"The miraculous is not self-authenticating, nor does it inevitably and uniformly convince. There must also be the preparation of the heart and the proclamation of the message if miracles are to accomplish their full purpose. This was true even for the miracle of the Spirit's coming at Pentecost. . . . All this prepares the reader for Peter's sermon, which is the initial proclamation of the gospel message to a prepared people."118
Barclay pointed out four different kinds of preaching that the early Christians practiced,119and I would add two more. The first is kerugma, which means proclamation of the clear facts of the Christian message. The second is didacheor teaching. This was explanation and interpretation of the facts--the "so what?"Third, there was paraklesis, exhortation to apply the message. Fourth, there was homilia, the treatment of a subject or area of life in view of the Christian message. Fifth, there was prophesia, the sharing of a word from God be it new revelation or old. Sixth, there was apologia, a defense of the Christian message in the face of hostile adversaries. Often the speaker combined two or more of these kinds of address into one message as Peter did in the sermon that follows. Here we find defense (vv. 14-21), proclamation (vv. 22-36), and exhortation (vv. 37-41).
2:14-15 Peter, again representing the apostles (cf. 1:15), addressed the assembled crowd. He probably gave this speech in the Temple outer courtyard (the court of the Gentiles). He probably spoke in the vernacular, Aramaic or Koine (common) Greek, rather than in tongues. Peter had previously denied that he knew Jesus, but now he was publicly representing Him. The apostle distinguished two types of Jews in his audience: native Jews living within the province of Judea, and all who were living in Jerusalem. The Diaspora contingent was probably the group most curious about the tongues phenomenon. Peter began by refuting the charge of drunkenness. It was too early in the day for that since it was only 9:00 a.m.120
"Unfortunately, this argument was more telling in antiquity than today."121
"Scrupulous Jews drank wine only with flesh, and, on the authority of Ex. xvi. 8, ate bread in the morning and flesh only in the evening. Hence wine could be drunk only in the evening. This is the point of Peter's remark."122
2:16-21 Was Peter claiming that the Spirit's outpouring on the day of Pentecost fulfilled Joel's prophecy (Joel 2:28-32)? Conservative commentators express considerable difference of opinion on this point. This is an interpretive problem because not only Joel but other Old Testament prophets prophesied that God would give His Spirit to individual believers in the future (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Zech. 12:10). Moreover John the Baptist also predicted the pouring out of God's Spirit on believers (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33).
Some commentators believe that Peter was claiming that all of what Joel prophesied happened that day.
"The fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel which the people had just witnessed was a sign of the beginning of the Messianic age . . ."123
"What was happening was to be seen as the fulfillment of a prophecy by Joel. . . . Peter regards Joel's prophecy as applying to the last days, and claims that his hearers are now living in the last days. God's final act of salvation has begun to take place."124
"For Peter, this outpouring of the Spirit began the period known in Scripture as the last days' or the last hour' (1 John 2:18), and thus the whole Christian era is included in the expression."125
Other scholars believe God fulfilled Joel's prophecy only partially. Ironside and Hodges, for example, believed that He fulfilled verses 17-18 on the day of Pentecost, but He will yet fulfill verses 19-21 in the future.126I believe Toussaint's explanation falls into this category.
"This clause does not mean, This is likethat'; it means Pentecost fulfilled what Joel had described. However, the prophecies of Joel quoted in Acts 2:19-20 were not fulfilled. The implication is that the remainder would be fulfilled if Israel would repent."127
Others believe that this was a partial fulfillment but in a different sense. They hold that the eschatological age had begun but that the complete fulfillment of Joel's prophecy awaited the return of Christ to the earth. They regard "the last days"as referring to the eschatological era that Jesus inaugurated at His first advent but will be realized only at His second advent.
"Certainly the outpouring of the Spirit on a hundred and twenty Jews could not in itself fulfill the prediction of such outpouring upon all flesh'; but it was the beginning of the fulfillment."128
Still others believe Peter was not claiming the fulfillment of any of Joel's prophecy. They believe he was only comparing what had happened with what would happen in the future as Joel predicted.
