If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

The Pouring out of the Spirit - in the Upper Room, at Pentecost, and Beyond.

Without the death of Jesus there could have been no outpouring of the Spirit in the fullest sense. That was something Jesus made quite clear when He said, “It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go, the Paraclete (the Spirit as strengthener and encourager) will not come to you. But if I leave I will send Him to you” (John 16.7).

This was in line with what He had promised earlier “He who believes on me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his innermost being will flow rivers of living water’.” And John had added, no doubt remembering Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, “this he said about the Spirit, which those who believe on Him would receive, for the Holy Spirit (in the way promised by the Old Testament Scriptures) was not yet (poured out) because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John.7.38-39).

So the final work of the Spirit would result from the suffering and exaltation of Jesus.

The New Testament makes the reason for this quite clear. It was only once Jesus had given Himself “as a ransom for many” (Mark 10.45), buying His people “with a price” (1 Corinthians 6.20), redeeming them through “the shedding of His blood” (Ephesians 1.7), so that those who were ‘under the Law’, and therefore facing God as judge, might be adopted as sons, that they could receive the Spirit of His Son. Then they also, like Jesus, could approach God and call Him ‘Abba, Father’ (Galatians 4.4-6 - ‘Abba’, meaning ‘daddy’ was the word used by Jewish children as a term of closeness and affection). They would no longer be ‘servants’ but ‘sons’, and thus the ‘heirs’ of God (Galatians 4.7), ‘joint-heirs with Christ’ (Romans 8.17).

They would become “God’s own purchased possession” (Ephesians 1.14), His own ‘set apart’ people (Titus 2.14). They would be ‘sealed with the promised Holy Spirit’ (Ephesians 1.13) and become His dwellingplace, ‘the Temple of the Holy Spirit’ (1 Corinthians 6.20).

So the Spirit promised by Jesus would be the source of their sonship, the seal and guarantee of their inheritance and the means by which they were indwelt by God. He would also be the means by which they would ‘receive power from above’ for the future task which God purposed for them (Luke 14.46-49). This would be the invasion of the Spirit.

The Old Testament prophets had promised this long before. The Spirit will be “poured out on us from above” (Isaiah 32.15), using the picture of abundant rain, for God will “pour water on him who is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground”, He will “pour My Spirit upon your children, and My blessing upon your offspring” (Isaiah 44.3). He will “sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall be clean --- a new heart I will give you and a new Spirit will I put within you. I will take away your heart of stone in your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ezekiel 36.25-26). And so we could go on (see The Holy Spirit in the Old Tesament)..

This is what the baptism of John the Baptiser signified, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit like rain on the dry ground, and when he said “I baptise (drench, overwhelm) you with water, but He will baptise (drench, overwhelm) you with the Holy Spirit” he had this very much in mind. Like the Old Testament prophets he was ‘acting out’ the future blessing by physical means. This is confirmed immediately when he uses the picture of corn being sifted, the wheat being gathered into the barn and the chaff burned up with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3.11-12). The result of the baptism or drenching in the Spirit (en pneumati) would be a future of bounteous harvest and abundant fruitfulness. It will be noted that John’s preaching is littered with agricultural references. He refers to the Pharisees as “vipers, fleeing from the coming wrath” which referred to the way the vipers wriggled out of the cornfields once they had been set on fire after harvesting. He refers to the axe being applied to the roots of trees when they had proved to be barren. He refers to the winnowing fork, which was used to toss the harvested grain into the air so that the prevailing wind could separate the wheat from the chaff, and the fire used to burn up the chaff. He refers to the “clearing” of the threshing floor, using a specialist term which refers to such an agricultural activity. It is hardly conceivable therefore that John had in mind the ceremonial washings. His illustrations would have been very different if he had had those in mind. (And in the Old Testament ritual washings never cleansed, they were only preparatory to cleansing). His thoughts were full of the blessing of rain, fruitfulnes and harvest as pictures of the coming of the Spirit.

The phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is often used by people out of context. When it occurs in the New Testament, it is always in parallel with references to John’s baptism (Mark 1.8; Matthew 3.11; Luke 3.16; John 1.33; Acts 1.5; 11.16), the phrase obtaining its meaning from that picture. Thus the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” refers to the promises of the Spirit coming as life-giving rain, providing life, food and water to the lifeless and thirsty. These effects are brought out by Jesus when He portrays Himself as the giver of life-giving, thirst quenching water, and as the bread of life (John 4. 13-14; 6.35; 7.37-39). This is not to deny that there are experiences of the Spirit’s power included in this and even beyond this, only to deny that the term “baptism in the Holy Spirit” should uniquely be applied to them. (I have no desire to be controversial, only accurate).

This is brought out again in 1 Corinthians 12.13 where Paul says, “For we were all baptised in (Greek en) one Spirit into one body --- and have all been made to drink into (en) one Spirit”. The thirst-satisfying Spirit has fashioned us into a single unit, the body of Christ (v.12). We all drink the same Spirit and share the same baptism in the Spirit, we are therefore all one together, regardless of colour or culture. The baptism in the Holy Spirit, indirectly referred to, has produced one united people drinking of the water of life.

The symbolism of baptism would later be expanded by Paul (Romans 6.3; Galatians 3.27), the former in line with Jesus’ reference to the baptism of suffering (Matthew 20.22-23; Mark 10.38-39; Luke 12.50). There he declares that by being baptised into Jesus Christ we are “baptised into His death” (Romans 6.3), being “buried with Christ in baptism into death”, so that “as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6.4; compare Colossians 2.12). Thus do we “put on Christ” (Galatians 3.27). But this was an extension of the idea of baptism.

It is possible that in Paul’s mind was the fact that converts to Judaism were lowered into a bath of water in a ceremony of ritual purification to wash away the taint of the heathen world, which Rabbinical teaching later certainly referred to in somewhat similar terms, but if so it must be seen as secondary. Paul’s idea was not that of washing but of dying in order to enjoy resurrection and new life. He sees more the going into the water as a death and burial, and this idea might equally have arisen from the idea of the death and rising again in nature (1 Corinthians 15 .36-37; 42-44). There is, however, no reason for thinking that any of this was in mind in the earlier references to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

The pouring out of the Holy Spirit began in a quiet way in the Upper Room where the resurrected Jesus breathed on His apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20.22). There they were endued with His promised wisdom and discernment as signified earlier in John 14 to 16, including the ability to discern true repentance from false (John 20.23) a gift exercised by Peter in Acts 5.3. This appears to have been a special and distinctive enduing for the apostles in the light of their unique responsibilities. There are no real grounds for suggesting it was merely symbolic, and to suggest that John would be satisfied with merely describing the symbol when he could have described the reality is extremely unlikely. This was the personal establishment of the coming age of the Spirit. Pentecost would be the public revelation.

Thus at the same time He prepares them for an event which will make clear to the world that the age of the Spirit has truly come, and that God’s new work is commencing. “Behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you. Remain here in Jerusalem until you are endued with power from above” (Luke 24.49). This promise of power from above was given in the Old Testament in a number of places (Isaiah 32.15; 44.3-4; Ezekiel 36.26-28; 37.14; Joel 2.28-32). It was the basis of the expectation of the coming age of the Spirit. The apostles have already received the coming Spirit of wisdom and discernment, but it was God’s intention that that their empowerment for the task ahead should be a public event clearly revealed to the world.

But while it was important, we must not overemphasise reference to Pentecost in our personal experience. It was one of a number of climactic events that followed the resurrection, and the other Gospel writers do not see fit to mention it. Thus Matthew describes the empowering of the disciples for the future task in terms of “Lo, I am with you always” (Matthew 28.20). He is saying that the presence of the risen Christ is all that they will need for the future. Mark’s ending assumes an empowering and describes some of the powers the disciples will enjoy (Mark 16.17-18), but it is not put in terms of the Holy Spirit. John, as we have seen, refers especially to the enduement in the Upper Room. So none see it as necessary to mention what happened at Pentecost. Among the many amazing and traumatic experiences they had experienced in the final weeks, it appeared to them as one among a series which issued in the new age. It was Luke (the author of Luke and Acts), distanced from events, who looked back under the guidance of God and saw it as the best launching point for his description of the “acts of the apostles” and the rise of the early church.

