The Church Begins on
Pentecost
The Day of Pentecost (2:1)
The day called "Pentecost" is
named after the Greek word pentekostos, which means "fiftieth."
It is the only Old Testament festival that is determined by counting. On
the day after the Sabbath after Passover, the ancient Israelites were to select
a sheaf of the first grain that had been harvested in the spring. This grain
then became an offering, and the priest waved it "before the Lord" (Leviticus
23:11-12).
Pentecost was to be observed in ancient
Israel on the fiftieth day "from" this Sunday (verse 15). (The Hebrew
means "from" in the sense of "beginning with.") That meant
seven weeks elapsed between the day of the first grain offering and the beginning
of Pentecost. That’s why Pentecost was sometimes called the Feast of Weeks
(Exodus 34:22; Leviticus 23:15; Numbers 28:26; Deuteronomy 16:9-12).
The grain harvest was gathered after the
token of the first gleaning of the grain was given as an offering. Since the
counting of Pentecost was tied to this event and it came at the end of the
spring grain harvest, Pentecost was sometimes called the
Feast of the Harvest and Day of First Fruits (Exodus 23:16; Numbers 28:26).
Judaism came to regard Pentecost as the
anniversary of the giving of the law and the old covenant at Mount Sinai (Exodus
20–24). It is not surprising, then, that Pentecost would have a symbolic meaning for the church. It was the day when God once again manifested
himself in a unique way, signaling a new relationship between God and his
people. As E. William Neil summarizes it:
Pentecost had also come to signify for
Jews the commemoration of the giving of the Law at Sinai fifty days after the
Exodus Passover. For Luke this, too, would be seen as having a Christian
fulfilment in the giving of the Spirit fifty days after the Christian Exodus
Passover, the Crucifixion and Resurrection. (The Acts of the Apostles, The New Century Bible
Commentary, page 72)
The Spirit coming in human minds was a
kind of "second giving of the law;" the Spirit replaced the law as the
guide for God's people. It was, in Paul’s expression,
"the law of the spirit of life," which came through the new
righteousness that is in Christ (Romans 8:1-2).
The Spirit-filled church made possible by
Pentecost existed in some continuity with Israel. But there was a distinction as
well between the age of Torah and the age of Spirit, between old and new Israel.
The law had no power to bring anyone into true communion with God, because it
could not be followed in faith, being "weakened by sinful nature" (Romans 8:3).
A new covenant was required, in which the
Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9) was made available to sinning humans. In the
Pentecost experience the Spirit becomes, in Paul’s words, "a righteousness
from God, apart from law...to which the Law and Prophets testify" (Romans 3:21).
The Holy Spirit is given by God as a gift of faith to those who believe in Jesus
Christ (verse 22). This makes it possible for humans to experience oneness with God through the connecting
link of spiritual love. As Paul wrote, "God has poured out his love into
our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Romans 5:5).
The old Jewish faith had been Torah- or
law-centered, modeled after the requirements of the Mosaic covenant. The new
faith was Christ-centered and Spirit-directed—with a new covenant of
the Spirit.
Pentecost, as the festival of
first-fruits, would be an appropriate occasion for the manifestation of the Holy
Spirit. On this day, the "first-fruits" of disciples would be
converted as a token that one day all the nations would seek God, and his truth
would cover the earth (Isaiah 2:2-3, 11:9).
A sound like a violent wind (2:2)
On that extraordinary first New Testament
Pentecost, the disciples were gathered in "one place"
(2:2). Some think that they were in the temple. The
disciples were frequently at the temple during these days, praising God (Luke
24:53), and this would certainly be a good place to attract and accommodate a
large crowd. However, there is no other indication that the disciples were in
the temple at this time. The place may have been the same upper room where the
disciples met together, or some other location (Acts 1:13). Wherever it was that
the disciples were gathered, they began to experience powerful miracles.
First was the sound of a
hurricane-like wind (Greek, pneuma) (2:3). Both the Hebrew word ruach and
the Greek pneuma can mean either wind or spirit (the context determines
this). The wind was meant to be a physical manifestation of the
presence of the Holy Spirit. The wind symbolized the Spirit of God, even as did the
dove that alighted on Christ (John 1:32; 3:8).
The sound of a strong wind is also
reminiscent of Old Testament theophanies in which God manifested himself
(Ezekiel 13:13). The audience on Pentecost morning probably readily connected
the sound of the wind to the thunder and trumpet sounds that accompanied God’s
presence in the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:18). The loud sound of this wind also had a
practical result: It attracted God-fearing Jews who were curious as to what was
happening.
Tongues of fire (2:3)
The Jews were doubly awed by a
second sign that reaffirmed the presence of the Holy Spirit. "They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest
on each of them" (2:3). They appeared to be individual
"tongues," not that each tongue was divided or forked.
Fire also symbolized the divine presence.
Yahweh appeared to Moses in flames coming from a bush (Exodus 3:2-5). Fire was a
regular feature of Old Testament theophanies, especially those surrounding the
Exodus and the giving of the law (Exodus 13:21-22; 14:24; 19:18; 24:17;
Deuteronomy 4:12, 24, 33; 5:4; 10:4).
John the Baptist had spoken of the Messiah
carrying out a baptism of the Holy Spirit (hence, "wind") and fire
(Luke 3:16). For the disciples as well, these signs were instructive. They
understood that Jesus Christ was bringing to fruition something he had promised
(Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5, 8).
