Chapter 3

1 Peter preaching to the people that came to see a lame man restored to his feet, 12 professeth the cure not to have been wrought by his or John’s own power, or holiness, but by God, and his Son Jesus, and through faith in his name: 13 withal reprehending them for crucifying Jesus. 17 Which because they did it through ignorance, and that thereby were fulfilled God’s determinate counsel, and the scriptures: 19 he exhorteth them by repentance and faith to seek remission of their sins, and salvation in the same Jesus.

1. Now. Gr. de, a word implying a logical connection with the preceding, rather than a time element. No account is given as to the interval of time that had passed since the day of Pentecost. Presumably ch. 2:42–47 summarizes a gradual progress without any striking incident, and may cover a period of several months. It is remarkable that Luke, who lays such stress on chronological data in the Gospel (Luke 3:1; 6:1), gives so few in Acts. Evidently, the Holy Spirit, who guided his pen, did not see fit to enlighten his mind on these questions of dates.

Peter and John. This coupling of the two apostles brings the narrative of the Gospels into an interesting connection with that of the Acts. These two men had long been closely associated. They had been partners as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee (see Luke 5:10). Peter with John and James had enjoyed a confidential relationships with the Lord (see Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33). Peter and John had been sent together to prepare for the Passover that Jesus wished to eat with His disciples (Luke 22:8). The night of Jesus’ trial John, being known to the household of the high priest, took Peter into the high priest’s palace (John 18:15, 16). At a later time John and Peter were to be sent to help Philip in the mission to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and with James they were to approve the work done by Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). Thus their appearance here is typical of the characteristic comradeship of the two apostles, Peter and John.

Went up. Rather, “were going up.” The incident to be related occurred as the two apostles were on their way into the Temple to worship.

Into the temple. Gr. hieron, which included not only the sanctuary, but also the court and the whole complex of buildings connected with the Temple (see on Matt. 4:5). The apostles were “continually in the temple, praising and blessing God” (Luke 24:53; see Acts 2:46). The Jews converted to Christianity had no church buildings in which to meet, and it had not yet occurred to them that the services of the Temple no longer had special spiritual significance for Christians.

The hour of prayer. That is, the ninth hour, about three o’clock in the afternoon (see on ch. 2:15; see Vol. V, p. 50). This was the time of the evening sacrifice (see Josephus Antiquities xiv. 4. 3 [65]). It was known both as “the hour of prayer” and as “the time of incense” (see Luke 1:9, 10). The morning and evening sacrifices were offered with incense at the third and the ninth hours of the day (about 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.), at which times the pious prayed in the courts of the Temple. A prayer at noon seems also to have been customary, at least with some (see Ps. 55:17; see on Dan. 6:10; Acts 10:9). It is known that in the 2d century a.d. a third daily prayer took place about sunset, and this may have been customary earlier. Rabbinical writings indicate that some leeway was allowed in the exact time of these prayers. The practice of praying three times a day appears in the Christian church certainly as early as the 2d century, a practice probably carried over directly from the Jewish synagogue (Didache 8). During the early 3d century three hours of prayer were observed apparently by many Christians (see Clement of Alexandria The Stromata vii. 7).

2. From his mother’s womb. The careful record of the duration of the man’s suffering is rather characteristic of Luke (see chs. 9:33; 14:8). The cripple was about 40 years old at the time of his healing (see on ch. 4:22).

Was carried. Better, “was being carried,” or “used to be carried.” The Greek may be understood here as indicating either that the lame man was being carried to his place of begging when he accosted the apostles or that he was already sitting there when Peter and John appeared. In those days there were neither hospitals nor poorhouses; so to be helped, the lame man must be placed where well-disposed folk could see his condition (see Mark 10:46; Luke 16:20; 18:35). The crowds going to the Temple would be inclined to help by the religious feeling of the moment.