That being said its significance must not be denied. The Feast of Pentecost was the same as the Feast of Weeks which by this time had become connected with the giving of the Law, the old covenant, at Sinai. What happened at Pentecost was to be the establishing of the new covenant and would be a public demonstration of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as promised by the prophets. They have already been “given orders through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1.2), but are now to wait for the “promise of the Father” (Acts 1.4), the “drenching (baptizo) with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1.5). Then they will receive power (Gk. dunamis - ‘dynamic’) when the Holy Spirit “comes upon them” (Acts 1.8), so that they can be His witnesses to the ends of the earth.

It is interesting to see the step by step process of preparation. The Holy Spirit cannot be limited to one experience. There is a gradual build up of His influence. It has been going on in the preparations for, and through, the ministry of Jesus, it has been wonderfully extended in the experience of the Upper Room, but Luke’s writings certainly portray Jesus as declaring that Pentecost is a pivotal moment from when the promises to the prophets of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the world finally begin their fulfilment.

There will never be another Pentecost. It was a unique event and a mixture of climactic events that changed world history. We can enjoy the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, but we cannot enjoy another Pentecost, and we show our lack of understanding of Pentecost if we suggest otherwise. For Pentecost was a mixture of empowering, of declaration of a new covenant and a new beginning for the world, and of an outward proclamation to the world that the “age to come” had arrived. (Matthew, Mark and John would not have denied this. They merely felt that they had shown the same reality in a different way. Some emphasise the Holy Spirit, others the risen Christ. This also happens among Christians in the present day. We must beware of condemning people, or suggesting that they are lacking, because of terminology).

Before going on there is one myth we must completely dispense with. While they waited for what was to come the disciples were not a frightened, dispirited group. They may have met behind locked doors for a time (it is not spiritual to be foolhardy), but they were soon filled with great joy, and were continually in the Temple openly praising and blessing God (Luke 24.52-53). They “continued with one accord in prayer and supplication” (Acts 1.14) and even went so far as to make the number of apostles up to twelve again (Acts 1.15-26), and this was after they had been endued with special wisdom in the Upper Room (John 20.22). Their ‘inactivity’ was a sign of obedience, not of fear. It is misleading to suggest otherwise.

2.1 It seems probable that the events in Acts 2 took place in the Temple area, ‘the House where they were sitting’. Compare Luke 24.53 where we learn that they were continually in the Temple blessing God. It was there that we have been told that they met continually for praise and worship, and in Luke’s writings the Temple is referred to as “the House” (Luke 11.51 in the Greek; Acts 7.47-50). When he refers to private houses he usually tells us whose house it is. The Temple was described by Jesus as the ‘House of prayer’ (Luke 19.46) and in the Temple area, apart from the Holy Place and the court of the priests, there was a courtyard for the men of Israel, a courtyard which women also could enter, and an outer court for Gentiles (non-Jews). It was partly because this latter was a place for prayer that Jesus was so angry at the noisy trading taking place there (John 2.13-16). Each courtyard was surrounded by walls in which were large porticos, where people regularly met for prayer, and these later were a general meeting place for disciples (Acts 3.10-11; 5.12). This would explain how the crowd gathered so easily and so quickly, and could witness the ‘sound’ (2.6), and how a large group of disciples could be together (possibly around 125 - Acts 1.15). It is probable that Luke avoids stressing the fact too much because he does not want to suggest the Temple as the centre of Christianity. By the time he wrote he was fully aware of the problem of the Judaisers which Paul faced. However, what happened is far more important than where it happened.

2.1-2 The apostles and their fellow disciples (probably the ‘about 120’ mentioned in Acts 1.15) were all gathered ‘in one place’ when suddenly there was the ‘sound from heaven of a rushing, mighty wind (Gk. pnoe)’ which filled the place where they were sitting. Note that there may be no suggestion that there was an actual wind. It was a noise that they heard, not a wind that they experienced. The word used for wind is interesting. It is not ‘anemos’ the usual word for wind, nor is it ‘pneuma’ which we might have expected as symbolising the Holy Pneuma (Spirit). It is ‘pnoe’. It is used only once elsewhere in the New Testament where it means ‘breath’ and is paralleled with ‘life’ (Acts 17.25). It is, however, more common in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) where it most often translates ‘neshamah’ which refers to the ‘breath of life’ (e.g. Genesis 2.7; 7.22; 2 Samuel 22.16; Psalm 150.6; Isaiah 42.5; 57.16). In Genesis 2.7 it is the breath of life breathed into man to give life, in 2 Samuel 22.16 it is God’s breath as figurative for a storm wind (compare Ezekiel 13.13), in Psalm 150.6 and 42.5 it is the breath of life, and in Ezekiel 13.13 it is a wind raised by God. Outside the New Testament it is used both for ‘wind’ and ‘breath’. Luke clearly has a reason for uniquely using this particular word here. There seems good ground therefore for seeing its use here as stressing the life-giving breath of God, as symbolised by the wind.

