Was Peter a Good Preacher? A Rhetorical Analysis of Acts 2.14-41 Bill Jackson, D.Miss.

April 2012 Introduction The speeches in Acts play a pivotal role in the apostles rollout of Jesus kingdom announcement. These speeches should not be ignored in favor of Lukes stories. Of the approximately one thousand verses in Acts, over three hundred are devoted to speeches. Each gives examples of how the apostles contextualized the gospel in their different cultural settings. Colin Hemer notes that Luke does this because his focus is on the dissemination of the word, not the stories for their own sake (1990:418). Because of the importance of the progress of the word for Luke, I am going to examine Peters speech on the day of Pentecost to see if he was a good preacher. Since we cant listen to him on our iPods, is there anything we can learn from Lukes speech outline in the text that might give us some indication of his communication abilities? In this paper I will demonstrate that Luke crafted at least this speech in such a way as to show that Peter was following the rhetorical principles of his day. I will then conclude by making some connections about how studying rhetoric in Acts might help those of us who preach in the modern era to become better at what we do. The Role of the Speeches in Acts Acts shows that while the apostles were ordinary men who had been with Jesus (Acts 4.14), they had been filled with the Holy Spirit to empower them to be witnesses. To be a witness inevitably involves being a persuasive communicator. The question is whether being persuasive involves more than just Spirit empowerment. After an analysis of what Luke is doing in the speech, it will be clear that I believe that Luke would agree with me that it is only by holding Word and Spirit in radical middle tension that we will begin to emulate the strength of apostolic preaching. In addition to Gods election of these men and their

sovereign Spirit-baptism, I will show that there was also a clear a human responsibility element to what they did. A quick overview of the speeches shows the apostles to be diligent in the principles of communication. In a predominately oral culture, such as we find in the ancient Mediterranean, people understood the art of persuasion in a way we Westerners do not. The culture of the ancient Near East was group-oriented and based on the principles of reciprocity and honor/shame (Malina 2001). This means that rhetoric functioned differently for them as it does for us. In our minds, the idea of rhetoric might conjure up images of debate club in high school, not the critical need to persuade people to take a course of action that will raise their social status (Witherington 2009:19). It is commonly held among scholars that Luke reconstructed his speeches in alignment with the ancient historian, Thucydides, who sought to reconstruct historical speeches accurately (Cadbury 1999:185). I will assume, therefore, that Luke gives his readers outlines of what was actually said, as obtained from Lukes eyewitnesses (Lk 1.1-4). And because the speeches follow events, their main purpose is to interpret those events. Much of what happens in Lukes stories is so out of the ordinary, it could easily leave his readers scratching their heads without some kind of explanationand Luke wanted to control that explanation so it would fit within his theological framework (Witherington 2009:45-46). Speeches, then, function as didactic controls on the meaning of the narratives, lest the reader miss the point. Introducing Ancient Rhetoric To begin our analysis we need to learn the process that the ancient rhetor went through in composing a persuasive speech. First, the speaker would need to decide which of three general approaches would best suite the circumstances: 1
1

Forensic: used for arguing a case that focused on the past Epideictic: used for praise and blame that focused on the present Deliberative: used to persuade people to make a decision that focused on the future

I will be leaning heavily here on George A. Kennedy (1984), whose seminal contribution to rhetorical criticism opened up new windows of New Testament interpretation in America, as well as Witherington (2009).

Once the rhetorical approach had been chosen, the talk would then be designed to take the listener through three emotional phases: Ethos: established the speakers character, credibility, and report Logos: referred to the logic and strategy of the way the point would be argued Pathos: used to appeal to the emotions to close the sale

Now that these strategic decisions had been made, the speaker had to craft the speech itself. Rhetorical protocol called for a macro-structure that (generally) had the following parts, each designed to persuade the listener to make a decision: Exordium: a general introduction that captured the listener Narratio: a specific introduction to the main topic Propositio: a thesis statement Probatio and refutatio: argument and counterargument in the main body of the speech Peroratio: summary and emotional appeal designed at persuading the listener

Out of Lukes one thousand verses, two hundred ninety-five are devoted to twenty-four speeches: eight by Peter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13) two by James (15, 21) one by Stephen (7) nine by Paul (13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28) four by non-Christians (Gamaliel, 5; Ephesian clerk, 19; Tertullus, 24; Festus, 21)

