Putting Pentecost in Perspective (Part 3) Peters

Interpretation of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-40)

Introduction
Joe Bayly is now with the Lord, but he is a man I have always respected. He used to write a
regular article in Eternity magazine, entitled, Out of My Mind. He wrote an excellent
book on a topic few wish to considerthat of death and dying. It was first entitled, The View
From a Hearse, but has in later printings been entitled, The Last Thing We Talk About. He has
taken a stand on some issues which others have avoided. I can well remember one occasion
when Mr. Bayly challenged his readers to beware of the logic which tested truth in terms of
what it might lead to. Biblical truth in particular needs to be accepted as such, regardless of
its implications.
There are some people who will openly acknowledge that the reason they reject Jesus Christ
as their personal Savior is because they know that to accept Him would mean that He must be
Lord of their lives, and they have no intention of giving up their lifestyle. The religious
leaders of Jesus day put Him to death, to a large degree, because of what allowing Him to
live would lead tothe end of their power, prestige, and positions.
While we may be willing to admit the folly of rejecting a particular truth because of its
implications, we often repeat the same folly ourselves. For example, when we approach the
second chapter of the Book of Acts, we know that this passage is a kind of proof text for
some Christians. And we may not be very disposed to give their position or practices any
ground whatsoever. I am going to ask you to acknowledge to yourself, before we even look at
our text, that you probably have some strong feelings about the interpretation and application
of this text. I am going to ask you to momentarily set these aside, as best you can, and to pray
that the Spirit of God will open your eyes to the truth that is recorded for us here, whatever
that might be, and wherever that might lead us.
For those who come with a charismatic theology and practice, I am going to challenge you to
be willing to set this aside, even to reject it, if the text clearly says otherwise. For those who
are strongly anti-charismatic, I will ask you to be willing to admit that the charismatics are
right if this text teaches that they are. I am enough of a realist to know that few will allow this
text (or any combination of passages) to totally reverse their thinkingthough it has
happened, and hopefully it will continue to do so where needed. I would hope, however, that
the gap between charismatics and anti-charismatics (many non-charismatics I know of are
also anti-charismatic) would somehow narrow, and that we would be willing to give some
ground where it is required, even if we would not take the implications as far as our brother
or sister might.
There is another related danger here which we must first recognize and then deal with. There
is the danger of reading back into Acts from the Epistles, rather than reading forward
from Acts to the Epistles. Let me illustrate what I mean. We are all waiting for the baptism
of the Holy Spirit to occur here at Pentecost. But when we look for it, we look for a
baptism that is defined in the Epistles, rather than to read the Epistles in the light of Acts.
We therefore look for a baptism of the Spirit by the church at Pentecost, but we will run
headlong into several difficulties.

First, we do not find a description of the church being baptized here, but only the
apostles, and perhaps a few others. The baptism which is described here is not of those
saved, but the occasion for those who are saved. It is the cause, not the result of the salvation
of the 3,000. The message which Peter preached was very Jewish, and the promise was that
the kingdom of God might come.
Second, we think of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as being very distinct from the
filling of the Holy Spirit, but in our text they are not carefully distinguished. In this text,
which describes the baptism of the Holy Spirit (anticipated in Acts 1:4-5 and looked back
on in Acts 11:15-16) the term baptized is not found. Instead, the text tells us that they were
all filled with the Holy Spirit (2:4).
Third, we think of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in terms of John the Baptists
baptism and of believers baptism, and thus we come to this text thinking in terms of
immersion. This is not based upon the origin of the expression baptized as John the Baptist
used it, but upon later references to baptism in the New Testament. Being an immersionist,
it troubled me greatly to discover that the term baptism is not found in the Old Testament (in
the NIV and NASB concordances at least). Would you like to know the Old Testament term
which John speaks of in terms of baptism? It is the expression found several times in our text
pour out. It is difficult for an immersionist (I think I still am one, incidentally) to admit
that the Old Testament terminology for baptism has a strong kinship to sprinkling or pouring.
This danger of reading back into Acts from the Epistles must be acknowledged. Instead of
reading back, let us look at Acts as giving us a foundation, a historical context for that
which will be more formally stated in terms of definitions and doctrines. And let us beware of
those definitions or doctrines which ignore or contradict the content of Acts.

