Acts 2: 14-41  - Peter's sermon: the Explanation of Pentecost

Before we are ready to study Peter's sermon in particular, it is necessary to consider the Acts' speeches in general. 

a) The speeches in Acts
Every reader of Acts is struck by the prominent position occupied in Luke's text by speeches. We observe again how incomplete the book's title is, whether the `Acts' are thought of as those of Christ, the Spirit or the Apostles. For it contains as many `addresses' as `acts'. Luke is true to his intention of recording  what Jesus continued (after his ascension) both `to do and to teach' (1:1). No fewer than nineteen significant Christian speeches occur in his second volume (omitting the non-Christian speeches of Gamaliel, and the Ephesian town clerk and Tertullus). There are eight by Peter (in chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 15), one each by Stephen and James (in chapters 7 and 15), and nine by Paul (five sermons in Chapters 13, 14, 17, 20, and 28, and four defence speeches in Chapters 22 to 26). Approximately 20% of Luke's Text is devoted to addresses by Peter and Paul; if Stephen's speech is added, the percentage rises to about 25%. 

But are these speeches genuine utterances by the people to whom they are attributed? Are they accurate? There are three possible responses.  

First, probably nobody has ever imagined that the Acts' speeches were *verbatim* accounts of what was said on each occasion. There are several reasons for rejecting the idea. They are much too short to be complete (Peter's Pentecost sermon, as recorded by Luke, would have taken three minutes to deliver, and Paul's in Athens one and a half); Luke specifically says at the end of his account of Peter's sermon that he went on exhorting the crowd `with many other words' (40); there was of course no recording equipment in those days, even if shorthand was being developed; and in any case Luke was not present to hear every speech himself, so that he must have depended on summaries given him later either by the speaker or by one of the listeners. He cannot be claiming, therefore, to be giving more than a reliable digest of each address. 

Secondly, the modern critical approach, developed and popularized between the wars by H.J.Cadbury in the English-speaking world and by Martin Dibelius in Germany, is much more sceptical. Their assertion of the substantial unreliability  of the speeches is based on two main arguments. First, if one compares the speeches with each other and with Luke's narrative passages, the whole of text reflects the same style and vocabulary, while many of the speeches contain the same shape, theological emphasis and Scripture quotations; the natural explanation of this sameness is that it all comes from Luke's mind and pen, rather than from the different speakers. The second argument is that `a prevailing convention among ancient historians was the custom of inserting speeches of the leading characters in the narrative', and of freely composing these speeches themselves. Thus, the speeches in Greek history had the same interpretative function as the chorus in Greek drama. Moreover, the authors assumed that their readers understood and accepted this literary artifice, which was employed by both Greek and Jewish historians. 

The Greek example most often quoted is Thucydides, the historian of the Peloponnesian War in the fifth century BC. The key passage from his chronicle includes the following statement: 

As to the speeches ..., it was hard for me, and for others who reported them to me, to recollect the exact words. I have therefore put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought that he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said. 

Because of Thucydides' references to his fallible memory of what was said and to his personal opinion of what would have been said, his statement has usually been taken to mean that he simply invented the speeches he records. The Jewish example quoted is generally Josephus, who seems to have been far less conscientious than Thucydides, even totally unprincipled. H.J.Cadbury describes how he sometimes merely transforms the Old Testament narrative `into his own prosy platitudes', sometimes `inserts in inappropriate scenes long diatribes of his own composing', and in the case of more contemporary history has `evidently invented speeches'. Summing up this tradition of Greek and Jewish history, Cadbury wrote: `From Thucydides downwards, speeches reported by the historians are confessedly pure imagination'. This having been the supposedly universal convention in the writing of Greek and Jewish history, the biblical critics assume that Luke as a Christian historian was no different. This presumption... is strong', wrote Cadbury, `that his speeches are generally without basis of definite information - even when the accompanying narrative seems thoroughly reliable'.

Acts 2:14-41.  Peter's sermon: the explanation of Pentecost. 

