Session 2.7: November 10, 2023
Scripture Reading: Acts 2:14-47
14 But Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice, and addressed them: “You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. 15 In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. 16 But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel:
17 ‘And in the last days it will be,’ God says,
‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all people,
and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
and your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
19 And I will perform wonders in the sky above
and miraculous signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and clouds of smoke.
20 The sun will be changed to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
21 And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know— 23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles. 24 But God raised him up, having released him from the pains of death because it was not possible for him to be held in its power. 25 For David says about him,
‘I saw the Lord always in front of me,
for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced;
my body also will live in hope,
27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades,
nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of joy with your presence.’
29 “Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31 David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says,
‘The Lord said to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added.
42 They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and held everything in common, 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. 46 Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, 47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.
Main Themes
Setting
Aramaic or Greek
It is unlikely that Peter originally preached the sermon in Aramaic. Some of Peter’s hearers (like the Mesopotamians) would have known Aramaic, but many would not have been able to understand it. So, Peter probably preached in Greek. The Septuagint quotes support this inference.
Public Speaking
Much like today, in ancient times one would rise to speak. This was helpful visually and acoustically.
The text tells us that Peter “raised his voice,” a frequent idiom in the Septuagint, making Peter seem like an Old Testament prophet. The phrase also appears in Greek writings with a literal meaning. One would expect Peter to project his voice loudly to address more than three thousand people. There is no reason to doubt that someone could address thousands of people without a modern sound system. For example, the famous preacher Charles Spurgeon (1834 - 1892) once preached to over 23,000 without amplification. George Whitefield (1714-1770), another well-known pastor, had similar fame for preaching to thousands at certain events. Curiously enough, Benjamin Franklin was skeptical of these reports. Nevertheless, Franklin investigated and determined that as many as thirty thousand people could hear Whitefield at a time.
However, raising one’s voice will not reach many people if there is much noise. The scene implies that the crowd went silent. This makes sense after the miracle of Pentecost, which puzzled those present.
The Speech
I. Introduction
Deflecting
Remember where we left off last week. Jesus’ followers are preaching the good news in the different languages of people from all over the known world. The crowd, amazed and confused at the ability of these Galileans (i.e., country bumpkins, explains the phenomenon by accusing the disciples of being drunk. Our reading today starts with Peter’s deflection.
You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. Acts 2:14b-15
This is a witty aside to the audience. Imagine Peter delivering the line with a bit of irony. These interactions between speakers and their audience, sometimes making points at each others’ expense, was common in antiquity. However, notice that Peter deflects the mockery with a potentially humorous response that does not shame the hecklers. Peter seems determined to win over the entire audience—not to antagonize them.
9 A.M.
Peter remarks that men are not drunk in the third hour, which our translation appropriately calls nine in the morning. Just like today, drunkenness was a night activity. The few people who were said to start drinking in the morning and continue through the day were considered exceptional and viewed quite negatively. The mention of the third hours gives some more insight into the scene. At that time of day, the temple courts would have been very busy. This partly explains and grants credibility to the account of a large crowd.
The Address
Peter addresses the men, but such a manner of speaking would not have excluded the women—it merely presupposes an androcentric society. Peter invites the audience to hear him carefully because “know this,” or as other translations may put it, “let it be known.” This was daring speech, often used in Jewish and Greek rhetoric. In the Old Testament, this phrase was often used to confront Israel.
II. The Argument
Quoting Joel, Kinda
Preview: Peter explains that the power to speak in other tongues was the outward sign of the fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy that God would pour out his Holy Spirit on all his people. In Joel this promise was associated with the Day of the Lord; Peter asserts that this event has now occurred in history. It results from the fact that God had exalted the crucified Jesus, had enthroned him at his right hand, thus inaugurating his messianic reign; and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon his people was nothing less than the blessing of the messianic age.