Filled with the Holy Spirit (2:4)
These two signs—the wind and fire—were
the outward demonstration of what was happening inside the disciples.
"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit" (2:4).
The church—the new Israel of the Spirit—was born through the Holy Spirit,
and the disciples were spiritually transformed.
All Christians continue to participate in
the internal transformation that Pentecost symbolizes. They are also baptized
with the Holy Spirit upon conversion (Acts 2:38; 9:17; 11:17; 19:2; Romans 8:9;
1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:2; Ephesians 1:13; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 6:4; 1
John 3:24).
Speak in various languages (2:4, 6-12)
On that first Pentecost yet a third
manifestation of the Spirit’s presence occurred. The disciples began
to speak in other languages ("tongues"), "as the Spirit enabled
them" (2:4). Simple Galileans appeared to have sudden skill in most of
the languages spoken in the known world. The supernatural aspect of this was not
lost on the hearers, who were "utterly amazed" (2:7).
More than this, each person in the crowd
heard the disciples speaking in his own native language (2:8). The Greek
literally means, "We are hearing in our own language in which we were
born." The various local languages of these Jews’ original homelands were
being spoken.
But why speak in regional dialects? It was
not necessary to speak in foreign languages to communicate with these devout
Jews and proselytes. Almost all Jews spoke Aramaic, especially if they had
settled in Judea. But even if they were from the Dispersion, they probably spoke
the one language almost everyone could speak —Greek.
Luke’s account makes it clear that the
"tongues" were real languages, and they could be understood. What the
listeners needed
was not an interpretation of the words, but an explanation of the sound of wind,
the fire, and why various languages were being spoken by rustic Galileans.
The basic purpose of the miracle of
languages was not simply to communicate. Aramaic and Greek would have been
sufficient for that purpose. The miracles, including the speaking in languages,
were meant to get the attention of the crowd and have them wonder what was
happening. They certainly accomplished that. As the perplexed Jews themselves
asked, "What does this mean?" (2:12). [For more information on
speaking in tongues, see our study What the
Bible Says About Speaking in Tongues.]
Jews from every nation (2:5, 8-11)Before Peter explains the events of the
day, let us look at the international flavor of the crowd that had gathered.
Luke tells us there were "God-fearing Jews from every nation under
heaven" staying in Jerusalem (2:5). Among the crowd there were also
converts or "proselytes" from paganism to Judaism (2:11). The
multitude was made up of devout Jews and proselytes, who were in Jerusalem to
worship God during the festival of Pentecost.
One authority estimated that over a
100,000 people attended Passover in Jesus’ day. Josephus wrote of the
large crowds in Jerusalem for this feast (Antiquities 14:337; 17:254; Wars
1:253; 2:42-43). These Jews would come to the city from throughout the Roman
Empire, and from eastern kingdoms. The number of visitors at Pentecost was probably
smaller, although still substantial.
Philo (20
B.C.–A.D. 50), a Jewish
philosopher from Egypt who lived at the same time as Jesus and Paul, said
that there were "vast numbers of Jews scattered over every city of Asia and
Syria" (Embassy to Gaius 245). He claimed that there were about a
million Jews in Egypt, though historians think his figure is inflated. But no
one doubts that the Jewish population of Alexandria was large, whatever
its numbers (Flaccus 43, 55).
Luke’s list of countries from which Jews
had come is interesting. Why only 15 countries, why those in particular, and why
the order he listed them in? The answers are not clear. But some
things about the list can be inferred.
Luke’s list begins with three countries
to the east of the Roman Empire—Parthia, Media and Elam, in the area
of modern Iran. Luke then moves westward to Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and Judea.
He then mentions various provinces in Asia Minor (modern Turkey)—Cappadocia,
Pontus, Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia. Next, Luke skips to North Africa—to
Egypt, Libya and Cyrene.
Luke also mentions "visitors from Rome," which included Jews and converts (2:11). This
may have something to do with Luke’s desire to show the gospel message
penetrating Rome, the capital of the Empire. Some of these visitors from Rome
who were in Jerusalem on Pentecost may have returned
to form the nucleus of the church in that city. As we shall see, the gospel
message reached Rome years before Paul did.
Rome had a large Jewish population. One
scholar estimated it at about 40,000, though there is no way to be sure of the
total. The spread of Christian teaching in the synagogues of Rome by the
"visitors" may have led to riots, perhaps about
A.D.
50. This unrest may have caused the Roman emperor Claudius (A.D.
41-54) to issue an edict that called for the expulsion of all Jews from Rome
(Acts 18:2). We will examine this in more detail at the appropriate place.
After mentioning the Roman contingent of
Jews, Luke ends his list with references to people from the Mediterranean
island of Crete, and then Arabs. It has been called an odd list with a selected
number of countries given in a strange order. We can infer that this list was meant to indicate
that people from all over the Roman world, and parts east, were at Jerusalem. If
these people were pilgrims and returned to their native lands, they would have
told people about the Pentecost event far and wide.
The appearance of "Judea"—and
its location in the list—is especially odd (2:9). As one commentator points
out, this "involves the curious anomaly of inhabitants of Judea being
amazed to hear the apostles speak in their own language" (Richard D.
Longenecker,
"Acts,"
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
page 273.
A number of solutions have been offered to
explain the mention of Judea. One is that Judea as the land of the Jews was
prophetically held to stretch from the Euphrates river to the Egyptian border.
