FATHER JOSEPH KNABENBAUER'S COMMENTARY ON ACTS 2:14–36
After the introduction in Acts 2:14, Peter briefly shows that this slander cannot stand (Acts 2:15), but that the prophecy concerning the outpouring of the Spirit of God is now being fulfilled (Acts 2:16–21). Since this prophecy refers to the messianic age (“in the last days”), he immediately directs his speech from Acts 2:22 onward to proving that Jesus is the Messiah; and he demonstrates this from the resurrection; for David already prophesied concerning the resurrection of the Messiah promised to him—but Jesus rose from the dead, as the apostles are witnesses; therefore Jesus is the Messiah who, having been taken up into glory, sent the Holy Spirit; therefore, the one whom they themselves put to death, this very one has been declared by God to be Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:22–36).
Acts 2:14 Just as in Acts 1:15, so here too Peter acts as the chief of the apostles; there he showed care and solicitude for the apostolic college, here he now acts to draw as many as possible into Christ’s fold; he begins to fulfill the duties of his office excellently and courageously. “But Peter, standing with the eleven” – σταθείς (cf. Acts 5:30; Acts17:22; Acts 27:21); by the very expression “with the eleven,” Peter is designated as their leader and head. “He raised his voice,” with great confidence and courage (Chrysostom, Oecumenius), “and spoke to them.” A more solemn term is used: ἀπεφθέγξατο (cf. Acts 2:4), just as his speech is introduced by Luke with a certain solemnity. “Men of Judea, and all you who dwell in Jerusalem” – οἱ κατοικοῦντες (cf. Acts 2:5) – “let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.” ἐνωτίζειν in the LXX translates the Hebrew האזין; he arouses and demands attention. He speaks in Aramaic, which those Jews who had long been residents of the city certainly understood well enough. Some suppose (cf. Estius, Patrizi) that a new miracle occurred so that all foreigners of various languages also understood him; but there is no indication of such a marvel; therefore a new prodigy should not be asserted.
Acts 2:15 “For these are not drunk, as you suppose.” The γάρ has an explanatory force: namely, he begins prudently and gently; see how mild his defense is! He does not say: “You are mocking or laughing”; nor does he attack the mockers, but treats their words more kindly, attributing them not to malice but to ignorance, and thus paving the way for their repentance (cf. Chrysostom, Oecumenius). And he adds a reason, drawn from common life and custom: “since it is only the third hour of the day,” namely after sunrise; but no one holds a banquet in the morning. Among the rabbis, the hour at which it was first permitted to eat anything is assigned as the fourth (cf. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae ad h. l.; Wetstein; Beel; Patrizi).
Acts 2:16–18 Chrysostom praises how aptly and prudently Peter structures his speech: “The name of Christ is not yet heard, nor is the promise His, but the Father’s; observe the wisdom; he does not immediately pass to what concerns Christ; otherwise he would have overturned everything” (similarly Oecumenius). He prepares the way by showing that what is happening is what was promised through the prophet, and by reciting the prophecy he wins over the pious.
Acts 2:16 “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.”
Acts 2:17 “And it shall come to pass in the last days, says the Lord.” In Joel 3:1-5 (LXX 2:28ff.) it reads: “And it shall come to pass afterward, I will pour out…” but from the context in the prophet the sense is: after the period of preparation, a new epoch will arise, distinguished by a lavish outpouring of the Spirit of God, i.e., the messianic epoch (see Knabenbauer, Comment. on the Minor Prophets I, p. 231). Therefore Peter necessarily designates the messianic period with that formula customary among the prophets (see on Isa 2:1; Mic 4:1). He could not say “after this” in this speech, omitting the entire context of the prophecy. “I will pour out from my Spirit” (ἀπό, as in the LXX) “upon all flesh.” The word “pour out” shows the generosity of the gift (Bede), which will be granted not to one people, but to all flesh, the entire human race. And some of the effects of this outpouring, which can be easily perceived, are enumerated: “and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,” i.e., under divine impulse they shall speak of salvation, hidden things, and the future; “and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” For by these means God had already declared that He wished to communicate Himself (Num 12:6). No sex, no age is excluded. To the elegance of the speech belongs that distribution of individual gifts among the various orders.
Acts 2:18 “And indeed, καί γε (and also), Heb. וגם (but also, Vulg.) upon my male servants and upon my female servants (as in the LXX) in those days I will pour out from my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.”
