Father Knabenbauer's Commentary on Acts 2:37-47

Acts 2:37: "Moses indeed commanded that the solemnity of the firstfruits be initiated on the day of Pentecost; but now, with the Holy Spirit having come, not sheaves of grain, but souls are consecrated as firstfruits to the Lord" (Bede). For, with the Holy Spirit moving their hearts and adding force and vigor to the words of Peter, verse 37: "But when they heard this, they were cut to the heart" [κατενύγησαν]—that is, "as if pierced by a sharp sting, they were struck with bitter pain"—"and they said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: 'What shall we do, men and brothers?'" They therefore acknowledge the national guilt which they had incurred by condemning Jesus, and they grieve exceedingly over it; that some among them had also been those who cried out "Crucify him!" is certainly probable; that these, more than the others, were anxiously seeking what they ought now to do, is evident. Here we see the fulfillment of that prayer: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).

Acts 2:38-39: Peter, however, says to them: "Repent," he says, [μετανοήσατε]. Scholars note that the aorist imperative contains this nuance as well: that something is commanded to be done without any delay, immediately. Μετανοεῖν thus denotes a change of mind such that sorrow for past action is simultaneously signified; it therefore corresponds to the word "to repent"; cf. Matthew 11:21, "to repent in sackcloth and ashes" [μετανοεῖν], Luke 10:13; 2 Corinthians 12:21; and that it is used in this sense even among pagan authors is certain; see examples in Commentary on Matthew, Vol. I, p. 117. Just as John the Baptist and Christ himself began their preaching with repentance, so Peter also teaches that one must enter the kingdom of God, the messianic kingdom, through repentance; but at the same time he promulgates the command of Christ (cf. Matthew 28:19; John 3:5): "and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." By a name, individuals are recognized and distinguished from others; hence the name of God, of Jesus, stands for all that God has revealed about Himself, by which He is known to us. The name of Jesus Christ therefore encompasses all that must be believed and confessed about Him; consequently, to be baptized in His name is nothing other than to receive that sacred immersion which has attached to it the manner [mode] designated by the name of Jesus Christ; it is therefore a baptism which is performed according to Christ's prescription and which is received with faith in and confession of Jesus Christ.

Others read ἐπί [epi] in this passage, a particle which expresses the cause and foundation upon which something rests; similarly, the name of Jesus—that which is known and believed about Him—is that upon which baptism rests, from which it derives its power and efficacy. But the end and goal toward which this baptism is directed is "for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Thus the baptism of Christ is distinguished from the baptism of John, and it is declared what it means for Jesus to baptize "in the Holy Spirit." For the remission of sins occurs through the infusion of sanctifying grace and through the Holy Spirit, who "has been given to us" (Romans 5:5). That gift is the Holy Spirit Himself, insofar as He, together with created grace, inhabits the soul of the just person in a new way (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19).

Some think (Suarez, De Confirmatione, disp. 32, sect. 1; Estius, Beelen) that there is already here a reference to conferring upon those baptized the sacrament of Confirmation, by which the Holy Spirit is given for strength. But it is preferable to say with the Fathers: the very construction of the sentence shows that what is expressed by these words is an effect of baptism, no less than the remission of sins; and that with this remission the gift of the Holy Spirit is indeed joined, such that neither can exist without the other, yet each is distinct from the other.

St. Thomas holds that "by a special revelation of Christ, the apostles baptized in the primitive Church in the name of Christ, so that the name of Christ, which was odious to Jews and Gentiles, might be rendered honorable" (III Part, q. 66, art. 6, ad 1); and in the same way it is read in the Roman Catechism that the apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Part II, ch. 2, q. 15); and St. Thomas [in the same place] also ascribes this opinion to St. Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto 4,3) and to Pope Nicholas I in his response to the inquiries of the Bulgars. But it by no means follows that the apostles ever used any other form for conferring baptism besides that expressly given by Christ in Matthew 28:19. For what "in the name" signifies has just been explained. Therefore, that conclusion does not follow at all from that expression; moreover, see what I have said concerning the formula "in the name" on Matthew 6:9 and 18:20, and John 13:16, etc. Furthermore, what is narrated in Acts 19:1-5 is evidence that the baptismal formula was the same even in the apostolic age. Concerning St. Ambrose and the response given by Nicholas I, see Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae VI, nn. 388-389; from the complete response it is clear that the issue is not about the formula for conferring baptism, but about the intention of the one baptizing—whether he intended to confer Christian baptism or not. The opinion of St. Thomas is today abandoned.

