Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 3

Now Peter and John went up.—Better, were going up. The union of the two brings the narratives of the Gospels into an interesting connection with the Acts. They were probably about the same age (the idea that Peter was some years older than John rests mainly on the pictures which artists have drawn from their imagination, and has no evidence in Scripture), and had been friends from their youth.

They had been partners as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 5:10). They had shared in looking for the consolation of Israel, and had together received the baptism of John (John 1:41).

John and Andrew had striven to see which should be the first to tell Peter that they had found the Christ (John 1:41). The two had been sent together to prepare for the Passover (Luke 22:8). John takes Peter into the palace of the high priest (John 18:16), and though he must have witnessed his denials, he is not estranged from him. It is to John that Peter turns for comfort after his fall, and with him he comes to the sepulchre on the morning of the Resurrection (John 20:6).

The eager affection which, now more strongly than ever, bound the two together is seen in Peter’s question, Lord, and what shall this man do? (John 21:21); and now they are again sharers in action and in heart, in teaching and in worship. Passing rivalries there may have been, disputes about who was the greatest, prayers for places on the right hand and the left (Matthew 20:20; Mark 10:35); but the idea maintained by Renan (Vie de Jésus, Introduction), that Saint John wrote his Gospel to exalt himself at the expense of Peter, must take its place among the delirantium somnia, the morbid imaginations, of inventive interpretation.

They appear in company again in the mission to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and in recognizing the work that had been done by Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9). When they parted, never to meet again, we have no record.

No account is given of the interval that had passed since the Day of Pentecost. Presumably, the brief notice at the end of Acts 2:0 was meant to summarize a gradual progress, marked by no striking incidents, which may have gone on for several months. The absence of chronological data in the Acts, as a book written by one who in the Gospel appears to lay stress on such matters (Luke 3:1; Luke 6:2), is somewhat remarkable. The most natural explanation is that he found the informants who supplied him with his facts somewhat uncertain on these points, and that, as a truthful historian, he would not invent dates.

At the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour—that is, 3 P.M., the hour of the evening sacrifice (Josephus, Antiquities 14.4.3). The traditions of later Judaism had fixed the third, the sixth, and the ninth hours of each day as times for private prayer. Daniel’s practice of praying three times a day seems to imply a rule of the same kind, and Psalms 55:17 (evening and morning and at noon will I pray) carries the practice up to the time of David. Seven times a day was, perhaps, the rule of those who aimed at a life of higher devotion (Psalms 119:164).

Both practices passed into the usage of the Christian Church certainly as early as the second century, and probably therefore in the first. The three hours were observed by many at Alexandria in the time of Clement (Stromata 7, p. 722). The seven became the “canonical hours” of Western Christendom, the term first appearing in the Rule of Saint Benedict (ob. A.D. 542) and being used by Bede (A.D. 701).

A certain man lame from his mother’s womb.—The careful record of the duration of his suffering is more or less characteristic of St. Luke (Luke 9:33; Luke 14:8). The minuteness in this narrative suggests the thought that St. Luke’s informant may have been the cripple himself.

Was carried.—Better, was being carried.

The gate of the temple which is called Beautiful.—Literally, door, though “gate” is used in Acts 3:10. No gate of this name is mentioned by other writers, but it was probably identical with either:

1. The gate of Nicanor (so called, according to one tradition, because the hand of the great enemy of Judah had been nailed to it as a trophy), which was the main eastern entrance of the inner court (Stanley’s Jewish Church, iii. p. 323); or
2. The Susa gate, also on the eastern side, and named in memory of the old historical connection between Judah and Persia, leading into the outer court of the women. The latter was of fine Corinthian brass, so massive that twenty men were required to open or shut it (Jos. Wars, v. 5, § 3).

To ask alms of those who entered into the temple.—The approaches of the Temple, like those of modern mosques, were commonly thronged with the blind, lame, and other mendicants. (Compare John 9:8.) The practice was common at Constantinople in the time of Chrysostom, and has prevailed largely throughout Christendom.

Peter, fastening his eyes upon him . . .—See Notes on Luke 4:20, Acts 1:10, where the same characteristic word is used. The gaze was one which read character in the expression of the man’s face, and discerned that he had faith to be healed (Acts 3:16). And he, in his turn, was to look on them that he might read in their pitying looks, not only the wish to heal, but the consciousness of power to carry the wish into effect.

Silver and gold have I none.—The narrative of Acts 2:45 shows that the Apostles were treasurers and stewards of the sums committed to their charge by the generous self-denial of the community. Therefore, we must assume either that the words meant they had no silver or gold with them at the time, or that, as distributors of charitable funds, they felt obligated to distribute what was given to them in trust in this way for the benefit of members of the community of which they were officers, and for them only. Obeying their Lord’s commands (Matthew 10:9), they had no money they could call their own to give to those who asked them. But they could give more than money.

In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...—The full trust with which the words were spoken was in part a simple act of faith in their Master’s promise (Mark 16:18) and in part the result of past experience in exercising similar powers (Mark 6:13).

The Name in which they spoke could hardly have been new to the cripple. Among the beggars at the Temple gate, there had once been the blind man who received his sight at the pool of Siloam (John 9:7–8). The healing of the cripple at Bethesda (John 5:2, 14) could scarcely have been unknown to this sufferer from a similar infirmity.

What made the call to rise and walk a test of faith was that, only a few weeks before, that Name had been seen on the superscription over the cross on which He who bore it had been condemned to die as one who deceived the people (John 7:12).

His feet.—Better, his soles. The precision with which the process is described is characteristic of the medical historian. Both this term and the “ankle bones” employed are more or less technical, as is also the word translated as “received strength,” literally, were consolidated, the flaccid tissues and muscles being rendered firm and vigorous.