Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 is critically important since it demonstrates how the apostles interpreted the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, including the Ascension. Peter uses the Old Testament in this sermon and cites texts which were fulfilled in the events of Jesus’ life, but also in the events of Pentecost.
Peter first explains the significance of the Holy Spirit (2:14-21). Beginning with a prophecy from Joel 2:28-32, Peter states that the presence of the Spirit in the apostles at that moment is what Joel predicted. In short, it is proof that the New Covenant has begun! Several other texts from the Hebrew Bible indicate that the Spirit of God would fall upon his people when the New Age begins (Isa 32:14-15, 44:3; Ezek 11:19, 37:14).
Second, Peter explains that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the purpose of God in his death and was vindicated by God in his resurrection and ascension (2:22-35). The life of Jesus is summarized simply by stating that Jesus was from Nazareth and he was confirmed by God through many miracles. Since this is a summary of the actual sermon, it is entirely possible Peter illustrated this point with his personal experience and witness. Remember that the main theme of chapter one was that the twelve were to be witnesses of these events!
There are several words used to describe the miracles (signs and wonders). Signs is the most significant, since σημειον (semeion) typically refers to a miracle done to prove some sort of point, to make some sort of revelation. Peter states that God did the miracles through Jesus, not that Jesus himself did the miracles. He adds “as you yourselves know,” indicating that at least some of the crowd were witnesses to the miracles of Jesus. It is equally likely that the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans as a rebel was well known by the crowds in Jerusalem.
But Jesus is not dead – God raised him from the dead in fulfillment of prophecy. Peter goes about proving the resurrection quite a bit differently than we do today. He does not mention the empty tomb or challenge the Pharisees to produce a body to prove that Jesus was really dead. Rather than pursue modern logical arguments, he turns to the Psalms and shows that David does not exhaust the meaning of the text. Since the messiah is to be a new David, the psalms Peter cites are turning into prophecies of Jesus’ resurrection.
Before looking at Peter’s use of the Psalms, I want to pause and think a bit about what Peter is claiming here. He is clearly saying that the messianic age has in some way already begun. The Spirit has been poured out on those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The dead have already been raised. Miracles are in fact happening. Remember that the crowd assembled to hear this sermon are religiously observant Jews who are spending time in the Temple during a religious feast. Peter is claiming that the age anticipated in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve is beginning at that moment!
If this is on the right track, what might a religiously observant and biblical educated Jew in the first century have expected, if the messianic age was beginning? I suspect the crowd had a more than a few people with rather fervent messianic hopes. They might have expected Israel to be re-gathered from the nations to Mount Zion to worship the Lord. It is not a surprise, then, to find that Jews from all over the world who believe in Jesus as Messiah settle in Jerusalem to prepare themselves for his soon return.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 25, 2011 at 10:13 am
shaun
What would a “religiously observant and biblical educated Jew” expect from a messiah is an almost double question. First and foremost, they were looking for a king. Some would be looking for a priest as well, but most likely not together. So for Jews assembling on pentecost listening to Peter preach were most likely looking for a Messiah that would come as a king and lead the revolt against the Romans. In a sense they would be looking for another Judas Maccabes.
January 25, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Jason Magnuson
I would have to disagree with you Shaun. Peter is clearly talking about Jesus Christ, whom the people would have undoubtedly known as the rebel who was crucified as P. Long stated. That being said, Jesus was a failed revolutionary in the eyes of the people. Another thing that indicates differently is that they repented from their sins. A warrior Messiah would not have necessarily required this act but rather people to take up arms and fight for him. Peter makes no claim of readying the people for war or revolution but drives home the point that the people need to prepare their hearts and transform their lives in accordance to what Jesus taught.
The resurrection that is being preached is central to Peter’s sermon. The resurrection proves at the very least that Jesus is more than just a failed revolutionary. What it proves is that Jesus is exactly who he said he was: the Messiah. Only God has power over death, and prior to this event, death was absolute. If you died, you stayed dead. Jesus breaks this cycle by raising dead people and upon his own death, coming back to life. Not only this but we see later that the apostles have the power to raise the dead, thus fulfilling the scriptures that Peter quotes in his appeal to the people. The fact that 3,000 people were added to their number that day speaks volumes of the validity of Peters words.
January 25, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Phillip J. Long
Good response, Jason, but let me point out that “The fact that 3,000 people were added to their number that day speaks volumes of the validity of Peter’s words” is not really Luke’s point — that 3000 people accepted Jesus as Messiah and savior is because of the power of the Holy Spirit, not Peter’s persuasive speech.
