he preached and taught by word and example, was a witness to the one in
whom he lived and had his being. As he reached forth his right hand to
lift up the cripple, he was manifesting how the right hand of God had
lifted up (in resurrection) and exalted His Son and all those in Him (Acts
3:7). Likewise, he took Tabitha by the hand and then lifted
her up and “presented her alive” (Acts 9:41), just as the Father had
done to His Son. When Peter “stood up” after his conversion (Acts 1:15;
2:14), he was sharing the resurrection experience of his Lord. And now he
reflected this in his preaching to others. As God stretched forth His hand
to heal through Christ (Acts 4:30), so Peter did (Acts 9:41). And he
includes us all in the scope of this wondrous operation: for as God’s hand
exalted Christ, so it will exalt each of us who humble ourselves beneath
it (1 Pet. 5:6).
3:8
And leaping up, he stood and began to walk; and he
entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God-
This reads like Dr. Luke's medical observation of the progressive steps of
the recovery - leaped up, stood, walked, leaped. But it's also as if we
are invited to play Bible television, focused up close on the man. The
language is clearly appropriate for the eyewitness account which it is.
The result of healing lame people in Acts 3:8; 14:10 was that they
leaped (this is emphasized) and walked, praising God. This seems
to be couched in the language of Is. 35:5,6 concerning lame people leaping
and praising God; a prophecy we normally apply to the future Kingdom.
“He
entered with them into the temple” even though he was likely
in a state of ritual uncleanness due to his previous disability. He leaped
into the holy place; the joy of conversion naturally overriding all
legalistic considerations.
3:9
And all the people saw him walking and praising
God- This is twice emphasized (:8). Luke has used the very same
phrase four times in his Gospel, regarding praise of the Lord Jesus (Lk.
2:13,20; 19:37; 24:53). Luke's Gospel was volume 1 compared to his volume
2, the Acts of the Apostles. But he develops the theme that the acts of
the apostles are effectively the acts of the risen Lord Jesus (see on Acts
1:1). And so this kind of device is typical of Luke- things he ascribes to
the Lord Jesus in his Gospel he applies to the work of the believers in
Him in Acts. The man's response, "praising God", was exactly the response
of people to the historical Jesus. It was as if through Peter's work, the
Lord Jesus was manifested. See on 3:10 Wonder and 3:11 The
portico called Solomon's.
3:10
And they recognised 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 what had happened to him- Some
commentators claim that next to this gate was a notice forbidding Gentiles
and the unclean to go further. His location for forty years at the
entrance to the temple (4:22) perhaps reflects Israel's being kept out of
the promised land for the same period. He represented what could have
happened to all Israel. The word for "wonder" is only used to describe the
wonder at the miracles of the Lord Jesus; and it is used only by Luke (Lk.
4:36; 5:9). Again, Peter the healer is being presented as the
manifestation of the Lord Jesus. The word for "amazed" is likewise used
(Lk. 5:26). See on 3:9 Praising God.
3:11 While he clung to Peter
and John- So often in this narrative, we see the essence of
events of the Gospels now being repeated in the experience of the Lord's
followers. In this case, the similarity is with how the healed man of Lk.
8:38 dreaded the idea of being parted from his healer, the Lord Jesus.
In the same way as the Lord stretched forth His hand and saved Peter,
so He stretches forth His hand, Peter observed, to save all who would come
to Him (Mt. 14:31 = Acts 4:30). But Peter is framed as Jesus, in that he
too stretched out his hand to save others as Jesus had done to him (Mt.
14:35 = Acts 5:15,16; Mt. 14:31 = Acts 3:7), bidding them come through the
water of baptism as Jesus had done to him. As Jesus in the boat was
worshipped after saving Peter, so men tried to worship Peter (Mt. 14:33 =
Acts 3:11). So Peter went through what we all do- having been saved by
Jesus, having come to Him and having been rescued by the outstretched arm,
he responds to this by doing the same for others. When the Lord “caught”
hold of Peter as he sunk in the waves (Mt. 14:31), a Greek word is used
which occurs only once elsewhere: “He did not take hold [s.w. to catch] of
Angels, but of the seed of Abraham” (Heb. 2:16). The Hebrew writer was
surely alluding to the Lord’s ‘catching’ of desperate Peter and pulling
him to salvation- and saw in Peter a symbol of all those who will be saved
by Christ.
