Luke’s report of Peter’s speech in Solomon’s Colonnade very likely contains a genuine recollection of what was actually said on this occasion. But in any case we may regard it as typical of what was generally said at this time by Christians in their approach to Jews. The speech exhibits a more developed Christology than that of the Pentecost address—or at least the Christology is expressed in far richer terms, though these are still distinctively Jewish and of the earliest period of the church. Here Peter stresses the role of Jesus as the Suffering Servant of God and as the Prophet-like-Moses who must be obeyed. “The chosen people with whom God covenanted are challenged to acknowledge Jesus as the fulfillment of ancient prophecy and promises, and are given this chance to return to God before Messiah comes again to bring God’s purposes to fruition” (Neil, p. 84).
3:11 The outer court of the temple, the Court of the Gentiles (see note on v. 2), was surrounded by porticoes, of which the one known as Solomon’s Colonnade lay along the eastern wall (see Josephus, Antiquities 15.391–420; cf. 20.219–223). In its colonnades the scribes held their schools and debates (cf. Luke 2:46; 19:47; John 10:23), and the merchants and money changers conducted their business (Luke 19:45f.; John 2:14–16). It was also a favorite meeting place of the Christians (5:12; cf. 2:46; 5:20f., 42; Luke 24:53; John 10:23), and it was here that Peter now spoke to the crowd, the beggar still clinging to him and John.
3:12–13 Peter’s first concern was to deny that the miracle had been done by any power or godliness in either John or himself (v. 12). There was no need, therefore, for the people to stare at them (see disc. on v. 4) as though they had done something great. What had been done was due entirely to God, whom he identified as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers (v. 13). This description is first found in the Exodus narrative (Exod. 3:6, 15f.; 4:5; cf. Acts 7:32) but recurs from time to time in the Old Testament on other important occasions (e.g., 1 Kings 18:36; 1 Chron. 29:18) and may have been intended here to underscore God’s covenant faithfulness. Peter’s address, Men of Israel (v. 12; see note on 1:16), may have had the same purpose. The theme of God’s faithfulness becomes an important one in the latter part of the speech (vv. 25f.), but is hardly less important here, where it is the premise behind Peter’s statement in verse 13. God had glorified his servant Jesus precisely because the promise of the covenants had been fulfilled in him.
Both the description of Jesus as the Servant and the reference to his being glorified are drawn from the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13–53:12, which begins: “My servant … will be … highly exalted” (see notes 8:32f. and 11:20). Almost certainly Peter had in mind the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and was in effect claiming that this prophecy had been fulfilled in those events, in which God had not only manifested his divine presence and power, but invested Jesus with divine glory. In turn, the glorified Jesus had endowed his apostles with power to act in his name. Thus had Jesus manifested his own presence in the healing that had just taken place (see v. 16)—all of which demonstrated God’s very different estimate of his servant than the nation had had of him. For their part, they had handed him over to be killed (lit., “Jesus, whom you handed over”; see note on 4:10), and even when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, had decided to set him free (the Greek suggests that he had given judgment to that effect), they had still disowned him and brought such pressure to bear on the governor that in the end he had acceded to their demand (cf. John 19:15; also Acts 28:18f.).
3:14 Thus they had sent to his death an innocent man, one indeed who was holy and righteous. Taking holy to mean “one devoted to the service of God,” it is possible that Peter was still thinking in terms of the Servant of Isaiah 52–53, though the reference is generally thought to be wider than that (cf., e.g., 2 Kings 4:9; Ps. 106:16). Its use here may even owe something to Peter’s already having employed it in quoting from Psalm 16:10 (2:27, “your Holy One”). At all events, whatever its derivation, it was by now a recognized description of Jesus by the church (cf. 4:27; John 6:69; 1 John 2:20; Rev. 3:7; also Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34).