The third approach to the Acts' speeches, rejecting both extremes literalism and extreme scepticism is to regard them as reliable summaries of what was said on each occasion. A threefold critique of the Cadbury-Debelius reconstruction may be made. First is not fair to all ancient historiography. Josephus and some Greek historians do seem to have regarded the speeches they include as belonging more to rhetoric than history. This is not so of Thucydides, however. Conservative commentators argue that Thucydides had been misinterpreted. On the one hand, insufficient attention has been paid to the final sentence of the statement already quoted, namely that he kept as nearly as he could to the general gist of `what was actually said' (a clause which F.F.Bruce has written, expresses `Thucydides' historical conscience'). On he other hand, the quotation has not been continued as it should have been . For Thucydides went on : 

Of the events of the war I have not ventured to speak from any chance information, nor according to any notion of my own; I have described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from others o whom I made the most careful and particular enquiry. The task was a laborious one... 

A.W.Gomme summarized this chapter of Thucydides in these words: `I have tried to relate these events as accurately as possible, both the speeches and the deeds done, difficult as this was.'  

Dr. Ward Gasque also points out that Polybius, the second century BC Greek historian, `time and again explicitly condemns the custom of the free invention of speeches by historians'. Dr Gasque concludes that `the free invention of speeches was not a universally accepted practice among historians in the Graeco-Roman world'.  

Secondly, critical scepticism regarding the Acts' speeches is not fair to Luke either. For Luke claimed in his preface, as we have seen, that he was writing carefully researched history, and at the beginning of his second volume that his concept of history included words as well as deeds. It is therefore as antecedently unlikely that he would make up speeches as that he would make up events. It is also gratuitous to assume that, because some - even many -  ancient historians took liberties with their sources, Luke must have done the same. On the contrary we know from the Gospel the conscientious respect with which he treated his main source, Mark. Even Cadbury conceded that in his gospel `he transfers speech material from his source to his own manuscript with a minimum of verbal alteration'. So, even though the Acts' speeches differ from the sayings and parables of Jesus, there is every reason to believe that Luke would handle the former with the same reverence that he gave to the latter. In addition, he actually heard a number of Paul's speeches himself, and met people who heard other speeches which he records, so that he was considerably closer to the originals than other historians are. 

Thirdly, the sceptical critics are not fair in their evaluation of the variety and appropriateness of the Acts' speeches. As we read Peter's first sermon in Acts 2-5, we are conscience of hearing the earliest apostolic formulation of the gospel. H.N.Ridderbos has drawn attention to their decidedly `old-fashioned' character, because `neither the Christological terminology nor the remarkable method of citing Scripture in these speeches... bear the marks of later development'. And when we read Paul's sermons, we marvel at his adaptability, as he addresses Jews in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch (chapter 13), pagans in the open air at Lystra (chapter (14), philosophers on the Areopagus in Athens (chapter 17), and the elders of the church of Ephesus in Miletus (chapter 20). Each is different and each is appropriate. Are we really to suppose that Luke has such rich theological insight, historical sense and literary skill that he made them all up? Is it not much more reasonable to suppose that he is summarizing genuinely Pauline utterances, although in the process his own style and vocabulary naturally show through? As F.F.Bruce has written: `Taken all in all, each speech suits the speaker, the audience, and the circumstances of delivery; and this...gives good ground... for believing these speeches to be, not inventions of the historian, but condensed accounts of speeches actually made, and therefore valuable and independent sources for the history and theology of the primitive Church. 

Acts 2:14-21.  Peter's quotation of Joel.

What Luke had described in verses 1-13 Peter now explains. The extraordinary phenomenon of Spirit-filled believers declaring God's wonders in foreign languages is the fulfilment of Joel's prediction that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh. Peter's exposition is similar to what in the Dead Sea Scrolls is called a `pesher' or `interpretation' of an Old Testament passage in the light of its fulfilment. So (i) Peter introduces his sermon with the words `this is that' (16,AV), i.e. `this' which his hearers have witnessed is `that' which Joel foretold; (ii) he deliberately changes Joel's `afterwards' (as the time when the Spirit will be poured out) to `in the last days' in order to emphasize that with the Spirit's coming the last days have come; and (iii) he applies the passage to Jesus, so that `the Lord' who brings salvation is no longer Yahweh who shelters survivors on Mount Zion, (Joel 2:32), but Jesus who saves from sin and judgement everyone who calls on his name (21). 