The Approach of this Lesson

In this lesson, I will first explore what happened at Pentecost, as described by Luke in verses
1-4. We will consider also who those were who experienced the outpouring of the Spirit
and who those were who witnessed it. Then we will turn our attention to the meaning of
Pentecost as Peter explained it in his first sermon. The meaning of this event and sermon to
that generation of Israelites will be summarized along with the response to Peters sermon.
Finally, we will very briefly consider the broader meaning of this event to Lukes first
readers, as well as to those in our present age. This will be done by emphasizing the
placement of this passage in the overall content and context of the Book of Acts.

Observations on the Passage as a Whole

First, the context is clearly Jewish in Acts chapter 2. The events take place in Jerusalem.
The apostles are all Jews (Galileans, too). Peters message is rooted in Old Testament
prophecy, prophecies given to Israel. Peter speaks of Gods coming judgment on Israel, and
calls on the men of Israel to repent, offering not only forgiveness of sins and the gift of the
Holy Spirit, but the kingdom as well (clearly implied).
Second, Lukes emphasis is not on the spectacular phenomenon of the sound of a
rushing wind, or of tongues, but on the meaning of the phenomenon. We cannot deny the
phenomenon which are described here, but these are not the focus or the emphasis. A simple
observation of the amount of space (the law of proportion) devoted to these spectacular

events shows this to be true. There are but four verses in this long chapter which deal with the
phenomenon. There are nearly twice as many verses devoted to the places from which the
men witnessing the events have been born. And there is by far the most attention given to the
meaning of the event, as explained by Peter in his sermon.
Third, even when the text deals with the spectacular, the focus is not on the individual
on whom the Spirit has fallen, but on those who witness it. So often the subject of
tongues, for example, is dealt with largely in terms of the tongues-speaker, but here the
emphasis is only on the tongues-hearer. The gifts of the Spirit are not primarily for our
benefit, but for the edification of others. Self-centeredness can quickly arise in this area, as
elsewhere. Was this, in fact, not the problem of the disciples? When they thought of power,
they thought of their position and prestige, and of their ranking with others. Jesus talked of
power in terms of service. The strong are to minister to the weak, not to themselves.
Fourth, the Pentecost of Acts chapter 2 is but the first of four pentecosts. There are
four pentecosts in Acts: Acts 2:1-4; Acts 8:14-25; Acts 10:44-48 (cf. 11:15-18); Acts 19:17. It is my conviction that we cannot understand the first Pentecost of Acts 2 apart from a
study of all of the pentecosts of Acts. Thus, our study is but an introduction, and our
conclusions must be subject to further information, which Luke will supply.
Fifth, Peters explanation of Pentecost here is given to a specific audience, telling them
all that they needed to know, but not all that there was to know. Peter has not given a full
explanation of the meaning of Pentecost in chapter 2. It is Luke, in this Book of Acts, who
will supply much more of an explanation of its long-term meaning. Peter told this group of
Jews what they most needed to know. Peter himself does not yet seem to understand the full
implications of Pentecost, as can be seen from chapters 10 and 11, and beyond.

The People and the Phenomenon of Pentecost

When Jesus told the disciples to wait until they were endued with power, He only told them
that it would not be many days until this took place (Acts 1:5). The actual day was the day
of Pentecost. Pentecost was one of the three major celebrations of Israel,6 which every
Israelite was to observe:
The day of Pentecost was so called because it fell on the fiftieth day after the presentation of
the first sheaf to be reaped of the barley harvest, that is, the fiftieth day from the first Sunday
after Passover (pentekostos being the Greek word for fiftieth). Among Hebrew- and
Aramaic-speaking Jews it was known as the feast of weeks (Ex. 34:22a; Deut. 16:10) and
also as the day of the firstfruits (Num. 28:26; cf. Ex. 23:16a) because on that day the
firstfruits of wheat harvest (Ex. 34:22a) were presented to God.7
It seems worthy of note that this is the only major feast of Israel which was not directly
rooted in some event in Israels history. We know from Pauls words in Colossians that it was,
at least, a mere shadow of what is to come (Colossians 2:17). While there must be a
typological or symbolic deeper meaning in the feast of Pentecost, Luke does not inform us of
what this was. Thus, I shall pass on as well, knowing that there is more here than meets the
eye.
The phenomenon of Pentecost was spectacular. First, there was a loud sound, like the sound
of a mighty, rushing wind, but only like it. This perhaps tornado-like sound seems to be

