Acts 2:36 — Made Lord and Christ

“Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Acts 2:36

Context: Peter’s Pentecost sermon

Acts 2 narrates the event of Pentecost: the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the assembled disciples, the speaking in tongues, the confusion of the Jewish pilgrims from all over the world. Peter steps before this crowd and delivers the first public sermon of the Christian community — the first apostolic kerygma. The sermon spans vv.14–36 and is organized into three movements: (1) interpretation of the Pentecost phenomenon as the fulfilment of Joel 2:28–32 (vv.14–21); (2) recollection of the work, death, and resurrection of Jesus (vv.22–32); (3) the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God and the outpouring of the Spirit through him (vv.33–35). V.36 is the closing climax: the twofold proclamation that God has made the crucified one Lord and Christ.

The rhetorical structure of the sermon is tightly drawn. Vv.22–24 place the miracles of Jesus within the horizon of God’s decree; his death at human hands is at the same time identified as God’s permission. Vv.25–31 cite Ps 16:8–11 and read it not of David but of the risen Christ. Vv.32–33 name two facts of which the apostles are autoptai (eyewitnesses): resurrection and exaltation. Vv.34–35 inserts Ps 110:1 (“Sit at my right hand”) as the prophetic scriptural proof for the enthronement. V.36 is the consequence: “Therefore let the whole house of Israel know asphalôs (with certainty)…”

In the composition of Acts, Acts 2:36 is the early echo of a confession which Luke repeats at several key points: Acts 5:30–31 (“God exalted him as Leader and Saviour”), Acts 10:42 (“ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead”), Acts 13:32–33 (Ps 2:7 applied to the resurrection), Acts 17:31 (“a man whom he has appointed”). This is not accidental: Luke speaks consistently the language of institution Christology. Christ is not described as a Logos eternally begotten by the Father, but as a man whom God has, through death, resurrection, and exaltation, instituted as Lord and Saviour.

Exegesis has long recognized that Acts 2:36 belongs to the oldest Christological formulae of the NT — Bultmann spoke of a resurrection Christology, Hahn of an institution Christology. The point is: prior to any pre-existence or two-natures interpretation, the early Christian community confessed Christ as the man exalted by God. That Peter here does not preach the eternal Son from the bosom of the Father, but the man from Nazareth instituted by God, is exegetically uncontested.

Socinian reception. The Racovian Catechism (1605) counts Acts 2:36 among the core texts of the Christian confession. In its section “Whether the trinitarian error can forfeit salvation” the catechism names as a content of faith necessary for salvation, among other things, “that on the basis of the resurrection from the dead he has truly been instituted by God as Lord and Christ” — with explicit reference to Acts 2:36. Fausto Sozzini himself and the Polish Brethren read the verse as a central support of their Christology: Jesus’ lordship is real, but it is given by God — it does not make him a second God.

The Socinian core thesis

Acts 2:36 is institution Christology: Peter confesses before the whole house of Israel that God has, by a historical act, made a particular man — “this Jesus whom you crucified” — Lord and Messiah. The verb epoíêsen (aorist of poieô, “to make, to institute”) designates a completed action, an actus historicus. It is not the verb of proclamation (edemosieusen, egnôrisen) and not the verb of being (ên). It is the verb of institution — and it does not stand here by chance.

This linguistic precision is decisive. Had Peter wanted to say that Jesus had from eternity been Lord and Christ and was now only being publicly revealed as such, he would have used the imperfect: ên (he was), or the abiding essence statement: esti (he is). He could not have said epoíêsen without contradicting himself. Greek grammar excludes the eternal-essence-equality reading here not by quibbling but by the very verb chosen.

Socinianly we read the verse on this same line: Jesus is not from eternity the second divine ruler alongside the Father. He is the Christ sent by God, begotten by the Holy Spirit, acting in history, who through his obedience unto the cross and through the resurrection that followed it has been instituted by God into full lordship. His being Lord is no less real for being conferred — it is precisely for that reason most deeply grounded: because God himself is the instituting agent.