All the people ran together to them in the portico
called Solomon's, astounded- There was a crowd mentality here;
everyone got involved in a stampede towards Peter. Their mentality and
direction was dictated by a group psychology rather than individual faith.
The word only occurs later in the New Testament in Peter's letter, where
he writes of how Gentiles "think it strange that you do not run with
them in the same flood of dissipation" (1 Pet. 4:4). The similarity
was that Peter reflected how a crowd can stampede towards the symbols of
Jesus, and yet stampede in the way of sin. But it's individual faith that
the Lord searches for.
“The
portico called Solomon's”, Gk. 'which is called
Solomon's'. This suggests that the Gospel of Luke was written whilst the
temple was still standing; otherwise a past tense would have been used.
This is one of many reasons for thinking that the Gospels were written
early rather than later, certainly pre-AD70. The Gospel records and Acts
are the transcripts of histories which were orally distributed to begin
with, and then written down under Divine inspiration soon after they began
circulating- and not many decades after the events, as the critics wrongly
claim. The scene here is reminiscent of that in the Gospels, when a crowd
of people gathered around the Lord Jesus in the same porch (Jn. 10:23).
And again, we see Peter and John presented as the manifestations of Jesus
on earth, just as we are; repeating in essence the situations encountered
by the historical Jesus. See on 3:9 Praising God.
3:12- see on Acts 2:12.
And when Peter saw it, he addressed the people: You men of Israel, why do you marvel at this man? Or why fasten you your eyes on us, as though by our own power or reverence towards God we had made him walk?- AV "He answered and said". Although there was no previous statment nor question. As in Acts 5:8, where Peter answered Sapphira, although she had said nothing. This feature of the text gives us the impression of God's Spirit responding to man's unexpressed positions and responses.
“Marvel” implies some doubt. The men who
marvelled and doubted whether Peter was anything more than a magic man
were within a few hours believing and being baptized (Acts 3:12; 4:4). We
noted on :11 that there was a group psychology operating here, but there
is never any attempt to judge the sincerity of motivation in those
apparently coming to Jesus. There is a speed and power and compulsion that
pounds away in the narrative. The preaching of a God hurt by sin,
passionately consumed in the death of His Son, feeling every sin,
rejoicing over every repentance and baptism… this was something radically
different in the 1st century world, just as it is in ours. And such a God
imparted a sense of urgency to those who preached Him and His feelings and
ways and being, a need for urgent response, a need to relate to Him, which
was simply unknown in other religions. The urgency of man’s position must
be more up front in our witness. Christianity went wrong in the 2nd
century AD because the church abstracted God and His being into
nothingness, to the point that the urgent import of the true doctrines was
lost in practice. May this not be the case amongst us.
Peter is urgent to explain that 'this isn't me- it's Jesus'. See on
3:10 Wonder and 3:9 Praising God. Peter knew that he was
standing very close to where he had denied the Lord. And he knew that his
audience knew. He felt he was not holy nor ‘reverent’ to God as he should
be. Peter repeatedly uses this word, translated "holiness" or "Godliness",
in appealing for his converts to develop this very attribute (2 Pet.
1:3,6,7; 3:11). And yet he states here that he is not sufficiently 'holy'
or 'Godly'. It is this humility and recognition of failure which gave
Peter's preaching and pastoral appeals the power they had.
3:13
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the
God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus- Yet Peter
and John did the Lord's work with this man of their own volition. The
healing of the man was the glorification of the Lord. His glorification
was thereby dependent for its extent upon the efforts of His people in
practice. And that principle is true today. Peter understood it well;
hence he urges the people not to glorify him, but the Lord Jesus. He holds
himself up as an example to his converts in that he alludes to this
incident in 1 Pet. 2:12; 4:11,14, where he says that the good works of his
converts can glorify God (s.w.).
Whom you delivered up- The word used for the betrayal of
Judas. What he did was in essence what all Israel did; he was the epitome
of Israel, influenced by the Jewish satan.