Gate … called Beautiful. No gate by this name is known elsewhere in the Bible or in Jewish literature. The opinion of scholars is divided generally as to whether this gate is to be identified with the Shushan Gate in the outermost wall on the east side of the Temple area, or with the Nicanor Gate, which probably led from the Court of the Gentiles into the Court of the Women. Some have placed this latter gate between the Court of the Women and that of the Men. Whether the Beautiful Gate constituted a part of the outer wall or was between the courts seems to depend largely on the route the apostles are thought to have taken in the present narrative. Luke records that they came to the gate, healed the man, entered the Temple, and apparently after they had offered their prayers, met a crowd of persons in Solomon’s Porch who had been attracted by the miracle. Inasmuch as Solomon’s Porch appears to have been just inside the eastern outer wall (see on v. 11), the Beautiful Gate may have been the outer, Shushan, gate, for if it were an inner gate between the courts, it would have been necessary for the apostles to go out through it again in order to reach Solomon’s Porch. However, it seems rather difficult to account for Peter’s and John’s having used such a gate in the beginning, for it led from the Mount of Olives and would scarcely have been in the direction from which they would have entered the Temple, living in the city as they were. Compared with other gates leading directly from the city into the Temple, it must have been little used, and would hardly be a place for a beggar habitually to sit. Because of these apparent difficulties, many scholars prefer to suppose that the apostles did go out again through the Beautiful Gate before meeting the crowd in Solomon’s Porch, and that this gate is to be identified with the Nicanor Gate, situated probably between the Court of the Gentiles and the Court of the Women. Josephus describes this gate thus: “One, that outside the sanctuary, was of Corinthian bronze, and far exceeded in value those plated with silver and set in gold” (War v. 5. 3 [201]). Concerning this same gate the Mishnah declares: “All the original gates were changed for gates of gold except the gates of Nicanor, because a miracle was wrought to them; some say, however, it was because the copper of them gleamed [like gold]” (Mishnah Middoth 2. 3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 7, 8). Taking all the evidence together, it seems probable that the Beautiful Gate is to be identified with the Nicanor Gate.

To ask alms. The approaches of the Temple, like those of a modern mosque and some of the great cathedrals of Europe, doubtless were thronged with the blind, the lame, the deformed, and mendicants of all sorts.

3. Go into the temple. The fact that the apostles were about to enter the Temple, presumably to worship, doubtless recommended them to the lame man’s mind as pious men from whom he might expect an alms.

Asked an alms. In his need the lame man could not see beyond visible needs and means. Even the most devout man, which the lame man, when healed, proved to be (v. 8), may not recognize divine sources because of his immediate physical needs. Peter and John had no outward evidence that they were vehicles of divine power. On the other hand, this lame man, a daily witness of the Temple services, and perhaps a purveyor of its gossip, could scarcely have been ignorant of the stirring events accompanying the recent crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

4. Fastening his eyes. Or, “after he gazed upon” (see on Acts 1:10; Luke 4:20).

Look on us. Peter and John did not mean to imply that the lame man should think them to have power in themselves to heal him (see v. 6). But they sought to focus his attention on themselves, that they then might direct him to Christ.

5. Expecting. The man’s hope rose no further than the temporary meeting of a physical need that a little money might supply.

6. Silver and gold. The accounts in chs. 2:45; 5:2 show that the apostles were the custodians of the funds committed to the leadership of the church by the generosity of the Christian community. One could understand that Peter and John had no money of their own, but why did they not give to the lame man from the treasury of the church? Either they had none of these funds with them at the moment, or for some reason felt that such money must be reserved for the benefit of members of the Christian society. But they had more than money to give, a gift of which the church in its later wealth has not shown itself possessed. A remarkable anecdote is related of Thomas Aquinas, who called on Pope Innocent IV when he had a very large sum of money on the table before him. Said the Pope to him: “You see, Thomas, that the Church cannot now say as the primitive Church could, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’” “Yes, Holy Father,” Aquinas replied, “but neither can she say, as did Peter to a crippled man, ‘Arise, and walk.’”

Such as I have. Rather, “what I have.” Luke already has referred to “wonders and signs” performed by the apostles prior to this incident (ch. 2:43); so this may not have been Peter’s first miracle since Pentecost. This passage shows him speaking with firm assurance. In the presence of this great incident every Christian must ask himself, What have I to give? One cannot give what he has not received, nor can he truly give from an ungenerous heart. He cannot give of Christ when he does not possess Christ. But when he has Christ, he knows it, and cannot too quickly share his precious gift with others.

In the name. The name Jesus Christ, the anointed Saviour, contains the description of the personality and character of its divine bearer. The reverent invocation of the name resulted in a demonstration of His power. The recognition and invocation of the power of this name is frequent in the book of Acts (see chs. 4:10, 12; 9:14; 16:18; 19:5, 13; 22:16). The full trust with which the name was spoken by Peter in the healing act was an expression of simple faith in his Master’s promise (Mark 16:18). See on Acts 3:16.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The name was probably not new to the cripple. There had once been a blind man who received his sight at the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7, 8). Perhaps the healing of the cripple at Bethesda (John 5:2–9) was known also to this sufferer from a like infirmity.