The decisive theological point: Acts 2:36 distinguishes between the one God (the subject of the action) and Jesus (the object of the institution). “God has made him Lord.” Subject and object are not identical — the one acts, the other is instituted. This is the basic structure of the entire New Testament Christology: God is Father, Sender, Raiser, Exalter, Enthroner; Jesus is Son, Sent One, Raised One, Exalted One, Enthroned One. This relational structure is not a provisional linguistic concession to earthly reality, to be levelled in the eternal Godhead. It is the theological truth itself.

Exaltation presupposes humiliation. Phil 2:9 says it expressly: “Therefore God has highly exalted him” — the “therefore” refers to the obedience unto the cross. Whoever is exalted must previously have stood in a lower position. An eternal, co-eternal second person of the Godhead who has always reigned at the right hand of the Father cannot be exalted — at most he can be made visible. Peter, however, says epoíêsen (v.36) and the Lucan corpus speaks consistently of hypôsen (to exalt, v.33; cf. 5:31). This is institution language, not manifestation language.

Key terms

Five Greek terms decide the interpretation of Acts 2:36 linguistically and philologically:

epoíêsen — “he has made / has instituted”

The aorist epoíêsen (from poieô, to make, to do, to institute) designates in Greek a completed action in the past. It is the standard verb for an effected event, a historical act. In Septuagintal usage it is used equally for acts of creation (Gen 1:7 LXX epoíêsen ho theos to stereôma), for royal institutions (1 Sam 12:6 LXX), and for priestly appointments (1 Kgs 13:33 LXX) — always as a verb of action, never as a statement about a timeless being.

The choice of precisely this verb at this closing point of the Pentecost sermon is exegetically decisive. Peter stands before his people and sums up the historical meaning of Jesus’ resurrection in a single sentence: “God has made (epoíêsen) him — namely, Lord and Christ — this Jesus whom you crucified.” The verb carries the whole theological weight: it is not “he was it all along,” but “God has made him such.”

Whoever nevertheless reads the verse as a manifestation statement (“God has only made manifest what the Son was from eternity”) is reading into the verb a meaning that does not philologically belong to it. For manifestation/revelation Koine uses phanerôsai (1 Tim 3:16: ephanerôthê en sarki) or gnôrisai. Peter does not use these verbs. He uses the verb of action proper to institution — which fits semantically exactly to the resurrection enthronement.

kýrios — “Lord”

The Greek title kýrios means first of all “lord,” “owner,” “bearer of authority.” In the Septuagint it translates both the Hebrew adonai (lord, in address to men as to God) and the Tetragrammaton YHWH (in the invocation of God). From this the trinitarian tradition concludes that the title kýrios applied to Jesus implies Jesus’ divinity in the strict sense of YHWH’s identity. That, however, is neither linguistically nor contextually sustainable.

First: kýrios is in Koine a title with a broad semantic field. It is used of Roman officials (cf. Acts 25:26 tôi kyriôi — the Roman emperor is meant), of householders (Matt 13:27), of kings (Matt 22:44 citing Ps 110), of the Messiah (Luke 2:11 “a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord”). Only the respective context decides whether the word means the one God of Israel or a human bearer of authority.

Second: Paul distinguishes expressly in 1 Cor 8:6 between the one theos ho patêr (God the Father) and the one kyrios Iêsous Christos (Lord Jesus Christ). If kýrios in Christian preaching meant simply “YHWH,” Paul would be writing a tautology at this central point and undermining the simultaneously emphasized creation-monotheism. Rather kýrios applied to Jesus is a title of majesty and office which expresses the authority conferred upon him — exactly as Acts 2:36 says: God has made him such.

Third: In Acts 2:34 Peter himself cites Ps 110:1, in which kýrios appears twice but in completely different meaning: eipen ho kyrios tôi kyriôi mou — “the Lord [YHWH] said to my Lord [the Messiah].” The one speaks to the other. The two are unambiguously distinguished. Peter draws from this quoted difference the direct conclusion in v.36: “God has made him (the second kýrios, the Messiah) Lord.” The force of the argument depends on the fact that the two kyrioi are not identical.

christós — “the Anointed One, Messiah”

The title christós (Lat. christus) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiach, the “Anointed One.” In the Old Testament the following are anointed with oil: kings (1 Sam 10:1 Saul; 1 Sam 16:13 David), priests (Exod 28:41), occasionally also prophets (1 Kgs 19:16). The anointing marks the institution into an office, the conferral of an authority bestowed by God. Christós is therefore by its very essence a title of institution, not a statement of essence.