And rejected before the presence of Pilate- "Rejected" is the
same word translated "denied" and is used repeatedly about the denials of
Peter, in the presence of the Lord's trial and at the same time as the
Jews rejected or denied their Messiah (Mt. 26:70,72). Peter was preaching
this message a stone's throw from where he had denied / rejected his Lord.
And he knew that they knew what had happened. Peter was therefore
appealing to the Jews on the basis that he himself has very publicly done
what they had done.
When he had determined to release him- Literally,
"when he had given sentence to release him". Pilate had pronounced the
Lord innocent (Jn. 19:4). The conflicted conscience of Pilate is a major
theme, because it shows the power of the Lord Jesus to touch the hardest
human conscience. Krino means to
judge; he had judged to set Jesus free. This is exactly the situation
which Paul found himself in later- he was judged by the Romans and judged
that he should be set free, but he chose not to use that in order [as he
perceived it anyway at the time] to spread the Gospel to the world [by
appealing to a hearing in Rome]. Perhaps these words and form of
expression of Peter became programmatic for Paul and led him to the
decision he made, consciously seeking to follow his Lord's steps to the
cross. I will develop the point later that Paul was very deeply influenced
by Peter's words and ministry.
3:14 But you denied-
The point is twice made (:13), just as it is twice recorded that Peter
denied the Lord (Mt. 26:70,72) at the same time as they did. See on Acts
3:13 Rejected...
The holy and righteous one, and
asked for a murderer to be granted to you- These words are
elsewhere used about John the Baptist (Mk. 6:20), the Lord's forerunner;
and also about the believers, who are to be likewise (Rev. 22:11), rather
than simply admiring His holiness from a distance. He and all about Him is
to be programmatic for us.
3:15 And
killed the prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are
witnesses- The blame is clearly placed by God on the Jews and
not the Romans. Conspiracy to murder was counted by Him as the murder
itself. Gk. 'the author' of life. The contrast is with Israel's desire for
a murderer, a taker of life (:14).
3:16 And by faith in his name- Alluded to by Peter in 1 Pet. 1:21: “You who by Him do believe in God”. The Lord Jesus is “the author and finisher of our faith". Faith comes from the Lord Jesus, from encounter with Him, rather than apologetics.
Gk. the faith, maybe hinting that it was
'the faith' of the Gospel which inculcated faith in the apostles. But
whose faith was Peter referring to? The beggar appears to have just been
opportunistically begging for money from Peter (Acts 3:3). It was surely
by Peter's faith that the man was healed, and not by his own
faith. For Peter didn't invite the beggar to have faith in anything. And
Peter explains to the Jews that he had made the man to walk not through
his own power (Acts 3:12). So here again we have an example of a third
party being healed as a result of another man's faith (see on Mk. 2:5).
Trust or faith in God comes from not trusting upon human understanding,
but upon the understanding [s.w. meaning, knowledge, wisdom] that is God’s
(Prov. 3:5). In this lies the importance of truth in Biblical
interpretation. So understanding, correctly perceiving meaning, true
wisdom… are related to having a real faith. The Proverbs go on to plead
for correct understanding, because this will be the source of a Godly life
of faith in practice. There is therefore a connection between “faith" in
the sense of belief, and the fact the essential doctrines of Christianity
are called "the faith"; the noun "the Faith" and the verb 'to
believe / have faith' are related. This is because a true understanding of
the one Faith will inevitably lead to true faith, and therefore works; for
faith and works are inseparable. This relationship is brought out in Acts
3:16: "His name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong...
yea, the faith which is in Him (Christ) hath given him (the healed man)
this perfect soundness".
His name has made this
man strong, whom you see and know- The same word used about the
strengthening of the churches and all believers (Acts 16:5; 1 Pet. 5:9).
The man is being presented as representative of all converts.
Yes, the faith which is through him, has given him
this perfect soundness- The man appears to have been given
ideal health throughout his body. Otherwise, he would have been unable to
leap, after being forty years in that condition (4:22). Again, the man is
set up as symbolic of the total change possible in the believer.
In the presence of you all- Just as Peter and John testified
because they were witnesses of the Lord's resurrection, so the audience
had also seen a 'standing upright' of a man well known to them; and they
also ought to believe and testify. Peter is seeking to share his
experience with his audience, building a bridge between him and them,
inviting them to share his path- rather than baldly presenting theological
truths to them and leaving them to respond as they wished.
