Thomas L. Constable wrote:
p. 73-77.
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. They connect with the second coming of Messiah, the "period" of restoration of all things. They are the subjects of Old Testament prophecy. Zechariah predicted that the Jews would one day accept Messiah whom they had formerly rejected (Zech. 12:10-14; cf. Deut. 30:1-3; Jer. 15:19; 16:15; 24:6; 50:19; Ezek. 16:55; Hos. 11:11; Rom. 11:25-27). 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.
Editor's comment: In Acts 2:36, Peter said Jesus was "made Christ," by God, which means that he was established as king on the throne of David, in the heavenly Jerusalem. At that time, Isaiah's prophecy about the mountain of the Lord's house will be established in the top of the mountains, and above the hills, was fulfilled. [Isa.2:1-2] Jerusalem and mount Zion were then raised up to heaven, in a spiritual sense. And thereafter, all the OT prophecies about Jerusalem and mount Zion apply to the heavenly city, and the heavenly Zion, which is the Church, not the earthly one, which was cast out, like Hagar the bondwoman. [Gal. 4:24-31]
Since Jesus already reigns in David's thone in heaven, and possesses all power in heaven and earth, it is absurd and wrong to claim that he might have returned in the first century, if more Jews had repented then. Instead, Jesus blinds those who do not believe, and they are excluded from Israel. [Acts 3:23]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.
[Quoting Toussaint, "Acts," pp. 361-62.]
"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 that translates pros to (some mss. have eis to) with the infinitive [in the NIV]. This points to a near purpose. The two occurrences of that in verses 19b and 20 are translations of a different construction (hopos with 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 refreshing at 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 prophets did 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 individual Israelites there was forgiveness of sins, and (2) for Israel as a nation her Messiah would return to reign.
Other dispensational interpreters, including myself, believe that this was not a reoffer of the kingdom to Israel.
Editor's comment: Christ's reign as king on the throne of David does not depend on Jews, as dispensationalists believe, but he was "made Christ" by God, Peter said. [Acts 2:36] Toussaint's assertion that "The Old Testament prophets did not predict the church; to them it was a mystery" and his citation of Rom. 16:25 and Eph. 3:1-6 to support it is misleading. Paul said the "mystery" mentioned in Rom. 16:25 is "now is made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets." The dispensational interpretation of OT prophecies that exclude any reference to the church in the present age is defective. Paul identified the mystery mentioned in Ephesians 3:3-4 in verse 6 as the revelation "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel."
[Quoting Pentecost, "Thy Kingdom Come."]
"Here Peter was not reoffering 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."
Some individual Jews did repent, but the nation as a whole did not in response to Peter's exhortation (4:1-4).
[Quoting Larry R. Helyer, "Luke and the Restoration of Israel"]
"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."
[Quoting Rackham, p. 49.]
"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."
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. Thus 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 A.D. 70. Belief in Moses should have led to belief in Jesus, and belief in Jesus would have made Peter's hearers obedient to Moses.
[Quoting from Marshall, "The Acts," p. 89:]
"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]."
Acts 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.
Acts 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.
Editor's comment: Jesus was "raised up" from the grave, and he also ascended to heaven, where he reigns as king forever on the throne of David.
The gospel went to the Jews before it went to the Gentiles (cf. Matt. 10:5- 6; 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).
[Quoting Bock, "Acts," p. 165.]
"This speech is one of the most christologically rich addresses in Acts, as Jesus is the servant, the Holy and Righteous One, the Author of life, the prophet like Moses, the Christ, and the seed of Abraham."
Should modern Christians evangelize Jews before they evangelize Gentiles? We are not commanded to do so. The Great Commission passages make no Jew-Gentile distinction regarding who should get the gospel first. Evangelizing Jews first was the practice of the early church, but we are not commanded to do so. How can we tell whether we should practice a New Testament practice? We should ask ourselves: "Is it commanded, and is the practice trans-cultural (not limited to one particular situation)?"
By the way, there are several meanings of the word "Jew," and it is helpful to distinguish them. Biological or ethnic Jews are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Some were "saved" in Old Testament times, but some were not. Today, most ethnic Jews are unbelievers in Jesus: non-Christians. Religious Jews are people who have practiced the religion of Israel in one of its various forms throughout history. Some Gentiles became adherents to Judaism as a faith (cf. Ruth). Some of these were "saved," and others were not. Today, a person may follow the religion of Judaism without being an ethnic Jew, and Christian ethnic Jews do not normally adhere to Judaiam. They adhere to Christianity. "Saved" Jews are ethnic Jews who believe in God like Abraham did, trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and have the Holy Spirit indwelling them. Today, many "saved" Jews refer to themselves as Messianic or completed Jews.
In Old Testament times, "Jew" was a term that non-Jews used to describe the Israelites. It comes from the name "Judah." The Israelites typically referred to themselves as Israelites.
When we read about the Israelites in the New Testament, we have to decide who is in view. Dispensationalists believe that "Israel" always refers to ethnic Jews in the New Testament, either "saved" or "unsaved," as is true in the Old Testament. Sometimes "saved" Jews are in view (e.g., Gal. 6: 16), but they are "saved" ethnic Jews. Non-dispensationalists believe that in the New Testament, "Israel" sometimes refers to the new people of God: Christians, including both ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles.
Editor's comment: In the New Testament, the term "Jew" properly applies only to those who believe in Christ, who are "Jews inwardly," as Paul explained in Romans 2: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." [Rom 2:28-29]
Acts 3:22-23 excludes unbelievers from Israel, and from the promises of God to his people, which now apply to them that are in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile after the flesh. [See Phil. 3:3]
Copyright © 2013 by Douglas E. Cox
All Rights Reserved.