"It seems strange, at first glance, that in his narrative Luke would place two such similar sermons of Peter so close together. But his putting the Pentecost sermon in the introductory section of Acts was evidently meant to be a kind of paradigm of early apostolic preaching--a paradigm Luke seems to have polished for greater literary effectiveness. As for the Colonnade sermon, Luke seems to have included it as an example of how the early congregation in Jerusalem proclaimed the message of Jesus to the people of Israel as a whole."207
Peter and John, with the healed lame man clinging to them, moved into the portico of the temple, and a large crowed, amazed by the healing, followed them (cf. 21:30). A covered porch supported by a series of columns surrounded the outer temple courtyard, the Court of the Gentiles. The eastern portion of this porch bore the name Solomon's portico. Peter addressed the curious throng from this convenient shaded area.
"In his former address Peter had testified to the power and presence of the Spirit of God at work in a new way in the lives of men through Jesus. Now he proclaims the power and authority of the name of Jesus by which his disciples are enabled to continue his ministry on earth. In both speeches there is a call for repentance for the crime of crucifying the Messiah, but here Peter stresses the role of Jesus as the Suffering Servant of God and as the new Moses who must be obeyed."208
3:12-15 Luke recorded seven of Peter's addresses in Acts (1:16-22; 2:14-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12: 10:34-43; 11:4-17; 15:7-11). It is noteworthy that in these sermons Peter did not discuss abstract doctrines or reason about profound theological problems. He presented the person and work of Christ in simple terms.
Peter spoke to his audience as a fellow Jew. First, he denied that it was the power or godliness of himself or John that was responsible for the healing. Rather it was the God of the patriarchs, the God of their fathers, who was responsible. He had performed this miracle through the apostles to glorify His Servant Jesus (cf. 2:22). It was God's Servant Jesus whom Peter's hearers had disowned and put to death preferring a murderer, Barabbas, to Him.
Peter called Jesus the Servant (Gr. paida) of the Lord, the subject of messianic prophecy (Isa. 42:1; 49:6-7; 52:13; 53:11; cf. Mark 10:45); the Holy One, a title of Messiah (Ps. 16:10; Isa. 31:1; cf. Mark 1:24; 1 John 220); the Righteous One (Isa. 53:11; Zech. 9:9; cf. 1 John 2:1); and the Prince (Author) of Life (Ps. 16; cf. Heb. 2:10; 12:2). Peter pointed out three inconsistencies in the Jews' treatment of Jesus and contrasted their treatment of Him with God's. They had condemned Him when Pilate was about to release Him (v. 13). They rejected the Holy and Righteous One out of preference for a murderer, Barabbas (v. 14; Luke 23:18-19). Furthermore they executed the Author of Life whom God raised from the dead, of which the apostles were witnesses (v. 15). Prince or Author of Life presents Jesus as the resurrected Messiah who gives life that overcomes death.209
3:16 The proclamation portion of Peter's sermon expounds "the name of Jesus"(cf. v. 6). The "name"of Jesus summarizes everything about Him here as elsewhere in Scripture. Peter attributed the beggar's healing to the power of Jesus and to the man's trust in what he knew about Jesus. Jesus had given him faith. If the beggar had had no confidence in the deity and divine power of Jesus, he would not have responded to Peter's invitation to walk (v. 6). His response demonstrated his faith. Undoubtedly this man had seen and heard Jesus when He was in the temple. Jesus had given him "perfect health."
"The Christian knows that so long as he thinks of what Ican do and what Ican be, there can be nothing but failure and frustration and fear; but when he thinks of not I, but Christ in me' there can be nothing but peace and power."210
3:17-18 If Peter's charges against his hearers were harsh (vv. 13-15), his concession that they acted out of ignorance was tender. Peter undoubtedly hoped that his gentle approach would win a reversal of his hearers' attitude.
Jesus did not demonstrate His deity as convincingly as He might have during His earthly ministry. Consequently the reaction of unbelief that many rulers as well as common Israelites demonstrated was partially due to their ignorance. They were also ignorant of the fact that Jesus fulfilled many messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Peter hastened to point out that Jesus' sufferings harmonized with those predicted of the Messiah by Israel's prophets. It was the prophets' revelations about the death of Messiah that the Jews in Peter's day, including Jesus' own disciples, had difficulty understanding.
"Doubtless many in Peter's Jewish audience would have been agreeable to much of the preceding statement. They would not have been averse to accepting the idea of a genuine miracle, nor were they unfamiliar with Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker. The problem they faced was identifying Jesus as their conquering Messiah in the light of the crucifixion."211
3:19-21 If Jesus was the Messiah, where was the messianic kingdom? Peter proceeded to explain from Scripture that the Jews needed to accept their Messiah before the messianic kingdom would begin. He again called on his hearers to repent in view of what he had pointed out (cf. 2:38). He also invited them to "return"to a proper relationship to God that was possible only by accepting Jesus. The result would be forgiveness of their sins. Note that there is no reference to baptism as being essential to either repentance or forgiveness in this verse (cf. 2:38).
What is repentance, and what place does it have in salvation?