Nazareth was a place of low reputation (see John 1:46). According to John’s account, Nazareth was named on the superscription of the cross (ch. 19:19). Not only the Galilean background of Jesus (ch. 7:40–42), but the fact that He came from Nazareth, was a stumbling block to the Jews. It must have been a great test of faith for the lame man to respond to Peter’s call. Only a few weeks before, the One who bore this name had come to shame and death upon the cross, as one who had deceived the people. But the utterance of the name in faith opened the way for the operation of the power of God. “No sooner is the name of Jesus mentioned in love and tenderness than angels of God draw near, to soften and subdue the heart” (CM 112).

Rise up and walk. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) as to whether this passage should read as here, or simply, “Walk!” This man had never walked, or if at all, most haltingly, for he had been crippled from birth (v. 2). Peter’s command was to be obeyed in the power of God, without regard to conditions. Obedience in faith meant health.

7. Lifted him up. Peter’s gesture came as a kindly aid to the childlike and perhaps only now dawning faith of the lame man. It was a transitional aid, spanning the momentary gulf between the last moment of the man’s helplessness and the first moment of his acceptance by faith of the fact that a miracle had been performed upon him. As did Peter, so are the children of God to do: “Strengthen … the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees” (Isa. 35:3).

Ankle bones. Rather, “ankles.” Luke was a physician (Col. 4:14), and thus it is here a writer with medical experience who describes precisely what happened to the lame man.

Received strength. Rather, “were made firm.” The weak and flabby tendons and muscles were made strong and active.

8. Leaping up stood, and walked. “Walked” probably is better translated “began walking.” As power came to the man there was the upward leap; then he found himself able to stand for the first time in his life. He walked step by step, and alternated the steps with leaps of joy.

Into the temple. How this man must have longed, during the years, for the physical freedom to walk into the Temple to worship as others did. Now, able to do so, he entered at once. At this, the hour of prayer, the courts of the Temple were filled with worshipers. What must have been the amazement of the multitude as they saw him “walking, and leaping, and praising God.”

9. People saw him. This miracle was not done “in a corner.” Witnesses to the reality of the cure were numerous, and among them must have been many who for years had known this man as a cripple. This the Jewish authorities admitted among themselves (ch. 4:16).

The detailed and circumstantial account that Luke gives here brings conviction as one reads it. It was based doubtless on the stories of eyewitnesses whom he interviewed, and authenticated by Inspiration. The God who created can re-create, and He does so at will.

10. They knew. Rather, “they recognized.” The people knew that the man really had been lame, and was no impostor. They knew that now he was healed. They could see that he had entered the Temple, leaping and rejoicing in health and praising God.

At the Beautiful gate. See on v. 2.

11. Held Peter and John. There is some textual evidence (cf. p. 10) for the reading, “As Peter and John went out, he went along holding them; and those who were astonished stood in the porch called Solomon’s.” Such a reading helps to solve the problem of the location of the Beautiful Gate, and though probably not original, seems to be an early evidence in favor of its being identified as the Nicanor Gate (see on v. 2).

Porch. Gr. stoa, “portico,” “cloister.” No mention of a porch “that is called Solomon’s” is found in the original account of the building of the first Temple. Josephus (Antiquities xx. 9. 7) locates this porch on the east side of the Temple area. He says (War v. 5. 2 [190]) that it was distinguished by two rows of columns approximately 37 ft. (10.6 m.) high. This portico was named for Solomon probably because it included traces of the older building from Zerubbabel’s day. When Herod Agrippa I was completing his grandfather’s work the people sought to persuade him to raze this porch and to rebuild it, but he refused to do so.

Greatly wondering. It was from Solomon’s Porch, only a few months before, at the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22, 23), that Jesus had preached to the people on the works of God. The memory of what He had then said must have remained in the minds of the two disciples. The people had complained because Jesus did not frankly state whether He was the Christ (John 10:24–26), yet they were ready to stone Him when He claimed to be one with the Father (John 10:30–33). Now they hear Him proclaimed as “the Holy One and the Just,” as the “Prince of life,” as the very Christ, the Messiah of prophecy (Acts 3:14, 15, 18).

12. Why marvel ye? This is similar to the angel’s question, “Why stand ye gazing?” (ch. 1:11). In both places the idea is that the witnesses of the miracle should not be so amazed at the event as they obviously were.

Why look ye so earnestly on us? Literally, “on us why do you gaze?” (see on ch. 1:10). No common men like Peter and John, but only a divine power, should be credited with the miracle.

