A Doctrinal Study of Acts 2:14

By Clifford Rapp, Jr.

Chafer Theological Seminary

Clifford Rapp received his B.A. degree from Biola University; and a Th.M. in Old Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is a professor of Old Testament and general biblical studies at Chafer Theological Seminary. Cliff also pastors Orange Coast Free Methodist Church, Costa Mesa, California.

“This is that.” [1] What did Peter mean on the day of Pentecost when he declared that the day’s phenomena was “that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:14). Does he mean that what happened or began at Pentecost was the complete fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy as many Covenant interpreters understand him to mean?

Or does he mean that the spiritual activity of Pentecost was the inauguration of that which was spoken by Joel as the Progressive Dispensationalists allege? Does Peter mean that “this is the conditional offer of that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel, as some Traditional Dispensationalists interpret? Or does Peter mean “this is that kind of thing spoken of by the prophet Joel, as other Traditional Dispensationalists hold?

This is the Complete Fulfillment of That

The approach used by Covenant interpreters does not take the physical phenomena mentioned in Acts 2:19–20 literally. In order to sustain their interpretation they must “spiritualize” (allegorize) the verses or point to the darkness and earthquakes associated with the crucifixion as the fulfillment. This approach is not adequate.

This is the Inauguration of That

Progressive Dispensationalists see the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the Father and the pouring out of the Spirit as fulfillments of the Davidic and New covenants respectively. To find a fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant in Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of the Father requires an identification of Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God with his sitting on David’s throne. But the Old Testament knows nothing of David’s throne being located in heaven.

Darrell Bock tries to equate the two through Peter’s allusion to Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30, which he then links with Psalm 16, which he then further links with Psalm 110 to end up with an identity between the Father’s throne and the throne of David. [2] But linking does not necessitate equating. Appeal is also made to Revelation 3:21 which is interpreted as equating the Messianic (Davidic) throne of Jesus with the Father’s throne. [3] In order to make this identification Bock assumes what he is trying to prove.

In reality, however, Jesus’ words of encouragement to the Laodacian church promise an opportunity to rule with Christ in the Millennium when he comes to assume the throne of David. His present session on the Father’s throne, where He is seated until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet, is the assurance that He will, indeed, sit on David’s throne.

Another pillar of the Progressive Dispensationalist’s interpretation is to associate the outpouring of the Spirit with the New Covenant—this is questionable. The only passage in the Old Testament specifically mentioning the “New Covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31–34) does not speak of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is hardly referred to in Jeremiah. As Zane Hodges notes:

Jeremiah’s prophecy and Joel’s must be carefully distinguished. Jeremiah predicts the regeneration/salvation of the entire nation of Israel (“for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” Jer. 31:34). This has never been fulfilled and will not be until the Second Advent, when “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26; notice v.27). [4]

This is the Offer of That

Those Dispensationalists who interpret Peter’s words in Acts 2:16 as a conditional fulfillment are able to see a fulfillment and still account for the fact that not everything Joel prophesied came to pass. The signs and wonders in heaven (Joel 2:30, 31; Acts 2:19, 20) would have taken place if Israel had repented. This line of thinking harmonizes with the purposes of Acts that show a renewed offer of Christ to Israel, rejection by Israel, and a turning to the Gentiles. Usually Acts 3:19–21, which seems to indicate that a repentance on the part of Israel will bring a swift return of Christ from heaven, is appealed to as a parallel or an example of Peter’s thinking on Pentecost.

While this view can explain what did not happen on Pentecost (i.e., why wonders did not appear in heaven), it has two serious defects. First, it reads an offer of the kingdom and of the return of Christ into Acts 2 that is not supported by the text. Peter calls upon his hearers to repent and to be baptized, but the only thing that he offers them is the gift of the Spirit (v.38). He says nothing about the return of Christ or the establishment of the kingdom.

Acts 1:6–8 seems to make a sharp contrast between the establishment of the kingdom and the coming of the Holy Spirit. When the apostles ask about the time of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (1:6), Jesus tells them that it is not for them to know the time (1:7). Then Jesus uses a strong adversative (Greek: alla) to contrast the coming of the Spirit with the restoration of the kingdom (1:8). It is unlikely that Peter would have confused the two.