Peter begins his main argument by quoting Joel 2:28-32. But, something we often miss is that Peter does not provide an exact quotation. He adds or modifies Joel’s text at different points to bring out its implications. This is neither deception nor error. Imagine if I was sharing the gospel with someone, and I quoted John 3:16 as follows:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, Jesus, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The word “Jesus” is not in the original verse. It is my attempt to quickly explain the text. Peter is doing something similar. Moreover, this was a common rhetorical device used by Torah teachers at the time. These teacher peppered their expositions with numerous biblical allusions while making deliberate changes.
So, what did Peter modify? The two most relevant changes are:
(1) Peter changes “after these things” to “in the last days, says God.” Thus, Peter reinforces the eschatological nature of the gift of the Spirit. Obviously, Peter’s argument is that the disciples’ inspired praise in other languages represents the gift of the Spirit, also showing that the “last days” have come.
(2) Peter omits “because in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem will be survivors (those saved), just as the Lord said.” His omission of the specifically Israel-centered part of the quotation seems significant to universalize the promise of the Spirit to all peoples. This reinforces the universality of the text quoted. The quotation speaks of men and women, young and old, seeing visions and prophesying—that is, the promise of the Spirit is for everyone.
Last Days
I have discussed the realized eschatology of Acts quite extensively, so I will make the current discussion of the last days brief. The phrase “in the last days” and other similar expressions, such as “last times” are found all over the Old Testament. Generally, they relate to the period of Israel’s restoration. However, if we pay more attention, we find that the phrase has at least two meanings. On one hand, it has that meaning of restoration (Isa 2:2; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1; Dan 2:28).
Here is the message about Judah and Jerusalem that was revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz. In future days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will endure as the most important of mountains and will be the most prominent of hills. All the nations will stream to it . . . . Isaiah 2:1-2
On the other hand, this eschatological title also applied to a period of great suffering just before that restoration (Jer 23:20; 30:24; Ezek 38:16; Dan 10:14).
But just watch! The wrath of the Lord will come like a storm! Like a raging storm it will rage down on the heads of those who are wicked. The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he has fully carried out his intended purposes. In future days you people will come to understand this clearly. Jeremiah 23:19-20
“Therefore, prophesy, son of man, and say to Gog: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On that day when my people Israel are living securely, you will take notice and come from your place, from the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great company and a vast army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud covering the earth. In future days I will bring you against my land so that the nations may acknowledge me, when before their eyes I magnify myself through you, O Gog. Ezekiel 38:14-16
The New Testament continues this dual description, speaking of an advancing kingdom with eventual glory but also a period of great suffering and apostasy. We find this “already/not yet” tension in the writings of Paul and in the words of Jesus.
Peter’s “last days” fits the expectation that the disciples had entered an interim era between the first and the second comings of the Messiah, called to testify to the nations by the eschatological gift of the Spirit. The very affirmation that the Christ had come constituted the basis for a realized eschatology alongside a future one.
All Flesh (“On All People”)
In Acts 2:17, the phrase translated as “on all people” would more literally translate to “all flesh.” The translation, however, accurately captures the intended meaning of the phrase—particularly how Peter intends it. Clearly Acts teaches that Joel’s prophecy of the Spirit is not only for the apostles, but for all of Christ’s followers. Luke undoubtedly interprets “all flesh” as referring not simply to the men and women, young and old, and servants stated in Joel 2:28-29 but to people from all nations.
Calling on the Lord’s Name
The Joel quotation ends with everyone “calling on the name of the Lord.” The expression “call on the Lord’s name” was familiar in Jewish texts, generally referring to praying to him or praising him. The term carried additional punch at the time, since it is also the expression that would have been used to make a formal appeal to Caesar.
Peter will expand on this phrase, making clear that this Lord upon which people must call is Jesus, they must do so particularly during baptism. In Greek, the term for Lord was kurios or (kyrios). In the Old Testament, this title generally referred to God. It is partly because the word kurios is not specific that the early church is able to apply it to Jesus and also make an equivalence with God Almighty.
