Act 2:22-23, 37, 3:13-15, 4:10, 26-28 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 22. Ye men of Israel . Descendants of Israel, or Jacob, i.e. Jews. Peter proceeds now to the third part of his argument, to show that Jesus Christ had been raised up; and that the scene which had occurred was in accordance with his promise, was proof of his resurrection, and of his exaltation to be the Messiah; and that therefore they should repent for their great sin in having put their own Messiah to death. A man approved of God . A man who was shown or demonstrated to have the approbation of God, or to have been sent by him. By miracles and wonders and signs . The first of these words properly means the displays of power which Jesus made; the second, the unusual or remarkable events which attended him; the third, the signs or proofs that he was from God. Together, they denote the array or series of remarkable works--raising the dead, healing the sick, etc., which showed that Jesus was sent from God. The proof which they furnished that he was from God was this--that God would not confer such power on an impostor, and that therefore he was what he pretended to be. Which God did by him . The Lord Jesus himself often traced his power to do these things to his commission from the Father; but he did it in such a way as to show that he was closely united to him, . Peter here says that God did these works by Jesus Christ, to show that Jesus was truly sent by him, and that therefore he had the seal and attestation of God. The same thing Jesus himself said: , "The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." The great works which God has wrought in creation, as well as in redemption, he is represented as having done by his Son. , "By whom also he made the worlds." . In the midst of you . In your own land. It is also probable that many of the persons present had been witnesses of his miracles. As ye yourselves also know . They knew it either by having witnessed them, or by the evidence which everywhere abounded of the truth that he had wrought them. The Jews, even in the time of Christ, did not dare to call his miracles in question, . While they admitted the miracle, they attempted to trace it to the influence of Beelzebub, . So decided and numerous were the miracles of Jesus, that Peter here appeals to them as having been known by the Jews themselves to have been performed, and with a confidence that even they could not deny it. On this he proceeds to rear his argument for the truth of his Messiahship. (*) "approved" "manifested" (a) "miracles and wonders and signs" (b) "ye yourselves know"

Acts 2:22-23

Verse 22. Ye men of Israel. Descendants of Israel, or Jacob, i.e. Jews. Peter proceeds now to the third part of his argument, to show that Jesus Christ had been raised up; and that the scene which had occurred was in accordance with his promise, was proof of his resurrection, and of his exaltation to be the Messiah; and that therefore they should repent for their great sin in having put their own Messiah to death.

A man approved of God. A man who was shown or demonstrated to have the approbation of God, or to have been sent by him.

By miracles and wonders and signs. The first of these words properly means the displays of power which Jesus made; the second, the unusual or remarkable events which attended him; the third, the signs or proofs that he was from God. Together, they denote the array or series of remarkable works--raising the dead, healing the sick, etc., which showed that Jesus was sent from God. The proof which they furnished that he was from God was this--that God would not confer such power on an impostor, and that therefore he was what he pretended to be.

Which God did by him. The Lord Jesus himself often traced his power to do these things to his commission from the Father; but he did it in such a way as to show that he was closely united to him, Jn 5:19,30. Peter here says that God did these works by Jesus Christ, to show that Jesus was truly sent by him, and that therefore he had the seal and attestation of God. The same thing Jesus himself said: Jn 5:36, "The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." The great works which God has wrought in creation, as well as in redemption, he is represented as having done by his Son. Heb 1:2, "By whom also he made the worlds." Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-19.

In the midst of you. In your own land. It is also probable that many of the persons present had been witnesses of his miracles.

As ye yourselves also know. They knew it either by having witnessed them, or by the evidence which everywhere abounded of the truth that he had wrought them. The Jews, even in the time of Christ, did not dare to call his miracles in question, Jn 15:24. While they admitted the miracle, they attempted to trace it to the influence of Beelzebub, Mt 9:34, Mk 3:22. So decided and numerous were the miracles of Jesus, that Peter here appeals to them as having been known by the Jews themselves to have been performed, and with a confidence that even they could not deny it. On this he proceeds to rear his argument for the truth of his Messiahship.