It is in precisely this line that Peter reads Jesus as the one anointed by God. In Acts 10:38 he formulates it thus: “Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power.” The anointing is here expressly described as a historical act of God. So too Acts 13:33 cites Ps 2:7 (“You are my Son; today I have begotten you”) and refers the “today” expressly to the resurrection. Christ is “declared Son of God in power” (Rom 1:4) through the resurrection — an act of institution, not of manifestation of an essence already present.

Consequently: The twofold formula “Lord and Christ” in Acts 2:36 is the language of office and function, not the language of essence. It describes what God has conferred upon Jesus through the resurrection — not what Jesus is from eternity. This reading is not reduction but precision: it takes the verb epoíêsen seriously and reads the two titles as what they are in OT usage: titles of honour and office, conferred by anointing.

asphalôs — “with certainty / assuredly”

The adverb asphalôs (from asphalês, “secure, firm, unshakeable”) opens v.36: “asphalôs let the whole house of Israel know…” It is an epistemological adverb — what is at stake is the certainty of the knowledge. Peter says to his hearers: what I am now telling you, you can no longer call into doubt.

The adverb rhetorically mirrors the aorist epoíêsen: because something has happened (resurrection, exaltation), it can now be known with certainty. The certainty rests on a historical fact — not on a speculative essence statement about God’s inner being. That is the point: Acts 2:36 is not a metaphysical statement but a statement of salvation history. Its probative force lies in the accomplished act of resurrection, not in any inaccessible eternal inner life of God.

touton ton Iêsoun hon hymeis estaurôsate — “this Jesus whom you crucified”

The demonstrative closing clause is rhetorically decisive. Peter identifies the one exalted by God with the one crucified by men — and with emphasis (touton, “this one”) and with direct reproach to those present (hymeis estaurôsate, “you crucified”). Subject of the exaltation is God; subject of the crucifixion are men. This reversal is the core paradox of the early Christian proclamation: what men rejected and killed, God has instituted into the highest position.

The closing clause also excludes every docetic and every pre-existence-speculative interpretation. It is not about a second divine person who appeared in a man and then returned, but about this one man Jesus who was crucified and whom God raised and made Lord. The identity of the exalted one is inviolably bound to the human, earthly, mortal identity of the crucified one. Whoever does not want to derive Christ’s majesty from the obedient man, but from a pre-temporal statement about divine essence, breaks this closing clause.

Comparison of interpretations

Reference to Fausto Sozzini and the Racovian Catechism

The Racovian Catechism (1605, Lat. Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum) is the principal textbook of the Polish Brethren, in which the theological legacy of Fausto Sozzini was systematically unfolded. Acts 2:36 receives in the catechism an unusually pointed role: it is expressly formulated as the saving minimum — as that which a person must believe about Christ in order not to be condemned.

“[It seems not to condemn the one] who only believes this: that Jesus Christ was truly a man and truly died for our sins; that he was truly raised again for our justification; and that on the basis of the resurrection from the dead he has truly been instituted by God as Lord and Christ and Head of the Church and Judge of the living and the dead; and so places his faith in him, which works through love.”

Racovian Catechism, chapter on the one God, with explicit reference to Acts 2:36

Three observations on this passage are theologically decisive.

First. The catechism formulates the Christology necessary for salvation not as trinitarianism, but as institution Christology: true man, dead for our sins, raised for our justification, instituted by God as Lord and Christ. It is precisely this twofold formula “Lord and Christ” that directly cites Acts 2:36. The catechism thus reads the verse not peripherally, but as the most concise summary of Christian hope.

Second. The expression “on the basis of the resurrection from the dead” (propter resurrectionem ex mortuis) anchors the institution expressly to the historical act of the resurrection. Christ’s majesty is not a pre-temporal property, but a position constituted by the resurrection. The catechism thus follows the semantic line of the aorist epoíêsen: an accomplished act, not a timeless being.

Third. The catechism sets institution Christology and the “one person of God” side by side without tension. This is consistent: if God is the subject of the institution and Jesus the object, then the one God is the Father, and Jesus is the one instituted by him. There is no need of a doctrine of the Trinity to support this Christology — it is itself the biblical Christology.