Acts 2:19–21
Acts 2:19 “And I will show wonders in heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood and fire and vapor of smoke.” He says that wondrous effects will be joined with this outpouring. As is customary among the prophets, the entire messianic period, its beginning and its consummated perfection, are presented in a single vision. Hence here too, to the outpouring of the Spirit, by which the Church is founded, preserved, and governed, is immediately appended what will finally have its full outcome in the universal judgment.
Acts 2:20 “The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord comes.” Cf. Matt 24:29; Mark 13:24–25; Luke 21:25; Rev 6:12ff.; Rev 8:7; Rev 9:2; Rev 16:9ff.
Some critics contend that Peter’s speech contains nothing about the gift of tongues, from which they attempt to prove that it in Acts 2:4 etc. is an interpolation. Strange the ingenuity of men, and at times quite dull! The apostle speaks of the outpouring of the Spirit, of wonders, of signs on earth! Are the cries and gestures that might be considered those of drunkards proposed as if they were the fulfillment of that oracle? Does not the very fact that “this” oracle is now said to be fulfilled sufficiently and more than sufficiently declare that the speaking occurred by a miracle? Moreover, with this divine manifestation is joined both a promise and a norm of salvation:
Acts 2:21 “And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” i.e., whoever confesses, implores, loves, and venerates God as such as He has manifested Himself by His name, i.e., by revelation, promises, and benefits. In Hebrew, the name Yahweh is the name God prefixed to His covenant, by which He designated both the constancy, immutability, and sublimity of that covenant, and its ultimate end: the vision and enjoyment of the divine nature itself; for Yahweh is the essential name of God, ὁ ὤν (cf. Ex 3:15; see de Hummelauer, Comment. in Exod. p. 50ff.; Knabenbauer, Comment. on the Minor Prophets I, pp. 55, 157, 233).
Some refer the signs in Acts 2:19–20 to the slaughter and disaster brought upon the city and temple by the Romans, and see wonders in what Josephus reports happened in the air, the city, and the temple (Bell. Jud. 7:19); they understand blood and fire as massacres, civil wars, and the burning of the city and temple (cf. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Cyril in Severian catena, Nicholas in Calmet’s catena, etc.). This interpretation, however, is too narrow; the entire messianic age is in view, and especially the final judgment.
Acts 2:22 With a new form of address, he now turns his speech to the mention of Jesus. “Men of Israel,” a title of honor and dignity (cf. Gen 32:28; Acts 5:10), “hear these words.” “He does not say ‘obey,’ but ‘hear,’ which certainly was not burdensome; and observe how he says nothing sublime, but begins from lower things” (Chrysostom). “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God among you, as you yourselves know, by mighty works, wonders, and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.” Intending to show that Jesus is the Messiah, he begins with what was done in the sight of all. Chrysostom well considers the prudent arrangement of the speech: “He does not immediately say that He rose, but that He came from God to them; and this is made manifest by what He did; nor does he say that He Himself did them, but that God did them through Him, so that by speaking more modestly he may draw them in, and to this he calls them as witnesses.”
Acts 2:23 “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” For “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son” (John 3:16). God the Father, according to His plan and determined decree, delivered Jesus, permitted Him to fall into the power of His enemies; He delivered Him to passion and death. For “the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11), and “as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do” (John 14:31). Therefore, what happened to Jesus was foreknown by God; for by His foreknowledge from all eternity He knew that the Jews would inflict death on Jesus, and from all eternity He decreed that Jesus should undergo death for the salvation of mankind. For “He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all” (Rom 8:32). With these words, therefore, Peter meets a tacit objection that might have come to their minds: how could God’s envoy be punished with the most shameful death? God foresaw the malice of the Jews, permitted it, and thus the Jews, by judging and killing Jesus, fulfilled the words of the prophets (Acts 13:27). “By the hands of lawless men,” i.e., Pilate, the governor, and his soldiers, “you crucified and killed Him.” προσπήξαντες means “fastening,” namely to the cross. For by their shouts and threats, the Roman governor at last, against his will, condemned Jesus to death. The Vulgate reads affligentes (afflicting), but the “giant of books” (i.e., the best manuscripts) rightly has affigentes, as also Lyra. You fastened Jesus to the cross and killed Him “by the sword of the tongue,” as Augustine says (on Ps 63:2), because you compelled the Roman judge.
