There has been a growing trend over the last three decades to utilize narrative criticism to interpret the New Testament,1 including the tools of character studies.2 Within the area of character studies, it has typically been assumed that characterization in the New Testament was largely influenced by ancient Greek literature and the Aristotelian understanding of characters as static types who embody certain traits.3 More recently, however, there has been a trend away from seeing characters in the New Testament as static types and towards a more modern understanding of characters as dynamic individuals who develop and surprise the reader.4 Of those who argue for such an understanding, many appeal to Luke’s portrayal of Peter in Acts as evidence of such dynamic characterization within the New Testament. Accordingly, recent studies of the characterization of Peter in Acts have tended to focus on the way Luke develops Peter’s character, especially by highlighting his development from Luke’s Gospel to Acts.5

Less attention, however, has been given to understanding how different accounts of the characterization of Peter in Acts impinge upon and contribute to the overall message of the book. In this article, I argue that the more recent focus on Peter’s development has led to a skewed analysis of his presentation in Acts, and, as a corollary, that this has obscured the way in which Peter’s characterization contributes to the message of Acts. Although the character of Peter does significantly develop from Luke’s Gospel to Acts, thereby highlighting the transformative power of the gospel, Peter remains a largely static character within the book of Acts itself. With this correction in place, the theme of the development of the “word of God/the Lord” is placed in sharper relief as the central message of the book. At the same time, however, Peter does undergo significant development in one area—his understanding of Gentile salvation. Nevertheless, this too serves Luke’s purpose of recounting the movement of the gospel from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Thus, Luke’s interest in Peter as a character is subordinated to, and ultimately serves, his broader purpose of highlighting the movement of the gospel to the ends of the earth, which constitutes the central message of the book.

1. Methodology

Several methodological considerations underpin this study. Since we are engaging in a narratological reading of Acts, it is appropriate to read the book according to its final form as a narrative—as “an interactive whole.”6 Accordingly, although historical and textual issues are not unimportant, they are largely beyond the scope of this article.7 Moreover, the opening verse of the book indicates that Luke8 did not intend Acts to be read as an isolated work, but as the sequel to his Gospel (cf. πρῶτον, Acts 1:1). Although Parsons and Pervo have helpfully demonstrated that the discontinuities between the two books caution us against collapsing Luke-Acts into a single work,9 they perhaps overstate their case and overlook the continuity of “story, themes, and theology” between the two works.10 Thus, we are led both to differentiate between Luke and Acts as distinct works, and, also, to recognize how the unity of Luke-Acts leads us to read them together.11

In order to allow categories and concepts to arise organically out of the text, I begin by performing an inductive study of the characterization of Peter in Acts, focusing on larger narrative units within the broader literary divisions established by Luke’s use of editorial markers.12 In seeking to analyse Peter’s characterization, I adopt Bennema’s definition of character: “a human actor, individual or collective, imaginary or real, who plays a role in the story of a literary narrative.”13 Moreover, Resseguie rightly notes the importance of character development, which “often provides a clue to the direction and meaning of the plot and theme.”14 Furthermore, it is necessary to read Acts with a sensitivity to how Luke both shows and tells the reader who Peter is.15 Altar notes that while telling is more certain, showing—through actions and speech—is more ambiguous and requires the reader to make inferences and fill “gaps.”16 Nevertheless, this process of “gap-filling” is not arbitrary when governed by Luke’s authorial purpose—to offer certainty (Luke 1:4), especially concerning the movement of the gospel from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).17 After analyzing Peter’s characterization in Acts, I turn to consider how Peter’s characterization contributes to the message of Acts.

2. The Characterization of Peter in Acts

Having outlined the methodological considerations underpinning this study, we now turn to an inductive study of Peter’s characterization in Acts.