This agrees with the idea in John 20.22. In John it was a gentle breath, but none-the-less powerful. Here the mighty ‘pnoe’ is the breath of God coming in mighty life-giving power, offering new life to the ‘dead’ (Ezekiel 37.5-10), so that they may be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1.4), and a new revelation of the creative power of God (compare Genesis 2.7; Psalm 33.6). God is beginning His new creation (Isaiah 65.17-19; 66.22). The resemblance to the wind also reminds us of “the sound of marching in the trees” (2 Samuel 5.24) when God was acting with His chosen king to establish His people in the land. The stress on the loudness of the noise emphasises that this is a climactic moment. This is emphatically a powerful new beginning.

2.3 There also “appeared to them divided tongues as of fire” sitting on each of them (2.3). Once again it is not suggested that it is real fire. God is revealing His presence through supernatural signs. In the Old Testament He regularly revealed His presence by ‘fire’, to Abraham (Genesis 15.17), at the Exodus (e.g. Exodus 13.22), at Sinai (Exodus 19.18) and at the Tabernacle (Exodus 40.38), and Moses could say that God “spoke out of fire on the mountain” (Deuteronomy 4.11) so that they saw no likeness of God, only heard His voice. In Ezekiel 1.27; 8.2 God reveals Himself in “the likeness of the appearance of fire”. This would suggest that the fire is a symbol of the presence of God as covenant-maker and adopter of those He has made His own, as protector of His people and as declarer of His holy commands. So the fire probably signifies a new deliverance, a new presence of God with His people, and a new giving of God’s instruction, as the fire at Sinai and elsewhere signified the old. It declares that God now indwells His people as His new tabernacle. The dividing of the fire demonstrates that each one present is experiencing the fulness of the whole. It was specific and personal, not just general.

2.4 “And they were all filled (Gk. pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them words” (Acts 2.4). The phrase “filled with the Holy Spirit” occurs at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel explaining the prophesying of Elizabeth (1.40) and Zacharias (1.67), and the continuing power behind John the Baptiser’s ministry (1.15), where it is likened to the spirit and power of Elijah (1.17). Another phrase “full (pleres) of the Holy Spirit” is referred to the ministry of Jesus (Luke 4.1). He did not require special fillings for He was always full of the Spirit. ‘Filled with the Holy Spirit’ occurs elsewhere in Acts where it causes the disciples of Jesus to “speak the word of God boldly” (Act 5.31) and to be filled with supernatural joy (Acts 13.52). It is used therefore to explain supernatural phenomena, and the power behind the ministries of men chosen by God. In the case of John the Baptiser it was permanent, while with Elizabeth and Zacharias it was a temporary phenomenon. (This compares with the phrase “the Spirit of the Lord came upon ---” in the Old Testament where it was often for a specific task, but permanent for Saul, while he was obedient, and for David). Here it would seem to refer to the temporary experience of speaking in tongues. The more permanent experience is revealed in the divine breath and the tongues of fire.

So in Acts 2.4 the phrase being ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’ is the explanation for the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, and to that extent temporary, but there can be no doubt that Acts 2.1-4 describes the “drenching in the Holy Spirit” of Acts 1.5. The coming of the Holy Spirit here is more than just a “filling”. It is the arrival of God by His Spirit in permanent power and distinctive presence. The “filling” to enable the speaking in tongues is only a small part of it. We must beware of applying Acts 1.1-4 to some sort of ‘special experience’ available to all. Christians can, of course, all enjoy what lies behind the experience there, experiencing the indwelling and life-giving power of the Spirit, receiving the enduement with power of the Spirit and taking part in the furthering of the work of the Spirit in this new age, but this is the fruition of this event not a repeating of it. Many may also experience being “filled with the Holy Spirit” when God has a task for them to do. This is something that has happened through the ages, and will continue to happen. But it is interesting that no one is ever told to seek the Holy Spirit. We are told to seek God, and as we seek God He will come, as He did here.