That is, it would represent the territory once controlled by the Judean kings
David and Solomon. This would explain Judea’s place in the list and why Syria is
not mentioned. Such "Judeans" would have spoken a number of local dialects in a
vast territory. It is unlikely that Luke's readers would have this in mind.
There is also a question as to whether
these Jews were true pilgrims or had moved to live in Jerusalem from the
Dispersion. Some scholars see these Jews as pilgrims who had traveled to
Jerusalem for the Pentecost festival. However, other scholars say they were
permanent residents of Jerusalem. They had returned to the home country, much as
Jews in modern times have returned to Israel. Longenecker writes,
Contrary to many who have assumed that
the Jews mentioned here were pilgrims to Jerusalem coming for the Pentecost
festival, it is more probable that they were residents of Jerusalem who had
returned from the Diaspora lands...at some earlier time to settle down in the
homeland. (ibid., page
272)
The existence of a permanent mixed Jewish
population in Jerusalem is supported by Acts 6:9. Also, the contrast between
"visitors from Rome" (2:10) and those staying or "dwelling"
in Jerusalem strengthens the point that most of those in the list were permanent
residents of the city.
Whatever the situation, Luke’s point is clear. The miraculous coming of the Holy Spirit was witnessed in
Jerusalem by Jews from all over the world. Many of these individuals from
far-flung international areas repented and received the Spirit. These converted
Jews who lived in Jerusalem were later scattered because of persecution and
"preached the word wherever they went" (8:1, 4).
They are not drunk (2:13-15)As
the disciples rose to speak, it
was clear that not everyone in the crowd was impressed by the miracles and
signs. Luke tells us, "Some...made fun of them and said, ‘They have had
too much wine’" (2:13). (Those who do not respond to God are unable to
discern his invisible working in human lives.)
Peter began his speech to the astonished
Jews by insisting that the disciples weren’t drunk. It was 9:00 a.m., too early to be drinking, and much too early to be drunk. Those
speaking in languages were not filled with wine, but with the Holy Spirit.
Peter's speech (2:17-39)
Peter explained what the events really meant. His speech takes up much of the
remainder of this chapter. He made a powerful and courageous witness to Christ
as the promised Messiah.
Just a few weeks earlier, this same Peter
had denied his Savior with oaths and curses (Matthew 26:72, 74). "Woman,
I don’t know him," Peter had insisted to a servant girl who recognized
him as a disciple (Luke 22:57). Yet now, Peter was the first to shout aloud
that he more than knew this man. He was a witness to all that Jesus had said and
done. The Holy Spirit had breathed new courage into a once disheartened and
discouraged disciple (Luke 24:21).
Peter presents evidence that Jesus is the promised Messiah.
He includes references to
the Hebrew prophet Joel and a "father" of the nation, King David. In
this context, devout Jews would have carefully listened to what Peter had to say
about them.
Peter appeals to the Hebrew
Scriptures as the word of God. He insists that this Pentecost event is a
fulfillment of prophecy. Peter also asserts that Jesus is referred to in the Hebrew scriptures that spoke of a coming Messiah.
Peter also appeals to the audience’s
own experience. If these Jews had been in Jerusalem since before Passover—and
especially if they lived in the city—they would have known of Jesus’
miraculous works, and especially the circumstances surrounding his death.
Finally, Peter appeals to himself and the
other apostles as being qualified to give eyewitness testimony of Jesus’
resurrection. After this, Peter challenges
the Jews to repent by accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah.
This was the apostolic message in its most
basic form. It was composed of six themes, which are found repeatedly in Peter’s sermons in the first chapters of Acts:
- The age of fulfillment prophesied in
the Hebrew Scriptures has come to pass. The kingdom of God is imminent,
indeed, is here.
- The ministry, death and resurrection of
Jesus has made all this possible, and is proved from the Scriptures.
- As a result of his exaltation, Christ
is at God’s right hand, as the messianic head of a new, spiritual Israel.
- The sign of Christ’s power and guidance
is the presence of the Holy Spirit in that new congregation or church of
Israel.
- The consummation of the messianic age
is imminent, and will be brought about by Christ’s return.
- The proper response to this information
is repentance and baptism. God forgives sins, gives the Holy
Spirit, and makes salvation possible. [For more on Peter’s speeches in Acts,
see Preaching in the Book of Acts - Part 1: Peter.]
Peter’s speeches in Acts were styled and shaped by Luke, who was writing in
accordance with the highest standards of historical writing in his day. But Luke
did not invent the speeches out of his own imagination — they reflect the basic
elements of the gospel message that Peter and the other apostles and evangelists
carried far and wide.
What we have in Acts 2 is only a brief
synopsis of what must have been said by Peter during this occasion. Even Luke
tells us that Peter warned the crowd "with many other words," words
Luke has not given us (2:40).
The prophecy of Joel (2:16-18)
As we look carefully at Peter’s speech,
we are surprised at what it says. The first thing we notice is that Luke has
used the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament in quoting
Joel 2:28-32. The Septuagint was a Greek translation that Jewish scholars
created in the 3rd century B.C. for the many Jews who could not understand
Hebrew. This version (from the Latin, septuaginta,
which means 70) is commonly referred to by the Roman numerals for 70, LXX. The
number derives from a story that 70 or 72 Jewish scholars did all the work.
The Septuagint is important for several
reasons. Rather
than any Hebrew version, it was the Bible of the early church.