Notice how early this high christological understanding appears in the narrative. Jesus is not understood as God progressively throughout the history of the early church. For Luke, God the Father is “Lord” (Acts 2:20, 39; 3:19-20, 22; 4:25-26, 29), but Christ also receives this title by exaltation (1:21; 2:36; 4: 33; 5:14; 9:1); Jesus receives faith (Acts 3:16) and prayer (7:59) and is the world’s judge (10:42; 17:31). Contrary to what some scholars would expect, most of the uses of “Lord” for Jesus in Acts appear in the first half of the book and hence are attributed to the Jerusalem church. In fact, this view of Jesus as God is found early in the gospels. For example, we encounter it in the story of John the Baptist declaring that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit—clearly a role of God and God alone. We may still wonder how Peter came to this high christology when he does not seem to “get it” in the gospels. Luke probably expects his audience to infer Peter’s further learning during the forty days of resurrection appearances in Acts 1:3.
Jesus and His Powerful Signs and Wonders
In verse 22, Peter again invites the audience to listen—to pay attention. In typical rhetorical style, this frames the exhortation to come.
Peter opens this new section of the speech with a mention of Jesus and then with a sort of proof—the signs and wonders. We must remember that in the gospels, signs are central to demonstrating Jesus’ identity and his relationship with the father. Notice also that Peter is connecting the signs and miracles attested in the gospels to those prophesied in Joel (verse 19), bolstering the point that the end times have come.
The pairing of signs and wonders appears elsewhere in the New Testament, probably always evoking the Old Testament story of Moses. (This pairing appears elsewhere in the Old Testament, but the most recognizable and iconic story would be that of Moses.) The narrative of Moses is found in Exodus, but below I quote the summary provided in Deuteronomy.
No prophet ever again arose in Israel like Moses, who knew the Lord face to face. He did all the signs and wonders the Lord had sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, all his servants, and the whole land, and he displayed great power and awesome might in view of all Israel. Deuteronomy 34:10-11
Notice that one would not expect Diaspora Jewish visitors to be as familiar with Jesus’s signs as Galileans or some Jerusalemites, but Luke seems to imply that the word had spread far and wide.
Jesus’ Death and God’s Plan
Peter clarifies that Jesus did not die by surprise. This is a point we discussed extensively during out study of John, so I will keep it brief. Particularly in verse 23, Peter highlights the fulfillment-of-prophecy theme and summarizes the Gospel’s plot as a part of God’s larger plan in salvation history. God’s sovereignty stands even behind the very political powers and treacherous actions that brought about Jesus’s death.
Luke is sometimes accused of minimizing the cross and focusing almost exclusively on the resurrection. This misunderstands Luke. Notice that Peter’s speech begins with cross—it was a key part of God’s salvific plan. There is simply no need to explain the cross. His audience was well aware of the brutal, shameful execution by Roman crucifixion. Moreover, the resurrection is what proves the significance of the cross, so highlighting the resurrection makes sense in a context of speeches and arguments.
Peter charges the “men of Israel” with Jesus’s death. Presumably, he does so because of the participation of the crowds and the leaders. Sometimes, Christians and non-Christians alike accuse Luke (and Peter and John) of antisemitism. Forgive my strong language, but such a charge is ridiculous. First, Biblical prophets often denounced Israel as a whole. And Jewish people understood well the notion of corporate responsibility and its demands for atonement or restitution. Second, speaking in collective terms, particularly in relation to nations, does not imply an inherently negative view of individual people. For example, in modern day we speak of Russia invading Ukraine. Or more poignantly, we may say “Russians” invaded Ukraine. This by no means entails that individual Russians are somehow predisposed (e.g., genetically) to be invaders.
