The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom *ye* delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when *he* had judged that he should be let go.
Peter has just healed a lame man, and a crowd runs to him in the temple. His first move is to turn every eye off himself and onto the One God has glorified. The verse ties three things together: the God of Israel's ancestors, the title "servant," and the crowd's part in handing Jesus to Pilate.
The miracle carried no credit for the men through whom it came. One writer says what the miracles were for, and who they pointed to.
These miracles brought no honour at all to the men who performed them, though of course they proved the divine character of their ministry. They were wholly a testimony borne to the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, and all He taught... So in Acts 3:13, Peter refuses all regard for himself or John, putting Jesus alone forward. The Lord's power and resurrection are what the miracles testified to.
Peter names God by the three ancestors every listener revered. The point is continuity: the God of their fathers is at work in front of them, and now He works for Jesus.
The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of their fathers, was working still among them. But now He was working for the glory of His servant Jesus. Peter is bold indeed. In the temple court he stated that Jesus, the rejected and crucified One, was Jehovah's servant.
Some older translations read "His Son Jesus" here. Commentators say the word is "Servant" — the title Isaiah used.
It is the God of our fathers who glorified the Messiah, His Servant Jesus. "Son" is not the thought, but Jehovah's "Servant," as in Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 52, 53. The Jews had denied Him before the Roman judge, who was willing, in fact determined, to let Him go.
This was not a gap in Peter's knowledge. God unfolded the glory of Christ by stages, and this sermon stands at an early one.
We know Him — and the Spirit of God, who wrote this book, knew Him infinitely better — to be the Son of God. But we must always hold to what God says. God's testimony had not yet set out all the glory of Christ, above all in dealing with the Jews. He brought it out by stages. The more man's unbelief grew, the more God defended the Lord's glory.
"Glorified" is not a compliment paid to a dead teacher. It describes where Jesus now is, and it explains where the lame man's strength came from.
Everything is now connected with the glory of the Lord Jesus. He entered that glory after His sufferings and death, and because of them... Peter credits the healing of the lame man at the gate of the temple to the power of Jesus glorified. This marks the whole teaching of the apostles. A glorified Christ is the source of every blessing, and of the power that shows it, through the Holy Spirit.
Pilate wanted to let Jesus go; the crowd would not have it. One writer weighs the guilt of everyone involved and finds it uneven.
All are guilty, but there are degrees of guilt. Herod was a vile, pleasure-loving man. He would mock the Lord and treat Him as nothing, yet he finds nothing in Him deserving death. Pilate will go further than Herod. He will hand Christ over to the murderous hatred of the Jews. But he has no personal hatred, and he will at least make some weak effort to save One he knows is innocent from death.
Notice who Peter does not blame. He passes over the obvious culprit and speaks to the people standing in front of him.
He does not speak of Judas, though no doubt Judas was the immediate instrument of handing Him over... they denied the One whom he declares to be the Messiah, and whom God declares to be the Holy One and the Just.
There is one more layer. The man who charged Israel with denying Jesus had denied Him himself.
What a living picture Peter gives in Acts 3:13 of a worshipper once purged, with a clear conscience! How else could he charge the men of Israel with denying Jesus? Had he not denied Him openly, recently, and repeatedly with oaths? Now he was so completely cleansed by the Saviour's blood that he boldly charged them with that sin. If it had not been wiped away, he would have been ashamed to whisper the words.
- Name: Peter lets no one credit him or John. The miracle points to Jesus.
- Covenant: The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is still at work among Israel. Now He works for the glory of Jesus.
- Servant: Commentators read "Servant" here, not "Son" — the title Isaiah used. God unfolded the glory of Christ by stages.
- Glory: A glorified Christ is the source of every blessing and of the power that shows it. That is why a lame man walks.
- Grace: The man who made this charge had denied Jesus himself. The Saviour's blood had cleansed him, so he could name the sin out loud.
But *ye* denied the holy and righteous one, and asked that a man [that was] a murderer should be granted to you;
Peter is speaking to a crowd at the temple, where a lame man has just been healed. He turns their wonder into a charge: the God of their fathers glorified Jesus, and they disowned Him. The verse names what they did by naming who He was — and it names the man they wanted instead.
Heaven had used the first of these titles for Jesus before Peter did, and so had His enemies:
He Himself was the Holy One. "The child to be born will be called holy — the Son of God," the angel said to Mary (Luke 1:35). The very demons in Capernaum said to Him, "I know who you are — the Holy One of God." And what charge did Peter lay against the Jews after Pentecost? "You denied the Holy and Righteous One" (Acts 3:14). The fact was that the Lord Jesus had been presented to His people as the Holy One.