3:17 And now- These are not just redundant words. The sense
may be that although they crucified the Lord knowing full well what they
were doing, now, by God's grace, that could be counted as having
been done in relative ignorance. This is the amazing extent of imputed
righteousness.
Brothers- Peter again is bridge building, having made the
point that they had denied their Messiah just at the same time and place
as he had done (see on Acts 3:14).
I know that in ignorance you did it, as did also your rulers-
There are various interpretations of this "ignorance". We note that Peter appeals for repentance on the basis of this sin of ignorance. A sin of ignorance was still a sin and required atonement, as Leviticus makes clear. Perhaps Peter is saying that despite part of their sin being consciously committed, they had failed to appreciate the enormity of what they had done in slaying their King, God's own Son. And it was this element of 'sin of ignorance' which he appeals for them to put right by repentance. No sacrifice was possible- but they were to identify themselves with the Lord's sacrifice for all kinds of sin, through baptism, sharing His Spirit, and living in Him.
It had been generous spirited of the Lord to pray on the
cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. He may have
meant they were relatively ignorant, or it may be that He felt they were
so blinded now that the recognition of Him they once had had was now not
operating. And Peter, who probably heard with amazement those words from
the cross as he beheld the Lord’s sufferings, found the same generous
spirit to men whom naturally he would have despised: “In ignorance you did
it” (Acts 3:17 cp. Lk. 23:34).
The generosity of the Father and Son to humanity is awesome- so eager
are they for our repentance. God so pleads for Israel to return to Him in
Hosea and Isaiah that He almost takes the blame onto Himself, cooing over
His people as having been tossed and afflicted- when it was His own
judgment of them that caused it. And I think this explains the difficulty
of Acts 3:17-19, where Peter appeals to the Jews to repent, because they
had murdered the Lord Jesus "in ignorance". The Lord's own parables
explained that they did what they did with open eyes- "this is the heir,
come let us kill him!”. Yet in God's passionate desire for their
repentance, He appears to view their awful sin in the most gracious
possible light.
Paul uses the same word to reason that the Gentiles too had sinned in
ignorance, but now must repent because of the Lord's resurrection (Acts
17:30). This is another example of Paul consciously modelling himself and
his preaching on Peter. Considering that Peter was an illiterate
fisherman, mocked by the Jerusalem intelligentsia as speaking without
grammar... and Paul was the intellectual Jewish rabbi trained in Jerusalem
at the feet of Gamaliel... this indicates so much humility in Paul.
Although I will later develop the possibility that Paul actually pretended
to Peter to such an unhealthy extent that he failed to focus as he might
on his ministry to the Gentiles, and sought rather to emulate Peter's to
the Jews.
3:18
But the things which God foretold- It's
as if Peter is trying to encourage them not to see their sin as too great
to allow them to now come to the Lord Jesus. This is one reason why he
appears to overstate their relative "ignorance" in :17. And here too, he
seems to be presenting them with another window on their sin- that it was
foretold by the prophets and had been necessary in God's plan of
salvation, just as in the case of the sin of Joseph's brothers. We too
encounter folks who truly feel that their sin presents too big a barrier
between God and themselves. It's a fine balance, between preaching to
convict people of sin [rather than socializing them into a social club],
and on the other hand, encouraging them that that sin is not an
insurmountable barrier.
By the mouth of all the prophets,
that His Christ should suffer, He thus fulfilled- It was their
spoken words which were inspired; but there is no specific guarantee that
the written form and transmission of them was likewise inspired. Their
mouths, and not the pens of every scribe who wrote the words, were
inspired by God- even though it would be fair to say that the preservation
and transmission of their written words was the work of ‘providence’, and
the Spirit of God in some way also at work. Because the Bible is the only
Divinely inspired book there is, this can lead us to seeing the book as
some kind of icon; it is the only ‘thing’ we have in our experience which
is directly from God. Realizing, however, that the original autographs
alone were inspired can help us see the Bible we read for what it is- the
living, albeit translated and passed down, word of God Himself.