Second, the conditional offer view does not adequately explain what did happen. Acts 11:15–17 reads:

And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, “John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?

This passage equates the falling of the Spirit (Acts 10:45 refers to it as “pouring out” of the Spirit) on the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house with the gift of the Spirit on Pentecost, i.e. “the beginning.” Virtually all Dispensationalists take this to be the beginning of the Church. The passage also equates both experiences of the falling of the Spirit with the baptism with the Spirit. The identification of the coming of the Spirit with the baptism with the Spirit and the beginning of the Church seems to eliminate the possibility that the outpouring of the Spirit was conditioned upon Israel’s repentance.

The wonders in heaven might be conditioned on Israel’s repentance, but the outpouring of the Spirit that initiated the Church on Pentecost cannot be since it is subsequently poured out on Gentiles and continues to form the Church throughout this dispensation. If the outpouring of the Spirit is not a conditional fulfillment, then we are left with a partial fulfillment.

All partial fulfillment theories of the prophecy of Joel ultimately end up blurring the distinction between Israel and the Church. Certainly the complete fulfillment must include the partial. If repentant Israel at the beginning of the Millennium receives the outpouring of the Spirit that includes all that happened at Pentecost and more, then they must be members of the Church, baptized into the body of Christ. Robert Saucy, a Progressive Dispensationalist, seems to recognize this problem and gropes for some kind of a difference in function between Israel and the Gentile believers in the future. He writes:

The baptism with the Spirit is therefore not some unique ministry only for the people of the present church age, from Pentecost to the rapture, but rather is the sharing by members of the church in the Spirit’s ministry of the new covenant. The baptism is at the heart of the messianic salvation that has already begun in the revelation of the mysteries that pertain to present-day believers. The fact that both Israel and the Gentiles participate in Spirit baptism points to their common identity in their spiritual relationship to God and his salvation. [5]

He goes on to state, “If the church ultimately signifies all of God’s people who are in Christ, then surely the saved Israel will become a part of this body.” [6] Can the partial fulfillment theorist avoid this conclusion?

This is Like That

Many argue that Peter’s “this is that” must mean “this fulfills that” on the basis of the Qumran discoveries. They think that Peter is using a form of pesher interpretation. But Peter does not follow the Qumran pesher interpretation pattern in either form or in principle. At Qumran the current events interpreted scripture. At Pentecost scripture was quoted to explain a current event. At Qumran interpretations of Scripture were introduced by the phrase peshro al (its interpretation is) [7] and initial citations of Scripture are rarely introduced. [8] When an initial citation of Scripture is introduced, it introduced with the phrase w’sr (and as for). [9] Peter’s words do not correspond to the Qumran pattern.

Also “the Qumran pesharim. .. follow the same basic pattern: citation, section by section of a single Biblical book, with each lemma followed by an interpretation.” [10] Peter quotes from several passages of Scripture in his Pentecost message.

Greater differences emerge between Peter and the Qumran pesharim when we consider the principles employed in interpretation. The Qumran interpreters had little concern for contextual meaning. They thought that the Scriptural prophecies were incomprehensible mysteries that could only be interpreted by the Teacher of Righteousness. They fragmented the text and forced each phrase to bare a contemporary meaning.

Bruce comments, “It will be easily realized that this principle of interpretation, if carried through to its logical conclusion, must deprive Old Testament prophecies of that relevance and coherence which can best be appreciated when they are studied in their historical setting.” [11] Bruce also states, “Sometimes we are more impressed by the contrast than by the similarities between the Qumranic and early Christian methods of quotation and interpretation.” [12] The issue of whether or not Peter is indicating that Joel’s prophecy is being fulfilled by the phenomena of Pentecost is unrelated to Qumran exegesis.

The idea of pesher interpretation has so captivated some scholars that, even though they recognize sharp differences between the hermeneutics of the Qumran community and the early church, they stretch the meaning of pesher interpretation to include any interpretation with an element of fulfillment in it. Richard Longenecker attributes a “pesher attitude,” [13] a “pesher flavor,” [14] a “pesher understanding,” [15] and a “pesher force” [16] to various Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. He is able to detect “‘mild’ pesher interpretations.” [17]

Basically all of these things relate to fulfillment of Old Testament sayings. Why does one need to hypothesize a link to Qumran or “pesher” interpretation to understand the early Christians’ declarations of fulfilled prophecy? The Old Testament itself contains declarations of fulfillment of earlier prophecies (e.g., 1 Kings 16:34; 22:38). Why not just recognize that the Apostles are following the pattern found in Scripture?