2.1. Acts 1:1–6:7: Peter in Jerusalem

Luke begins Acts by recounting how the resurrected Jesus taught his apostles about the kingdom of God before being taken up into heaven (1:1–11).18 Having witnessed this, the apostles gather along with the other disciples to await the promised Holy Spirit (1:12–14; cf. 1:4–5). Peter is mentioned first in the list of apostles, which suggests that he will be established as their leader and representative (1:13; cf. Luke 6:12–16).19

This is reinforced in the subsequent narrative unit (καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις, 1:15),20 when Peter stands to address the disciples. It is not unusual for Peter to take initiative and act as a spokesperson (see Luke 5:5; 8:45; 9:33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:33); however, “[c]ompared to his Synoptic portrayal, Peter seems to have changed—from being outspoken to well spoken.”21 He is characterized as a faithful and persuasive interpreter of Scripture who “follows the lead of Jesus” (1:16, 20; cf. Pss 69:25; 109:8).22 Moreover, Luke’s use of δεῖ and πληρόω (1:16) recalls Jesus’ own words (Luke 24:44), thus closely identifying Peter with Jesus.23 Having witnessed the empty tomb (Luke 24:12) and the risen and ascended Jesus (Luke 24:34, 36–51; Acts 1:1–9), Peter has become a bold leader and faithful interpreter of Scripture.

After receiving the Holy Spirit (2:1–4), Peter is again marked out as the representative of the twelve when he stands “with the eleven” to address the crowd (2:14).24 Peter’s boldness in addressing the crowd is brought into sharper relief by recalling that Jesus was crucified in the same city less than eight weeks earlier (cf. 2:23).25 Moreover, although “his prior boldness, depicted in the Gospels, remains; the brashness which often accompanied this boldness does not.”26 Peter’s brashness has been replaced by eloquence, persuasiveness, and insight as he interprets the Scriptures and proclaims the gospel (2:14–36; cf. Pss 16:8–11; 110:1; Joel 2:28–32).27 Furthermore, although Luke likely saw an adumbration of the Gentile mission in the references to “all flesh” (2:17; cf. Joel 2:28) and “all who are far off” (2:39), Peter likely “did not realize their full import when he quoted them on Pentecost.”28 As we will see, Peter’s vision in Acts 10 was unanticipated.29 Finally, Gibson is correct in observing, “Peter was greatly and positively affected by being filled with the Spirit.”30 Nevertheless, Peter’s consistent characterization and lack of radical change between Acts 1 and 2 suggests the Spirit was not the only catalyst for change.31 We consider this further below.

Turning to Acts 3, we meet Peter and John going up to the temple (3:1). Once again, Peter’s name appears first, and he acts as the spokesperson who takes initiative. Luke records Peter’s healing of a man lame from birth in a way that is reminiscent of Jesus’ healing of the paralytic (Luke 5:17–26),32 thus demonstrating, “while Peter is still Jesus’ servant, he has now taken over many of Jesus’ roles in the community.”33 Peter, however, remains cognizant of his dependence upon Jesus and demonstrates humility in deflecting attention from himself (3:6, 12, 16).34 Having healed the man, he proceeds to preach boldly the gospel from the Scriptures (3:12–26; cf. Gen 22:18; Lev 23:29; Deut 18:15, 19). Nevertheless, Peter’s substitution of πατριαί (3:25) for ἔθνη (Gen 22:18, LXX) suggests that he still remains somewhat ignorant of a Gentile mission.35

These events greatly annoy the Jewish authorities (4:1–2), who arrest Peter and John (4:3–4) before questioning them (4:5–22). Peter’s boldness is highlighted in the face of this persecution by recalling that Peter had denied Jesus to a servant girl less than eight weeks prior (Luke 22:54–62);36 yet now he proclaims the gospel with “boldness” (4:13; cf. 4:29, 31)37 before an impressive list of listeners (4:5–6).38 Gaventa notes that Peter’s act of witnessing boldly and faithfully typifies the proper response to persecution in Acts (cf. 4:23–31).39 Despite being “uneducated” (ἀγράμματοί) and “common” (ἰδιῶται, 4:13),40 Peter is “filled with the Holy Spirit” (4:8; cf. 4:31) and faithfully proclaims salvation from the Scriptures (4:8–12; cf. Ps 118:22), thus associating him with Jesus (4:13).41

