THE CREDIBILITY AND THE ESCHATOLOGY

OF PETER'S SPEECH AT PENTECOST

by Jerry Horner

No one would be charged with exaggeration if he claimed that Acts is

the most important history book in the world. While the author's intent
was not merely to relate a chronological account of the expansion of the
early church, it still remains that without his work we would know little
about the beginnings of Christianity and the history of the early church,
apart from what may be gleaned from the epistles. Within this valuable
work, particular interest is commanded by the various speeches re-
corded, not only because of their historical value, but also because of
their literary and theological significance. Among the numerous
speeches, Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost must certainly rank
high in interest, especially since it is the first sermon preached in the
Christian Church.
Commentators have long debated the place of this and other
speeches in Acts, questioning whether the written record gives an

Jerry Horner is Chairman of the Department of Undergraduate Theology, Oral

Roberts University.He received the Th.D. degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, Fort Worth. Texas. Dr. Horner is a charismatic Southern Baptist

- 22-
 Commentators have long debated the place of this and other
speeches in Acts, questioning whether the written record gives an
accurate and reliable account of what the speakers actually said. The
noted German scholar Martin Dibelius, who has devoted much attention
to the literary composition of Acts, suggests that the speeches were not
delivered by the persons to whom they are ascribed, but that they are
free compositions of the author, Luke.1 In supporting his claim, he
appeals to the method of writing history on the part of ancient historians,
especially Thucydides, who liberally intermingled their narratives with
speeches by people who figured prominently in the events described. In
reality, the speeches were the inventions of the historians, and were
intended as literary devices to depict more vividly certain historical
situations. The writers presupposed that there is no deliberate attempt
to give a false or fictitious account of history. According to various
modern scholars, one must view the speeches of Acts in the same way,
Le., as literary compositions of Luke, whose intent was to describe
situations in the lives of the apostles in words which they supposedly had
spoken. Thus, Foakes-Jackson writes: "The student of classical litera-
ture will find it difficult to believe that they are not compositions of the .
writers."2 H. J. Cadbury concludes: "The elaborate, homogeneous and
schematic speeches suggest, if not the rhetoric, at least the free
composition of the speeches in the Greek and Roman historians."3 This
view is almost unanimously held among the formgeschichtliche school,
with only slight concession on the part of some who entertain the possi-
bility that Luke based the speeches on reliable tradition, editing the

1 MartinDibelius,Studies in the Acts of theApostles(London: SCM Press, 1956), pp.

140ff. Cf. H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts(London: SPCK, 1961), pp. 184ff.
2F. J. Foakes-Jackson, The Actsof the Apostles(NewYork: Harper& Brothers,1931),
p. xvi.
3H. J. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity, IL ed, F. J. Foakes-Jackson and
Kirsopp Lake (London: Macmillan,1920-33), p. 15.

23
 material and impressing upon it his mind and style.1 The conclusion .
reached by this approach is that while the speeches of Acts are of value in
helping to set forth historical situations, they are not themselves
historical.
While it is true that Acts is not primarily biographical, and that
Luke's inclusion of the speeches does not seem prompted by motives of a
historical-theological king, these factors certainly do not support the
contention that the speeches have no historical value and that one must
attribute them to Luke rather than to the purported speakers. No doubt
Luke carefully allotted to each of the speeches a significant place in the
structure of Acts as 'a whole, in accordance with his unfolding of the
geographical progress of the gospeL His work, therefore, is not primarily
a collection of documents revealing all that he knew of people such as
Peter and Paul. Rather, he selected from the material available to him
that which would assist him in achieving the purpose evident throughout
the book-that of describing the continuing ministry here on earth
performed by the ascended Lord through the agency of servants em-
powered by the promised Holy Spirit. 2 Such a deliberate arrangement is
also true of the discourses of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel, yet who dares to
compare those discourses to the speeches in Thucydides? Therefore, to
insist that the speeches in Acts are inventions of Luke shows a total lack
of appreciation of his writings. Even though Acts may not be a biography
of Peter or Paul, nevertheless its value depends upon the historical
character of Luke's information. One must always remember that in both
of his volumes, Luke emphasized his own careful investigations, exer-
cised great care over his choice of sources, and faithfully reproduced his
material. Throughout the book of Acts Luke depicts the confirmation of

lParticularly devastating is Ernst Haenchen's judgment in The Acts of the Apostles

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), pp. 103ff. For an enlightening refutation of
those who appeal to the methodology of ancient historians, see T. Francis Glasson, "The
Speeches in Acts and Thucydides," The ExpositoryTimes, VoL LXXVI (Feb., 1965), p.
165.