Holiness. Rather, “piety,” or “devotion.” Peter’s words bring to mind the popular theory that if a man is sufficiently devout, God will hear him, and great results will follow (see John 9:31). Here the apostle rejects any such idea. No purity of his own would have availed Peter; only the power of God manifested in the name of Jesus of Nazareth could do the work.

13. The God of Abraham. Here is an echo of our Lord’s own teaching and phraseology (see Matt. 22:32), though the phrase is from the OT (Ex. 3:6, 15). By asserting that Jesus was the Son of the God of Abraham, Peter reassured his Jewish hearers that he was not preaching a new God but that he was connecting Jesus with the God of their fathers.

Son. Gr. pais, a word that may mean either “child” or “servant.” In the latter sense it is used in the LXX in the later chapters of Isaiah for “the servant of Jehovah.” In fact, the present passage is strongly reminiscent of Isa. 52:13. In the NT pais is applied to Christ in Matt. 12:18; Acts 3:26; 4:27, 30. These passages suggest that Matthew and Luke understood the suffering Servant of Isaiah to be a figure applicable to Christ. See on Isa. 41:8.

Ye delivered up. Or, “handed over.” Peter is frank and bold in placing the blame for Jesus’ death on the Jews, as the apostles always did from this time on.

Denied him. See John 19:15.

Determined. Or, “decided.” Pilate had rightly decided to release Jesus as innocent (John 19:4), but the Jews, to their greater shame and blame, persuaded him to condemn Christ to death.

14. The Holy One. This is a striking designation, probably not new to Peter’s hearers, for it appears in the intertestamental Jewish literature (see on John 6:69). The demoniac had used it of Christ (Mark 1:24). At His trial Jesus had been found innocent of all charges (Mark 15:10; Luke 23:4). Both Pilate and his wife had borne emphatic testimony to the innocence of Jesus (Matt. 27:19, 24). So did the repentant thief (Luke 23:41) and the centurion (v. 47). See on Acts 2:27.

Just. Or, “righteous” (see 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:1; see on Acts 7:52).

Desired a murderer. That is, Barabbas (see Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19).

15. Prince of life. Gr. archeµgos teµs zoµeµs, which is better translated “author of life” (cf. Heb. 12:2; in ch. 2:10 archeµgos is translated “captain”). Christ is the originator of life. “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived” (DA 530). The “Prince of life,” the “captain of … salvation” (Heb. 2:10), is accordingly the One from whom life and salvation flow. Christ is clearly set forth as the Author of all life. He Himself repeatedly made the same emphatic claim (see John 3:14, 15; 5:26, 40; 6:48, 51). The Jews had chosen to keep alive a murderer, a taker of life, and to put to death the Author and Giver of life.

God hath raised. That it was the Father who raised Christ from the dead is repeatedly stated in the New Testament (Acts 2:24; Rom. 6:4; 8:11). At the same time Jesus declared that He Himself had power to lay down His life and to take it again (John 10:18). These two declarations regarding the resurrection are not contradictory. Though Christ had life in Himself, yet as the incarnate Son who “took upon him the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7), He could “do nothing of himself” (John 5:19). Jesus exercised His divine power only at the command of the Father. Thus although “the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in Himself” (DA 785), He did so at the call of God His Father.

Whereof. That is, “of whom.” Peter attests again the one central fact that the apostles knew of what they were talking. They had known the Lord, they had seen Him die, and they had seen Him risen.

16. His name. Repeatedly in the NT, and especially in the Acts, the name of Jesus is set forth as the means by which miracles are worked and salvation is gained (Acts 3:6; 4:10, 12, 17, 18; 16:18; Mark 9:38; Luke 10:17). The use of the word “name” in this connection is to be understood in terms of the rich connotation it carries in the NT. See on Acts 2:21.

Scholars have pointed out that in ancient times certain names were thought to have special holiness and particular efficacy. Thus among the Jews of the postexilic period, the divine name Yahweh (Jehovah) was kept as a secret known only to the high priest, and its true pronunciation was finally lost altogether. The declaration of other names was thought to be particularly potent in working miracles. Josephus (Antiquities viii. 2. 5 [46–49]) recounts seeing a man named Eleazar allegedly cast out demons by the use of the name of Solomon. The use of the name of Jesus for the same purpose was attempted by the seven sons of Sceva at Ephesus (ch. 19:13, 14). They thought there was magical power simply in the use of the name. Doubtless many of those who observed the miracles that Jesus’ disciples worked in His name thought that the efficacy of these miracles lay merely in the employment of a magic name. See Vol. I, pp. 170–173.