It is the unanimous conviction of New Testament authors that Jesus inaugurated the last days or the Messianic age, and that the final proof of this was the outpouring of the Spirit, since this was the Old Testament promise of promises for the end-time. This being so, we must be careful not to re-quote Joel's prophecy as if we are still awaiting its fulfilment, or even as if its fulfilment has only been partial, and we await some future and complete fulfilment. For this is not how Peter understood and applied the text. The whole Messianic era, which stretches between the two comings of Christ, is the age of the Spirit in which his ministry is one of abundance. Is not this the significance of the verb `pour out'? The picture is probably of a heavy tropical rainstorm, and seems to illustrate the generosity of God's gift of the Spirit (neither a drizzle nor even a shower but a downpour), its finality (for what has been poured out cannot be gathered again) and its universality (widely distributed among the different groupings of mankind). Peter goes on to stress his universality. All people (*pasa sarx*, `all flesh',17a) means not everybody irrespective of their inward readiness to receive the gift, but everybody irrespective of their outward status. There are still spiritual conditions for receiving the Spirit, but there are no social distinctions whether of sex (*Your sons and your daughters*, 17b), or of age (*your young men...your old men...*,17c) or of rank (*even on my servants, both men and women*, 18 - who are not just `servants', as in the Hebrew, but whom God dignifies as belonging to him). 

*And they will prophesy* (18). This seems to be an umbrella-use of the verb `to prophesy'. As Luther put it, `prophesying, visions and dreams are *all one thing*. That is, the universal gift (the Spirit) will lead to a universal ministry (prophesy). Yet the promise is surprising because elsewhere in Acts - and in the New Testament generally - only some are called to be prophets. How then shall we understand a universal prophetic ministry? If in its essence prophesy is God speaking, God making himself known by his Word, then certainly the Old Testament expectation was that in New Covenant days the knowledge of God would be universal, and the New Testament authors declare that this has been fulfilled through Christ. (Je.31:34, `they will all know me'; 1 Thess. 4:9, `you yourselves have been taught by God'; 1 Jn.2:27, `his anointing teaches you about all things'). In this sense all God's people are now prophets, just as all are also priests and kings. So Luther understood prophesy here as `the knowledge of God through Christ which the Holy Spirit kindles and makes to burn through the word of the gospel', while Calvin wrote that it `signifies simply the rare and excellent gift of understanding'. In fact, it is this universal knowledge of God through Christ by the Spirit which is the foundation of the universal commission to witness (1:8). Because we know him, we must make him known. 

Peter continues the quotation from Joel: *I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke (19). The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord* (20). It is possible to understand these predictions either literally as upheavals of nature (which already began on Good Friday (Lk. 23:44-45), and more of which Jesus foretold before the end) (Lk..21:11), or metaphorically as convulsions of history (since this is traditional apocalyptic imagery for the times of social and political revolution). (e.g. Is.13:9ff; 34:1ff; Ezk. 32:7ff; Am. 8:9; Mt. 24:29; Lk.21:25-26; Rev. 6:12ff). Meanwhile between the Day of Pentecost (when the Spirit came, inaugurating the last days) and the day of the Lord (when Jesus will come, concluding them) there stretches a long day of opportunity, during which the gospel of salvation will be preached throughout the world: *And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved* (21).

c. Peter's testimony to Jesus (2:22-41)
The best way to understand Pentecost, however, is not through the Old Testament prediction, but through the New Testament fulfilment, not through Joel but through Jesus. As Peter summons the *men of Israel* to listen to him, his first words are *Jesus of Nazareth*, and he goes on to tell the story of Jesus in six stages: 

(i) His life and ministry (2:22)
He was truly *a man*, yet he was *accredited by God* to them through supernatural works, which are given three names - *miracles* or literally `powers' (*dynameis*, their nature being a demonstration of the power of God), *wonders* (*terata*, their effect being to arouse astonishment) *and signs* (semeia*, their purpose being to embody or signify spiritual truth). God *did* these *through him*, and publicly (*among you), as you yourselves know*.