Acts 5 provides us with three vignettes of Peter that serve to reinforce his characterization thus far. In 5:1–11, Peter is presented as the wise leader of the Jerusalem church, who acts not as a “judge and executioner,” but as a prophet with insight like Moses (Num 15:32–36), Joshua (Josh 7:16–26), and Jesus (Luke 5:22; 6:8; 9:47; 11:17).42 In 5:12–16, his reputation for being a miracle-worker like Jesus is reinforced (cf. Luke 8:42–48). Finally, Peter is reinforced in 5:27–32 as the representative of the apostles (Πέτρος καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, 5:29) who speaks with boldness (5:29).43

2.2. Acts 6:8–9:31: Peter in Samaria

Although Peter was present for the events of 6:1–6 (οἱ δώδεκα, 6:2) and likely aware of Stephen’s stoning (6:8–7:60), Peter’s only appearance in this section is to confirm that the Samaritans had received the gospel and to pray that they might receive the Holy Spirit (8:14–17). In this way, Peter is characterized as a leader who bridges the movement of the gospel from Jerusalem to Samaria (cf. 1:8). Moreover, the way Peter engages with Simon the magician demonstrates that he has integrity (8:18–20) and is insightful (8:20–23).44

2.3. Acts 9:32–12:25: Peter and the Gentiles

Following Luke’s editorial summary statement in 9:31, Peter’s ministry at Lydda and Joppa in 9:32–43 serves to introduce his broader ministry beyond Jerusalem and Samaria,45 which may suggest a broadening of his pastoral concern.46 Bayer notes that from this point onwards, “Peter functions much more as an individual … albeit still amidst other believers.”47 Peter’s decision to stay with Simon the tanner also demonstrates some concern for social outcasts, since a tanner would have been considered an outcast and potentially unclean (9:43).48 Once more, we note that he is characterized as a miracle-worker like Jesus (Luke 7:11–17; cf. Luke 7:1–10).49

Bennema rightly notes, “Peter’s most momentous encounter is with Cornelius.”50 Luke emphasizes Peter’s role in initiating the Gentile mission by placing the narrative of Cornelius’ conversion (10:1–11:18) before the mention of what were likely the first Gentile converts chronologically (11:19–21; cf. 8:1; 9:32).51 At first, Peter is characterized as epitomizing a typical Jewish response to the command to “kill and eat” (10:13).52 His emphatic rejection (μηδαμῶς … οὐδέποτε, 10:14; cf. 11:8)53 echoes his former impulsiveness (cf. Luke 5:5; 8:45; 9:33) and is reminiscent of the piety demonstrated by Daniel (Dan 1:8–16)54 and Ezekiel (Ezek 4:14).55 Nevertheless, Peter progressively undergoes a radical transformation. Initially, he is “perplexed” (ἐν ἑαυτῷ διηπόρει, 10:17), and begins to “ponder” the vision (διενθυμουμένου, 10:19). He takes the next step by inviting inside the men sent by Cornelius (10:23)—although, “he is not yet going beyond what a law-abiding Jew might do in entertaining Gentiles.”56 Nevertheless, Luke emphasizes that Peter enters the house of Cornelius the following day (εἰσελθεῖν … εἰσῆλθεν, 10:24–25), where he demonstrates clear development in his convictions (ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας καταλαμβάνομαι, 10:34; cf. 10:28; 11:17).57 Having witnessed the Spirit fall on Gentiles (10:44–48), “the final element of Peter’s transformation has taken place.”58 Furthermore, Witherup observes that Luke almost immediately repeats the content of 10:9–48 in 11:5–18 (cf. 15:7–11), suggesting that this “functional redundancy” highlights Peter’s character development as being crucial to the plot and meaning of Acts.59

Turning to Peter’s imprisonment in 12:1–19, several features of Peter’s characterization are reinforced once more. Peterson notes that despite Peter’s imprisonment, Luke “highlights the fact that Peter was sleeping (κοιμώμενος as a present participle emphasising a continuing state of sleep). This suggests that he had some confidence about his future.”60 Furthermore, Luke mentions that this occurred “during the days of Unleavened Bread” (12:3) and the “Passover” (12:4), which recalls Peter’s denial of Jesus at Passover (Luke 22:1), thus underlining the transformative effect upon Peter of the empty tomb and Pentecost.61 Additionally, Peter quickly moves from “bafflement to understanding” (12:8–11).62