As for the second epithet, “righteous,” it can hardly be doubted that it was inspired by the prophecy of Isaiah, for there the Servant is called God’s righteous Servant (Isa. 53:11; cf. Isa. 11:5; 42:6; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 9:9; Enoch 38:2; 46:3; 53:6). The title is found again on Stephen’s lips in Acts 7:52, and in 22:14 is used by Ananias. Here was another recognized description of Jesus (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1; see note on 11:20, also R. F. Zehnle, p. 52, who thinks that the title “holy and righteous” was “a messianic epithet of the prophet like Moses”).
But for all Jesus’ evident qualities as expressed in these titles, the fact remained that the nation as a whole had disowned him—the same word as in verse 13 but now more highly charged. Against all the evidence that Jesus was “holy and righteous” they had deemed Pilate to have done them a favor by having him killed and a murderer set free in his place.
3:15 The enormity of what they had done was driven home: You killed the author of life. The word author represents a Greek word whose range of meaning includes “leader,” “founder,” and “author” (cf. 5:31; Heb. 2:10; 12:2), the latter especially in the sense of one from whom anything good or bad in which others share first proceeds. This may have been the meaning intended by Peter, for in this very place Jesus had proclaimed himself as the giver of life (John 10:28; cf. John 1:4). On the other hand, it could be as well argued that the sense intended by Peter was “leader.” With the resurrection in mind, his thought may have been of Jesus as the first of many who would follow in being raised from the dead (see disc. on 4:2; cf. 1 Cor. 15:20). It was certainly of the resurrection that Peter went on to speak. For over against the sorry story of the nation’s rejection of Jesus, God had raised him from the dead. The apostles were witnesses of this. The Greek runs, “[Jesus] whom God raised, of whom we are witnesses” (see notes on 4:10), making it clear that their brief included more than the resurrection—they were his witnesses in the broadest sense of the term (cf. 1:8, 22; 10:39)—though, of course, the resurrection was the theme to which they constantly returned.
3:16 Here then was the explanation of what had happened to the lame man. God had glorified his Servant by raising him to the place of ultimate power, and by the exercise of that power he had healed the man. Peter asserted this with considerable emphasis. Twice the “name” is mentioned with reference to Jesus (see disc. on v. 6), and once Jesus is actually named, so that three times in this verse it is stated that he was the source of the healing. Emphasis is also given to the means whereby it was brought home to the man. By faith (the Greek has the sense, “on the grounds of faith”) in the name of Jesus, this man … was made strong. Here Jesus is said to have been the object of saving faith. But the faith itself was awakened “through Jesus” (so the Greek; cf. 1 Pet. 1:21), that is, through his being preached by the apostles. From first to last, then, Jesus was truly the author of life for this man.
3:17 The mood of the speech changes in the second half from reproof to conciliation, marked by the change of address. Peter now spoke to the crowd as his brothers. What they had done to Jesus, he said, they had done in ignorance. This could even be said of their leaders (cf. Matt. 22:29; John 5:39). Behind this concession there probably lies the ancient distinction between sins done “with a high hand” and sins done unwittingly (cf. Num. 15:27–31). In the latter event, as in the present case, though guilt remained, there was room for mercy (cf. 13:27; Luke 23:24; John 8:19; 1 Cor. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:13).
3:18 There was the added factor that Jesus’ death had been determined by God—the paradox once again of human responsibility for predetermined events (see disc. on 2:23). That it had been predetermined was reflected in the Scriptures, the whole thrust of which, according to Peter, was that the Christ would suffer (see note on 11:20). A difficulty arises here in that the theme of a suffering Messiah, far from being found in all the prophets, is discernible in very few. In view of this, we should probably understand the prophets collectively, so that what any one of them said is attributed to them all. And in any case, in a broad sense, they did all anticipate the messianic redemption, though they may not have known it or the means whereby it would be accomplished (cf. 1 Pet. 1:11). And now, what God had foretold through the prophets, he had fulfilled in the events outlined in this speech.