However, it is clear beyond question, that the disciples, in working miracles, did not use Christ’s name with any idea that magical power resided in the utterance of it. In the OT the Hebrew word shem, “name,” is sometimes used in the sense of “character” (see Jer. 14:7, 21), and may be almost synonymous with the person himself (see Ps. 18:49). This close connection between name and character is illustrated by the wealth of names in the OT that indicate the character of their bearers or the anticipation that parents expressed for the personalities of their children. This same idea of “character” is probably the meaning of the word “name” in the apocryphal work, Enoch (ch. 48:7), where of the Son of man it is said: “For in his name they [the righteous] are saved.”

A further aspect of this development is seen in NT times when the Greek word for “name” (onoma) might mean “person.” Thus in an Egyptian papyrus of a.d. 13 occurs the phrase, “from the name written below,” meaning, of course, “from the undersigned person.” A similar usage occurs in Acts 1:15; Rev. 3:4; 11:18.

All this indicates that in using the name of Jesus in working miracles and in proclaiming salvation, the apostles were declaring that healing and saving power were exercised in vital connection with the person and character of Jesus Christ. Peter’s declaration in the present passage that “his name … hath made this man strong” was an assertion that it was Christ Himself who had wrought the miracle, not a magical incantation working mechanically upon the lame man. The power of Christ is available to all, but it must be accepted by vital faith in Him.

Ye see and know. There was no obscurity here, no chance of trickery. There was no substitution of a well man, under pretense that a lame man had been healed. Everyone knew the man had been lame, and now they saw him healed.

By him. Or, “through him,” that is, Christ. See 1 Peter 1:21. The faith that was both in the healer Peter and in the man healed, was itself wrought in each of them by the power of Christ. Peter was a recipient of the power of God by faith; the man also received faith, which made him capable of accepting bodily healing. Healing faith is itself a gift (Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:9).

Perfect soundness. Or, “completeness.”

17. I wot. An archaic expression meaning, “I know.”

Through ignorance. Ignorance is dangerous in spiritual as well as in other matters. Men may sin through ignorance, as in the present instance, but ignorance is not a valid plea in extenuation of sin. Even in human government, ignorance of a law does not excuse its transgression. Sins of ignorance must be repented of as sincerely as any other sins. Particularly guilty are men who are ignorant because they allow prejudice and feeling to prevent them from knowing those things to which reason and conscience give witness. Compare Luke 23:34.

18. Prophets. See Luke 24:25–27. As in Acts 1:16; 2:23, here also Peter stresses the fact that OT prophets foretold Christ’s work. The purpose of all Scripture is to set forth the plan for the salvation of men through Christ’s redemptive suffering. From the first gospel promise (Gen. 3:15) there has been a continuing thread of testimony through the OT pointing to the vicarious atonement through Jesus Christ. Particularly significant among Messianic OT scriptures are Ps. 22:18 (see Matt. 27:35); Dan. 9:26; Zech. 11:13 (see Matt. 27:9, 10); Isa. 53.

That Christ should suffer. As far as is known the Jews never applied Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering servant to the Messiah. The doctrine of a suffering Messiah was quite at variance with the views of the Jews current in the apostolic age, and was hardly understood even by Christ’s disciples until after His resurrection. Peter himself protested when Christ laid starkly before His disciples the sufferings He would endure, and was severely rebuked for his reluctance to accept the prospect (Matt. 16:21–23). The present passage reveals a remarkable change in Peter’s understanding. Now he affirms that Christ’s sufferings had been in accord with the divine plan. Doubtless this illumination had come to the apostles through Jesus’ teaching after the resurrection (see Luke 24:44–48) and through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Peter later demonstrated again his understanding of this fundamental doctrine as he wrote of the sin-bearing Saviour (1 Peter 2:23, 24).

So fulfilled. These words mark the climax of Peter’s argument and the basis for his appeal to repentance. The force of his logic lay in the fact that he was preaching fulfilled prophecy.

19. Repent. Gr. metanoeoµ, “to change the mind,” and in a spiritual sense, “to repent” (see on Matt. 3:2). This call to repentance is the logical climax to Peter’s stern reproof of his challengers. There would be no point to such reproof if it were not intended to produce repentance. So it is, indeed, with all gospel preaching.