"Peter was not saying that the prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost or even that it was partially fulfilled; knowing from Joel what the Spirit could do, he was simply reminding the Jews that they should have recognized what they were then seeing as a work of the Spirit also. He continued to quote from Joel at length only in order to be able to include the salvation invitation recorded in verse 21."129
"It seems quite obvious that Peter did not quote Joel's prophecy in the sense of its fulfillment in the events of Pentecost, but purely as a prophetic illustration of those events. As a matter of fact, to avoid confusion, Peter's quotation evidently purposelygoes beyond any possible fulfillment at Pentecost by including events in the still future day of the Lord, preceding kingdom establishment (Acts 2:19-20). . . . In the reference there is not the slightest hint at a continual fulfillment during the church age or a coming fulfillment toward the end of the church age."130
"Virtually nothing that happened in Acts 2 is predicted in Joel 2. What actually did happen in Acts two (the speaking in tongues) was not mentioned by Joel. What Joel did mention (dreams, visions, the sun darkened, the moon turned into blood) did not happen in Acts two. Joel was speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the whole of the nation of Israel in the last days, while Acts two speaks of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Twelve Apostles or, at most, on the 120 in the Upper Room. This is a far cry from Joel's all flesh. However, there was one point of similarity, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in unusual manifestations. Acts two does not change or reinterpret Joel two, nor does it deny that Joel two will have a literal fulfillment when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on the whole nation of Israel. It is simply applying it to a New Testament event because of one point of similarity."131
I prefer this last view and find confirmation of it in the fact that Peter did not use the word "fulfilled"in verse 16. He said only that Joel had "spoken of"the phenomenon his hearers had witnessed. However, some writers have pointed out that the phrase "this is what"(touto estin to) was a particular type of expression called a "pesher."
"His use of the Joel passage is in line with what since the discovery of the DSS [Dead Sea Scrolls] we have learned to call a pesher' (from Heb. peser, interpretation'). It lays all emphasis on fulfillment without attempting to exegete the details of the biblical prophecy it interprets.'"132
Did Peter use these words as a pesher formula, or did he use them to distinguish a similarity from a fulfillment? It seems to me that he did the latter. Peter was, after all, not a rabbi but a fisherman. Therefore it seems unlikely that he would have used a sophisticated linguistic device that could have been misinterpreted. Moreover in his previous speech (1:16-22), he argued from analogy. There he called it fulfillment (1:16). Here his argument seems to be another analogy. He seems to have been claiming that what God had predicted through Joel for the end times was analogous to the events of Pentecost. The omission of "fulfilled"here seems deliberate to help his hearers avoid concluding that what was happening was the fulfillment of what Joel predicted. It was only similar to what Joel predicted.
Peter made a significant change in Joel's prophecy as he quoted it from the Septuagint, and this change supports the view that he was not claiming fulfillment. First, he changed "after this"(Joel 2:28) to "in the last days"(Acts 2:17). In the context of Joel's prophecy the time in view is the day of the Lord: the Tribulation (Joel 2:30-31) and the Millennium (Joel 2:28-29). Peter interpreted this time as the last days. Many modern interpreters believe that when Peter said "the last days"he meant the days in which he lived. However, he was not in the Tribulation or the Millennium. Thus he looked forward to the last days as being future.133
There are some similarities between what Joel prophesied would come "after this"(Joel 2:28) and what happened on Pentecost. The similarities are why Peter quoted Joel. Yet the differences are what enable us to see that this prophecy was not fulfilled then. For example, God had not poured out His Spirit on "all mankind"(v. 17), as He will in the future. He had only poured out His Spirit on believers in Jesus. Joel referred to deliverance in the Tribulation (Joel 2:32), but Peter applied this offer to those who needed salvation in his audience. Joel referred to Yahweh as the LORD, but Peter probably referred to Jesus as the Lord (cf. 1:24).
Progressive dispensationalists understand Peter as saying that Joel's prophecy was fulfilled initially on Pentecost. Baptism with the Spirit, which would mark the eschatological kingdom age (Joel 2:28), had begun. Therefore the kingdom had come in its first phase, which they view as the church.134Other aspects of Joel's prophecy will find fulfillment after Jesus begins His reign on earth.
Not all normative dispensationalists agree on the interpretation. Some of them, like Toussaint, see a partial fulfillment on Pentecost, while others, like Ryrie, see no fulfillment then. How one views the church will affect how he or she understands this passage. If one views the church as the first stage of the messianic kingdom, as progressive dispensationalists do, then he or she may see this as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the outpouring of the Spirit in the eschatological age. If one views the church as distinct from the messianic (Davidic) kingdom, then one may or may not see this as a partial fulfillment. It seems more consistent to me to see it not as a fulfillment but as a similar outpouring, specifically the one Jesus predicted in the Upper Room (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7). Some normative dispensationalists who hold this no fulfillment position distinguish baptism withthe Spirit, the future event, from baptism bythe Spirit, the Pentecost event.135There does not seem to be adequate exegetical basis for this distinction.136
"Realized eschatologists and amillennialists usually take Peter's inclusion of such physical imagery [i.e., "blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke,"and "the sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood"] in a spiritual way, finding in what happened at Pentecost the spiritual fulfillment of Joel's prophecy--a fulfillment not necessarily tied to any natural phenomena. This, they suggest, offers an interpretative key to the understanding of similar portrayals of natural phenomena and apocalyptic imagery in the OT."137
By repeating, "And they will prophesy"(v. 18), which is not in Joel's text, Peter stressed prophecy as a most important similarity between what Joel predicted and what his hearers were witnessing. God was revealing something new through the apostles. Peter proceeded to explain what that was.
