CHAPTER 5

Verses 1, 2
In close connection with this unprecedented liberality of the brethren, we are now introduced to a remarkable case of corruption, of which it was the occasion. The praise always lavished on disinterested benevolence sometimes prompts illiberal men to make a pretense of liberality. But the mere desire of praise is incapable of subduing selfishness, so as to make a truly liberal heart; for it is itself a species of selfishness. In contrast with the course of Barnabas, we are told:

(1) "But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, (2) and kept back part of the price, his wife being also privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the feet of the apostles."
This language implies, what is distinctly avowed by the wife below, that this part was represented as the whole price of the possession.

Verses 3, 4
"But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled thy heart, to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? (4) While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Here Peter brings together the influence of Satan, and the free agency of the tempted, just as he had, in former discourses, the free agency of men, and the purposes of God. [See Com. iii: 17-18.] He demands of Ananias, "Why has Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit," and, in the same breath, "Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart?" The existence and agency of the tempter are distinctly recognized, yet it is not Satan, but Ananias who is rebuked; and he is rebuked for doing the very thing that Satan had done, showing that he is as guilty as though Satan had no existence. Indeed, he is rebuked for what Satan had done. The justice of this is manifest from the fact that Satan had no power to fill his heart with evil, without his co-operation. That he had rendered this co-operation, threw the responsibility upon himself.

Peter's knowledge of the deception was the result not of human information, but of the insight imparted to him by the Holy Spirit. This is necessary to the significance of the entire incident, as well as to the purport of Peter's own words.

Verse 5
The exposure of Ananias was very surprising, but neither the audience, nor perhaps Peter, was prepared by it for the event which immediately followed. (5) "And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and expired. And great fear came upon all who heard these things." There is no evidence that Peter had any will of his own in this matter; but it was an act of divine power exerted independent of the apostolic agency. The responsibility, therefore, attached not to Peter as an officer of the Church, but to God as the moral governor of the world. The propriety of the deed may be appreciated best by supposing that Ananias had succeeded in his undertaking. His success would not only have turned the most praiseworthy feature of the new Church into a source of corruption and hypocrisy, but it would have brought discredit upon the inspiration of the apostles, by showing that the Spirit within them could be deceived. Thus the whole fabric of apostolic authority, which was based upon their inspiration, would have fallen, and precipitated the entire cause into hopeless ruin. The attempt, therefore, presented a crisis of vital importance, and demanded some such vindication of their inspiration as could neither be mistaken nor forgotten. The immediate effect of the event was just the effect desired: "great fear came upon all who heard these things."

Verse 6
The scene was too awful for lamentation, or for needless funeral services. As when Nadab and Abihu fell dead at the door of the tabernacle with strange fire in their censers, [Leviticus 10:1-7.] there was no weeping nor delay. All were stricken with horror, as they saw the curse of God fall upon the wretch. (6) "And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him."

Verse 7
Sapphira was not present. (7) "And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in." How she remained so long ignorant of the fate of her husband, we are not informed, though it is a most extraordinary circumstance. He had died suddenly, in a manner which had excited everybody; had been buried; and three hours had passed; yet his wife, who must have been in the vicinity, has no intimation of it, but comes into the very assembly where it had occurred, without a word reaching her ear upon the subject. There is no way to account for this, but by the supposition that there was a concerted determination on the part of the whole multitude to conceal the facts from her. This was a most unnatural determination, and one difficult of execution, except on the further supposition that Peter commanded the multitude to restrain their natural impulses, and let her know nothing until he himself was ready to reveal it to her. This course was necessary in order to effectually expose her.

Verses 8-10
She came in prepared to act out fully the part which she had agreed upon with her husband. (8) "Then Peter answered her, Tell me whether you sold the land for so much? She said, Yes; for so much. (9) Then Peter said to her, Why is it that you have agreed together to put to proof the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. (10) Then she immediately fell at his feet and expired: and the young men coming in found her dead, and carried her out, and buried her by her husband." In her case, Peter knew what was about to take place, and declared it; but there is no indication that he exerted his own will or miraculous power to cause her death. We regard her death, like that of Ananias, as a miracle wrought independent of the power lodged in the apostles.

In the question, "Why have you agreed together to put to proof the Spirit of the Lord?" Peter expresses the result of their agreement, though it may not have been what they had in view. They did put the Spirit to proof, by testing his powers. If he had failed under the test, the consequences, as we have suggested above, would have been disastrous. But now that the test applied has triumphantly vindicated the fullness of apostolic inspiration, it was not likely that such another attempt could be made.

Verse 11
The failure of the plot proved as propitious to the cause of truth as its success would have been disastrous. (11) "And great fear came upon all the Church, and upon all who had heard these things." This fear was excited, not only by the sudden and awful fate of the guilty pair, but also by the fearful nature of that spirit-searching knowledge imparted to the apostles. The disciples were now filled with more just conceptions than before of the nature of inspiration, and the unbelieving masses who heard of the event were awed into respect and reverence.

Verses 12, 13
Increased activity of the apostles followed, and their office was still further magnified. (12) "And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all, with one accord, in Solomon's Portico, (13) and of the rest no man dare join himself to them, but all people magnified them." It was the apostles alone who were in Solomon's Portico, as is evident from the fact that the term apostles, in the first clause of the Acts 5:12, furnishes the only antecedent to the pronoun they, in the statement, "they were all, with one accord," etc. This being so, "the rest," who dared not join themselves to them, must include other disciples, as well as the unbelieving multitude. It need not be concluded, from this, that the disciples stood off at the same fearful distance with unbelievers; but that they were so filled with awe by the exhibition connected with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira, that they dare not approach the apostles with the familiarity which had marked their former intercourse with them. Such a feeling was at first experienced by the apostles themselves in the presence of Jesus, and was well expressed by Peter, when he and his companions made the first miraculous draught of fishes: falling down at the knees of Jesus, he exclaimed, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord." [Luke 5:8.] That such a feeling was also experienced by the whole Church, at this time, has just been stated by the historian, in Acts 5:11, where he says, "Great fear came upon all the Church."

Verse 14
The statement just made, that "of the rest no man dared to join himself to them," can not mean that persons dared not join the Church, for the reverse is now stated. (14) "And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." The increased awe in the presence of the apostles, with which the people were inspired, made them listen with increased respect to their testimony concerning Jesus, and brought them in greater numbers to obedience.

Verses 15, 16
The connection of Luke's next statement, introduced by the adverb so that, is somewhat obscure: but I presume he intends to state a result of all the facts just mentioned. Signs and wonders were done by the apostles; the people magnified them, and believers were the more added to the Lord. (15) "So that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. (16) There came also a multitude out of the cities round about to Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those vexed by unclean spirits, who were all healed."

Verses 17, 18
The excitement which now prevailed throughout Jerusalem and the neighboring villages, and found utterance in the most enthusiastic praise of the apostles, was too much for the equanimity of the dignitaries who had so strictly forbidden them to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. (17) "Then the high priest rose up, and all who were with him, being the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with zeal, (18) and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the public prison." Here we have the same Sadducees at work who had arrested and threatened Peter and John. They were "filled with zeal;" but it was a zeal inspired less by love for their own cause, than by hatred for that which was triumphing over it. The advocates of error will generally appear quite easy, and sometimes, even generous, when their cause is merely standing still; but their zeal is always kindled when the truth begins to make inroads upon them. The zeal of these Sadducees was fanned to its fiercest heat by recent events, and they determined to execute the threats with which they had recently dismissed two of the apostles, making all the twelve their present victims.

Verses 19-21
When they were all seized and cast into prison together, the apostles could but expect that they would now feel the entire weight of the wrath which was treasured up against them. (19) "But an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors in the night, and led them forth, and said, (20) Go stand in the temple, and speak to the people all the words of this life. (21) And having heard this they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and those who were with him, and called together the Sanhedrim, and all the eldership of the children of Israel, and sent into the prison to have them brought." The apostles were already in the temple, teaching the early worshipers as if nothing unusual had occurred, when the Sanhedrim met and sent to the prison for them.

Verses 22, 23
After some delay, the officers returned into the presence of the Sanhedrim without their prisoners. (22) "But when the officers arrived, and did not find them in the prison, they returned and announced, (23) saying, The prison we found closed with all safety, and the guards standing before the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one within." This appalling circumstance would have been sufficient, with less determined men, to stay all hostile proceedings, and even to disperse the court who had assembled for the trial for the apostles.

Verses 24-26
The startling announcement was not without serious effect even upon the stubborn Sadducees. They were staggered by it, and knew not at first what to do or think. (24) "Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these words, they were perplexed concerning them, what this might come to. (25) But some one came and announced to them, Behold, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people." This announcement relieved the perplexity of the Sanhedrim, by enabling them to proceed with business, and relieving them from the unpleasant necessity of dispersing without a good excuse. They now dispatch a more honorable guard after the apostles than they had, at first; for the captain of the temple himself takes command. (26) "Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned." The clause, "lest they should be stone," is so arranged as to furnish a reason for both the preceding statements, that they "feared the people," and that they "brought them without violence." The enthusiasm of the people had been much increased, no doubt, by the angelic deliverance, which was by this time well known about the temple.

Verses 27, 28
We have now a very lively and graphic description of the arraignment and trial of the apostles. (27) "And having brought them, they placed them in the Sanhedrim, and the high priest asked them, (28) saying, Did we not strictly command you not to speak in this name? And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." These words contain two specific charges against the apostles, disobedience to the Sanhedrim, and an effort to bring upon them the blood of Jesus.

Verses 29-32
To these charges the apostles candidly and fearlessly respond. (29) "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." This answers the first charge. They plead guilty, but justify themselves by the authority of God. Peter and John had left the Sanhedrim before, with the words, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken to men more than to God, do you judge." Now, as if that question was decided, they declare, "We ought to obey God rather than men." They then answer the second charge by a restatement of the facts: (30) "The God of our fathers had raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hung him on a tree. (31) This man has God exalted to his own right hand, a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. (32) And we are his witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him." This was repeating, with terrible emphasis, the very thing which was charged against them as a crime.

In the declaration that Jesus had been exalted a Prince and a Savior, "to grant repentance to Israel and remission of sins," it is implied that repentance, as well as remission of sins, is in some sense granted to me. But to grant repentance can not mean to bestow it upon men without an exercise of their own will; for repentance is enjoined upon men as a duty to be performed by them. How, then, can that which is a duty to be performed, be said to be granted to us? We will readily perceive the answer to this question, by remembering that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and that it belongs to God to furnish men with the facts which will awaken this sorrow. Without revelation, men would never be made to feel that sorrow for sin which works repentance; but in the revelation of Jesus Christ we are furnished with the chief of these motives, and because of this, he is said to grant repentance.

Verse 33
The Sanhedrim had been astonished at the boldness of Peter and John on their former trial, but had contented themselves with severe threatenings. Now, both their commands and their threats, having been despised, and the bold innovators daring to defy them once more, they lost, for a moment, all the restraint which had been imposed by the fear of the multitude. (33) "Now when they heard this, they were exasperated, and determined to slay them."

Verses 34-39
At this crisis the madness of the Sadducees was suddenly checked by the prudent counsel of one of the opposite party. The Pharisees were less exasperated, because their leading dogma was sustained by the apostles, and they saw that any imprudent proceedings were likely to involve the whole Sanhedrim in trouble, without regard to party; therefore, Gamaliel interposes his advice. (34) "But a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrim, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, arose and commanded to put the apostles out for a little while." This removal of the prisoners, like that of Peter and John before, was designed to prevent them from taking encouragement from any admissions which might be made during the pending discussion. They were, accordingly, withdrawn. (35) "And he said to them, Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you are about to do respecting these men; (36) For before these days, Theudas arose, declaring himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, attached themselves; who was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nothing. (37) After this man, Judas the Galilean rose up, in the days of the enrollment, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. (38) And now I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this purpose or this work is from men, it will be destroyed; (39) but if it is from God, you are not able to destroy it; lest you even be found to fight against God."

A question has been raised as to whether Luke is not guilty of an anachronism in this report of Gamaliel's speech, by making him refer to a Theudas, who is mentioned by Josephus, and who flourished many years later, under the reign of Claudius Cжsar. Such a reference could not possibly be made by Gamaliel; and if it was made by Luke, he is not only guilty of the anachronism, but, what is far worse, of giving a false report of Gamaliel's speech. Rather than admit a hypothesis involving such consequences in reference to a historian of unimpeached veracity, we must suppose that some impostor by the name of Theudas did flourish at the time here alluded to by Gamaliel. Judas the Galilean is also mentioned by Josephus, whose account of him agrees with this given by Gamaliel. The enrollment is most likely the same referred to in Luke 2:1.

Upon the fate of these two impostors, Gamaliel bases his advice to the Sanhedrim, in reference to the apostles. The moral merits of this advice may be differently estimated, according to the point of view from which he contemplate it. If we regard it as a general rule of procedure in reference to religious movements, it must be regarded as a mere time-serving policy. Instead of waiting to see whether such a movement is going to prove successful or not, before we take ground in reference to it, the lover of truth will promptly investigate and decide its merits without regard to public opinion. But if we regard Gamaliel as only giving a reason why men should not persecute a cause which they are not prepared to accept, it was certainly most judicious advice. When we have decided against a cause, we should render a reason for our decision, and then leave it to the developments of Providence, well assured that whatever is not from God will come to nothing without any violent agency on our part. We should also be afraid to resist with violence or passion any thing bearing a semblance to truth, lest we fight against God, and be ourselves overthrown.

The last clause in Gamaliel's speech, "Lest you be found even to fight against God," indicates a suspicion, on his part, that such a result was by no means impossible. In view of the many miracles which had been wrought by the apostles, and their miraculous deliverance from prison the very night before, it is strange that something more than a suspicion to this effect did not possess the mind of Gamaliel, and of all the Sanhedrim. It was, doubtless, owing to serious misgivings on this point, that the embittered Sadducees yielded so readily to advice from the opposite party.

Verse 40
There was no opposition to Gamaliel's advice. (40) "And they obeyed him; and having called the apostles, and scourged them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go." Scourging was so common in the Roman empire, even of men untried and uncondemned, and was so common a fate of Christians at the time Luke was writing, that he mentions it here rather as a matter of course. It is the first time, however, that it was experienced by the apostles, and was, probably, harder to endure than it ever was afterward.

Verses 41, 42
However painful the scourging was, it did not cause any resentful manifestations on the part of the sufferers, but they bore it cheerfully. (41) "Then they departed from the presence of the Sanhedrim, rejoicing that they were thought worthy to be dishonored for his name. (42) And every day, in the temple, and from house to house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." The Sanhedrim had now tried both threats and scourging upon the apostles without checking their activity, and as there was nothing further for them to try but death, which they were not yet prepared to inflict, they relinquished for awhile their efforts. In this first contest, therefore, the apostles were completely victorious, and compelled their adversaries to abandon the field.

The apostles taught and preached not only publicly in the temple, but "from house to house." In this they give an example to the ministry of all ages, which is well worthy of imitation. Private instruction and admonition bring the teacher and the taught into closer contact, and secure an individuality of effect not attainable in a public assembly. It can not, therefore, be well dispensed with; but he who employs it most diligently will, other things being equal, employ his energies most successfully.

CHAPTER 4

 Verses 1-3
Just at this point in Peter's discourse:

(1) "And while they were speaking to the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, (2) being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead. (3) And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day; for it was already evening."
This sudden disturbance of the interested audience, by a body of armed men rushing through their midst and seizing Peter and John, is the beginning of a series of persecutions with which Luke is about to follow the account of the first peaceful triumphs of the apostles.

We would naturally, at first thought, expect to find the parties to this violent proceeding identical with the chief persecutors of Jesus, supposing that the same motives which had excited opposition to him would perpetuate it against his disciples. But the Pharisees were his most bitter enemies, the Sadducees being comparatively indifferent to his pretensions, while here we see the Sadducees leading the attack upon the apostles, and we will soon see the leader of the Pharisees interfering to save them from threatened death. [Acts 5:34 below.] In order to appreciate this unexpected change in the aspect of the parties, we must note a little more carefully the ground of opposition in each case.

The supposition sometimes entertained that Jesus was hated by men simply because there is in human nature an innate aversion to truth and holiness, is not less false to the facts of history than to the nature of fallen men. It is disproved by the fact that it was not the mass of his cotemporaries who hated him, as the supposition would require, but chiefly, and almost exclusively, the Pharisees. That portion of the people who were most depraved, according to external appearances, heard him gladly, and delighted to praise him, while the Pharisees, who were most of all noted for their piety, were the men who hated him most. Neither were they actuated simply by an aversion to his holiness; for they had a more substantial, if not a better reason for hating him. If he had been content merely to go about doing good, and teaching righteousness, "letting other people alone," he might have passed his days in peace. But such was not his sense of duty. He knew that his teaching could not have proper effect unless the erroneous doctrines of the Pharisees, who were then the chief teachers of Israel, were dislodged from the public mind, and the mask of hypocrisy, which had secured them their great reputation for piety, were stripped off. He undertook, therefore, an offensive warfare upon their doctrinal tenets and their religious pretensions. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew contains an epitome of this warfare on his part, than which there is not a more withering philippic on record in all literature. Such denunciation necessarily provoked the most intense hatred on the part of such Pharisees as were too deeply imbued with the prevailing spirit of the party to be reached by the truth. By this very fact, however, they made it more evident to the people that they deserved all the denunciation which he hurled against them. On the other hand, the Sadducees were so well pleased with his successful assaults upon their hereditary and too powerful enemies, that they forgave, in some degree, his known opposition to their favorite doctrine, and felt for him some friendly sympathy.

With the apostles the relations of these parties were as naturally reversed. Instead of assaulting, in detail, the doctrinal tenets of any party, they confined their labors, at first, to testimony concerning the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. This confirmed the chief distinctive doctrine of the Pharisees, who believed in a resurrection, and it left their other tenets, for the time being, unnoticed. But the whole force of this preaching was leveled against Sadduceean infidelity in reference to the resurrection, and it therefore aroused this party to an activity never exhibited before. They rushed in and arrested Peter and John, "being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead." They were seconded in this violent movement by the priests who were at the time officiating in the temple, and who were either identified with the Sadducees, or were enraged because the apostles, in the very midst of the temple, were drawing away the people from waiting upon their services. The "captain of the temple," with his guard, was doubtless subject to the orders of the chief of the officiating priests, and executed the arrest.

Verse 4
The audience who had been listening to Peter must have been thrown into intense excitement by the arrest, and the disciples among them, doubtless, expected to see re-enacted, in the persons of Peter and John, the murderous scenes which had terminated the life of their master. Notwithstanding this excitement, however, the words of Peter were not without a decided effect upon the hitherto unbelieving portion of his hearers; for Luke says: (4) "But many of those who were hearing the word believed, and the number of the men became about five thousand." Whether this number includes the three thousand who were added on Pentecost or not, has been a matter of some dispute, but it is generally agreed by critics that it does. If those who believed on the present occasion were alone intended, the writer would have said the number en, was, instead of egenethe, became, about five thousand.

Verses 5, 6
The prisoners having been arrested late in the afternoon, all further proceedings were adjourned till the next day, and Peter and John had the quiet of a night in prison for reflection and mutual encouragement ere they were brought to trial. (5) "And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes, (6) and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in Jerusalem." This assembly was the great Jewish Sanhedrim, and the parties here named are the different officials who constituted that tribunal. Who John and Alexander were is not now known. Annas and Caiaphas are historical characters, conspicuous in the history of the trial of Jesus, and also prominent on the pages of Josephus. Between the latter and Luke there is an apparent discrepancy, in reference to their official position at this time, Luke calling Annas the high priest, and Josephus attributing that dignity to Caiaphas. According to Josephus, Valerius Gratus, the immediate predecessor of Pontius Pilate, had removed Annas from the high priesthood, and after having appointed and removed three others, one of them, Eleazar, the son of Annas, finally left Caiaphas in office, when he was superseded by Pilate. [Jos. Ant. B. xviii, chap. 2.] The Apostle John informs us that Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas. [John 18:13-24.] According to the law of Moses the high priest held office during life; hence, in deposing Annas, the Roman governor violated the Jewish Law, and the act was religiously null and void. Annas was still high priest by right, and for this reason is so styled here by Luke. The Jews, also, recognized his right, by taking Jesus before him for trial, though he, not daring to claim the office, sent them to Caiaphas. In his former narrative, Luke also mentions them both as being high priests at the same time. [Luke 3:2.] This is best explained by the fact that one was rightfully entitled to the office, and the other was exercising it by illegal appointment.

The "kindred of the high priest" embraced not only the chief members of his immediate family, but also some of the deposed high priests, who were all, in great probability, connected with the one high priestly family, and thereby entitled to seats in the Sanhedrim.

Verse 7
When the court was assembled, the prisoners were introduced, and the cripple, who had been healed had the boldness to appear by their side. (7) "And placing them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have you done this?"

This is not the first time that Peter and John had been together in the presence of this august assembly. As they gazed around for a moment, and recognized the faces of their judges, they could not fail to remember that terrible morning when their masters stood there in bonds, and they themselves, full of fearful misgivings, stood in a distant part of the hall, and looked on. The fall, and the bitter tears of Peter, on that occasion, were now a warning and a strength to them both, and their very position brought to mind some solemn words of Jesus which had never acquired a present value till now. "Beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in the synagogues, and you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what you shall say. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your father that speaks in you." [Matthew 10:17-20.] Cheered by this promise, they now stand before their accusers and judges with a boldness unaccountable to the latter.

The prisoners had been arrested without a formal charge being preferred against them, and the court was now dependent upon what might be extorted from them, for the ground of their accusation. The question propounded to them is remarkable for its vagueness. By what power, or, in what name, have you done this? Done what? might have been the answer. Done this preaching? or this miracle? or what? The question specified nothing. There was no one particular thing done by Peter, on which they dared fix attention; but they frame an indefinite question, in attempting to answer which they evidently hoped he would say something on which they might condemn him.

Verses 8-10
They could not, however, have asked a question which suited Peter any better. It left him at liberty to select any thing he had done as the subject of reply, and, therefore, he chose to select that deed, which, of all that had been done, they were most unwilling to hear mentioned. He frames his answer, too, with a more direct reference to the other terms of their question, than they either desired or anticipated. (8) "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (9) If we are examined this day concerning the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he had been saved, (10) be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him doth this man stand before you sound." This statement needed no proof, for the Sanhedrim could not deny, with the man standing before them, that the miracle had been wrought, nor could they, with plausibility, attribute the deed to any other power or name than that assumed by Peter. To deny that it was a divine power would have been absurd in the estimation of all the people; but to admit that the power was divine, and yet reject the explanation given by those through whom it was exercised, would have been still more absurd.

Verses 11, 12
Realizing the advantage which he had now gained, Peter pushes his adversaries into still closer quarters, by adding: (11) "This is the stone which was despised by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved." In this passage, he places his proud judges in the ridiculous attitude of searching about vainly for a stone to fit the corner of the foundation, while persistently rejecting the real corner-stone, without which the building can be reared. And, leaving the figurative language of David, he more fully declares, that there is no salvation for man except in the name of the very Jesus whom they had crucified. This proposition is universal, and shows that the redemption effected by Jesus will include every human being who shall finally be saved.

Verses 13, 14
Instead of answering evasively and timidly, as was expected of men in their social position, when arraigned in such a presence, the apostles had unhesitatingly avowed the chief deed of yesterday's proceedings, with the name in which it had been done, stating all in the terms most obnoxious to their hearers. (13) "Now, seeing the freedom of speech of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were illiterate and private men, they were astonished, and recognized them, that they had been with Jesus. (14) But beholding the man who was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it." There was total silence for awhile, when Peter ceased speaking. Not a man in the Sanhedrim could open his mouth in reply to Peter's brief speech. He had avowed every obnoxious sentiment on account of which they had been instigated to arrest him, yet not one of them dares to contradict his words, or to rebuke him for giving them utterance. The silence was painful and embarrassing.

