John Kilgallen, «‘With many other words’ (Acts 2,40): Theological Assumptions in Peter’s Pentecost Speech», Vol. 83 (2002) 71-87
The complete effectiveness of Peter’s Pentecost speech implies that the Lucan audience, if not that of Peter, knows at least three assumptions that are needed to make the speech as logically convincing as possible. These three assumptions are: (1) that Jesus is physically Son of David; (2) that the kyrios of Ps 110,1 is the Messiah; (3) that only the titles ‘Son’ and ‘Father’ should be used when describing that it is Jesus who poured out the Spirit. As for Peter’s audience, the fact that Peter supported his speech with ‘many other words (arguments)’ might argue that his audience were introduced to these three assumptions. As for Luke’s audience, Luke 1,35 and its context play a major role in justifying the logic of this Pentecost speech.
way to argue that Jesus is Lord is to argue that Jesus, raised from the dead, is Messiah26. What needs be taken for granted is that whoever be the Messiah is Lord; this truth is not part of the speech, but it is part of the mindset of those engaged in it27.
Again it is clear that, however forceful might be the explicit argumentation of Peter on behalf of his conclusion that Jesus is Lord, it is helpful to know what is not in the speech in order to make Peter’s claim most persuasive. The earliest preachings in Jerusalem can rely on the general, public assumption that whoever is Messiah is, in accord with David’s testimony (Ps 110), truly Lord of Israel28. It is by adroit reasoning that one realizes that this Messiah, the Lord of Israel, is Jesus of Nazareth.
3. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and, mysteriously, the Father
The last elements of v. 33 seem out of place: ‘he (Jesus) poured out this which you see and hear’. I say ‘out of place’, because with the introduction of Jesus at v. 22, Peter has finished with the identification of Spirit as the source of the phenomena the crowd experiences and moves on to explain why it is Jesus whom one calls upon for salvation. The final words of v. 33, as they call attention to a matter already handled, seem to interrupt the flow of Peter’s christological argument..
However, one realizes that only with difficulty could Peter have put Jesus’ action of pouring out the Spirit in the first half of his speech; such a statement would have needed a discussion of Jesus of Nazareth, and at that point in the speech such an effort would be out of place. All