It also appears that Luke was equipping his readers with speech outlines for the plethora of situations Christian witnesses might encounter. Acts gives us examples of: Defense by a martyr (7) Preaching in the synagogues (13) Debate by a church council (15) Apologetics to pagans (17) Exhortations to Christian leaders (20) Testimonies (Peter, 10, 11, 15; Paul, 9, 22, 26) Legal defenses (22-26)

Peters Speech at Pentecost Of Peters eight speeches, his long (2.14-36) address and short exhortation (2.38-40) on the day of Pentecost comprise what is probably the most important speech ever given in the history of the Christian Church. It was the oral invitation into the new age of the Spirit. It is of utmost importance, then, to look deep into its historical context and rhetorical mechanics to see what might be learned about the dynamics of effective preaching. Luke tells us in Acts 2 that a Pentecost crowd rushed to a house2 in Jerusalem. In Luke-Acts, crowds is a technical term denoting that portion of Israel that was investigating Jesus and would either accept or reject him. Luke, thus, paints his crowds fickle; the reader never knows where they will land. We next read that the crowd was bewildered3 because they had heard the sound of a violent, rushing wind coming from one of the houses. When they got to where the sound had come from, they saw those who had been in the upper room spilling into the streets and praising God in different languages. Some began to mock them because it seemed they were drunk. The jury was still out with the majority, however. It would be someones job to show them otherwise. All the Jesus-movement insiders knew this was Peters moment, as did he. As the leader of this new Jewish sect centered on the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, he had full credibility among the believersbut how would he be received by the odd mixture of homegrown and Diaspora Jews gathered in Jerusalem to take in the Passover and stay for Pentecost? He had a couple of things in his favor. He had the advantage of both the noise anomaly (sound like a rushing wind) and the speech miracle (speaking in other languages).

It could be that this house was a room in the temple. A group of about a hundred twenty people and the resulting crowd that eventually swelled to multiple thousands could only have taken place at or near the temple. 3 Luke uses a number of words to describe the crowds response to the sound like a rushing wind, amazed, then utterly amazed, and finally bewildered.

He would need to capitalize on these as the person from the epicenter of these events that could explain them to the angst-filled crowd that had gathered. Ancient rhetors were taught that credibility was foundational in persuasive speech and had to be established in the exordium, the general introduction. Furthermore, the speaker had only a few moments to build it. Communication expert, Em Griffin, says that to solidify his credibility, Peter would have had to (1) demonstrate his authority to be the one speaking, (2) build his rapport with his audience so they would be favorable to what he had to say, and (3) capture them with his rhetorical skill so they would stay and listen (1976:116-118). To seize the opportunity, Peter would need to answer a series of questions popularized by N.T. Wright (1997:443-471): Who was he? Who were those with him? Who were those in the crowd? Where were they? What was wrong? What is the solution? What time is it?

Peter knew who he was, the appointed spokesman for the new, Jesus movement. He had been given authority from Jesus himself to make this speech and had been baptized with the Holy Spirit to do so. He would now need to use his human responsibility to courageously seize the day. He could have held back but he didnt. The kingdom of God was at hand. Peter also knew who his companions were, the newly empowered Jewish ambassadors to the world. Furthermore, he knew that the crowd represented the resurrection of Ezekiels valley of dry bonesthe twelve tribes of Israel being regathered from the four corners of the earth for such a time as this (Est 4.14). He also knew that something was wrong. Many of his countrymen were deeply conflicted over the events of the last month. The atmosphere was mixed with the haze of guilt for their complicity in crucifying Jesus, the pall of depression that had fallen upon those that had hoped that Jesus would bring about the redemption of Israel, and the shock of the honor-restoring reports that Jesus had both risen from the dead and ascended into heaven. Peter also understood where they 5

were: they were in Jerusalem, the city of peace, from which good news would ring forth to the world. The Jews, however, understood that they were still in exile because their national sins had not yet been forgivenor so it seemed. The blood of bulls and goats had never cancelled sin. Nor did there appear to be any hope in the old prophecies about the scepter from the tribe of Judah being handed to Davids line forever. The Davidic kingship had been cut off long ago. Moreover, the rebuilding of the temple had not resulted in the return of the glory of the Lord. Consistent with her history of making ungodly alliances for political gain, many in Israel were in bed with Rome. The priests in control of the temple were especially complicit for the part they played in crucifying the Messiah. But Peter knew the answer. The solution for Israel was to return to the ministry of John the Baptist and repent for their national rebellion as they had done in books like Lamentations, Ezra, and Nehemiah. They would then need to put their faith in Gods solution for how to move forward by acknowledging that Jesus was Gods Messiah who had died and risen and put their trust in him. And what time was it? It was time for Peter to speak. Peter had only a few seconds to assess his audience and choose a course of action. He knew that as a communicator he had to be receptor-oriented, the most important principle in rhetoric (Kraft 1999:15). Jesus had taught his disciples to love their enemies (Lk 6.32-35). Peters opening would have to show his enemies that despite their rebellion, God loved and accepted them. At the same time as Peter was sizing up his audience, he was assessing his context. His audience was filled with cognitive dissonance4 due to the