Elsewhere the catechism unfolds the same line at greater length (chapter on the knowledge of Christ). Christ is the Son of God not only because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and sanctified by the Father, but also:

“Thirdly, because, as Paul testifies both in Acts and in Romans, he was raised from the dead by God and thereby as it were begotten anew, especially as he has on this path become similar to God in immortality. Finally, because he has also been made similar to God, indeed equal to him, in dominion and supreme power over all things.”

Racovian Catechism, on the person of Christ (referring to Acts 13:33 and Rom 1:4)

The central theological precision lies in the phrase “has been made equal” (Lat. aequalis effectus). Christ’s divinity, insofar as one can speak of it, is not an aequalitas naturae (equality of essence from eternity), but an aequalitas potestatis effecta (equality of authority effected by divine action). This is the exact logic of Acts 2:36: God has made him such.

In the same chapter the catechism draws the decisive conclusion: “He is not only the only-begotten Son of God, but was also, on account of the divine power and strength as well as the authority and dominion which shone forth in him already as a mortal, then already God; much more, however, now, when he has received all power in heaven and on earth, and everything, God alone excepted, has been put under his feet.” This formula is exegetically precise: Christ is God in a derived, authority-specific sense — and expressly “God alone excepted.” Thereby the monotheistic basic structure is preserved: one God (the Father), one Lord instituted by God (Christ, the man).

Sozzini himself, in his controversies with the trinitarian theologians (especially in letters to Andreas Wolan and in writings against Christian Francken), has time and again expounded Acts 2:36 together with Ps 110:1, Phil 2:9 and Rom 1:4 as enthronement texts. His systematic point: the Holy Scripture knows a rich, multi-tiered Christology of institution — but it knows no eternal, co-eternal second divine person who has only in time become visible. The patristic two-natures doctrine reads a post-biblical metaphysics into the simple language of the apostles.

Overview of Sozzini’s writings

Logical arguments

From Acts 2:36 the following logical and linguistic-philological arguments for a Socinian Christology follow:

1. The argument from tense. Epoíêsen is an aorist — a completed action in the past. An eternal, always-already-existing equality of essence cannot be expressed in the aorist. For a timeless being Greek uses the present esti or the imperfect ên. Peter uses neither. He uses the action verb of institution.
2. The argument from the subject-object distinction. “God has made him.” The subject of the action is God; the object of the action is Jesus. God and Jesus are not grammatically or logically identical. A trinitarian reading must either blur this distinction or evade it by an auxiliary construction (two-natures doctrine, Filioque, communication of idioms).
3. The argument from the logic of exaltation. Phil 2:9: “Therefore God has highly exalted him.” Exaltation presupposes a lower initial position. Whoever rules from eternity at the right hand of the Father cannot be exalted. Acts 2:33 uses hypôtheís (“exalted to the right hand of God”) parallel to v.36 — a continuous vocabulary of historical enthronement.
4. The argument from Ps 110:1. Peter cites in vv.34–35 expressly Ps 110:1: “The LORD said to my Lord.” The subject and the person addressed are different. If Peter cites this verse as the scriptural proof for the institution in v.36, then he presupposes that the one Lord (YHWH) and the other Lord (the instituted Messiah) are to be distinguished. The distinction is not accidental, but the decisive argumentative step.
5. The argument from the Christological linguistic logic of Acts. Luke speaks consistently in the language of institution: Acts 5:30–31 (hypôsen, “exalted”), Acts 10:42 (hôrismenos, “ordained”), Acts 13:33 (Ps 2:7 referring to the resurrection), Acts 17:31 (hôrisen, “he has appointed”). This continuous language is not accidental — it is the Christological vocabulary of Luke. Acts 2:36 fits consistently into this scheme.
6. The argument from the logic of anointing. Christós means “the Anointed One.” Anointing in the OT is constantly an act of institution into an office — an authority conferred by God, not a statement of essence. If Peter calls Jesus “Christ” and at the same time says that God has made him such, then this is the most precise OT logic: a man is instituted into the messianic office by divine anointing.
7. The argument from the identity of the crucified and the exalted. “This Jesus whom you crucified.” The identity of the exalted one with the historical, mortal, crucified Jesus is constitutive. It is not a second divine essence that has returned to heaven, but this one man whom God has instituted through the resurrection. The identity excludes a speculative pre-existence or two-natures interpretation.
8. The argument from the rhetorical goal. The Pentecost sermon aims at repentance (vv.37–38: “What shall we do?” — “Repent and be baptized”). A speculative trinitarian statement of essence does not contribute to this preaching goal. The institution Christology articulated, however, carries it centrally: God has made the crucified one Lord — therefore he is to be confessed, his name to be called upon, into his death one is to be baptized.
9. The argument from the prepositional difference in 1 Cor 8:6. Paul formulates exactly the same line: one God, the Father, from whom (ex hou) are all things — and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom (di hou) are all things. The Father is origin, Christ is medium. This prepositional difference is the Pauline formulation of the same structure that lies in Acts 2:36: one God acts, one Lord he institutes.
10. The argument from the way of salvation. Acts 2:36 is in the Racovian Catechism expounded as the saving minimum — that which it is enough to believe in order to be saved. If the eternal essence-equality of Christ with the Father were necessary for salvation, Peter could not have left it unsaid here. That he does not say it, but instead chooses institution language, is a strong indication that the doctrine of the Trinity does not belong to the apostolic kerygma.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages support the institution-Christological interpretation of Acts 2:36:

Romans 1:3–4 — “declared to be the Son of God in power”

“His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared (horisthentôs) to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.” Paul uses the verb horízô (to delimit, to determine, to appoint) in the aorist — a synonym to the institution language of Acts 2:36. The resurrection is expressly the constitutive act of institution into full sonship of God.

Acts 13:32–33 — Ps 2:7 referred to the resurrection

“God has fulfilled it by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm: You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” Paul interprets the “today” of Ps 2:7 expressly as the day of the resurrection. Christ’s sonship is thus not relegated to an eternal intra-trinitarian begetting, but bound to the historical resurrection. The same logic as Acts 2:36.

Acts 5:30–31 — “God exalted him as Leader and Saviour”

“The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted (hypôsen) this one by his right hand (têi dexiâi) as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” Structurally identical to Acts 2:36: God as subject, Jesus as object of the exaltation, the crucified one as the exalted one. The Racovian Catechism cites this passage expressly as a parallel.

Philippians 2:9–11 — humiliation and exaltation

“Therefore God has highly exalted him (hyperhypôsen) and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (kyrios), to the glory of God the Father.” The universal lordship of Christ is here explicitly a consequence of his exaltation — and indeed “to the glory of God the Father.” Thereby the subordination is pronounced: Christ’s being Lord is real and universal, but it is conferred by God and ordered to God. Cf. the entry on Philippians 2:6–9.

Psalm 110:1 — “The LORD said to my Lord”

“The LORD said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” The most cited psalm in the NT (over 20 times). Peter cites it in Acts 2:34–35 immediately before v.36 as the scriptural proof of the institution. The point: two kyrioi are distinguishable — the first (YHWH) sets the second (the Messiah) at his right hand. This distinction is the foundation of institution Christology.

Hebrews 5:5 — “Christ did not glorify himself, but the one who…”

“So also Christ did not take to himself the honour of becoming a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him: You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” Christ’s priestly dignity is not self-taken but conferred. Here too Ps 2:7 is cited — and the Letter to the Hebrews interprets this “begetting” consistently as institution into the high-priestly office. Cf. Hebrews 1:1–2.

1 Corinthians 15:24–28 — final handing over to the Father

“Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power… When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” Paul draws the final consequence of institution Christology: Christ’s rule is conferred by God and at the end given back to God. An eternal equality of essence cannot be handed over and subordinated — a conferred lordship can.

Ephesians 1:19–22 — the power that raised Christ

“Which he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority… and put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church.” Paul formulates the cosmic enthronement as God’s deed upon Christ. Here too: subject of the institution is God, object is Christ. The Racovian Catechism cites the passage expressly as evidence for Christ’s royal dignity.

