CTSJ 1:1 (Spring 1995)

A Doctrinal Study of Acts 2:14

Clifford Rapp Jr. *
Chafer Theological Seminary
[*Editors note: 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 days 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
Joels 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 2:1920 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 Christs exaltation to the
right hand of the Father requires an identification of Christs sitting at the right hand of
God with his sitting on Davids throne. But the Old Testament knows nothing of Davids
throne being located in heaven.
Darrell Bock tries to equate the two through Peters 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

1
The New King James Bible translates this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel (Acts 2:14).
end up with an identity between the Fathers 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 Fathers 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 Fathers throne, where He is seated until His
enemies are made a footstool for His feet, is the assurance that He will, indeed, sit on
Davids throne.
Another pillar of the Progressive Dispensationalists interpretation is to associate the
outpouring of the Spirit with the New Covenantthis is questionable. The only passage
in the Old Testament specifically mentioning the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:3134)
does not speak of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is hardly referred to in Jeremiah. As Zane
Hodges notes:
Jeremiahs prophecy and Joels 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 Peters 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 3:1921, 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 Peters 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.

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.
Acts 1:68 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
11:1517 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 Gods 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 Israels repentance.
The wonders in heaven might be conditioned on Israels 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 Spirits 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 Gods 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 Peters 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 wsr (and as for).
9
Peters 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 Joels prophecy
is being fulfilled by the phenomena of Pentecost is unrelated to Qumran exegesis.

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.
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. Joels 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 2:24), are
mentioned by Joel.
Third, the application of Peters sermon focuses on personal salvation (Acts 2:38, see
also 2:40). There is no offer of the kingdom, no promise of Christs 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 Peters 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

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.
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 40:68 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; 11:1517). The
Scripture makes careful distinctions and the interpreter should observe them at all times.
If the predictions of Joel 2:3031 are to be taken literally, then some qualification has
to be made to Peters statement, This is that. No matter what qualifier is chosen there is
room for debate. Over all it seems most satisfactory to understand Peters words as This
is like that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.