Cognitive Dissonance Theory, developed by Leon Festinger in 1957 (see Rudolph 2006), is concerned with the relationships among cognitions. A cognition, as defined by Festinger, may be thought of as a piece of knowledge. The knowledge may be about an attitude, an emotion, a behavior, a value and so on. People like consonance among their cognitions. Two cognitions are said to be dissonant if one cognition follows from the opposite of another. What happens to people when they discover dissonant cognitions? The answer to this question forms the basic postulate of Festingers theory. A person who has dissonant or discrepant cognitions is said to be in a state of psychological dissonance, which is experienced as unpleasant psychological tension. This tension state has drive-like properties that are much like those of hunger and thirst. When a person has been deprived of food for several hours, he/she experiences unpleasant tension and is driven to reduce the unpleasant tension state that results. If dissonance is experienced as an unpleasant drive-state, the individual is motivated to reduce it. Now that the factors that affect the magnitude of this unpleasantness have been identified, it should be possible to predict what we can do to reduce it, (1) changing cognitions: if two cognitions are discrepant, we can simply change one to make it consistent with the other. Or we can change each cognition in the direction of the other, (2) adding cognitions: if two cognitions cause a certain magnitude of dissonance, that magnitude can be reduced by adding one or more consonant cognitions, (3) altering importance:

buildup of data that did not fit their worldview.5 The signs and wonders that had followed Jesus everywhere he went had already perplexed many. And now this? Their reservoir of tension, as anthropologists call it, was about to spill over and destroy the very foundation of their worldview (Kraft 2008:425-437). Edgar Schein calls this state unfreezing (2004:320-325) and Griffin melting (1976:45-95). The good news is that their disequilibration, 6 is exactly where scholars in the area of change dynamics say they needed to be for real change to occur (Senge 1993). Behaviors do not change without a complete dissatisfaction with the status quo, and thats where many of them were. Perhaps never in the history of the world had a group of people been more ready for a man to give a speech. Peter would have known that he needed to start with a forensic model, since some in the crowd were already hostile. He would also have to begin within their latitude of acceptance (Griffin 1976:49) to establish the right ethos and gain credibility. One wrong move and he could lose them. To gain their attention, Peter stood up and raised his voice in the style of a professional rhetor (Witherington 2009:49). This bold posture would have commanded respect and exuded authority, thus enhancing his credibility by showing that he had the expertise to address the situation. The eleven also stood up, thus presenting a united front in a collective society in which a group would have a much better chance of being heard than a lone figure (Kraft 2008:167-186). At this point, I will attempt to analyze the first and longer of Peters two speeches that day (Acts 2.14-36, 38-40). Choosing his words carefully, Peter began by saying Fellow Jews and all you who live in Jerusalem... In this way, he immediately identified himself with them, thus establishing rapport. By inference he was stating that this was a resolvable, Jewish matter and not something that had to do with
since the discrepant and consonant cognitions must be weighed by importance, it may be advantageous to alter the importance of the various cognitions. 5 Kuhns anomalies (1996:52) 6 Disequilibration is that mental, emotional, or spiritual state whereby a person is encounters external data or stimuli that does not fit their internal cognitive structures that allow them to make sense out of life. They are then brought into a state where they are no longer in a state of equilibrium, that state in a system where opposing forces are balanced. In this sense of the loss of control, people that heretofore had no questions, now have a hunger for knowledge that can ease the pain of their cognitive dissonance (Piaget 1985).