The Greek noun translated "repentance"(metanoia) literally means "after mind,"as in afterthought, or change of mind. Concerning salvation it means to think differently about sin, oneself, and the Savior than one used to think. Peter's hearers had thought Jesus was not the Messiah. Now they needed to change their minds and believe He is the Messiah.
The Greek verb metanoeo, translated "repent,"does not mean to be sorry for sin or to turn from sin. These are the resultsor fruits of repentance.
"The conclusive evidence that repentance does not mean to be sorry for sin or to turn from sin is this: in the Old Testament, Godrepents. In the King James Version, the word repentoccurs forty-six times in the Old Testament. Thirty-seven of these times, God is the one repenting (or not repenting). If repentance meant sorrow for sin, God would be a sinner."212
People can repent concerning many things, not just sin, as the Scriptures use this term. They can also change their minds about God (Acts 20:21), Christ (Acts 2:37-38), and works (Heb. 6:1; Rev. 9:20; 16:11), as well as sin (Acts 8:22; Rev. 9:21). This shows that in biblical usage repentance means essentially a change of mind.
Repentance and faith are not two steps in salvation but one step looked at from two perspectives. Appeals to repent do not contradict the numerous promises that faith is all that is necessary for salvation (e.g., John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 20:30-31; Rom. 4; et al.). The faith that saves includes repentance (a change of mind). One changes from unbelief to belief (Acts 11:17-18). Sometimes the New Testament writers used the two terms together (e.g., Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1). Sometimes they used repentance alone as the sole requirement for salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 26:20; 2 Pet. 3:9). Nonetheless whether one term or both occur, they are as inseparable as the two sides of a coin.
". . . true repentance never exists except in conjunction with faith, while, on the other hand, wherever there is true faith, there is also real repentance."213
"Biblical repentance may be described thus: the sinner has been trusting in himself for salvation, his back turned upon Christ, who is despised and rejected. Repent! About face! The sinner now despises and rejects himself, and places all confidence and trust in Christ. Sorrow for sin comes later, as the Christian grows in appreciation of the holiness of God, and the sinfulness of sin."214
"We believe that the new birth of the believer comes only through faith in Christ and that repentance is a vital part of believing, and is in no way, in itself, a separate and independent condition of salvation; nor are any other acts, such as confession, baptism, prayer, or faithful service, to be added to believing as a condition of salvation."215
"Therefore, in a word, I interpret repentance as regeneration, whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God that had been disfigured and all but obliterated through Adam's transgression."216
The phrase "times of refreshing"(v. 19) seems to refer to the blessings connected with the day of the Lord, particularly the Millennium, in view of how Peter described them in verses 20-21.217They connect with the second coming of Messiah, the "period"of restoration of all things. They are the subject of Old Testament prophecy. Zechariah predicted that the Jews would one day accept Messiah whom they had formerly rejected (Zech. 12:10-14; cf. Jer. 15:19; 16:15; 24:6; 50:19; Ezek. 16:55; Hos. 11:11). Peter urged them to do that now.
Some dispensational expositors believe that if the Jews had repented as a nation in response to Peter's exhortation Christ might have returned and set up His kingdom. There seems to be nothing in scriptural prophecy that would have made this impossible. Peter, therefore, may have been calling for both individual repentance and national repentance. The result of the former was individual forgiveness and spiritual salvation. The result of the latter would have been national forgiveness and physical deliverance from Rome, and the inauguration of the messianic (millennial) kingdom.
"Was Peter saying here that if Israel repented, God's kingdom would have come to earth? This must be answered in the affirmative for several reasons: (1) The word restore(3:21) is related to the word restore' in 1:6. In 3:21 it is in its noun form (apokatastaseos), and in 1:6 it is a verb (apokathistaneis). Both occurrences anticipate the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (cf. Matt. 17:11; Mark 9:12). (2) The concept of restoration parallels regeneration when it is used of the kingdom (cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Matt. 19:28; Rom. 8:20-22). (3) The purpose clauses are different in Acts 3:19 and 20. In verse 19 a so thattranslates pros to(some mss. have eis to) with the infinitive [in the NIV]. This points to a near purpose. The two occurrences of thatin verses 19b and 20 are translations of a different construction (hoposwith subjunctive verbs), and refer to more remote purposes. Thus repentance would result in forgiveness of sins, the near purpose (v. 19a). Then if Israel as a whole would repent, a second more remote goal, the coming of the kingdom (times of refreshingat the second coming of Christ) would be fulfilled. (4) The sending of the Christ, that is, Messiah (v. 20) meant the coming of the kingdom. (5) The Old Testament foretold these days' (v. 24; cf. v. 21). The Old Testament prophetsdid not predict the church; to them it was a mystery (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:1-6). But the prophets often spoke of the messianic golden age, that is, the Millennium.
"This offer of salvation and of the Millennium pointed both to God's graciousness and to Israel's unbelief. On the one hand God was giving the Jews an opportunity to repent after the sign of Christ's resurrection. They had refused the pre-Cross' Jesus; now they were being offered a post-Resurrection Messiah. On the other hand Peter's words underscore Israel's rejection. They had been given the sign of Jonah but still they refused to believe (cf. Luke 16:31). In a real sense this message confirmed Israel's unbelief.