The speaking in tongues is almost certainly intended to indicate that the judgment of the world at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 is now over. There began the process that led to men being divided through their different languages, here begins the process of bringing men of different languages together as one. In Acts 10.44-46 the same sign would bring home to Peter that Gentiles as well as Jews could enjoy the full privileges of the coming of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 19.6 the sign would indicate to the influential followers of John the Baptiser that they needed to participate in the new age of the Spirit.

So Pentecost is the outward revelation of the new age of the Spirit, in which men will be indwelt by God through His Spirit, will enjoy at various levels the power of His Spirit, and will be able to see themselves as the Tabernacle and Temple of God enjoying all the blessings that the Spirit brings as described - sonship, sealing, and setting apart for God. They are to allow the Spirit to fill (pleroo) them on a continual basis (Ephesians 5.18), an experience different from being “filled (pimplemi) with the Spirit” for a particular task, so that they can rejoice and be filled with worship and praise, the result of continually seeking God and being obedient to Him. Thus will they enjoy the full benefits of the age of the Spirit.

2.5-11 The feast of Pentecost was attended by Jews of the Dispersion (those who lived outside Palestine) from many parts of the known world, and this is confirmed in verse 5, the important point in this context being that many languages were represented among the crowd. ‘Every nation under Heaven’ is hyperbole for ‘many nations’. A great crowd had gathered round the apostles, amazed at what they were hearing and seeing. These Jews of the Dispersion recognised immediately that the languages the apostles were speaking were their own languages, and knowing that the apostles were native Galileans they were astounded. The list of those present is outlined and is quite widespread - Parthians, Medes, Elamites, those who lived in Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Cyrene, Rome - and they included both Jews and proselytes (proselytes were Gentiles who had converted to Judaism and had been circumcised). They said in amazement, ‘we do hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God’. The mention of Judea is unexpected. At least one of the disciples had clearly been speaking in a pure Southern accent rather than a Galilean one, to the amazement of all.

‘Are not all these which speak Galileans?’. The continual presence in the Temple of the group of disciples had been duly noted and they had probably become fairly well known by these Jews and proselytes of the Dispersion, who would also be regularly present, in order to make the most of their time in Jerusalem. Now they were astonished to find that the ‘ignorant Galileans’ had become linguists.

This speaking in other known tongues (lalein ‘eterais glossais) must be differentiated from the glossolalia (‘speaking in tongues’) mentioned in 1 Corinthinas 12 - 14. There the tongues are unknown tongues and have to be interpreted. Here they are known tongues and clearly recognised. There the aim was mainly private edification, here it is for public witness. Both are the work of the same Spirit but they are not directly identical, and there is no suggestion in Acts that this phenomenon of Acts 2 should be repeated. Repetition in fact only occurs twice more, once to validate the acceptance of the first Gentile converts on equal terms with Jews and Samaritans, and once to bring home that the followers of John the Baptiser, who had become a significant group, needed to respond to Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. In both cases the sign occurs at the moment they are ‘reborn’ to become Christians.

2.12-13 As always God’s revelation produced two opposite reactions. Some seriously considered the matter and asked, ‘What does this mean?’, others scoffed and said, ‘they are drunk’.

2.14-36 Peter’s Preaching

Peter’s sermon first looks back to the Old Testament for an explanation of what has happened and then continues in a way which would become the established pattern for early preachers. First a brief outline of the life of Jesus, then a reference to His crucifixion followed by His resurrection, then the application.

2.14-15 ‘You men of Judea and all you who dwell in Jerusalem’. The inhabitants of Jerusalem had always looked on themselves as separate from those who lived outside the city. From earliest times Jerusalem was the city of David, separate from both Judah and Israel, and this pride in their uniqueness had continued for a thousand years, a fact which Peter here explicitly acknowledges. He then rebuts the charge of drunkenness on the basis of the earliness of the hour (around 9 am).

2.16-21 ‘This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel’. Peter turns to the Old Testament for an explanation of what has happened. He knows that it is the authority his hearers will accept. It is also recognised by the apostles as the Scriptures and the word of God, as they had been taught by Jesus. He quotes extensively from the passage in Joel. He reminds them that Joel had prophesied the coming of the Holy Spirit on both young and old so that the generality of people would become prophets and visionaries. This was important as it gave Scriptural authority to these ‘unlearned’ men, who had not been educated in the Rabbinic colleges.