It was not secondary to any other
scripture; it was Scripture. When a New Testament writer allegedly urged his
audience to consider that all scripture given by divine
"inspiration" is also profitable for doctrine, it was to the LXX not
the Hebrew that attention was being called. (Melvin K.H. Peters, "Septuagint,"
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, volume 5, page 1102)
This is clear from Peter’s citation of
the prophet Joel (2:17-21), which agrees in most details with the LXX.
However, there are some alterations in the text, and these show us something
important about how the church used and regarded the Old Testament. The LXX of
Joel 2:28 reads, "It shall come to pass afterward, I will pour out of my
Spirit upon all flesh." The Greek of the LXX is meta tauta, or the
indefinite "after these things."
However, in Acts the Greek expression has
been changed to en tais eschatais hemerais, which means the very specific
"in the last days." Thus, Peter (and/or Luke) has grounded the event
of Pentecost at a specific time in history—as part of the end times or last
days of God’s redemptive program. The indefinite feel of the old has been
made more specific in the new.
For the New Testament writers, the
"last days" began with Christ’s appearance on earth and would end
with the events of his reappearance and the consummation. Peter clearly regarded
Joel’s prophecy as applying to the last days, and he claimed that his hearers
were living in those days, when God’s final act of salvation had begun. He was
saying to the Jews, in the words of William Barclay, "For generations you
have dreamed of the Day of God, the Day when God would break into history. Now,
in Jesus, that Day has come" (The Acts of the Apostles, The Daily Study Bible Series,
revised edition, page 25).
When Peter spoke these words, he probably
didn’t realize how many years would pass between Christ’s two appearances.
Not until decades later did the passage of time force the apostles and the
church to deal with the question of how long it would be (2 Peter 3:3-9;
Revelation 6:9-11).
When Luke wrote, the question of when Christ would return must have been a
major issue in the church. Even near the end of his life, Peter thought, "The
end of all things is near" (1 Peter 4:7). The book of 2 Peter had to defend the
promise of Jesus’ return because so many decades had elapsed since the
resurrection without his reappearance (2 Peter 3:3-10).
The first part of Joel’s prophecy that
Peter quoted bore directly on the events of Pentecost. Joel had spoken of a time
when God said, "I will pour out my Spirit on all people" (2:17). This
had happened at Pentecost. The Age of the Spirit had begun.
Wonders in heaven (2:19-20)In verses 19 and 20 Peter quoted the parts
of Joel’s prophecy that spoke of the heavenly signs that would accompany the
pouring out of God’s Spirit. These signs were to occur "before the coming
of the great and glorious day of the Lord" (2:20).
In Peter’s mind all the events between
Jesus’ earthly ministry and return were telescoped into a short time. We can
infer from other information in the New Testament that he regarded the heavenly
wonders to be just around the corner.
The darkening of the sun (and perhaps a
red moon) on the Passover of Jesus’ death may have reverberated in Peter’s
mind (Luke 23:44). Perhaps he (and others) considered those events as harbingers
of what Joel spoke about—the coming of the day of the Lord.
Jesus is the Messiah (2:21-24)With a tone of urgency, Peter
ended Joel’s prophecy by asserting that this is a time to recognize the
Messiah, and put one’s faith in him. Everyone who would be willing to do so,
said Joel, would be saved (2:21).
Up to this point, Peter has argued that
the Jews should recognize the miraculous phenomena as manifestations of the Spirit, signaling an end-time age of the Spirit.
Peter says that Joel’s prophecy applies to his day, but he has not yet offered
an extended argument that Jesus was the Messiah.
But now Peter begins to insist that the
ministry of Jesus validated him as the Messiah. He addresses his
listeners as people of Israel—as those who claim to be God’s people. If
they are God’s people, Peter is saying, they will recognize the work of
Jesus as having been described in their Scriptures.
We have arrived at Peter’s main theme, the chief focus of the church’s
witness: the proclamation of Jesus as Lord and Messiah. In the speeches of Acts,
this is usually done by the witness (such as Peter) giving an account of the
ministry and death of Jesus. There is usually an assertion that he was unjustly
murdered, and he has been raised from the dead. The Old Testament is usually
cited to show that what happened to Jesus was what the Scriptures said would
happen to the Messiah.
Here Peter insists that Jesus "was a
man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs" (2:22). These
were mighty works and the evidence that God was working through Jesus
among the people. This line of reasoning continues to be an important part of
the witness to Jesus as the Messiah.
Peter maintains that what might have
appeared to be the weakness of God—Jesus’ crucifixion—took place according
to "God’s set purpose and foreknowledge" (2:23). In Paul’s words,
what people might have regarded as weakness turned out to be the "power of
God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16).
Peter explains to his listeners that in
putting Jesus to death, the Jews actually fulfilled God’s plan. The sufferings
and resurrection of Jesus were foretold in the prophetic
writings.
The Messiah in Psalm 16 (2:25-33)Peter then quotes a psalm of David as a
proof-text that the Messiah’s resurrection was foretold from Scripture. Peter
is building his case on a number of widely shared beliefs. The Jews
believed that the psalms were written by David. They saw David as God’s
"anointed" king. They saw that God had promised what appeared
to be an eternal kingship to David through his descendants. Thus, what was said
in the Psalms by David could refer to him or to his descendants—and one
descendant in particular, the Messiah.
Peter’s citation of Psalm 16:8-11 was an
exact quote from the LXX (where it is Psalm 15). But he read it
messianically, referring to Christ rather than to David.