To the exhortation and promise which he uttered ("let him be baptized," "you shall receive"), he adds a firm reason, and one most fitting for imbuing minds with hope and consolation, in verse 39: "For to you is the promise, and to your children"—that is, that promise of verse 33 which he recited from Joel in verse 17, namely, that there would be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This promise is made first and primarily to the Jewish people, but, like other messianic prophecies, it is not confined and concluded in one stock alone, but extends also to foreign nations: "and to all who are far off" [τοῖς εἰς μακράν] (scil. κατοικοῦσιν [those dwelling]; with εἰς [eis] cf. Matthew 21:33; 26:13; Acts 7:4; also 2:5 in some witnesses), "as many as the Lord our God shall call." From all nations the Lord will call to Himself those who belong to Him, to His kingdom, to His Church. That the Gentiles are meant here the very words strongly suggest. For the Jews have already been designated by "to you and to your children"; for there is no reason to refer these only to the inhabitants of the city, since the oracle of Joel speaks not of the city's inhabitants alone, but of the Jewish nation. Nor are "those who are far off" Jews living among the Gentiles; for "those who are far off" are such that God is said to call to Himself whomever He wills [προσκαλέσηται]; now, that term designates those who have hitherto been alienated from God; but Jews, considered in terms of their national condition and covenant, cannot be called alienated from God. Even in the Gospel, all Jews, with respect to the messianic kingdom, are called "the invited" [κεκλημένοι]; cf. Matthew 22:3, 14 (Commentary II, pp. 241, 257). Rightly, therefore, most interpreters understand these words as referring to the Gentiles (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bede, Dionysius, Salmerón, a Lapide, Calmet, Patrick, Feller, Bisping); those who refer them to Jews dwelling among the Gentiles (e.g., Wendt) are led also by the false opinion that the oracle of Joel regards only the Jewish stock. Nor can it be supposed that the calling of the Gentiles was perhaps still unknown to Peter at that time. For Christ had already spoken of it before His passion (John 10:16), and after His passion frequently (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8); and if Christ opened to the apostles the meaning of the messianic prophecies, He could not fail to speak of the calling of the Gentiles. That Acts 10 presents no obstacle, see below.

Acts 2:40: How earnestly he taught and exhorted the brethren is narrated: "And with many other words he bore witness and exhorted them." Therefore, speaking gravely, affirming, giving testimony, arguing, admonishing, and entreating, he spoke to them, saying: "Save yourselves from this crooked generation" [σχολιᾶς]—that is, "perverse and wicked," which does not walk in the straight way, but follows a twisted and crooked path. To be saved "from" [ἀπό] means, of course, that they should seek their own salvation, that they should embrace messianic salvation by separating themselves from their wicked contemporaries; thus they will save themselves from the punishments and destruction of the perverse generation. It is now clearly indicated that a great part of the Jewish people will reject messianic salvation. Therefore, "this evil and adulterous generation" (Matthew 12:39) will follow with the worst obstinacy the path it has once entered and from which it refused to be turned back (cf. Matthew 8:12; 21:41 ff.), as had already been predicted by the oracles of the prophets (cf. Isaiah 65:9; Romans 10:21).

Acts 2:41 How effective was the operation of the Holy Spirit, gather from verse 41: "Those therefore who received his word were baptized, and there were added in that day about three thousand souls"—added, of course, to those who had already believed in Christ before, like those one hundred and twenty [mentioned in] 1:15 (cf. 5:14; 11:24); ψυχαί [souls] as in Exodus 1:5; Numbers 31:35, etc. Well does the Catena note: "Then was fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'Who has ever heard such a thing? Who has seen the like of this? Shall the earth bring forth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her'" (Isaiah 66:8, 10).

They ask whether all these could have been baptized on that day? Various possibilities may be conceived. Perhaps all those one hundred and twenty, or very many of them, administered baptism. Is it necessary that all were baptized on the same day? How were they baptized? Most probably by immersion; but we learn from the Didache of the Twelve Apostles that even from ancient times baptism was administered by aspersion or rather by infusion: "Pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, etc." (chapter 7).

Acts 2:42-47: In what follows, the life of the first Christian believers is presented to us.

