# Peter's sermon at Pentecost - the context



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2009)

At Pentecost Peter stood up and preached to many people.

We focus on what he said, but when and where did he say it, and how did he stand up and preach.... where was he that the crowd could hear him and how accepted was it for people to stand up and just start preaching at corwds in those days?

What is the cultural context of this sermon?


----------



## Kevin (Jul 7, 2009)

Perg didn't the crowd gather because of the sound ("like a rushing wind")?

And then the disciples began to share ("preach") with those that showed up. As it happen they were speaking in tongues (unknown to the speakers), this drew a larger crowd.

Peter then gave an "official" message/defense from the group.

I believe that this (Peters official message) must have taken place on the steps of the temple. 

I think this for several reasons; 

1) The crowd was large. 3000 converts on that day, not all at once, but still the nature of the narrative seems to imply that most took place in direct connection with Peters sermon. So, the crowd was ( we assume) larger than 3000. By what factor we have no way of knowing, but even a crowd of 6000 would find few (no?) places to accommodate it.

2) Peters sermon shows signs of preparation. Thus it was not delivered exremporaniously "on the street" outside of the upper room. Some time elapsed from the rushing wind noise/multi-lingual street preaching, to the "9:00 service"

3) The steps/ courtyard of the temple was the place in town especially at a Holy Day to go & be. Our modern culture has no similar place or time. I have tried hard for years to think of one & can do no better then a local (small town) parade at christmas or 1st/4th of July.

4) he was heard by his audience. This is an important point in my opinion, because if we try to posit any other site in the city the acoustics will not work (short of a miracle). 

5) this was the place that those "in the know" the "movers & shakers" in the 1st century Hebrew culture went to talk about the big issues of the day. In other words, if you wanted to vindicate your brothers from the rapidly speading rumour that they were drunken uneducated country louts, then this was the place to do it.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 8, 2009)

So the sound of rushing wind attracted the crowd? NOT to speak on such an occasion would be WOW such a waste and a sin of neglect.

-----Added 7/8/2009 at 12:07:42 EST-----

What are your evidences of sermon prep?

Please give me more info? This is FASCINATING!!


----------



## Kevin (Jul 8, 2009)

in my opinion, yes.

A devine act drew the crowd. The disciples, out of a love for Jesus & a love for the lost began to speak out. And the HS took over & created a "new" sign.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 8, 2009)

Please anyone else!! Flood me with info! Focus on the HISTORICAL EVENT and CONTEXT.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 8, 2009)

a\As to the signs that Peters sermon was "prepared" I have noticed a few details;

1) Its structure. 
Introduction, "men & bretheren these men are not drunk". 
Scriptural text, Joel
Contemporay examples, "this same Jesus"
Application, "repent & be baptised"

Any person that does public speacking on an ongoing basis can stand up & "talk" with even 15-20 min notice, but to give formally structured talk takes some preperation. If you know your subject well, you can speak on short notice, but some notice (30+ min?) is necessary to be this organised. Whitfield could preach many times a week with only a few hours notice because of the hours of study he spent as a young man. Peter had had 3 years with Jesus. So he need but a little time to prepare,but he did need some time.

2) its timing.
Peter spoke at 9:00 am (or so, as we recon it). The "rushing wind event" occured after the disciples had been praying at night.
So lets consider the timeline, 1) disciples gather prior to dusk. 2) pray. 3) HS comes, presumably from the details of the text at the end of the night/early morning. People that are just waking up hear the noise & gather to discover what it was. 
If the "rushing wind event" was late morning (8:30-8:45) then the possibility of drawing a crowd would be slim, since the (men) would already be *at the temple*.

Keep in mind that all time as we recon it is cultural. The disciples gatherd at dusk, and "the morning" was sun up. The 9th hour was 3 hours later.

3) Its focus/audience
Peter was defending against an accusation about as PRIOR event (prior to his sermon). Since his Sermon has as its audience a crowd many times latger than can fit on a Jerusalem Street, he was not speaking to those "first hearers' of the "rushing wind event". Rather he is preaching to those that have heard of this event. Since the first place you would go to discuss this mornings strange event was the Temple steps/court, I assume that Peter rushed there to defend his brothers.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jul 8, 2009)

Pergy, 
I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but when Peter stood up to preach and the Spirit had him speak and open up Joel 2. psalm 16, the people who gathered had both an interest and a knowledge and respect of the scriptures. There are not many places today where someone could just open the scriptures in similar fashion with hearer's who would know the context of the passages quoted.
Maybe at a conference where people are already gathered to hear God's word would they be receptive.
In the OT, in Joel two and in several other places God had already declared this specific time [pentecost-Joel 2 Acts 2:16] this is that which was spoken by Joel . These souls were prepared by God for this very sermon.
If this type of success were to happen again, most likely there would be some preparation of particular souls before.
Or in our day as our nation receives more in the way of national judgment for national sin, the day might come for this kind of preaching conversion activity. Another devestating national tragedy or series of them as in Amos 4-
" yet you have not returned to me" might be what is needful.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 8, 2009)

When I preached on Acts 2 (recently) I found that some commentators noted that it was likely that Peter preached on or near the steps of the temple. Whether that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is unlikely and, in my opinion, isn't terribly important. 

The audience is gathered for Pentecost (Leviticus 23 & Numbers 28) which was one of the three main feasts for the Jewish people (along with Passover & the feast of tabernacles). 

The cultural context, however, is really a covenantal context. Among other things my sermon focused on the fulfillment of God's promises to His OT people (Joel 2 as cited by Peter). In addition, of course, it is catalyst for the widening of those promises to the Gentiles (in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham). Therefore Pentecost is (now) a celebration and thanksgiving of the greatest harvest for it is the people who have become the fruits of the Lord. 

The essential issue, however, is the vindication of the person and work of Jesus who is now both Lord and Christ (vs. 36). In the ultimate sense, then, God's promises terminate on Him.


----------



## DonP (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't think we have to speculate where it was 

Acts 1:4 He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." NKJV

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth NKJV

Acts 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey. 13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: NKJV

As for the context it is distinctly Jewish. 

He does not preach a gospel like Paul at Mars hill. 

He speaks to people who know the OT and simply calls them to repent of rejecting the messiah. 

Repent and believe is not the gospel to the gentiles. 

This is an excellent question to raise because not making this distinction is what gives rise to the false gospel of easy believism altar calls and an overly simplistic gospel. To interpret this passage apart from its historical context gives rise to error. 
Obviously there were proselytes and Jews who were from other nations and languages there. But they were covenant people. 

This is the simplistic call to the covenant people, covenant breakers, but it At least the part recorded for us), is inadequate for those who know nothing of God. 

Thanks for the good question


----------



## Iconoclast (Jul 8, 2009)

Don,
I think I understand how you meant this statement when you said this-


> Repent and believe is not the gospel to the gentiles.


 However, I think it is the Gospel to all men, Jew or gentile
as here in Acts 17


> 30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
> 
> 31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.


 If you were speaking of the immediate context of Acts 2 I can see what you were saying. Is that what you meant Don? Or do you mean that gentiles today do not need to repent of sin and believe the gospel command?


----------



## DonP (Jul 8, 2009)

Iconoclast said:


> Don,
> I think I understand how you meant this statement when you said this-
> 
> 
> ...



I guess I should have said, it is not the entire gospel, or enough information to be adequate to a proper gospel presentation to those who had no previous knowledge. 

These were the covenant people. And others who knew much of Judaism though they were spread abroad. As often they would go first to the synagogue to preach. Those would be covenant people, who had some knowledge. 

To others they must be taught the law, that they may know what sin is, and that they are indeed guilty, and therefore need good news and a savior. They had no concept of a messiah or who the Christ was, or the One God, and who He is as opposed to nay other God. 

To simply say Christ died and rose for your sins repent and believe in Him, is inadequate for those who were not schooled in the covenant. 

Please consider the Sum of Saving Knowledge. Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics


----------