(ii) His death (2:23)
Peter describes *this man* as having been killed, partly because he had been *handed over* to them not by Judas (though the same verb is used of his betrayal) but *by God's set purpose and foreknowledge*, and partly because they *with the help of wicked men* (presumably the Romans) had then *put him to death by nailing him to the cross*. Thus the same event, the death of Jesus, is attributed simultaneously both to the purpose of God and to the wickedness of men. No developed doctrine of the Atonement  is yet expressed, but there is already an understanding that through Jesus' death God's saving purpose was being worked out. 

(iii) His resurrection (2:24-32)
*It was impossible for death to keep its hold on him* (24; Peter sees the moral impossibility without explaining it). So although men had killed him, God *raised him from the dead*, and thereby freed him *from the agony of death*. `Agony' means literally `birth pains', so that his resurrection is pictured as a regeneration, a new birth out of death into life. 

Peter next confirms the truth of Jesus' resurrection by appealing to Psalm 16:8-11 in which, he claims, it was foretold. David cannot have been referring to himself, when he wrote that God would not abandon him to the grave or let his Holy One see decay (27), because David had *died and was buried*, and his tomb was still in Jerusalem (29). Instead, being a prophet and remembering God's promise to place a distinguished descendant on his throne (cf. 2 Sam 7:16; Ps. 89:3ff; 132:11-12), *he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ (30-31). Peter's use of Scripture probably sounds strange to us, but we need to bear three points in mind. First, all Scripture bears witness to Christ, especially to his death, resurrection and world-wide mission. That is its character and purpose. Jesus himself said so both before and after his resurrection (e.g. Lk.4:21; Jn. 5:39-40; Lk. 24:27,44ff). In consequence, secondly, not least because of Jesus' post-resurrection teaching, his disciples came naturally to see Old Testament references to God's anointed or King, to David and his royal seed, as finding their fulfilment in Jesus (e.g. Ps. 2:8; 16:10; 110:1). This is what Dom Jacques Dupont has called `the radically Christological character of early Christian exegesis'. And, thirdly, once this information is granted, a Christian use of the Old Testament like Peter's of Psalm 16 is `scrupulously logical and internally coherent'. 

Having quoted three verses of Psalm 16 and applied them to the resurrection of Jesus, Peter adds: *God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact* (32). Thus the spoken testimony of the apostles and the written prediction of the prophets converged. Or, as we would say, the Old and New Testament Scriptures coincided in their witness to the resurrection of Christ.

(iv) His exaltation.
Peter now jumps straight from Jesus' resurrection from the dead to his exaltation to God's right hand. From this position of extreme honour and absolute power, having received the promised Spirit from the Father, Jesus has poured out the Spirit.  Peter again clinches his argument with an apt Old Testament quotation. As he has applied Psalm 16 to the Messiah's resurrection, so he now applies Psalm 110 to the Messiah's ascension. for David *did not ascend to heaven* (34), any more than he had been preserved from decay by resurrection. Yet he designated as `my lord' him whom Yahweh had instructed to sit at his right hand. Jesus had already applied this verse to himself (Mk.12:35-37; Lk.20:41-44), as did Paul and the writer to the Hebrews later (1 Cor.15:25; Heb.1:13). Peter's conclusion is that all Israel should now be assured that *this Jesus*, whom they had repudiated and crucified, God had made *both Lord and Christ*. Not of course that Jesus became Lord and Christ only at the time of his ascension, for he was (and claimed to be) both throughout his public ministry. It is rather that now God exalted him to be in reality and power what he already was by right.