Acts 2:42: "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers." In Greek, four things are assigned: (1) They assiduously attended to and diligently applied themselves to the instruction which the apostles delivered; (2) with equal diligence they devoted themselves to τῇ κοινωνίᾳ [the fellowship]—the fraternal society among themselves (Cajetan); Chrysostom explains the word as τὸ ὁμοθυμαδόν [being of one mind], the union and harmony of souls; consequently, joined together and united by religious and familiar association, they were already beginning to form a distinct community separate from others. (3) Thirdly, they were assiduously attentive [προσκαρτεροῦντες] to τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου [the breaking of bread], i.e., to the celebration of the Eucharist, as the simple Syriac version already explicitly renders it. The "breaking of bread" is referred to the Eucharistic bread, as the very context suggests, since the salutary instruction and the sacred union of souls—which is effected by Christ's very doctrine—precedes, and the frequent practice of prayers follows. That expression is taken from the very institution of the Eucharist (cf. Matthew 26:26); wherefore the Apostle also writes: "The bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16). (4) Finally, they were assiduously devoted ταῖς προσευχαῖς [to the prayers]. Beelen notes: "But since certain definite sacred prayers [ταῖς πρ. with the article] are joined to instruction in sacred doctrine and to participation in the Body of the Lord, the unbloody sacrifice of the New Law, commemorative of the sacrifice of the Cross—which is offered to God in the Catholic Church everywhere on earth—is not obscurely delineated here." Indeed, the most ancient prayers which were once offered at the reception of the Eucharist are found in the Didache of the Twelve Apostles, chapter 9; and there, in chapter 14, the Eucharist is called that sacrifice [θυσία] which the prophet foretold would be offered in every place and time, a pure oblation.

Acts 2:43: It also came about by divine arrangement that the community of the faithful was preserved for some time without any molestation from adversaries, so that this new and tender planting might strike deeper roots: "And fear came upon every soul"—that is, all were affected by what had happened on the day of Pentecost with a certain religious fear and sacred awe, so that they kept far from all vexation of the faithful and rather pursued them with a certain great reverence. To increase this, signs also contributed: "Many wonders and signs were done through the apostles in Jerusalem." Some wish to find the narrative disturbed at this point, because in the following chapter the healing of the lame man is reported as the first miracle; but where is it written that it was the first? They refer us to 3:11 ff.; 4:16, 22. But nowhere is it said to be the first; this alone is clear: it was a miracle especially well-known, which, considering the man and the multitude gathered in the temple who were witnesses, could seem remarkable to no one. By those signs the reverence of the rest increased: "And great fear was upon all"—a phrase which is lacking in quite a few manuscripts, and may be absent because the matter has already been sufficiently expressed in the preceding verses.

Acts 2:44: The social life of the faithful is further described: "And all who believed were together, and had all things common" [ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό]. Certainly the sense cannot be what Wendt wishes, namely, "in the same place"; for the number of the faithful was now greater. Less difficulty attaches to what Beelen proposes: that perhaps they had established their dwelling in a certain part of the city, so that they might be neighbors to one another as much as possible. Cajetan explains it concerning κοινωνίᾳ ἐν πολιτείᾳ [fellowship in civic life]; commonly it is understood as referring to continual concord and benevolence among them (Theophylact, Cajetan, Beelen, Calmet, Patrick); they were one, with all division excluded (Bisping); they were together because at fixed hours they assembled for the synaxis, for the sermon, for prayer (a Lapide); consequently, they were already publicly presenting themselves as a certain community distinct from others (Feller). "And they had all things common": thus the faithful imitated that manner of life which they knew the apostles and disciples had already embraced beforehand.

Acts 2:45: Wherefore the wealthier sold possessions [τὰ κτήματα]—the word is used of estates, lands, etc.—and goods [τὰς ὑπάρξεις], i.e., movable property (Beelen), "and divided them"—that is, the money received from the sale—"to all, as anyone had need." It is not said that they sold all their goods; but they sold in such a way that they could supply what was necessary for the needy, and from their resources and means they liberally distributed to the poor, as is said in 4:32: "Nor did anyone say that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common." They therefore possessed wealth and goods; but they did not consider or regard them as so entirely their own that they did not generously permit the poorer to use and enjoy them. That this is the correct understanding is clear from the nature of the matter: for how could it happen that all sold all their goods, immovable and movable? From what, then, would they afterward live, since the money was soon spent? It is clear from Acts 4:32; it is clear because the sale of the field by Barnabas is considered worthy of special mention, which would be superfluous if all had done the same; finally, it is clear from the words of Peter in 5:4 and from 12:12.