Psalm 16 speaks of one who will not
"see decay" nor be abandoned to the grave (2:27). This person is
always in the presence of God (2:25, 28). Peter asserts that these statements
could not apply to David. He stresses what all his listeners knew—that David
was dead and buried. His tomb, a landmark in the area, could be seen and touched
(2:29). David died (was abandoned to the grave) and his body
decomposed.
Psalm 16:8-11 must therefore apply to the
messianic successor of David, not David himself. But since David was a
prophet, it should not be considered a strange thing that he could foresee the
future (2:30). (Luke repeatedly notes that the author of the psalms is a prophet.
See Luke 20:41-42; 24:44; Acts 1:16, 20; 4:25; 13:33-36.)
Peter argues that David’s prophetic
words were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, and the apostles were
witnesses of that fact. The conclusion was obvious: Jesus is the
expected Messiah of Scripture (2:32-33).
Peter then refers to what the listeners "now see and hear"—that is, the theophany of
Pentecost exhibited in the wind, the fire, and the languages (2:33). What they
saw and heard was "proof" that the Holy Spirit was available.
Messianic Psalm 110 (2:34-36)Peter cites a second
proof-text, Psalm 110:1. He quotes it exactly from the Greek
version, where it is Psalm 109. "The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your
enemies a footstool for your feet’" (2:34-35).
This verse was difficult to understand.
Its explanation depended on how one understood who "my Lord" was, the
one to whom "the Lord" promised a place at his right hand. This
scripture from Psalm 110 had figured in a controversy between Jesus and the
Sadducees (Luke 20:41-44). The proper identification of the
"Lords" was the key to the text.
Possibly this psalm originally referred to
one of the kings of David’s line, perhaps at his enthronement. In that context, "the Lord"
would be Yahweh, and "my lord" is
the king. The promise to make this king’s enemies his footstool would be a
promise of divine favor for a successful reign.
But Jesus, as we know from all three
synoptic Gospels, interpreted Psalm 110:1 in a messianic sense, as applying to
himself (Mark 12:35-37). Jesus probably used the Psalm to refute narrow views of
the Messiah, that he would be only a human king of David’s line.
Following Jesus, Peter insisted that the
"Lord" to whom the invitation was addressed (to sit at his right hand)
was the Messiah. David did not figure in the account at all, in its messianic
sense. After all, he did not ascend to heaven to sit at God’s
right hand.
Peter stressed that what was in view was
the unique son of David, Jesus. The text spoke of a heavenly enthronement, not
one on earth. And, indeed, Jesus himself had predicted to the Jewish leaders that, "The Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty
God" (Luke 22:69).
Peter had already asserted that David
could not have been speaking about himself, for he died, was buried and suffered
decay. Nor was there any evidence that he had ascended to heaven (2:34). What
David did know was that God had promised to put one of his descendants on the
throne (2:30).
The descendant about whom David must have
been prophesying was the risen and resurrected Christ. Peter's conclusion is: The Messiah is addressed by God as David’s Lord and invited
to sit at God's right hand.
The New Testament writers often used Psalm
110:1 to say that Jesus was exalted to "the right hand of God." (For
some examples, see Matthew 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Romans 8:34;
1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3, 13; 8:1;
10:12; 12:22; 1 Peter 3:22.) The New Testament quotes this verse more often than
any other Old Testament verse.
In his speech, Peter uses four points to
argue that Jesus is the Messiah:
- On his personal witness,
- The miraculous events of Pentecost,
- Information about Jesus that the audience had, and,
- Scriptural proof texts.
Peter concludes the body of his speech with the point he made throughout the
speech: Jesus is Lord and Messiah (2:36). This became an oft-repeated apostolic
creed (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11).
The call to repent (2:37-38)
The responsive Jewish listeners were
"cut to the heart" (2:37). The enormity of what had happened crashed
into their consciousness. The man they had spit on and crucified was their
Messiah, and he was now sitting in power at God’s right hand.
Many of Peter’s listeners had a deep
emotional reaction. Moved by the Holy Spirit and their own participation in the
persecution and death of Jesus, they were humbled and teachable. It was natural
for them to ask, in wonderment and trepidation: "What shall we do?"
(2:37).
Peter’s reply is the point the entire
account in Acts 2 moves toward: "Repent and be baptized...for the
forgiveness of your sins" (2:38). His speech and
stir-to-action conclusion fulfills Jesus’ prophecy in the last
chapter of Luke. There, Jesus had promised: "Repentance and forgiveness of
sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem"
(Luke 24:47). Now, repentance had been taught in his name.
The Greek word for repentance is metanoia.
It appears frequently in the New Testament as a way to describe conversion.
Repentance is a central focus in Acts (3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24; 17:30;
19:4; 20:21; 26:20). It literally means a change of mind, a change of heart, a spiritual
about-face in one’s life that will be shown by a change in what one does. That change occurs in relationship to the true God.
Repentance is not just a feeling of
remorse, or a once-in-a-lifetime emotional experience. Nor is it simply a change
in behavior. It is a change of mind that leads to a change of behavior. It is a turning away from
a life lived in contradiction to God and a turning to him in faith. The aim of repentance is that God’s will should be accomplished in our
lives.
Repentance and conversion have a
"from" and "to" movement. One goes from an old way of
thinking in which God is denied, ignored, or resented. One goes to a new life based on loyalty to and
faith in the Creator. To repent is to be "turned around," remolded and transformed—converted.
It involves a faith relationship with Jesus Christ.