2 In his stimulating study entitled Pentecostand Missions(Grand Rapids: E erdmans,

1961), Harry Boer traces a missionary motif throughout Acts.The position of the speeches
would be in accord with such a scheme, particularly as one considers the diversity of the
persons in the audiences to which they were addressed. -

- 24-
 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.
That Luke was acquainted with the content and manner of the
apostles' preaching can hardly be questioned. He himself had seen and
heard Paul's speeches, and although he may not have heard the others,
he was in close contact with Peter, Mark, Philip, and others who had
personally experienced the earlier years of the church at Jerusalem. At
this point a question may be raised concerning whether Luke recorded
the ipsissima uerba, or merely preserved the content. Several factors
must be considered when seeking to arrive at a satisfactory answer to
such a question.
1. In those days the printed book was nonexistent, and manuscript
rolls were scarce and expensive. Therefore, if a person wished to possess ,
a poem, a speech, or a story he had to remember it For example, .
Xenophon tells of how people could repeat the whole of the Iliad and the
Odyssey from memory (Symposium, iiii 5). This writer has personally
met Christians in Russia who have never owned a Bible, but neverthe-
less could quote extended portions of it, including complete books.
2. There seems to have been a primitive method of shorthand in use
during ancient times. Galen (xix. 11) describes how his medical students
took down his lectures in some kind of shorthand. This does not, of
course, mean that there was a shorthand account of everything that the
apostles had said on any and every occasion.
3. The E ast is naturally meditative, and it was not difficult for those
who had heard the apostolic preaching again and again, to remember its
content and the way in which the leaders of the Church, Peter in
particular, had witnessed to Christ. The Jew much more than the Greek
considered the actual wording of teaching as the essential thought of the
speaker, and would be more likely to remember it.
4. Whatever tradition lay behind the speeches, if such existed,
would be a communal tradition. The source material would not be
dependent on the memory of one or two persons, but that of the church.
5. The sermons of the apostles and evangelists were not merely
something to be listened to but something to be acted upon. They must,
therefore, have been stored in the memory and repeatedly discussed.
6. One must never minimize the role of the Holy Spirit in inspiring

25
the writing of Scripture, a factor so obvious that it demands little
comment.
The discussion above is intended to lead to the conclusion that Luke
had no need, as Thucydides, to give new life to vague figures out of the
dim past by putting into their mouths speeches of his own rhetorical
inventions in order that they might appear, speaking, in his account. We
are justified, therefore, in regarding the passage under consideration as
containing the substance of the first recorded sermon in the Christian
Church. In fact, Luke calls attention to the importance of the sermon by
the word with which he introduces it. He states that Peter lifted up his
voice and said (aTre(pt5e-y4aro) unto them. This word occurs elsewhere in
the New Testament only in Acts 2:4, where it describes the utterance
given to the Christians by the Holy Spirit, and Acts 26:25, where Paul
declared to Festus that he was uttering "words of sober truth." All Greek
lexicons agree that the word signifies an utterance of weighty impor-
tance. Typical is the definition give by Arndt and Gingrich: "The word of
the wise man, the oracle-giver, the diviner, the prophet, the exorcist, and
other 'inspired' persons." It seems certain, therefore, that Luke chose
this word to indicate that what followed was not the expression of a man's s
opinion, but the utterance of a message from God mediated by the Holy
Spirit.
Peter begins his sermon with a declaration which constitutes the
.
ground on which all his preaching rests, the fact that the time of
eschatological fulfillment has dawned. This consciousness lies behind
Peter's whole kerygma, and everything else finds its place and its
significance within this eschatological setting. This is most clearly stated
in Acts 1:16, 17, where the apostle affirms that in the pouring out of the
Holy Spirit the prophecy of Joel concerning the last days is fulfilled. The
Jews saw time as divided into two ages. There was this present age, wholly
under the domination of evil, and thus wholly bad, and there was the age
to come, the golden age of the Kingdom of God, and thus wholly good.
How was the one age to give way to the other? That change could not be
effected by human effort and reformation, but demanded a direct inter-
vention by God. The day on which God would intervene was known as the
Day of the Lord, and that Day would introduce "the last days" (cf. Heb.
1 :1,2). In effect Peter is declaring that the Day of the Lord has come. God
has acted; eternity has invaded time; the old order has ended and the .