(v) His salvation (2:37-39)
Luke now describes the crowd's response to Peter's sermon, together with Peter's reply.
*Cut to the heart*, that is, convicted of sin and conscience-stricken, Peter's hearers asked anxiously what they should do (37). Peter replied that they must *repent*, completely
changing their mind about Jesus and their attitude to him, and be *baptised* in his name, submitting to the humiliation of baptism, which Jews regarded as necessary for Gentile converts only, and submitting to it in the name of the very person they had previously rejected. This would be a clear, public token of their repentance - and of their faith in him. Though Peter does not specifically call on the crowd to believe, they evidently did so, since they were termed `believers' in verse 44, and in any case repentance and faith involve each other, the turn from sin being impossible without the turn to God, and vice versa (cf. 3:19). And both are signified by baptism in Christ's name, which means `by his authority, acknowledging his claims, submitting to his doctrines, engaging in his service, and relying on his merits'.  Then they would receive two free gifts of God - the forgiveness of their sins (even of the sin of rejecting God's Christ) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (to regenerate, indwell, unite and transform them). For they must not imagine that the Pentecostal gift was for the apostles alone, or for the 120 disciples who had waited ten days for the Spirit to come, or for any elitist group, or even for that nation or that generation alone. God had placed no such limitations on his offer and gift. On the contrary (39), the promise - or `gift' or `baptism' - of the Spirit (1:4; 2:33) was for them also (who were listening to Peter), and for their children (of the next and subsequent generations), and for all who were far off (certainly the Jews of the dispersion and perhaps also prophetically the distant Gentile world; As in Is.49:1, 12; 57:19; cf. Eph. 2:13,17), indeed for *all* (without exception) *whom the Lord our God will call*.  Everyone God calls to himself through Christ receives both gifts, The gifts of God are coextensive with the call of God.

(v1) His new community (2:10-41)
Luke adds that this was not the end of Peter's sermon, for *with many other words* he both *warned them* and *pleaded with them*. And the essence of his warnings and pleadings was the appeal: `*Save yourselves from this corrupt generation*' (40).  That is, Peter was not asking for private and individual conversions only, but for a public identification with other believers. Commitment to the Messiah implied commitment to the Messianic community, that is, the church. Indeed, they would have to change communities, transferring their membership from one that was old and *corrupt* to one that was new and *being saved* (47).  The amazing response to Peter's appeal is now recorded. Large numbers of people *accepted his message* (i.e. repented and believed), and in consequence *were baptised*. In fact, *about three thousand were added to their number* that day (41). The body of Christ in Jerusalem multiplied twenty-six times, from 120 to 3,120. They must also, according to Peter's promise, have received forgiveness and the Spirit, although this time apparently with no Supernatural signs. At least Luke makes no mention of phenomena like wind or fire, or of languages.

Acts 2:10-41. d). The gospel for today

We have seen that Peter focused on Christ and told his story in six stages. (i) He was a man, though divinely attested by miracles; (ii) he was put to death by wicked hands, though according to God's purpose; (iii) he was raised from the dead, as the prophets had foretold and the apostles had witnessed; (iv) he was exalted to God's right hand, and from there poured out the Spirit; (v) he now gives forgiveness and the Spirit to all who repent, believe and are baptised; and (vi) he thus adds them to his new community. 

Numerous reconstructions of this material have been attempted. Special mention must be made of C.H.Dodd's famous lectures at King's College, London, on the *kerygma* of Peter and Paul, and their coincidence, which were published under the title *The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments*. He summarized the sermons of Peter as follows: (i) the age of fulfilment, the Messianic age, has dawned; (ii) this has happened through the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, as testified by the Scriptures; (iii) Jesus has been exalted to God's right hand as Lord, and as head of the New Israel; (iv) the Holy Spirit's activity in the church is a sign of Christ's present power and glory; (v) the Messianic age will shortly reach its consummation in the return of Christ; and (vi) forgiveness and the Spirit are offered to those who repent. 