2.19-20 ‘I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth beneath, blood and fire and vapour of smoke, the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the day of the Lord come, that great and notable day’. Peter has in mind ‘the signs on the earth’ performed by Jesus (compare verse 22), the blood of Christ that has been shed, the fire that was seen to descend on them at Pentecost (Acts 2.3) and the great darkness that blotted out the light in Jesus’ final hours (Mark 15.33), a phenomenon possibly accompanied by the reddening of the moon. He cites these phenomena as the sign that the day of the Lord is now imminent. God has begun to act. So now is the time for them to call on the name of the Lord to be saved (v.21). He will later stress that this Lord is in fact Jesus Christ (v 36).

2.22 He draws their attention to the life of Jesus, stressing that His mighty signs and wonders demonstrated that He was approved of God, and calls on them to admit to what they have seen done among them. They had been witnesses of these things. Let them now consider their import.

2.23 ‘Him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of lawless men did crucify and slay’. The words of Jesus in His last hours, following on His continual stress that He has come to die as a ransom for many (Mark 10.45), reinforced by His resurrection, had brought home forcibly to Peter the truth of the situation. In the light of these there was only one explanation for what had happened to Jesus. It was within the divine and eternal plan of God. The linking of determinate counsel with foreknowledge demonstrates that ‘foreknowledge’ means more than just knowing beforehand, otherwise the word is redundant. (What God had determined to do He must have known about beforehand). Thus it rather stresses the personal nature of what God had done. He had beforehand ‘known in experience’ what Jesus would be called on to undergo. He had chosen Christ for the purpose of dying for mankind and had, as it were, deliberately entered in experience into the crucifixion beforehand in readiness for its accomplishment. He had ‘foreknown’ it. ‘You by the hands of lawless men --’ - he may be referring to the Romans as not being under the Jewish Law, or to the leaders of the Jews as being in practise disobedient to the Law they pretended to revere, or possibly both. All have acted against God’s law. Certainly later all will be included as responsible for the death of Christ, Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews (Acts 4.27-28).

2.24-31 Having stressed the crucifixion he now moves on to the resurrection which he seeks to demonstrate as in accordance with Scripture. Although Jesus was crucified by men, he says, He was raised by God, as God had indeed promised in Psalm 16.8-11. Peter gives the Psalm a Messianic significance, and cites the Psalm as proclaiming the resurrection of the Messiah, fulfilled in Jesus. As with many Old Testament prophecies there was a twofold fulfilment, only the second of which literally fulfilled the words. Thus, says Peter, the Psalm cannot literally refer to David, for he did die and was buried and saw corruption. So it must refer to great David’s greater son, the Messiah.

2.32 ‘This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses’. Now the personal testimony comes in. The disciples have witnessed the resurrection and can testify that it literally occurred, in accordance with David’s promise.

2.33 ‘being therefore exalted at (or by) the right hand of God’. Peter now forces his hearers to consider the consequences of what they have seen. The resurrection of Jesus and this remarkable revelation of the glory of God that they have just experienced demonstrate Jesus’ present position. He has been exalted at the right hand of God. The position at the right hand of a king was that of his foremost adviser and his most powerful deputy. Indeed the ‘right hand man’ acted on the king’s behalf in all matters of state, responsible only to the king himself. Thus this exaltation of Jesus is to the highest position of all. It is, of course, not to be taken literally. God is Spirit. He does not have a right hand. Nor does Jesus’ exaltation make Him only a deputy. The human picture is used to demonstrate the completeness of His exaltation as resurrected man. An alternative possible translation is ‘exalted by God’s right hand’ but there is no question that Jesus is seen as ‘at God’s right hand’ elsewhere in Acts (Acts 7.55 compare also verse 34 below).

‘And having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this which you see and hear’. The echo of John 14-16 is found in these words, and in those chapters in John’s Gospel we find the explanation for Peter’s certainty and assurance. But his hearers know nothing of those words and are therefore directed instead to consider the Old Testament Scriptures about the outpouring of the Spirit. Notice how, in line with John, Peter stresses that the Holy Spirit has been put under Jesus’ control. It is He Who has poured forth the Spirit.