Notice that Peter gives the “men of Israel” no breaks. Not only does he fault them directly for the death of Jesus but claims that they have killed Jesus by the hands of the Gentiles—literally “lawless men.” The lawless were Romans and other Gentiles who did not acknowledge God’s law. In other words, Peter is accusing audience, which presumably prided itself of its obedience to the Torah, of getting in bed with those who rejected the Torah. Peter held no punches, using deeply offensive rhetoric. (Peter’s use of the phrase “by the hand” of another to commit the crime is also reminiscent of Old Testament passages were someone sought to kill another but avoid personal guilt.) In this Bible study, I try not to make overly broad prescriptive conclusions from the text, so I will not claim that we ought to take homiletic lessons from Peter’s speech. But I think we can safely say that one is not necessarily wrong to be offensive for the sake of the gospel.
Released from Death and Psalm 16
Summary. In Acts 2:25-36, Peter makes an argument from Scripture that the risen one is the Lord (2: 25– 31, 34– 35), an argument from the testimony of eyewitnesses and the Spirit’s present confirmation that Jesus has risen (2: 32– 33), with the resulting conclusion that Jesus is the Lord (2: 36).
Although Jesus’s death is pivotal, Peter’s speech focuses on the resurrection. Resurrection is a theme in the speeches in Acts, even more so than in the gospels.
Peter begins this new section of his speech pointing out that Jesus was delivered from the pains or “pangs” of death. (The term translated pains is frequently used to describe pains associated with giving birth, which is why the translation “pangs” is appropriate.) Deliverance from the “pangs of death” alludes to Psalm 16, “inviting” it as part of the argument. Peter will then explain psalm 16 by connecting it to anoher—Psalm 110. (Peter does this using gezerah shevah on the premise that similar language among the psalms might convey related ideas or at least evoke related feelings.) The quoted section of Psalm 16 is:
‘I saw the Lord always in front of me,
for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced;
my body also will live in hope,
because you will not leave my soul in Hades,
nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of joy with your presence.’
The way that New Testament writers understood the original meaning of certain Old Testament passages can be perplexing. For example, one is not certain whether Peter believed that the psalm referred simply to David’s restoration of health but its basic principle could be subject to a greater fulfillment, or if Peter believed that the psalm was always about the resurrection of the Messiah, which encouraged David that death would not separate him from God. One may argue that the first interpretation (that the psalm refers to David’s restoration of health) is the obvious, plain reading of the text. However, not only Peter and the early church, but later rabbis interpreted the passage eschatologically.
One scholar argues that even though the psalmist had no prediction of a messiah’s resurrection in mind, the New Testament teaching of the resurrection from the dead and the thoughts which here occupy the mind of the psalmist are based on the same fundamental conviction, namely, an unshakable belief in the life-giving power of God.
Lord at the Right Hand
Luke and other New Testament authors affirm that Christ is at the Father’s right hand. The idea was pervasive in early Christianity, making it into the Apostle’s Creed. Presumably, the idea is based on Psalms 16 and 110.
The language of the right hand is often used metaphorically. Most ancients associated the left hand with dishonor (although being at a king’s left hand was still a position of honor). A temporary seat at a ruler’s right hand was a position of honor, but this was still more the case if the seat was permanent. The position at the right hand of the throne invested its holder with delegated authority to act for the ruler.
Joy
The theme of joy in Acts 2:28) is probably deliberate. After all, Luke could have skipped this part of the quotation.
Rejoicing characterizes the early church following Pentecost. The theme of joy appears in momentous events such as miracle working, suffering in hope of divine vindication, celebrating eternal life, celebrating others’ conversions, and celebrating other good news. Joy was sometimes empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Notice that, as explained above, Peter hits the crowd hard. However, he does not do so to leave them in disgrace or despair but to invite them into joy.
Hades and Decay
A key part of Peter’s argument (which Luke repeats later in Acts) is the idea that the Holy One was not left in Hades, and he did not see decay. That Jesus was no longer in “Hades” (emphasized again in 2:31) simply means that he was no longer dead. (The mention of Hades is both rhetorically colorful and it provides a contrast with heaven.)