that which drew the large crowd to the place where the apostles were gathered. The sound of
their speaking in tongues was probably not that loud. There was also the sight of the fire-like
tongues which divided themselves among those present in that room. This sight was surely
seen by those present in the room. It is not so certain whether or not the spectators who were
attracted there by the great sound saw itperhaps so (cf. verse 33).
This loud sound and the accompanying flames which descended8 may well be a fulfillment of
prophecy, or at least have some Old Testament background as a symbol of Gods coming
judgment:
What is my beloved doing in my temple as she works out her evil schemes with many? Can
consecrated meat avert your punishment? When you engage in your wickedness, then you
rejoice. 16 The Lord called you a thriving olive tree with fruit beautiful in form. But with
the roar of a mighty storm he will set it on fire, and its branches will be broken. The LORD
Almighty, who planted you, has decreed disaster for you, because the house of Israel and the
house of Judah have done evil and provoked me to anger by burning incense to Baal
(Jeremiah 11:15-16).
The Lord Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm
and tempest and flames of a devouring fire (Isaiah 29:6; cf. also 30:27-33).
Most significant was the speaking in tongues. These tongues were languages, the native
tongues of those who had gathered. Everyone who on whom the Spirit fell seems to have
spoken in tongues. No other gifts or manifestations are mentioned. The precise logistics of
how this took place is not clear, but every man did hear a Galilean speaking in his own native
language. This, of course, would exclude the native Hebrews, who prided themselves for not
ever having lived outside of the land of promise, and who would thus have no foreign tongue
which he could understand. While the languages differed, the content of the utterances was
the same in essence: the mighty deeds of God (2:11).
This is, in my estimation, the first instance of tongues in the Bible. While the filling of the
Spirit produced prophecy and other phenomenon in the Old Testament, only now is tongues
found. Why? Because I think this was, in and of itself, a sign. It was a sign that the gospel
was going to be proclaimed to and received by men of every nation. God was to be praised
not only in the nations, but by them. This, incidentally, was something which the apostles did
not fully grasp either. Peter will only slowly, and not irreversibly, come toala Acts 10-11,
Galatians 2.
It is interesting that while these men all heard the mighty deeds of God9 in their native
languages, they heard the gospel in Peters native tongue. The gospel was not preached in
tongues; it was preceded by tongues. The gospel was proclaimed in the native tongue of the
land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, which I assume to be Aramaic.
I wonder if those who were speaking in tongues understood what they were saying. These
who were speaking in tongues were all Galileans (2:7). It would seem that they would all be
speaking languages they did not know and would not understand apart from the gift of
interpretation. We are simply not told what the speakers felt or understood, for the focus of
Luke is on the audience.

All of the spectacular phenomenon that are described come about suddenly and take the
group by surprise. It is nothing which they particularly expected. It is nothing which they
brought about. God sovereignly poured out His Spirit, with the manifestations He chose. The
disciples were sitting as this took place, indicating their passivity. They were, as it were, at
rest as this happened. God works in us, not due to our striving, but due to our resting and
abiding in Him.
One of the problems is determining just who is to be included in the all that Luke spoke of
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues
(verse 4). From the immediate context of chapter one (verse 15 in particular), we might
conclude that the number of those on whom the Spirit was poured out was one hundred and
twenty, which would have included the apostles. On further study and consideration, I have
come to the conclusion that it was only the apostles who experienced the gift of tongues at
this moment. I will try to explain why I have come to this conclusion.
The event described in verses 15-26 of chapter 1 takes place during the (approximately) ten
days between the ascension of our Lord and Pentecost. There were one hundred and twenty
gathered when Matthias was selected as the twelfth apostle. Statements prior to this seem to
suggest that those on whom the Spirit fell, or at least who spoke with tongues at Pentecost,
were only twelve in number. When Jesus gave the Great Commission to the disciples and
promised them power from on high, He did so to the eleven, according to Matthew (28:16ff.),
the eleven by themselves, according to Mark (16:14ff). Lukes Gospel is more ambiguous
because all of our Lords post-resurrection appearances, as well as His ascension, are lumped
together, not distinguishing different times, places, or groups of people.
The account of Acts 1:1-5 also seems to set the apostles apart. Those referred to by they or
you in verses 6-11 is not defined until we get to verses 12 and 13. Take note of who is
named as the they:
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a
Sabbath days journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room,
where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas,
Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the
son of James. These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along
with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers (Acts 1:12-14).
The they are thus defined as the eleven, shortly to become the twelve, once again, with the
addition of Matthias.
It was the apostles who were called to be witnesses to the resurrection of the Lord, and it was
they who were to lay down the terms of salvation (cf. Matthew 16:18-19). It was the apostles
who were especially given the promise of the Holy Spirit, who would bring Jesus words and
teaching to their remembrance. All those who spoke in tongues were, according to the witness
of those present, Galileans (2:7). Those who rejected the sign of tongues accused those who
thus spoke of being drunk. Only Peter and the eleven took their stand and were defended by
Peter (2:14). When Peter was finished, those who wanted to be saved looked to Peter and the
eleven for the answer to the question, What must we do to be saved? (2:37).
As the seventy, who were to carry out much of the work of Moses, were set apart, empowered
and accredited by the descent of the Spirit of Moses upon them (Numbers 11:17, 25-29), so