Acts 2:24 Now he presents to them that sign of divine approval which Jesus Himself had often asserted would be given to them (Matt 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29; John 2:19). “whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death,” i.e., having loosed the bonds of hell (Sheol; cf. 2 Sam 22:6, “cords of Sheol” חבלי שאול; but Ps 18:6 Heb. “cords of death”; LXX in Ps. ὠδῖνες, 2 Sam 22:6 συντριμμοί; they distinguish חבל “cord” and חבלים “pangs”); “because it was impossible for Him to be held by it.” It could in no way happen that Jesus should be held captive by hell, by Sheol. Because Jesus did not manifest Himself to the people immediately after the resurrection, Peter prudently proves the resurrection from prophecy before appealing to the testimony of the apostles. For by the prophecy itself minds are prepared for the notion of the Messiah’s resurrection, and therefore also for faith in it, which they will hear confirmed by testimony.
Acts 2:25 “For David says concerning Him,” his words refer to Him, are spoken concerning Him: “I saw the Lord always before my face, for He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken” (Ps 16:8). I continually directed my mind to the Lord; a helper stands by me, that I may not be shaken or stumble.
Acts 2:26 “Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced” (so LXX; Heb. כבודי “my glory,” i.e., my spirit/mind); “moreover my flesh also will rest in hope” (Heb. securely, in quiet and safety; LXX ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι).
Acts 2:27 “For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption.” LXX: διαφθοράν; Heb. שחת, which certainly has the notion of putrefaction, corruption, as is clear from Job 17:14: “I have said to corruption: You are my father; to the worm: My mother and my sister.” It must be explained this way because of the parallel member, and in this sense the word was understood not only by the LXX, but also by Aquila and Theodotion. Note that שחת in Job 17:14 is considered a masculine noun; therefore this word is distinguished from שחת “pit,” which is feminine. See Knabenbauer, Comment. on Job, p. 225. In place of corruption, He is granted life and beatitude.
Acts 2:28 “You have made known to me the paths of life” (Heb. “You teach me the path of life”); therefore He is led by God to life. “And you will fill me with joy in your presence” (μετὰ τῆς δόξης σου). “With your face,” i.e., before your face, with you; Heb. “fullness of joys at your right hand.”
Acts 2:29–32 With a new and more familiar address, he now passes to explaining the prophecy.
Acts 2:29 “Brothers,” he wishes to speak to their hearts, showing his love for them. “Let me speak freely to you about the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” πατριάρχης means “ruler” or “founder of a family,” the founder of the race or lineage from which the Messiah was to come. On David’s tomb, cf. Neh 3:16; Josephus mentions this tomb (Antiq. 7.15.3; 13.8.4; 16.7.1; and Bell. Jud. 1.9.5).
Acts 2:30 “Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that He would set one of his descendants on his throne,” cf. 2 Sam 7:19; Ps 132:11; 89:30.
Acts 2:31 “Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.” (Concerning Christ’s descent into hell, Peter also writes in 1 Pet 3:19.) Thus David’s oracle was fulfilled in Jesus; which eyewitnesses confirm.
Acts 2:32 “This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.” Cf. Acts 1:22; 10:41. Now if they are persuaded of Jesus’ resurrection, they will easily believe in His exaltation; for once the Messiah is demonstrated, it is also proved that the messianic prophecies are being fulfilled.
Acts 2:33–35 Hence he concludes in Acts 2:33: “Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God,” i.e., by God’s power. Some, because of Acts 2:36, explain it as “exalted to the right hand of God.” This explanation does not indeed contradict the nature of the Greek language (for poets and later writers sometimes add a dative to verbs of motion instead of the prepositions εἰς or πρός), and Winer-Moulton adopts it (A Treatise on the Grammar, 1882, p. 269); nevertheless, this construction hardly occurs elsewhere in the New Testament. Moreover, it seems rather to fit the connected speech, so that just as it was said that God raised Him up, so also Christ’s exaltation to heaven is referred to God’s power, which also agrees with Ps 16 (cf. Acts 2:25–28 just cited). Furthermore, there is a progression in the speech: the exaltation is announced, what kind and how great it is is then proposed; “and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which you both see and hear.” i.e., Christ received from the Father the power to promise and send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit had already been promised in the messianic prophecies (cf. Joel, Ezek 11:19; Ezek 36:20; Isa 44:3); whence it is easily understood that He would be given through the Messiah, which is why the forerunner already announced it (Matt 3:11). τοῦτο can absolutely be referred to τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον (cf. Patrizi, Feit). They see and hear the effects of the Spirit; it can also be translated: “what you see and hear.” Chrysostom well notes how Peter explains the dignity of Christ with a certain progression; for now he says: “He Himself poured it out.” Moreover, what Peter says, he says imbued with Christ’s doctrine; cf. John 15:16; 15:26; 16:7.