- 26-
new order has begun.
This is not to say that the Spirit was inactive in the old order.
Various manifestations of the Spirit are described in the Old Test-
ament. He was present at creation (Gen. 1:2), He endowed people with
physical strength (Jdg. 14:6, 19; 15:14); He gave skill (Ex. 31:3-5) and ,
wisdom (Jdg. 3:1; 11:29; 1 Sam. 16:13; Neh. 9:20, etc.); He gave the
prophets their messages (Ezek. 11:5; Num. 24:2; 2 Chron. 24:20; Isa.
51:1; Micah 3:8, etc.); He gave ethical instructions and power to live well '
(Micah 3:8, etc.); He inspired the writing of the Old Testament (II Pet.
1:20, 21). These and scores of other references amply illustrate the
activity of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.
However, manifold and striking though the work of the Spirit was to
the Old Testament writers, they recognized that the best was yet to be.
What they saw of the Spirit of God was far from exhausting the possi-
bilities, so they longed for a day when God would intervene in the affairs
of men with striking results. Moses expressed the desire that "all the
Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His Spirit upon
them" (Num. 12:29). Isaiah and Ezekiel looked forward to a work of the
Spirit among men (Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 36:26f.). But the classical passage in
this regard is that from Joel which served as the text for Peter's sermon at
Pentecost. The prophet looked through all the troubles of the present
time to the latter days when there will be an activity of the Spirit such as
men have never before witnessed.
The Old Testament, then, ascribes a multiplicity of activities among
men to the work of the Spirit, but nowhere suggests that they manifest _
the full revelation of the Spirit. It points forward to the coming day of the
Messiah, when the Spirit would be poured out upon all. The Spirit will be
pre-eminently concentrated in the Messiah and He will wholly indwell
the people of God who shall live in the eschatological period inaugurated
by His outpouring. The abiding presence of the Spirit will be, as Eichrodt
has declared, "the central wonder of the new aeon," in which He will no
longer appear "start-wise" but He will exercise "an enduring influence
'
on men."1

1 W.Eichrodt, Theologyof the Old Testament. VoLII (London: SCM Press, 1961), p.
59.
i.

- 27-
 It was to that expectation that the apostle John referred to in John
7 :39 in his explanation of the proclamation of Jesus in the previous verse,
and no finer exegesis is to be found of John's parenthesis than that given
by Peter in Acts 2:33. Peter proclaims that something has happened,
something which is the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of the
prophets. What previously had been experienced only by a few, and that
only in temporary fashion, was now the common prerogative of all
children of God. The events of Pentecost are that very outpouring of the
Spirit which Joel foretold. No strict boundaries set between different
eschatological times may be found in the kerygma of Peter, but what is
clear is that with the enthronement of Christ the age of the Spirit, so long
predicted by the prophets, has begun and is demonstrably present: "this
is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel" (2:16). The experience
and enjoyment of the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the
distinctive feature of the last days.
The variations in the text of the quotation from Joel make an
interesting and most fascinating study. First, there are alterations made
in the quotation. In Joel 2:28 the passage begins "after these things" (K«i
co-rcti juerct ra:uTQ:), that is, after the terrible plague of locusts described
earlier in the chapter. B retains this reading in Acts 2:17, but the other
main uncials have "in the last days" (guraL EV't'aLS 17J.1.gpaLS). It seems
certain from this slight alteration that Peter saw in the events of
Pentecost the emergence of the new age. Zehnle comments, "Hence the
reading ... is almost certainly the product of Christian exegesis."1
Further, the words "and they shall prophesy" in verse 18 are not '
part of the text in Joel, and are, in fact, omitted in D. Peter's emphasis
upon the universal outbreak of prophecy is quite significant. A midrash
on Ps. 14:6 (57b) states:
'
Rabbi Levi said... the Master is God who said' 0 that they had
such a heart as to fear me' (Dt 5:29); the pupil is Moses who
said, '0 that all the Lord's people were prophets' (Num. 11:29);
but neither the words of the Master nor of the pupil find ful-

1Richard F. Zehnle,Peter's Pentecost Discourse(Nashville: Abingdon Press,1971), p.

29.