Verses 15, 16
Finally, the silence was broken by a proposition that the prisoners be withdrawn. (15) "And having commanded them to go aside out of the Sanhedrim, they conferred among themselves, (16) saying, What shall we do to these men? For that, indeed, a noted miracle has been wrought by them, is manifest to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we can not deny it." This admission, in their secret deliberations, shows the utter heartlessness and hypocrisy of their proceedings, and it is astonishing that they could any longer give each other countenance in such a course.

Verse 17
The real motive which controlled them, and under the influence of which they kept each other in countenance, was an unconquerable desire to maintain their old influence with the people. This is manifested in the conclusion to which they came. (17) "But, that it may be spread no further among the people, let us strictly threaten them, that they speak, henceforth, to no man in this name." The man who made this proposition no doubt thought that he had most satisfactorily solved a difficult problem, and the majority were too well pleased to find some means of escape from their present awkward predicament, to look very shrewdly into the probable success of the measure proposed. It was a safe course, if not a very bold one, and as there was no obstacle in the way but conscience, the could find no difficulty in pursuing it.

Verse 18
The resolution was no sooner formed than acted upon. (18) "And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus." How Luke learned the particulars of the secret consultation which resulted in this injunction, we are not informed, though it is not difficult to imagine. Gamaliel, Saul's teacher, and perhaps Saul himself, was present as a member of the Sanhedrim; and a great company of the priests themselves afterward became obedient to the faith. [Acts 6:7, below.] These and other conversions from the ranks of the enemy opened up channels for such information in abundance.

Verses 19, 20
The apostles, if at all anxious concerning their personal safety, might have received this stern command in silence, and retired respectfully from the assembly. (19) "But, Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right, in the sight of God, to hearken to you rather than to God, do you judge. (20) For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard." This was an open defiance of their power, with a direct appeal to their own consciences for a vindication of it. The apostles were not willing that their silence should be construed into even a momentary acquiescence in such a command, and they spoke in such a manner as to be distinctly understood.

Verses 21, 22
It was a sore trial to the haughty spirits of the Sanhedrim to brook such defiance; but a desire to conciliate the people, mingled, no doubt, with a secret fear of the consequences of putting to death men who had exercised such power, restrained their wrath. (21) "And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, not finding how they might punish them, because of the people; for all glorified God for what was done. (22) For the man on whom this miracle of healing was wrought was more than forty years of age."

Verses 23-30
The apostles had now humbled the pride of their adversaries, and went away from the assembly in triumph. But they were uninflated by their present prosperity, as they had been undaunted by their recent danger. They had now attained that lofty degree of faith and hope which enables men to maintain a steady calmness amid all the vicissitudes of life. The course they immediately pursued is worthy of remembrance, and of all imitation. (23) "And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported what the high priests and the elders had said to them. (24) And when they heard it, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said: Sovereign Lord, thou God who hast made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them; (25) who through the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? (26) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his anointed. (27) For, of a truth, against thy holy son Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontus Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (28) to do what thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (29) And now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant to thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, (30) by stretching out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy son Jesus." This prayer was uttered by one of the brethren, and the expression, "they lifted up their voice with one accord," indicates the perfect unity of sentiment with which they followed the words of the leader.

In all the prayers of the apostles, we observe strict appropriateness, in the ascription to God with which they open, and a remarkable simplicity in presenting the exact petition, and no more, which the occasion demands. On a former occasion, they had set before him two men, that he might choose one for the apostolic office, and they addressed him as the "heart-knower;" now they desire his protecting power, and they style him the "Sovereign God who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that is in them." They remind him that, according to his own words by David, kings and rulers, in the persons of Herod and Pilate, had risen up against his anointed while the people and the Gentiles were imagining vain things; and they pray him to "behold the threatening," and grant to his servants boldness to speak the word in defiance of all opposition.

In these days of passion and war, in which it is common for prayers to be filled with earnest entreaties for victory over our enemies, and sometimes with terrible maledictions against those who are waging war against our supposed rights, it is quite refreshing to observe the tone of this apostolic prayer. These men were not in danger of losing some mere political power or privilege, but the dearest and most indisputable right they had on earth was denied them, and they were threatened with death if they did not relinquish it; yet, in their prayers, they manifest no vindictive nor resentful spirit; but, in reference to their enemies they simply pray, Lord, behold their threatenings. Their gentle spirits never could have conceived that unblushing impiety which now so often brings men upon their knees for the very purpose of pouring out in the ears of God those violent and destructive passions which he has forbidden us to allow a place even within our hearts. By such prayers men seek to make God a partisan in every angry contention among men, as though he were nothing more than themselves. Much needs to be said upon this unhappy theme, but it can not be said here.

In praying for boldness the apostles give an intimation of the manner in which they expected it to be imparted to them. It was not by some direct and internal spiritual impact, but by external manifestations of his continued presence and favor: "by stretching out his hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be wrought through the name of Jesus."

Verse 31
The prayer for boldness was answered at once, and in the way they had requested. (31) "And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness." The shaking of the house, attended by a conscious renewal of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, gave them the boldness for which they prayed, because it assured them that God was still with them.

Verses 32-35
From this brief account of the first conflict of the young congregation, Luke again turns, to view more minutely the internal condition of the Church. Their religious life was now more fully developed, than at the period glanced at in the close of the second chapter, and his description is more in detail. (32) "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did one of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. (33) And with great power the apostle gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among them who lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to each, as any one had need."

Considering the immense numbers of this congregation, and that they were so suddenly drawn together from every class of society, it is certainly remarkable, and well worthy of a place in this record, that they were "of one heart and of one mind." But the most signal proof of the power of the gospel among them was the almost entire subsidence of selfishness. Among the heathen nations of antiquity, systematic provision of the wants of the poor was unknown; and even among the Jews, whose law was watchful for the welfare of the poor in many respects, those who became insolvent were sold into temporary bondage to pay their debts. It was, therefore, a new thing under the sun, to see a large community selling houses and lands to supply the wants of the poor. It could but give additional weight to all that was said by the apostles, and for this reason Luke breaks the thread of his statements concerning it, to throw in the remark, that "With great power the apostles gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was among all." This remark does not mean that the testimony of the apostles was more distinct or positive, or that it was sustained by more signal miracles than before; for neither of these is possible. But it means that their testimony had more power with the people; and this is attributed to the harmony observed within the Church, together with their unheard-of benevolence, which combined to give them "great favor" with the people.

The fact that distribution was made to each as he had need, shows that it was only the needy who received any thing, and that there was no equalization of property. The sale of property and consecration of the proceeds was voluntary with each individual, and not an established law of the Church. This is evident from the question of Peter to Ananias, below: "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?" [See also 6:1.]

Verses 36, 37
After stating that many brethren who had property sold it, and gave up the proceeds, Luke now gives an individual instance of this liberality, introduced, no doubt, on account of the subsequent celebrity of the individual. (36) "Now Joses, who was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles, (which is, when translated, son of exhortation,) a Levite, a Cyprian by birth, (37) having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles." This surname was given to Joses on account of his excellence in horatory address, and not on account of the consolation which he afforded by his liberality. The original term paraklesis, rendered consolation in the common version, is a verbal noun used to express both the act of the verb parakalein and the effect produced by it. We have no one word in English to represent it in these two senses; but exhortation expresses the act, and consolation the effect. We have, therefore, exhortation eight times in the common version, when the paraklesis is connected with the agent, [13:15; Romans 12:8,1Co+14:3,1Th+2:3,1Ti+4:13; Hebrews 12:5; 8:17.] but always consolation when the reference is to the recipient. As Barnabas is contemplated at the agent, in this case, it should be exhortation, not consolation. This criticism is confirmed by the history of Barnabas. When the Church in Jerusalem heard that a congregation was planted in Antioch, they sent Barnabas thither, who "exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to the Lord." [Acts 11:23.] This exhorting being the object for which he was sent, his selection for the mission indicates his superiority in that kind of talent. Perhaps it was chiefly on account of this talent, in which Paul was deficient, that Barnabas became the traveling companion of this apostle. It is a talent much more rare than mere logical power, and has always been highly prized by the Churches.

It is quite probable that the land sold by Barnabas constituted his whole estate. Having no family dependent on him, he consecrated his life to unrequited missionary labor. [1 Corinthians 9:6.]

CHAPTER 3

Verses 1-10
III. 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.

Verses 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. [See below, on verse 17.] The facts declared were undeniable, except the resurrection, and of this the men who had just healed the cripple were the witnesses.

Verse 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, [Acts 19:13.] 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." [Matthew 17:19,20.] In answer to their prayers, also, many miracles were wrought, but it was only "the prayer of faith" which could heal the sick. [James 5:15.] 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.

Verses 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.

Verses 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 [Receive (common version) is the literal meaning of the originaldekasthai, but it is certainly used here in the sense of retain. Heaven had already received him; it was yet toretain him.] 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." [2 Corinthians 7:10.] 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, [Luke 17:4.] 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. [For the suggestion of this criticism, I am indebted to my friend andbrother, H. T. Anderson.] 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." [Hebrews 12:17.] 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. [In perfecting this definition, I am indebted to Prof. W. K. Pendleton, of Bethany College, for valuable suggestions.]

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 [Galatians 4:9,2Pe+2:21.] 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; [Luke 1:16,17; Acts 26:18; James 5:19,20.] 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. [It is gratifying to observe that the incipient version of the AmericanBible Union corresponds to the views here expressed.]

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. [Hackett.] 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.

Verses 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. [Deuteronomy 18:15-19.] (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.

Verse 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.

Verses 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. [See Galatians 3:7-9, et al.) ]