here as well the apostles, who were to carry on with the work of the Lord Jesus, who were to
speak for Him, with complete authority, were endowed with power from on high and
accredited before the nation. Pentecost here is primarily a matter of the apostles. We are not
told that the Spirit fell on the newly-born church of 3,000 but that the Spirit fell on the
apostles and, as a result, the church was born.
Now let us pause to reflect on those who witnessed Pentecost, those for whom Pentecost was
publicly performed. The emphasis of the text falls far more on those who were witnesses to
Pentecost, than on those who were participants. The audience at Pentecost was made up, to a
large degree at least, of devout men (verse 5). These were not only Jews, but devout Jews.
I would understand this to mean that they were, like Simeon and Anna, Elizabeth and
Zecharias, Mary and Joseph, looking for the kingdom of God and for its Messiah. Many of
the spectators had come from all over the world. Some may have come just for this feast, but
the great distance and their piety would suggest that they had immigrated to Israel, knowing
that the King would manifest Himself here, and that their hopes were to be fulfilled here. It
would seem then that they were originally from other parts of the world (and thus their native
tongues were those in which the apostles spoke of the mighty deeds of God), but whose faith
and hope caused them to move to the promised land.
In verse 14 Peter referred to his audience with these words: Men of Judea, and all you who
live in Jerusalem. My inclination is to see this as Peters recognition of the two major
groups present: (1) those who were native Hebrews (Men of Judea), and (2) those who
had immigrated to Jerusalem and were living there (Hellenistic Jews).10 This two-fold
division is evident in Acts chapter 6. Indeed, this distinction seems to have been the basis of
discrimination and bitterness:
Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part
of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being
overlooked in the daily serving of food (Acts 6:1).
It may very well be that the devout Jews, who were largely Hellenistic Jews, were the ones
who sincerely wanted to know what Pentecost meant. It may also be that the native Jews
were those who not only did not speak any foreign tongues (and thus could not hear the
praise of God in these tongues) but were those who accused the apostles of drunkenness. As
the power of the Spirit in the life of Jesus was attributed to Satan by those who rejected Him,
so the manifestation of the Spirit here was attributed to alcohol. There is always a ready
excuse for those determined not to believe.

Peters Explanation of Pentecost

(2:14-36)
The question has been asked of Peter and the other apostles: What does this mean? (verse
12). Peter will now take his stand, along with the rest of the apostles, and give them the
explanation of Pentecost, its meaning, and its implications.
The first thing Peter did was to answer the charge of some that they were drunk. He denies
this charge, not on the basis that none of them ever touched wine, but on the fact that it was
too early in the morningthe third hour of the day (verse 15), or 9 a.m.11 It was not only
untrue (a simple denial probably would not have convinced them), it was unreasonable (this
would carry greater weight).

Peter did not hesitate to tell his audience what Pentecost did mean. He quickly turned their
attention to the prophecy of Joel and specifically to his words recorded in Joel chapter 2,
verses 28-32:
17 AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS, God says, THAT I WILL POUR FORTH
OF MY SPIRIT UPON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS
SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR
OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; 18 EVEN UPON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH
MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy. 19 AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS TO THE SKY ABOVE,
AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BENEATH, BLOOD AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF
SMOKE. 20 THE SUN SHALL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS, AND THE MOON
INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL
COME.
21 AND IT SHALL BE, THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE
LORD SHALL BE SAVED.
The phenomenon of Pentecost was not the result of spirits (alcohol), but the Spirit. The
prophet Joel foretold of the time when the Spirit of God would be poured out on all mankind.
If the Spirit of God had been poured out in the Old Testament times, it was on a few people
who had specific tasks to perform. In the future, however, the Spirit would be much more
widely poured out and not just upon Jews, but upon ALL MANKIND (Acts 2:17).
Peter was thus claiming that what these Jews had witnessed was the outpouring of the Spirit
which Joel foretold. But there was much more to it than that. The question was not so much
the source of this phenomenon, but the meaning of it. Peter would tell them, but it was not all
good news. In the context of Joels prophecy, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a sign
which was to precede the coming day of the Lord ( Acts 2:20; cf. Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31;
3:14). The day of the Lord was not only the day when the kingdom of God would be
established on the earth and Gods promised blessings would be poured out on His people,
Israel. It was to begin with judgment.
It is of this judgment which Joel spoke in his prophecy. It is very evident in that portion of
Joel which Peter quoted. He spoke much more of the judgment of God than of His blessings.
Israel must first be judged and purged of her sins and then blessings could come. The
outpouring of the Spirit was said by Joel to be a warning that the time of judgment was at
hand. Fortunately, the last verse cited by Peter was the promise of salvation, to all who called
upon the Lord (2:21). Before Peter will tell his audience about this salvation, he will explain
the specifics of the judgment which looms large before them, from which they could be
saved.
In verses 22-24 Peter lays the charge against the people of this city, the people who stand
before him:
22 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God
with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just
as you yourselves know23 this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and
foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to