- 28-
 fillment in this world, but in the future the words of both will .
find fulfillment, the words of the Master for `I will give you a new
heart' (Ezek. 36:26), and the words of the pupil for `I will pour
out my spirit upon all flesh' (Joel 2:28).
The suggestion is clear. only in the heavenly age would the gift of
universal prophecy come to men. Here is another indication of divine
intervention in the coming of Jesus and the outpouring of His Spirit.
Two more variations deserve mention. D has E7TL1Tauas UapKaf) in
verse 17 instead of the Neutral Text E1TL7rauav cra'p/co'.
But as the idea of the people of God has its realization, so far as
the history of redemption is concerned, in the collective body of
believers on Christ without distinction of nations; so also in the
Messianic fulfillment of that prophecy meant by Peter, and now
begun, what the prophet has promised to all flesh is not to be
understood by the Jewish people as such ... but of all the true
people of God, so far as they believe on Christ 1
In addition, instead of ot VIOLKat at 8vyarEpEs u,uwv, "your sons and
daughters," D has OLOWLaurcrm Kat aL 8vyarEpEs ao'["wv, "their sons
and their daughters." Knowling feels that the purpose of this alternation
is to exclude all nationalism from prophecy, and to stress that the
promise is to the whole world. "The universalism of the gospel is an
inseparable aspect of the eschatological emphasis in the New Testa-
ment. This universalism embraces the whole of mankind and is
geographically without bonds.... The whole world is taken up into the
eschatos concept."2
As noted earlier, the consciousness of a great drama being enacted
is evident in Peter's speeches. Indeed, the same consciousness may be
seen in the teaching of Jesus and Paul, and in fact of the whole New

1 H.A. W. Meyer, Criticialand ExegeticalHandbook to the Acts of Apostles,trans. by P.

J. Gloag (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883), p. 57.

2R. J. Knowling,"The Acts of the Apostles," The Expositor'sGreekTestament (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), p. 79.

29
Testament. Peter speaks of the fulfilling of prophecy and the inaugu-
ration of the new age in comprehensive terms of both present and future.
The fulfillment is partly already realized, namely in the coming, the
death, the resurrection, and the ascension of Christ and the gift of the
Holy Spirit. The fulfillment belongs partly to the future, since it is also
Christ "who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the
dead" (10:42). The "great and glorious day" (2:20) is still awaited, and
repentance is urged in view of that day. The "being saved" which is .
constantly mentioned (2:21, 40, 47; 4:9, 12; 5:31) has both a present and
a future significance. "The End is ... viewed as not only a particular
point in time, but also a period of time, that period, namely, which extends
between the first and the second coming of Christ."l The relation
between the present and the future aspects of salvation and the length of
the interval between Christ's ascension and second coming do not
constitute a subject for conscious reflection in Peter's speeches. A
possible exception is 3:19-21, where the emphasis is on the still awaited
revelation of the Messiah Jesus.2 This emphasis does not alter the fact
that in Him the prophecy has already found its provisional fulfillment (cf.
3:22, 26). But there is still an interval between the beginning and the end
of "these days" of the fulfillment (v. 24).
Thus, we conclude that at Pentecost Peter affirmed that the new
age, "the last days," "became a reality in the life of the Church. It was
then that the still here of the new age to bring into being the New
Testament now, the 'time between the times.' "3 Peter's proclamation
was that eternity has broken in on time, that the promised Messianic age
has come. Things which are possible only in that age are happening
before the very eyes of men. R. A. Nelson provides an adequate summary
of the matter.

Everywhere in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is spoken of

in eschatological terms. Pentecost, like Cross and Resurrec-

' '.
1 Boer,op. cit., pp. 148f.

2Ibid, p. 150.
3For an analysis of the eschatology of this passage, see Zehnle, op. cit., pp. 89ff.

- 30-
 tion, was an eschatological event. The Holy Spirit was the first-
fruits of the new age, the first installment which guarantees the
rest. The New Testament Church was certain of the new age not
only because Christ was risen and ascended but because the
Holy Spirit was given. The Holy Spirit was the first installment
of the Age which was to come, and through it the powers of the
Age to come were at work, in the healing of disease, the over-
throw of demons, the patterns of community life, and the
striking phenomenon of the Pentecost event itself ... 1

1R. A. Nelson, "Mission and Eschatology," Ecumenical Review.(January, 1954), pp.

149f.

- 31-