CHAPTER 2

Original Commentary on Acts

Verse 1

Thus far our author has been engaged in preliminary statements, which were necessary to the proper introduction of his main theme. He has furnished us a list of the eleven apostles, and the appointment of the twelfth; rehearsed briefly their qualifications as witnesses of the resurrection; informed us that they were in Jerusalem, dwelling in an upper room, but spending the most of their time in the temple, and waiting for the promised power to inaugurate on earth the kingdom of Christ. He now proceeds to give an account of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and enters upon the main theme of the narrative,
(1) "When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place."
The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the Passover. It was celebrated, according to the law of Moses, by offering the first fruits of the wheat harvest, in the form of two loaves made of fine flour. [Leviticus 23:15-17.] On account of the seven weeks intervening between it and the Passover, it is styled, in the Old Testament, "the feast of weeks." But the fact that it occurred on the fiftieth day, gave it, in later ages, under the prevalence of the Greek language, the name of Pentecost, which is a Greek adjective meaning fiftieth.
This is one of the three annual festivals at which the law required every male Jew of the whole nation to be present. [Exodus 23:14-17.] The condemnation and death of Jesus had occurred during one of these feasts, and now, the next universal gathering of the devout Jews is most wisely chosen as the occasion for the vindication of his character and the beginning of his kingdom. It is the day on which the law was given on Mount Sinai, and henceforth it is to commemorate the giving of a better law, founded on better promises. It is remarkable that the day of giving the law was celebrated throughout the Jewish ages, without one word in the Old Testament to indicate that it was designed to commemorate that event. In like manner, the day of the week on which the Holy Spirit descended has been celebrated from that time till this, though no formal reason is given in the New Testament for its observance. The absence of inspired explanations, however, has not left the world in doubt upon the latter subject; for the two grand events which occurred on that day -- the resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are of such transcendent importance, that all minds at once agree in attributing to them, and especially to the former, the celebration of the day.
That we are right in assuming that this Pentecost occurred on the first day of the week, there is no room for doubt, though Dr. Hackett advocates a different hypothesis. After stating that the Lord was crucified on Friday, he says, "The fiftieth day, or Pentecost (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the Passover) would occur on the Jewish Sabbath." He seems to have forgotten, for the moment, that Friday was "preparation day," [John 19:31.] and that Saturday was, therefore, the first day of unleavened bread. [Leviticus 23:5-7.] According to the law, the count began on "the morrow after" this day, which was Sunday. [23:15.] Counting seven full weeks and one day from that time, would throw the fiftieth day, or Pentecost on Sunday, beginning at six o'clock Saturday evening, and closing at the same hour Sunday evening. As certainly as Jesus arose on Sunday, he died on Friday; and as certainly as this Friday was the preparation day of the Passover, so certainly did the Pentecost occur on Sunday.
Why Luke uses the expression, "When the day of Pentecost was fully come," is best explained in this way. The day began with sunset, and the first part of it was night, which was unsuited for the purpose of these events. The day was not fully come until daylight.
It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke to be "all with one accord in one place;" for upon this depends the question whether the whole hundred and twenty disciples, or only the twelve apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words are almost uniformly referred, by commentators, to the hundred and twenty. Any who will read Acts 2:1-4, noticing the connection of the pronoun "they," which occurs in each of them, will see, at a glance, that it has, throughout, the same antecedent, and, therefore, all the parties said in Acts 2:1 to be together in one place, are said in Acts 2:4 to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and to speak in other tongues. The question, then, Who were filled with the Holy Spirit? depends upon the reference of the pronoun in the statement, "They were all together in one place." Those who suppose that the whole hundred and twenty are referred to, have to go back to the Acts 1:15 to find the antecedent. But, if we obliterate the unfortunate separation between the first and second chapters, and take the Acts 1:26 into its connection with Acts 2:1, we will find the true and obvious antecedent much nearer at hand. It would read thus: "The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." It is indisputable that the antecedent to they is the term apostles; and it is merely the division of the text into chapters, severing the close grammatical connection of the words, which has hid this most obvious fact from commentators and readers. The apostles alone, therefore, are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is not only evident from the context, but it is required by the very terms of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit. It was to the apostles alone, on the night of the betrayal, that Jesus had promised the miraculous aid of the Spirit, and to them alone he had said, on the day of ascension, "You shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit." It involves both a perversion of the text, and a misconception of the design of the event, [See below, on verses 3, 4.] to suppose that the immersion in the Holy Spirit was shared by the whole hundred and twenty.

Verse 2
It was the apostles, then, and they alone, who were assembled together: (2) "And suddenly there came a sound out of heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting." What house this was has been variously conjectured; but the supposition of Olshausen, that it was one of the thirty spacious rooms around the temple court, described by Josephus and called oikoi, houses, is most agreeable to all the facts. Wherever it was, the crowd described below gathered about them, and this required more space than any private house would afford, especially the upper room where the apostles had been lodging.

Verses 3, 4
Simultaneous with the sound, (3) "There appeared to them tongues, distributed, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." This is the immersion in the Holy Spirit which had been promised by Jesus, and for which the apostles had been waiting since his ascension. It is highly important that we should understand in which it consisted, and the necessity for its occurrence.
There is not, in the New Testament, a definition of the immersion in the Holy Spirit, but we have here what is possibly better, a living instance of its occurrence. The historian gives us a distinct view of men in the act of being immersed in the Spirit, so that, in order to understand it, we have to look on, and tell what we see and hear. We see, then, flaming tongues, like flames of fire, distributed so that one rests upon each of the twelve apostles. In the clause, "it sat upon each of them," the singular pronoun it is used after the plural tongues, to indicate that not all, but only one of the tongues sat upon each apostle, the term distributed having already suggested the contemplation of them singly. We see this, and we hear all twelve at once speaking in languages to them unknown. We see a divine power present with these men, for to no other power can we attribute these tongues. We hear the unmistakable effects of a divine power acting upon their minds; for no other power could give them an instantaneous knowledge of language which they had never studied. The immersion, therefore, consists in their being so filled with the Holy Spirit as to be attended by a miraculous physical power, and to exercise a miraculous intellectual power. If there is any other endowment conferred upon them, the historian is silent in reference to it, and we have no right to assume it. Their ability to speak in other languages is not an effect upon their tongues directly, but merely a result of the knowledge imparted to them. Neither are we to regard the nature of the sentiments uttered by them as proof of any miraculous moral endowment; for pious sentiments are the only kind which the Spirit of God would dictate, and they are such as these men, who had been for some time "continually in the temple, praising and blessing God," [Luke 24:53.] and "continuing with one consent in prayer and supplication," [Acts 1:14.] would be expected to utter, if they spoke in public at all.
We have already said something of the necessity of this event; [Com. i: 2.] but, at the risk of some repetition, we must here advert to the subject again. What the apostles needed, at this point in their history, was not moral courage, or devoutness of spirit; for they had already recovered from the alarm produced by the crucifixion, and were now boldly entering the temple together every day, and spending their whole time in devout worship. Their defects were such as no degree of courage or of piety could supply. It was power that they wanted--power to remember all that Jesus had taught them; to understand the full meaning of all his words; of his death; of his resurrection; to pierce the heavens, and declare with certainty things which had transpired there; and to know the whole truth concerning the will of God and the duty of men. There is only one source from which this power could be derived, and this the Savior had promised them, when he said, "You shall receive power (dunamin,) when the Holy Spirit comes upon you." [1:8.] This power they now received, and upon the exercise of it depends the entire authority of apostolic teaching.
But power to establish the kingdom and to proselyte the world involved not merely the possession of the miraculous mental power above named, but the ability to prove that they did not possess it. This could best be done by an indisputable exercise of it. To exercise it, however, by merely beginning to speak the truth infallibly, would not answer the purpose, for men would inquire, How can you assure us that this which you speak is the truth? To answer this question satisfactorily, they gave such an exhibition of the superhuman knowledge which they possessed as could be tested by their hearers. They might have done this by penetrating the minds of the auditors, and declaring to them their secret thoughts or past history; but this would have addressed itself to only one individual at a time. Or they might, like the prophets of old, have foretold some future event, the occurrence of which would prove their inspiration; but this would have required some considerable lapse of time, and would not, therefore, have answered the purpose of immediate conviction. There is, indeed, but one method conceivable, by which they could exhibit this power to the immediate conviction of a multitude, and that is the method adopted on this occasion, speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. If any man doubts this, let him imagine and state, if he can, some other method. True, they might have wrought miracles of healing, but this would have been no exhibition of miraculous mental endowments. If wrought in confirmation of the claim that they were inspired, it would have proved it; still, the proof would have been indirect, requiring the minds of the audience to pass through a course of reasoning before reaching the conclusion. The proof, in this case, is direct, being an exhibition of the power which they claimed. By the only method, then, of which we can conceive, the apostles, as soon as they became possessed of the promised power, exhibited to the multitude an indisputable exercise of it.
It should be observed, that this exhibition could be available to its purpose only when individuals were present who understood the languages spoken. Otherwise, they would have no means of testing the reality of the miracle. Hence, to serve the purpose of proof where this circumstance did not exist, the apostles were supplied with the power of working physical miracles; and inasmuch as this circumstance did not often exist in the course of their ministry, they had resort almost uniformly to the indirect method of proof by a display of miraculous physical power.

Verse 5
The circumstances of the present occasion were happily suited to this wonderful display of divine power, the like of which had never been witnessed, even in the astonishing miracles of Moses and of Jesus. (5) "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven." The native tongues of these Jews were those of the nations in which they were born, but they had also been instructed by their parents in the dialect of Judea. This enabled them to understand the tongues which were spoken by the apostles, and to test the reality of the miracle.