3:19 Therefore repent and be
converted- Not 'repent and convert'. The conversion,
grammatically, is performed by another party. The repentance is what
enables the process of conversion to be performed upon the repentant
person who now wishes to change. Repentance is therefore a mental
re-thinking, not a rearrangement of human life to be without sin and
failure. The parallel is with Peter's earlier preaching in Acts 2:38:
"Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ to the remission of
your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". "Be
converted" implies an action upon the heart of the repentant hearer of the
Gospel; the parallel in 2:38 is to receive the gift of the Spirit, a holy
spirit or mind being developed in the believer. I gave reasons on 2:38 to
understand this gift to essentially refer to the internal work of the Lord
on repentant hearts- or as Peter here puts it, being converted. The same
word translated "converted" is found in the description of John the
Baptist's work in Lk. 1:17 as being to turn or convert the hearts of
people. This same work is now being done by the risen Lord, through His
Spirit. Acts 11:21 speaks of this work of conversion as being done by the
Lord's hand, and the Old Testament parallels God's hand with His Spirit;
it is His instrumentality, and not man's: "And the hand of the Lord was
with them, and a great number believed and were turned [s.w. 'converted']
to the Lord". Likewise Acts 28:27 parallels conversion with the act of the
Lord healing hearts: "Be converted, and I should heal them". Conversion is
the healing action of the Lord on human hearts who are open to it, rather
than a steel-willed cracking of expositional and theological riddles in
the Bible text and vainly attempting to brutally conform one's own life to
that text. Conversion is also a matter of the heart in 2 Cor. 3:16,
parallel with the Lord removing a vail which He has placed over the Jewish
mind.
And again, it was Peter, the preacher himself, who had sinned against
his Lord and had been "converted" on his repentance, with the result that
he was not strengthening the Lord's sheep (Lk. 22:32 "When you are
converted...", s.w.). Truly, Peter's address is shot through with
reference to his own failure, repentance and restoration by grace. He
reminds his sheep of how they are now “returned” (s.w. ‘converted’) to the
Lord Jesus (1 Pet. 2:25), just as he had been. My point is that the
'conversion' was by another hand than his own steel will.
In the context of Israel's latter day repentance, we read some
admittedly strange words: "(The Jews) have... not believed, that
through your (Gentile believers) mercy, they also may obtain mercy" (Rom.
11:31). Could this not mean that Israel's reconciliation to God is partly
dependent on our "mercy" in preaching the Gospel to them? And now consider
Peter's words to Israel: "Repent... and be converted, that (firstly) your
sins may be blotted out... and (secondly) he shall send Jesus Christ" at
the second coming (Acts 3:19,20). Does this not suggest that Christ's
eager desire for the second coming is limited by our preaching to Israel?
So that your sins may be blotted out- Applying the language of
David's forgiveness for the murder of Uriah to all Israel (Ps. 51:1).
David's forgiveness by grace is often set up as programmatic for the way
all believers, and all Israel, can be treated (see Rom. 4:1-4).
So that times of refreshing may come from the
presence of the Lord- The second coming is clearly dependent
upon Israel's repentance for crucifying the Lord. The seasons / times
refer to those of Acts 1:7, the second coming. This is why the Lord said
that there was no such defined 'time' for it, but rather they were to get
on with converting Israel. There are preconditions, involving Israel's
repentance in response to our preaching to them; but not a calendar date.
“Times of refreshing” is the age
of the Messianic Kingdom on earth, probably alluding to Is. 28:12: "This
is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the
refreshing...".
“From the
presence of the Lord” is literally from His face. Luke is
connecting with what he recorded in Lk. 1:76; John the Baptist's ministry
was to herald the presence / face of the Lord being revealed. But his
ministry failed on a national level; the essence of John's appeal is
however to be continued by Christian witness to the Jews in all ages, and
when it finally succeeds, the Kingdom age shall come from the presence of
the Lord. See on 3:21 The time of the restoration.
3:20
And that He may send the Christ, who has been
appointed for you, Jesus- “That He may” shows that there is no calendar
date set for the Lord’s return; rather is the most significant condition
for it that Israel repent. And this ought to be the focus of much of our
ministry.