At the beginning
of the New Testament church we find something unexpected being taught about
repentance. In his first public sermon, Peter poses repentance and conversion—turning
to God—in a surprising way. Peter does not tell these Jews that they had
to change their lives in terms of obeying the Law or Torah.
The people listening to Peter are
described as "God-fearing Jews" who already worshiped and obeyed God (2:5; 5:9). They are presented as blameless in keeping the
laws.
These Jews did not need to repent of what we commonly think of
as law-breaking. As devout Jews, they were already careful to keep the law.
To what, then, is Peter referring when he
tells these people to repent? Peter tells them to repent by asking them to enter a new
relationship with Jesus as their resurrected Savior.
The context makes Peter's purpose clear. He begins by pointing
the people to Jesus, whom they had rejected and their leaders had killed (2:22).
Throughout the sermon, Peter hammers away at a single point: Jesus Christ is Lord and
Savior, and people must put their faith in him. This turning to Jesus in faith
is summarized as a simple charge: "Repent and be
baptized" (2:38).
What the Jews listening to Peter
are to repent of is their rejection of Jesus as Messiah and Savior! In
the context of Peter’s sermon, "to repent" means to change one’s mind about
Jesus—to experience him—to accept him as Savior—to place total faith in
him.
For these Jews, repentance and conversion
did not necessarily involve a change of religion or worship practices. In fact,
converted Christian Jews continued to worship at synagogue and temple—and they
maintained their ancestral traditions. But it did require a new faith
toward God and his Messiah. Repentance and faith are two aspects of the same
change of orientation that occurs in converted humans. As we’re told in
Acts 20:21, through the words of Paul, one "must turn to God in repentance and
have faith in our Lord Jesus."
While we are commanded by God to repent
(17:30), to have our sins forgiven (2:38), and to have faith—humanly speaking,
we are incapable of doing any of these things. These are all gifts of God that
are bestowed on us through Jesus Christ our Savior. Ultimately, faith and
repentance and forgiveness are also gifts of God (Ephesians 2:8; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2
Timothy 2:25).
The need for baptism (2:38)Peter also
speaks of an important act that
is associated with receiving the empowering Holy Spirit. That was water
baptism, which is an external token of belief in Jesus as Savior. Peter urges his audience to be baptized,
and he promises them the gift of
the Holy Spirit (2:38). Throughout Acts, when people express
faith in Jesus, they are then baptized.
Baptism in water
continued to be the visible sign by which those who believed the gospel,
repented of their sins, and acknowledged Jesus as Lord were publicly
incorporated into the Spirit-baptized fellowship of the new people of God.
(F.F. Bruce, Acts, The New International Biblical Commentary, page 70)
The Jews were already familiar with
baptism as a ritual required for people who wanted to have their sins
forgiven. John the Baptist baptized people who repented (Matthew 3:6, 11; Luke 3:7, 16). Even Jesus insisted on being
baptized (Matthew 3:15).
But, beginning at Pentecost, there are
two new features about baptism. First, it is administered in Jesus’ name.
It requires faith in Jesus as Savior. Second, it is associated with the Holy
Spirit.
However, Acts
does not demonstrate a clear-cut sequence of, 1. Water baptism, 2. Laying on of
hands, 3. Spirit baptism—as if baptism itself (and laying on of hands) had
some inherent spiritual power as as actions with guaranteed results. Baptism is
not magic, but a formal and symbolic statement of one’s intentions
— an outward rite.
Luke seems to go out of his way to show
that there is no formula or sequence of acts involved in receiving the Spirit.
For example, Cornelius and his family received the Spirit before they
were baptized (10:44-48). Some disciples of John the Baptist who had been
previously baptized still had not received the Holy Spirit, perhaps years later (19:1-7). Not until Paul laid his hands on these individuals, did
they receive the Spirit. And in the baptism of 3,000 people described in Acts 2, Luke
did not mention any "laying on of hands."
The point is that Luke does not give us a
clear-cut pattern of how and when the Spirit is given. However, baptism and
receiving the Holy Spirit are associated together. What we see is that water
baptism is an important ritual in which the individual makes public a confession
in Jesus. The laying on of hands signals the acceptance of that individual by
the community of believers.
In the name of Jesus (2:38-39)Believers should be baptized
"in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38). The "name" refers not
to a special pronunciation of consonants and vowels, but
to Jesus himself — his person, his power and his presence. This phrase "in the
name of Jesus" recurs throughout Acts in many circumstances. It denotes the
power and authority through which the church carries out its activities
(3:6, 16; 4:10, 12, 17-18, 30: 5:28, 40-41; 8:12; 9:16, 21, 27, 28; 15:26;
16:18; 19:13, 17; 21:13; 22:16; 26:9).
In baptism, it was customary to make an
outward confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior (Acts 8:37; 11:17; 16:31; Romans
10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11). The phrase "in the name of
Jesus" is an expression of inner faith, as well as a commitment to
Jesus, in all that this might entail. The desire to repent and commit, along
with willingness to make a public statement of both through baptism, resulted in
a person experiencing the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We should distinguish the gift of the
Spirit from the gifts of the Spirit. Gifts of the Spirit are various
spiritual abilities given to people in the church, to be used for the common
good (1 Corinthians 12:1-11). The gift of the Holy Spirit, however, is
the Spirit himself, given to all who have faith in Jesus. This Spirit ministers all aspects of God’s
salvation to all believers. By this gift, all are Spirit-baptized into one body,
the church (1 Corinthians 12:13).