2.34-35 ‘For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit on my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool for your feet’ (Psalm 110.1). Peter then quotes from a second Messianic psalm to demonstrate Jesus’ superiority over the great king David. David, he points out, did not ascend into Heaven to receive a throne, rather he called the one who was to do so his ‘Lord’. Compare Matthew 22.43-45 where Jesus quotes the same psalm and says, ‘if David then calls him Lord, how is He then his son?’. So, says Peter, Jesus has ascended to this exalted position demonstrating that the One they had crucified has been made both Lord and Messiah, as the resurrection and the pouring out of the Spirit demonstrate.

How Peter’s understanding has been transformed by his reception of the Spirit in the Upper room and here at Pentecost. He has recognised that Jesus is more than a great man, more than a prophet, more even than the Messiah, He is the exalted Lord. Compare with this the confession of Thomas, ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20.28).

His words speak volumes to the crowd. Many of them are now ‘pricked in their heart’ (v.37). ‘Brethren’, they ask, ‘what shall we do?’ Peter replies, ‘Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’ (v.38). So here is the message of the primitive church. They must have a change of heart, both as regards sin (‘for the remission of sins’), and as regards Jesus Christ (‘be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ’). Repentance is from sin and towards Christ Jesus. Baptism in His name will immediately brand the men as His followers, a position from which it will be difficult to turn back. All the world will recognise their choice, and they will become hated by the enemies of Jesus. And by so choosing and responding to Jesus Christ they will become direct participators in the new age of the Spirit and will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Notice that sin has to be dealt with before the Spirit can be received. As in the case of John the Baptiser baptism will be an indication of repentance resulting therefore in the remission of sins, and the consequence of their commitment to Jesus Christ, demonstrated by their baptism in His name, will be the reception of life and power from the Spirit.

Baptism can never have quite the same meaning for us today if we live in Christian countries. It may demonstrate that we have repented in the past (or are expected to do so in the future), but in most cases it is not the act of first repentance. Nor is it necessarily such a full commitment to Christ, for no one will see us as having ‘changed our religion’, and cut us off for our act. In Islamic countries to be baptised is to cut oneself off from Islam and can result in family rejection and even death. There it still has its full meaning. This is not, of course, to deny that it can be for us a moment of great blessing, but it is usually declaring something that has happened some time before. Thus it is not the moment of reception of the Spirit, although the baptised one may experience great blessing from the Spirit. Baptism was essential then because it was climactic, branding the baptised one as now belonging to Christ, and as having left whatever religion they belonged to, branding them as having admitted their need to repent from sin and as having thereby received remission of sins and become followers of Christ. While important it is not so essential now for it is possible, although not obedient to Scripture, to be a genuine Christian and not be baptised, and it is equally possible to have been baptised and know nothing of following Christ.

‘For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call to Him’. Peter stresses that those who come, come because the Lord God has ‘called’ them. The promise is for the ‘called ones’ (the elect). He has learned from Jesus the lesson that no man can come to Him except the Father draws him (John 6.44). Here again Peter betrays his knowledge of what is found in the teaching of Jesus in John’s Gospel. Their repentance demonstrates their calling.

The result of his words was a harvest of about three thousand converts (2.41). They would, of course, include many who had previously listened to the teaching of Jesus and had been almost convinced, together with some to whom the message was almost new. Presumably they went out to the Jordan and were baptised there, being from then on marked men as fully committed disciples of Jesus Christ.

2.42 ‘And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ teaching, and in fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and the prayers’.

• 1). They sought to become versed in the Scriptures and in the teaching of the apostles.
• 2). They continued in continual oneness with other Christians in both the spiritual (not forsaking the assembling of themselves together) and the material (sharing what they had with others).
• 3). They ate together at ‘common meals’. The breaking of bread in thanksgiving to God occurred at meals, especially when guests were present (Luke 24.30) and verse 46 demonstrates the open hospitality given to Christians. The common meal appears to have been a regular feature of the early church (Acts 20.7). Acts 27.35 demonstrates that the breaking of bread itself had a significance as thanksgiving to God in all circumstances. While at some of these meals ‘the Lord’s Supper’ (1 Corinthians 11.20) may have been celebrated, this is not the primary meaning here, although, on the other hand, it is not to be excluded. The two appear often to have gone together so that Paul has to later make a distinction and plead for the eating to be done at home because of excesses.
• 4). They prayed together as one.