2.4. Acts 13:1–28:31: From Peter to Paul

Peter is last mentioned in Acts 15, where he persuasively defends Paul and the Gentile mission (15:7–11). Bennema notes, “Peter is the persuasive one and James bases his decision on Peter’s argument (Acts 15:14).”63 This final mention of Peter marks the completion of the transition from Peter to Paul in Acts, who was first introduced in Acts 7:58 and converted in Acts 9. Luke reinforces the transition from Peter to Paul by characterizing them in similar ways. Clark notes, “Every individual miracle performed by Peter has its counterpart in one performed by Paul.”64 For example, Peter’s healing of the lame man in 3:1–11 is clearly paralleled by Paul’s healing of the crippled man in 14:8–10.65

3. The Contribution of Peter’s Characterization to the Message of Acts

Having performed an inductive study of Peter’s characterization in Acts, we now turn to consider how this contributes to the message of Acts.

3.1. The Transformation of Peter and the Power of the Gospel

First, Peter’s characterization in Acts has been significantly developed in comparison to his characterization in Luke’s Gospel. Whereas Peter was once brash and outspoken, offering ill-timed interjections, he has become an insightful, persuasive, and well-spoken interpreter of Scripture. Although he was once impetuous and self-confident in his ability to remain loyal to Jesus, he is now dependent and humble, deflecting attention from himself. His quarrelsomeness has been replaced with obedience to God’s purposes. Peter has become the leader and representative of the apostles, a healer and a prophet. Perkins puts it well: “Any failures shown by the apostle during Jesus’ lifetime have been eradicated by his post-Resurrection transformation.”66

The radical transformation of Peter’s character contributes to the message of Acts by demonstrating the transformative power of the gospel. The significant development in his characterization between Luke’s Gospel and Acts gives the reader “certainty” (Luke 1:4) that the promise of “power” (δύναμιν, Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8) has been realized in the lives of Jesus’ followers for the purpose of being “witnesses” (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8).67 Principally, this is achieved through the indwelling presence of the Spirit (“when the Holy Spirit has come upon you”, 1:8). Nevertheless, as we saw earlier, the consistent characterization of Peter in Acts 1 and 2, and the absence of character development between the two chapters suggests that it was not merely the reception of the Spirit that changed Peter, it was also the empty tomb (Luke 24:12) and witnessing the risen and ascended Lord Jesus (Luke 24:34, 36–51; Acts 1:1–9). Thus, we conclude that the development in Peter’s characterization from Luke’s Gospel to Acts demonstrates the transformative power of the gospel.

3.2. The Static Characterization of Peter and the Development of the Gospel

Nevertheless, Peter’s characterization remains relatively static within the book of Acts. Apart from recognising God’s purposes to save Gentiles through the gospel (see below),68 Peter exhibits consistent actions, traits and speech throughout Acts.69 Adams has shown that this “lack of interest in character development” is consistent with other Graeco-Roman biographies and histories of the time which principally focus on “the message that the characters espouse and their embodiment of that message.”70 Consequently, “events and deeds were selected for inclusion in Acts not because they were the most important aspects of individual’s lives, but because they were appropriate to the focus of the work.”71 Although Peter and Paul feature prominently in Acts, it is not primarily a book about Peter or Paul.