How He was exalted is explained in Acts 2:34: “For David did not ascend into heaven; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,’
Acts 2:35 ‘until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’” Ps 110:1; cf. Matt 22:43. Christ, therefore, having been taken up into heaven, became σύνθρονος (co-regent) of God, endowed with the same honor and the same dignity of reigning. The address is to the Messiah; whence it is signified that Christ, according to His human nature, was assumed to the session at the right hand of God; therefore that human nature was elevated above all creatures, brought near to God, and now possesses that supreme dignity of the kingdom. On the session at the right hand, cf. 1 Sam 2:19; Eph 1:20–21; Heb 1:3.
Acts 2:36 Now Peter draws in the sails with a most weighty conclusion, which he utters with great freedom of speech and courage, not at all fearing to bring a tremendous, yet true, accusation to their ears. “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain, the whole nation, that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” That He established Him as such, and therefore wills and commands that He be recognized as such. “This Jesus” is added with great epexegetical force, and then it is brought out how great the opposition they themselves showed: “God established Him as Messiah and King, you killed Him by the most shameful death!” “He well ends here, stirring their souls; for after he showed what kind and how great He is, the remaining thing was to declare openly that bold deed, so that it might appear greater and strike them with fear; for men are not so much drawn by benefits as they are corrected by fear” (Chrysostom) and Lapide: “Here is a huge stimulus by which St. Peter, with wonderful freedom and sincerity, pierced the hearts of the Jews.”
Interpretive Norms & Critical Engagement
From this speech and argumentation of Peter we also learn how true it is: “Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45). For these interpretations must be reckoned as the very ones which the Lord, after His resurrection, teaching about the kingdom of God, imparted to His apostles. Whence a norm of interpretation is also presented to us. Peter, speaking in Aramaic, must be supposed to have recited the oracles in the same dialect; Luke, writing in Greek, took them almost from a Greek translation, which differs in no way in sense. That Psalm 110 is messianic in the literal sense seems certain; some say Psalm 16 is typically messianic, so that the whole psalm refers literally to David, typically to Christ (cf. Calmet, Hoberg); others prefer that one part of the psalm pertains to David, the other to Christ alone. Since this diversity of opinions does not affect Peter’s argumentation, there is no reason to dwell on it here; it belongs to the interpreter of the Psalms.
Tilg thinks he has found a true and solid distinction between Acts 1:4 and Acts 2:33. For there the Holy Spirit is called the promise of the Father, which Jesus, not yet having ascended into heaven, promises He will send; here, however, it is asserted as a promise which Jesus received only after His exaltation and ascension into heaven. But that participle λαβών in no way creates any contradiction with 1:4 or other passages (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7). For it is not said that He then at last received from the Father the promise by which He could promise and send the Spirit to others; but ἐπαγγελίαν here and in 1:4 and Luke 24:49 must be understood as τὸ ἐπηγγελμένον πνεῦμα, namely the Spirit already promised in the Old Testament; this He certainly receives from the Father and pours out, having been exalted; this promised Spirit He promises to send while still on earth. Nor would a contradiction have to be posited, even if you explain ἐπαγγελίαν as the very act of promising; for then too it is clear that Christ must have had the act or faculty of promising not only in heaven, but on earth; nor does λαβών stand in the way, because the aorist participle expresses what happened before, or even long before.
Feine thinks the speech was drawn from that Judeo-Christian source and contains nothing about the universal character of Christianity. But the prophecy of Joel is plainly universal; even if you restrict “upon all flesh” to the Jews, nevertheless in Hebrew the text speaks of male and female servants, who were often foreigners; therefore they are by no means excluded; likewise “everyone who calls,” etc., after those signs which cannot be referred to the one land of Israel, sufficiently declares the universal character.
Because Paul also argues from Ps 16 in Acts13:35–37, Holtzmann thinks that neither Peter nor Paul argued in that way, but that we are merely offered “Lukan theology”; moreover, the acute man finds that what is said in Acts 2:27, 31 about the body of the risen one indeed agrees with Acts 1:3–4 and Luke 24:39–43, 50, but not with the “older view” in 1 Cor 15:4–8. But what does Paul say? That Christ was buried, rose again, and appeared often; now if He who was buried rose, He must be thought of as clothed with a true body; otherwise He who was buried did not rise; nor could it in any way be said that He rose if only His soul had made itself visible in a kind of airy body, as angels are said to appear. Behold with what quibbles they use to obscure a plain matter and to show that the sacred authors disagree with each other, and are therefore unworthy of belief!
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment