Peter’s
Witness (2:14-36)
Peter,
serving as the spokesman for the apostles, who are standing with him
in solidarity, will deliver a brief message that will generate
profound results. With this evangelistic sermon to his Jewish
brethren, Peter will, for the first time, use his keys to the
kingdom (Matt. 16:19) to unlock the door of Christ’s salvation and
open the fount of the Holy Spirit for the Jewish people.
Now That I
Have Your Attention (2:14-21)
Like many good sermons, this one begins with a small
joke. After having called for the close attention of the crowd, his
first concern is to deny the accusation of drunkenness that had been
levied at the apostles. His argument was that they could not
possibly be drunk, as it is too early in the morning, only 9:00 AM.
In Jewish culture, Jews reserved their drinking for the evening,
seldom drinking at any other time of day. Furthermore, 9:00 AM was
one of the three appointed Jewish times of prayer, when the morning
sacrifices were being offered. In other words, regardless of reasons
of propriety, Peter reminded the crowd that no Jewish bars were open
for business yet, and, even so, they would be closed on this great
holiday!
Having told the crowd what was not transpiring, Peter followed this
good-hearted denial by telling them what was going on. He
immediately launches his opening argument with a supporting
Scripture.
Peter’s text is Joel 2:28-32 (Joel 3:1-5 in the Hebrew Bible). He
explained that the apostles’ extraordinary abilities manifested that
morning were what was spoken of through the prophet Joel
(Acts 2:16). He goes on to quote the remainder of Joel’s prophecy,
making a slight adjustment, however, with the insertion of the
pregnant phrase, in the last days (Acts 2:17). This insertion supplies the
eschatological context of the quotation for Peter’s audience. “The
last days” is an ambiguous phrase used in the prophets to reference
the “day of the Lord,” or its immediate aftermath (Is. 2:2; Mic.
4:1).
It seems abundantly clear from Peter’s use of Joel’s prophecy that
he was stating that “the last days” had in some way been inaugurated
on that very day. Peter’s insertion of the phrase
the last days
corresponds to the usage of the phrase by the author of Hebrews
(1:2), which indicates that Peter was not the only member of the
early church who believed that “the last days” had indeed begun.
Peter’s use of the Joel quotation can be divided into three parts.
The first part (Joel 2:28-29) concerns the outpouring of God’s
Spirit on all flesh, which will result in supernatural prophetic
abilities, without respect of age or sex or class distinctions (Acts
2:17-18). Based on the new and revolutionary insight concerning
Gentile salvation which Peter gleans later on in the Acts narrative
(Acts 10:34), it seems a safe assumption that when he quotes the
portion of Joel which mentions God’s Spirit being poured out
on all
flesh, what Peter actually has in mind is Jewish flesh and not all
mankind.
The second part (Joel 2:30-31) concerns the associated supernatural,
astronomical and geological signs which will follow the spiritual
outpouring (Acts 2:19-20). This portion describes events that will
occur in the great Tribulation, just prior to the establishment of
the messianic kingdom. The phrase, the “day of the Lord,” is a
common term used in the Bible for the Tribulation.
The last division of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:32) is
the evangelistic promise of salvation, everyone who calls on the
name of the Lord will be saved (Acts 2:21). In the original Hebrew
quote from Joel 2:32, the Hebrew word for Lord is YHWH, the
ineffable covenant name of God. The Greek translation of this word
is kyrios. By applying to Jesus this same word used for God, Peter
is identifying Jesus with YHWH. Peter clarified that from now on,
Jesus is the One whom Peter is calling Lord. Peter’s understanding
is that Jesus freely exercises God’s authority. From the initial
recorded sermon, the apostolic witness was that Jesus was to be
identified with the Lord God Himself. Jesus rules with God and
possesses divine authority over salvation and deliverance from sin.
Use of Joel. How Peter used Joel’s prophecy in his sermon has
engendered some debate. There are two interpretations that bear
consideration.
The first interpretation cautiously posits that Peter was using the
Joel prophecy in an analogical sense. In other words, when Peter
said, “this is what was spoken of,” what he actually meant was “this
is like what was spoken of,” or “this is a similar event,” or “this
is an illustration or application of what was spoken.” This
interpretation’s obvious level of caution seems warranted, since
none of the specific prophetic events which Joel described (the moon
turning crimson, the sun blackening, etc.) actually occurred that
Pentecost. Joel’s prophecy describes the final outpouring of the
Spirit on the nation of Israel just prior to the inauguration of the
messianic kingdom, yet the messianic kingdom was observably not
dawning in the Temple that Pentecost morning while Peter was
preaching.
Furthermore, the one supernatural event that did occur at Pentecost,
specifically the apostles speaking in tongues, is not at all
addressed within Joel’s prophecy. Nor does Joel’s prophecy address
the birth of the church. According to this interpretation, Peter was
pointing out that what they were experiencing was an outpouring of
God’s Spirit, just as Joel wrote about, but it was not actually the
specific event of which Joel wrote.
One further line of argument for this position is that Peter did not
specifically state something to the effect of “and so is fulfilled
Joel’s prophecy.” Peter instead chose alternate terminology to
introduce the prophecy (touto estin to eiremenon), and did not use
the standard language of a prophecy “fulfillment formula.”
However, the lack of an introductory “fulfillment formula” is not a
compelling point, for there are a variety of introductions for
quotations of Hebrew prophecy within Acts. (17) Indeed, a
contemporary parallel with the linguistic formula Peter used for
prophetic fulfillment has been found within the Dead Sea Scrolls
(1QHab). (18)
Nonetheless, it seems that by quoting Joel, Peter intended more than
to draw a similarity or a comparison. This analogical interpretation
is ultimately unsatisfactory. It simply does not acknowledge the
plain, straightforward fashion in which Peter declares,
This is
what was spoken. Peter did not say it was something,
“similar to,” “an illustration of” or “like” that of which Joel
wrote. Rather, Peter said, this is what was spoken of.
This leads then to the preferable second interpretation, that of an
“initial fulfillment” of Joel’s prophecy. This position asserts that
what Peter believed was that the preliminary stage of Joel’s
prophecy was being fulfilled right then and there, as he was
speaking. Thus, Peter argued for a preliminary, partial fulfillment
of Joel’s prophecy. This position is perhaps less cautious than the
above analogical view but is more faithful to the context of Peter’s
message. There is merit in taking Peter’s declaration of prophetic
fulfillment at face value.
However, this preliminary fulfillment is only in
reference to the first portion of the prophecy which deals with the
Holy Spirit’s outpouring (Acts 2:17-18). That morning’s Pentecost
experience was indisputably an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In
addition to Joel, several of the Hebrew prophets also wrote of a
future age when God’s Spirit would be liberally poured out (Is.
32:15; 44:3; Jer. 31:31-33; Ezek. 39:29, etc.). Yet Peter did not
state that these numerous prophetic expectations had been completely
fulfilled at Pentecost. Nor does he state that there should be no
expectation of a great deal more of the Spirit to be forthcoming in
the future when Israel corporately repents and God inaugurates
Israel’s kingdom.
What Peter appears to have been declaring is that, in a limited
sense, the “spigot” of the Holy Spirit had been opened. The
Pentecost experience was merely a “down payment” on Joel’s prophecy,
a “taste” of God’s future blessings; a foretaste of the eventual
outpouring of the Spirit upon all Israel. There is a much more
extensive fulfillment of this prophecy still to be “tapped” at a
later date. In no way does an initial fulfillment drain or exhaust
the ultimate, future fulfillment of this prophecy. This was only
“stage one!” Yet for Peter, even a limited fulfillment of the
prophetic outpouring of the Spirit was still a revolutionary event;
a paradigm shift in the history of God’s relationship with Israel.
This partial fulfillment also indicates the inaugural stage of the
New Covenant prophesied by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer.31:31-37;
Ezek. 11:14-21;.36:22-38). At Jesus’ last supper, the Passover Seder
which He shared with His disciples on the evening of His betrayal,
Jesus affirmed that His death would be the catalyst which would
launch the New Covenant. That evening, with the breaking of
unleavened bread and drinking of wine, He established the ordinance
of the eucharist as a memorial to His impending sacrifice and the
inauguration of a new era. That new era commenced as the New
Covenant began to be fulfilled with Jesus’ distribution of His
Spirit on Pentecost.
This view is careful to recognize that there has been no
fulfillment, in any sense, of any portion of the second segment of
Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:19-20). These astronomic cataclysms are to
occur immediately prior to the inauguration of the messianic
kingdom. It was obvious to every Jew standing in the Temple that
sunny May morning that these signs and wonders were still to be
fulfilled. Yet the promise of these cataclysms, cited by Peter,
would have been compelling incentive to urge the assembled crowd to
positively respond to their messiah.
Jesus is Messiah (2:22-32)
As the initial evangelistic sermon in Acts, indeed,
as the first sermon Luke reports, Peter’s message is foundational to
the book and sets the stage for every other sermon that follows in
the narrative. Peter straightforwardly witnessed that Jesus was the
Messiah of Israel.
After getting the crowd’s attention by quoting Joel to establish
that the last days had begun, Peter commenced his witness of Jesus.
Knowledge of Jesus was widespread in Israel and Peter, capitalizing
on this common knowledge, began by discussing the public
ministry of Jesus. He argued that Jesus was openly authenticated as
God’s anointed choice through His performance of miracles, wonders
and signs (Acts 2:22). These miracles, wonders and signs
provocatively demonstrated God’s power and validated to Israel that
Jesus was God’s messenger who spoke God’s message. This point is
central to Acts and variations of the phrase “wonders and signs”
will appear throughout the narrative (Acts 2:19, 22, 43; 4:30; 5:12;
6:8; 7:36; 8:6; 14:3). Peter’s use of the phrase “wonders and signs”
would have reminded his audience of Moses (Deut. 34:10-12). Later,
in his follow-up Temple sermon in the next chapter, Peter will be
much more explicit in his connection of Jesus to Moses (Acts
3:22-23).
Peter’s message immediately moved
to Jesus’ execution. Peter pointed out that Jesus’ death did not
take God by surprise, making reference to God’s “foreknowledge” (a
theological concept Peter also mentions in 1 Peter 1:2, 20).
Then, in one brief sentence, Peter cogently answered the profound
question of who was responsible for the death of the Messiah. From
one perspective, Jesus was delivered over to His death by God
Himself. It was an inevitable part of His predetermined plan from
the beginning.
From a different perspective, Peter laid the blame for Jesus’
crucifixion squarely upon the Jewish people. Peter’s “you” was
pointed directly at the Jewish people and their leaders. It was the
“you and your leaders” who “fastened him.” (In Acts, the apostles
avoid employing the term stavros, “cross,” which was a horribly
offensive word to Jewish ears. Here Peter simply lets prospegnumi,
“fastened” stand alone, without specifying to what Jesus was
fastened). From yet another perspective, the Romans, the godless
“men without law,” Pilate and his soldiers, were the instruments of
Jesus’ execution.
The sermons of Acts, whether from Peter, Stephen or Paul, are
studded throughout with harsh accusations that the Jews have
murdered their Messiah. These accusations are similar in style and
tone to others found throughout the Hebrew prophets and always have
the intent of calling the nation to repentance, that they may be
forgiven their grievous sins and be saved. Additionally, the sermons
in Acts are addressed to that particular generation of Jews who
rejected their Messiah.
Even so, these verses have been used for two millennia by
Jew-haters, both within and without the church, by both the ignorant
and the educated, as proof-texts that label all Jews throughout time
as “Christ-killers.” These charges of deicide and bloodguilt have
caused the Jewish people to experience unimaginable persecution and
suffering, often at the hands of Christians and to the shame of the
Church. It is essential to remember that according to Scripture, not
only Jews were responsible for the death of Christ; the Romans also
shared responsibility. Indeed, the entire world, all humanity shares
in the blame and, ultimately, God Himself was responsible for the
predetermined death of His Son.
Peter was not pointing his finger at either the Jews or the Romans;
rather, he was pointing his finger toward the resurrected Christ.
