You may have read parts of this post--the first two paragraphs and comments on verse 36--in a previous post. Translated by Qwen.
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 2:36
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.”
Acts 2:37 Moses indeed commanded the solemnity of the firstfruits to 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 imparting force and vigor to the words of Peter, "when they heard this, they were cut to the heart" (κατενύγησαν, as if pierced by a sharp sting, struck with bitter pain), "and they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: 'Brethren, what shall we do?'" They thus recognize the national guilt they had incurred by condemning Jesus and grieve deeply over it. That some were present who had cried out, "Crucify him," is certainly probable; that these, above others, anxiously seek what must now be done is clear. Here the fulfillment of that prayer appears: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).
Acts 2:38. Peter replies: "Repent," he says, (μετανοήσατε). Commentators note that the aorist imperative carries the notion that something is to be done immediately, without delay; μετανοεῖν signifies a change of mind that simultaneously implies sorrow for past action; it thus corresponds to the word "to repent"; cf. Matt. 11:21 (to repent in sackcloth and ashes), Luke 10:13; 2 Cor. 12:21; Rev. 2:21; and it is certain that it is used in this sense even among pagan authors; see examples in the Commentary on Matthew 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 Christ's command (cf. Matt. 28:19; John 3:5): "and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." A name is how individuals are known and distinguished from others; hence the name of God, 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 concerning Him; therefore, to be baptized in His name is nothing else than to receive that sacred immersion which is accompanied by the mode (ἐν, in) designated by the name of Jesus Christ; it is thus a baptism administered according to Christ's command and received with faith in and confession of Jesus Christ. Others read ἐπί here, a particle expressing the cause and foundation upon which something rests; likewise, 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 terminus to which this baptism is directed is "for the remission of your sins," and "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"; thus Christ's baptism is distinguished from John's, and it is declared what it means to baptize in the Holy Spirit. For remission of sins is effected through the infusion of sanctifying grace and through the Holy Spirit who is given to us (Rom. 5:5). That gift is the Holy Spirit Himself, insofar as He, together with created grace, inhabits the soul of the just in a new way (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19).
Some think (Suarez, de confirm. disp. 32, s. 1; Est.; Bell.) that reference is already made here to conferring upon those baptized the sacrament of Confirmation, by which the Holy Spirit is given for strength. But it is preferable, with the Fathers, to say: the very structure of the sentence shows that what is stated by these words is an effect of baptism, just as the remission of sins is; and the gift of the Holy Spirit is indeed joined to this remission, so that neither can exist without the other, yet both are distinguished from each other. — St. Thomas holds that "by a special revelation of Christ, the apostles in the primitive Church baptized in the name of Christ, so that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become honorable" (IIIp, q. 66, a. 6, ad 1); and in the same way the Roman Catechism reads that the apostles baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (pt. 2, cap. 2, q. 15), and St. Thomas [l.c.] attributes this opinion to St. Ambrose (de Sp. s. 4,3) and Pope Nicholas I in his response to the inquiries of the Bulgarians. But it by no means follows that the apostles ever used any other form for administering baptism besides that expressed by Christ in Matt. 28:19. For what "in the name" signifies has already been stated. Therefore, from that expression, that conclusion does not follow at all; besides, see what I said on the formula "in the name" at Matt. 6:9 and 18:5, 20, and John 13:16, etc. Furthermore, what is narrated in Acts 19:5 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, n. 388, 389; from the full response it is clear that the issue is not about the formula for administering baptism, but about the intention of the baptizer, whether he intended to confer Christian baptism or not. — St. Thomas's opinion is abandoned today.
To the exhortation and promise he uttered (be baptized, you will receive), he adds a firm reason and one most suited to imbue their minds with hope and confidence, Acts 2:39: "For the promise is to you and to your children," that is, the promise mentioned in v. 33, which he quoted from Joel in v. 17, concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This promise is made first and principally to the Jewish nation, but, like other messianic prophecies, it is not confined and completed in one stock alone, but extends also to foreign nations: "and to all who are far off" (τοῖς εἰς μακράν, scil. κατοικοῦσιν; with εἰς cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 7:4; also 2:5 in some witnesses), "whomsoever the Lord our God will call." The Lord will call His own from all nations to His kingdom, to the Church. The words themselves strongly indicate that the Gentiles are meant here. For the Jews are already designated by "to you and to your children"; there is no reason to refer these only to the inhabitants of the city, for Joel's oracle speaks not of city dwellers 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 whomsoever He wills (προσκαλέσηται); now this term designates those who are hitherto alien from God; but Jews, considered in terms of their national status and covenant, cannot be called aliens from God. Even in the Gospel, all Jews, with respect to the messianic kingdom, are called "the called" (κεκλημένοι); cf. Matt. 22:3, 14 (Comment. II, pp. 241, 257). Rightly, therefore, most interpreters understand these words as referring to the Gentiles (Oec., Theoph., Bede, Dion., Salm., Lap., Calm., Patr., Feit., Bl.); Knabenbauer, Wendt refer them to Jews residing among the Gentiles, also led by the false opinion that Joel's oracle concerns 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 (Matt. 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 have failed to speak of the calling of the Gentiles. Acts 10 does not stand in the way, as will be shown below.
