INTRODUCTION
A lot of work has been done already about
Acts, both as a historical document of the ancient church, and as a theological
work. Numerous studies have been done
about the function of the speeches in the narrative. Likewise, Pentecostal scholarship has progressed quickly in the
right direction in approaching Acts. The fruit of the work of the scholars that
labored and contributed to the study of Acts, in relation to the Pentecostal
claim, should be used to articulate the author's intent in the use of Joel
2:28-32 in Acts 2. The Lukan intent of
depicting the charismatic empowerment of the Spirit is once again considered in
terms of the purpose of the quotation of Joel's oracle in Peter's sermon.
SPIRIT OUTPOURING
AND ASSUMPTIONS FOLLOWED
The citation of Joel 2:28-32[1]
gives a relevant eschatological significance to Peter's speech at Pentecost,
which is pivotal to Luke's intent in the Acts narrative. For Luke, the eschatological outpouring of
the Spirit is foundational for the notion that the gift of the Spirit is
available to every believer.[2] Corollary to this universal outpouring is
the fact that the reception of the Spirit of prophecy brings inspiration for
the proclamation of the crucified Christ.
The disciples' experience of the Spirit at Pentecost empowers them, as
witnesses for Christ, to the challenge of encouraging others to call upon the
name of the Lord for salvation. Thus, a
closer examination of the Gospel writer's usage of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2 shows
the direction in which the Gospel writer perceives the outpouring of the Spirit
of God as an eschatological fulfillment, prophetic manifestation, and universal
gift for the people of God.[3]
The Pentecostal traditional belief
concerning the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2--which is that,
Spirit-baptism is for empowerment in witnessing--is the assumption followed in
this essay. An attempt is made in this
presentation to answer the problem of the application of Joel 2:28-32 in
Peter's speech and its purpose in Luke's intent in his narrative. The question of the authenticity of Peter's
sermon, however, is at stake also in understanding Acts 2. The debate centers on the question of
whether the sermon is a free composition of the Gospel writer, or is a summary
of what Peter has actually spoken. What
would be the implication of Peter's speech employing Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2 in
the light of Luke's uses of the speeches in Acts?
THE
PENTECOST EVENT AND LUKE'S INTENT
In the light of the context wherein
the disciples received the empowering gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, the content
of the gospel that they will bring to all the world was first announced by
Peter in Acts 2:14-40.[4] Hence, Peter's sermon in Acts 2:14-40[5]
is important in knowing the fundamental message of the early church, which is
the context of the quotation of Joel 2:28-32.[6] Luke, in Peter's speech, connects the two
significant events that have transpired; namely, Christ's death and
resurrection, and the outpouring of the eschatological, universal and prophetic
Spirit to the church.[7]
Peter articulates the connection of
the two events in Acts 2:32-33. The
apparent relationship of the two events indicates that the Spirit was poured
out on the believers to equip them with power to testify with boldness.[8] The Gospel writer describes the experience
as the "filling" with the Spirit in Acts 2:4,[9]
so that the recipients can witness boldly to the death and the resurrection of
Christ. This is the plain message of
the Gospel that is being proclaimed in the Acts narrative.[10]
The Pentecost event was actually explained
by the Gospel writer through the sermon of Peter.[11] In the speech, Peter explained the event.[12] Through the citation of Joel 2:28-32, Peter,
as well as Luke, was able to portray the charismatic empowering aspect of the
coming of the Spirit.[13] The speech of Peter is appropriately used by
Luke to articulate the literary and historical implications of the Pentecost
event.[14] The authorial intent of the Gospel writer
surfaces as he employs Peter's sermon to interpret the event that he is
narrating.
PETER'S
SERMON AND THE ACTS NARRATIVE
The occurrence of the event
mentioned in the passage was during the important Jewish festival of Pentecost
(Acts 2:1). The basis of the Pentecost
account of the outpouring of Spirit, as indicated in Acts 2:1-13, is certainly
grounded on traditional material from the apostolic church in Jerusalem.[15] Although there are several problems in the
text's account,[16] the
consequences of what occurred as presented is certain.[17] Pentecost is celebrated by the Jews fifty
days after the Passover celebration.[18] So, by assuming that Jesus died during the
period of Passover celebration, the time that Peter preached was just fifty
days after the death of Jesus on the cross.[19] Perhaps, among Peter's audience were those
who had witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus (cf. Acts 2:23, 36).
Besides the importance of the event,
the initial proclamation of the early Christian kerygma by Peter in the
said historical occasion is noteworthy.[20] The analysis of the content of Peter's
sermon in Acts 2 will give a knowledge of the development of early Christian
preaching and theology.[21] Accordingly, the pattern of the apostolic
preaching is typified by Peter's preaching in Acts.[22]
Ancient
Speeches as Historical Events
The question on the significance of
the sermon of Peter in Acts 2 is a vital question to address. L. Goppelt recognizes that Peter's sermons
in Acts 2-5 are the "oldest missionary kerygma."[23] The debate continues about the real nature
of the speeches in Acts, whether they are Lukan inventions or summaries.[24] Thus the credibility of Peter's sermon in
Acts is at stake.[25]
The antiquities may give some
insights about the nature of published public speeches in a narrative. Thucydides, in The History of the
Peloponnesian War (1.1.22), provides an adequate reference for the
integrity of speeches in history:
With reference to the speeches in this
history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going
on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all
cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has
been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the
various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general
sense of what they really said. And
with reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting myself to derive
it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even trust my own
impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself, partly on what others
saw for me, the accuracy of the report being always tried by the most severe
and detailed tests possible. My
conclusions have cost me some labour from the want of coincidence between
accounts of the same occurrences by different eye-witnesses, arising sometimes
from imperfect memory, sometimes from undue partiality for one side or the
other. The absence of romance in my
history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged
useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid
to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must
resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an
essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all
time.[26]
Thucydides makes it
clear that his record of speeches in history heeds "as closely as possible
to the general sense of what they really said." It is evident that the first class Greek historians of the antiquities
was faithful to the original sense of their historical record "as a
possession for all time." In fact,
another first class Greek historian criticizes those people who are overstating
and inventing historical records to generate misconception to the readers. Polybius, in The Histories
(2.56.10-12), points out that:
A historical author should not try to
thrill his readers by such exaggerated pictures, nor should he, like a tragic
poet try to imagine the probable utterances of his characters or reckon up all
the consequences probably incidental to the occurrences with which he deals,
but simply record what really happened and what really was said, however
commonplace. For the object of tragedy
is not the same as that of history but quite the opposite. The tragic poet should thrill and charm his
audience for the moment by the verisimilitude of the words he puts into his
character's mouths, but it is the task of the historian to instruct and
convince for all time serious students by the truth of the facts and the
speeches he narrates, since in the one case it is the probable that takes
precedence, even if it be untrue, the purpose being to create illusion in
spectators, in the other it is the truth, the purpose being to confer benefit
on learners.[27]
Elsewhere, Polybius, in The
Histories (29.7-12), argues for a very high standard of recording events
and speeches in his historical records, stating his belief that he should
"simply give a true and unvarnished account" of "descriptions of
battles, the reports of speeches, and the other parts of history."[28] Polybius, in The Histories (36.1),
specifically maintains his high standard in recording the speeches in
historical records:
But on the one hand neither do I think it
is the proper part of a politician to display his ingenuity and indulge in
discursive talk on any and every subject of debate that may arise, but simply
to say what the situation demands, nor is it the proper part of a historian to
practice on his readers and make a display of his ability to them, but rather to
find out by the most diligent inquiry and report to them what was actually
said, and even of this only what was most vital and effectual.[29]
Thucydides and Polybius have shown the
characteristics of first class historians, by being faithful to the events that
they were recording, whether incidents or speeches. In terms of speeches, it is apparent that they appropriated the
meandering discourse into a synopsis of the truth of the speeches recorded to
be relevant to the event presented. The
speeches are taken by the two prominent Greek historians as a kind of
expressing the essential and practical points of the circumstance of the
historical facts.
Two other important resources in the
usage of speeches in antiquities are the Roman historian, Tacitus, and the
Jewish historian, Josephus. Although
Tacitus is questioned about the way he reproduced the speech of Emperor
Claudius, in The Annals (11.24),[30]--which
is also recorded in an inscription[31]
that probably contains the original wording of the speech--the conclusions of
both C. Gempf[32] and W.
Gasque[33]
suggest that Tacitus was faithful to the content in a methodical and pertinent
manner.
In the case of Josephus, his
reporting of speeches is questioned in terms of its validity in comparison to
the record of the Old Testament. An
example is Josephus, in The Antiquities (1.13.3),[34]
placing extended speech in the mouth of Abraham on the scenario of Isaac's
sacrifice in Genesis 22. Another
illustration of an obvious problem in Josephus' record of speeches is that of
the speech of Herod the Great, recorded both in The Antiquities
(15.5.3), and in The Wars (1.19.4), in two different versions.[35] Josephus, however, should be taken as
presenting an accurate record in his own right. Josephus, in The Wars (Preamble, 1.5), claims:
The
ancient historians had set themselves exclusively to record the history of
their own times. Their connections with
contemporary events added clarity to their writings, and any misrepresentations
on their part could have been detected and denounced by their contemporaries. .
. . A diligent writer is not one who edits the material and arrangement of
other authors, but who contributes fresh data and constructs a historical
edifice of his own. . . . Let us then honor historical truth, since it is
disregarded by the Greeks.[36]
Josephus has shown his own standard
of recording history and his commitment to the truth. Whereas his record differs from that of the Old Testament speech
of the Patriarch, showing freedom than what is allowed in the narrative, his
style is considered different from that of the Old Testament writers with a
literary ambition.[37] Josephus' approach is to relate a Hebrew
tradition to a Greco-Roman style.[38] Although his two records of Herod's speech
are different, they have the same essence.[39]
Thus, regarded in its totality, the
work of Josephus may follow the Greek historiography, but cannot be considered
a typical Greek historical work, such as that of Thucydides and Polybius.[40] Nevertheless, the faithfulness of the
speeches in the historical event is clearly appropriated in Josephus as
exemplified above.[41] While the speeches in Josephus can be
criticized as tactless, they do express the meaning of the event in an
applicable way.
Thus, the Jewish historian Josephus,
together with the Roman Tacitus, and the Greeks Thucydides and Polybius, are in
the similar notion that the published speeches in the antiquities allocate the
incidents and circumstances in the entire context of the historical event.
Acts
Speeches as Theological Mechanisms
As a consequence of what I have said
up to now, in this modern period of scholarship regarding the contents of
Acts--whether one is arguing with M. Dibelius,[42]
who maintains that the speeches in Acts as compositions of the writer, or with
F. F. Bruce,[43] who
contends that they are digested records of speeches generated in reality--the
use of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 shows that it is indeed used appropriately by
Luke to express the meaning of the event.[44]
It has been suggested that speeches
in Acts are actually literary, historiographic, or theological devices of Luke.[45] In all of the interpretation given to the
speeches in Acts, there is a reasonable basis to think that the speeches are
used by Luke for "literary and historical appropriateness."[46] C. Gempf summarizes his studies on the
speeches that are published in the ancient world relating his findings to
Luke's speeches in Acts:
In
ancient world, rhetoric was power and speech was a type of action. Ancient historians, in their recording
speeches in their works, were giving records of event rather than transcripts
of words. Their statements of method
indicate that they took this task seriously.
The modern categories of `accurate' versus `invention' for these
accounts are the wrong conceptual tools, judging the accounts as a
transcript. These accounts should be
regarded as either `faithful' or `unfaithful' to the historical event. A public speech included in an ancient
history should be seen as having a two-pronged goal: being appropriate to the
historical event and being appropriate to the historical work as a whole. These goals were pursued in tandem by the
best of the historians, and probably also by the author of Luke-Acts.[47]
It is of great importance that
recognition be given to the close connection between the Pentecost event and
Peter's speech, which shows how the phenomenon of the Spirit is interpreted in
the sermon.[48] The Gospel writer utilized the speech of
Peter as the explanation to the Pentecost event that he portrays. Consequently, the speech of Peter in Acts 2
is a faithful abstract[49]
of his real speech, which is the expression of the actual event that was
presented by Luke.[50] Thus, it can be maintained that the Lukan
representation of Peter's speech is authentic, because it encompasses the true
essence of what the apostle actually spoke at Pentecost.
E. Hilgert evaluates the mechanism
of Luke in terms of meeting the standard of ancient historiography:
When
Luke's speeches are evaluated in terms of the Hellenistic canons of
"appropriateness" (tÎ prXpon) and "genuine
contests" (•lh'ino •g¢neV), it is clear that
they meet both standards. Luke presents
speeches reflective of situations of tension and is concerned to relate his
speeches to their contexts both in terms of general situation and of inner
thematic ties.[51]
The quotation of Joel 2:28-32 in
Acts 2, as the main text of Peter's sermon, becomes pivotal in understanding
the Pentecost event and its meaning as a theological agenda of the Gospel
writer in Acts.[52] The Pentecost event is strategically placed
by Luke in the outset of his Acts narrative, in order to show that the task of
evangelization started with the empowering of the disciples by the Spirit in
Acts 2. Luke's theological intent
becomes very obvious: the narration of the Pentecost event, and the quotation
of Joel's prophecy in relation to the event, point to the charismatic
empowering of the church to become Christ's witness, as a fulfillment of the
promise of the Father which was reiterated by Christ before he ascended.[53]
CONCLUSION
The reception by the disciples of
the gift of the Spirit in Acts 2 indicates that they received the prophetic
gift. The missiological significance of
the experience of the Spirit is underscored, and the prediction of Jesus was
fulfilled, when the early church was filled and empowered by the Spirit. The motif of empowerment to witness
underlies the main theme of Luke in portraying the expansion of the Gospel into
all the world through the empowered church as the prophetic witness of Christ,
who sent the gift of the Spirit.
The Gospel writer dramatically
depicts the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost in his narrative. The appropriateness of his use of Peter's
speech at Pentecost is made clear by the recognition of how it meets the
writer's dual purpose. First, the
sermon of Peter represents the historical circumstance of the Pentecost event
itself. Secondly, the quotation of
Joel's oracle in Peter's sermon is used by Luke as a means of explaining the
historical significance of the event by equating it with the fulfillment of
Joel 2:28-32 in the Pentecost event of Acts 2 narrative.
[2] Richard D. Israel,
"Joel 2:28-32 (3:1-5 MT): Prism for Pentecost," in Charismatic
Experiences in History, ed. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 1985), p. 12, notes that the deletion of Joel 3:5b [2:32b] in
Acts 2 that talks about the Lord calling from Jerusalem is prescribed by Acts
1:8. Israel regards that "Luke is
careful to strip all vestiges of Jerusalemite particularism from the universal
scope of his proclamation." Nevertheless,
the "divine call" in Joel 3:5b [2:32b] though omitted in the quote
reappears in Acts 2:39 in relation to the universal promise of the Spirit.
[3] Robert P. Menzies,
The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology: With Special Reference to Luke-Acts,
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, ed. David Hill
(Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 224-229, sees three things
surfacing in Luke's usage of Joel: (1) "the Spirit of Pentecost is the
Spirit of prophecy;" (2) "the Spirit of Pentecost is universally
available to the people of God;" and (3) "the Spirit of Pentecost is
an eschatological sign." Roger
Stronstad, "The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke's
Charismatic Theology," in Contemporary Issues in Pentecostal Theology,
Asia Pacific Theological Seminary First Annual Pentecostal Lectureship Series
(Baguio, Philippines: APTS, 1993), pp. 22-23, sees three points in the
application of Joel: (1) "the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit is the
eschatological gift of the Spirit;" (2) "the pouring forth of the
eschatological gift of the Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy;" and (3)
"the pouring forth of the eschatological Spirit of prophecy is for the
community of God's people." Cf.
Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1984), pp. 55-57. Both Menzies and Stronstad recognize that Joel's prophecy relates
to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost with the notion that the disciples
received the eschatological, prophetic and universal Spirit of God.
[4] It appears that
the climax of Peter's proclamation is stated in Acts 2:24: "But God raised
him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was
impossible for death to keep its hold on him." It is important to recognize this point since the climax of
Peter's sermon, that started in Acts 2:14 explaining the phenomenon of the
Spirit, suddenly shifted as it picked up the Christ event and highlighted verse
24 that emphasizes Jesus' resurrection that was done by the Father. David J. Williams, Acts, New
International Biblical Commentary, ed. W. Ward Gasque (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 1990), p. 51, concurs that: "With the declaration of
verse 24, the speech had reached its climax.
It only remained now to show that a resurrection had been foretold in
Scripture, that its reference was to the Messiah, and that by fulfilling the
prophecy, Jesus 'was declared with power' to be the Messiah."
[5] Marion L. Soards, The
Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), p. 31, perceives that verses 14-40 contains
the sermon of Peter ("with some interaction with the crowd"). Soards further notes that verse 41 recapitulates
the speech scenario by giving a conclusion, and then Luke comes up with a
synopsis of the church's beginning days at Jerusalem.
[6] Ernst Haenchen, The
Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. B. Noble and G. Shinn, rev. and
updated R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1971), p. 178,
argues correctly that basically the citation of Joel is to explain the
prophesying.
[7] Ralph P. Martin, New
Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christians Students, vol. 2, The
Acts, The Letters, The Apocalypse, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), p. 75, notes the two main purposes of Luke in
citing the Pentecostal experience of the disciples: (1) the
"universal" coming of the Holy Spirit as a "divine gift" which
is linked to the "exaltation" of Christ (2:33) wherein "the new
age begun by Spirit's presence and power;" and (2) the focus on Peter's
message that the messianic age is confirmed by God through signs and that he is
"acting in a new way and in decisive power."
[8] The issue of the
transfer motif of Luke is very crucial at this point. It states in Acts 2:32-33: "This Jesus God raised up, and of
that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore
exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the
promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and
hear." (NRSV) Stronstad, The
Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p. 49, points out that the explanation of
Peter is utilized by Luke to describe "the charismatic Spirit from Jesus
to the disciples." It is logical
then to maintain with Stronstad that "having become the exclusive bearer
of the Holy Spirit at His baptism, Jesus becomes the giver of the Spirit at
Pentecost." Stronstad further
explains that "this transfer of the Spirit, the disciples become the heirs
and successors to the earthly charismatic ministry of Jesus; that is, because
Jesus has poured out the charismatic Spirit upon them the disciples will
continue to do and teach those things which Jesus began to do and teach (Acts
1:1)." See also Richard F. Zehnle,
Peter's Pentecost Discourse: Tradition and Lukan Reinterpretation in Peter's
Speeches of Acts 2 and 3, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series,
ed. Robert A. Kraft, vol. 15 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1971), p. 123.
[9] James B. Shelton, Mighty
in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), p. 128, observes that since it is notable
that Luke emphasizes the empowerment aspect of the gift of the Spirit in the
ascension scenes in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8: "Clearly, in the fulfillment
of the promise Luke emphasizes not
repentance, initial confession of Jesus as Lord, or baptism of the disciples,
but witness inspired by the Holy
Spirit." Shelton further notes
that the infilling with the Spirit in Luke-Acts consistently represents
"inspired witness." Cf.
Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, pp. 50-52. For an additional discourse on the
synonymous Lukan expressions of the "filling" and "baptism"
with the Spirit see C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
The Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., The International Critical Commentary,
eds. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield and G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh, Scotland:
T. & T. Clark, 1994), vol. 1, pp. 115 ff.
See also French L. Arrington, "The Indwelling, Baptism, and
Infilling With the Holy Spirit: A Differentiation of Terms," Pneuma
3 (Fall 1981): 1-10.
[10] So also James D.
G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic
Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 155, who concludes that the
disciples' experience of the Spirit of God on Pentecost after Jesus death gave
them "both impulse and urgency to testify for him." The "impulse" and
"urgency" to be a witness for Christ as Dunn describes is
correct. Nevertheless it should be
appreciated in terms of the empowering aspect of the gift of the Spirit which
is the stress of Luke's pneumatology.
See also Barrett, pp. 78 ff.; and Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology
of St. Luke, pp. 49 ff. Cf. Robert
Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, Studies of the New Testament and Its
World, ed. John Riches (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1982), p. 106,
in his contention of the kingdom of God as the concern of Jesus and not the
kingdom of Israel emphasizes the empowering of the disciples to be witnesses
for him.
[11] Israel, pp. 10-11,
observes that Luke shows consideration in the short account of the Pentecost
event and illuminates the significance of the event by using Peter's reply to
the response of the public.
[12] E. Earle Ellis, The
Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of
Modern Research (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 100,
comments that the development of Peter's sermon is from midrash to
testimonia. Ellis points that explicit
midrash was "a means to establish a particular interpretation of Scripture
while isolated proof-texts did not."
He suggests further that it is plausible that "a midrash of a given
text preceded its use as an isolated 'testimony' in which a Christian
understanding of the text is assumed."
[13] Zehnle, p. 123,
remarks the with the aid of the quote from Joel, Peter distinguishes the
phenomenon as "the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit."
[14] Menzies, p. 215,
asserts that "Luke has placed his unique stamp on the text." Here the pesher of Joel 2:28-32 represents
"Luke's understanding of the Pentecostal bestowal of the Spirit."
[15] See Andrew T.
Lincoln, "Theology and History in the Interpretation of Luke's
Pentecost," Expository Times 96 (1984-85): 209. Contra Haenchen, pp. 172-175.
[16] See Zehnle, pp.
111-112, e.g. in his survey of some of the "difficulties to
historicity" of the Pentecost event.
[17] See Dunn, pp.
135-156; and I. Howard Marshall, "The Significance of Pentecost," Scottish
Journal of Theology 30 (1977): 360-65, who both persuasively argue for the
historicity of the account that creates a marvelous relevance for the growth of
the church in Acts. Contra Haenchen,
pp. 172-175, who maintains that the description of the Pentecost event is a
fictional literary construction made by Luke.
Lincoln, p. 209, contends that Luke appropriated the traditions and
"reworked and reinterpreted them to create his own history-like
narrative."
[18] See Exodus 23:16;
34:22; Leviticus 23:15-16; Numbers 28:26; and Deuteronomy 16:9-12; cf. Acts
20:16; and 1 Corinthians 16:8.
[19] A good discussion
on the reckoning of the Jewish and Christian view of Pentecost in Acts 2 is
given by Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, The Acts of the Apostles,
vol. 4, The Beginnings of Christianity, part 1, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson
and Kirsopp Lake (London, England: Macmillan, 1933; reprint ed., Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 16-17.
[20] It appears that
Peter's discourse is Luke's "keynote address" which defines the
theological position explaining the following acts of the apostles on missions
that led to the growth of the church on which Luke and his contemporaries are
accustomed. See Zehnle, pp. 130-131.
[21] The concept of
Peter's preaching in Acts 2 obviously corresponds to the situation and the
moment of conveying. However, similar
pattern can be sketched in the kerygmatic discourses of Acts 3:12-26; 5:30-32;
10:36-43; 13:16-41. See F. F. Bruce, The
Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text With Introduction and Commentary, 3rd
rev. and enl. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), p.
120.
[22] C. H. Dodd, The
Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (London, England: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1936; reprint ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980), pp.
20-24, analyzes the apostolic preaching in Acts according to the following
manner: (1) the commencement of the time of fulfillment of the prophecy (2:16;
3:18, 24); (2) the fulfillment was through the ministry, death and resurrection
of Jesus that was predetermined by God--(a) Davidic descent (2:30-31 from Ps.
132:11); (b) ministry (2:22; 3:22); (c) death (2:23; 3:13-14); (d) resurrection
(2:24-31; 3:15; 4:10); (3) the resurrection exalted Jesus as Christ placed at
God's right hand and head of the new Israel (Ps. 110:1; 2:33:36; 3:13: 4:11
from Ps. 118:22, cf. 31); (4) the Holy Spirit as sign of Christ's present glory
and power is in the church (2:17-21 from Joel 2:28-32 [3:1-5], 32, 33); (5) the
consummation of the Messianic era will be on Christ's imminent return (3:21;
10:42); and (6) the appeal to repentance for forgiveness of sins and promise of
salvation and the offer of the Holy Spirit (2:38-39 citing Joel 2:32 [3:5] and
Isa. 57:19; 3:19, 25-26 quoting Gen. 12:3; 4:12; 5:31; 10:43).
[23] "The design
of the sermons, however, offers an astonishing congruence with the earliest
kerygma in I Cor. 15:3-5 and turns out to be, therefore, historical at its
base." See the discussion of
Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols., The Variety
and Unity of the Apostolic Witness to Christ, vol. 2, trans. John E. Alsup,
ed. Jürgen Roloff (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), p.
6.
[24] E.g. Henry J.
Cadbury, F. J. Foakes Jackson, and Kirsopp Lake, "The Greek and Jewish
Traditions of Writing History," in The Acts of the Apostles, vol.
2, The Beginnings of Christianity, part 1, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackson and
Kirsopp Lake (London, England:
Macmillan, 1933; reprint ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979),
p. 13, maintains that: "From Thucydides downwards, speeches reported by
the historians are confessedly pure imagination. They belong to the final literary stage. If they have any nucleus of fact behind
them, it would be the nearest outline in ßpomnZmata." For more thorough discussion on the relation
between Thucydides and the speeches in Acts see T. Francis Glasson, "The
Speeches in Acts and Thucydides," The Expository Times 76 (February
1965): 165. See also Colin J. Hemer, The
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 415-427, for the answer to the issues
raised on the reliability of Lukan summaries of the speeches.
[25] For more
discussion on the credibility of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 see Jerry Horner,
"The Credibility and the Eschatology of Peter's Speech at Pentecost,"
Pneuma 1 (Spring 1980): 22-31.
George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed.
Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), p.
349, argues that although "a basic pattern can be detected in the speeches
in Acts, there is also considerable variety, which lends them historical
verisimilitude." Ladd, p. 350,
further points out that Luke apparently gave a reliable portrayal of the primitive
theology of the early church showing the historical authenticity of the
speeches in Acts.
[26] "Thucydides:
The History of the Peloponnesian War," in The Great Books of the
Western World, eds. Robert Maynard Hutchins et al., Herodotus Thucydides,
vol. 6 (Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago, 1952), p. 354.
[27] Polybius, The
Histories, 6 vols., trans. W. R. Paton, The Loeb Classical Library, ed. T.
E. Page et al (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967-68), vol. 1, pp.
377-379.
[28] Ibid., vol. 6, pp.
66-69, describes his ideals in recording history as follows: "For those authors, when in the course
of their work they describe, for instance . . . adding inventions of their own;
and they by no means approve of me, when I simply give a true and unvarnished
account of such matters. The same
remarks apply to descriptions of battles, the reports of speeches, and the
other parts of history. In all these--I
include also subsequent portions of my works--I may be justly pardoned if I am
found to be using the same style, or the same disposition and treatment, or
even actually the same words as on previous occasion; or again should I happen
to be mistaken in the names of mountains and rivers or in my statements about
the characteristics of places. For in
all such matters the large scale of my work is a sufficient excuse. It is only if I am found guilty of
deliberate mendacity or if it be for the sake of some profit, that I do not ask
to be excused, as I have already stated several times in the course of this work
when speaking on this subject."
[30] See the complete
speech of Claudius in Tacitus, The Annals, in The Complete Works of
Tacitus, trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, ed. Moses
Hadas, The Modern Library (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 1942), pp.
240-242.
[31] The inscription
was found in early sixteenth century is a bronze tablet discovered in Lyons
known as Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum xiii, 1668. The published version of the inscription
compared to that of Tacitus is in Cornelii Taciti Annalium, ed. with
intro. and notes by H. Furneaux, 2nd ed. rev. by H. F. Pelham and C. C. Fisher
(Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1907), pp. 55-60. Furneaux, pp. 54-55, claims:
"On the whole, the substance of the existing portions [of the
inscribed speech] may be said to have been given [by Tacitus], and the fact
that they are represented by but a few sentences would go to prove that the
whole speech (as indeed the fragments themselves suggest) was long and discursive,
and could only be brought into a space proportionate to the narrative of the
Annals by much omission and abridgement."
As quoted by W. Ward Gasque, "The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius
Reconsidered," in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, eds. R. N.
Longnecker and M. C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
1974), p. 244.
[32] Conrad Gempf,
"Public Speaking and Published Accounts," in The Book of Acts in
Its First Century Setting, vol. 1, eds. Bruce W. Winter, I. Howard
Marshall, and David Gill, The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting,
eds. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1993), pp. 284-285, comments: "Overall, we may say that
although the historian used considerable freedom in reporting the text of the
speech, it is yet evident that quite a lot of effort must have been put in to
understand Claudius' original and reproduce its main points in an orderly
fashion. Tacitus conveyed the general
sense of the original speech and something of the character of the
speaker."
[33] Gasque, p. 245,
remarks: "Thus the style and
expression of the speech as found in the Annals
belong (with the exception of a few verbal parallels) to Tacitus. The matter of the speech has been condensed,
re-arranged, and adapted. But the
ancient historian has remained true to the essential ideas of the
original."
[34] See Flavius
Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, in The Life and Works of
Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Philadelphia, PA: David McKay
Co., n.d.), p. 49.
[36] Josephus, The
Jewish War, ed. Gaalya Cornfeld (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1982), p. 10. Cf. Josephus as translated
by Whiston, p. 605.
[39] So with Cornfeld,
p. 70, who observes that: "Josephus provides a different speech in Antiquities XV, 127-146, with echoes of
classical Greek rhetoric; but both versions of Josephus contain similar themes
of hope for victory, with the help of God, and harsh condemnation of the
Nabateans' ritual atrocity."
[41] The fabrication of
speeches may be an accepted practice at that time but it is not prevalent. Thucydides and Polybius were against
it. Regardless, the speech should be
timely and relevant to the incident.
Cf. Gasque, pp. 245-246.
[42] Martin Dibelius, Studies
in Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Greeven, trans. M. Ling and P.
Schubert (London, England: SCM Press Ltd., 1956), pp. 138-185. Dibelius, p. 139, insinuates that
"ancient historian was not aware of any obligation to reproduce only, or
even preferably, the text of a speech which was actually made." Dibelius, p. 175, further points out that
the speeches execute their role in cultivating the theme of the book of
Acts. Finally, Dibelius, p. 183,
concludes that Luke "made new use of the traditional art of composing
speeches." Luke utilized this
method to explain the circumstances and "to make clear the ways of
God." The work of Dibelius is
followed by a few other scholars such as Haenchen (1965), e.g. pp. 104, 185;
Zehnle (1971), e.g. pp. 60, 136 ff.; H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles,
trans. J. Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D. H. Juel, ed. E. J. Epp and C. R.
Matthews, Hermeneia, NT ed. H. Koester et al (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1987, German ed. 1972), e.g. p. xliv; and Goppelt (1976), e.g. p. 6. See also the latest work of C. K. Barrett
(1994), e.g. vol. 1, p. 133.
[43] F. F. Bruce,
"The Speeches in Acts: Thirty Years After," in Reconciliation and
Hope, ed. Robert Banks (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1974), pp. 53-68. See Gasque, pp.
232-250; cf. W. Ward Gasque, "The Book of Acts and History," in Unity
and Diversity in New Testament Theology, ed. R. A. Guelich (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), pp. 58-63. See also Hemer, pp. 415-427.
[44] I. Howard
Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1970), p. 55, claims that Luke's utilization of the speeches
is "to give his reader an insight into particular issues involved at
crucial points in his narrative."
[48] See footnote
number 86 of Ellis, p. 100, who notes the sermon pattern in Acts as typified by
Peter's sermon in Acts 2: "Acts 2:14-36: Theme and initial text (14-21;
Joel 2:28-32 = 3:1-5) + Exposition (22-24) + Supplementary text (25-28; Ps
16:8-11) + Exposition (29-34) + Final text and application (34 ff.; Ps
110:1)."
[49] Gasque, "The
Speeches of Acts," p. 249, claims that the speeches in Acts are "more
probably--and this would be likely even in terms of the view that they are the
author's own composition--they are intended to be regarded by the reader as the
author's synopses of actual addresses."
[50] Soards, p. 31,
claims that: "Whatever the original
form or forms of this story, Luke offers an account of the spread of the gospel
as the result of an eschatological (miraculous) act of God. Verses 14-40 are the speech by Peter on
Pentecost." See also Menzies, pp.
214-215, who acknowledges that Luke's "unique stamp on the text" is
noteworthy and that "understanding of the Pentecostal bestowal of the
Spirit" in Luke's pneumatology cannot be bypassed in the way Joel text is
cited.
[51] Earle Hilgert,
"Speeches in Acts and Hellenistic Canons of Historiography and
Rhetoric," in Good News in History: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke,
ed. Ed. L. Miller (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993), p. 107.
[52] Here the Lukan
understanding of the eschatological bestowal of the Spirit comes into
surface. Barrett, vol. 1, pp. 132-133,
hints that the speech is very much related to Pentecost event. The use of Joel in Acts 17-21 "which is
little more than a proof text intended to bring out the eschatological
significance of the event, are probably Luke's own work and go with his
narrative of a creative event which makes possible, in several senses, the
universal testimony which believers are to bear."
[53] Horner, p. 24,
proposes that each of the Acts speeches has a function in the geographical
progress of the gospel. The Spirit
empowered servants continued the ministry of the Lord. Horner, pp. 24-25, continues to suggest
that: "Throughout the book of Acts Luke depicts the confirmation of the
gospel in the deeds and in the preaching of the apostles. Hence the content of the preaching and the manner in which it was done were of equal importance to its
geographical extension."