If the soul was in Hades, then the body would decay. Hence, Hades and decay are both pointing towards death. However, notice that (as some Christians suggest) even if Hades were a metaphor for nonexistence (not its typical usage in ancient texts), the experience of death for the body here, though parallel and related, does not appear identical to that for the soul. As evidenced by the psalm, early Judaism often accepted this differentiation between the soul and the body.
Conclusion—Jesus Is the One Who Lives, Jesus is the Exalted King
Finally, Peter argues that David, having died and been buried yet not having ascended, cannot be the true fulfillment of Psalm 16. Rather, both the apostles as eyewitnesses and the outpoured Spirit attest that Jesus has risen and ascended to God’s right hand. Therefore Jesus is the Lord of Psalm 16—the “Christ,” the ultimate Davidic king.
Peter’s line of argumentation was typical at the time. A teacher who wanted to argue that a psalm (or any other text) applied in a way other than what it seemed to claim literally could begin by showing that the apparent literal meaning was not fulfilled. That David (in contrast to, e.g., Moses or Ezra) died, was not disputed. Peter can point out the obvious: the tomb is in plain view among them, and David has not vacated it. We must also keep in mind that to use David as a sort of title for the messiah was not unusual. The Old Testament is full of such uses.
Nevertheless, Peter makes his argument respectfully. His use of the phrase, “I can speak confidently” (sometimes translated as “I may say boldly”), can mean something like “Do not be offended if I point out.”
Peter emphasizes that David spoke not of himself but in his role as a prophet. Probably many Jewish teachers would have shared the assumption that prophets spoke especially of the messianic era.
Peter completes his argument by mentioning God’s promises to David, including the promise of his kingship (2 Sam 3:9) and his continuing seed (Ps 132:11).
Christ’s Exaltation and Psalm 110
Summary. If Jesus is in God’s presence (Acts 2:25, 29), Peter can infer for his hearers that Jesus is in heaven. Peter bolsters his argument with Psalm 110. If Jesus is already enthroned at the Father’s right hand, then he has begun his messianic reign, and hence the messianic age has begun and the messianic blessings have been given.
Jesus and the Spirit
On the theological level, the Spirit’s outpouring stems from Christ’s exaltation (Acts 2:33).
Notice that in verse 33 Jesus “pours out” the Spirit. This is a clear allusion to God’s pouring out the Spirit in 2:17-18 (the only other passage in Luke-Acts using that expression). Jewish texts also speak of God’s pouring out wisdom as his gift. Wisdom would also sit by God’s throne. Again, notice the high Christology. If Jesus is the Spirit-baptizer, he takes on a divine role in light of the Old Testament, where only God can pour out God’s Spirit (e.g., Isaiah 44:3).
Acts 2:33 is among the most important for understanding Luke’s Christology and pneumatology and their relationship with each other. According to Acts, Jesus is enthroned as Messiah and now reigns in his church by the Spirit. Instead of an absentee Christology, by relating the Spirit to Jesus in the way Jewish people had understood the Spirit’s relationship to God, Luke takes the reader beyond anything Judaism conceived of the messiah.
The Exalted Lord
Peter shows that David, being dead and buried, could not fulfill the promise of resurrection or incorruption in Psalm 16. Then Peter produces another key text that David could not fulfill—Psalm 110. Peter claims that it is self-evident that Psalm 110, with which Peter links Psalm 16, cannot apply to David both because David did not ascend and because he speaks of his Lord.
As Psalm 110 shows, the exaltation of Jesus involves sitting at the right hand of God. Jesus’s position here is familiar in terms of a viceroy or vizier. Sometimes this position could apply to a son installed or functioning as coregent. For example, Titus dictated letters and edicts in his father’s name and publicly read his speeches.
“Lord”
As a title for the Messiah, “Lord” predates Luke’s writings. For example, the pre-Christian work called the Psalms of Solomon speaks of the “Lord Messiah.” That is, the basic line of interpretation was established even before Jesus. Christian sources differ from this pre-Christian tradition only in associating this title with Jesus’s deity.