Rome. He also tipped his hat to the Jerusalem Jews. He would soon be calling them to repentance, but wanted them with him until it was time to confront them. Sensing that he already had enough credibility to proceed, Peter chose to skip the exordium, the general introduction, and went right into the narratio, the heart of his address, to focus on the situation at hand. It was better for creating ethos if the proverbial elephant in the living room7 was acknowledgedafter all, people had been joyously praising God in multiple languages out in the streets. He began his narratio saying, Let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. The listener now knows that the speaker has the expertise to explain the sound anomaly; they would need to give this man their undivided attention if they wanted their felt need8 for an explanation met. In so doing, Peter put himself in the superior role of the benefactor and the crowd in the subordinate position of the client needing the status-raising information that Peter had to give. Not only did he put them in his debt, he disarmed them by making a joke: These men are not drunk, as you suppose, he said. Its only nine oclock in the morning! The reader can imagine the nervous, tension-releasing laughter that would have followed. As the argument develops, Luke will show Peter demonstrating Griffins three ways of gaining credibility in only a few sentences, (1) authority (a qualified insider), (2) character (friendly, humorous), and (3) dynamism (bold, commanding attention; 1976:122). Now that he had built his ethos (credibility), it was time to begin his forensic argument that would utilize the logos method of tight reasoning to prove his case. Peter chose to by building off two primary arguments that, when connected, would explain the seemingly strange manifestations they were seeing. The first would show that the events at hand were the fulfillment of Joels prediction about the return of the Spirit of prophecy. The second would show that
An American euphemism meaning that it is best to admit it if one has something as large as an elephant in their living room; it makes no sense to pretend that it is not there. 8 The term felt need is a reference to A. H. Maslows hierarchy of needs introduced in A Theory of Human Motivation (Psychological Review 50/4: 1943, 370-396); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs). His theory explains that humans have needs at a number of different levels and that we strive to have our more basic felt needs met before we move up to get our less basic needs met. Moving from most basic to least basic, Maslow explains human needs as (1) physical, (2) safety, (3) belonging, (4) esteem, (5) self-actualization, (6) knowing and understanding, and (7) aesthetic (cf. Miller 1973:89-99 for a Christian application).
7

Isaiahs prophecy about the covenantal promise of the outpoured Spirit was at hand (Is 59.22). It was not only for a select few and their families but for all those who called on the name of the Lord. The first phase of Peters argument regarding the strange phenomena would show that the prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled. After four hundred years of the quenched Spirit, God was at last pouring out his Spirit on all flesh and they were prophesying, just as they had always done when the Spirit was poured out (cf. Num 11.25, 1 Sam 10.6). While Peter doesnt reference it, the astute Bible student knows that the events of the day had their earliest origin in a prayer-wish made by Moses. He had said, I wish that all Gods people would prophesy (Num 11.29). Despite the lowered social status associated with his Galilean accent, Peter dove into the heart of his apologetic by quoting Joel 2.28-32 verbatim, thus showing that he was a pious Jew who knew the Scriptures. He also quoted it from the Septuagint, thus raising his status with the Diaspora Jews.9 This is a clear sign that Peter, and probably the other apostles, had done their homework after Jesus ascension. When the power came upon them, they were ready. Commensurate with his character, Peter chose to use a rarely used rhetorical device designed to shock his listeners in the hopes of pulling them in deeper. It was a gamble, and could backfire, but Peter knew what time it was. The presence of God was upon them and there was no better time to take a risk. He began the quote from Joel by making a subtle, but significant change. He ignored Joels opening temporal clause, After this that referred to an indefinite period of restoration after God had humbled Israel with a locust plague. He then replaced it by saying, In the last days.... In doing so, he was saying Joels indefinite after this had now come into focus. The Day of the Lord had come as was evidenced in the return of the Spirit of prophesy. The average Palestinian Jew at this time believed that the Spirit had been tragically absent since the oracles of Malachi. Ezekiel had had a vision where he saw the glory of the Lord departing from the temple.

Witherington says that Peter patterned his speech after the style of the Septuagint, a rhetorical technique called Septuaginalizing. It was considered good style to impersonate other famous speech patterns (2009:48).