However, the responsibility for Jesus’ death pales in comparison to
the power of His resurrection. The agony of death was terminated for
Jesus by the superior power of God, who raised Him up again (Acts
2:24).
Peter’s reference to the resurrection leads him to his second use of
prophetic Scripture in support of his argument. Peter’s quotation is
from Psalm 16:8-11, a messianic psalm written by King David
approximately one thousand years earlier.
The specific circumstances attending David’s composition of this
psalm are unknown. However, it begins with David’s plea for God’s
preservation of his life (Ps.16:1). It continues with praise of
God’s mercy (Ps.16:2) and goodness (Ps.16:3, 5-7) and comments on
the hopelessness of others foolish enough to worship other gods
instead of the one true God (Ps.16:4).
David concludes the psalm with a
confirmation of confidence in the Lord’s sustenance of his flesh and
his soul, both in the present and beyond death (Ps.16:8-11). It is
this concluding section, specifically 16:8-11, to which Peter made
reference.
Peter manifestly affirmed the prophetic aspect of David’s writing.
Without mincing words, Peter reminded his audience of David’s
prophetic capacity (Acts 2:30) and argued that David, both king and
prophet, actually had written the psalm in the first person voice of
the Messiah, his descendent. Furthermore, when Peter introduced the
passage with for David says of Him (Acts 2:25), he was not just
stating that David was writing prophetically, personifying the
future Messiah. He was also making the astonishing claim that David,
writing one thousand years earlier, was consciously aware that his
subject was the Messiah’s resurrection.
Peter boldly and confidently argued that David could not possibly
have been writing about himself. David died, was buried, and most
assuredly had not been resurrected. In fact, his prominent tomb was
just down the road in the city of David (Acts 2:29). Anyone in
Jerusalem could see this for a fact. Coincidentally, according to a
commonly accepted Jewish tradition, David’s death was on Pentecost.
(The ancient tomb of David, located in the city of David [1 Kg.
2:10] was destroyed by the Romans a few decades later, in 70
AD. To date, the exact site of the tomb’s ruins still remains a
mystery, although the general area is known. One fact is certain,
however; the location of the authentic site is over a mile away from
the traditional site, conveniently located directly beneath the
traditional “upper room” and regularly visited by contemporary
tourists!)
God had established an indissoluble covenant with David in which
David was promised that one of his descendants would forever rule
over Israel (2 Sam.7:12-13; Ps.132:11; Ps.89:3–4). Peter’s point is
that the Holy Spirit enabled David to look ahead into the future and
understand precisely how God’s Davidic Covenant promise of an
eternal throne was to be fulfilled. God showed David that an eternal
throne and an unending dynasty required an immortal descendant.
David had been allowed to see the future Anointed One, the Messiah,
the One who would neither decompose nor be abandoned to the abode of
the dead (Greek Hades, Hebrew Sheol). After resting in the grave
and abiding in Hades, the Messiah, paradoxically, would still live
forever. To fulfill the Davidic Covenant, this Son of David would of
necessity need to be resurrected.
Son of David. In first century Israel, the title “son of
David” conveyed a potent political charge. It was widely understood
to refer to an idealized political revolutionary who would cast off
the shackles of Roman oppression, judge the wicked and purge evil
from the midst of Israel. Israel enthusiastically anticipated that
the dynasty of David would be restored and the kingdom of Israel
made glorious. This expectation, based on the Hebrew prophets (Jer.
23:5-8; Is. 11:1-16), is widely espoused throughout first century
Jewish literature, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Jesus conducted His ministry
amidst this whirlwind of amplified Davidic anticipation. In fact,
one of the foremost messianic titles ascribed to Jesus in the New
Testament is “Son of David.” This designates Jesus as the recipient
of all the promises God had made to David concerning the future and
eternal government of one of his descendents. It specifies Jesus to
be a royal, majestic messiah who is entitled by birthright to rule
and reign over all Israel.
During Jesus’ earthly ministry, while He certainly accepted this
title as applicable to Himself (Matt. 9:28; 20:32; Mark 10:49), He
abjectly refused to be drawn into either political intrigue or
revolutionary activity. While Herod the Great feared the one who was
born king of the Jews (Matt.