3:19–20 These things, therefore, constituted Good News. Peter did not explicitly make the connection, but he clearly implied that because of what Jesus had done God would “wipe away” sins—not only those relating directly to the death of Jesus, but all sins—if only the sinners would repent and turn to God. This phrase throws into relief what is meant by repentance (see disc. on 2:38): it is not simply a change of heart, but such a change as enthrones God in the heart. Thus repentance and faith become almost synonymous (cf. 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 26:18, 20; 28:27). The promise that God will forgive sins is expressed by means of a striking figure: “to wipe out”—all trace of sin is removed. When God forgives, he forgets. Moreover, repentance opens the way to all the blessings of the kingdom of God, whether present or future (see notes on 1:3 and 2:17). Most commentators agree that the times of refreshing refer to the future and to Jesus’ return (but cf. Matt. 11:28; see disc. on 1:10f.). In this connection, however, the verse has sometimes been understood in the sense that the time of Jesus’ return is determined by the response that people make to the gospel (“Repent, so that he may send …”). But this cannot be. The time of his return is already fixed, and nothing can change it. Times … from the Lord is literally “from the face of the Lord” (cf. 5:41; 7:45). They are represented as present before God in the sense that he has unalterably decreed and determined them (cf. 1:7; see also the disc. on v. 21). That we do not know the time is our reason for preaching the gospel, not that by preaching it we can hasten the time. But this aside, the point remains that to share the blessings of his coming again we must first turn to God. The description of Jesus in this verse as the Christ who has been appointed for you should not be taken to mean that this appointment had only been made subsequent to the ascension and that he had not been recognized as the Messiah at his first coming. All the evidence suggests that he had been and that he was conscious himself of being called to that role from as early as his baptism. On the verb “to appoint” or “to choose,” see discussion on 22:14.
3:21 It was true that Jesus’ messiahship was not yet acclaimed outside the church and would not be until he came again. Meanwhile, he must remain in heaven (on must, see disc. on 1:16), not in retirement, but ruling the church and the world until the time comes (lit., “times”; the plural may be intended to convey the idea that it is still a long way off; cf. v. 20) for God to restore all things. There is an important sense in which the renewal of all things has already begun with the coming of Jesus—or even earlier, with the coming of John the Baptist (cf. Mal. 4:5f.; Matt. 11:14; 17:11). But the thought here is of the consummation of the kingdom on Jesus’ return (see note on 1:3). This had been announced by God long ago through his holy prophets (cf. v. 18; Isa. 34:4; 51:6; 65:17; etc.).
3:22 The fulfillment of Scripture remained Peter’s theme, with a reference now to Deuteronomy 18:15–19. The quotation from the LXX is not an exact one (Bruce, Acts, p. 113, thinks it is a conflation of several verses), but nothing hangs on the differences. For Luke, as for Peter himself, a general reference to the passage was probably all that was intended. The text comes from a context in which Moses was warning against the use of divination as a means of ascertaining God’s will. “God has not permitted you to do so,” he said, but “will raise up for you a prophet.” The original sense was that he would send them a prophet from time to time as occasion demanded, but the use of the singular, a prophet, led to the view that one prophet in particular was intended, a second Moses, who would appear at the end of the age, either as the Messiah or as some other eschatological figure (see, e.g., John 1:21, 25; 6:14; 7:52 mg.; 1QS 9.10f.; 4QTLevi 5–7; and M. Black, Scrolls, p. 61; see also notes on 11:20). The Samaritans, among a number of other groups, had inherited this tradition, and the Prophet-like-Moses, under the name of Taheb, “the Returning One,” was the dominant figure of their eschatology, where, significantly, he was seen as the “Restorer,” who would bring people back to true religion (cf. John 4:25; see J. MacDonald, p. 443). Precisely this association of ideas seems to have taken Peter from talking about the time “for God to restore everything” (v. 21) to quoting from Deuteronomy 18:15–19 (cf. 7:37).
3:23 The reference to Deuteronomy served a dual purpose. First, it helped to set forward the messiahship of Jesus under another title (Peter evidently interpreted the Prophet as the Messiah). Second, it helped to bring the speech to its point of appeal, for the prophecy embodies a warning (expressed here, it appears, with the help of language borrowed from Lev. 23:29, though similar language is found in a number of passages; cf. Gen. 17:14; Exod. 12:15, 19; Lev. 17:4, 9; Num. 15:30): Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people. The warning is probably against willful disobedience. Such a warning is never out of place in Christian preaching, but always it belongs, as here, in a context of tender concern (cf. “Now, brothers” v. 17).