death. 24 And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was
impossible for Him to be held in its powers.
Jesus the Nazarene presented Himself to His people in Jerusalem, even as the prophets had
foretold. Jesus came not only with the claim to be the Messiah, but God Himself testified to
His identity and authority through the signs and wonders He performed through the Holy
Spirit.
In spite of this, Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah. And not Israel in some general sense;
those hearing Peter rejected His claim to be Messiah. The One whom God accredited, they
rejected. Worse yet, they nailed Him to a cross. This was all within the sovereign plan and
purpose of God, but they put Him to death in an evil conspiracy which involved the Gentiles
as well. Gods purposes were not overthrown in all of this, for He raised Jesus from the dead.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Peter will
first demonstrate the necessity of Christs resurrection and then he will spell out its
implications. He told this audience that it was impossible for Him not to be raised. As proof,
Peter turns to Psalm 16, a psalm of David. He quotes these words from the psalm:
I WAS ALWAYS BEHOLDING THE LORD IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY
RIGHT HAND, 26 THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE
EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL ABIDE IN HOPE; 27 BECAUSE
THOU WILT NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW THY HOLY ONE
TO UNDERGO DECAY. 28 THOU HAST MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE;
THOU WILT MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH THY PRESENCE.
In this psalm, David reveled in the inheritance which God had prepared for him and promised
to him. The blessings to which David looked forward were largely heavenly blessings as I
understand his words. Note the words in verse 11 which conclude Davids psalm:
Thou wilt make known to me the path of life; In Thy presence is fullness of joy; In Thy right
hand there are pleasures forever (NASB).
What is the basis of Davids confidence in these future blessings? How can he know he will
experience them? Will they not be terminated by his own death? Davids answer seems to be
this: My future rests in God, and specifically in my own offspring, the Messiah, whose
kingdom will be eternal (cf. 2 Samuel 7:14). I know that I will die, but my future rests in
Gods Holy One, who cannot be held by death or the grave. David somehow knows that His
Savior will die, but this does not shake his faith, for he also knows that death cannot hold
him. His Savior may die, but he will not stay dead. He will die, but His flesh will not see
corruption. Since Davids future rests on His Messiah, his future is secure, even after his own
death, for God has made known to David the path of life (verse 16). David will rise from
the dead, to enjoy the blessings God has promised him because His Messiah will rise from
the dead.
When David spoke of resurrection in this psalm, Peter pointed out, he was not speaking of his
own resurrection but of his Sons resurrection. Davids tomb was still there, and it was
occupiedwith David! The empty tomb was that of Jesus, the Nazarene. David was speaking
of Jesus in Psalm 16, and the empty tomb was proof of that. The Old Testament taught both
the necessity of the death of Messiah and of His resurrection.