Acts is a book about the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth (1:8). Luke’s use of summary statements to report the progress of the “word of God/the Lord” (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:30–31)72 serves as “unmistakeable evidence that [the gospel] is a central theme in the book.”73 Whereas Peter remains largely static as a character, the gospel “multiplies” (πληθύνω, 6:1; 9:31) and “grows” (αὐξάνω, 6:7; 12:24; 19:20).74 Nevertheless, this is not some impersonal logos, but the word of the ascended Lord Jesus who works by his Spirit, and in this sense, Acts is about what Jesus continued to do and teach through his word (cf. 1:1).75 The largely static characterization of Peter contributes to the message of Acts by highlighting the more central theme of the progress of the “word of God/the Lord.”76

This, however, is not to suggest that Peter’s characterization is simplistic or unimportant within Acts.77 Luke consistently characterizes Peter as the leader, representative and spokesperson of the apostles.78 Peter’s speeches are used to explain the meaning of events in light of Scripture, and to form a framework for the other themes developed throughout the unfolding narrative of Acts.79 Moreover, Peter is presented as the “quintessential disciple” who is worthy of imitation in his imitation of Christ.80 Clark notes that Peter is portrayed “as the witness par excellence to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, the one whose testimony has persuasive power.”81 Furthermore, while “[t]he close association between the Spirit, miracles, and preaching in the ministry of Jesus has been transferred to the apostles who are his witnesses,”82 Peter’s dependence on God emphasizes the importance of divine causation. Thus, although Peter’s characterization is static, it is neither simplistic nor unimportant.

3.3. Peter’s Change of Mind and the Movement of the Gospel

Nonetheless, Peter does undergo significant character development in one particular way—his recognition of God’s purposes to save Gentiles “through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (15:11). Although his references to “all flesh” (2:17; cf. Joel 2:28), “all who are far off” (2:39) and “all the families of the earth” (3:25; cf. Gen 22:18) adumbrate the Gentile mission, it is unlikely that Peter was cognizant of this when he spoke them since he did not seem to anticipate the vision recounted in chs. 10–11. Having received the vision at Joppa, he progressively alters his convictions into alignment with God’s purposes. Therefore, recalling that character development “often provides a clue to the direction and meaning of the plot and theme,”83 we conclude that this development in Peter’s characterization contributes to the message of Acts by highlighting the movement of the gospel to the ends of the earth as a central theme in the book (1:8). Luke reinforces this by repeating the narrative in 10:9–48 almost immediately in 11:4–17. Furthermore, the transition from Peter to Paul as the central character in the narrative coincides with an increased focus on the Gentile mission.

4. Conclusions

The recent trend towards understanding New Testament characters as dynamic individuals has led to a pronounced focus upon Peter and his development in Acts. In particular, Peter’s transformation from Luke’s Gospel to Acts has often been highlighted as an example of this kind of dynamic character development. In this study, we have sought to demonstrate that while the development in Peter’s characterization from Luke’s Gospel to Acts does demonstrate the transformative power of the gospel, the pronounced focus upon his development has led to a skewed analysis of his presentation within the book of Acts itself, thereby obscuring the way his characterization contributes to the message of the book as a whole. As we have seen, the book of Acts is not ultimately about Peter and his development; rather, Luke’s interest in Peter as a character is subordinated to, and ultimately serves, his broader purpose of highlighting the progress of the “word of God/the Lord,” which constitutes the central theme of the book. Even in the case of Peter’s recognition of God’s purposes in bringing salvation to the Gentiles, which does constitute significant character development, this too serves Luke’s purpose of providing certainty about the movement of the gospel from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. Thus, any focus upon Peter and his characterization ought to account for the internal concerns and dynamics of the book itself; namely, its fundamental preoccupation with the message of the gospel.

---

[1] Cornelis Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 2; David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 39–40. A good example of a narratological approach to New Testament interpretation is Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988–1990).

[2] Bennema, however, notes, “character appears to be the neglected child of literary theory.” Bennema, A Theory of Character, 2; cf. Fred W. Burnett, “Characterization and Reader Construction of Characters in the Gospels,” Semeia 63 (1993): 3; Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 19.

[3] E.g., John A. Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 48; S. John Roth, The Blind, the Lame, and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts, JSNTS 144 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 76–79; R. Scholes and R. Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 164; cf. Burnett, “Characterization,” 3–28. For Aristotle’s understanding of character, see Aristotle, Poetics 6.7–24.

[4] E.g., Bennema, A Theory of Character, 26–28; David B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts, ESEC 2 (New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 173; William H. Shepherd, The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 147 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 43–66; cf. Burnett, “Characterization,” 3–28.