Another variation of interpretation concerning the Joel passage that some normative dispensationalists espouse is this. They believe that Peter thought Joel's prophecy could have been fulfilled quite soon if the Jewish leaders had repented and believed in Jesus. This may be what Peter thought, but it is very difficult to be dogmatic about what might have been in Peter's mind when he did not explain it. Jesus had told the parable of the talents to correct those "who supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately"(Luke 19:11-27). He also predicted that "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [Jews], and given to a nation producing the fruit of it"(Matt. 21:43). Daniel predicted that seven years of terrible trouble were coming on the Jews (Dan. 9:24-27; cf. Matt. 24-25). There had to be at least seven years of tribulation between Jesus' ascension and His return. If advocates of this view are correct, Peter either did not know this, or he forgot it, or he interpreted the Tribulation as a judgment that God would not send if Israel repented. Of course, Peter did not understand, or he forgot, what the Old Testament revealed about God's acceptance of Gentiles (cf. ch. 10). Peter may have thought that Jesus would return and set up the kingdom immediately if the Jewish leaders repented, but I do not think that God was reoffering the kingdom to the Jew through Peter.138
In this part of his speech Peter cited three proofs that Jesus was the Messiah: His miracles (v. 22), His resurrection (vv. 23-32), and His ascension (vv. 33-35). Verse 36 is a summary conclusion.
2:22 Peter argued that God had attested to Jesus' Messiahship by performing miracles through Him. "Miracles"is the general word, which Peter defined further as wonders (miracles eliciting awe) and signs (miracles signifying something).139Jesus' miracles attested the fact that God had empowered Him (cf. John 3:2), and they led many people who witnessed them to conclude that He was the Son of David (Matt. 12:23). Others, however, chose to believe that He received His power from Satan rather than God (Matt. 12:24).
2:23 Peter pointed out that Jesus' crucifixion had been no accident but was part of God's eternal plan (cf. 3:18; 4:28; 13:29). Peter laid guilt for Jesus' death at the Jews' feet (cf. v. 36; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 7:52; 10:39; 13:28) and on the Gentile Romans (cf. 4:27; Luke 3:24-25). Note Peter's reference to both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in this verse. The ultimate cause of Jesus' death was God's plan and foreknowledge, but the secondary cause was the antagonism of godless Jewish and Roman men. Really the sins of every human being put Jesus onthe cross.
2:24 God, a higher Judge, reversed the decision of Jesus' human judges by resurrecting Him. God released Jesus' from the pangs of death (Gr. odinas tou thanatou), namely its awful clutches (cf. 2 Sam. 22:6; Ps. 18:4-6; 116:3). A higher court in heaven overturned the decision of the lower courts on earth. It was impossible for death to hold Jesus because He had committed no sins Himself. He had not personally earned the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23), but He voluntarily took upon Himself the sins of others.
2:25 Peter appealed to Psalm 16:8-11 to prove that David prophesied Messiah's resurrection in the Jewish Scriptures. Psalm 16 is perhaps the clearest prediction of Messiah's resurrection in the Old Testament. As earlier (1:20), Peter saw that Messiah's (Jesus') experiences fulfilled David's words.
In this Psalm David spoke of God as being at his right hand, a figure for close association and powerful assistance. Peter saw Jesus' presence in heaven at God's right hand as an extension of what David had written.
2:26 God's presence with David made him happy and hopeful. Likewise the fact that Jesus was now at God's right hand made Peter happy and hopeful.
2:27 David said he would not go to Hades (the place of departed spirits, Old Testament Sheol), and his body would not suffer decay. This was a poetic way of expressing his belief that God would not allow him to experience ultimate humiliation. David referred to himself as God's devout one. Peter saw this fulfilled literally in Jesus' resurrection from the grave after only three days. Jesus was the supremely devout one.
2:28 David ended this psalm by rejoicing that, in spite of his adversaries, God would spare his life and enable him to enjoy God's presence in the future. Peter interpreted these statements as referring to Jesus' entering into new life following His resurrection and into God's presence following His ascension.