Not even the temples rebuilding after their return from Babylon had coaxed the Lord to return to it again. The quenched Spirit, then, was the principle sign that Israels sins had not been forgiven. They were still under Gods curse, even though the two southern tribes had returned to the land. One can now see why the return of the Spirit was believed to be the sign of Yahwehs return.10 Many Jews thought that when he returned he would forgive Israels sins and fight for her as he had done in Egypt.11 Joel had said, however, that this outpouring was for everyone, even those the Jews considered their enemies. When the Spirit was poured out on a future generation, it would be the sign that Gods Edenic presence had become available again, as evidenced in the restoration of two-way communication between God and Humankind as pictured in the Pentecostal phenomenon of glossolalia, speaking in other languages. God was drawing all the sons and daughters of Adam back to himself and giving them the opportunity to turn from idols and call on his name. Whoever did so, Joel said, would be saved (Joel 2.32; 3.5 LXX). This is Lukes way of foreshadowing the Gentile mission that would burst forth from Israel because God had now ministered to Israel by forgiving her sins in Christ and giving her a Jubilee release. Having explained the coming of the Spirit, Peter was quick to get into the meat of what he wanted to say. In his next line of reasoning, it became clear that Peter had begun to think through Jesus bodily resurrection and its staggering implications for Jesus identity. He was Messiah, certainly. But was he more than that? This man whom Peter had eaten with, camped with, laughed with, was now seated at Gods right hand, the greatest place of honor in the universe. His study of Scripture had also revealed an intriguing connection between Psalm 16.8-11 and Psalm 110.1. David wrote in Psalm 16.10 (15.10 LXX) saying, You will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. To whom
Max Turner points out that while it was H. Gunkel who had steered the discussion of the Spirit in Luke-Acts back to the Jewish context of Second Temple expectations that Yahweh would return to initiate Isaiahs new exodus, it was G.W. Lampe who pointed out that the first and greatest sign of the forgiveness of Israels sins would be the return of the Spirit of prophecy evidencing the removal of the barrier between God and his people (2000:23, 199). 11 N.T. Wrights thesis in Jesus and the Victory of God (1997) that the Palestinian Jews of Jesus day saw themselves as still in exile has come under great scrutiny, but recent scholarship has demonstrated that his explanation makes good sense of the Second Temple data and has become the prevailing consensus (Evans 1999:77-100)
10

10

was David referring? Who was this Holy One who would not see decay? Everyone knew that David had died and had not risen from the dead. To make matters more interesting, David had written said in Psalm 110.34-35:
34

The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. Here David writes about two beings in heaven that he both calls Lord. Again, to whom was David referring? It seems clear that the first Lord here is Elohim/Yahweh. But who is this one that sits at his right hand that is also called Lord? And why would God put this mans enemies under his feet? With his mind illumined by the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke 24.30-32), Peter realized that David could only have been talking about one man, Jesus of Nazareth. Without drawing ontological conclusions about the godhead, Peter drove the logic of these Scriptures home to the crowd in what Charles H. Kraft calls a truth encounter (Kraft 2005b:361-374). Earlier, in Lukes birth narrative, the saintly Simeon had prophesied that Jesus would cause the rising and falling of many in Israel (Lk 2.34). In alignment with this prophetic announcement, Peter used the Scriptures to give his listeners an opportunity to either rise or fall. Switching to a deliberative style of rhetoric, he forced the people to look squarely at Gods truth. The Day of Yahweh had arrived, as was evidenced by those who had been filled with the Holy Spirit. After holding out the carrot, however, Peter then told the crowd they couldnt have it. They had rejected the redemptive plan of their covenant-making God and now were being called to task. How their hearts must have sunk hearing verses 22-24:
22

People of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by Gods deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

11

To use Griffins language, the people had now been melted by an encounter with truth. Peter had established credibility, reeled in the listeners with an emotive appeal, won over the mind with sound, biblical logic, and used a healthy combination of cognitive and affective rhetoric. I might also add that, while the speech, as written, cannot show audio and visual elements such as tone of voice, body language, passion, or non-fluencies such as ums, and-ums, or you knows, the fact that thousands of people were about to say yes to his exhortation show that nothing was hindering the crowd from receiving the message Peter was trying to give. All that remained was to mold them. To do so he needed to call the now humbled crowd to a course of action. What they would have to have next was what Kraft next calls an allegiance encounter (Kraft 2005b:361-374). With their cognitive dissonance at an all-time high, Peter had now disequilibrated them to the point that they were ready to face the idols in their homes and hearts and address their deepest fears. They would now need to acknowledge their sin and repent so God could take control of their lives. If they did, they could be a part of the new kingdom. All that remained was for Peter to appeal to their emotions through pathos and ask for a decision. The invitation itself would cause the crowds rising and falling, depending on how people responded. Luke tell us that they were cut to the heart and chose rising rather than falling. They asked Peter and the other apostles why they could do to be saved. Peter would now exhort them to turn away from human efforts and simply confess that Jesus is Lord. During what could be called ministry time, Peter said, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter then quoted a prophecy found in Isaiah 59.1921 noting that the promise of the Spirit was not only for them, but you and your children and for all who are far offfor all whom the Lord our God will call.