3:24 In the Greek, this verse is closely linked with verses 22–24: “For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me.… Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, … have foretold these days.’ ” The theme of punishment, however, has been left behind, and Peter has returned to the thought of the renewal of all things, speaking now of its beginning—these [present] days—rather than of its completion at Jesus’ return. Samuel may have been singled out for either of two possible reasons. There is found in the book bearing his name the fundamental prophecy concerning the offspring of David (2 Sam. 7:12), and Peter may have wished by implication to include “Son of David” in his description of Jesus. But Samuel was also regarded as the founder of the prophetic schools and the pattern of all later prophecy (cf. Heb. 11:32) so that all the prophets from Samuel on may mean nothing more than “all prophecy” (cf. “all the prophets” vv. 18, 21). At all events, what had been prophesied had now taken place (cf. Matt. 13:16f.; Eph. 3:9f.).
3:25 As Peter saw it, the ultimate concern of all prophecy was well expressed by God’s promise to Abraham: Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed (Gen. 22:18; cf. Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 26:4). Our text differs from the LXX in that the latter has “nations,” the word often translated “Gentiles,” whereas the Greek reads “families” (patriai; NIV peoples). The change may be deliberate, either by Luke or his source, to avoid the impression that Peter was already open to the thought of receiving Gentiles freely into the church. But in LXX Psalm 21:28 (22:27) and 1 Chronicles 16:28 we find the phrase “families of nations,” which suggests that the two words could be used of the same people and that the one has been loosely used of the other in the passage before us. In any case, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Peter did mean to include the Gentiles, though certainly only in a qualified sense, by his reference in the following verse. NIV’s translation of the present verse probably gives the sense of the original, that it would be through Abraham’s descendants, that is, through the nation, that “all the people on earth would be blessed.” But the Hebrew, followed by the LXX, has only the singular, “descendant” (lit., “seed”), and this (as in the case of Deut. 18:15–19, see disc. v. 22) led to its being understood as one descendant in particular, the Messiah. In this case, however, the interpretation was peculiarly Christian. There is no evidence that either Genesis 22:18 or any of the other similar passages ever received a messianic interpretation in pre-Christian Judaism. Paul applied the passage in this sense in Galatians 3:8, and almost certainly it was in this sense that Peter used it here. To the beneficiaries of the covenant, therefore, he could announce that its promise had been fulfilled to them in Jesus. The Greek lays some stress on the pronoun you, as though he is saying, “You of all people, considering your privileged position, ought to welcome him.”
3:26 This emphasis on their privilege under the covenant brings the speech to a close: When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you. “Raised up” accurately translates the Greek, only the reference here is not to the resurrection but to the incarnation, in the sense of bringing someone onto the stage of history (cf. GNB’s “chose”). The same expression is used of the Prophet in verse 22. The point here is that God chose and sent him to the Jews first. Again, the you is emphatic: “To you, of all people.” This statement is in line with Jesus’ own insistence on restricting his ministry to the Jews (Matt. 15:24), since it was only right that the promise should be fulfilled to them first (cf. 13:46; Rom. 1:16; 2:10). But this did not mean that he cared any less for the Gentiles (cf., e.g., Matt. 28:19; John 10:16; 17:20; Acts 1:8). We may suppose, therefore, that when Peter spoke of his being sent to the Jews first, it was with something at least of the spirit of Jesus, so that he might have added, “and to the Gentiles also,” if only in the sense that they must become Jews in order to share in the blessing (see disc. on 2:39; 10:10ff.). What this blessing was has already been stated (vv. 20, 21, 24), but by his use of the present participle, “blessing you,” Luke may have included to express the additional truth that that blessing continues to be offered. The participle is qualified by the phrase “in turning away each of you from your wicked ways,” which NIV has correctly taken as instrumental. The turning away (effected by God, see disc. on 5:31) is the means by which the blessing is entered into. We should notice further that the appeal is to the individual—each of you—and is expressed in terms of “turning away” from wickedness, whereas earlier (v. 19) it was seen as a “turning to” God. True repentance entails both and is the only appropriate response on the part of those favored by hearing the gospel.