3:21 Whom the heaven must
receive until the time of the restoration of all things-
The reference is again to John the Baptist's ministry, which was
intended to restore all things (Mt. 17:11 s.w.). By witnessing to Israel
to repent we are continuing the essence of John's ministry and when
complete, the restored Kingdom of God shall come on earth. See on 3:19
From the presence of the Lord. The Bible often alludes to popular
literature and understandings of the time, in order to deconstruct it.
Plato was popular in the first century, and his writings spoke of a final
"time of the restoration"; it's as if this social dream was being alluded
to, and reinterpreted as being the Kingdom of God on earth. The following
reference to how the prophets have been since the beginning of the age may
well be a deconstruction of the then fashionable way of quoting the
ancient Plato as wisdom, as if he were effectively a prophet. For the
Christian, it was the writings of the prophets and not Plato which were to
be authoritative; and rather than Plato's 'restoration of all things',
there was the hope of God's eternal Kingdom on earth.
It was quite possible that the full Messianic Kingdom could have been
established in the first century, depending upon how the Jews responded to
Christ's Gospel. All things were ready for the feast, representing the
Kingdom, and the Jewish guests invited- but their rejection of the offer
resulted in a 2,000 year delay while the invitations were pressed home on
equally laid back Gentiles (Mt. 22:4). Similarly, Peter understood that
the Lord must remain in Heaven "until the times of restitution of all
things (cp. Mt. 22:4), which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy
prophets since the world began"; but he felt, under inspiration, that "all
the prophets... as many as have spoken (note the emphasis; cp. "all His
holy prophets"), have likewise foretold of these days" (Acts 3:21,24),
i.e. the days of the first century.
Of which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, that have
been since the world began- Luke uses the same sentence in Lk. 1:70.
We have here an example of the language of pre-existence- and yet the
prophets did not literally exist at the world's beginning. And neither did
the Lord Jesus.
3:22
Moses indeed said: A prophet like me shall the
Lord God- Peter had been reminded of the prophecy of Dt. 18:15 when he
was told to "hear Him" at the transfiguration. But Peter had there fallen
down paralyzed with fear; he didn’t really hear the son of God then. Yet
here in Acts 3:22, Peter quotes Dt. 18:15 and asks his hearers to obey the
passage by hearing Jesus, through his preaching of Him. He was asking his
audience to do what he himself hadn’t done.
Raise up for you- This 'raising up' is understood by Peter as
referring to the Lord's resurrection (:26 "God, having raised up His
servant..."). That hardly seems to be the context of the original Old
Testament quotation. But the New Testament often quotes the Old without
attention to context; just as Jewish midrash [interpretation] quotes Bible
verses out of their context in order to explain other verses. Context is
not always the key to Biblical interpretation; the Spirit which inspired
the OT also inspired the NT, and therefore OT words and phrases are at
times taken hold of in the NT and given a new meaning which is not at all
in harmony with the context surrounding the original OT text. However,
whether we are justified in doing this is doubtful- for one could
then make any text mean whatever we wish by taking it out of context. We
are the readers and interpreters of the text and not the inspired authors.
This is not to say that sometimes, indeed often, the surrounding context
of the original text is irrelevant. Harry Whittaker excelled at
demonstrating how a verse from a Psalm was applied to the Lord Jesus in
the NT, and then returning to the original Psalm and showing how so much
else there was also relevant to the Lord's experiences. But I'm saying
that this is not always how the Spirit interprets the OT.
From among your brothers [like unto me]- A clear statement of
the Lord's utter humanity, perhaps alluding to how the sacrificial Paschal
lamb was to be taken out "from among" the flock.
You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you- An example
of where prophecy is not merely prediction, but also a command. Insofar as
obedience is a function of human freewill, prophecies like this are
therefore open to some element of failure or having their fulfilment
reframed by the extent of human obedience. Ezekiel's prophecies of a
glorious temple to be built by the returning exiles would be a classic
example. The words of the great commission allude to this well-known
Messianic prophecy- the preachers were to go "teaching them to observe all
things whatever I commanded you" (Mt. 28:20). The Lord thereby invited
Israel to see Him as the prophet like unto Moses who was to be obeyed.