Acts 10:38 — anointing as a historical act

“Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him (echrisen) with the Holy Spirit and with power.” Peter in his sermon before Cornelius formulates the anointing of Christ as a historical act. The divinity of Christ consists in this anointing — not in a pre-temporal ontological endowment.

Objections and Socinian replies

Objection 1: “Epoíêsen means only public proclamation, not a real institution”

This reading is linguistically untenable. For “to make public, to announce, to proclaim” Koine has specific verbs at its disposal: phanerôsai (1 Tim 3:16, “he was manifested in the flesh”), gnôrisai (Eph 1:9; 3:3), apokalýptein (Matt 11:27). Luke and Peter could have chosen one of these verbs, had the sense been “declarative.” They did, however, choose epoíêsen — the action verb of institution.

Also within Acts the vocabulary is clearly distributed. Where Luke means a proclamation, he writes kataggellô (to proclaim, Acts 4:2; 17:3) or diamartýromai (to bear witness, Acts 2:40; 20:21). The verb of institution epoíêsen would at this point be either a semantic error or — which we must presuppose — a deliberate choice with its own content of meaning. The latter is the only philologically tenable conclusion.

Add to this the context: v.33 says that Jesus was exalted (hypotheis) to the right hand of God and there received the Spirit and poured it out. To receive is not to manifest. To pour out is not to manifest. These verbs describe a real anteriority (receiving) and effect (pouring out). V.36 draws from this sequence its conclusion. The whole rhetorical movement of the verse is lost if one subsequently turns epoíêsen into a declarative figure of speech.

Objection 2: “Kyrios applied to Jesus means YHWH — Peter identifies Jesus with the God of the OT”

The inference from the lexical ambiguity of the word kyrios to an ontological identity of two different bearers is a semantic mistake. Kyrios in the LXX translates not only YHWH, but also adon (lord in the general sense, Gen 24:12 of Abraham; 1 Sam 1:15 in Hannah’s address to Eli), baal (owner), sar (prince) and much else. Which meaning applies is decided by the context, not by the word in itself.

Within the same Petrine citation of Ps 110:1 (Acts 2:34) two kyrioi stand side by side — and they are not identical: the first speaks, the second is addressed. The simple identification “kyrios = YHWH = same bearer” immediately collapses here. On the contrary: Peter draws his conclusion from the difference between the two kyrioi, that God has exalted one and made him the other kyrios.

Paul makes the matter precise in 1 Cor 8:6: one God, the Father — and one Lord, Jesus Christ. If kyrios applied to Christ meant identity with the Father, the double statement would be tautological and the simultaneously emphasized creation-monotheism would collapse. Rather Paul distinguishes precisely: the Father is God (theos), Christ is Lord (kyrios) — two distinct titles, denoting two distinct bearers. Acts 2:36 follows exactly this logic.

Objection 3: “The communicatio idiomatum saves the matter — only the human nature has been instituted”

This answer is a post-New-Testament construction projected into the text. Peter does not say: “God has made his human nature Lord.” He says: “God has made him — this Jesus — Lord and Christ.” The subject-object of the institution is a person, not a nature. The splitting into two natures, of which only one is instituted, would mangle Peter’s statement and do violence to the clear wording.

Add to this: Peter expressly throws the bridge to the crucified one in v.36. “This Jesus whom you crucified.” The one made Lord by God is the same one who was crucified. Whoever here lets one nature be instituted and leaves the other untouched dissolves the personal unity of the subject — a classically Nestorian problem which the orthodox tradition itself has condemned. The two-natures doctrine here falls into self-contradiction.

Methodically the objection shows the real problem: it cannot leave the verse as it stands. It must rebuild it to rescue its prior dogmatic conviction. The simple, Socinian reading needs no such auxiliary construction: Jesus is a true man, instituted by God as Lord and Christ. One nature, one person, one act of institution.

Objection 4: “John 1:1 and Phil 2:6 teach pre-existence — Acts 2:36 must then be read differently”

This method reverses the exegetical order. The correct procedure would be: each verse is first read in its own context, and only thereafter are the passages related to each other. Whoever introduces from the outset a dogmatic premise (“Christ pre-exists eternally”) and filters all verses through it, practises eisegesis, not exegesis.