2:2), and although He was crucified as king of the Jews
(Luke 23:38), Jesus forcefully proclaimed that His kingdom, at least
for the present time, was not of this world
(John 18:36).
According to the teaching of the apostles, the Son of David concept
is primarily applicable to Jesus’ future function as king of the
earth, as He reigns from His father David’s throne in Jerusalem.
Although the particular title “Son of David” is never actually
articulated within Acts, the concept is specifically linked to Jesus
by both Peter (Acts 2:30) and Paul (Acts 13:23). The Son of David
concept was an important theological component within the
presentations of both apostles when addressing a Jewish audience.
Peter incorporated this dynamic element into his argument as he
approached the climax of His evangelistic proclamation. Now that
Jesus’ messianic identity had been clearly demonstrated through His
resurrection, ascension and exaltation to the right hand of God, it
was only a matter of time before He returned to claim His
birthright, the throne of David, and finally institute the messianic
kingdom (Acts 2:30-36; 3:19-21).
Peter’s citation of Psalm 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-31 is one of the
clearest examples in the New Testament of the specific fulfillment
of messianic prophecy. There is no other way to interpret Peter’s
affirmation. Empowered and infused with the Holy Spirit (Acts
2:1-4), Peter could not have been mistaken in his interpretation,
neither could he have been creatively or imaginatively appropriating
the psalm to fit his theological purpose. With vibrant confidence,
he preached that morning to thousands of his people that one of the
most exalted and revered figures in their history, David, in one of
the most sacred portions of the Hebrew Scripture, the Psalms, had
prophesied that the Messiah would be resurrected.
Having established his point concerning the necessity of the
Messiah’s resurrection, Peter spelled out exactly of whom David
wrote. He doesn’t just reveal that it was Jesus; rather, Peter
frontloaded the word order of his pronouncement to emphatically
emphasize that it was “this Jesus,” touton ton Iesoun, whom God
resurrected.
At this point, Peter then revealed the stunning connection between
himself and Jesus; the connection which would explain why he and his
companions had been so powerfully visited by the Holy Spirit. There
in the Temple courts, to an audience of thousands, Peter
identified himself and his companions as personal eyewitnesses of
Jesus’ resurrection.
Application (2:33-36)
Wrapping up his sermon, Peter
advanced to the practical application. He explained that this
resurrected Jesus, God’s anointed one, was now exalted in glory at
the right hand of God. “The right hand of God,” was an expression
commonly understood to refer to the presence of God Himself. The
concept originated in Psalm 110:1, the next Scripture that Peter
cites. Jesus used the comparable the right hand of power in
reference to Himself (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62), and it was a
frequently employed phrase within the New Testament to emphasize
Jesus’ exaltation (Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb.
10:12; 1 Pet 3:22).
Jesus had received from His
Father the promise of the Spirit (Acts 1:4) and subsequent to His
exaltation at the “right hand of God” had liberally poured out the
Spirit on the apostles, resulting in that day’s spectacular events.
It is of note that all three members of the Trinity are active in
distinct manner within verse 2:33; the Holy Spirit had proceeded
from Jesus as a direct result of His resurrection and exaltation by
the Father.
Peter bolstered his claim of Jesus’ exaltation by once again relying
on a prophecy of David (Acts 2:34-35). Psalm 110:1 is the most
frequently cited messianic prophecy in the New Testament. Peter
stands firmly within Jewish tradition in interpreting this passage
as
referring to the messiah. It has a long pedigree of being so
interpreted within rabbinic literature (albeit, never with reference
to Jesus). Peter demonstrated that Jesus’ exaltation fulfilled this
prophecy.
There are three individuals referred to within this psalm. There are
the two individuals who are called “Lord,” and there is the author,
David. In English translation it is more difficult to perceive the
messianic dynamic of the psalm than in Hebrew, primarily because
David, in reference to these two individuals, used two different
words, both of which are translated as “lord.” The first “Lord,” is
the name YHWH and refers to the covenant making God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob. The second “Lord” is the Hebrew adonai. This
second “lord,” adonai, is the individual whom David called “my
Lord.”