3:23
And it shall be, that every soul that shall not
listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people-
Those who would not accept Jesus as Messiah were to be “destroyed from
among the people”, using a very similar phrase to the LXX of Gen. 17:14,
where the uncircumcised man was to be “cut off from his people”. Col. 2:11
speaks of circumcision as another type of baptism, in that only the
circumcised were in covenant with God: "The uncircumcised... that soul
shall be cut off from his people" (Gen. 17:14). We either “cut off" the
flesh, or God will cut us off. The circumcision / baptism allusion was
really saying 'Accept Christ or perish'. The language of destruction "from
among the people" connects with how the Lord Jesus was also "from among
the people" (:22). Exactly because of His humanity, He is our appropriate
judge; or as John records it, He has authority to execute judgment exactly
because He is the Son of Man (Jn. 5:27).
3:24 Yes, and all the
prophets- According to Acts 3:21,24, all the prophets
speak of Israel's latter day repentance and the subsequent return of
Messiah.
From Samuel- Samuel was not the first person to act as a
prophet, a forth-teller of God's word. Why single him out as the starting
point for the ministry of the prophets? Perhaps in reflection of the
Jewish saying that Samuel was chief of the prophets. The connection with
Moses (:22) may intend us to understand 'The law and the prophets'. Or
perhaps because his mother was the first to specifically predict the
Messiah in so many words (1 Sam. 2:10,35). But see on 3:25 You are the
sons of the prophets.
And those that followed after, as many as have
spoken, they also told of these days- The reference could be to
the "times of the restoration" of :21, which Peter believed to be breaking
in upon them with the conversion of some Jews. He was disappointed in his
expectation; for the conversions didn't continue, and many of the Jewish
Christians fell away. And so the preconditions required for the full
restitution of all things weren't met, and it was delayed until our days.
3:25 You are the sons of the prophets- This phrase refers to
the schools of the prophets (1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3; 4:1; 5:22; 6:1;
Is. 8:18). Samuel was seen in Judaism as the rabban or founder of
the schools of the prophets. This would explain the choice of Samuel as
the 'first' of the prophets in the preceding verse. The schools of the
prophets were seen as for the elite within Judaism. But Peter is saying
that now all who believe the prophetic words about Jesus as Lord and
Messiah are no less the schools of the prophets; this was what the
fledgling churches were to be likened to. Isaiah had spoken of his school
of the prophets as he and his sons (Is. 8:18), but this is quoted in Heb.
2:13 about all in Christ.
And of the covenant
which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham: And in your
descendant shall all the families of the earth be blessed-
'Sons of the covenant', b'nai b'rith, was and still is a
reference to the elite within Israel, just like "sons of the prophets"
referring to the schools of the prophets. So again, the distinction is
being collapsed between the masses and the religious specialists. All
believers are spoken of later in the New Testament as priests, even the
High Priest, and now as the very elitest of the prophets and "sons of the
covenant". No longer could believers consider themselves one in a mass of
attendees, one in an audience; but instead, each of us is of intense
significance in God's prophetic program. But according to Gal. 3:27-29,
even a Jew could only become a son of the covenant by baptism into Christ.
But Peter speaks as if his audience were just this. He is assuming they
will agree to believe and be baptized into Christ.
3:26 To you first- Along with the reference to all tribes /
families of the earth being blessed as Abraham's seed (:25), the idea is
clearly that Gentiles too can participate in this great Jewish salvation
which is in the Jewish Messiah. But as is made clear in the Cornelius
incident in Acts 10, Peter was far from understanding this at the time.
The fact he made this hint here about Gentile salvation, if not a clear
statement about it, is proof that he was speaking a Divinely inspired
message and not just his own personal understanding. Perhaps this is why
it is Peter who later makes the point that the inspired prophets spoke
things which they did not themselves fully understand (1 Pet. 1:12); he
had himself experienced such a thing with regard to the Gentiles.