With what zeal he taught and exhorted the brethren is narrated in Acts 2:40: "And with many other words he testified and exhorted them," that is, speaking gravely, affirming, giving testimony, reproving, admonishing, and pleading, he spoke to them, saying: "Save yourselves from this crooked generation" (σκολιᾶς, perverse and wicked), which does not walk the straight path, but follows twisted and crooked ways. "Save yourselves" (ἀπό) means that they should seek their salvation, embrace the 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 already clearly indicated that a great part of the Jews will reject the messianic salvation. Therefore, "this evil and adulterous generation" (Matt. 12:39) will follow with the worst obstinacy the path it has once entered and from which it refuses to be recalled (cf. Matt. 8:12; 21:41 seq.), as was also already foretold by the oracles of the prophets (cf. Isa. 65:9; Rom. 10:21). How effective the operation of the Holy Spirit was, gather from Acts 2:41: "They therefore who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls"; added, namely, to those who already believed in Christ, like those one hundred and twenty in 1:15 (cf. 5:18; 11:25); "souls" (ψυχαί) as in Ex. 1:5, Num. 31:35, etc. It is well said in the catechism: "Then was fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen the like? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth at once?' Because Zion travailed and brought forth her children; rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all you who love her" (Isa. 66:8, 10).
It is asked whether all these could have been baptized on that day? Various things can be conceived. Perhaps all those one hundred and twenty, or most 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 (ch. 7) that even in antiquity baptism was administered by aspersion or rather by infusion: "Pour water upon the head three times in the name of the Father, etc." (cap. 7).
In what follows, the life of the first Christians is presented to us. Acts 2:42: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers." In Greek, four things are assigned: they assiduously attended the instruction which the apostles delivered and applied their minds to it intently; with equal diligence they devoted themselves to τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, brotherly society among themselves (Caj.), Cajetan explains the term as τὸ ὁμοθυμαδόν, union and agreement of minds; therefore, joined to one another and united by religious and familiar custom, they were already beginning to form a distinct community from others. Thirdly, they were assiduously intent (προσκαρτεροῦντες) τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου, the breaking of bread, i.e., the celebration of the Eucharist, as the simple Syriac version already explicitly states. The breaking of bread is referred to the Eucharistic bread, as the very context suggests, since it is preceded by the salutary instruction and the sacred communion of souls which flows from Christ's very doctrine, and is followed by frequent devotion to prayers. That expression is taken from the very institution of the Eucharist (cf. Matt. 26:26); wherefore the Apostle also writes: "The bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). Finally, they were assiduously devoted ταῖς προσευχαῖς, to prayers. Bellarmine notes: "But since certain definite sacred prayers (ταῖς πρ. with the article) are joined to instruction in sacred doctrine and participation in the Lord's body, that unbloody sacrifice of the new law, commemorating the sacrifice of the cross, which is offered to God in the Catholic Church everywhere on earth, is not obscurely delineated here." Certainly, the most ancient prayers once offered at the reception of the Eucharist are found in the Didache, ch. 9, and there in ch. 10 the Eucharist is called that sacrifice (θυσία) which the prophet foretold, to be offered in every place and time, a clean oblation.
It was also brought about by divine providence that the community of the faithful was preserved for a time without any harassment from adversaries, so that this new and tender planting might strike deeper roots; Acts 2:43: "And fear came upon every soul"; that is, all were affected by a certain religious fear and sacred awe at what had happened on the day of Pentecost, so that they kept far from harassing the faithful and rather regarded them with a certain great reverence. To increase this, signs contributed: "And many wonders and signs were done through the apostles in Jerusalem." Some want this part of the narrative to be displaced, because finally in the following chapter the healing of the lame man is related as the first miracle; but where is it written that it was the first? They point us to 3:11 seq., 8:6, 9, 11. But nowhere is it said to be the first; it only stands out as the most well-known miracle, which, considering the man and the multitude gathered in the temple who were witnesses, could seem to no one surprising. By those signs, the reverence of the others grew: "And great fear was upon all"; which phrase is lacking in quite a few manuscripts, and may be lacking, because the matter is already sufficiently expressed in the preceding words.
