Behind Peter's Pentecost Sermon
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Behind Peter’s Pentecost Sermon (Acts 2:14-36) : The Effectiveness Principles argued in light of the Hearers’ Responses (Acts 2:37, 40) KYOOHAN LEE [email protected] Calvary Presbyterian Church, Mesa, AZ85201 Christian homileticians ask how to effectively connect the meaning and significance of ancient texts with contemporary audiences. In this paper, the effectiveness principles behind Peter’s sermon are argued in light of the hearers’ responses (Acts 2:37; 40). Homiletical effectiveness is a problem of motivation— that which makes the audience as Imago Dei (Image of God) desire to pursue Christlikeness. Hence, the role of the Holy Spirit in applying the message and the role of the preacher in connection with the imaginative capability of the audience must be explained with detail arguments. The discussion finally expounds a Christocentric expository preaching method (‘Christ-oriented expository preaching’) that places Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, as not only the most eminent Preacher, but also as the ultimate telos of all sermon applications. I. RESPONSE TO PETER’S PENTECOST SERMON A. On the Day of Pentecost Concerning the outcome of Peter’s sermon, Luke writes, “Now when they heard (Ακούσαντες) this they were cut to the heart (κατενύγησαν τὴν καρδίαν), and said to (εἶπόν...πρὸς) Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’” (Act 2:37, emphases added). This verse represents the idea that a faith response basically affects the whole 1 person.1 In the context of Luke-Acts, ἀκούω has the semantic range of meaning of perception (Acts 9:7), understanding (Acts 9:4), listening to, paying attention to, or obeying (Lk 9:35) as a response of the whole person.2 The phrase “were cut to the heart” (κατανύσσεσθαι τὴν καρδίαν) embraces the idiomatic sense of “be greatly distressed, be very troubled” out of “conviction or remorse,” since κατανύσσομαι literally means “be pierced through, be stabbed, be pricked deeply.”3 Hence, the hearers of Peter’s sermon understand in their reason, feel a pain of conviction in their hearts, and willingly ask, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (2:37b). The context of Peter’s sermon relates to the theme of spiritual blindness to the risen Lord (Lk 24:13-49) in Luke 24. The dramatic scenes of eyes being opened (Lk 24:31-32, 45) from spiritual blindness (Lk 24:16; 25, 38, 41) are based on Isaianic prophecies (Is 6:9-10; 29:18).4 In Acts and the Pauline letters, the Isaianic theme of unknowability is argued continuously (Is 6:9- 10; 20:3; Acts 2:11-13; Acts 28:26-28; Rom 9:33; 10:16-21; 1 Cor 2:9-10). In Peter’s introduction, the words “give ear to my words” (ἐνωτίσασθε, v.14c) imply that the Mosaic- MT, Dt 6:4; ἀκούω, LXX, Dt 6:4; Is 51:1, 4, 7) is closely related ,שְׁמ ַ֖ע ) Isaianic Shema tradition to the kerygma context (κηρύσσω, “to proclaim,” Mt 3:1; Lk 4:18-19; Rom 10:14) in the NT.5 Peter indeed delivers an effective apologetic sermon that makes people consciously 1Wayne McDill, 12 Essential Skills for Great Preaching (Nashville, TN: B and H Academic, 2006), 173-184. 2ἀκούω, BDAG, Bible Works. v.8. 3κατανύσσομαι, BDAG, Bible Works. v.8. 4David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 251-253. 5Harry Alan Hahne, “How the Apostle Peter Preached Christ From the Old Testament: Christological Exegesis in the Book of Acts” (Presentation, Far West Region ETS Meeting, Sun Valley, CA, April 20, 2012), 69-85. 2 convinced, even though they are not as yet fully spiritually converted.6 Moreover, “with many other words” (2:40a) means continual teachings or many arguments for reasonable motivations (Lk 4:32; 5:1; Acts 10:19). Bearing witness (διεμαρτύρατο) and continual exhortation (παρεκάλει) are the basic modes of apostolic expository preaching (cf. Acts 28:23).7 Luke finally presents the fruits of Peter’s Pentecost sermon: “… and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). The word ψυχαὶ (souls or lives) affirms that these were spiritually converted persons who genuinely received the spiritual circumcision of the heart.8 Luke’s specific polemical approach, which appeals to Scriptures (common ground), effectively explains the significance of what happened on the day of Pentecost (common-sense).9 In the contemporary setting,10 this point is crucial for Christian homiletics, because the common 6John R. W. Stott, Between Two Words: The Challenge of Preaching Today (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 137; I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 533; Daniel J. Treier, “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: A Multiple-Lens Approach,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no.1 (March 1997): 17-22; Marshall, “Acts,” 534-536; Luther B. Mclntyre Jr., “Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (January-March 1996): 53-62. Peter does not clearly