In all cases, this baptism is dependent on
God’s will — "all whom the Lord our God will call" (2:39). Luke
indicates that any conversions that occur are not the
result of human programs or energy. They depend on the calling of God, as
Jesus himself had stated (John 6:44).
"Be saved" (2:40-41)Peter’s speech ends with the wonderful
promise that his listeners would receive God’s Spirit and become part of the
people of God. Luke summarizes Peter’s plea with a sentence: "Save
yourselves from this corrupt generation" (2:40). Commentators point out that Peter’s
phrase is in the passive tense, "be saved." Unfortunately, most
English translations obscure this important fact. We cannot "save ourselves,"
whether by repentance or any other action.
Salvation is an act of God,
not something we can do without his calling—or without faith in
Christ. This passive is what grammarians call "the divine passive," with God
understood to be the one doing the work. A better translation is, "Let God save
you from this corrupt generation." He does the work, if we do not reject his
call.
The thought of verse 40 ("be
saved") picks up the sense of Joel’s prophecy mentioned in verse 21:
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Peter is
not telling his listeners to "do" something, except to respond to what
God has already done. He is telling them
to take advantage of the promise offered to them by accepting Jesus as the
promised Messiah.
They were to "be saved" from a
corrupt generation in Jerusalem and Judea by becoming part of a remnant people
accepted by God.
Eternal salvation was the main issue, but those who accepted Peter’s call to
repent could also be "saved" (if they lived long enough) from the
nation’s terrible future. Jerusalem and Judea were heading toward the
destruction of the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70
A.D.
Those who had faith in Jesus could escape what was coming upon the nation (Luke
21:20-24, with Matthew 24:15-18; Mark 13:14-16).
About 3,000 people accepted Peter's challenge
to be baptized that Pentecost day. (We don’t know how many thousands refused
and mocked.) From this single apostolic sermon on one day, more people became
true disciples of Jesus than during the entire time of Jesus' public ministry. The
promise of Jesus, that his disciples would perform greater works than he had,
was true (John 14:12).
Fellowship of believers (2:42-43)Luke next describes
the communal life of the first Jewish converts in Jerusalem: They devoted
themselves to the apostles’ teaching, were in fellowship with each other, ate
together, and prayed (2:42). Let’s examine briefly each
of these characteristics.
- The disciples devoted themselves to the "apostles’ teaching." The apostles
had no particular credentials as teachers in terms of being recognized
religious authorities. None of the apostles had any formal religious
training. They had been fishermen, tax collectors and ordinary citizens. Yet, it was clear to the believers that
the apostles had come in the power and authority of Jesus. They had the
experience of being with Jesus and being taught by him directly. For these
reasons, the new converts were careful to listen to and put into practice the
apostles’ teachings.
- The believers devoted themselves to "fellowship." The use of the definite
article in Greek, "the fellowship," implies that the account has reference to
some type of formal gathering. These believers continued to observe their national customs and rites,
and this would have been reflected
in "the fellowship" or gathering together as a church or congregation.
While Jesus must have been the focus of these meetings, the Jerusalem disciples
also maintained something of the flavor of their Jewish roots.
- The believers in
Jerusalem were devoted to prayer (2:42). Once again, the definite article and
the plural ("the prayers") suggests Luke is referring to special
prayers or times of prayer. We know that the apostles regularly
attended Jewish prayer services in the temple (3:1) and that the converts met in
the temple (2:46). It wouldn’t be surprising if their prayers followed Jewish
models, although the content would be different because such prayers would often
concern Jesus and be offered in his name. Prayer is a regular
feature of Luke’s narrative. (See the following examples: 1:14, 24;
2:42; 4:24-31; 6:4, 6; 9:40; 10:2, 4, 9, 31; 11:5; 12:5; 13:3; 14:23; 16:25;
22:17; 28:8.)
Breaking of bread
- The other activity the disciples devoted
themselves to was "the breaking of bread" (2:42). There has been much
controversy about what Luke had in mind here. Some commentators interpret the
"breaking of bread" as nothing more than an ordinary meal. Others see
the disciples as engaging in a Jewish fellowship
meal. This is a reasonable deduction since these believers were Jews and would
have adapted customs natural to them. All meals had religious
significance for Jews. Meals began with a prayer of thanksgiving and included
a ceremonial breaking of bread. It’s reasonable to suppose that these Jews, now
following Jesus, would have continued and extended the meaning
of their communal meal.
The apostles would have taught these disciples that Jesus broke bread and gave thanks at meals. More specifically, Jesus’ breaking
of the bread at the last supper would have taken on great significance (Luke
24:35). Some biblical scholars therefore go further and see
this as the first love or agape feast (Jude 12). Some call the reference to the
breaking of bread the beginning of the regular observance of the Lord’s
Supper. They point to the use of the definite article in "the bread"
as an indication that a particular meal was in view here.
When Luke uses the expression
"the breaking of bread" he sometimes means the Lor'ds Supper (Luke 22:19).
But on other occasions "the breaking of bread" seems to refer to an
ordinary meal (Luke 24:30, 35; Acts 20:11; 27:35). There is logic in seeing this communal
"breaking of bread" as a meal that had religious significance in terms
of its connection to Jesus. Luke already emphasized the association between
meals and Jesus’ presence in his Gospel (Luke 24:41-42; Acts 1:4; 10:41).