"Peter quotes from Psalm 16, not to teach that Christ is on the Davidic throne, but rather to show that David predicted the resurrection and enthronement of Christ after His death. The enthronement on David's throne is a yet-future event while the enthronement at His Father's right hand is an accomplished fact."140
2:29-31 Peter next argued that David's words just quoted could not refer literally to David since David had indeed died and his body had undergone corruption. David's words were a prophecy that referred to Messiah as well as a description of his own experience. God's oath to place one of David's descendants on his throne as Israel's king is in Psalm 132:11 (cf. 2 Sam. 7:16).141
Peter did not say that Jesus now sits on David's throne (v. 30).142He said that David prophesied that God had sworn to seat a descendant of David on David's throne. Jesus now sits on a throne in heaven, but He has yet to sit on David's throne, which is a throne on earth. He will sit on David's throne when He returns to the earth to reign as Messiah.
2:32 Peter equated Jesus with the Christ (Messiah, v. 31). He also attributed Jesus' resurrection to God again (cf. v. 24). The resurrection of Jesus Christ was one of the apostles' strongest emphases (cf. 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 33-34, 37; 17:31; 26:23). They proceeded to bear witness to what they had seen and heard as Christ had commanded and foretold (1:8).
2:33 Peter next explained that it was Jesus, now at God's right hand, who had poured forth the promised Holy Spirit from the Father (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27). The evidence of this was the tongues of fire and demonstration of tongues that his audience saw and heard.
Peter mentioned all three members of the Trinity in this verse.
2:34-35 Peter then added a second evidence that Jesus was the Christ. He had proved that David had prophesied Messiah's resurrection (v. 27). Now he said that David also prophesied Messiah's ascension (Ps. 110:1). This was a passage from the Old Testament that Jesus had earlier applied to Himself (Matt. 22:43-44; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-42). It may have been Jesus' use of this passage that enabled His disciples to grasp the significance of His resurrection. It may also have served as the key to their understanding of these prophecies of Messiah in the Old Testament.143
David evidently meant that the LORD (Yahweh, God the Father) said the following to David's Lord (Adonai, Master, evidently a reference to Messiah or possibly Solomon).144Yahweh, the true King of Israel, extended the privilege of serving as His administrator to Messiah (or Solomon), His vice-regent. Yahweh included a promise that He would subdue His vice-regent's enemies. Peter took this passage as a prophecy about David's greatest son, Messiah. Yahweh said to David's Lord, Messiah, sit beside me and rule for me, and I will subdue your enemies. This is something God the Father said to God the Son. Peter understood David's reference to his Lord as extending to Messiah, David's ultimate descendant.
"Peter's statement that Jesus is presently at the right hand of God,' in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1, has been a focal point of disagreement between dispensational and non-dispensational interpreters. Traditional dispensationalists have understood this as teaching the present session of Christ in heaven before his return to fulfill the Davidic messianic kingdom promise of a literal reign on earth. They are careful to distinguish betweenthe Davidic throne and the position that Christ presently occupies in heaven at the right hand of God (Ac 2:30).145
"Non-dispensationalists, by contrast, see Peter's statement as a clear indication that the New Testament has reinterpreted the Davidic messianic prophecies. The messianic throne has been transferred from Jerusalem to heaven, and Jesus has begun his messianic reign as the Davidic king.'146"147
"This does not mean that Jesus is at the present time ruling from the throne of David, but that He is now at the right hand of the Father' until His enemies are vanquished (Acts 2:33-35)."148
". . . it is preferable to see David's earthly throne as different from the Lord's heavenly throne, because of the different contexts of Psalms 110 and 132. Psalm 110 refers to the Lord's throne (v. 1) and a Melchizedekian priesthood (v. 4) but Psalm 132 refers to David's throne (v. 11) and (Aaronic) priests (vv. 9, 16). . . .
"Because the Messiah is the anointed Descendant of David and the Davidic Heir, He presently possesses the right to reign though He has not yet assumed David's throne. This was also true of David, who assumed the throne over Israel years after he was anointed.