If the first “Lord” refers to God and the second “Lord” is David’s
lord, then, obviously, neither of these “lordly” individuals could
have been David. Indeed, it was universally accepted that David had
neither been resurrected nor had he ascended into heaven. This
raises the question, if God is the first Lord, and David is the “my”
of “my Lord,” then just who is David’s Lord? Jesus Himself had vexed
the Pharisees by posing this perplexing issue (Matt. 22:44-45).
Certainly, while he lived, David had no mortal lord. As the
undisputed sovereign of all Israel, his only Lord was God Himself.
The answer to this prophetic riddle, Peter reveals, is, of course,
Jesus. He announced to the whole house of Israel,
that through God’s exaltation of Jesus they might be supremely
confident that this Jesus, whom
the Jewish nation had crucified, had been exalted by God and
proclaimed to be both Lord and Christ.
Peter, in universally addressing every Jew, the
whole house of
Israel, assuredly does not shy away from emphasizing the guilt of
the entire Jewish nation for their responsibility in Jesus’
crucifixion.
Although, as discussed above, every man is responsible for the death
of the Messiah, Peter is not addressing every man; his audience
consisted entirely of Jews. Therefore, he was specifically and
pointedly emphasizing Jewish guilt. Although the gospel accounts
unambiguously report that Jesus’ death sentence resulted from the
actions of a handful of the Jewish leadership, it is clear from
Peter’s assignation of guilt that God intended to hold the people
responsible for the horrific actions of their leaders. (This is
perhaps a
general truth citizens of all nations would be wise to heed!)
What Peter meant in his climactic disclosure that God had made Jesus
both Lord and Christ, or Messiah, was that Jesus’ true identity has
now finally been revealed. The Jewish people had believed Him to be
a mere man, indeed, one worthy of an ignoble execution. However,
now, through His exhibition of power in His resurrection and
glorious exaltation to the right hand of God, it was clear that
Jesus is the reflection of God’s essential nature. He is, therefore,
supremely worthy of both titles, Lord
and Christ.
Christ. The term, Christ,
is a transliteration of the Greek word, “christos,” which means
“anointed one.” A word with the identical meaning is “messiah,”
which is likewise a transliteration of the Hebrew word, “mashiach.”
In the Hebrew Scripture, it generally signifies one who, upon
assumption of a sacred office, is specially consecrated (set apart
for God) by anointing with oil. This was performed, for example,
upon installation of prophets, priests and kings (Ex.28:41; 1
Sam.9:15–16; 10:1; 16:3, 12–13; 1 Chron. 29:22).
What was the Jewish expectation of the Messiah? Contrary to what
many understand, in first century Judaism, there was no monolithic
perception concerning the coming Messiah. The Messianic ideal in the
first century was be no means static and was still in development.
Within this state of flux, the scope of messianic expectation
stretched over a broad range of possibilities.
There existed the portrait of messiah as the idealized Davidic king
who would be God’s conquering warrior, vanquishing nations and
establishing the primacy of Israel. There was the portrait of the
messiah as an ultimate priestly leader who would die on behalf of
his people. There was a imaginative dual rendering, of two separate
but related messiahs; one messiah destined to die, and one destined
to conquer. Then there was the mysterious and enigmatic super-human
figure, mystically elevated to a semi-divine status. Finally, there
is even indication, in certain limited circles, that there was no
specific messianic hope at all.
“Christ,” or “Messiah,” is Luke’s most frequently used title for
Jesus, occurring some twenty-five times in Acts. Roughly half of
these are direct quotations from Peter or Paul’s sermons in which
Christ is used as Jesus’ title, i.e., “Jesus the Messiah.” The other
half are Luke’s narrative descriptions of the church’s evangelistic
efforts to persuade people that Jesus is the Christ, the Jewish
messiah. In both usages, the testimony of Acts is vividly clear that
Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish messianic expectation, and then
some! Although He shattered the confines of pre-existing descriptive
categories, the Messiah whom God sent to His people turned out to be
a much more spectacular figure than anyone had previously imagined.