[5] E.g., Bennema, A Theory of Character, 166–72; Jack J. Gibson, Peter Between Jerusalem and Antioch: Peter, James and the Gentiles, WUNT 2/345 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 82–140; Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1994), 88–95.

[6] R. C. Tannehill, “Narrative Criticism,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden (London: SCM, 1990), 488; cf. Peterson, Acts, 40.

[7] Pace F. S. Spencer, “Acts and Modern Literary Approaches,” in The Books of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clark, BAFCS 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 381–414. For an introduction to the historical and textual issues in Acts, see Peterson, Acts, 23–25, 39–42, 49–52.

[8] We will assume Lukan authorship for Luke-Acts. Nevertheless, our arguments do not greatly depend on this conclusion. For an introduction to the issue of authorship, see Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 15–19; Peterson, Acts, 1–4.

[9] M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993). They conclude, “the two works are independent narratives with distinct narration, that is, they each tell the story differently” (82, emphasis original).

[10] Peterson, Acts, 7; cf. M. F. Bird, “The Unity of Luke-Acts in Recent Discussion,” JSNT 29 (2007): 425–48; Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2 vols.

[11] So I. H. Marshall, “Acts and the ‘Former Treatise,’” in Winter and Clark, Ancient Literary Setting, 163–82; Peterson, Acts, 6–8; cf. C. K. Barrett, “The Third Gospel as a Preface to Acts? Some Reflections,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, 3 vols., BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University, 1992), 1451–66.

[12] Peterson, Acts, 34–36. These broader literary divisions are Acts 1:1–6:7, 6:8–9:31, 9:32–12:25, 13:1–15:35, 15:36–16:5, 16:6–19:20, and 19:21–28:31. We will combine the latter four sections together since Peter is last mentioned in ch. 15.

[13] Bennema, A Theory of Character, 29; cf. Uri Margolin, “Character,” in Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. D. Herman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 66–79. We would, however, modify Bennema’s definition to include human and human-like characters, thus allowing the possibility for the Holy Spirit to be identified as a character in Acts; cf. J. Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, JSNTSS 211 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001); Shepherd, The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit.

[14] James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 126; cf. Thomas R. Arp, Perrine’s Story and Structure, 9th ed. (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1998), 80.

[15] Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 126–28.

[16] Robert Altar, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 116–17; cf. Darr, On Character Building, 11–59; Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 130–32.

[17] Resseguie provides a negative example of this by not using John’s authorial purpose—belief (John 20:31)—as a control in his analysis of John’s characters. Instead, he analyses the characters through the lens of sociology without justifying his methodology; Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 137–65; cf. Bennema, A Theory of Character, 14.

[18] Interestingly, Gibson begins his analysis of Peter’s characterization with these verses, noting that Peter does not interject in 1:6–7 where the reader might expect him to (cf. Luke 5:1–11; 8:40–56; 9:28–36); Gibson, Peter, 84.

[19] Adams notes the importance of order in lists of names, observing how James and John are prioritized over Andrew in Acts 1:13 when compared to Luke 6:14–15; Sean A. Adams, The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography, SNTSMS 156 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 184–85.

[20] BDF §291.3; cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 108; Peterson, Acts, 121.

[21] Bennema, A Theory of Character, 166.

[22] Peterson, Acts, 120; cf. Gibson, Peter, 85; Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:21.

[23] Tannehill, Luke-Acts, 2:20; cf. Gibson, Peter, 85. These are the only two occurrences of δεῖ and πληρόω together in Luke-Acts.

[24] Adams, The Genre of Acts, 212.

[25] Gibson, Peter, 91.

[26] Gibson, Peter, 96.

[27] Bennema, A Theory of Character, 166.

[28] F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 68; cf. Gibson, Peter, 91–94; Peterson, Acts, 140. For an introduction to the ambiguity of the phrase ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς in 1:8, see Thomas S. Moore, “‘To the End of the Earth’: The Geographical and Ethnic Universalism of Acts 1:8 in Light of Isaianic Influence on Luke,” JETS 40 (1997): 389–99; David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, BSL (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 93–95.