Verses 6-12
"And when this sword occurred, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect." The historian here seems to exhaust his vocabulary of terms to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing the scene. Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds, (7) "And all were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these are speaking Galileans? (8) And how do we hear, each one in our own dialect in which we were born? (9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, (10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene; and Roman strangers, both Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretes and Arabians; we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." Not yet satisfied with his attempts to express their feelings, Luke adds, (12) "And they were all amazed, and perplexed, saying one to another, What does this mean?"
Verse 13
We have in this last sentence an instance of the peculiar use of the term all in the New Testament, to signify a great mass; for after saying that "all were amazed," etc. Luke immediately adds, (13) "But others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine." The wine was not new, as rendered in the common version; for new wine was not intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, though by a peculiar process it had been kept sweet. [See Hackett.]
In order that we may discriminate accurately concerning the effects of this phenomenon, we must observe that the only effects thus far produced upon the multitude, are perplexity and amazement among the greater part, and merriment among the few. It was impossible that any of them, without an explanation, could understand the phenomenon; and without being understood, it could have no moral or religious effect upon them. It was, indeed, quite natural, that some of the audience, to whom most of the languages spoken at first sounded like mere gibberish, and who were of too trivial a disposition to inquire further into the matter, should exclaim that the apostles were drunk. This being true of the phenomenon while unexplained, it is evident that all the moral power which it is to exert upon the multitude must reach their minds and hearts through the words in which the explanation is given. To this explanation our attention is now directed.
Verses 14, 15
"Then Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said to them, Men of Judea, and all you who dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and hearken to my words: (15) for these men are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." After all that has been said of this defense against the charge of drunkenness, it must be admitted that it is not conclusive; for men might be drunk, as they often were and are, at any hour of either day or night. Still, the fact that men are not often found drunk so early in the day, rendered the defense sufficiently plausible to ward off the present effect of a charge which had been preferred in mere levity, while Peter relies upon the speech he is about to make for a perfect refutation of the charge, and for an impression upon the multitude, of which they little dreamed. He proceeds to speak in such a way as only a sober man could speak, and this is the best way to refute a charge of drunkenness.
Verses 16-18
Peter continues: (16) "But this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel; (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (18) And on my men-servants and on my maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out from my Spirit, and they shall prophesy."
From this passage it is evident that the immediate effects of the outpouring of the Spirit, so far as the recipients are concerning, are mental, and not moral effects. The prophesy contemplates, not a miraculous elevation of the moral nature, but an inspiration of the mind, by which prophesy, and prophetic dreams and visions would be experienced. If the entrance of the Holy Spirit into men, to operate by an abstract exertion of divine power, which is certainly the nature of the operation here contemplated, was designed to take effect immediately upon the heart, it is certainly most unaccountable, that neither by the prophet foretelling the event, not by Luke describing it, is one word said in reference to such an effect. On the contrary, the only effects foretold by the prophet are dreams, visions, and prophesy, and the only one described by the historian is that species of prophesy which consists in speaking in unknown tongues. We desire to note such observations as this, wherever the text suggests them, in order to correct prevailing errors upon this subject. It will be found the uniform testimony of recorded facts, that the power of the Holy Spirit took immediate effect upon the intellectual faculties, leaving the moral nature of inspired men to the effect of the ideas revealed, in precisely the same manner that the hearts of their hearers were affected by the same ideas when uttered by inspired lips. [See further on this subject, Com. x: 9, 16.]
It is quite common with pedobaptist writers and speakers to make use of the expression, "I will pour out my Spirit," to prove that pouring may be the action of baptism. The substance of the argument, as stated by Dr. Alexander, [Com. i: 5.] as follows: "The extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit are repeatedly described, both in the language and the types of the Old Testament, as poured on the recipient. . . . This effusion is the very thing for which they (the apostles) are here told to wait; and therefore, when they heard it called a baptism, whatever may have been the primary usage of the word, they must have seen its Christian sense to be compatible with such an application." That the apostles must have expected something to occur, in their reception of the Holy Spirit, to which the term baptism would properly apply, is undoubtedly true, for Jesus had promised that they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But, in the event itself, there are two facts clearly distinguishable, and capable of separate consideration: 1st. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon them, called an outpouring. 2d. The effect which followed this coming. It is important to inquire to which of these the term baptism is applied. Dr. Alexander, and those who argue with him, assume that it is applied to the former. He says, "This effusion is the very thing," which they had "heard called a baptism." If this assumption is true, then the conclusion follows, that baptism consisted in that movement of the Spirit expressed by the word pour: otherwise there would be no ground for the assumption that the word pour is used as an equivalent for the word baptize. If the act of pouring, then, was the baptism, most undoubtedly the thing poured, was the thing baptized; but it was the Holy Spirit that was poured, and not the apostles; hence, the Holy Spirit, and not the apostles, was baptized.
The absurdity of this conclusion drives us back to search for the baptism in the effect of the outpouring, rather than in the outpouring itself. This, indeed, the language of the Savior unquestionably requires; for he says, "You shall be baptized." These words express an effect of which they were to be the subjects. This effect can not be expressed by the term pour, for the apostles were not and could not be poured. The effect was to depend upon the coming or pouring; for Jesus explains the promise, "You shall be baptized in the Spirit," by saying, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you." This is still further proof that it is an effect which the outpouring of the Spirit produced, that is called a baptism. But if it be said, that, at any rate, we have here a baptism effected by pouring, we reply that this very fact proves the baptism and the pouring to be two different things; and that an immersion may be effected by pouring.
We further remark, that there was no literal pouring in the case; for the Holy Spirit is not a liquid, that it might be literally poured. The term pour, here, is used metaphorically. In our vague conception of the nature of Spirit, there is such an analogy between it and a subtle fluid, that the action, which, in the plain style of the Savior, is called a coming of the Spirit, may, in the highly figurative style of the prophet Joel, be properly styled an outpouring of the Spirit. The analogy, therefore, which justifies the use of the word pour, is not that between baptism and the act of pouring, but that between a subtle fluid and our inadequate conceptions of spirit.
We now proceed to consider the propriety of styling the effect in question an immersion. When Jesus said, "John baptized in water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit," his words suggested an analogy between John's baptism and that of the Spirit. But they could not have so far mistaken this analogy as to suppose that their bodies were to be subjects of the Spirit baptism, for this is forbidden by the very nature of the case. But they would naturally expect that their spirits would be the subjects of the baptism in the Spirit, as their bodies had been of the baptism in water. The event corresponded to this expectation; for they were "filled with the Holy Spirit;" he pervaded and possessed all their mental powers, so that, as Jesus had promised, it was not they that spoke, but the Spirit of their Father that spoke in them. [Matthew 10:20.] Their spirits were as literally and completely immersed in the Holy Spirit, as their bodies had been in the waters of Jordan.
Verses 19-21
So much of Peter's quotation from Joel as we have now considered was in process of fulfillment at the time he was speaking, and is of quite easy interpretation; but not so with the remaining portion: (19) "And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky vapor. (20) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and illustrious day of the Lord come. (21) And it shall come to pass that every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
It is quite evident that there was nothing transpiring at the time of Peter's speech to which the multitude could look as the fulfillment of these words; hence the remark with which he introduces the quotation, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," is to be understood only of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The remainder of the prediction must have still looked to the future for its fulfillment. How far in the future is not indicated, expect that the events mentioned were to take place, "before that great and illustrious day of the Lord." This day of the Lord is certainly spoken of as a day of terror and danger; and no doubt the salvation contemplated in the words, "every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," is salvation from the dangers of "that great and illustrious day." The interpretation of the whole passage, therefore, depends upon determining what is meant by that day. Is it the day of destruction of Jerusalem, or of the final judgment? The best way to settle this question is to examine the use of the phrase, "day of the Lord," in both Old Testament and New.
In the of the second chapter of Joel, the phrase "day of the Lord" occurs three times, and designates a time when the land should be desolated by locusts, insects, and drought. But with the passage now under consideration, in the latter part of the same chapter, the prophet begins a new theme, and therefore speaks of some other great and terrible day. Throughout the prophesies of Joel, and of all the Old Testament prophets, this phrase is used invariably to designate a day of disaster. Isaiah calls the time in which Babylon was to be destroyed, "the day of the Lord," and says of it, "The stars of heaven, and the constellations thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine." [Isaiah 13:9-11.] Ezekiel, in like manner, foretelling the desolation of Egypt, says, "The day of the Lord is near; a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen." [Ezekiel 30:3.] Obadiah uses the same phrase in reference to the destruction of Edom; [Obadiah 1:15.] Amos, in reference to the captivity of Israel; [Amos 5:18.] and Zechariah, in reference to the final siege of Jerusalem. [Zechariah 14:1.] And induction of these passages establishes the conclusion that "the day of the Lord," with the prophets, is always a day of calamity, the precise nature of which is to be determined in each case by the context. In some cases the context is so obscure as not to determine the reference with certainty. The text before us possesses some of this obscurity, yet with the aid of the above remarks, and the use made of the passage by Peter, we may determine the reference with no small degree of certainty.
It is evident from Peter's application of the first part of the quotation to the the advent of the Spirit, that the latter part, which is contemplated as still future, was to be fulfilled after the scene then transpiring. Now, if the dangers of the day, as indicated by the words employed, were such as concerned the Jews alone, there would be good ground to suppose that reference was had to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the parties contemplated in the prophesy are "all flesh;" therefore, all classes of men are embraced in the prophetic view, and the "day of the Lord" must, according to Old Testament usage, be a day of terror in which all are interested. But in the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews alone had any thing to dread; hence this can not be the reference. It must, then, be the day of judgment; for this is the only day of pre-eminent terror yet awaiting all mankind.
This conclusion is confirmed by the invariable usage of New Testament writers. The apostolic writings afford little ground indeed for the prominence that has been given to commentators to the destruction of Jerusalem, in their interpretations of prophesy. There was another and far different day, in their future, to which they gave the appellation, "the day of the Lord." Paul says, "Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." [1 Corinthians 5:5.] "We are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus." [2 Corinthians 1:14.] "Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night." [1 Thessalonians 5:2.] "But the day of the Lord will comes as a thief in the night." [2 Peter 3:10.] These are all the occurrences of this expression in the New Testament, and they show conclusively that "the day of the Lord," with the apostles, was the day of judgment.
The great and illustrious day must not be confounded with the "signs and wonders" mentioned by the prophet; for these are to occur before that day. Whatever may be the exact symbolic meaning of the "blood and fire, and smoky vapor," and the darkening of the sun and moon, they represent events which are to take place before the day of judgment.
Having now determined the reference of the day in question, we can at once decide what salvation is contemplated in the declaration, "Every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." The only salvation connected with the day of judgment is the salvation from sin and death. The reference, therefore, is to this, and not to salvation from the destruction of Jerusalem.
This salvation is made to depend upon calling on the name of the Lord, an expression equivalent to prayer. It is, of course, acceptable prayer which is intended, and it therefore implies the existence of that disposition and conduct necessary to acceptable worship. Certainly no one calling upon the name of the Lord while persisting in disobedience can be included in this promise.
Thus far, in his discourse, Peter has directed his attention to the single object of proving the inspiration of himself and his associates. This was logically necessary previous to the utterance of a single word by authority, and most logically has he conducted his argument. The amazement of the people, upon beholding the miraculous scene, was a tacit acknowledgment of their inability to account for it. They were well prepared, therefore, to hear Peter's explanation. But if even he had attributed the effects which they witnessed to any less than divine power, they must have rejected his explanation as unsatisfactory. The question with them, indeed, was not, whether this was a divine or human manifestation, but, admitting its divinity, they asked one another, "What does this mean?" When, therefore, Peter simply declares, that this is a fulfillment of Joel's prophesy concerning the outpouring of the Spirit of God, they had no alternative but to receive his explanation, while the fact that it was a fulfillment of prophesy gave to it additional solemnity.
If Peter had closed his discourse at this point, the multitude would have gone away convinced of his inspiration, but not one of them would have been converted. All this has yet been said and done is preparatory; a necessary preparation for what is to follow. We are yet to search for the exact influence which turned their minds and hearts toward Jesus Christ.
Verses 22-24
It is impossible, at this distance of space and time, to realize, even in a faint degree, the effect upon the minds so wrought up and possessed of such facts, produced by the announcement next made by Peter. (22) "Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you yourselves know; (23) him, delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; (24) whom God has raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held under it." Filled with amazement, as they were already, by a visible and audible manifestation of the Spirit of God, they now see that the whole of this amazing phenomenon is subservient to the name of the Nazarene whom they had despised and crucified. This conviction is brought home to them, too, in a sentence so replete with overwhelming facts, as to make them reel and stagger under a succession of fearful blows rapidly repeated. In one breath they have just heard no less than seven startling propositions:
1st. That Jesus had been approved by God among them, by miracles and wonders and signs which God had done by him.
2d. That they, themselves, knew this to be so.