(*) "approved" "manifested" (a) "miracles and wonders and signs" Jn 14:10,11, Heb 2:4 (b) "ye yourselves know" Jn 15:24 Verse 23. Him being delivered, εκδοτον. This word, delivered, is used commonly of those who are surrendered or delivered into the hands of enemies or adversaries. It means that Jesus was surrendered, or given up to his enemies, by those who should have been his protectors. Thus he was delivered to the chief priests, Mk 10:33. Pilate released Barabbas, and delivered Jesus to their will, Mk 15:15, Lk 23:25; he was delivered unto the Gentiles, Lk 18:32; the chief priests delivered him to Pilate, Mt 27:2; and Pilate delivered him to be crucified, Mt 27:26, Jn 19:16. In this manner was the death of Jesus accomplished, by being surrendered from one tribunal to another, and one demand of his countrymen, to another, until they succeeded in procuring his death. It may also be implied here, that he was given or surrendered by God to the hands of men. Thus he is represented to have been given by God, Jn 3:16, 1Jn 4:9,10. The Syriac translates this, "Him, who was destined to this by the foreknowledge and will of God, you delivered into the hands of wicked men," etc. The Arabic, "Him, delivered to you by the hands of the wicked, you received, and after you had mocked him, you slew him."

By the determinate counsel. The word translated determinate --τηωρισμενη-- means, properly, that which is defined, marked out, or bounded; as, to mark out or define the boundary of a field, etc. See Rom 1:1,4. In Acts 10:42, it is translated ordained of God; denoting his purpose that it should be so, i.e. that Jesus should be the Judge of quick and dead. Lk 22:22, "The Son of man goeth, as it was determined," i.e. as God has purposed or determined beforehand that he should go. Acts 11:29, "The disciples--determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea," i.e. they resolved or purposed beforehand to do it. Acts 17:26, "God-- hath determined the times before appointed," etc. In all these places there is the idea of a purpose, or intention, or plan implying intention, and marking out or fixing the boundaries to some future action or event. The word implies that the death of Jesus was resolved on by God before it took place. And this truth is established by all the predictions made in the Old Testament, and by the Saviour himself. God was not compelled to give up his Son. There was no claim on him for it. And he had a right, therefore, to determine when and how it should be done. The fact, moreover, that this was predicted, shows that it was fixed or resolved on. No event can be foretold, evidently, unless it be certain that it will take place. The event, therefore, must in some way be fixed or resolved on beforehand.

Counsel. βουλη. This word properly denotes purpose, decree, will. It expresses the act of the mind in willing, or the purpose or design which is formed. Here it means the purpose or will of God; it was his plan or decree that Jesus should be delivered. Acts 4:28, "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel ηβουλησου determined before to be done." Eph 1:11, "Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Heb 6:17, "God, willing to show the immutability of his counsel." See Acts 20:27, 1Cor 4:5, Lk 23:51. The word here, therefore, proves that Jesus was delivered by the deliberate purpose of God; that it was according to his previous intention and design. The reason why this was insisted on by Peter, was, that he might convince the Jews that Jesus was not delivered by weakness, or because he was unable to rescue himself. Such an opinion would have been inconsistent with the belief that he was the Messiah. It was important, then, to assert the dignity of Jesus, and to show that his death was in accordance with the fixed design of God; and, therefore, that it did not interfere in the least with his claims to be the Messiah. The same thing our Saviour has himself expressly affirmed, Jn 19:10,11, 10:18, Mt 26:53.

Foreknowledge. This word denotes the seeing beforehand of an event yet to take place. It implies,

(1.) omniscience; and,

(2.) that the event is fixed and certain. To foresee a contingent event, that is, to foresee that an event will take place, when it may or may not take place, is an absurdity. Foreknowledge, therefore, implies that for some reason the event will certainly take place. What that reason is, the word itself does not determine. As, however, God is represented in the Scriptures as purposing or determining future events; as they could not be foreseen by him unless he had so determined, so the word sometimes is used in the sense of determining beforehand, or as synonymous with decreeing, Rom 8:29, 11:2. In this place the word is used to denote that the delivering up of Jesus was something more than a bare or naked decree. It implies that God did it according to his foresight of what would be the best time, and place, and manner of its being done. It was not the result merely of will; it was will directed by a wise foreknowledge of what would be best. And this is the case with all the decrees of God. It follows from this, that the conduct of the Jews was foreknown. God was not disappointed in anything respecting their treatment of his Son. Nor will he be disappointed in any of the doings of men. Notwithstanding the wickedness of the world, his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure, Isa 46:10.

Ye have taken. See Mt 26:57. Ye Jews have taken. It is possible that some were present on this occasion who had been personally concerned in taking Jesus; and many who had joined in the cry, "Crucify him," Lk 23:18-21. It was, at any rate, the act of the Jewish people by which this had been done. This was a striking instance of the fidelity of that preaching which says, as Nathan did to David, "Thou art the man !" Peter, once so timid that he denied his Lord, now charged this atrocious crime on his countrymen, regardless of their anger and his own danger. He did not deal in general accusations, but brought the charges home, and declared that they were the men who had been concerned in this amazing crime. No preaching can be successful that does not charge on men their personal guilt; and that does not fearlessly proclaim their ruin and danger.

By wicked hands. Greek, "through or by the hands of the lawless, or wicked." This refers, doubtless, to Pilate and the Roman soldiers, through whose instrumentality this had been done. The reasons for supposing that this is the true interpretation of the passage are these:

(1.) The Jews had not the power of inflicting death themselves.

(2.) The term used here--wicked,ανομων was not applicable to the Jews, but to the Romans. It properly means lawless, or those who had not the law, and is often applied to the heathen, Rom 2:12,14; 1Cor 9:21.

(3.) The punishment which was inflicted was a Roman punishment.

(4.) It was a matter of fact, that the Jews, though they had condemned him, yet had not put him to death themselves, but had demanded it of the Romans. But though they had employed the Romans to do it, still they were the prime-movers in the deed; they had plotted, and compassed, and demanded his death; and they were therefore not the less guilty. The maxim of the common law, and of common sense, is, "he who does a deed by the instrumentality of another is responsible for it." It was from no merit of the Jews that they had not put him to death themselves. It was simply because the power was taken away from them.

Have crucified. Greek, "having affixed him to the cross, ye have put him to death." Peter here charges the crime fully on them. Their guilt was not diminished because they had employed others to do it. From this we may remark,

(1.) that this was one of the most amazing and awful crimes that could be charged on any men. It was malice, and treason, and hatred, and murder combined. Nor was it any common murder. It was their own Messiah whom they had put to death; the hope of their fathers; he who had been long promised by God, and the prospect of whose coming had so long cheered and animated the nation. They had now imbrued their hands in his blood, and stood charged with the awful crime of having murdered the Prince of peace.

(2.) It is no mitigation of guilt that we do it by the instrumentality of others. It is often, if not always, a deepening and extending of the crime.

(3.) We have here a striking and clear instance of the doctrine that the decrees of God do not interfere with the free agency of men. This event was certainly determined beforehand. Nothing is clearer than this. It is here expressly asserted; and it had been foretold with undeviating certainty by the prophets. God had, for wise and gracious purposes, purposed or decreed in his own mind that his Son should die at the time, and in the manner in which he did; for all the circumstances of his death, as well as of his birth and his life, were foretold. And yet, in this, the Jews and the Romans never supposed or alleged that they were compelled or cramped in what they did. They did what they chose. If in this case the decrees of God were not inconsistent with human freedom, neither can they be in any case. Between those decrees and the freedom of man there is no inconsistency, unless it could be shown--what never can be--that God compels men to act contrary to their own will. In that case there could be no freedom. But that is not the case with regard to the decrees of God. An act is what it is in itself; it can be contemplated and measured by itself. That it was foreseen, foreknown, or purposed, does not alter its nature, any more than it does that it be remembered after it is performed. The memory of what we have done does not destroy our freedom. Our own purposes in relation to our conduct do not destroy our freedom; nor can the purposes or designs of any other being violate one free moral action, unless he compels us to do a thing against our will.

(4.) We have here a proof that the decree of God does not take away the moral character of an action. It does not prove that an action is innocent if it is shown that it is a part of the wise plan of God to permit it. Never was there a more atrocious crime than the crucifixion of the Son of God. And yet it was determined on in the Divine counsels. So with all the deeds of human guilt. The purpose of God to permit them does not destroy their nature, or make them innocent. They are what they are in themselves. The purpose of God does not change their character; and if it is right to punish them in fact, they will be punished. If it is right for God to punish them, it was right to resolve to do it. And the sinner must answer for his sins, not for the plans of his Maker; nor can he take shelter in the day of wrath, against what he deserves, in the plea that God has determined future events. If any men could have done it, it would have been those whom Peter addressed; yet neither he nor they felt that their guilt was in the least diminished by the fact that Jesus was "delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God."

(5.) If this event was predetermined; if that act of amazing wickedness, when the Son of God was put to death, was fixed by the determinate counsel of God, then all the events leading to it, and the circumstances attending it, were also a part of the decree. The one could not be determined without the other.

(6.) If that event was determined, then others may be also consistently with human freedom and responsibility. There can be no deed of wickedness that shall surpass that of crucifying the Son of God. And if the acts of his murderers were a part of the wise counsel of God, then on the same principle are we to suppose that all events are under his direction, and ordered by a purpose infinitely wise and good.