In fact, for all the passages mentioned there are Socinian interpretations that do justice to the respective grammar and the respective context without presupposing an eternal pre-existence. John 1:1–3 speaks of the Logos as God’s creative will, which became flesh in Christ — not of an eternal second person. Philippians 2:6–7 speaks of Jesus’ voluntary renunciation of the claim to be equal to God (Adam typology) — not of a pre-existent incarnation. Colossians 1:15–17 speaks of Christ as the beginning of the new creation, in whom everything is summed up unto salvation.

The real question is methodological: should one bend the clear, salvation-historically unambiguous language of Acts 2:36 (with the aorist epoíêsen, the subject-object structure, the demonstrative “this Jesus”) in the light of poetically or hymnically condensed passages such as John 1:1 or Phil 2:6? Or should one conversely use the clear passage as a hermeneutical key to the more difficult ones? The second method is the exegetically more honest one — and that is exactly what Sozzini and the Racovian Catechism do.

Objection 5: “A merely instituted majesty is religiously insufficient — only a true God can be worthy of worship”

The objection confuses worship with ontological equality of essence. In Scripture worship is offered in the highest place to the Father (John 4:23–24), but at the same time also to the Christ instituted by God — because and insofar as God has so instituted him. Phil 2:10–11 says it expressly: every knee bows before Jesus, and that takes place “to the glory of God the Father.” Christ-worship is relative, ordered worship — not competing worship alongside the Father.

The Racovian Catechism formulates it exactly: Christ is worthy of worship because God has exalted him to that — not because he would be God of himself. “Christ is such a Lord, made such by God, to whom also the title God is deservedly to be ascribed” (cf. Racovian Catechism on Acts 20:28). This derived concept of divinity solves the worship problem on a biblical basis, without having to introduce a second divine person.

Finally: the early church — before Nicaea, before conciliar theology — worshipped Christ without speculating about equality of essence. Its worship was an answer to what God had done in the resurrection. Only the post-apostolic philosophical theology translated this answer into a metaphysical system — and in so doing lost the simple apostolic confession: “God has made him Lord and Christ.”

Theological consequences

Connected verses

The following passages support, deepen, or contrast the interpretation here presented:

• Philippians 2:6–7 — humiliation and exaltation as the presupposition of the institution; hyperhypôsen parallel to epoíêsen.
• 1 Peter 1:20 — proegnôsmenos: foreknown (in the plan of salvation), not co-eternally pre-existent.
• Hebrews 1:1–2 — Christ as the Son instituted into the high priesthood through the resurrection.
• John 1:1–3 — Logos as God’s creative will; theos in v.1c qualitative, not identifying.
• Colossians 1:15–17 — Christ as “firstborn of all creation” in an institution-Christological sense.
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 — one God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ) as precise distinction.
• 1 Timothy 2:5 — one mediator, the man Christ Jesus; confirms the manhood of Christ.
• John 17:3 — the Father alone as the true God; Christ as the one sent by him.

Summary

Acts 2:36 is the most concise formulation of the apostolic institution Christology. Peter says before the whole house of Israel: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, Lord and Christ. The verb epoíêsen is a verb of action — an aorist that designates a completed historical act of God. It is not the verb of manifestation, not of proclamation, not of essence statement. It is the verb of institution.

Read Socinianly, Acts 2:36 is a locus classicus of Christology. Subject of the action is God; object is Jesus, the true man, who was crucified and raised. The twofold formula “Lord and Christ” designates the titles of office and majesty conferred upon him. His lordship is real and universal — but it is received from God, not eternally his own. The Racovian Catechism formulates precisely this Christology as the saving minimum: to believe that Christ was truly man, dead for our sins, raised, instituted by God as Lord and Christ — that is enough for salvation.

A trinitarian interpretation, which restricts epoíêsen to Christ’s human nature and leaves the divine nature untouched, is a post-New-Testament construction that mangles Peter’s clear wording and splits the subject of the institution into two natures. It falls into self-contradiction (dissolution of the personal unity, the Nestorian problem) and reads a philosophical metaphysics into the simple language of the apostles. The Socinian reading needs no such auxiliary construction: one God, the Father, who through the resurrection institutes a man, Jesus, as Lord and Christ — and a people that answers this deed of God with repentance, faith, and worship.