The social life of the faithful is further described. Acts 2:44: "And all who believed were together" (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό); certainly the sense cannot be what Wendt wants, "in the same place"; for the number of the faithful was already greater. Less difficulty is presented by what Bellarmine proposes, that they perhaps established their dwelling in a certain part of the city, so that they might be as near to one another as possible. Cajetan explains it as κοινωνίᾳ ἐν πολιτείᾳ; commonly it is understood as continuous concord and goodwill among them (Theoph., Caj., Bell., Calm., Patr.), they were one, with all discord removed (Bl.); they were together, because at fixed hours they came together for the synaxis, for preaching, for prayer (Lap.); consequently, they were already publicly presenting themselves as a certain community distinct from others (Feit.), "and they had all things in common"; thus the faithful imitated that manner of life which they knew the apostles and disciples had already embraced previously. Wherefore the wealthier, Acts 2:45, "sold their possessions" (τὰ κτήματα, the word is used for estates, farms, etc.) "and goods" (τὰς ὑπάρξεις, movable property, Bell.), "and divided them to all, as any had need"; it is not said that they sold all their goods; but they sold them in such a way that they could give what was necessary to the needy, and from their resources and wealth they generously gave to the poor, as is said in 4:32: "neither did anyone say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but all things were common unto them." They therefore possessed wealth and goods; but they did not say and consider these to be so entirely their own that they did not freely allow the poorer to use and enjoy them. That this is how it should be understood is clear from the nature of the case; for how could it be that all sold all their goods, immovable and movable? From where would they then live on the money soon expended? It is clear from Acts 4:32; it is clear because the sale of a field by Barnabas is mentioned as worthy of special note, which would be superfluous if everyone had done the same; it is finally clear from Peter's words in 5:4 and from 5:4 [contextual].
At the fixed hours when the people gathered for public prayer, they themselves also went to the temple. Acts 2:46: "And continuing daily with one accord in the temple," they were diligent in frequenting the temple, imitating the example of Christ and the apostles (3:1); for it was not in God's plan that the faithful should immediately separate from the Jews, nor that they should immediately abandon the old rites and observances; that transition from the synagogue to the Church was to be made gradually; by that connection, which was to be maintained for a time, a way was being prepared for the Jews to enter the messianic kingdom; but to that worship in the temple they substituted another in private homes, which Christ had taught: "and breaking bread from house to house" (κατ' οἶκον can absolutely be explained as "by houses," house by house; cf. 15:36 κατὰ πόλιν (in each city) and Luke 8:1 κατὰ πόλιν καὶ κώμην, and in the same way here it reads καθ' ἡμέραν for each day (Patr., Feit.). But it can also be understood as "at home," i.e., privately, in opposition to ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, in the temple; indeed, they devoted themselves to prayers in the temple, but privately celebrated the Eucharist. I think the words should be understood here as well, with Salm., Lap., Tir., Feit.; but most explain it not of Eucharistic bread, but of common food (cf. Caj., Oec., Theoph., Dion., Bell., Calm., Patr.); it is true that "breaking bread" is also used for profane and common meals in 2:46; 20:7, 11, nor do I think Luke 24:30 should be explained of the Eucharist. But in this passage, however, certain things are found which seem to exclude the explanation of common food. For that κατ' οἶκον is opposed to ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ; 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 peculiar worship privately or house by house, is aptly recalled and at the same time supplements what was said in v. 42. Then, immediately afterward, mention is made of common food; why would that be added, if "breaking bread" already indicated the same thing? "They took their food with gladness and simplicity of heart," that is, filled with all spiritual joy and conspicuous for candor of soul, integrity, ingenuity, and sweetness of manners; Acts 2:47: "praising God"; this "should not be restricted to prayers before and after meals, but understood more universally: they unceasingly praised God" (Bell.); 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 favored them on account of the probity of life, modesty, and charity which they exhibited. By their holiness of 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 daily: "And the Lord added to the Church daily those who were being saved" (τοὺς σωζομένους); cf. v. 40; those, namely, who embraced the messianic salvation and were being saved from this crooked generation. The Lord adds them; for God gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:7) and God calls to the messianic kingdom (cf. John 17:6; 1 Cor. 1:9). Those who were added used the same concord and union of minds with the other faithful; for προσετίθει... ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό; cf. v. 44.
In this narrative, some critics find various stumbling blocks. That the number of three thousand in v. 41 is greatly exaggerated; indeed, it can in no way be reconciled with v. 40 τῷ αὐτῷ οἴκῳ, by which word they want the same house understood, of which mention is made in 1:13 and 2:2; but a house sufficient for gathering one hundred and twenty can in no way hold three thousand! However, those acute critics could have perceived that even the author of this narrative was not so dull-witted as not to understand that one house could not hold three thousand. Therefore, by that very fact, the critics' explanation of one house is exploded. Nowhere does it say that the three thousand were in one and the same house, or that they had no other house for holding assemblies except the one in 1:13. If I say: "Christians pray in the temple and eat at home," do I therefore assert that they all lived in one and the same house? — Likewise, some find a contradiction between v. 43 and v. 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 harm on them; to this disposition of mind, favor soon was added, when they saw that they by no means separated themselves from the communion of worship in the temple, and that they excelled in probity of life, modesty, and charity. Whence they both revered them and held them in good favor. Weiss wrongly considers that v. 43 is refuted by the subsequent narrative concerning signs and miracles, as has already been explained above. Hilgenfeld is in the same error. Moreover, Weiss imagines such a community of all goods that no one possessed anything as his own; therefore he says that what is narrated in v. 44–45 is demonstrated false by subsequent narratives. This, however, causes wonder, that these critics find so many things which they claim openly contradict each other, and that he who composed the book (i.e., according to them, drew from a genuine source and added various things of his own) never became conscious of such contradictions and repugnances of facts, nor did it occur to him that he was narrating mutually contradictory things or that such could be discovered by those who read the book.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment