AP

Jerusalem to Rome: A Journey Through Acts

Bible Studies on the Acts of the Apostles

Acts 3:1-26

The Miracle, verses 1-10

At this point the believers are still following the Jewish customs and worship: they attend the usual time of prayer, which accompanied the evening oblation (see Exodus 29:38ff). “A service of public prayer accompanied the two sacrifices and there was a further service at sunset” (Schürer). It seems the timing of the second sacrifice had been moved forward since the time of the Exodus, from ‘evening’ to the 9^th hour, that is, 3 p.m. as it was practised during Jesus’ time on earth.

As Peter and John were entering the Beautiful Gate, they saw a lame man being carried in. He was well-known in Jerusalem, because he had been lame since birth and was put in the temple to beg every day. The poor man asked for money; he had no way of earning anything. Peter and John looked at him with intent. Peter asked the man to look at them. He did, expecting them to give him something. Peter offers him something much more wonderful than money (v.6). Note that he offers healing “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.”

Thomas Aquinas called upon Pope Innocent II once when the latter was counting a large sum of money. ‘You see, Thomas,’ said the Pope, ‘the Church can no longer say, Silver and gold have I none.’ ‘True, holy father,’ said Thomas, ‘and neither can she now say, Arise and walk’.

When the people saw the miracle, they were “filled with wonder and amazement.” Perhaps some were reminded of Jesus’ miracles. He too, had told a lame man to “rise up and walk” (Luke 5:20-26). Or if they did not know about Jesus’ miracle, they might have recalled what Isaiah had said concerning the coming of the Messianic age: “Then shall the lame man leap like a deer” (Isaiah 35:6). By speaking in the name of Jesus Christ, the disciples testified that this miracle was another confirmation that Jesus was indeed the Lord and Messiah.

Peter’s explanation, verses 11-26

After the service, Peter, John, and the healed man were in Solomon’s Colonnade, where they attracted a crowd of people. This gave Peter the opportunity to explain what had happened. First of all, he denies any merit to himself: “Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?” He goes on to say that it is God’s doing. He uses the time-honoured language of Jewish liturgy: “The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob has glorified his servant Jesus.” (See Exodus 3:6 and 14-15 where this phrase is first used). Peter then reminds the people that it was they who handed Jesus over to be killed, even though Pilate had found no fault in him: “Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man’” (Luke 23:4).

Peter uses some wonderful contrasts to narrate what had happened:

handed him over                                                                  decided to let him go

the Holy and Righteous One                                                           a murderer

the author of life                                                                  raised him from the dead

Peter alludes to Isaiah (verses 13 and 26) when he refers to Jesus as ‘servant’ – see Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12, as well as 42:1. Peter softens the accusation by saying that the people ‘acted in ignorance,’ but it was nevertheless God’s will to bring about salvation in Christ. On the cross Jesus had said “Father, forgive them, for the do not know what they are doing.” (See also 1 Corinthians 2:8; 1 Timothy 1:13). The point Peter makes about ignorance is made by Paul in Athens (Acts 17:30).

The suffering was foretold in the Messianic Psalm 22:24 “For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.” See also Isaiah 53:3-11. Jesus foretold his own suffering (Matthew 16:21 and 17:12 and in Mark).

Peter once more calls the people to repentance, “so that your sins may be wiped out.” Repentance always precedes the forgiveness of sins. The leaders and people of Israel are given the opportunity to be forgiven of the sin of crucifying the Lord of life.

The word for ‘refreshing’ (v. 19) can also be translated as ‘respite.’ Repentance would bring the people of Jerusalem a respite from the judgement pronounced by Jesus, just as it brought the Ninevites a respite from the judgement pronounced by Jonah. (Nineveh’s final destruction is described in Nahum). But while Nineveh’s doom was deferred, Jerusalem fell (AD 70) within the time-limit announced: “this generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished” (Mark 13:30). Israel as a whole declined the renewed offer of grace and refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

Peter reminds them of what Moses had said: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.” (Deuteronomy 18:18). Some of Jesus’ listeners perceived him to be the prophet promised by Moses (John 6:14 and 7:40). By invoking Moses’s prediction, Peter and others in the early church confirmed Jesus as being “the Prophet.” John the Baptist had denied being “the Prophet” (John 1:21, 25).  

Samuel does not explicitly refer to Jesus, but he anointed David and spoke of the establishment of his kingdom (1 Samuel 13:14; 15:28; 16:13; 28:17), after taking it away from Saul. The promises made to David found their highest fulfilment in Jesus (2 Samuel 7).

Finally, Peter reminds his hearers of the promise to Abraham: “Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.” Christ came first to his own people, as John said: “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John1:11). The rejection of the gospel by most (not all) Jews is a theme repeated throughout Acts, as we will see.

 Questions:

Thinking about the daily sacrifices that continued until the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, how long would it have taken the new Christians to realise that they were no longer necessary?

What would you say to a Roman Catholic who talks about the “sacrifice of the mass” and believes that Christ is offered up as a victim every time mass is celebrated?

Can a church’s reliance on material wealth be an impediment to the blessings of God?

– Alida Sewell