require the sequential order for genuine conversion. Recognition of sin (2:37) and the practice of repentance (2:38) in the name of Jesus Christ are the obvious logical order for spiritual conversion. Therefore, “everyone whom the Lord our God called to himself” (2:39) must be saved according to “the promise” (ἡ ἐπαγγελία, v.39a). See also Ramesh Richard, Preparing for Evangelistic Sermons: A Seven-Step Method for Preaching Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2015), chap. 3-4. Many scholars understand water baptism as a symbolized testimony to salvation in Christ. There is no clear sequential mark between the forgiveness of sins and the gifts of the Spirit, while repentance and spiritual baptism are the prerequisite conditions for either the forgiveness of sins or receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 7Marshall, “Acts,” 543; Disciples’ Publishing House ed., Acts 1-7, 221-223. 8ψυχή, BDAG, Bible Works. v.8. See also Marshall, “Acts,” 543. Luke-Acts recapitulates Isaianic eschatological transformation in the language of the new exodus language, which is mainly related to Ezekiel’s model of spiritual transformation (Ez 36:25-27). 9Marshall, “Acts,” 514. 10Em Griffin, A First Look at Communication Theory, 7th ed. (New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009), 278-306. 3 sense-common ground approach can provide an effective hermeneutical-homiletical bridge between the eternal Word and a changing World.11 B. Christlikeness: Christian Transformation Theory In Between Two Worlds John Stott claims that preaching is bridge-building between the biblical and the contemporary world.12 From the response to Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:37-41), this research has extracted the common sense-common ground approach as the basic model for contemporary biblical communication. Human beings as Imago Dei (Gn 1:26-27) are innately able to know God, since they have within them the seed of religion as a theistic truth detector (sensus divinitatis) for Christian conversion and continual transformation.13 11Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1980), 12, 22-23; K. Scot Oliphint, “The Old-New Reformed Epistemology,” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics, ed. K. Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton (Phillipsburg; NJ: P and R Publishing, 2007), 215; George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 1-5, 8, 201-213; Douglas A. Sweeney, Jonathan Edwards And The Ministry Of The Word (Downers Grove, IL: 2009), 8-32, 164; William Edgar and K. Scott Oliphint, Christian Apologetics: Past and Present (Wheaton, IL: 2011), 219. For example, John Calvin’s sensus divinitatis (Rom 1:19-21) is both the seed of religion in conversion and a truth detector in the continuing transformation after conversion. 12Stott, Between Two Words: The Challenge of Preaching Today, 7-15. 13K. Scott Oliphint, Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in The Service Of Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P and R Publishing, 2007), 146-166; K. Scot Oliphint, “The Old-New Reformed Epistemology,” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics, ed. K. Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton (Phillipsburg; NJ: P and R Publishing, 2007), 215; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1975), 69-81, 116-145. Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and Cornelius Van Til correctly formulate a common sense-common ground approach in their respective hermeneutics for theological argument, biblical interpretation, and Christian apologetics, while Plantinga includes common sense itself as part of the common ground for interpreting Scriptural truth. This point is crucial for contemporary biblical hermeneutics and homiletics, because the common sense-common ground approach can provide an effective hermeneutical-homiletical bridge between the eternal Word and a changing World. On the horizons of the interpreter, John Calvin’s sensus divinitatis (Rom. 1:19-21) is both the seed of religion in conversion and the growing theistic truth detector in continual transformation after conversion. 4 The Imago Dei embraces the sense of whole-person transformation into the likeness of Christ through progressive sanctification (Eph 4:24; 5:1; Col 1:28; 3:10). The homiletical effectiveness is fundamentally the problem of biblical motivation (Acts 2:37-41), which makes the audience pursue Christlikeness.14 This paper basically states that the human nature of the incarnate Christ is the infallible base model for all subsidiary Christian transformations.15 In Christian transformation, the self-attesting Christ of Scripture (Lk 24: 27, 44) is the unbreakable hermeneutical-homiletical bridge, because the eternal Word became flesh (Jn 1:14).16 14Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking The Face of God (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 57-61; D.