(7.) If the Jews could not take shelter from the charge of wickedness under the plea that it was foreordained, then no sinners can do it. This was as clear a case as can ever occur; and yet the apostle did not intimate that an excuse or mitigation for their sin could be pleaded from this cause. This case, therefore, meets all the excuses of sinners from this plea, and proves that those excuses will not avail them or save them in the day of judgment.

(c) "delivered by the determinate" Lk 22:22, 24:44, Acts 3:18 (d) "ye have taken" Acts 5:30 (e) "and by wicked hands" Mt 27:1

Acts 2:37

Verse 37. Now when they heard this. When they heard this declaration of Peter, and this proof that Jesus was the Messiah. There was no fanaticism in his discourse; it was cool, close, pungent reasoning. He proved to them the truth of what he was saying, and thus prepared the way for this effect.

They were pricked in their heart. The word translated were pricked, κατενυγησαν, is not used elsewhere in the New Testament. It properly denotes to pierce or penetrate with a needle, lancet, or sharp instrument; and then to pierce with grief, or acute pain of any kind. It answers precisely to our word compunction. It implies also the idea of sudden as well as acute grief. In this case it means that they were suddenly and deeply affected with anguish and alarm at what Peter had said. The causes of their grief may have been these:

(1.) Their sorrow that the Messiah had been put to death by his own countrymen.

(2.) Their deep sense of guilt in having clone this. There would be mingled here a remembrance of ingratitude, and a consciousness that they had been guilty of murder of the most aggravated and horrid kind, that of having killed their own Messiah.

(3.) The fear of his wrath. He was still alive, exalted to be their Lord, and entrusted with all power. They were afraid of his vengeance; they were conscious that they deserved it; and they supposed that they were exposed to it.

(4.) What they had done could not be undone. The guilt remained; they could not wash it out. They had imbrued their hands in the blood of innocence; and the guilt of that oppressed their souls. This expresses the usual feelings which sinners have when they are convicted of sin.

Men and brethren. This was an expression denoting affectionate earnestness. Just before this they mocked the disciples, and charged them with being filled with new wine, Acts 2:13. They now treated them with respect and confidence. The views which sinners have of Christians and Christian ministers are greatly changed when they are under conviction for sin. Before that, they may deride and oppose them; then, they are glad to be taught by the obscurest Christian--and even cling to a minister of the gospel as if he could save them by his own power.

What shall we do? What shall we do to avoid the wrath of this crucified and exalted Messiah? They were apprehensive of his vengeance, and they wished to know how to avoid it. Never was a more important question asked than this. It is the question which all convicted sinners ask. It implies an apprehension of danger; a sense of guilt, and a readiness to yield the will to the claims of God. This was the same question asked by Paul, (Acts 9:6,) "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" and by the jailer, (Acts 16:29,30,) "He came trembling--and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" The state of mind in this case--the case of a convicted sinner--consists in

(1.) a deep sense of the evil of the past life; remembrance of a thousand crimes perhaps before forgotten; a pervading and deepening conviction that the heart, and conversation, and life has been evil, and deserves condemnation.

(2.) apprehension about the justice of God; alarm when the mind looks upward to him, or onward to the day of death and judgment.

(3.) An earnest wish, amounting sometimes to agony, to be delivered from this sense of condemnation, and this apprehension of the future.

(4.) a readiness to sacrifice all to the will of God, to surrender the governing purpose of the mind, and to do what he requires. In this state the soul is prepared to receive the offers of eternal life; and when the sinner comes to this, the offers of mercy meet his case, and he yields himself to the Lord Jesus, and finds peace.

In regard to this discourse of Peter, and this remarkable result, we may observe,

(1.) that this is the first discourse which was preached after the ascension of Christ, and is a model which the ministers of religion should imitate.

(2.) It is a clear and close argument. There is no ranting, no declamation, nothing but truth presented in a clear and striking manner. It abounds with proof of his main point; and supposes that his hearers were rational beings, and capable of being influenced by truth. Ministers have no right to address men as incapable of reason and thought; nor to imagine that because they are speaking on religious subjects, that therefore they are at liberty to speak nonsense.

(3.) Though these were eminent sinners, and had added to the crime of murdering the Messiah that of deriding the Holy Ghost and the ministers of the gospel, yet Peter reasoned with them coolly, and endeavoured to convince them of their guilt. Men should be treated as endowed with reason, and as capable of seeing the force and beauty of the great truths of religion.