God, having raised up His servant, sent him-
Peter taught that “God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him”
to preach to the Jews (Acts 3:26). Yet the Lord Jesus personally
resurrected and ascended to Heaven, having ‘sent’ His followers into the
world. Yet because all in Him are so fully His personal witnesses,
representative of Him as He is representative of them, in this way it’s
true to say that the Lord Jesus personally was “sent” into the world with
the Gospel message after His resurrection. And by all means connect this
with Peter’s difficult words in 1 Pet. 3:19- that by the spirit of Christ,
Christ ‘went’ after His resurrection to preach to those imprisoned. By our
sharing His Spirit, we are Him ‘going’ and preaching. In this sense the
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10). And because
Peter was alluding to the ‘sending’ of the great commission, he goes on to
say that the spiritually imprisoned to whom we preach are saved by the
baptism we minister in fulfilment of the great commission, in the same way
as the ark saved people in Noah’s day.
After His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was sent to preach
blessing and forgiveness to Israel. But after His resurrection, He sent
His men to preach this message. His witness became expressed through, and
therefore limited by, His preachers. When they wilfully misunderstood His
commission as meaning preaching to Jews from all nations, rather than
taking the message to the whole planet literally, His work was in that
sense hindered and His intention delayed. Remember that the Rabbis taught
that salvation was impossible for Gentiles: “For the heathen nations there
will be no redemption”, so reads the Targum on Ex. 21:30. Like us, the
early Jewish converts were influenced by their backgrounds and their
limited world views. Until the Lord brought experiences to bear which,
when responded to, taught them what is now the obvious meaning of His
words- that we each have a duty to take the good news of Him to the whole
planet.
To bless you- There is strong connection between forgiveness
and blessing. Peter was speaking to the unspoken fears of his guilty
audience. Forgiveness was possible in Christ.
In turning every one of you away from your sins-
The promised blessing was not simply of forgiveness. It was of
'turning away' from sin. This is the equivalent of what Peter preached in
Acts 2; he appealed for repentance and baptism, so that the gift of the
Holy Spirit [or mind] could be experienced. Here, he appeals for
repentance and belief [implying baptism], so that they would know the
blessing of being turned away from sin. For what we really need is not
simply forgiveness, but the power not to repeat the sin; a new psychology,
a new mind, a force higher than ourselves to turn us away from sin. And
this is exactly what is promised here. Rom. 11:26 likewise speaks of how
the Lord Jesus would "turn away [s.w.] ungodliness from Jacob" when Israel
enter the new covenant; but that new covenant is now made with all who are
baptized into Jesus. Rom. 11:26 is quoting from Is. 59:20, but the next
verse goes on to say that this shall be effected by Yahweh giving the
covenant promise of His Spirit upon His people and their children (Is.
59:21). The gift of the Spirit is therefore a turning of us away from sin.
I noted under 2:39 that the promise of the Spirit "to you and your
children" is also alluding to this same passage. Israel in their hearts
turned back to Egypt (Acts 7:26 s.w.); the arena of this 'turning' is
within the human mind. And it is exactly there where we need the Lord's
operation; and it is this which is included in the gift of the holy spirit
or mind which is enabled by commitment to Christ.
When Peter speaks of how the Lord Jesus will ‘turn away’ sinners from
their sins, he is using the very word of how the Lord Jesus told him to
“put up again” his sword (Mt. 26:52), thereby turning Peter away from his
sin. Peter’s appeal for repentance and conversion was evidently allusive
to his own experience of conversion (Lk. 22:32 cp. Acts 3:19; 9:35). In
this he was following the pattern of David, who sung his ‘Maschil’
(teaching) psalms after his forgiveness in order to convert sinners unto
Yahweh (Ps. 51:13). Like Peter, David did so with his sin ever before him,
with a broken and contrite heart (Ps. 51:3,17). He invited them to seek
forgiveness for their denial of their Lord, just as he had done. He dearly
wished them to follow his pattern, and know the grace he now did. See on
Acts 2:39.
We must remember that baptism means that we are now the seed
of Abraham, and the blessings of forgiveness, of all spiritual blessings
in heavenly places, and God's turning us away from our sins are right now
being fulfilled in us (Acts 3:27-29). Israel were multiplied as the sand
on the sea shore (2 Sam. 17:11; 1 Kings 4:20), they possessed the gates of
their enemies (Dt. 17:2; 18:6)- all in antitype of how Abraham's future
seed would also receive the promised blessings in their mortal experience,
as well as in the eternal blessedness of the future Kingdom.
Previous