"Some Bible scholars oppose the view that the kingdom was offered by Peter. They do so on the basis of several objections: (1) Since God knew Israel would reject the offer, it was not a legitimate offer. But it was as genuine as the presentation of the gospel to any nonelect person. (2) This puts kingdom truth in the Church Age. However, church truth is found before the church began at Pentecost (cf. Matt. 16:18; 18:17; John 10:16; 14:20). (3) This view leads to ultradispensationalism. But this is not a necessary consequence if this offer is seen as a transition within the Church Age. Acts must be seen as a hinge book, a transition work bridging the work of Christ on earth with His work through the church on earth.
"In conclusion, Acts 3:17-21 shows that Israel's repentance was to have had two purposes: (1) for individualIsraelites there was forgiveness of sins, and (2) for Israel as a nationher Messiah would return to reign."218
Other dispensational interpreters, including myself, believe that this was not a reoffer of the kingdom to Israel.
"Here Peter was notreoffering the kingdom to the nation, nor was he telling them that if the nation repented the kingdom would be instituted at that time. Rather he was telling the nation--the same nation that had committed the sin for which there is no forgiveness [cf. Matt. 12:22-37]--what they must do as a nation in order to enter into the benefits of the kingdom that had been covenanted and promised to them. In a word, they must repent.' . . .
"The time for God to restore everything,' to which Peter refers in Acts 3:21, is the same restoration referred to in 1:6. Therefore, this statement does not constitute a reoffer of the kingdom, since the necessary prerequisites are not at hand. Jesus Christ is not personally present and offering Himself to the nation. Only He could make a genuine offer of the kingdom. . . .
". . . Peter was not offering the kingdom to Israel, nor was he stating that the kingdom had already been instituted; instead he was stating the conditions by which the nation will eventually enter into their covenanted blessings."219
Some individual Jews did repent, but the nation as a whole did not in response to Peter's exhortation (4:1-4).
"Luke's manner of representing the nationalistic hopes of the Jewish people implies that he himself believed that there would be a future, national restoration. If Luke really believed that there would not be a restoration, he has certainly gone out of his way to give the contrary impression."220
"In his first sermon S. Peter had explained the Lord's absence by the necessity for the outpouring of the Spirit: now he answers the difficulty about the Messianic kingdom by unfolding its true nature."221
3:22-23 Peter proceeded to quote from the first writing prophet to confirm what he had just stated. Moses had predicted that God would provide prophets similar to himself through whom He would make His will known to His people (Deut. 18:15-19; cf. Lev. 23:29). As time passed, the Jews saw that this prophecy referred to one prophet in particular who would appear and who would be like Moses in other respects as well. He would deliver and judge His people.222Thus believers in Peter's day regarded this passage as messianic prophecy (cf. John 1:21b, 25; 7:40). Peter, by quoting this prophecy, affirmed that Jesus was the Messiah and urged his readers to accept Him or face destruction (v. 23). Destruction followed in 70 A.D. Belief in Moses should have led to belief in Jesus, and belief in Jesus would have made Peter's hearers obedient to Moses.
"The particular interest of this sermon lies in the way in which it gives further teaching about the person of Jesus, describing him as God's servant, the Holy and Righteous One, the Author of life and the prophet like Moses. This indicates that a considerable amount of thinking about Jesus, based on study of the Old Testament, was taking place [in Jerusalem following Jesus' death and resurrection]."223
3:24 Samuel announced that David would replace Saul (1 Sam. 13:14; 15:28; 28:17; cf. 1 Sam. 16:13), but we have no record that he ever gave an explicitly messianic prophecy. Peter seems to have meant that in announcing David's reign Samuel was also anticipating Messiah's reign. The other prophets Peter apparently had in mind were all those who spoke of David's continuing dynastic rule. Peter's statement in this verse, by the way, shows that Joshua did not fulfill Moses' prophecy about the coming prophet.
3:25-26 Peter's hearers were the sons of the prophets in that they were the descendants of those people, not prophets themselves. They were sons of the covenant God made with Abraham because they were Abraham's physical descendants. They were part of Abraham's physical seed through whom God purposed to bring blessing to all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 26:4). Their acceptance of God's Messiah was essential to their fulfilling all God's purposes through them and in them. God desired to bless all people, but He purposed to bless humanity by first blessing the Jews. It was to bless first the Jews and then all humanity that God had called Jesus forth as a prophet. "For you first"(v. 26, Gr. hymin proton) reflects the emphatic position of this phrase in the Greek text, which stresses the primacy of Jewish blessing.
It seems that in view of the context the phrase "raised up"(v. 26) refers to God raising up Jesus as a prophet like Moses (v. 22). He probably did not mean that God raised Him up from the grave by resurrection, though obviously God did that too.
The gospel went to the Jews before it went to the Gentiles (cf. Matt. 10:5; Acts 13:46; Rom. 1:16) because the establishment of Christ's earthly kingdom depends on Israel's acceptance of her Messiah (Matt. 23:39; Rom. 11:26). Before Christ can reign on the earth, Israel must repent (Zech. 12:10-14).