The verse adds a second title: Righteous. Kelly sets both titles against what Israel asked for, and against what God then did:
How desperate their position! They denied the Holy and Righteous One (Isaiah 53:11). They asked for a murderer as a favour. God was clearly against them, for He raised from the dead the Author of life whom they killed.
Peter does not soften the swap. He sets the man they asked for against the One they refused:
The apostle put their guilty deed in the strongest form. They had deliberately preferred a taker of life, in the person of Barabbas, to the divine Author of life — the Son of God!
The murderer they asked for was Barabbas, and his record was public:
John 18:40 describes him as a "robber," and Matthew 27:16-26 calls him "a notorious prisoner." He had started an uprising and had committed murder (Mark 15:7-15). Yet the Jews, led by the chief priests and elders, asked for this man to be released instead of the Lord Jesus. Why they asked for this particular prisoner is not known. But their choice shows their ungodliness in the clearest way. They could choose such a notorious criminal over the Lord of life and glory, their Messiah.
The man making this charge had denied Jesus with oaths only weeks earlier:
And who is this that so boldly charged the Jews with denying their own Messiah? The very man who not many weeks before had denied Him with oaths. But Peter broke down at once in a sorrow that produced repentance according to God. He judged not only the ripe fruit but the root of his sin. Now restored, his feet washed, he is fully cleansed from the defilement. So he can charge the men of Israel with the very sin he had so recently been freed from himself, without a blush or a waver... None can preach, any more than worship, like a soul once cleansed, having no more conscience of sins.
The choice made in front of Pilate was not only Jerusalem's crime:
Pilate might wash his hands. The people might say, "His blood be on us and on our children." But the fact remains: the world united to murder Him. The world, therefore, to this day stands charged with the murder of the Son of God.
Peter piles the charge high, but not to close the door:
Israel broke and despised everything that should have bound them. Their act held everything that could magnify their rejection of Him. And yet, as the whole passage shows, this very sin of theirs, this very killing of the Prince of life, was only the occasion of fresh grace. The rock in the wilderness, when struck, poured out the refreshing streams the people needed. In the same way, this murdered Prince of life now stands before them as the One who brings more than gifts of healing. Through Him God offers Israel here and now all the things He had spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
- Denied. They refused Him as the Holy and Righteous One — the very One heaven, and even demons, had already named.
- Preferred. They asked for a man guilty of uprising and murder as a favour, and they killed the Author of life. That was the trade.
- Exposed. The choice made at Pilate's seat was not Jerusalem's alone — the world united in it and still stands charged.
- Cleansed. Peter could press this home without flinching. He had judged the root of his own denial, and he stood restored and clean.
- Offered. That same sin became the occasion of fresh grace. God held out to the guilty everything the prophets had promised.
but the originator of life ye slew, whom God raised from among [the] dead, whereof *we* are witnesses.
Peter stands in the temple courts after healing a lame man. He tells the crowd what they did to Jesus, what God did in reply, and who saw it.
Older translations read "Prince of life" where newer ones read "Author of life," and the writers quoted below use the older wording. The word behind that title also describes Christ in two other places.
The Greek word archēgos means "beginner, leader." In Acts 3:15 older translations say "prince," with "author" in the margin: the Lord Jesus is the originator of life. In Hebrews 12:2, the Lord Jesus is the "leader" and completer of faith: He began and finished the whole course. In Hebrews 2:10 older translations say "captain": He was the "leader" of their salvation through suffering.
Peter's charge has weight because of the choice behind it.
They had had before them "the Prince [Author] of life" and "a murderer;" that is, a taker of life. They killed the One and chose the other. Yet God had raised the One they killed, so they were caught red-handed in rebellion against God.
That choice was not a one-off failure by one crowd. One writer reads it as a test of the human heart itself:
It is the deep, full sifting of the heart of man, and it tells me that the heart of man in Luke 23 is exactly what it was in Genesis 3. Man in Genesis 3 preferred the lie of the serpent to the truth of God. Man here preferred a murderer to the Prince of Life!
The second half of the verse is not extra information. It is God taking a side.
When Peter says, You "killed the Prince of Life," I can imagine their souls trembling, because they knew it was true. No one could deny this charge from the Holy Spirit. True, He allowed Himself to be slain; but Peter says, You killed Him. Now look at the gulf between the world and God. See how the thoughts of the world stand against God's thoughts of Jesus, "whom God raised from the dead." Could there be a greater contrast? — You killed Him, but God raised Him from the dead.
"To this we are witnesses" was not a closing formality. It names the theme the first preachers kept returning to.