Be converted. Gr. epistrephoµ, “to turn about.” In the LXX this word is used frequently to translate the Heb. shub, “to return,” a word that often has the spiritual sense of returning to God (see on Eze. 18:30). Epistrephoµ is a peculiarly appropriate word for the change that takes place when one accepts Christ as Saviour and King, and Luke uses it repeatedly in this sense (see Acts 9:35; 11:21; 26:20). Conversion is the basis of a genuine Christian experience. It is distinguished from the new birth (John 3:3, 5) only in that it may be considered as the act of man in turning away from his old life of sin, while the new birth, or regeneration, is the work of the Holy Spirit acting upon man simultaneously with his turning. Neither phase of the experience can be a reality without the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit cannot do His work until a man is willing to let God take hold of his life (see Rev. 3:20).

Blotted out. Or, “wiped away.” Repeatedly in Scripture the forgiveness of sin is portrayed as a washing (see John 13:10; Rev. 1:5; see on Rev. 22:14). The thought of wiping away sin is a similar one. The image that may underlie the words here is that of an indictment that catalogues the sins of the penitent, which the pardoning love of the Father cancels (see Isa. 43:25; Col. 2:14; see on Matt. 1:21; 3:6; 26:28; Luke 3:3).

The immediate result to those who accepted Peter’s call to repentance was the forgiveness of their sins. In this sense the blotting out of their sins may be regarded as having occurred immediately. In the ultimate sense, however, the final blotting out of sin takes place just before the second advent of Christ in connection with the close of Christ’s work as High Priest (see below under “when”). Guilt for specific sins is canceled when they are confessed and forgiven; they are expunged from the record in the day of judgment (cf. Eze. 3:20; 18:24; 33:13; GC 485).

When. Gr. hopoµs an, “so that.” Lexicographers and grammarians are unanimous that hopoµs an indicates purpose rather than time. Hopoµs, with or without an (the meaning is not distinguished), occurs 56 times in the NT, and only here is it translated “when.” Elsewhere it is translated “how” (Matt. 22:15; Luke 24:20), “so that” (Luke 16:26), “because” (Acts 20:16), but most frequently it is translated “that,” or by some other expression of purpose (Acts 8:15; 9:12, 17, 24; Rom. 3:4; etc.). Nowhere do the translators of the KJV introduce a time element except in Acts 3:19. Thus the present passage should read “so that,” rather than “when.” The reading of the KJV seems to have arisen in the following way: The earliest Latin versions appear to have translated hopoµs an correctly as ut, which in Latin, when used as a conjunction, often means “so that.” However, ut is somewhat ambiguous because, in a temporal clause, it may mean “when.” Later scribes, reading this passage, apparently were in doubt as to which meaning ut should be given here. Some, thinking that the adverbial meaning was intended, either changed the word to cum, “when,” or inserted cum in the margin to guide the reader in interpreting the verse. Thus some Latin texts read cum, “when,” instead of it. Others, including the common editions of the Vulgate, have a conflated reading,ut cum, “so that when,” which probably arose from incorporating the marginal gloss, cum, into the text without dropping ut. Such a reading, however, does not make good grammatical sense. Nevertheless it is found in most of the later medieval Latin texts, and from these was taken into the earliest English Bible. Thus Wyclif’s translation (1382), made from the Vulgate, reads, “That youre synnes be don awey, that whanne the tymes of refreischynge shculn come fro the sight of the Lord.” This awkward rendering is also reflected in the Douay-Rheims Version (1582), “That your sinnes may be put out, that vvhen the times shal come of refreshing by the sight of our Lord.” Tyndale (1534) made good grammar of the passage, but he produced a wrong translation. “That your synnes may be done awaye, when the tyme of refresshinge commeth which we shall have of the presence of the Lord.” This rendering of hopoµs an as “when,” went into the KJV. However, the Greek should be translated, “that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (RSV).

The conversion of sinners will have a power to accelerate the fulfillment of God’s purposes, and accordingly, to hasten the coming of His kingdom in its completeness.

While it is true that the Greek of this passage does not contain the temporal quality that the KJV rendering suggests, nevertheless a study of related scriptures reveals that a certain time sequence is here set forth by Peter. He called on his hearers to “repent” and “be converted.” These acts, said he, would be followed by (1) the blotting out of their sins, (2) the coming of the “times of refreshing,” and (3) the glorious advent of Jesus Christ.

In any discussion of the time sequence in Peter’s words, two points should be kept in mind: (1) In common with the other disciples, Peter did not know “the times or the seasons” (Acts 1:7; cf. John 21:20–23). He had a foreshortened view of the future, and joyously hoped for the very early return of his Lord (see Additional Note on Rom. 13). (2) By divine illumination Peter saw that certain prophecies of “the last days” were meeting a fulfillment in his day. Indeed, his illumination may have enabled him to see only this immediate and what proved to be a limited fulfillment, though that point is not vital to this discussion. For example, on the day of Pentecost he declared that Joel’s prophecy that in “the last days” God would pour out of His Spirit on all flesh, was then meeting fulfillment (Acts 2:14–18). Truly there was a limited fulfillment of the prophecy of a divine outpouring. It was also true, as already stated, that in one sense of the word the sins of converted men were then blotted out, for they were covered by the saving blood of Jesus Christ.

But in the perspective of God’s unfolding plans, particularly fulfilling prophecy, we can now see that in the most literal and complete sense “the last days” are our present days and that it is now we may rightly expect the coming of Christ. Likewise, we see that the great outpouring of God’s spirit, the mighty “times of refreshing,” belong most particularly to our days, the days of “the latter rain” (see on Joel 2:23). With equal propriety we may—and indeed, should—view the blotting out of sins as belonging to our time. Why separate it widely from the other two events that Peter said would take place? Indeed, when we study this subject of the blotting out of sins in the setting of Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary (see on Dan. 8:14), we discover that the actual blotting out of sins takes place in the last days of earth’s history, immediately preceding Christ’s coming (see PP 357, 358; GC 421, 422; see on Eze. 18:24). That these three events are tied together is made more evident by the RSV: “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ” (Acts 3:19, 20).

Thus it becomes evident that Peter’s statement (v. 19), taken as a whole, contains a most definite temporal element. Evidently, Peter, speaking by inspiration, and thus beyond his own finite understanding, is referring, tersely, to two great events of earth’s last days—(1) the mighty outpouring of God’s Spirit, and (2) the final blotting out of the sins of the righteous—which are tied to a third climactic event, the second advent of Christ.

From the presence. Literally, “from the face.” The “refreshing” comes directly from the throne of God.

20. He shall send. The dominant theme of the NT writers is the return of Christ. See on v. 19.

Before was preached. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “was appointed” rather than “before was preached.” Thus the passage would read “who was appointed for you.” In the mind of God the plan of redemption was set from eternity (see Matt. 25:34; Eph. 1:4; Rev. 13:8), and was executed in the very face of the resistance of Satan and sinful men. It remains for those concerned in the plan to fulfill its conditions by obedience (cf. Luke 22:42; Heb. 10:7).

21. Heaven must receive. The disciples had witnessed Christ’s ascension (ch. 1:9, 10), and they realized He must remain in heaven until His second advent. Jesus had told His disciples that it was necessary for Him to leave them (John 14:1–6), but even they did not understand until they saw Him ascend, and learned that they must look for His return.

Restitution. Or, “restoration.” Christ died as the world’s Redeemer, and therefore the promised restoration was made possible by His crucifixion.

Here Peter gives in embryo the idea that he develops fully and in a most forthright manner in 2 Peter 3:7–13. The new heavens and the new earth of the latter passage are a recovery, a restoration from the sin and degradation that, as a result of man’s fall into sin, destroyed the beauty and perfection of the original creation (see on Isa. 65:17–25; Micah 4:8).

This passage does not teach, as some have thought, that all men ultimately will be saved. That is not promised in Scripture. But it does express the idea of an ultimate state in which righteousness, and not sin, will have dominion over a redeemed and re-created world. It presents a supremely worth-while goal for Christian experience resulting from true repentance and conversion, and offers even a wider hope for the possibilities of growth in wisdom and holiness in the world to come than Christendom sometimes has been willing to emphasize.

Which God hath spoken. This clause may be understood to refer either to the “times of restitution,” that is, the divine act of restoration foretold prophetically, or to “all things,” in which case it points to the fact of the fulfillment of God’s promises through the prophets. Here is a clear assertion that the utterances of the prophets are the messages of God. It was God who spoke through the prophets (see 2 Peter 1:21). The present passage is virtually identical with Luke 1:70.

All. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of this word.

Since the world began. Or, “from of old.” These words take in the many unchanging promises exhibited in the prophets that have brightened the hopes of the people of God through the ages. Zacharias saw a beginning of the fulfillment of these promises with the birth of his son John (Luke 1:70). The plan of salvation has been set since before “the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

22. Moses truly said. Or, “Moses said indeed.” The line of true prophets suggested here and in v. 24 reveals the expectation of the coming of some one great prophet who should excel all others, as illustrated in the question put to John the Baptist, “Art thou that prophet?” (John 1:21). None of the leaders following Moses had been altogether “like unto” him (see Deut. 18:15; see below under “like unto me”). His work marked a new epoch, the manifestation of the glory of God through a theocracy, with its divinely ordained law and service of worship. Jesus’ coming marked the opening of another new epoch, with His kingdom established in the “new” hearts of individual men (see Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:8–12).

