Acts 2:36Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

And since he had spoken a lofty truth, he now again brings his discourse down to what is humble. "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly," he says. That is, do not doubt and do not object.

Then he speaks with authority: "that God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ." He recalled this from David's Psalm (Ps 2:2). He ought to have said, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly" that He sits at the right hand. But since that was too lofty, he passes it over and brings forward something much more humble. He says, "has made," that is, has appointed.

"God has made Him both Lord and Christ." The expression "has made" is used in place of "has appointed," for the discussion is not about existence or hypostatic being. He still does not cease to speak of the works of humility. He ought to have added, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know certainly that He sits at the right hand," since this follows from what preceded. But he does not say this. He speaks much more humbly, saying, "God has made Him both Lord and Christ," for this is the meaning of the word "made." Therefore one must everywhere keep in view the benefit of the hearers.

Concerning the saying of the Apostle Peter, Acts 2:36, it would be proper to examine more carefully what Eunomius said about it and what our father, Basil the Great, said. If this inquiry lengthens our discourse, the kindly hearer will pardon us.

He will not blame us for loquacity, but will lay the fault on the one who gave the occasion. Let me first briefly survey what must be examined. This may not be foreign to the aim I have in view.

The divine word has decreed that nothing created should be made divine by men. Almost all God-inspired Scripture teaches us this. Moses, the tablets, the Law, the prophets, the Gospel, and the teaching of all the apostles equally forbid reverence toward creation.

It would be long to set forth separately each passage that bears on this. Yet if we offer a few testimonies from the many God-inspired witnesses, the argument will have equal authority. Every divine utterance, even the least, equally manifests the truth.

Existing things are commonly divided into two parts: creation and the uncreated nature. If the opponents' claim had force, namely that the Son of God is created, then one of two things would necessarily follow.

Either we must reject the evangelical preaching and not worship God the Word, Who is in the beginning, since creation must not be served. Or, ashamed before the Gospel wonders that lead us to honor and worship Him Who is revealed in them, we must honor the created and the uncreated equally.

If, according to the opponents' teaching, a created god must be worshiped, having by nature no superiority over the rest of creation, then the doctrines of piety would be brought into a kind of anarchy and many-ruled self-law.

For once men believe that the worshiped nature is not one, but turn their thought toward various divinities, no one will stop the movement of a mind that has admitted a created deity. The recognition of deity in one creature will lead to the same opinion about what follows it.

Thus the error will extend to all things, once the first falsehood, through application, reaches its furthest extremes. That this conjecture is not unlikely, I shall present a trustworthy witness to the truth of my word: the error still reigning among the Greeks.

When men, with untrained and feeble reason, became strangely attached to the beauties of creation, they did not use the marvel of visible things as a guide toward understanding the beauty beyond the world. They halted their thought at what is perceived.

They made each part of creation separately an object of wonder. Thus they did not recognize as deity one thing among visible things, but considered everything visible in creation divine.

Among the Egyptians, where error about the spiritual world was especially strong, innumerable kinds of demons were numbered among divine beings. Among the Babylonians, the unchanging circuit of heaven was honored as a god, which they called Baal.

Greek vanity also made each of the seven following circles a separate god. By a special principle of error, it subordinated one to another. Having observed that all these circles revolve within one another, they erred concerning the highest.

Then they preserved the same error consistently down to the furthest extremes. They also held as truth that ether itself, the air poured beneath it, the earth, the sea, the underworld, and all useful and necessary things on earth share in the divine nature.

One thing in creation that first struck their eyes gave occasion for service to all the following parts of creation. They bowed before each of these objects. Had it first seemed unlawful to them to turn reverent eyes upon creation, they would not have fallen into such polytheistic delusion.

All the more, we ought not suffer from this sickness. Divine Scripture has taught us to look toward the true Godhead and instructed us to regard all created things as foreign to the divine nature. We must serve and honor the one uncreated Nature.

Its property and mark is that it never had a beginning of being and will have no end. Thus the great Isaiah, theologizing in a mighty voice about these doctrines, speaks in God's person: 'I am the first, and I am after these; before Me there was no other God, and after Me there shall be none' (Isa 44:6; 43:10).

This great prophet knew the mystery of evangelical piety more accurately than all. He proclaimed the wondrous sign of the Virgin, announced the birth of the Child, and clearly uttered His very name.

Embracing in himself, by the power of the Spirit, the whole truth, he spoke in God's person. He did this so that the property of the divine nature would be especially clear to all, by which we distinguish the self-existent from what has come into being.

He says: 'I am the first, and I am after these; before Me there was no God, and after Me there is none.' Since there is no God before God, nor God after God, what is after God is creation, and before God there was nothing.