Peter was looking for a way to help his hearers understand what was taking place on Pentecost. He looked for an Old Testament analogy that was tied-in to a call for a response on the part of those who would receive the Spirit. In most of the Old Testament passages, which speak of the pouring out of the Spirit (Isaiah 32:15, 16; 44:3; Ezekiel 39:29, etc.), God speaks of His own action without mention of a specific call to repentance as a condition. Joel’s tying together the outpouring of the Spirit with calling on the name of the Lord provided the perfect comparison for the day of Pentecost.

That Peter means for his hearers to understand that he is using the Joel passage as an illustration is made clear by three obvious facts. First, none of the things that Joel speaks of, i.e., “prophecy,” “dreams,” “visions,” “blood, fire and billows of smoke,” the sun darkened and “the moon [turned] to blood” took place (Joel 2:28, 30, 31).

Second, none of the things that did take place on Pentecost, “the sound of a mighty rushing wind,” “tongues of fire,” “speak[ing] in other tongues” (Acts 2:2–4), are mentioned by Joel.

Third, the application of Peter’s sermon focuses on personal salvation (Acts 2:38, see also 2:40). There is no offer of the kingdom, no promise of Christ’s return, and no promise of national salvation.

In spite of the observations above, many continue to see Pentecost as a fulfillment of Joel 2. Can Peter’s introductory statement, “this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel,” mean anything less than a fulfillment?

While it is true that Peter does use the demonstrative pronoun to introduce a fulfillment (Acts 4:11), that is not his only way of using it. In 1 Peter 1:25b, Peter appends to a quotation from Isaiah the explanation that, “This is the word that was preached to you.” Certainly he means, “This is the kind of word that was preached to you” (i.e., an everlasting word). He does not imply that Isaiah 40:6–8 was fulfilled in the congregations to whom he was writing. The context must determine usage and Acts 2 cannot be a fulfillment.

The reasons for taking Peter to mean that the events of Pentecost are like what Joel spoke of are both exegetical and theological. First, Joel speaks of an outpouring of the Spirit on Judah (see Joel 2:28 with the repeated use of the “your” to describe the “all flesh” which will receive the outpouring of the Spirit. Joel 2:32 speaks of Mount Zion and Jerusalem as the recipients of deliverance. Judah and Jerusalem are mentioned in Joel 3:1).

Second, the events spoken of in Joel 2 that precede the outpouring of the Spirit have not been fulfilled. The heavenly wonders of Joel 2:30, 31 did not take place on Pentecost. The judgment of the Gentiles and the restoration of the land of Israel that follow the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 3) have not been fulfilled.

Third, Peter does not specifically say that Pentecost fulfills “that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” The experience of Pentecost does not touch upon all that Joel predicted.

Fourth, the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost was for the formation of the Church, the body of Christ. It is similar to but distinct from the outpouring of the Spirit upon repentant Judah. The outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost is viewed as the fulfillment of the baptism of the Spirit and the beginning of the Church (Acts 1:5; 11:15–17). The Scripture makes careful distinctions and the interpreter should observe them at all times.

If the predictions of Joel 2:30–31 are to be taken literally, then some qualification has to be made to Peter’s statement, “This is that.” No matter what qualifier is chosen there is room for debate. Over all it seems most satisfactory to understand Peter’s words as “This is like that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.”

Notes

1. The New King James Bible translates “this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:14).
2. Darrell Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, ed. Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 49.
3. Bock, p. 62.
4. Zane Hodges, “A Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2” in Issues In Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley Willis and John Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994), p. 178.
5. Robert Saucy, The Case For Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), p. 49.
6. Saucy, p. 49.
7. Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 39.
8. Maurya Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (Washington D.C.: Catholic Bible Association of America, 1979), p. 243 n. 53.
9. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, p. 243.
10. Horgan, p. 237.
11. Frederick Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 11.
12. Bruce, p.73.
13. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, p. 99.
14. Longenecker, p. 100.
15. Longenecker, p. 100.
16. Longenecker, p. 101.
17. Longenecker, p. 101.