Acts 2:46: At the fixed hours when the people assembled for public prayer, they also went to the temple: "And continuing daily with one accord in the temple"—they were diligent in frequenting the temple, following the example of Christ and the apostles (3:1); for it was not according to God's counsel that the faithful should immediately separate themselves from the Jews, or that they should immediately abandon the old rites and observances; that transition from synagogue to Church was to be made gradually; by that connection, which was to be retained for a time, a way was prepared for the Jews to enter the messianic kingdom. But to that worship in the temple they substituted another in private houses, as Christ had taught: "and breaking bread from house to house" [κατ' οἶκον]. This can certainly be explained as "through the houses," "from house to house"; cf. 15:21 κατὰ πόλιν [in each city], and Luke 8:1 κατὰ πόλιν καὶ κώμην [in each city and village]; and in the same way here we read καθ' ἡμέραν [day by day] (Patrick, Feller). However, it can also be understood as "at home," i.e., privately, in opposition to ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ [in the temple]: they indeed devoted themselves to prayers in the temple, but they celebrated the Eucharist privately. Thus I think the words should also be understood here, with Salmerón, a Lapide, Tirinus, Feller; but most interpreters explain it not of the Eucharistic bread, but of common food (cf. Cajetan, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Dionysius, Beelen, Calmet, Patrick). It is true that "to break bread" is also used of profane and common eating (20:11; 27:35), nor do I think Luke 24:30 should be explained of the Eucharist. However, in this passage nevertheless certain things are found by which the explanation referring to common food seems to be excluded. For that κατ' οἶκον [from house to house] is contrasted with ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ [in the temple]; but that they took food not in the temple but at home certainly did not require special mention; that they prayed in the temple, but exercised their own particular worship privately or in houses, is aptly commemorated and at the same time supplements what had been said in verse 42. Furthermore, concerning common food, mention is made immediately afterward; why would that be added if "breaking bread" had already indicated the same thing?

"They took their food with gladness and simplicity of heart"—filled with all spiritual joy and conspicuous for candor, integrity, and ingenuousness of soul, and for sweetness of manners.

Acts 2:47: "Praising God"—this "ought not to be restricted to prayers said before and after meals, but should be understood more universally: they incessantly proclaimed the praises of God" (Beelen); which more general acceptance is also confirmed by the following clause: "and having favor with all the people." They were pleasing to all the people; all looked favorably upon them because of the probity of their life, their modesty, and the charity which they displayed. By the holiness of their life, the instruction and doctrine of the apostles, and the powerful grace of the Holy Spirit, it was brought about that the number of the faithful increased day by day: "And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved" [τοὺς σωζομένους]—that is, those who, having embraced messianic salvation, were being saved from this perverse generation. The Lord "adds" them; for God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:7), and God calls to the messianic kingdom (cf. John 17:6; 1 Corinthians 1:9). Those who were added used the same concord and harmony of souls with the other faithful; for προσετίθει... ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό [he added... to the same]; cf. verse 44.

Critical Objections Addressed: In this narrative, some critics find various difficulties. They claim that the number of three thousand in Acts 2:41 is greatly exaggerated; indeed, that it cannot at all be reconciled with Acts 2:46, κατ' οἶκον [from house to house], by which term they wish to understand the same house mentioned in Acts 1:13 and Acts 2:2; but a house sufficient to gather one hundred and twenty could by no means hold three thousand! However, those acute critics might have perceived that even the author of this narrative was not of such crude intellect as not to understand that one house could not hold three thousand. Therefore, by that very fact, the critics' explanation concerning one single house is refuted. Nowhere is it said that the three thousand were in one and the same house, or that they had no other house for holding assemblies besides that one of Acts 1:13. If I say, "The Christians pray in the temple and eat at home," do I therefore assert that all dwell in one and the same house?

Similarly, some find a contradiction between Acts 2:43 and Acts 2:47: there, fear of the people; here, favor and grace! But why not both? They were restrained by a certain sacred reverence and awe from inflicting any trouble upon them; to this disposition of mind favor was soon added, when they saw that these [Christians] by no means separated themselves from communion in worship in the temple, and that they excelled in probity of life, modesty, and charity. Hence they both revered them and held them in good favor.

Weiss wrongly thinks that Acts 2:43, concerning signs and miracles, is refuted by the subsequent narrative, as has already been explained above. Hilgenfeld commits the same error. Furthermore, Weiss imagines for himself such a communion of all goods that no one now possessed anything as his own; wherefore he says that what is narrated in Acts 2:44-45 is demonstrated to be false by other subsequent narratives. This, however, excites wonder: that these critics find so many things which they contend openly contradict one another, and that the one who composed the book—that is, according to them, one who drew from a genuine source and added various things of his own—never became conscious of such contradiction and repugnance of facts, nor did it occur to him that he was narrating things mutually contradictory, or that such things could be detected by those who read the book.

CONTINUE