Additional Notes
3:13 His servant Jesus: No other Old Testament passage has influenced the New Testament more than the so-called Servant Songs of Isaiah (42:1ff.; 49:1–3, 5, 8; 50:4–9; and esp. 52:13–53:12). Apart from the formal quotations (Matt. 8:17; 12:18–21; Luke 22:37; John 12:38; Acts 8:32f.; Rom. 10:16; 15:21), there is a clear allusion to Isa. 53:10–12 in Mark 10:45 and 14:24. Mark 9:12 probably echoes Isa. 53:3, and other possible allusions have been found in Matt. 3:15 (cf. Isa. 53:11) and Luke 11:22 (cf. Isa. 53:12) and in the use of “to be delivered up” in Mark 9:31; 10:33; 14:21; etc., including Acts 3:13 (cf. Isa. 53:12). The voice at Jesus’ baptism outlined his ministry in terms of Isa. 42:1. The actual title “Servant” is confined to this speech in Acts (3:13, 26) and to the prayer of the church in Acts 4:27, 30, but the influence of the Servant figure is clear in Rom. 4:25; 5:19; 8:3f., 32–34; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 9:28; and 1 Pet. 2:21–25; 3:18. J. Jeremias concludes that “there is no area of the primitive Christian life of faith which was not touched and stamped by the Ebed (servant) Christology” (“pais theou,” TDNT, vol. 5, p. 712). It belongs, he says, “to the most primitive age of the Christian community” (p. 709) and indeed must be traced back to Jesus himself (pp. 712ff.). See further the notes on 8:32f.
Before Pilate: The Greek (lit. “at Pilate’s face”) can mean simply “before,” “in the presence of,” someone. But sometimes it has a more hostile sense, denoting a face-to-face confrontation (cf. 25:16; Gal. 2:11). So perhaps here. The Jews met Pilate’s proposal to set Jesus free with a point-blank refusal.
3:14 A murderer: i.e., Barabbas, a bandit (John 18:40) who had committed murder in a political uprising (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:18f.). The Greek has “a man, a murderer,” in accordance with the idiom in which “a man” is joined with another noun signifying a discreditable occupation. The expression is stronger than if the word murderer were simply used on its own. Thus the contrast between Barabbas and the author of life is more starkly drawn.
3:16 NIV has made good sense out of the contorted Greek of this verse. The following is a literal translation by Hanson, p 74: “And at the faith of his name this man, whom you see and know, his name has made strong, and the faith which is through him has given him this wholeness in the presence of you all.” A number of suggestions have been made to account for the difficulty of this sentence: first, that an Aramaic phrase has been misunderstood; second, that the second mention of “his name” is a later addition—without it, God would naturally be understood as the subject of the sentence and this makes good sense—third, that Luke made several attempts at drafting the sentence and forgot to tidy it up in the final editing, so that his various attempts are all muddled up in the present text.
3:18 His Christ: the phrase is found in Psalm 2:2, and that verse is quoted in Acts 4:26. Peter may have had the psalm in mind here. The phrase “the Christ of God” indicates the relationship of “belongingness” that Christ has toward God, which is perhaps a mark of the early Christology of these chapters.
3:21 Until the time (Gk. “times”; see earlier disc.) comes for God to restore everything: This restoration was thought of by most Jews in political terms—the restoration of national independence and the gathering of the tribes (see disc. on 1:6; 26:7). Jesus, on the other hand, had spoken of it in moral and spiritual terms. As for Peter, he probably stood somewhere between, sharing Jesus’ spiritual emphasis but restricting the hope to Israel alone (see disc. on 2:39; 3:26), thus confirming “the impression that we are faced here with an address of a very early origin” (Ehrhardt, p. 19; cf. Dunn, Jesus, p. 160).
