[Index] [Previous] [Next]
2.2.2 - A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age
Primitive Jewish Christianity
Pentecost and the Earliest Evangelism - Proof of the Messiahship
The Pentecostal address of Peter is peculiarly interesting because it constitutes the earliest extant Christian apology. It is, moreover, a thoroughly representative discourse. It reproduces not the thought of Peter alone, but the thought of his fellow-Christians as well.
The spirit of primitive Jewish Christianity in general speaks in it. The first and most imperative duty of these early disciples must be to prove to their countrymen that Jesus was the promised Messiah. His crucifixion had seemingly given the lie to his claim and proved him an impostor. To go on preaching his Gospel was therefore absurd, unless the impression left by his death could be effaced. Unless he could be shown to be what he had claimed to be, unless it could be shown that his death did not mean what it seemed to mean, the attempt to carry on the work that he had begun might as well be given up at once.
Apologetics was the inoperative need of the hour; not simply the proclamation of the Gospel, but the defense of it, and the defense of Jesus himself, the preacher of it. The emphasis was changed from the Gospel itself to the evidence for its truth; from the message to the messenger. Not the fatherhood of God, but the Messiahship of Jesus formed the burden of the preaching of the apostles, and so the Master's estimate of values was reversed.
But it is significant that the disciples contented themselves with the demonstration of the proposition that Jesus is the Messiah, and that it apparently did not occur to them to ask what his Messiahship involved for Jesus himself. It was enough to know that he was the Christ. So long as that fact was true his character and nature were a matter of comparative indifference. There is no reason to suppose that the disciples in the beginning had any other idea of the Messiah than that which prevailed among their countrymen in general [the Messiah was commonly thought of among the Jews as a man called and chosen by God], and there is no sign that they thought of asking whether that idea was correct or incorrect.
Only after some time had passed did Christian thinkers begin to fill in the conception of Messiahship with this and that content; only when the original Messianic interest had somewhat waned, and it was believed that Jesus must have had something else to do besides founding the Messianic kingdom. It was, in other words, the conception that his work was more than merely Messianic that first opened the question as to the constitution of his person. [The common designation given to Jesus both by Peter and by his fellow-Christians is "the servant of God" (Acts 3:13, 26, 4:27,30). "The son of God" does not occur in these early documents (another sign of their primitive character). The loftier titles that are ascribed to Jesus, -- Lord, Savior, Prince, Cornerstone, -- attach to him in his exalted post-resurrection existence only, and characterize simply his calling and mission as Messiah. They say nothing as to his natural constitution. He is not represented a s a pre-existent, heavenly being, but simply as a man approved of God and chosen by him to be the Messiah and then raised by him to the position of Lord. Of the Pauline conception that he had returned to the glory which was originally his, we have no hint in these early records.]
The supreme argument urged by the disciples in support of the Messiahship of Jesus was his resurrection. No event was better calculated to convince unbelievers that he was what he claimed to be; to efface the impression made by his death and to show that it had not meant, as it seemed to mean, that he was a blasphemous impostor, suffering the just vengeance of God.
But it was hardly to be expected that those who had not themselves seen the risen Jesus should believe the testimony of his followers to such a startling and unheard-of event, for which even those followers themselves, in spite of their intimate fellowship with him and their belief in his Messiahship, were entirely unprepared.
It was natural, therefore that the effort should be made first of all to render the event credible by showing that, though it formed no part of the common Messianic expectation, it had yet been distinctly foretold in the Scriptures. To a Jew not other explanation was necessary. His teleological conceptions were such that the fact that anything had been prophesied constituted sufficient reason for it.
And so Peter in his Pentecostal address appealed to a passage from the sixteenth Psalm, which he claimed foretold the resurrection of the Messiah, and thus at once rendered Jesus' resurrection credible, and made it a convincing proof that he was actually the Christ.
But Peter did not content himself with finding the resurrection in the Scriptures; he employed prophecy also to prove that it was necessary for the Messiah to ascend in to the heavens and to sit down at the right hand of God, and this he claimed that Jesus had done, as ws evidenced by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which was due him. Thus his exaltation become a farther proof of his Messiahship.
In the same way a prediction of Joel was used to establish the disciples' contention, involved their proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah, and in turn supporting his Messiahship, that the last days, the days immediately preceding the consummation, were already come. It was thus claimed by Peter, and in making the claim he simply represented the common sentiment of the church, that he occurrences to which the disciples and the Pentecostal phenomena bore testimony were not unheralded and mysterious events, but a distinct fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, and as such demanded from all true Jews devout recognition and belief.
[It is entirely gratuitous to find in the use of Old Testament prophecy in Peter's Pentecostal discourse evidence of a later hand. It is inconceivable that he could have made any address at all upon the occasion in question without appealing to scripture; and the fact that he attempts to prove no more than he does is an argument for the genuineness of the discourse of for the primitive character of the document from which Luke got it. Paul's words in 1 Cor.15:3-4 are very significant in this connection: "For I delivered unto you," he says, "first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." The Scriptures are here made to prove much more than they are by Peter. Indeed, as time passed, the practice of appealing to them grew increasingly common, and the are of observed coincidence between the life and work of Jesus and Scripture prophecy grew constantly larger. Our gospels, especially the Gospel of Matthew, written, as they were more than a generation after the events that they describe, are witnesses to the extent to which the practice had been carried by that time.]
In light of all he had to urge, Peter might well think himself justified in exclaiming triumphantly at the close of his speech: "Let all the house of Israel, therefore, know assuredly that God hath made this Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ". [Acts 2:36]
Used by permission of the publisher.
[Index] [Previous] [Next]