[29] Gibson, Peter, 93.

[30] Ibid., 90.

[31] At a more detailed level, we note that in both Acts 1 and 2, Peter takes the initiative to “stand” (ἀναστάς, 1:15; σταθείς, 2:14) among the disciples (ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν, 1:15; σὺν τοῖς ἕνδεκα, 2:14) and to address a crowd by drawing attention to the fulfillment of Scripture (1:16, 20; 2:16–21, 25–28, 34–35). Both speeches are persuasive in their effect (1:23–26; 2:37).

[32] For example, in both narratives, a lame man is brought (Luke 5:18; Acts 3:2) and told to “rise and walk” (ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει, Luke 5:23; Acts 3:6). Having been healed, each of the men praise God (Luke 5:25; Acts 3:8) and the crowds are filled with amazement (ἔκστασις, Luke 5:26; ἐκστάσεως, Acts 3:10); cf. Gibson, Peter, 105.

[33] Gibson, Peter, 107.

[34] Gibson, Peter, 97; Peterson, Acts, 173.

[35] Bock, Acts, 181; Gibson, Peter, 97–99.

[36] Gibson, Peter, 97. Schnabel also notes the risk involved in preaching for so long in the temple—from “the ninth hour” (3:1) to “evening” (4:3); Eckhard Schnabel, Acts, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 233–34; cf. Gibson, Peter, 99.

[37] The unusual forward placement of the genitive τοῦ Πέτρου in the phrase τὴν τοῦ Πέτρου παρρησίαν καὶ Ἰωάννου places the emphasis on Peter.

[38] Peter’s listeners include “rulers and elders and scribes … Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.”

[39] Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “To Speak Thy Word with All Boldness: Acts 4:23–31,” Faith and Mission 3/2 (1986): 80.

[40] The words ἀγράμματος and ἰδιώτης particularly highlight Peter’s lack of formal training in the Scriptures; BDAG, s.v. “ἀγράμματος”; “ἰδιώτης.”

[41] Bruce, Acts, 99–100; Peterson, Acts, 191–93.

[42] Gibson, Peter, 102, n. 88; cf. Bruce, Acts, 111–12; Gibson, Peter, 101–4.

[43] Interestingly, this is the fourth time Peter has utilized a phrase to the effect of “you killed Jesus, but God raised him up” (2:23–24; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30).

[44] Bennema, A Theory of Character, 167; Gibson, Peter, 112.

[45] Peterson, Acts, 319.

[46] Gibson, Peter, 110–11.

[47] Hans F. Bayer, “The Preaching of Peter in Acts,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 261; cf. Adams, The Genre of Acts, 214.

[48] Gibson, Peter, 111; Peterson, Acts, 328. Interestingly, Peter is always referred to as Πέτρος throughout Acts except for several references in chs. 9–11 where Simon the tanner is also mentioned—presumably to avoid confusion (9:43; 10:5–6, 17–18, 32; 11:13).

[49] Bennema, A Theory of Character, 167–68.

[50] Bennema, A Theory of Character, 168.

[51] “Chronologically, the first Gentile conversions happen at Antioch (and in substantial numbers) because the phrase ‘those who were scattered’ in 11:19 goes back directly to 8:1. Narratologically, however, Cornelius and his household are the first Gentile converts”; Bennema, A Theory of Character, 168; cf. Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 368; pace Carsten Peter Thiede, Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), 150.

[52] Gibson notes that Luke’s repetition of διακρίνω contrasts Peter’s response with that of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (10:20; 11:2, 12; 15:9); Gibson, Peter, 127.

[53] Bock, Acts, 389.

[54] Gibson, Peter, 121–22.