The church’s use of the title “Lord” for Jesus was certainly dominant well before Luke wrote (and before the later speeches in Acts would have occurred). It is Paul’s primary title for Jesus and appears in every part of early Christianity
In Psalm 110, if one assumes Davidic authorship for the psalm, as most first-century hearers would have done, “my Lord” becomes someone greater than David (the greatest king). A midrashic connection to Ps 16:2 also suggests the deity of “my lord,” as it is addressed directly to God. This fits the exposition here, where this “Lord” bears the specific divine name on which hearers must call to be saved.
His Footstools
The remainder of the quotation in Acts 2:35 is hardly simple decoration. Although Peter’s primary point in quoting Psalm 110 is Christology, it also support his eschatology. In this eschatology, Jesus’s present reign is an interim period until its consummation.
First-century readers would still understand the metaphor of enemies being made a footstool. Prisoners had long been symbolically “trampled underfoot,” as lavishly illustrated, for example, by Egyptian royal sandals with bound prisoners portrayed on the soles.
Conclusion: Lord and Christ
Speakers commonly provided a final summation of their argument. That’s the case in Acts 2:36. The proclamatory “Let all the house of Israel know” fits such a climax. Jesus is the “Lord” of in Joel’s passage (Acts 2:21) by way of Psalm 110 (Acts 2:34-35). By way of Psalm 16, he is “Christ” (Acts 2: 31)—that is, the king from David’s line.
That Jesus is Messiah (i.e., Israel’s king) and that he is Lord at God’s right hand are truth claims that demand universal allegiance; that is, they demand the response of all humanity. Notice that this response could costly. “King” was a dangerous title in the Roman world. (“Lord” could be construed in less political, purely religious terms.)
The closing reference to Peter’s hearers crucifying their own king invites a response. The plural pronoun “you” is emphatic in 2:36.
The Response
The crowd is persuaded by Peter. Contrite over killing their own graciously God-given king, the crowd asks what to do. Peter summons them to repentance, as in the prophets, and to call on Jesus’s name in a baptism involving such repentance. God’s promise to them is the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:38 and 3:19, Peter preaches repentance like the Old Testament prophets calling Israel to return. The biblical prophets summoned Israel to “turn” or “return” to the Lord. Individuals needed to turn from wickedness to righteousness, that is, change their lifestyle, not merely indulge in guilty feelings. Early Judaism heavily emphasized the value of repentance.
Although the very deep emotional response described here (“struck to the heart”) produces a favorable behavioral response, Luke provides two other occasions where, by contrast, the emotional response provoked deadly hostility (Acts 5:33; 7:54).
I think that we are so used to our current Christian world, we simply assume that joining a religious movement involves repentance. This was not the case at the time (and it is not the case today with many non-Abrahamic religions). Gentiles did not speak much of moral repentance in light of religion. Joining a new mystery cult simply supplemented one’s previous religious experience.
Because God’s “kingdom” was his reign, those who turned to embrace his reign were accepting a new king. Genuine faith in Jesus as Lord requires acknowledgment of his lordship and beginning to adjust to its practical demands.
Baptism
Just as John the Baptist preached a baptism symbolizing or effecting repentance, so now does Peter. One Jewish use of baptism in antiquity was as an act of conversion (as part of the process of conversion), although Jewish people traditionally applied this function of immersion only to Gentiles. Peter here demands a conversion no less radical, but from members of his own people who must likewise turn to Israel’s God and the divinely appointed king, Jesus.
The “forgiveness of sins” is explicitly associated especially with repentance in Acts and in Luke. Most importantly, Jesus’ final command to the disciples in the Gospel of Luke was that of preaching repentance.
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:45-49
One could debate to what extent forgiveness of sins is also associated with baptism (i.e., the act of baptism itself as distinct from repentance). Some of the arguments are based on the grammar of the text we just read. Those arguments are complex and, frankly, beyond me. Besides, grammar alone is probably not dispositive of the issue. If we surveyed texts in Luke and Acts relating to forgiveness, we would find that forgiveness is more often associated with repentance than baptism, and repentance is never missing when baptism is mentioned with forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that for Luke baptism is not dissociated from repentance. At least under normal circumstances, one does not separate the two.