Nothing is not God. Or rather, before God, He Himself is in unlimited and eternal blessedness. Since this spiritual word was spoken through prophetic lips, we are taught by it that there is one divine nature.

It is identical in itself and indivisible. It admits neither before nor after into itself, though it is proclaimed in the Trinity. It has nothing in itself that can be conceived as older or as having come afterward.

Therefore, since this utterance is God's, whether you ascribe it to the Father or to the Son, the doctrine of piety is established equally by either. If the Father said this, He bears witness concerning the Son that He is not after Him.

For if the Son is God, and everything after the Father is not God, then the divine word clearly testifies that the Son has His being in the Father, not after the Father.

If someone ascribes these words to the Son, 'There was none before Me,' the teaching is clear. Together with the eternity of the beginning, one must understand Him Who is contemplated in the beginning as eternal.

Thus from what has been said this is revealed: if anyone is after God, he is creation and not God. For the Lord says, what is 'after Me' is not God.

Now, after this preliminary exposition on existing things, it is time to examine the proposed saying. Peter said to the Jews that 'God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom you crucified' (Acts 2:36).

We say that piety requires the words 'has made' to be referred not to the Godhead of the Only-begotten, but to the 'form of a servant,' assumed according to the divine economy at the coming in the flesh.

Those who violently distort this saying say, on the contrary, that by 'made' the Apostle signifies the pre-eternal generation of the Son. Having set forth our teaching openly and examined both opinions, let us leave judgment of the truth to the hearer.

Eunomius himself will be sufficient defender of the view opposed to ours. He did not contend timidly in this matter. By following his words literally, we shall set forth the mind of our opponents fully.

As for the defense of our teaching, we ourselves shall undertake it as far as we can, following as much as possible the traces of what Basil the Great had previously set forth.

Let readers judge where the truth lies, as one of the prophets says, 'Judge righteous judgment' (Deut 1:16; Jn 7:24). They will award the prize of victory not to the suppositions of disputants, but to truth discovered through inquiry.

Now let our accuser come forward first, as though reading his writing in court. 'Besides what has been said, refusing to understand the word made of the Son's essence and at the same time being ashamed of the cross, he fastens on the apostles what no one fastened on them, not even those who tried crudely to blaspheme them.

By his doctrines and words he plainly introduces two Christs and two Lords. For he says that God did not make Lord and Christ the Word Who was in the beginning, but Him Who emptied Himself to the form of a servant and was crucified through weakness.'

Basil the Great writes exactly thus: 'The meaning of the apostolic saying presents us with nothing about the pre-eternal hypostatic being of the Only-begotten, which we are now discussing.

It is evident that the Apostle speaks here not of the very essence of the Word of God, Who in the beginning was with God (Jn 1:1), but of Him Who emptied Himself into the form of a servant.

He became conformed to our lowly body (Phil 2:7; 3:21) and was crucified through weakness (2 Cor 13:4). Anyone who has even slightly considered the meaning of the Apostle's words can understand this.

Here he does not teach us theology, but shows the manner of the divine economy of salvation. For when he says, God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus Whom you crucified, he has in view only His humanity and what is visible in Him.

This is clearly shown to all by the demonstrative expression, this Jesus.' Eunomius continues about Basil: 'In saying this he unlawfully replaces the sense of the apostolic words with his own opinion.

He seems to accuse of similar madness the holy men and best preachers of piety, daring to insult them as though their teaching were so deficient. But those who lay their deliriums upon the departed saints, what disorder of thought do they not contain?

What absurdity do they not possess, who think that a man emptied himself into a man, and from this conclude that the one who humbled himself in obedience to the form of a servant was like men even before assuming this form?

O most senseless of all, how does one who has the form of a servant assume the form of a servant? How could anyone empty himself into what he is? You will find no way for this, though you dare to teach and think impossibilities.

Are you not most pitiable of all, if you think that a man suffered for all men and ascribe your redemption to him? If blessed Peter speaks not of that Word Who is in the beginning and is God, but of the one who appeared and emptied himself, as Basil says, then the one who appeared as man emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant.

And the one who emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant emptied himself by being born as man. Thus the one who appeared as man emptied himself by being born as man.

But the very nature of things contradicts this. He himself also plainly contradicts it, when in his theology he hymns such an economy and says that not the visible man, but the very Word Who is in the beginning and is God, assumed flesh.

In other words, this means the same as assuming the form of a servant. Therefore, if you honor this as trustworthy, abandon the error. Stop teaching that a man was emptied into a man.

If you cannot persuade those who do not believe this, since it is incredible, then destroy unbelief by another word and another saying. Remember the words: Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:6-7).