(4.) The arguments of Peter were adapted to make this impression on their minds, and to impress them deeply with the sense of their guilt. He proved to them that they had been guilty of putting the Messiah to death; that God had raised him up; and that they were now in the midst of the scenes which established one strong proof of the truth of what he was saying. No class of truths could have been so well adapted to make an impression of their guilt as these.

(5.) Conviction for sin is a rational process on a sinner's mind. It is the proper state produced by a view of the past sins. It is suffering truth to make an appropriate impression; suffering the mind to feel as it ought to feel. The man who is guilty, ought to be willing to see and confess it. It is no disgrace to confess an error, or to feel deeply when we know we are guilty. Disgrace consists in a hypocritical desire to conceal crime; in the pride that is unwilling to avow it; in the falsehood which denies it. To feel it, and to acknowledge it, is the mark of an open and ingenuous mind.

(6.) These same truths are adapted still to produce conviction for sin. The sinner's treatment of the Messiah should produce grief and alarm. He did not murder him--but he has rejected him; he did not crown him with thorns--but he has despised him; he did not insult him when hanging on the cross-- but he has a thousand times insulted him since; he did not pierce his side with the spear--but he has pierced his heart by rejecting him, and contemning his mercy. For these things he should weep. In the Saviour's resurrection he has also a deep interest. He rose as the pledge that we may rise: and when the sinner looks forward, he should remember that he must meet the ascended Son of God, The Saviour reigns; he lives, Lord of all. The sinner's deeds now are aimed at his throne, and his heart, and his crown. All his crimes are seen by his Sovereign; and it is not safe to mock the Son of God on his throne, or to despise Him who will soon come to judgment. When the sinner feels these truths, he should tremble, and cry out, What shall I do?

(7.) We see here how the Spirit operates in producing conviction of sin. It is not in an arbitrary manner; it is in accordance with truth, and by the truth. Nor have we a right to expect that he will convict and convert men, except as the truth is presented to their minds. They who desire success in the gospel should present clear, striking, and impressive truth; for such only God is accustomed to bless.

(8.) We have, in the conduct of Peter and the other apostles, a striking instance of the power of the gospel. Just before, Peter, trembling and afraid, had denied his Master with an oath. Now, in the presence of the murderers of the Son of God, he boldly charged them with their crime, and dared their fury. Just before, all the disciples forsook the Lord Jesus, and fled. Now, in the presence of his murderers, they lifted their voice, and proclaimed their guilt and danger, even in the city where he had been just arraigned and put to death. What could have produced this change but the power of God! And is there not proof here that a religion which produces such changes came from heaven?

(a) "pricked in their heart" Eze 7:16, Zech 12:10 (b) "what shall we do" Acts 9:6, 16:30

Acts 3:13-15

Verse 13. The God of Abraham. He is called the God of Abraham be- cause Abraham acknowledged him as his God, and because God showed himself to be his Friend. Comp. Mt 22:32, Ex 3:6,15, Gen 28:13, 26:24. It was important to show that it was the same God who had done this that had been acknowledged by their fathers; and that they were not about to introduce the worship of any other God. And it was especially important, because the promise had been made to Abraham, that in his seed should all the families of the earth be blessed, Gen 12:3. Comp. Gal 3:16.

Hath glorified. Has honoured. You denied, despised, and murdered him; but God has exalted and honoured him. This miracle was done in the name of Jesus, Acts 3:6. It was the power of God that had restored him; and by putting forth this power God had shown that he approved the work of his Son, and was disposed to honour him in the view of men. Comp. Jn 17:1, Eph 1:20-22, Php 2:9-11 Heb 2:9, Rev 1:5-18.

Ye delivered up. That is, you delivered him to the Romans to be put to death. Acts 2:23.

And denied him in the presence of Pilate. Denied that he was the Messiah. Were unwilling to own him as your long-expected King, Jn 19:15.

When he was determined, etc. Mt 27:17-25, Lk 23:16-23. Pilate was satisfied of his innocence; but he was weak, and timid, and irresolute, and yielded to their wishes. The fact that Pilate regarded him as innocent was a strong aggravation of their crime. They should have regarded him as innocent; but they urged on his condemnation, against the deliberate judgment of him before whom they had arraigned him; and thus showed how obstinately they were resolved on his death.

(a) "God of Abraham" Mt 22:32 (b) "hath glorified" Acts 5:30,31 (c) "his son Jesus" Jn 17:1, Eph 1:20-22, Php 2:9-11, Heb 2:9 Rev 1:5,18 (d) "denied him" Jn 19:15 (*) "let him go" "Release him" Verse 14. The Holy One, etc. See Ps 16:10. Comp. Acts 2:27.

And the Just. The word just here denotes innocent, or one who was free from crime. It properly is used in reference to law, and denotes one who stands upright in the view of the law, or who is not chargeable with crime. In this sense the Lord Jesus was not only personally innocent, but even before his judges he stood unconvicted of any crime. The crime charged on him at first was blasphemy, Mt 26:65; and on this charge the sanhedrim had condemned him, without proof. But of this charge Pilate would not take cognizance, and hence before him they charged him with sedition, Lk 23:2. Neither of these charges were made out; and, of course, in the eye of the law he was innocent and just. It greatly aggravated their crime that they demanded his death still, even after it was ascertained that they could prove nothing against him; thus showing that it was mere hatred and malice that led them to seek his death.

And desired a murderer. Mt 27:21.

(f) "Holy One" Mt 17:17-25, Lk 23:15-23 (g) "Just" Acts 7:52, 22:14 Verse 15. And killed the Prince of life. The word rendered prince denotes, properly, a military leader or commander. Hence, in Heb 2:10, it is translated captain: "It became him--to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." As a captain or commander leads on to victory, and is said to obtain it, so the word comes to denote one who is the cause, the author, the procurer, etc. In this sense it is used: Acts 5:31, "Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel," etc. In Heb 12:2, it is properly rendered author: "Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith." The word author, or giver, would express the meaning of the word here. It also implies that he has dominion over life; an idea, indeed, which is essentially connected with that of his being the author of it. The word life here is used in a large sense, as denoting all manner of life. In this sense it is used in reference to Christ in Jn 1:4, "In him was life," etc. Comp. Jn 5:26, 1Jn 5:11, 1Cor 15:45. Jesus is here called the Prince of life in contrast with him whom the Jews demanded in his place, Barabbas. He was a murderer, Lk 23:19; Mk 15:7, one who had destroyed life; and yet they demanded that he whose character it was to destroy life should be released, and the Author of life be put to death.

Whom God hath raised, etc., Acts 2:24,32.

(h) "raised from the dead" Mt 28:2-6, Eph 1:20 (i) "whereof we are witnesses" Acts 2:32

Acts 4:10

Verse 10. Be it known, etc. Peter might have evaded the question, or he might have resorted to many excuses and subterfuges, (Calvin,) if he had been desirous of avoiding this inquiry. But it was a noble opportunity for vindicating the honour of his Lord and Master. It was a noble opportunity also for repairing the evil which he had done by his guilty denial of his Lord. Although, therefore, this frank and open avowal was attended with danger, and although it was in the presence of the great and the mighty, yet he chose to state fully and clearly his conviction of the truth. Never was there an instance of greater boldness; and never could there be a more striking illustration of the fitness of the name which the Lord Jesus gave him, that of a rock, Jn 1:42, Mt 16:17,18. The timid, trembling, yielding, and vacillating Simon, he who just before was terrified by a servant girl, and who on the lake was afraid of sinking, is now transformed into the manly, decided, and firm Cephas, fearless before the great council of the nation, and in an unwavering tone asserting the authority of Him whom he had just before denied, and whom they had just before put to death. It is not possible to account for this change except on the supposition that this religion is true. Peter had no worldly motive to actuate him. He had no prospect of wealth or fame by this. Even the hopes of honour and preferment which they had cherished before the death of Jesus, and which might have been supposed to influence them then, were now abandoned by the apostles. Their Master had died; and all their hopes of human honour and power had been buried in his grave. Nothing but the conviction of the truth could have wrought this change, and transformed this timid disciple to a bold and uncompromising apostle.

By the name. By the authority or power, Acts 3:6.

Of Jesus Christ. The union of these two names would be particularly offensive to the sanhedrim. They denied that Jesus was the Christ, or the Messiah; Peter, by the use of the word Christ, affirmed that he was. In the language then used, it would be, "By the name of Jesus, the Messiah."

Of Nazareth. Lest there should be any mistake about his meaning, he specified that he referred to the despised Nazarene; to him who had just been put to death, as they supposed, covered with infamy. Christians little regard the epithets of opprobrium which may be affixed to themselves or to their religion.