William H. Willimon perhaps gives us the best way to view this controversial
topic of "the breaking of the bread":
The gathering of the fellowship at the
table is another tangible, visible expression of the work of the Spirit among
the new community. Go through the Gospel of Luke and note all occasions when
"he was at table with them." Each dinner-time episode in Luke is a
time of fellowship, revelation, and controversy.... Eating together is a mark
of unity, solidarity, and deep friendship, a visible sign that social barriers
which once plagued these people have broken down. Whether this "breaking
of bread" is a reference to our Eucharist or Lord’s Super is a matter
of debate. Probably, Peter’s church of Luke’s day would not know our
distinction between the church merely breaking bread and the church
breaking bread as a sacramental religious activity. In good Jewish fashion,
when the blessing is said at the table, the table becomes a holy place and
eating together a sacred activity.... Perhaps every meal for the church was
experienced as an anticipation of the Messianic banquet, a foretaste of Jesus’
promise that his followers would "eat and drink at my table in my
kingdom" (Luke 22:30). (Acts, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for
Teaching and Preaching, page 41.
All things in common (2:44-45)Luke next describes how the community of
believers in Jerusalem "had everything in common" (2:44). He
gives more details in 4:32-5:11, and it will be discussed
more when we reach that section. Suffice it to say here that the
statement has led to some misleading views of what Christian communities should
be like. Luke was not telling us that the church should practice "Christian
communism."
What Luke was describing is a voluntary
sharing of some possessions, on an as-needed basis (2:45). This will become
clear as we study this and other passages related to the issue. Having
"everything in common" was an ideal practiced by this close-knit
church in this one city, under extraordinary times. Acts was not presenting us
with a practice that should be normalized for the church as a whole under
ordinary circumstances.
The texts are misread if it is assumed
that all of the Jerusalem Christians were required to sell all of their goods
and pool their resources. For one thing, the selling of goods is done
voluntarily—otherwise the generous gift of Barnabas (4:36-37) would not be
worthy of note. In addition, Luke depicts the selling of possessions to meet
community needs an ongoing process rather than as a one-time total divestment.
He envisions a community where everyone is concerned about everyone else and
willing to part with their possessions on behalf of others when the need
requires. The ideal is repeated in Acts, on an even grander scale. When
a famine spreads throughout the world and Palestine is hit especially hard,
the church in Antioch of Syria makes provisions to help its suffering
neighbors in Jerusalem (11:27-30). (Mark Allan Powell, What Are They Saying
About Acts? page 78)
The Greek phrase Luke used here, apanta
koina ("everything in common") may allude to the
Hellenistic idea that "friends hold all things in common." Scholars
point out that the phrase was widely used as a feature of utopian or
ideal societies (Plato, Republic 449C).
A Hellenistic reader would recognize in
Luke’s description the sort of "foundation story" that was rather
widespread in Hellenistic literature. An early example is Plato’s Critias,
which pictures the early days of Athens as a time when "none of its
members possessed any private property, but they regarded all they had as the
common property of all." (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the
Apostles, Sacra Pagina Series, volume 5, page 62)
Luke wrote to a man named Theophilus, who
was probably a thoroughly Hellenized Roman. To such a person, Luke would have
been saying that the Holy Spirit had made possible a reality that approached the
highest and most ideal aspirations of the philosophers. At the same time, this group of Christians
"who had everything in common" matched the idealism of Jewish communal
groups. The Essenes, for example, practiced a form of communal
ownership of property and goods (Philo, Every Good Man is Free 12.75,
85-87).
The Jerusalem disciples, living a
quasi-communal lifestyle, also strove to fulfill the promise of Moses. Israel
had been promised that if the nation obeyed God, there would be no poor, because
he would bless them (Deuteronomy 15:4-5). As the "righteous remnant"
in Christ, these Jewish disciples may have felt the need to see this condition
of life fulfilled within their group.
What we have then is an idealistic group
of Jewish Christians attempting to live an ideal life of sharing and giving. But
it was not quite what it seemed, as we shall see later. Nor was it a lifestyle
mandated for all Christians in all places at all times. Even as an ideal in this
one place, it faltered and led to controversy (5:1-11; 6:1-6; 11:29), something
we will take up later.
In the temple courts (2:46)This group of enthusiastic Jerusalem
Christians met in the temple courts every day (2:46). By telling us about this,
Luke is showing that they continued to follow their accustomed forms of Jewish
worship. The temple courts continued to be a favorite meeting place of these
Christians (3:11; 5:12). The part of the temple area they met in was Solomon’s
colonnade, which ran along the east side of the outer court.
As Jews who were Christians and also
Christians who were Jews, they not only considered Jerusalem to be their city
but continued to regard the temple as their sanctuary and the Law as their
law. Evidently they thought of themselves as the faithful remnant within
Israel for whose sake all the institutions and customs of the nation existed.
(Longenecker, "Acts," page 291)
At the same time, "they broke bread
in their homes and ate together" (2:46). The converts seemed to spend a
good deal of time each day in social interaction. Those who live frenetic lives
in modern Western society can only wonder at how they found time to fellowship
so frequently. The fact that they ate in each other’s homes indicates
that these disciples did not sell everything they owned and give all the
proceeds to a communal pool. They still owned their own homes.
The original group of 3,000 increased each
day as "the Lord added to their number" those who were being saved
(2:47). It is God’s calling that is instrumental in bringing people to Christ,
and Luke was careful to point this out. He maintained this viewpoint on
conversion throughout Acts (2:39, 47; 5:14; 11:24). The church, in all its
evangelistic and discipling programs, would do well to remember this.
Paul Kroll, 2001

To
commentary on chapter 3 |