January 25, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Cary J. Boehm
I dislike saying that I agree with what someone is saying on a post because it seems like I am taking sides. However, this is not the case. I have the same view as Jason does on this topic. Peter is declaring that Jesus is the Messiah. He was the one that publicly denied that He was the Messiah. In verse 14, Peter addresses the crowd to explain everything that has happened and that Jesus was indeed the Christ. Explaining that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (21). He even spoke of the prophet David that died and was buried. However, he new that God had “promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne” (30). “He was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear” (33).
January 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Shaun
Jason and Cary, I agree that Peter did an excellent job at presenting the gospel. As you pointed out 3000 were added that day. However, I still maintain those that came to listen that were looking for a kingly messiah. That is why I referenced Judas Maccabee. I do not believe that they were thinking to begin with that messiah was saving them like we understand it until after they were converted. After all if they were looking for a resurrected Jesus, why would Peter have had to convert them?
January 25, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Phillip J. Long
I agree Shaun, but your comments need a little clarification. In a crowd of more than 3000, some would have been expecting a Messiah-King. It is entirely possible there was a fair percentage who did not believe in any messiah at all, or a priestly messiah, or several other variations on what Messiah was thought to be in the first century. There is no “one belief” on what the messiah was to be or what the messiah was to do. Peter has a unique view here – Messiah was going to suffer and die on behalf of Israel, and then return again at some point in the future.
January 25, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Stefan
This sermon that Peter gives is the first evangelism, of a Christian to a Jew that is noted in the Bible. Peter knew how to approach a Jew and how to witness to them and that would be with the use of history and prophecy. It is interesting how Arnold noted pg. 19 that Peter is making this claim that David knew about Jesus and what he was going to do when he said it in Psalms 16:9-11, well at least that is the section that Peter is quoted to have said. Neither the less people got the point and accepted and repented. But it is important to note that Peter used mentioned history and prophecy that many good Jews would have known about and that would be David and his prophecies.
January 25, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Phillip J. Long
I think that the question of how Peter got to the point where he could interpret Ps 16 as messianic is important. I suggest that Jesus may have taught him this during the post-resurrection period.
January 25, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Kelli
Peter did a great job preaching but I believe that he stood up and preached like he did because at Jesus’ crucifixion he denied Jesus three times like Jesus said he would and he was feeling maybe guilty about that and so when people were saying all that stuff maybe he felt that he wanted to stand up for Christ now that he could. I would probably feel really guilty for denying Christ three times especially after Jesus said that I would and then I actually did, I would feel small and insignificant so I would probably do the same.
January 25, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Stephenie A.
I agree with Stefan on this point, Peter was appealing to the crowd that was assembled, trying to make them understand what they have done to Jesus. In verse 36 he says “Therefore let all of Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” The crowd can relate to what Peter is saying at this point because they were all raised as Jews. The fact that 3000 were added to their numbers is God’s way of using Peter as a tool, and using him as an example of forgiveness and God’s perfect love towards us.
January 25, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Jessica Daugherty
The Jews would have been looking for the king to establish the kingdom. They believed that the things that were happening at the time were signs directed towards when the kingdom was going to be put into place. Arnold makes the comment that, since this was the time for the Feast of Weeks, there could have been almost a million Jews in Jerusalem (p. 15). I think Peter used this to his advantage, or rather God had this all planned out from the beginning so that His name would be glorified. But Peter did not allow the opportunity to pass to explain to them the One who was crucified was the Messiah; like Jason said, He broke the chain of what normally happens after death. It says in 2:27, referring to what David had wrote, that He would not stay in the grave nor would His body see decay. I also liked what Stefan mentioned–that he used history that the Jews would have been very acquainted with. This also played a major part in them understanding and ultimately believing in Christ. If he would have told them things that had no weight or importance to them they may not have been so receptive and willing to change.
January 25, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Katelynd
I really like where Kelli was going with the aspect of Peter feeling guilty after denying Jesus three times, and feeling like he needs to redeem himself. I do see the view that Shaun was saying about and educated Jew looking for two things, however, I believe Peter was definitely talking about Jesus being the Messiah. I mean put yourself in Peter’s shoes, he did not just deny or betray another disciple, he betrayed the big man himself, Jesus! I know that if I EVER did that I too would want to redeem myself and make sure that people knew Jesus was the Messiah!!