Whom ye crucified. There is emphasis in all the expressions that Peter uses. He had before charged the people with the crime of having put him to death, Acts 2:23, 3:14,15; but he now had the opportunity, contrary to all expectation, of urging the charge with still greater force on the rulers themselves, on the very council which had condemned him and delivered him to Pilate. It was a remarkable providence that an opportunity was thus afforded of urging this charge in the presence of the sanhedrim, and of proclaiming to them the necessity of repentance. Little did they imagine, when they condemned the Lord Jesus, that this charge would be so soon urged. This is one of the instances in which God takes the wise in their own craftiness, Job 5:13. They had arraigned the apostles; they demanded their authority for what they had done; and thus they had directly opened the way, and invited them to the serious and solemn charge which Peter here urges against them.

(a) "that by the name" Acts 3:6,16 (*) "whole" "well"

Acts 4:26-28

Verse 26. The kings of the earth. The Psalmist specifies more particularly that kings and rulers would be opposed to the Messiah. This had occurred already by the opposition made to the Messiah by the rulers of the Jewish people; and it would be still more evinced by princes and kings, as the gospel should spread among the nations.

Stood up. The word here used παριστημι commonly means, to present one's self, or to stand forth, for the purpose of aiding, counselling, etc. But here it means that they rose, or presented themselves, to evince their opposition. They stood opposed to the Messiah, and offered resistance to him.

The rulers. This is another instance of the Hebrew parallelism. The word does not denote another class of men from kings, but expresses the same idea in another form, or in a more general manner, meaning that all classes of persons in authority would be opposed to the gospel.

Were gathered together. Hebrew, consulted together; were united in a consultation. The Greek implies that they were assembled for the purpose of consultation.

Against the Lord. In the Hebrew, "against Jehovah." This is the peculiar name which is given in the Scriptures to God. They rose against his plan of appointing a Messiah, and against the Messiah whom he had chosen.

Against his Christ. Hebrew, against his Messiah, or his Anointed. Mt 1;1. This is one of the places where the word Messiah is used in the Old Testament. The word occurs in about forty places, and is commonly translated his anointed, and is applied to kings. The direct reference of the word to the Messiah in the Old Testament is not frequent. This passage implies that opposition to the Messiah is opposition to Jehovah. And this is uniformly supposed in the sacred Scriptures. He that is opposed to Christ is opposed to God. He that neglects him neglects God. He that despises him despises God, Mt 10:40, 18:5, Jn 12:44,45, Lk 10:16, "He that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." The reasons of this are,

(1.) that the Messiah is "the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his" subsistence, Heb 1:3.

(2.) He is equal with the Father, possessing the same attributes, and the same power, Jn 1:1, Php 2:6, etc. To despise him, therefore, is to despise God.

(3.) He is appointed by God to this great work of saving men. To despise him, or to oppose him, is to despise and oppose him who appointed him to this work, to contemn his counsels, and to set him at nought.

(4.) His work is dear to God. It has engaged his thoughts. It has been approved by him. His mission has been confirmed by the miraculous power of the Father, and by every possible manifestation of his approbation and love. To oppose the Messiah is, therefore, to oppose that which is dear to the heart of God, and which has long been the object of his tender solicitude. It follows from this, that they who neglect the Christian religion are exposing themselves to the sore displeasure of God, and endangering their everlasting interests. No man is safe who opposes God; and no man can have evidence that God will approve him, who does not embrace the Messiah whom he has appointed to redeem the world. Verse 27. For of a truth. Truly; in reality.

Thy holy child Jesus. The word child is commonly applied to infants, or to sons and daughters in very early life. The word which is used here παις is different from that which is commonly applied to the Lord Jesus, υιος. The latter expresses sonship, without respect to age. The word which is here used also sometimes expresses sonship without any regard to age; and the word son would have been a more happy translation. Thus the same word is translated in Acts 3:13,26. In Acts 20:12, it is translated "young man."

Both Herod, etc. Lk 23:1-12.

With the Gentiles. The Romans, to whom he was delivered to be crucified.

The people of Israel. The Jews, who were excited to this by the rulers, Mt 27:20.

(a) "both Herod, and Pontus Pilate" Lk 23:1-8 (+) "together" "combined" Verse 28. For to do, etc. Acts 2:23; Acts 3:18. The facts which are brought to view in these verses are among the most remarkable on record. They are briefly these:

(1.) That the Jewish rulers were opposed to the Messiah, and slew him.

(2.) That the very people to whom he came, and for whose benefit he laboured, joined in the opposition, so that it became the act of a united people.

(3.) That the Romans who were there, as a sort of representation of all pagan nations, were easily prevailed on to join in the persecution, and to become the executioners.

(4.) That thus opposite factions, and dissimilar and prejudiced people, became united in opposing the Messiah.