"Before Christ will be seated on David's throne (Ps. 110:2), He is seated at the right hand of God (v. 1). His present session is a position of honor and power, but the exercise of that power is restricted to what God has chosen to give the Son. God the Father reigns and has decreed that Christ dispense blessings from the Holy Spirit to believers in this present age. When Christ returns to earth to begin His messianic reign on David's throne, He will conquer His enemies (Ps. 110:2, 5-7). Until then, He is now seated at God's right hand (v. 1), exercising the decreed role of the Melchizedekian King-Priest (v. 4), the believer's great High Priest (Heb. 2:17; 4:14-15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21)."149
"Christ's enthronement at the time of His ascension was not to David's throne, but rather was a restoration to the position at His Father's right hand (Heb. 1:3; Acts 7:56), which position He had given up at the time of the Incarnation (Phil. 2:6-8). It was for this restoration that Christ had prayed to His Father in John 17:5. Since Christ had never occupied David's throne before the Incarnation it would have been impossible to restore Him to what He had not occupied previously. He was petitioning the Father to restore Him to His place at the Father's right hand. Peter, in his message, establishes the fact of resurrection by testifying to the Ascension, for one who had not been resurrected could not ascend."150
2:36 Peter wanted every Israelite to consider the evidence he had just presented because it proved "for certain"that Jesus of Nazareth (cf. v. 22) was God's sovereign ruler (Lord) and anointed Messiah (Christ). It is clear from the context that by "Lord"Peter was speaking of Jesus as the Father's co-regent. He referred to the same "Lord"he had mentioned in verse 21.
"This title of Lord' was a more important title than Messiah, for it pictured Jesus' total authority and His ability and right to serve as an equal with God the Father."151
Normative dispensationalists (both classical and revised, to use Craig Blaising's distinctions152) hold that Peter only meant that Jesus of Nazareth was the Davidic Messiah. Progressive dispensationalists, along with covenant theologians, believe that Peter meant that Jesus not only was the Davidic Messiah but that He was also reigning as the Davidic Messiah then. Thus the Davidic messianic kingdom had begun. Its present (already) phase is with Jesus on the Davidic throne ruling from heaven. and its future (not yet) phase will be when Jesus returns to earth to rule on earth.
Progressive dispensationalists (and covenant theologians) also believe that Jesus' reign as Messiah began during his earthly ministry.153They see the church as the present stage in the progressive unfolding of the messianic kingdom (hence the name "progressive dispensationalism"154). Normative dispensationalists interpret the Davidic kingdom as entirely earthly and say that Jesus has not yet begun His messianic reign. He now sits on the Father's throne in heaven ruling sovereignly, not on David's throne fulfilling Old Testament prophecies concerning the Davidic king's future reign (cf. Rev. 3:21).
Peter again mentioned his hearers' responsibility for crucifying Jesus to convict them of their sin and to make them feel guilty (cf. v. 23).155
"The beginning and ending of the main body of the speech emphasize the function of disclosure. Peter begins, Let this be known to you,' and concludes, Therefore, let the whole house of Israel know assuredly . . .,' forming an inclusion (2:14, 36). In the context this is a new disclosure, for it is the first public proclamation of Jesus' resurrection and its significance. Acts 2:22-36 is a compact, carefully constructed argument leading to the conclusion in v. 36: God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.' Peter not only proclaims Jesus' authority but also reveals the intolerable situation of the audience, who share responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion. The Pentecost speech is part of a recognition scene, where, in the manner of tragedy, persons who have acted blindly against their own best interests suddenly recognize their error."156
"The Pentecost speech is primarily the disclosure to its audience of God's surprising reversal of their intentions, for their rejection has ironically resulted in Jesus' exaltation as Messiah, Spirit-giver, and source of repentance and forgiveness."157
God bestowed His Spirit on the believers on Pentecost and subsequently for the same reason He poured out His Spirit on Jesus Christ when He began His earthly ministry. He did so to empower them to proclaim the gospel of God's grace (cf. 1:8). Luke recorded both outpourings (Luke 3:21-22; Acts 2:2-4; cf. Acts 4:27; 10:28). This fact is further evidence that Luke wanted his readers to view their own ministries as the extension of Jesus' ministry (1:1-2).
"Luke's specific emphasis (and contribution) to NT pneumatology is that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the church not just to incorporate each believer into the body of Christ or provide the greater new covenant intimacy with him, but also to consecrate the church to the task of worldwide prophetic ministry as defined in Luke 4:16-30."158
Peter mentioned that Jesus was now at the right hand of God in heaven four times in this part of his speech (vv. 25, 30, 33, 34). This had particular relevance for "all the house of Israel"(cf. vv. 14, 22, 29).
"Apparently, therefore, the messiahship of Jesus was the distinctive feature of the church's witness within Jewish circles, signifying, as it does, his fulfillment of Israel's hopes and his culmination of God's redemptive purposes.