The apostles especially drew the earnest attention of those outside to His resurrection. It was one of the great subjects of early apostolic preaching (Acts 1:22; 2:24-32; 3:15; 4:2-10; 5:30). Much hangs on it. If the Lord is risen, it is because God has raised Him from the dead, and has thus openly taken up His cause. He is risen, not like Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, and others, to return to corruption, but never again to die (Acts 13:34). Death has no more power over Him. He is alive, then, forever — the living One. He was raised because it was not possible for death to hold Him. He was holy and righteous, and His resurrection proclaims that.
Notice who is making this charge.
And who is this that so boldly charged the Jews with denying their own Messiah? The very man who not many weeks before had denied Him with oaths. But Peter broke down at once. His sorrow produced repentance according to God, because he judged not only the ripe fruit of his sin but its root. Now he is restored, his feet washed. He is so completely cleansed from that defilement that he can charge the men of Israel with the very sin he had only just been freed from himself — without a blush or a waver. No one can preach, or worship, like a soul once cleansed, with no more conscience of sins.
The charge sounds crushing. One writer finds the ground of assurance inside it.
The certainty of salvation is something God reveals to me as a result of the work of Christ. If God says to me, You have killed the Prince of life, then by this very means I know that all my sins are washed out. God says, This is what I have done: I have washed out all your sins by the sin you committed in killing the Prince of life. Faith alone can make me understand that. The heart torments itself while the thing is simple.
- Author — The word means beginner or originator. Jesus starts life, and the same word names Him leader of faith and of salvation.
- Exchange — They chose a taker of life and killed the giver of life. Commentators see in that swap the human heart itself, not just one crowd.
- Answer — God raised the One they killed. The world's verdict on Jesus and God's verdict now stand in open opposition.
- Witness — The resurrection was the main theme of the first preaching. This risen One will never die again.
- Outcome — The charge is not the end. God washes sins away by that very sin — the killing of the Author of life. And the man preaching it had denied Him too.
And, by faith in his name, his name has made this [man] strong whom ye behold and know; and the faith which is by him has given him this complete soundness in the presence of you all.
Peter and John had just healed a man lame from birth. The crowd came running and stared at the two men as if the power were theirs. This verse is Peter's answer. In one sentence he moves the credit from the apostles to a Name, and to the faith that rested on it.
Peter had the whole crowd's attention. He used it to point away from himself.
God has fulfilled His word. God has given His Son. And Peter says, "Do not look at us, as if it had anything to do with our power or holiness." It is a wonderful thing to find a man actually in the presence of God in days like these. Here is a man in the presence of God, and as soon as God used him for blessing, he says, "Don't look at me. Look up there. Look at Him, the glorified One there, the despised One here. I am only the vessel through which it came."
Peter healed by calling on a name. Jesus never did.
When our Lord performed miracles He invoked no name as His authority for performing them. By contrast, Peter cured the lame beggar at the Beautiful gate of the temple by saying, "In the NAME of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." He also took pains to tell the people that the miracle came not by his own power, but in "His [Christ's] NAME, … by faith in His NAME" (Acts 3:6, 16). At the raising of Lazarus our Lord cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." … He acted as a Divine Person.
Where the miracle happened mattered as much as how.
Inside the courts of the Lord's house, a miracle had taken place in the open, in the name of the One whom the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, had judged not long before to be a blasphemer worthy of death. And this is the God who never gave His glory to another. The controversy about His claim to be a Divine Person was more than settled, but in a way the Jews never expected. God had glorified His servant, Jesus of Nazareth, by allowing a miracle in His own house in that name. Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the only one Peter had named to the lame man. So if His name had power in that holy place, with no mention of the God of Abraham, then the crucified One must be more than a mere man. By what had happened, God plainly owned Him as His equal.
The verse does not stop at the Name. It also says where the faith came from: it is "through Jesus." One writer names the source of that faith.
Second, faith in its own proper place, the gift of God, not of self.
One man stood up. Peter was speaking to a whole nation.
It was a sign perfectly suited to wake the Jews up. It proved the grace of God toward their utter weakness. It showed the power of the risen and glorified Messiah. And it did so all the more because Christ was not there in person. This was His answer from heaven to the power of His name, which His servant on earth had called on. If such was the instant power of the name of Jesus for the lame man, what would not follow faith in that name if Israel believed?
One writer turns from the healed man to the reader.
Only faith in His name can do anything now for you, my friend. It is His name, and faith in His name alone, that secures blessing for the soul. This man rose up and walked in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. And I say to you: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise out of your bed of sins and come to Him. You may be saved this very moment if you have faith in the name of Jesus.