3d. That it was not from impotence on his part, but in accordance with the purpose and foreknowledge of God, that he was yielded up to them.
4th. That when thus yielded up they had put him to death, by the torture of crucifixion.
5th. That they had done this with wicked hands. 7th. That it was not possible that death should hold him.
Here is a complete epitome of the four gospels, condensed into one short sentence. The name "Jesus of Nazareth" brought vividly before their minds a well-known personage, and all his illustrious history flashes across their memory. The first assertion concerning him is an appeal to his miracles as a demonstration that he was from God. There is no need of argument to make this demonstration clear; nor of evidence to prove the reality of the miracles; for they were done "in your midst, as you yourselves also know." The fearfulness of the murder is magnified by the thought, that he had been voluntarily delivered to them, in accordance with a deliberate purpose of God long ago declared by the prophets. The manner of his death makes it more fearful still. They had nailed him to the cross, and compelled him to die like a felon. These things being so, how penetrating the appeal to their consciences, "with wicked hands you have crucified and slain him!" This was no time for nice distinctions between what a man does himself, and what he does by another. The "wicked hands" are not, as some suppose, the hands of Roman soldiers, who had performed the actual work of his execution, but the hands of wicked Jews. Here, before him, were the very persons who had been assembled but fifty days before at the Passover, and had taken a hand in the proceedings of that awful day. He appeals to their individual consciousness of guilt; and this gives an intensity to the effect of his discourse upon their hearts, which it could not otherwise have possessed. Conscious of fearful guilt in having thus cruelly murdered the attested servant of God; and suddenly revealed to themselves as actors in the darkest scene of prophetic vision, how shall they endure the additional thought, that God has raised the crucified from the dead? Never did mortal lips pronounce, in so brief a space, so many thoughts of so terrific import to the hearers. We might challenge the world to find a parallel to it in the speeches of all her orators, or the songs of all her poets. There is not, indeed, such a thunderbolt in the burdens of all the prophets of Israel, nor among the mighty voices which echo through the pages of the Apocalypse. It is the first announcement to the world of a risen and glorified Redeemer.
Verses 25-28
There are two points in this announcement which required proof, and to the presentation of this Peter immediately proceeds. Having stated that Jesus was delivered according to the determined purpose of God, he now quotes that purpose as expressed by David in the Psalms 16:8-11. (25) "For David says concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face; for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. (26) Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad. Moreover, my flesh shall rest in hope; (27) because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. (28) Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance." Only so much of this quotation as refers to the resurrection suits the special purpose of the speaker, the preceding portion serving only to connectedly introduce it.
The words, "Thou shalt make known to me the ways of life," constitute the affirmative assertion of a restoration to life, which had been negatively expressed, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption" The words "Thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance," no doubt refer to that joy set before Jesus, for which "he endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at the right hand of the throne of God." [Hebrews 12:2.]
It is commonly agreed among interpreters, that in the sentence, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption," there is no distinction intended between the condition of the soul and that of the body; but that the whole is merely equivalent to the statement, Thou wilt not leave me among the dead. I am constrained, however, to adopt the opinion advanced, but not defended, by Olshausen, that the apostle does intend to fix our attention upon the body and soul of Jesus separately. The most obvious reason for this opinion is the fact that his body and soul are spoken of separately, and with separate reference to their respective places of abode during the period of death. The soul can not see corruption, neither can the body go into hades; but when men die, ordinarily, their bodies see corruption, and their souls enter, not the grave, but hades. The words in question declare, in reference to both the body and soul of Jesus, that which must have occurred in his resurrection, that the one was not left in hades, neither did the other see corruption. The apostle, in commenting upon them, makes the distinction still more marked, by saying, (verse 31, below), "He spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not be left in hades, nor his flesh see corruption." Why do both the prophet and the apostle so carefully make the distinction, unless they wish to fix attention upon it?
The term hades designates the place of disembodied spirits. It is, as its etymology indicates, (a, privative; idein, to see) the unseen. The Greeks were good at giving names to things. When they watched a friend sinking into the arms of death, they could see, by the motion of the frame and the light of the eye, the continued presence of the soul, until at last, the muscles were all motionless, and the eye fixed and leaden. They could still see the body, and after it had been deposited in the grave they could revisit it and see it again. But where is the soul? You see it no longer. There are no signs of its presence. It is gone; and its invisible abode they call hades, the unseen. That the soul of Jesus entered hades is undeniable. That it returned again to the body at the resurrection is asserted by Peter; and it is this return which was predicted by the prophet, and which caused the exultation both of himself and the apostle.
The resurrection of Jesus is not appreciated by the religious world now, as it was by the apostles. As respects the return of his soul from hades, Protestant writers have fled so far from the justly-abhorred purgatory of the Catholic, and the gloomy soul-sleeping of the Materialist, that they have passed beyond the Scripture doctrine, and either ignore altogether the existence of an intermediate state, or deny that the souls of the righteous are short of ultimate happiness during this period. On the other hand, they have so great a tendency to absolute spiritualism in their conceptions of the future state, that they fail to appreciate the necessity for the resurrection of the body of Jesus, or to exult, as the apostles did, in anticipation of the resurrection of their own bodies. As long as men entertain the idea that their spirits enter into final bliss and glory immediately after death, they can never be made to regard the resurrection of the body as a matter of importance. This idea has been produced a general skepticism among the masses, in reference to a resurrection of the body; for men are very apt to doubt the certainty of future events for which they see no necessity. As respects the resurrection of the body of Jesus, the most popular conception of its necessity is no doubt this, that it was merely to comply with the predictions of the prophets and of Jesus himself. It would be far more rational to suppose that it was made a subject of prophesy, because there was some grand necessity that it should occur.
It would occupy too much space, in a work of this kind, to fully develop this subject, we must, therefore, content ourselves with only a few observations, the complete vindication of the correctness of which we must forego.
When the eternal Word became flesh, he assumed all the limitations and dependencies which belong to men; "for it behooved him to be made in all things like his brethren." [2:17.] One of these limitations was the inability to work without a body; hence, to him, as well as to his brethren, there was a night coming in which he could not work. He says, "I must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; the night is coming when no man can work." [John 9:4.] This night can not be the period after the resurrection, for then he did work. It must, then, be the period of death, while his soul was absent from his body. During this period, he himself asserts, he could do no work, and certainly neither history nor prophesy refer to any work which he then did. It was the Jewish Sabbath among the living, and he observed it with absolute stillness in hades. If he had appeared to his disciples, as angels appear to men, convincing them that he was still alive, and could then have gone to heaven in his mere spiritual nature, who could say there was any necessity for a resurrection of that body in which all his sufferings were endured, and through which all temptations had reached him? But he could not be. Hades was to him a night of inactivity, as it is to all his disciples, though to neither is it a state of unconsciousness. If it had continued forever, then the further work of redemption, which could only be effected by a mediator in heaven, a Christ on the throne, sending down the Holy Spirit, directing the labors of men and angels, and finally raising the dead to judgment, would have remained undone forever. It was this thought which caused the exultation of the apostles, in view of the recovery of his soul from the inactivity of hades, and its reunion with the uncorrupted and now incorruptible body. "He was delivered for our offenses," but "was raised again for our justification." [Romans 4:25.] His death was the atonement, enabling God to be just in justifying those who believe on Jesus; but his resurrection enabled him to enter heaven with his own blood, securing eternal redemption for us. The resurrection was, therefore, an imperious necessity in his case, and it will be in ours; for not till he comes again will we enter the mansions he is preparing for us, and receive the crown of righteousness which he will give to all them, who love his appearing. [John 14:2,3,2Ti+4:8.]
Verses 29-31
Having exhibited, in the quotation from David, "the determined purpose, and foreknowledge of God," in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, the apostle, never overlooking the logical necessities of his argument, next considers the only objection which his hearers would likely to urge against his prophetic proof. In the words quoted, David speaks in the first person, and this might lead some to object, that he was speaking of himself, and not of the Messiah. If, however, it be proved that he did not speak of himself, they would readily admit that he spoke in the name of the Christ. Peter proves this, in these words: (29) "Brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us to this day. (30) Being a prophet, then, and knowing that God had sworn to him, that from the fruit of his loins he would raise up the Christ, according to the flesh, to sit on his throne; (31) foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in hades, neither did his flesh see corruption." David's own flesh having seen corruption, as they themselves admitted, and his soul being still in hades, there was no alternative but to admit that he spoke of the Messiah. This brief argument not only refuted the supposed objection, but opened the minds of his hearers, to an entirely new conception of the prophetic throne of David, and of the Messiah, who was to occupy it; showing, that instead of being the ruler of an earthly kingdom, however, glorious, he was to sit upon the throne of the whole universe.
Verses 32, 33
Thus far in his argument, the speaker has proved that the Messiah must rise from the dead to ascend his throne; but he has yet to prove that Jesus was thus raised, and was, therefore, the Messiah of whom David had spoken. He proves the resurrection by the testimony of himself and the eleven other witnesses standing with him: (32) "This Jesus has God raised up, of which we are all witnesses." Here the twelve unimpeached witnesses testifying to a sensible fact, and presenting their testimony with all the authority belonging to miraculously attested messengers from God. This was sufficient, as to the resurrection. But it must also be proved that after he arose he ascended to heaven and sat down upon his throne. It would be unavailing, for this purpose, to urge the fact that the twelve had seen him ascend; for their eyes had followed him no further than the cloud which received him out of sight. But he presents, in proof, this immersion in the Holy Spirit, which the multitude were witnessing, and which could be effected by no one beneath the throne of God. (33) "Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear." What they then saw and heard was both the proof that he who sent it down had ascended the throne of heaven, and the assurance that Peter spoke by divine authority in declaring this fact.
Verses 34, 35
One more point established, not so much in proof of the exaltation of Christ, as to show that it also was a subject of prophesy, and this inimitable argument will be complete. (34) "For David has not ascended into the heavens, but he himself says, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, (35) until I make thy foes thy footstool." The Pharisees themselves admitted that in this passage David referred to the Messiah, and had been much puzzled by the admission in a memorable conversation with Jesus; [Matthew 22:42-46.] but Peter, unwilling to take any thing as granted, which might afterward be made a ground of objection, carefully guards the application, as he had done that of the previous quotation by David, by the remark that David himself had not ascended to heaven; hence, he could not, in these words, be speaking of himself. This admitted, it must be granted that he spoke of the Messiah, for certainly David would call no other his Lord.
Verse 36
The progressive advances of his argument being now complete, those of them which needed proof being sustained by conclusive evidence, and the remainder consisting in facts well known to his audience, he announces his final conclusion in these bold and confident terms: (36) "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ."
Verse 37
It has already been observed, that up to the moment in which Peter arose to address the audience, although the immersion in the Holy Spirit had occurred, and its effects had been fully witnessed by the people, no change had taken place in their minds in reference to Jesus Christ, neither did they experience any emotion, except confusion and amazement at a phenomenon which they could not comprehend. This fact proves, conclusively, that there was no power in the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit, which they witnesses, in itself alone, to produce in them the desired change. All the power which belonged to this event must have come short of the desired effect, but for a medium distinct from itself, through which it reached the minds and hearts of the people. The medium was the words of Peter. He spoke; and when he had announced the conclusion of his argument, Luke says: (37) "Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?" In this exclamation there is a manifest confession that they believe what Peter has preached to them; and Luke's declaration that they were pierced to the heart shows that they felt intensely the power of the facts which they now believed. Since Peter began to speak, therefore, a change has taken place both in their convictions and their feelings. They are convinced that Jesus is the Christ, and they are pierced to the heart with anguish at the thought of having murdered him. In the mean time, not a word is said of any influence at work upon them, except that of the words spoken by Peter; hence we conclude that the change in their minds and hearts has been effected through those words. This conclusion was also drawn by Luke himself; for in saying, "when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and cried out," he evidently attributes their emotion and their outcry to what they heard, as the cause of both.
If Luke had regarded the change effected as one which could be produced only by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, he could not have expressed himself in these words, for his language not only entirely ignores such an influence, but attributes the effect to a different instrumentality. We understand him, therefore, to teach that the whole change thus far effected in these men was produced through the word of truth which they heard from Peter.
Let it be observed, however, that what they had heard concerning Christ, they had heard not as the words of the mere man Peter; for, previous to introducing the name of Jesus, he had clearly demonstrated the inspiration of himself and the other apostles. This being established beyond the possibility of rational doubt, from the moment that he began to speak of Jesus they were listening to him as an inspired man. But the Jews had long since learned to ascribe to the words of inspired men all the authority of the Spirit who spoke through them; hence this audience realized that all the power to convince and to move, that the authority of God himself could impart to words, belonged to the words of Peter. If they could believe God, they must believe the oracles of God which find utterance through Peter's lips. They do believe, and they believe because the words they hear are recognized as the words of God. Faith, then, comes by hearing the word of God; and he who hears the admitted word of God, must believe, or deny that God speaks the truth. This is true, whether the word is heard from the lips of the inspired men who originally gave it utterance, or is received through other authentic channels. The power by which the word of God produces faith is all derived from the fact that it is the word of God.
No words, whether of men or of God, can effect moral changes in the feelings of the hearer, unless they are believed; nor can they when believed, unless they announce truths or facts calculated to produce such change. In the present instance, the facts announced placed the hearers in the awful attitude of the murderers of the Son of God, who was now not only alive again, but seated on the throne of God, with all power in his hands, both on earth and in heaven. The belief of these facts necessarily filled them with the most intense realization of guilt, and the most fearful anticipation of punishment. The former of these emotions is expressed by the words of Luke, "They were pierced to the heart;" the latter, in their own words, "Brethren, what shall we do?" They had just heard Peter, in the language of Joel, speak of a possible salvation; and the question, What shall we do? unquestionably means, What shall we do to be saved?
Verse 38
This is the first time, under the reign of Jesus Christ, that this most important of all questions was ever propounded; and the first time, of course, that it was every answered. Whatever may have been the true answer under any previous dispensation, or on any previous day in the world's history, the answer given by Peter on this day of Pentecost, in which the reign of Christ on earth began, is the true and infallible answer for all the subjects of his authority in all subsequent time. It deserves our most profound attention; for it announces the conditions of pardon for all men who may be found in the same state of mind with these inquiries. It is expressed as follows: (38) "Then Peter said to them, Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
That the offer of pardon, made to the world through Jesus Christ, is conditional, is denied only by the fatalist. We will not argue this point, expect as it is involved in the inquiry as to what the conditions of pardon are. When we ascertain the prescribed conditions of pardon, both questions will be settled in settling one.
Pardon is the chief want of the human soul, in its most favorable earthly circumstances. The rebel against God's government, though he lay down his arms and becomes a loyal subject, can have no hope of happiness without pardon for the past; while the pardoned penitent, humbly struggling in the service of God, knows himself still guilty of shortcomings, by which he must fail of the final reward, unless pardoned again and again. The question as to what are the conditions of pardon, therefore, necessarily divides itself into two; one having reference to the hitherto-unpardoned sinner, the other to the saint who may have fallen into sin. It is the former class who propounded the question to Peter, and it is to them alone that the answer under consideration was given. We will confine ourselves, in our present remarks, to this branch of the subject, and discuss it only in the light of the passage before us.
If we regard the question of the multitude, What shall we do? as simply a question of duty under their peculiar circumstances, without special reference to final results, we learn from the answer that there were two things for them to do--Repent, and be immersed. If Peter had stopped with these two words, his answer would have been satisfactory, in this view of the subject, and it would have been the conclusion of the world, that the duty of a sinner, "pierced to the heart" by a sense of guilt, is to repent and be immersed.
But if we regard their question as having definite reference to the salvation of which Peter had already spoken, (Acts 2:21,) and their meaning, What shall we do to be saved? then the answer is equally definite: it teaches that what a sinner thus affected is to do to be saved, is to repent and be immersed.
From these two observations, the reader perceives, that so far as the conditions of salvation from past sins are concerned, the duty of the sinner is most definitely taught by the first two words of the answer, taken in connection with their question, without entering upon the controversy concerning the remainder of the answer. If it had been Peter's design merely to give an answer in concise terms, without explanation, no doubt he would have confined it to these two words, for they contain the only commands which he gives.
But he saw fit to accompany the two commands with suitable explanations. He qualifies the command to be immersed by the clause, "in the name of Jesus Christ," to show that it is under his authority that they were to be immersed, and not merely under that of the Father, whose authority alone was recognized in John's immersion. That we are right in referring to this limiting clause, "in the name of Jesus Christ," to the command to be immersed, and not to the command repent, is evident from the fact that it would be incongruous to say, "Repent in the name of Jesus Christ."
Peter further explains the two commands, by stating their specific design; by which term we mean the specific blessing which was to be expected as the consequence of obedience. It is "for the remission of sins." To convince an unbiased mind that this clause depends upon both the preceding commands, and express their design, it would only be necessary to repeat the words, "Repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." But, inasmuch as it has suited the purpose of some controversialists to dispute this proposition, we here give the opinions of two recent representative commentators, who can not be suspected of undue bias in its favor.
Dr. Alexander (Presbyterian) says, "The whole phrase, to (or toward) remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the multitude had reference, and which, therefore, must be contemplated in the answer." Again: "The beneficial end to which all this led was the remission of sins."
Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: "eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matthew 26:28,Lu+3:3,) we connect, naturally, with the both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other."
The connection contended for can not be made more apparent by argument; it needs only that attention be called to it, in order to be perceived by every unbiased mind. It is possible that some doubt might arise in reference to the connection of the clause with the term repent, but one would imagine that its connection with the command be immersed could not be doubted, but for the fact that it has been disputed. Indeed, some controversialists have felt so great necessity for denying the last-named connection, as to assume that the clause, "for the remission of sins" depends largely upon the term repent, and that the connection of thought is this: "Repent for the remission of sins, and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ." It is a sufficient refutation of this assumption to remark, that, if Peter had intended to say this, he would most certainly have done so; but he has said something entirely different; and this shows that he meant something entirely different. If men are permitted, after this style, to entirely reconstruct the sentences of inspired apostles, then there is no statement in the Word of God which may not be perverted. We dismiss this baseless assumption with the remark, that it has not been dignified by the indorsement of any writer of respectable attainments, known to the author, and it would not be noticed here, but for the frequency of its appearance in the pulpit, in the columns of denominational newspapers, and on the pages of partisan tracts.
The dependence of the clause, "for the remission of sins," upon both the verbs repent and be immersed, being established, it would seem undeniable that remission of sins is the blessing in order to the enjoyment of which they were commanded to repent and be immersed. This is universally admitted so far as the term repent is concerned, but by many denied in reference to the command be immersed; hence the proposition that immersion is for the remission of sins is rejected by the Protestant sects in general. Assuming that remission of sins precedes immersion, and that, so far as adults are concerned, the only proper subjects for this ordinance are those whose sins are already pardoned, it is urged that for in this clause means "on account of" or "because of." Hence, Peter is understood to command, "Repent and be immersed on account of remission of sins already enjoyed." But this interpretation is subject to two insuperable objections. 1st. To command men to repent and be immersed because their sins were already remitted, is to require them not only to be immersed on this account, but to repent because they were already pardoned. There is no possibility of extricating the interpretation from this absurdity. 2d. It contradicts an obvious fact of the case. It makes Peter command the inquirers to be immersed because their sins were already remitted, whereas it is an indisputable fact that their sins were not yet remitted. On the contrary, they were still pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and by the question they propounded were seeking how they might obtain the very pardon which this interpretation assumes that they already enjoyed. Certainly no sane man would assume a position involving such absurdity, and so contradictory to an obvious fact, were he not driven to it by the inexorable demands of a theory which could not be otherwise sustained.
We observe, further, in reference to this interpretation, that even if we admit the propriety of supplanting the preposition for by the phrase on account of, the substitute will not answer the purpose for which it is employed. The meaning of this phrase varies, according as its object is past or future. "On account of" some past event may mean because it has taken place; but on account of an event yet in the future, would, in the same connection, mean in order that it might take place. The same is true of the equivalent phrase, "because of." If, then, the parties addressed by Peter were already pardoned, "on account of the remission of sins" would mean, because their sins had been remitted. But as this is an indisputable fact that the parties addressed were yet unpardoned, what they are commanded to do on account of remission of sins must mean, in order that their sins may be remitted. Such a rendering, therefore, would not even render the obvious meaning of the passage less perspicuous than it already is.
It will be found that any other substitute for the preposition for, designed to force upon the passage a meaning different from that which it obviously bears, will as signally fail to suit the purpose of its author. If, with Dr. Alexander, we render, Repent and be immersed "to (or toward) remission of sins," we still have remission both beyond repentance and immersion, and depending upon them as preparatory conditions. Indeed, this rendering would leave it uncertain whether repentance and immersion would bring them to remission of sins, or only toward it, leaving an indefinite space yet to pass before obtaining it.
If, with others still -- for every effort that ingenuity could suggest has been made to find another meaning for this passage -- we render it, Repent and be immersed unto or into remission of sins, the attempt is fruitless; for remission of sins is still the blessing unto which or into which repentance and immersion are to lead the inquirers.
Sometimes the advocates of these various renderings, when disheartened by the failure of their attempts at argument and criticism, resort to raillery, and assert that the whole doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins depends upon the one little word for in the command, "be immersed for the remission of sins." If this were true, it would be no humiliation; for a doctrine based upon a word of God, however small, has an eternal and immutable foundation. But it is not true. On the contrary, you may draw a pencil-mark over the whole clause, "for the remission of sins," erasing it, with all the remainder of Peter's answer, and still the meaning will remain unchanged. The connection would then read thus: "Brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus." Remembering now that these parties were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and that their question means, What shall we do to be saved from out sins? the answer must be understood as the answer to that question. But the answer is, Repent and be immersed; therefore, to repent and to be immersed are the two things which they must do in order to be saved from their sins.
The reader now perceives, that, in this first announcement to sinners of the terms of pardon, so guardedly has Peter expressed himself, and so skillfully has Luke interwoven with his words the historic facts, that whatever rendering men have forced upon the leading term, the meaning of the whole remains unchanged; and even when you strike this term and its dependent words out of the text, that same meaning still stares you in the face. The fact is suggestive of more than human wisdom. It reminds us that Peter spoke, and Luke wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That infinite wisdom which was dictating a record for all time to come is displayed here, providing for future controversies which no human being could anticipate. Like the sun in the heavens, which may be temporarily obscured by clouds, but will still break forth again, and shine upon all but those who hide from his beams, the light of truth which God has suspended in this passage may be dimmed for a moment by the mists of partisan criticism, but to those who are willing to see it, it will still send out its beams, and guide the trembling sinner unerringly to pardon and peace.
If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed. The propitiation through his blood was in order to the offer of pardon, while repentance and immersion are enjoined by Peter upon his hearers, in order to the attainment of pardon.
The careful reader will have observed that in stating the conditions of remission of sins to the multitude, Peter says nothing about the necessity of faith. This omission is not sufficiently accounted for by the fact that faith is implied in the command to repent and be immersed; for the parties now addressed were listening to the terms for the first time, and might fail to perceive this implication. But the fact is, that they did already believe, and it was a result of their faith, that they were pierced to the heart, and made to cry out, What shall we do? This Peter perceived, and therefore it would have been but little less than mockery to command them to believe. It will be observed, throughout the course of apostolic preaching, that they never commanded men to do what they had already done, but took them as they found them, and enjoined upon them only that which they yet lacked of complete obedience. In the case before us, Peter was not laying down a complete formula for the conditions of pardon; but was simply informing the parties before him what they must do in order to the remission of their sins. Being believers already, they must add to their faith repentance and immersion.
Before dismissing this topic, we must remark that the doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins does not assume that immersion is the only condition of remission, but simply that, it is one among three conditions, and the last of the three. Administered previous to faith and repentance, as in the case of infants, it is not only absolutely worthless, but intensely sinful.
The exact meaning of the term repent will be considered below, under iii: 19.
After commanding the inquirers to repent and be immersed for the remission of sins, Peter adds the promise, "and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." The gift of the Holy Spirit should not be confounded with the Holy Spirit's gifts, nor with the fruits of the Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are religious traits of character, and they result from the gift of the Holy Spirit. The latter expression means, the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is analogous to the expression, "promise of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:33, above, where Peter says, "having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear." The gifts of the Holy Spirit were various miraculous powers, intellectual and physical. These were conferred only upon a few individuals, while the gift of the Spirit is promised to all who repent and are immersed.
Verse 39
Peter does not limit the promise of the Holy Spirit to his present audience; but adds, (39) "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." That we are right in referring the word promise, in this sentence, to the promise of the Holy Spirit just made by Peter, is evident from the fact that this is the only promise made in the immediate context.
Some pedobaptist commentators have affected to find in the words, "The promise is to you and your children," a show of authority for infant membership in the Church of Christ. [Alex.] But Mr. Barnes, though of that school himself, has the candor to say of this expression, "It does not refer to children as children, and should not be adduced to establish the propriety of infant baptism, or as applicable particularly to infants. It is a promise, indeed, to parents, that the blessings of salvation shall not be confined to parents, but shall be extended also to their posterity." That this is the true conception of the apostle's meaning is demonstrated by the fact that the promise in question is based upon the conditions of repentance and immersion, with which infants could not possibly comply.
The extension of this promise "to all who are afar off," is not to be limited to all the Jews who were afar off; but it is properly qualified by the additional words, "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." It included, therefore, every individual who should, at any future time, be a subject of the gospel call, and guarantees to us, of the present generation, the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the same terms on which it was offered to Peter's hearers on the day of Pentecost.
Verse 40
The historian had now concluded his report of Peter's discourse, but informs us that he has given only an epitome of it. (40) "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." The term testify refers to the argumentative portion of his discourse; and the term exhort to the horatory portion. The latter naturally and logically followed his statement of the conditions of pardon, and the substance of it is compressed by Luke into the words, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation." The command to save themselves must sound quite strange in the ears of such modern theorists as affirm that men have no ability to do, or say, or think any thing tending to their own salvation. But this only shows how far they have departed from apostolic speech and thought. Peter had proposed conditions of pardon which they could comply with, and now their salvation depended upon their compliance with these conditions. When they complied with them, they saved themselves. To be saved from that untoward generation was not, as the conceit of Universalists would have it, to escape the siege of Jerusalem; for the great mass of them escaped that, by dying a natural death before it took place. It was to escape the fate which the mass of that generation were destined to meet in eternity, on account of their sins. We will more fully discuss the exact import of their term saved in this and similar connections under verse 47, below.
Verse 41
The multitude, who had been so pierced to the heart by Peter's discourse, as to cry out, "Brethren, what shall we do?" were happily surprised to find the terms of pardon so easy. (41) "Then they gladly received his word, and were immersed; and the same day there were added about three thousand souls." The pronoun they identifies the parties immersed with those who had cried out, What shall we do? It shows that they promptly complied with the command which Peter had given them. The word which they gladly received can not be the main part of Peter's speech, for this had pierced them to the heart; but it is the word of his answer, which gave their feelings great relief by opening to them so easy a method of escape from the doom which they dreaded, and which they so richly deserved.
Times without number the objection has been urged, and as often refuted, that three thousand men could not have been immersed in so short a time, and with the inadequate supply of water afforded in Jerusalem. As to the quantity of available water, Dr. J. T. Barclay, in his work entitled "The City of the Great King," written during a residence of three years and a half in Jerusalem, as a missionary, shows that Jerusalem was anciently better supplied with water than any other city known to history not permeated by living streams. Even to the present day, though most of the public reservoirs are now dry, such as the supposed pool of Bethesda, 365 feet long by 131 in breadth, and the lower pool of Gihon, 600 long by 260 in breadth, there are still in existence bodies of water, such as the pool of Siloam, and the pool of Hezekiah, affording most ample facilities for immersing any number of persons.
As to the want of time for the immersion of so many, any one who will make the mathematical calculation, without which it is folly to offer the objection, will find that there was the greatest abundance of time. Allowing that Peter's speech commenced at nine o'clock, as he himself states in Acts 2:15, and that the exercises at the temple closed at noon, we have left six hours till sunset. To immerse sixty men in an hour would be very deliberate work for one administrator. But there were twelve administrators, hence, each hour there were not less than seven hundred and twenty persons immersed. At this rate, in less than four and one-fourth hours the whole multitude would be immersed, leaving the sun nearly two hours high when the last candidate emerged from the water. In view of this simple calculation, which a child could make, it is truly astonishing that so many grave critics and preachers should urge this objection. It strikingly illustrates the blinding effects of partisan zeal.
Now that the three thousand are added to the Church, we may glance back over the history of the day, and learn upon what preparation they were received to the fellowship of the disciples. To accomplish this, we must first consider their state of mind before Peter spoke to them, and then observe the changes through which they passed. Being Jews, then, they were already believers in the true God, and in the inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures. Luke declares, also, that they were "devout men." [Acts 2:5.] They were, however, unbelievers in reference to Jesus Christ, and they were guilty of participating in his crucifixion. [2:23.] At the moment that Peter arose to speak, they were full of amazement at witnessing the immersion of the twelve in the Holy Spirit, but their religious character remained unchanged. Peter speaks; and, at the conclusion of his argument, there is an evident change in their convictions. But they believe now nothing additional to what they did at first, except what Peter has proved to them. He has attempted to prove, however, only two propositions: first, That he and the eleven were inspired; second, That Jesus of Nazareth was now both Lord and Christ. The first, moreover, was established only as a means of proving the second. Several other subordinate facts were also proved for the same purpose, so that the whole speech is properly resolved into an attempt to prove the single proposition with which it concludes, that "God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ." This, then, is what the three thousand believed, and this is all that distinguished their faith when immersed, from what it was before they heard the gospel from Peter's lips.
But another change had occurred within them. Under the influence of their new faith, they were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt. This is the "godly sorrow" which "works repentance," [2 Corinthians 7:10.] and it prepared them to promptly obey Peter's command, "Repent, and be immersed." They repented, and were immersed. Their conversion, therefore, consisted in believing that Jesus is the Christ, repenting of their sins, and being immersed. This entitled them to membership in the Church, and so it does every human being who does likewise.
Verse 42
Having been immersed simply upon their faith in Jesus Christ, these young disciples had many subordinate objects of faith to become acquainted with, and many duties yet unknown, in which to be instructed. In giving an account of these matters, Luke is far more brief, adhering strictly to the chief purpose of his narrative, which is to give the process and means of conversion, rather than a history of the edification and instruction of the converted. He closes this section of the history with a brief notice of the order established in the new Church, first describing their order of worship. (42) "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching, and in fellowship, and in breaking the loaf, and in prayers."
The apostles were as yet the only teachers of the Church, and in this work they were executing the second part of their commission, which required them to teach those whom they immersed all things that Jesus had commanded. The same command which made it their duty to teach, made it also the duty of the disciples to learn from them, and to abide by their instruction. This duty the first disciples faithfully complied with, though it has been grievously neglected by their brethren of later ages.
For the purpose of being taught by the apostles, they must have assembled together, and this was the occasion for manifesting their fellowship, which term expresses their common participation in religious privileges. It has been urged by some writers, that the term koinonia should here be rendered contribution, instead of fellowship, and that it refers to contributions which were regularly made in the public assemblies, for the poor. That the term is used in this limited sense in at least two places in the New Testament, must be admitted, viz.: in Romans 15:26, "It hath pleased them of Macedonia to make a certain contribution for the poor of the saints in Jerusalem;" and in 2 Corinthians 9:13, where Paul says the saints "glorify God for your liberal contribution to them and to all men." But such is not, by any means, its common usage. It usually occurs in such connections as the following: "You were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ." [1 Corinthians 1:9.] "The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you." [2 Corinthians 13:14.] "And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." [1 John 1:3.] "We have fellowship with one another." [1:7.]
The radical idea in this term is that of participation in common. We have fellowship with God, because we are made partakers of the divine nature, as we escape the corruption which is in the world through lust. We have fellowship with the Son, because of the common sympathies which his life and sufferings have established between himself and us; and with the Spirit, because we partake of the strengthening and enlightening influences of his teachings, and because he dwells in us. We have fellowship with one another, because of the mutual participation in each other's affection and good offices. The term is also used in reference to the Lord's supper. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" [1 Corinthians 10:16.] We partake in common of the benefits of his broken body and shed blood, which are symbolized in the cup and the loaf.
From the meaning of the term, as thus exemplified, originates its use in the sense of contribution; for in the act of contributing to the necessities of others, we allow them to participate in the blessings which we enjoy. We are not authorized, however, by the rules of criticism, to give it this limited signification, except where the context clearly requires it. Seeing that Christians enjoy fellowship with so many sources of happiness, the term unrestricted must embrace them all. In the present instance the context imposes no limitation upon its meaning, and it would be quite arbitrary to restrict it to the sense of contribution. The use of the article before koinonia can not be pleaded as a ground for such restriction; for it only indicates the notoriety of that which the term designates. Still, the idea of contributing to the wants of poor brethren is involved in the fellowship of Christians, and by the statement that they continued steadfastly in the fellowship, we understand that they continued in the common participation of religious enjoyments, including contributions for the poor. Whether these contributions were made at every meeting or not, we are not informed; but they were certainly made when circumstances required.
Together with the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, Luke enumerates "breaking the loaf and prayers," as part of the exercises in which the disciples continued. The frequency with which the loaf was broken is not intimated here. It will be discussed under chapter xx: 7. This brief statement shows merely that this institution, according to the Savior's command, was observed from the very beginning of the Church.
The prayers mentioned are those there were offered in public. The number of prayers offered on any occasion, or the order in which the prayers, the instruction, breaking the loaf, and the other acts of fellowship followed each other, is not intimated. Luke's silence in reference to these particulars may have arisen from the fact that there was no invariable order of exercises; or may have been intended to prevent the order in the Jerusalem Church from being regarded as an authoritative precedent. It shows clearly the intention of the Holy Spirit that the assemblies of the saints should be left to the exercise of their own discretion in matters of this kind, and furnishes a most singular rebuke to the hundreds of party leaders who have since attempted to impose authoritative rituals upon the congregations. If the example of the Church in Jerusalem, in this respect, though its exercises were directed by the whole body of the apostles, was not binding upon other Churches, what body of uninspired men shall have the presumption to bind what God has purposely left free?
Verse 43
Next to this brief notice of the exercises of the Church, we have a glance at the effect of the scenes just described, upon the surrounding community. (43) "And fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles." This fear was not that which partakes of aversion, for we learn below, (47) that many were daily added to the Church; but it was that silent awe which miracles naturally inspired, mingled with respectful deference to a people of such holiness.
Verses 44, 45
We are next introduced to a striking instance of the fellowship previously mentioned. (44) "Now all who believed were together, and had all things common, (45) and sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, as any one had need." This was not a community of goods, by which all were placed on a pecuniary level; for distribution was made only as any one had need. It was only such liberality to the poor as should characterize the congregations of the Lord in every age and country. Poor brethren must not be allowed to suffer for the necessaries of life, though it require us to divide with them the last loaf in our possession. "He who has this world's goods and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?" [1 John 3:17.] We will, hereafter, see that the Church in Jerusalem was not the only one which engaged in this species of benevolence. [See Com. xi: 27-30. xx: 2-3.] This conduct was in marked contrast with the neglect of the poor which was then common among the Jews, even in violation of their own law, and which was universal among the Gentiles. Nothing of this kind had ever been seen on earth before. We will refer to the subject again, under iv: 32, below.
Verses 46, 47
The further history of the Church, for a short time, is condensed into this brief statement: (46) "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, received their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added those saved every day to the Church."
Whether the disciples continued to offer sacrifices or not--on which question see Com. xxi: 18-26--that they should "continue daily with one accord in the temple," was most natural. The temple had been, to them and their fathers, for many generations, the house of God and the place of prayer. The apostles had been led to its sacred precincts by the Savior himself, and here it was that the Holy Spirit had come upon them. Their most holy associations were connected with it, and it would have been doing great violence to their feelings to require them at once to abandon it. This natural reverence for the place continued till its destruction by Titus; and even to this day, the hill where the temple once stood has a peculiarly sacred place in the hearts of Christians. The "breaking bread," klontes arton, mentioned in this sentence, is not the "breaking of the loaf," e klasis touartou of Acts 2:42; but refers to common meals of which they partook "from house to house." This is evident from the connection: "breaking bread from house to house, they received their food with gladness and singleness of heart." It was that breaking of bread in which they "received their food," which was not done in partaking of the emblematic loaf. There is no evidence that the emblematic loaf was ever broken in mere social gatherings. It belongs exclusively to the Lord's day. [See Acts 20:7.]
By the expression "singleness of heart" is meant the concentration of their affections and desires upon a single subject. This devotion and concentration of thought could but result, as it did, in giving the disciples "favor with all the people," and causing daily additions to the Church.
Those added to the Church daily were not "such as should be saved," as rendered in the common version, but tous sozomenous, the saved. In what sense they were saved, is a question of some importance. Dr. Hackett says: "The doctrine is that those who embrace the gospel adopt the infallible means of being saved." This is, undoubtedly, true doctrine; but it is not what is taught in the passage; for Luke speaks not of those who daily embraced the means of salvation, but of those who were saved. The view expressed by Alexander, that "men are said to be saved, not only in reference to the final consummation, but to the inception of the saving work," is a nearer approach to the true conception, but still falls short of it. It is not an inception of the saving work, of which Luke speaks, but the salvation referred to is complete; the parties spoken of being called "the saved." Both these learned commentators, by keeping their minds fixed upon a future state as offering the only fulfillment of the word "saved," have failed to discover the exact sense in which it is here used by the historian. Primarily, the term save means simply to make safe. In the religious sense, it means to make safe from the consequences of sin. If men had never sinned, they could not be saved, seeing they would be already safe. But having sinned, they are saved when they are made safe from the consequences of their sins. This is done when their sins are forgiven. At the moment a penitent sinner obtains pardon, he is, so far as the past is concerned, completely saved. It is in this sense that the parties in this case added to the Church are called "the saved." Paul uses the term in the same sense when he says of God, "According to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit." [Titus 3:5.See also 2 Tim. i: 9 1 Cor. i: 18.]
The fact that the Lord added the saved, or pardoned, to the Church, justifies two conclusions: first, That men are entitled to membership in the Church the moment they are pardoned; second, That men should join the Church, not as a means of obtaining pardon, but because they have already obtained it. The former conclusion shows that it is unscriptural to admit, as some parties do, that certain persons are pardoned, and yet refuse them Church-fellowship. The latter condemns the practice observed by others, of received persons to membership "as a means of grace;" i. e., as a means of obtaining pardon.