Our struggle today is how to be faithful to this apostolic gospel, while at the same time presenting it in a way which resonates with modern men and women. What is immediately clear is that, like the apostles, we must focus on Jesus Christ. Peter's beginning `listen to this: Jesus...' (22) must be our beginning too. It is impossible to preach the gospel without proclaiming Christ. But how? I have myself found it an aid to faithfulness to express the apostles' message in the following framework: 

First, *the gospel events*, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is true that Peter referred to Jesus' life and ministry (22) and went on to his exaltation (33), and elsewhere to his return as judge. The apostles felt free to rehearse his whole saving career. Yet they concentrated on the cross and the resurrection (23-24), both as historical happenings and as significant saving events. Although a full doctrine of the atonement is not yet developed, it is already implied by the reference to God's purpose (23), to the suffering servant passages (3:13, 18), and to the `tree', the place of the divine curse (5:30; 10:39; 13:29) (cf. Gal.3:13). The resurrection had saving significance too, since by it God reversed the human verdict on Jesus, snatched him from the place of a curse and exalted him to the place of honour. 

Secondly, *the gospel witnesses*. The apostles did not proclaim the faith and resurrection of Jesus in a vacuum, but in the context of Scripture and history. They appealed to a twofold evidence to authenticate Jesus, so that in the mouth of two witnesses the truth might be established. The first was the Old Testament Scriptures, which he fulfilled, In Acts 2 Peter appeals to Psalm 16, Psalm 110 and Joel 2 in order to illuminate his teaching about Jesus' resurrection, exaltation and gift of the Spirit. The second was the testimony of the apostles. `We are witnesses', Peter kept repeating (e.g. 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39ff.), and this eyewitness experience was indispensable to the apostolate. Thus the one Christ has a double attestation. We have no liberty to preach a Christ of our own fantasy, or even to focus on our own experience, since we were not eyewitnesses of the historical Jesus. Our responsibility is to preach the authentic Christ of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. The primary witnesses to him are the prophets and apostles; ours is always secondary to theirs. 

Thirdly, *the gospel promises*. The gospel is good news not only of what Jesus *did* (he died for our sins and was raised, according to the Scriptures) but also of what he *offers* as a result. He promises to those who respond to him both forgiveness of sins (to wipe out the past) and the gift of the Spirit (to make us new people). Together these constitute the freedom for which many are searching, freedom from guilt, defilement, judgement and self-centredness, and freedom to be the persons God made and means us to be. Forgiveness and the Spirit comprise `salvation', and both are publicly signified by baptism, namely the washing away of sin and the outpouring of the Spirit.       

Fourthly, *the gospel conditions*. Jesus Christ does not impose his gifts upon us unconditionally. What the gospel demands is a radical turn from sin to Christ, which takes the form inwardly of repentance and faith, and outwardly of baptism. For submission to baptism in the name of Christ we have formally repudiated gives public evidence of penitent faith in him.  Additionally, by this same repentance, faith and baptism we change allegiance, as we are transferred into the new community of Jesus. 

Here, then, is a fourfold message - two events (Christ's death and resurrection), as attested by two witnesses (prophets and apostles), on the basis of which God makes two promises (forgiveness and the Spirit), on two conditions (repentance and faith, with baptism). We have no liberty to amputate this apostolic gospel, by proclaiming the cross without the resurrection, or referring to the New Testament but not the Old, or offering forgiveness without the Spirit, or demanding faith without repentance. There is a wholeness about the biblical gospel. 

It is not enough to `proclaim Jesus'. For there are many different Jesuses being presented today. According to the New Testament gospel, however, he is *historical* (he really lived, died, rose and ascended in the arena of history), *theological* (his life, death, resurrection and ascension all have saving significance) and *contemporary* (he lives and reigns to bestow salvation on those who respond to him). Thus the apostles told the same story of Jesus at three levels - as historical event (witnessed by their own eyes), as having theological significance (interpreted by the Scriptures), and as contemporary message (confronting men and women with the necessity of decision). We have the same responsibility today to tell the story of Jesus as fact, doctrine and gospel.

Next:  Acts 2:42-47.  The church's life: the effect of Pentecost.