- The Name first. The power was not in Peter or John, but in the name of Jesus called on from earth and answered from heaven.
- The Name despised. The rulers had condemned Jesus of Nazareth. God honoured His name inside His own house.
- The Name received by faith. Faith comes second, in its proper place: the gift of God, not something produced from self.
- The Name proved. The result stood in front of everyone: a man once lame, now strong and in perfect health.
- The Name offered. One lame man walked. The same Name went out to a whole nation, and it still reaches anyone who trusts it.
And now, brethren, I know that ye did it in ignorance, as also your rulers;
The healing of the lame man has drawn a crowd. Peter has just charged them to their face with crucifying the Lord Jesus. Then the tone turns. He calls them brothers and says they acted in ignorance. Does ignorance make a crime smaller? And why would God say it at all?
This is no compliment. The people who should have known their Messiah understood Him least.
In one way this might make the degraded condition of God's ancient people worse; for how did they and their rulers come to be so ignorant? They knew neither the Scripture nor the power of God. They valued neither grace nor truth. They saw works and heard words such as no one had ever known before. Yet they were more stupid than the nations around them, duller than their own beasts of burden. But He who suffered for them on the cross prayed to His Father to forgive them, for they did not know what they were doing. And now the Holy Spirit, through the apostle, assures them that this was so, as a plea for divine compassion.
Writers tie this verse back to what Jesus prayed on the cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Peter is not guessing at their motives. He is announcing a verdict.
After such a total condemnation of Israel we might have thought it was all over with that nation, and that God would step in to destroy them. But no. Through Peter, God made this known to the nation of Israel: because His Son had interceded for them on the cross, He was treating their terrible sin as a sin of ignorance and not as a wilful sin.
Israel's own law separated the killer who planned it from the one who did not. It gave the second man somewhere to run. Writers place the killing of Jesus in that second class.
What amazing grace this is! To our poor minds it looks as though they committed that terrible sin with open eyes! Peter took the same line as his Master did on the cross. Under the law the Lord drew a distinction between a manslayer and a murderer. For the murderer there was to be no mercy; for the manslayer there was safety in the cities of refuge (Num. 35). In grace God is pleased to regard Israel — the slayer of Jesus — as a manslayer. So there is still mercy for that blood-stained nation.
The law also appointed a sacrifice for sins done in ignorance. The timing is striking.
For sins of ignorance a sacrifice was available for Jews (Leviticus 5:14). In fact, their Messiah accomplished that sacrifice at the very time they were guilty of crucifying Him.
Being ignorant did not make them safe. It left them needing mercy, and that mercy needed Christ's prayer.
They were ignorant of what they were doing, and that is why He prayed for them. Yet their ignorance was no valid plea for acquittal in God's sight, so the Lord's intercession was needed. God does show mercy to those whose grave sins are done in ignorance of what pleases Him. Look at Paul. He thought he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth. "I received mercy," he writes, "because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief." God could be gracious, but He could not gloss over his wrongdoing. The same is true of those who crucified His Son.
Peter has just made an accusation. Now the same sermon turns into comfort.
He has pressed their terrible sin home on the consciences of his hearers. Now he applies the healing, soothing balm of the gospel, in words of wonderful power and sweetness: "And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He thus fulfilled." Nothing can exceed the grace of this. It recalls Joseph's words to his troubled brothers: "It was not you that sent me here, but God."
God counted the sin as done in ignorance, so the sentence did not fall at once. Something far larger came instead.
They had indeed committed an unmatched crime in crucifying the Lord Jesus... But the vinedresser had pleaded for the barren fig tree (Luke 13:8). Their ignorance, pleaded by the Redeemer on the cross, is exactly what the Holy Spirit admits through Peter here. In answer to the intercession of Jesus they were forgiven so far as this: judgment did not fall at once, and full, free, absolute forgiveness was proclaimed to them on condition of their repentance.
- Charge. Peter first fixes the guilt for an unmatched crime: the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. He names the crime first, the ignorance second.
- Plea. The word "ignorance" is not their excuse. It is God honouring Christ's prayer, treating the nation's sin as a sin of ignorance and not a wilful one.
- Provision. Ignorance never acquits; it qualifies for mercy. The law gave the manslayer a city of refuge and the ignorant sinner a sacrifice — and their Messiah was making that sacrifice as they killed Him.
- Offer. Judgment did not fall at once, so Peter could proclaim full forgiveness to them, on one condition: repentance.
- Reach. Paul received mercy because he had acted in ignorance and unbelief. The same door stands open to anyone whose worst sin was done blindly.