"The title Lord' was also proclaimed christologically in Jewish circles, with evident intent to apply to Jesus all that was said of God in the OT . . . . But Lord' came to have particular relevance to the church's witness to Gentiles just as Messiah' was more relevant to the Jewish world. So in Acts Luke reports the proclamation of Jesus the Christ' before Jewish audiences both in Palestine and among the Diaspora, whereas Paul in his letters to Gentile churches generally uses Christ as a proper name and proclaims Christ Jesus the Lord.'"159
2:37 The Holy Spirit used Peter's sermon to bring conviction, as Jesus had predicted (John 16:8-11). He convicted Peter's hearers of the truth of what he said and of their guilt in rejecting Jesus. Their question arose from this two-fold response.
Notice the full meaning of their question. These were Jews who had been waiting expectantly for the Messiah to appear. Peter had just explained convincingly that He had come, but the Jewish nation had rejected God's anointed King. Jesus had gone back to heaven. What would happen to the nation over which He was to rule? What were the Jews to do? Their question did not just reflect their personal dilemma but the fate of their nation. What should they do in view of this terrible situation nationally as well as personally?
2:38 Peter told them what to do. They needed to repent. Repentance involves a change of mind and heart first and secondarily a change of conduct. The Greek word translated repentance (metanoia) literally means a change of outlook (from metaand noeomeaning to reconsider). The Jews had formerly regarded Jesus as less than Messiah and had rejected him. Now they needed to accept Him and embrace Him. John the Baptist and Jesus had previously called for repentance in their audiences (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; et al.), and the apostles continued this emphasis (Acts 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24; 17:30; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20).
"The context of repentance which brings eternal life, and that which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. Whereas the people who heard him on that day formerly thought of Him as mere man, they were asked to accept Him as Lord (Deity) and Christ (promised Messiah). To do this would bring salvation."160
When people speak of repentance they may mean one of two different things. We use this English word in the sense of a conduct change (turning away from sinful practices). We also use it in the sense of a conceptual change (turning away from false ideas previously held). This has led to some confusion concerning what a person must do to obtain salvation.
"The Greek verb [metanoeo, translated "to repent"] means to change one's mind,' but in its Lucan usage it comes very close to the Hebrew verb for repent which literally means to turn or turn around' (sub). . . . A change of perspective, involving the total person's point of view, is called for by this term. In fact, John called for the Israelites to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance ([Luke] 3:8). This passage is significant for it separates repentance from what it produces, and also expresses a link between repentance and fruit. One leads to the other.
"In summary, Luke saw repentance as a change of perspective that transforms a person's thinking and approach to life."161
If a person just thinks of repentance as turning from sinful practices, repentance becomes a good work that a person does. This kind of repentance is not necessary for salvation for two reasons. First, this is not how the gospel preachers in the New Testament used the word, as one can see from the meaning of the Greek word metanoia(defined above). Second, other Scriptures make it clear that good works, including turning from sin, have no part in justification (e.g., Eph. 2:8-9). God does not save us because of what we do for Him but because of what He has done for us in Christ.162
Repentance by definition is not an act separate from trusting Christ. It is part of the process of believing.163When a person trusts Christ, he or she abandons his or her false notions about the Savior and embraces the truth. The truth is that Jesus Christ is God's provision for our eternal salvation. When we rest our confidence in Him and the sufficiency of His cross work for us, God gives us eternal life. This is not just giving mental ascent to facts that are true. Saving faith does that but also places confidence in Christ rather than in self for salvation.164
". . . it needs ever to be insisted on that the faith that justifies is not a mere intellectual process--not simply crediting certain historical facts or doctrinal statements; but it is a faith that springs from a divinely wrought conviction of sin which produces a repentance that is sincere and genuine."165
Peter called for individual repentance ("each of you,"Gr. second person plural). The Jews thought corporately about their responsibilities as God's chosen people, but Peter confronted them with their individual responsibility to believe in Jesus.
The New Testament uses the word baptism in two ways: Spirit baptism and water baptism. This raises the question of which type Peter was calling for here. In verse 38 "baptism"is probably water baptism, as most commentators point out. A few of them believe that Peter was referring to Spirit baptism in the sense of becoming identified with Christ.
"The baptism of the Spirit which it was our Lord's prerogative to bestow was, strictly speaking, something that took place once for all on the day of Pentecost when He poured forth the promise of the Father' on His disciples and thus constituted them the new people of God; baptism in water continued to be the external sign by which individuals who believed the gospel message, repented of their sins, and acknowledged Jesus as Lord, were publicly incorporated into the Spirit-baptized fellowship of the new people of God."166
This verse is a major proof text for those who believe that water baptism is essential for salvation.167Many people refer to this viewpoint as sacramental theology as contrasted with evangelical theology. It encounters its greatest problem with passages that make the forgiveness of sin, and salvation in general, dependent on nothing but trust in Christ (e.g., Acts 15:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Luke 24:47; John 3:16, 36; Rom. 4:1-17; 11:6; Gal. 3:8-9; Eph. 2:8-9).168Peter later promised forgiveness of sins on the basis of faith alone (5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18).