12

Three thousand people were converted at Peters invitation. The flow of the text leads the reader to conclude that these first converts to the Christian Church also received infillings with the Holy Spirit to empower them for mission. While it is an argument from silence, later texts in Acts suggest that repenting from idols in the context of Spirit-empowerment could lead not only to truth and allegiance encounters but also to what Kraft calls power encounters, direct confrontations between God and Satan for the lives of people. We see these kinds of honor challenges in Acts 5 (with Ananias and Sapphira), 8 (the Samaritan believers and Simon Magus), 13 (Bar Jesus), and 19 (the cult of Diana and burning fetishes). In this we see that clashes between God and Satan were common fare in the early Church, just as they had been in Jesus day. The audience had been melted and molded. It was now time to make [them] hard (Griffin 1976:169-224). Old mindsets and behavioral habits based on perceived realities would need to be replaced with new ones based on an epistemology that had the courage to continually press into truth encounters.12 Luke will illustrate the making-hard process in the early, Jesus community in three separate vignettes in Acts 2.42-47, 4.32-34, and 5.12-15. Each of these is a summary passage showing spiritual and numerical growth in the aftermath of what I believe is the greatest sermon in the history of the Christian Church.

When Lukes crowds are hostile to the Christ or his kingdom they are portrayed as holding an epistemology known as nave realism. Nave realism assumes that the way one sees the world aligns with how God sees things. This is contrasted with critical realism, an epistemology that acknowledges that ones view of reality might be wrong, or at least skewed. The critical realist is willing to look at the data to see what is true and real, even to the point of being willing to change ones worldview, if necessary, to account for data that does not fit ones worldview (Kraft 2008:46-47; Kuhn 1996:111).

12

13

Conclusion After examining Peters speech on the day of Pentecost, I conclude that Luke casts him as an excellent speaker who was skilled in the art of rhetoric. When help up against modern theories of communication, the reader can see that he works easily within the parameters of those principles. Moreover, Peter had been prepared for this day, as his detailed argument shows. The apostles had no doubt thought and prayed hard about the time God would open up the opportunity to witness to their Jewish brethren. When it arrived, they were prepared. Finally, for those of us who want to speak well in the present day, Peter shows us how well prepared we need to be to be on task in season and out of season (2 Tim 4.2). He would tell us that we need to analyze our audience carefully, chose the right rhetorical approach, deliver our message in a persuasive style, aim at both disequilibration and salvation, call people to salvation, ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit, and disciple our flocks after ministry time is over. In regards to his empowerment with the Spirit, Peter spoke as one of the prophets of old in fulfillment of Moses prayer and Joels prediction that God wants to fill all his people so they might prophecy to be empowered witnesses to the world. Peters speed at Pentecost was about power, the power of the presence of a person. The focus of good preaching is always on Christ and the in-break of his kingdom. Since we are in the last days, a period that Luke calls the times of the Gentiles, Gods presence and power are still available to all those who call on the name of the Lord. As preachers we need to take seriously the importance of developing expertise in the art of rhetoric in order to be diligent with Gods supernatural abilities. Jesus said, it is only those who invest their talents well that will hear him say in the end, Well done my good and faithful servant (Mt 25.14-30). Those are the words Peter will hear.

14

REFERENCES CITED

Cadbury, Henry J. 1999. The Making of Luke-Acts. Peabody, MA: Hendricksen. Original edition, 1927. Goleman, Daniel, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee. 2004. Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Griffin, Em. 1976. The Mind Changers. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale. Hemer, Colin. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Kennedy, George A. 1984. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Kraft, Charles H. 1996. Anthropology for Christian Witness. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. . 1999. Communication Theory for Christian Witness. Revised ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Original edition, 1983. . 2005b. Spiritual Power: A Missiological Issue. In Appropriate Christianity, edited by Charles H. Kraft. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library. . 2008. Worldview for Christian Witness. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3 ed. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Malina, Bruce J. 2001. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 3 ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Maslow, A. H. A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review 50/4: 1943, 370-396. Miller, Keith. 1973. The Becomers. Waco, TX: Word Publishers. Morphew, Derek. "Enacted Inaugurated Eschatology," Cape Town, SA: Unpublished Paper, 2010. Piaget, Jean. Equilibration of Cognitive Structures, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

15

Rudolph, Frederick M. Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Leon Festinger 2006 [cited. May, 2011]. Available from http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/thcogndiss02.htm. Schein, Edgar H. 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3 ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Senge, Peter M. 1993. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Crown Publishing. Turner, Max. 2000. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel's Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. Sheffield, GB: Sheffield Academic Press. Original edition, 1996. Witherington, Ben. 2009. New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Wright, N. T. 1992. The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. . 1997. Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

16