Unto the fathers. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of these words.

Like unto me. Moses quoted the Lord’s promise to him that the prophet to come should be “like unto thee” (Deut. 18:18). But the parallel stops short because Moses was neither the only-begotten Son of God nor the vicariously suffering Atoner, both of which Jesus was.

Him shall ye hear. That is, Him shall ye obey (see on John 6:60).

He shall say. Here Peter changes his quotation of Deut. 18:18 slightly to make it a command to his hearers.

23. Soul. Gr. psucheµ (see on Matt. 10:28; cf. Acts 2:41).

Shall be destroyed. The OT passage (Deut. 18:19) that Peter quotes loosely reads at this point, “I will require it of him.” The words Peter substitutes echo the familiar OT phrase, “that man shall be cut off from among his people” (see Lev. 17:4, 9; cf. Ex. 12:15, 19).

24. From Samuel. Samuel is named here probably because with him the prophets of Israel first appear as a group, particularly in connection with the schools of the prophets. In the 3d century a.d. Judah ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishnah, referred to Samuel as “the teacher of the prophets” (see Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2, p. 627), and this may well represent a view current in Peter’s day.

These days. It is not clear whether Peter refers here to the “times of restitution” (v. 21) or to the remarkable times in which he and his hearers were then living. He may, indeed, have coalesced the two in his thinking, believing that the events he was witnessing would finally usher in the closing scenes (cf. ch. 2:17).

25. Children of the prophets. The prophets, with their messages, were sent especially to the Israelites (see Rom. 3:2).

Of the covenant. Here Peter identifies the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:3) with the covenant of salvation in the same way as does Paul (Gal. 3:8). In spite of the spiritual light and privileges the Jews enjoyed, they failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. In every age, and particularly now, those who enjoy special spiritual privileges may be guilty of the same failure.

In thy seed. Referring to Gen. 12:3, Paul makes Christ the “seed,” and all the faithful in Christ heirs of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). Peter’s use of the passage is not so explicit, but in quoting it he plainly refers it to Christ.

26. Unto you first. This precedence of the Jew as recipient of the gospel is noteworthy. Peter did not as yet know the conditions under which the gospel was to be preached to the heathen, but his words imply a distinct understanding that the message was to go first to the Jews. This sequence was also used by Paul: “To the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; cf. ch. 2:9, 10). He followed it so frequently in his gospel preaching that it became a formula (Acts 13:46; see chs. 9:19, 20; 14:1; 17:1–3). Compare Vol. IV, pp. 29, 30.

Son. Gr. pais (see on v. 13).

Jesus. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the omission of this word.

To bless you. The blessing referred to here follows the resurrection and involves the power of Christ that enables a man to turn from sin to the new life that is in Him. This new life of the believer is made possible by the resurrection (see Eph. 2:4–6; Col. 2:12, 13).

Turning away. The Greek verb here, apostrephoµ, like the related verb epistrephoµ, is used frequently in the LXX to translate the Heb. shub (see on v. 19). This passage ambiguous. It may be understood either as meaning that Jesus turns away men from iniquity or that He blesses them when they turn away from iniquity. In a sense both of these are true. The blessings of salvation can come only through the restoring power of the Holy Spirit, following upon the necessary turning away from sin, with repentance and conversion.

Ellen G. White comments

1 DA 827; Ed 95; ML 58; MM 201; 8T 191

1, 2 AA 37, 39; COL 120; Ed 95; Ev 697; TM 170; 5T 252

1–4GC ix; SR 242; TM 66; 7T 31

1–47AA 35–46; SR 241–247; 9T 196

2 7T 213

2–4ML 60; 8T 15

3–5AA 39

4 DA 821; EW 24; 7T 213; 8T 26

5 AA 87

5–8SR 243

6–8, 13AA 40

13–16TM 66

14–18AA 41

17 EW 78; GC 611

19 PP 110

21 GC 611; ML 62

22–25AA 41

23 FE 535

25–27SR 244

26, 27, 29 AA 42

29 GC 546

30 1T 203

31, 32 AA 42

34 GC 546

36 AA 165

37, 38 SR 245

37–39AA 43

38 SC 23

38, 39 GC ix

39 8T 57

41 AA 22, 44; COL 120; DA 275, 770, 827; Ev 35, 699; ML 61; SR 245; 8T 15, 21, 26

41–47WM 271

43 Ev 35

46 AA 45

46, 47 MB 137; 5T 239

47 COL 121; EW 174; GC 379; 7T 32