". . . Christian [water] baptism was an expression of faith and commitment to Jesus as Lord."169
What is the relationship of repentance, water baptism, forgiveness, and the gift of the Spirit that this verse brings together? At least three explanations are possible if we rule out the idea that baptism results in the forgiveness of sins.170
1. One acceptable option is to take the Greek preposition translated "for"(eis) as "because of"or "on the basis of."This is not the usual meaning of the word. The usual meaning is "for"designating aim or purpose. However it clearly means "because of"in some passages (e.g., Matt. 3:11; 12:14; Mark 1:4). This explanation links forgiveness with baptizing. We could paraphrase this view as follows. "Repent and you will receive the gift of the Spirit. Be baptized because your sins are forgiven."171
2. Other interpreters emphasize the correspondence between the number (singular and plural) of the verbs and pronouns in the two parts of the sentence. "Repent"is plural as is "your,"and "be baptized"and "you"(in "each of you") are singular.
Repent (second person plural)
be baptized (third person singular)
each (third person singular) of you
for the forgiveness of your (second person plural) sins
According to this view Peter was saying, "You [all] repent for [the purpose of] the forgiveness of your sins, and you [all] will receive the Spirit."Then he added parenthetically, "And each of you [singular] be baptized [as a testimony to your faith]."This explanation links forgiveness with repentance.172
"Repentance demands the witness of baptism; forgiveness is followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit [i.e., Spirit baptism]."173
3. A third, less popular, view is that God withheld Spirit baptism from Palestinian converts to Christianity when the church was in its infancy. He did so until they had entered into communion with God by obeying His command to undergo baptism in water (Acts 2:38; 22:16). Their Christian experience unfolded in this sequence of events: regeneration, water baptism, forgiveness of sins, fellowship with God, Spirit baptism. These Palestinian converts were individuals who had exposure to but had rejected the ministries of both John the Baptist and Jesus. One advocate of this view felt that it accounts best for the instances of Spirit baptism in Acts 2:38; 8:12-17; 19:1-7; and 22:16. He took these occurrences as non-normative Christian experience unique in the early years of Christianity. Acts 10:43-48 reflects normative Christian experience where regeneration, forgiveness, and Spirit baptism take place simultaneously with water baptism following. By the time Paul wrote Romans this later sequence had become normative (Rom. 8:9; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).174
Baptism in water was common in both Judaism and early Christianity. Converts to Judaism commonly baptized themselves in water publicly as a testimony to their conversion. The apostles evidently took for granted that the person who trusted in Christ would then submit to baptism in water.
". . . the idea of an unbaptized Christian is simply not entertained in [the] NT."175
"Since baptism signifies association with the message, group, or person involved in authorizing it [cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-2], baptism in the name of Jesus Christ meant for these people a severing of their ties with Judaism and an association with the messages of Jesus and His people. Baptism was the line of demarcation. Even today for a Jew it is not his profession of Christianity nor his attendance at Christian services nor his acceptance of the New Testament, but his submission to water baptism that definitely and finally excludes him from the Jewish community and marks him off as a Christian."176
The gift of the Holy Spirit was baptism with the Spirit. The Spirit is the gift. Peter connected reception of the Spirit with repentance. The Holy Spirit baptized those who repented immediately (11:15). Their Spirit baptism was not a later "second blessing."
Notice that Peter said nothing in this verse about acknowledging Jesus as Lord in the sense of surrendering completely to His lordship to receive eternal life. Those who contend that submission to the lordship of Christ is essential for salvation must admit that Peter did not make that a requirement here. This would have been the perfect opportunity for him to do so. Peter did not mention submission to the lordship of Christ because he did not believe it was essential for salvation. Admittedly he referred to Jesus as Lord in verse 36, but as I have explained, the context argues for "Lord"meaning God rather than master there.177
2:39 The "promise"is the gift of the Holy Spirit (1:5, 8; 2:33). Those "far off"probably include the Diaspora Jews and the Gentiles. Peter had already expressed his belief that Gentiles could be saved (v. 21; cf. Joel 2:32), a fact taught repeatedly in both the Old and the New Testament. Peter's later problem involving the salvation of Cornelius was not due to a conviction that Gentiles were unsaveable. It was a question of the manner by which they became Christians (i.e., not through Judaism, but directly without becoming Jews first). Note, too, Peter's firm belief in God's sovereignty (cf. v. 23). God takes the initiative in calling the elect to salvation, and then they repent (v. 38; cf. John 6:37; Rom. 8:28-30).
