John Kilgallen, «‘With many other words’ (Acts 2,40): Theological Assumptions in Peter’s Pentecost Speech», Vol. 83 (2002) 71-87

The complete effectiveness of Peter’s Pentecost speech implies that the Lucan audience, if not that of Peter, knows at least three assumptions that are needed to make the speech as logically convincing as possible. These three assumptions are: (1) that Jesus is physically Son of David; (2) that the kyrios of Ps 110,1 is the Messiah; (3) that only the titles ‘Son’ and ‘Father’ should be used when describing that it is Jesus who poured out the Spirit. As for Peter’s audience, the fact that Peter supported his speech with ‘many other words (arguments)’ might argue that his audience were introduced to these three assumptions. As for Luke’s audience, Luke 1,35 and its context play a major role in justifying the logic of this Pentecost speech.

claimed that Ps 16, which we now know speaks about the Messiah, speaks about Jesus; indeed, the resurrection of Jesus, to which Peter testifies, occurred precisely because, as Ps 16 says, God would never abandon this son of David to Hades, would never let him corrupt, would show him the ways to life; as the Psalm further indicates, ‘Because you are always at my side lest a stumble, I (i.e., Jesus) rejoice and my flesh will rest in hope’ (Acts vv. 25-26)¹⁷. The Psalm, then, speaks of Jesus and explains the remarkable ‘resurrectional’ fact to which Peter bears witness; but it also speaks about a son of David who, through adroit use of the scriptures can be no other than the Messiah of Israel. The risen Jesus of Nazareth, then, is Messiah, identified as Son of David. To show Jesus to be Lord, Peter has taken the step he thinks necessary to his goal: Jesus, by understanding Pss 16 and 132 in the light of the fact of Jesus’ resurrections from the dead, is shown to be Messiah, Son of David. But is Jesus the Son of David, and thereby Messiah of Israel?

        The one logical step Peter does not address in this argumentation is the identification of Jesus as Son of David. In fact, as Peter begins his description of Jesus, he calls Jesus ‘the Nazarene’(v. 22), a title which separates Jesus from the heritage and even the physical territory of David. In other words, Jesus is risen (we can grant this on Peter’s testimony), and Ps 16 can be understood to say that the Messiah will not see corruption, will not be left in Hades, but how can one logically apply the resurrection hopes of Ps 16 to Jesus, if Peter does not show Jesus to be Son of David¹⁸?

        Should Peter have demonstrated that Jesus is Son of David¹⁹? Perhaps, but Luke is not accustomed to provide speeches much longer than this Pentecost speech; the speech of Stephen is the exception to this rule. On the other hand, Luke has already argued strenuously in