There is no man to whom these words could apply. None of the saints who ever existed was the Only-begotten God Who became man. For this is what it means: being in the form of God, to take the form of a servant.

Therefore, if blessed Peter reasons about Him Who emptied Himself into the form of a servant, and the Word Who is in the beginning and the Only-begotten God emptied Himself into the form of a servant, blessed Peter speaks of Him Who is in the beginning and is God.

He teaches that He was made Lord and Christ. Thus Basil contradicts himself and clearly shows that he neither attends to the sense of the apostolic words nor preserves consistency in his own words.

It follows that either, recognizing the inconsistency, he must admit that the Word Who is in the beginning and is God was made Lord, or, adding contradiction to contradictions and stubbornly standing his ground, he must add something else more hostile.

Thus the apostles did not proclaim another God or another fullness. Nor did they say that one was the Christ who suffered and rose, and another the One who ascended on high and remained without participation in suffering. Rather, they proclaimed one and the same God the Father and Christ Jesus, risen from the dead. They preached faith in Him to those who did not believe in the Son of God. From the prophecies they persuaded them that the Christ whom God promised to send, He had sent in Jesus, whom they crucified and whom God raised.

Blessed Peter says that God "made both Lord and Christ" the crucified "Jesus" (Acts 2:36). He does not mean that the essence of the Word was created, but that Christ was made according to His humanity. For what was crucified, if not the body? And how else could the Apostle indicate the bodily reality of the Word except by saying, "He made"?

Then the twelve Apostles come forward to the people. Peter, no longer the former Peter, timid and fearful, but courageous and undaunted, speaks to them.

He says that the extraordinary manifestation now accomplished upon them is the work of the Holy Spirit, whom God once promised to send upon His servants.

He says that Jesus Himself sent this Spirit down upon them, His disciples. This is the same Jesus whom the Jews had recently crucified here, and whom God raised from the dead, glorified, and seated at His right hand.

Therefore Jesus is the Christ. The recent instructions of the Risen One Himself had taught that Christ had to suffer, and only by this path enter into His glory.

In conclusion, the Apostle forcefully states and firmly establishes the first and fundamental truth upon which all the others disclosed in his speech rest.

This truth is that the Messiah appeared precisely in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ; verse 36.

To awaken still greater repentance in them, he reminds them how unjust and malicious they had been toward this Jesus, whom God so exalted and magnified.

God made Him Lord and Christ, but you crucified Him. He assigns to them the guilt of crucifying the Lord: "This Jesus whom you crucified."

Of course, among his hearers there were many who had not been in Jerusalem during the sufferings of the Savior. Therefore they could not have personally taken part in putting Jesus to death.

At last the apostolic word turns to the whole house of Israel. First it called its hearers Jews, then Israelites, then brethren, and now, finally, the whole house of Israel.

By this final appeal it gives them to understand that everyone, in his own circle, must know for himself the truth being preached.

If someone among his countrymen, or even among his relatives, should not accept it, he must separate himself from others for its sake.

The Lord long ago appointed such division over Him in His Gospel: the division of son from father, mother from daughter, daughter-in-law from mother-in-law, and so forth.

The conclusion of the word concerning Jesus as Lord and Christ, or Messiah, the Deliverer, refers to the whole discourse that has been spoken.

The Apostle finished his speech, but its words still rang in the ears of those in the crowd like the terrible thunder of heavenly justice. Only fifty days earlier, in senseless frenzy, they had cried, "Crucify, crucify Him!" With a cry of despair, many rushed to Peter and the other apostles, exclaiming, "What shall we do, men and brethren?"

"Therefore, let all know assuredly," and so forth. This is the practical conclusion of the whole apostolic speech, as the undoubted and firm inference from all that has been said concerning the person of Jesus Christ.

Everything the Apostle has said about Christ on the basis of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Him can and must be a firm foundation for the hearers' knowledge and faith.

They must know that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Christ, who, having been crucified, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent down the Holy Spirit upon His Apostles and disciples.

This is what the hearers now see and hear.

"The whole house of Israel" means the whole Jewish people. It is often called this in the books of the Old Testament; 1 Kgs 12:23; Ezek 45:6, and many others.

The Apostle's exhortation to know firmly that Jesus is Christ, the Savior, first concerned the Jews, who had not believed in Him as the promised Messiah.

At the same time, it extends to all readers of this divine Scripture, in which the divine dignity of Jesus Christ is disclosed with such clarity, solidity, and fullness.

The Apostle clearly testified to this before Jesus Christ Himself, when He asked the Apostles whom they considered Him to be. Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

To this Jesus Christ said: "You are Peter," petros, that is, rock, "and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it"; Mt 16:16, 18.

Then He added: "From now on you will catch men"; Lk 5:10.