2:40 The Greek word translated "generation"(genea) sometimes has a wider scope than simply all the people living within the same generational period. It has a metaphorical meaning here as elsewhere (e.g., Matt. 17:17; Mark 9:19; 13:30; Luke 9:41; 16:8). It means "a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race."178Here the reference seems to be to unbelieving Jews of all time but particularly those living during Peter's lifetime. "Generation"in this larger sense is virtually the same as "race."
Jesus had announced that the actual generation of Jews who had rejected Him would experience God's judgment on themselves and their nation (Matt. 21:41-44; 22:7; 23:34-24:2). In view of that prediction it seems that Peter may have had that impending judgment in mind when he issued this call to his hearers. Jesus' promised judgment fell in 70 A.D. when Titus invaded Jerusalem, destroyed the temple, and scattered the Jews.
"This exhortation shows that Peter viewed that generation under the physical, temporal judgment about which Christ had spoken so forcefully and clearly. What Jesus had warned them about earlier (Matt. 12:31-32) had come on them and was inescapable. . . .
"While judgment on the nation was inescapable, individuals could be delivered from it. Peter's answer was, Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven,' that is, they were no longer to participate in the repeated sin of the nation in rejecting Christ. The confession of their faith in Christ and of their identification with him by baptism would demonstrate their separation from the nation. They would be put out of the synagogue and lose all identity in the nation. Thus, by this separation they would individually not undergo the judgment on that generation since they ceased to be a part of it. Baptism did not save them. Only their faith in the One in whose name they were being baptized could do that. But baptism did terminate their identity with the nation so that they could escape its judgment."179
2:41 Peter had called on his audience to repent and to be baptized (v. 38). Luke recorded the response of the believers. This reference, too, is probably to water baptism.
More people may have become Christians on this one day than did so during the whole earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. John 14:12). Luke evidently meant that 3,000 were added to the 120 mentioned in 1:15 since he was describing the visible relationships of the believers.180
Some interpreters believe that this verse does not describe what took place immediately following the conclusion of Peter's sermon, however. Luke may have been summing up the results of Peter's preaching as a new point of departure in his narrative. He often used the Greek word translated "then"(men) in Acts to do this. Furthermore "day"(hemera) can refer to a longer time as well as to one 24-hour period. Here it could refer to the first period in the church's life.181
The period between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was a transitional period. The tearing of the temple veil when Jesus died (Matt. 27:51) symbolized the termination of the old Mosaic order and the beginning of a new order. The new order began when Jesus Christ died. However it took nearly four decades for God's people to make the transition in their thinking and practice. The Book of Acts documents many of those transitions.
"The transition was extensive. Ethnically, there was a transition from dealing primarily with Jews to dealing with both Jew and Gentile without distinction. There was also a transition in the people with whom God was dealing, from Israel to the church. Likewise, there was a transition in the principle on which God was dealing with men, from Law to grace. There was a transition from the offer to Israel of an earthly Davidic kingdom to the offer to all men of salvation based on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There was a transition from the prospect of Messiah's coming to the historical fact that the promised One had come. There was a transition from the promise that the Spirit would be given to the historical fact that the Spirit had come.
"Again, all these transitions were made positionally in the brief period of time from the death of Christ to the Day of Pentecost. Yet experientially these truths were understood and entered into only over a span of some four decades. The Book of Acts records the positional transition as well as the experiential transition in the development of the theocratic kingdom program."182
". . . the Book of the Acts is particularly valuable as giving to us the earliest models of several ordinances and institutions which have since become part of the life of the Christian Church. These first occasions should be studied as types and models of what all subsequent occasions should be.
"The first descent of the Spirit (chap. 2); the first Christian preaching (chap. 2); the first Christian Church (chap. 2); the first opposition to Christianity (chap. 4); the first persecution (chap. 4); the first prayer meeting (chap. 4); the first sin in the Church (chap. 5); the first Church problem (chap. 6); the first martyr (chap. 7); the first Church extension (chap. 8); the first personal dealing (chap. 8); the first Gentile Church (chap. 11); the first Church Council (chap. 11).
"The first missionary (chap. 13); the first missionary methods (chaps. 13, 14); the first Church contention (chap. 15); the first Church in Europe (chap. 16); the first address to Christian ministers (chap. 20)."183
". . . what Acts aims to do is to give us a series of typical exploits and adventures of the great heroic figures of the early Church."184