If prophecy was one line of evidence, pointing to the resurrection, Pentecost was another.
Pentecost was not just a fulfillment of Gods promise, it was the pouring out of the Spirit as
proof that Jesus had risen from the dead. John the Baptist had said that Jesus would pour out
the Spirit, that He would baptize with fire and with the Holy Spirit. And he was absolutely
right! Having been raised from the dead, He was also ascended into heaven. The outpouring
of the Spirit was from above, where Jesus now was, at the Fathers right hand. Both prophecy
and Pentecost were proof of Jesus resurrection.
The death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ is not only a fact, it is a truth loaded with
implications, very distressing implications. If Messiah is now in heaven, at the right hand of
the Father, for what is He waiting? The answer was given in Joel chapter two, but it is also to
be found in Psalm 110:1, which Peter now cites:
THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE THINE
ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR THY FEET.
Having been raised from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father, the Christ is
now acclaimed Lord. He is given full power and authority, the right to reign. Then what
delays the establishment of His kingdom? Psalm 110 tells us: before He can reign, the Father
must put all of His enemies under His feet. The delay in the establishment of the kingdom is
only until the enemies of the Messiah are put down. To sum it up, God has made this Jesus
both LORD and Christ (verse 36). This is a very pregnant expression, but at minimum it
means that Jesus is not only the Messiah who was rejected and put to death, but He is the
LORD who is returning to reign, just as soon as His enemies are put down.
And just who might those enemies be? The answer to this question was all too clear from
Peters message. They had rejected and crucified the Messiah. God had raised Him from the
dead, and He was soon to subdue all of Messiahs enemies. God was soon to bring judgment
upon this generation. Jesus had spoken of this. Joel foretold it. And Psalm 110 spoke of it as
well. The outpouring of the Spirit was not good news, but bad news. All except for the last
verse of Joels prophecy which Peter cited,
And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved (verse 21).
No wonder Peters audience is cut to the heart (verse 37). They need no prompting, no
persuasion, to ask what it is that they must do to be saved and to be delivered from the wrath
of God. The answer is short, but profound. They must repent and be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ (Jesus the Christ, the anointed One, the Messiah). Doing so, their sins will be
forgiven, they will be saved from Gods wrath, and they will receive the promised gift of the
Holy Spirit, the firstfruits of the kingdom to come.
Verse 40 is a further clarification of Peters words of application. What is most important to
see in these words is that there are two senses in which the Israelites of that day were saved
by their repentance and faith. They were saved, first of all, from the coming wrath of God
upon that city and that generation, for rejecting Messiah and putting Him to death. They were
also saved from Gods eternal wrath and assured of eternal life and the blessings of His
promised kingdom.

Conclusion

The application for Peters audience was simple and straight-forward. The day of Gods
judgment was near. They were guilty of rejecting Jesus of Nazareth, who had the testimony
of God that He was Israels Messiah. If they repented, they would be saved from Gods
coming wrath, and better yet, they would enter into the promised kingdom. If they did not,
judgment was imminent.
Its simple, but there is no more important decision, no more urgent matter, than this. The
application for us is identical, in principle. While Gods wrath was poured out on Jerusalem
in 70 A.D., there is a coming day of judgment which will precede the establishment of the
kingdom of God on the earth. You and I have also learned of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the
King who will come to judge and then to reign. He is also the One who bore the penalty for
our sins. While we may not have been in that crowd which called for His death, we have just
as wickedly rejected Him, and were we given the chance, we would have done just as Peters
audience had done.
There is a coming day of judgment for us, one way or the other. That day of judgment may
come before our death or it may come after, but there is a day of judgment (Hebrews 9:27).
To the threat of eternal judgment is Gods offer of salvation, to all who will call upon the
name of the Lord. By admitting your sin, and by trusting in Jesus of Nazareth as Gods
Messiah and your Savior, you will be forgiven, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and look
forward to the coming kingdom of God and all of its blessings. Have you, in simple faith,
done this? I pray that if you have not, you will, even now.

It was the second of the three great annual feasts which every male Israelite was required to
attend (Deut. 16:16). Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 28.
7

F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 49-50.
8

Jesus was described in chapter one as being taken up, into heaven. Now, in this verse the
phenomenon is described as coming down from heaven. The connection is deliberate and
necessary. The one who was taken up has sent down the Spirit.
9

I would imagine that the wonders of God which were proclaimed in these foreign tongues
were seemingly similar to those praises of Mary, Elizabeth, Zacharias, Simeon, and Anna.
10

I take it, then, that these Hellenistic Jews would not leave Jerusalem immediately after
Pentecost, taking with them the good news of the gospel. They would probably stay in
Jerusalem, for they were still expecting the kingdom to come at any moment. In fact, their
expectation and hope would have been enhanced by Peters promise of the gift of the Holy
Spirit. It would not have been until the persecution resulting from the stoning of Stephen that
these saints would have fled, now taking the good news along with them (or at least some
may have done so. Cf. Acts 11:19-21).
11

It is, of course, possible that the group had carried on an all-night prayer vigil. We might
have expected the Spirit to fall on them after a long day of fervent prayer. The impression I

get is that the Spirit fell upon them before they even got started that day. This would be just
like God, answering before we have even called to Him