As I remarked above, we live in such a Christianized age, we are not surprised by facts that ought to surprise us. The fact that Jesus’ followers used baptism as the initiation rite is unexpected. Ritual lustrations were common throughout the ancient world. Various temples had their own rules mandating ritual purity. The early Jewish practice of ritual washings was widespread long before the time of the Jesus movement. Although such Jewish lustrations and their broader cultural background provide a context for John’s and early Christian baptism, they cannot define them. John’s baptism in the Synoptic tradition was initiatory and eschatological, a baptism of repentance in light of the coming kingdom of God. The Qumran community practiced initiatory baptism, but unlike for early Christians, the initial baptism at Qumran was apparently viewed only as the first among many.
The closest Jewish parallel to John’s and early Christian baptism, namely, proselyte baptism, a specific and extremely potent form of ritual purification. Major differences naturally distinguish John’s baptism from proselyte baptism, including the former’s public and eschatological orientation and particularly its summoning of Jews as well as Gentiles to turn to Israel’s God. However, the conversion ritual provided a clear, symbolic line of demarcation between a proselyte’s Gentile past and Jewish present, much like the baptism suggested in Acts.
In Jesus Name
Peter calls his audience to be baptized in Jesus’ name. Jewish people were known for “calling on the Lord’s name,” and the more specific application to Jesus would be striking. (Again, this reveals a high Christology.) But what does the phrase mean? Baptism “in Jesus’s name” distinguishes this baptism from other Jewish immersion practices noted above, with respect to its object. That is, it clarifies the convert’s new allegiance.
We should also note that for Luke, baptism in Jesus’s name does not involve a ritual formula uttered over an initiate but the new believer’s calling on the name of Jesus. In Luke’s writings, the verb to baptize (βαίτίζω) appears in both passive and active forms. However, in the formula “in the name of Jesus,” it appears only with passive uses of the verb. Put simply, I do not baptize you, you are baptized. This indicates that the formula has to do with receiving rather than giving. This is not to argue that early Christians would not have cared who supervised baptisms.
The Promise of the Spirit
Luke recalls earlier teachings about the Spirit through his terms “gift” and “promise.”. By noting that the promise is for others, he makes the proper response for the present crowd (namely, repentance and baptism in Jesus’s name) and the gift of the Spirit paradigmatic for all subsequent believers. By alluding to “far-off” Gentiles by way of Isaiah’s language, Luke also reiterates the prominence of the Spirit for the Gentile mission.
By concluding that the gift was available to “as many as God calls,” Luke clearly echoes the end of Joel 2:32, completing the quotation interrupted in Acts 2:21.
It will so happen that
everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered.
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive,
just as the Lord has promised;
the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call.
Summary and Exhortation
Verse 2:40 (“[w]ith many other words he testified”) probably means that Luke skips through many supplementary proofs and arguments provided by Peter. Instead, Luke’s narrative moves quickly the final exhortation and emotional appeal: “Save yourselves!” This restates briefly the speech’s central idea. The immediate referent of “save” here is Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2:21: whoever calls on the Lord’s name will be saved. Therefore this salvation at least includes deliverance from God’s eschatological wrath and destruction, available through Christ.
For Peter’s hearers to save themselves from the generation’s wickedness was not, as some later Gentile Christian interpreters would have it, a summons to leave Israel and their Jewishness; rather, it was a summons to leave their rebellion against God, like a repeated prophetic summons to Israel in the Old Testament.
Peter’s term γενεά (genea) means here a temporal “generation,” not (as some would interpret it) “race” (γένος). By calling the generation crooked here, Peter is appealing to the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy 32:5. Peter’s point is an exhortation not to harden their hearts as their ancestors did in the wilderness.
Peter thus continues the preaching tradition followed by John the Baptist, underlining the continuity of salvation history and of the saving message.