(5.) That the rulers of the Roman people, the emperors, and statesmen, and philosophers, and the rulers of other nations, united to oppose the gospel, and brought all the power of persecution to stay its progress.

(6.) That the people of the empire, the mass of men, were easily prevailed upon to join in the persecution, and endeavour to arrest its progress. And,

(7.) that the gospel has encountered similar difficulties and opposition wherever it has been faithfully presented to the attention of men. It has become a very serious question why this has been; or on what pretence this opposition has been vindicated; or how it can be accounted for. A question which it is of as much importance for the infidel as for the Christian to settle. We know that accusations of the corrupt lives of the early Christians were freely circulated, and the most gross accounts given of their scandalous conduct were propagated by those who chose to persecute them. (See Lardher's Credibility.) But such accounts are not now believed; and it is not certain that they were ever seriously believed by the rulers of the pagan people. It is certain that it was not on this account that the first opposition arose to Christ and his religion.

It is not proper here to enter into an examination of the causes of this opposition. We may state the outlines, however, in few words.

(1.) The Jewish rulers were mortified, humbled, and moved with envy, that one so poor and despised should claim to be the Messiah. They had expected a different monarch; and all their prejudices rose at once against his claims to this high office, Mt 27:18, Mk 15:10.

(2.) The common people, disposed extensively to acknowledge his claims, were urged on by the enraged and vindictive priests to demand his death, Mt 27:20.

(3.) Pilate was pressed on against his will by the impetuous and enraged multitude to deliver one whom he regarded as innocent.

(4.) The Christian religion in its advances struck at once at the whole fabric of superstition in the Roman empire, and throughout the world. It did not, like other religions, ask a place amidst the religions already existing. It was exclusive in its claims. It denounced all other systems as idolatry or superstition, and sought to overthrow them. Those religions were interwoven With all the habits of the people; they were connected with all the departments of the state; they gave occupation to a vast number of priests and other officers, who obtained their livelihood by the existing superstitions, and who brought, of course, all the supposed sacredness of their character to support them. A religion which attempted to overthrow the whole fabric, therefore, at once excited all their malice. The monarchs, whose thrones were based on the existing state of things; and the people, who venerated the religion of their ancestors, would be opposed to the new system.

(5.) Christianity was despised. It was regarded as one form of the superstition of the Jews. And there was no people who were regarded with so much contempt by all other nations as the Jews. The writings of the Romans, on this point, are full proof.

(6.) The new religion was opposed to all the crimes of the world. It began its career in a time of eminent wickedness. It plunged at once into the midst of this wickedness; sought the great cities where crimes and pollutions were condensed; and boldly reproved every form of prevailing impiety. At Athens, at Corinth, at Ephesus, at Rome itself, it denounced the judgment of God against every form of guilt. Whatever may be charged on the apostles, it will not be alleged that they were timid in denouncing the sins of the world. From all these causes, it is not wonderful that the early Christians were persecuted. If it be asked

(7.) why the same religion meets with opposition now in lands that are nominally Christian, it may be remarked,

(a) that the human heart is the same that it always was, opposed to truth and righteousness;

(b) that religion encounters still a host of sins that are opposed to it--pride, envy, malice, passion, the love of the world, and shame of acknowledging God;

(e) that there has always been a peculiar opposition in the human heart to receiving salvation as the gift of God through a crucified Redeemer; and

(d) that all the forms of vice, and lust, and profaneness that exist in the world, are opposed, and ever will be, to a religion of purity, and self-denial, and love.

On the whole, We may remark here,

(1.) that the fact that Christianity has been thus opposed, and has triumphed, is no small proof of its Divine origin. It has been fairly tried, and still survives and flourishes. It was well to put it to the test, and to bring to bear on it everything which had a tendency to crush it, and thus to furnish the highest proof that it is from God.

(2.) This religion cannot be destroyed; it will triumph; opposition to it is vain; it will make its way throughout the world; and the path of safety is not to oppose that which God is intending to establish in the earth. Sinners who stand opposed to the gospel should tremble and be afraid; for sooner or later they must fall before its triumphant advances. It is not SAFE to oppose that which has already been opposed by kings and rulers in every form, and yet has triumphed. It is not wise to risk one's eternal welfare on the question of successful opposition to that which God has, in so many ages and ways, pledged himself to protect; and when God has solemnly declared that the Son, the Messiah, whom he would set on his holy hill of Zion, should "break" his enemies "with a rod of iron," and "dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel," Ps 2:9.

(b) "For to do whatsoever" Acts 3:18 (c) "determined before to be done" Prov 21:30, Isa 46:10, 53:10