[55] Interestingly, there are several verbal and conceptual links between Peter’s statement here and Ezekiel’s statement in Ezek 4:14 (LXX): καὶ εἶπα Μηδαμῶς, κύριε θεὲ τοῦ Ισραηλ· ἰδοὺ ἡ ψυχή μου οὐ μεμίανται ἐν ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, καὶ θνησιμαῖον καὶ θηριάλωτον οὐ βέβρωκα ἀπὸ γενέσεώς μου ἕως τοῦ νῦν, οὐδὲ εἰσελήλυθεν εἰς τὸ στόμα μου πᾶν κρέας ἕωλον (And I said, “In no way, O Lord, God of Israel, if my soul has not been defiled in uncleanness and from my birth until now I have not eaten a carcass or that which was killed by animals, and no day–old meat has come into my mouth,” NETS).

[56] Peterson, Acts, 332; cf. Bock, Acts, 392; Gibson, Peter, 123; I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 5 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1980), 198–99.

[57] The present tense of καταλαμβάνομαι suggests that Peter is in an ongoing process of “coming to realize.”

[58] Gibson, Peter, 124. Peter almost certainly shared in table fellowship with these Gentile converts while he remained with them for several days (10:48); cf. Gibson, Peter, 125; Peterson, Acts, 341.

[59] Ronald D. Witherup, “Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: ‘Functional Redundancy’ in the Acts of the Apostles,” JSNT 49 (1993): 45–66.

[60] Peterson, Acts, 363. Emphasis original.

[61] Gibson, Peter, 137.

[62] Bennema, A Theory of Character, 169.

[63] Bennema, A Theory of Character, 170. Fowl proposes that James’ reference to Συμεών is a “multivalent” reference to several characters in Luke-Acts. Although this is possible, it is more likely that Luke is faithfully representing James’ preference for Peter’s old name, thus providing support for the historical accuracy of Luke’s reporting in Acts; Stephen E. Fowl, “Simeon in Acts 15:14: Simon Peter and Echoes of Simeons Past,” in Characters and Characterization in Luke-Acts, ed. Frank E. Dicken and Julia A. Snyder, LNTS 548 (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 185–98.

[64] Andrew C. Clark, “The Role of the Apostles,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 186.

[65] For a more comprehensive list, see Acts 2:43; 5:1–11, 12, 15–16; 9:32–35; 12:3–17; 13:8–12; 14:3; 15:12; 16:25–34; 19:11–12; 20:9–12; 28:7–10; cf. Clark, “The Role of the Apostles,” 186–87. For further parallels, see Finn Damgaard, “Moving the People to Repentance: Peter in Luke-Acts,” in Peter in Early Christianity, ed. Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 127–28.

[66] Perkins, Peter, 89; cf. Bennema, A Theory of Character, 170; Gibson, Peter, 140.

[67] Peterson observes, “The gospel is presented as a dynamic force at work in the world (6:7; 12:24; 19:20), transforming the lives of those who receive it (2:41; 8:14; 11:1; 17:11), as it spreads (13:49), and is praised or honoured by those who believe it (13:48)” (Acts, 33).

[68] One might argue that Peter’s reception of the Spirit constitutes a dramatic change in Peter as a character in Acts; however, as we have just argued, Peter’s characterization is consistent between Acts 1 and 2, suggesting against this.

[69] Accordingly, Adams concludes, “Although there is substantial development in Peter’s character between Luke’s Gospel and Acts, the same is not true within Acts. Peter’s actions and words are consistent throughout the text: his character functions as the primary spokesperson for the church, the lead disciple of Jesus for the first half of Acts, a miracle worker, and the key-holder for access into the in-group.” Sean A. Adams, “The Characterization of Disciples in Acts: Genre, Method, and Quality,” in Characters and Characterization in Luke-Acts, ed. Frank E. Dicken and Julia A. Snyder, LNTS 548 (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 164.

[70] Adams, “The Characterization of Disciples in Acts,” 155–63. Quotations from 167.

[71] Adams, “The Characterization of Disciples in Acts,” 159.

[72] Interestingly, that which the disciples preach throughout Acts is not primarily the “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον; cf. 15:7: τὸν λόγον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου; 20:24), but the “word” (λόγος), and, more specifically, “the word of God” (4:31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 44, 46, 48; 16:32; 17:13; 18:11) or “word of the Lord” (8:25; 13:49; 15:35, 36; 19:10, 20); Peterson, Acts, 32–33.

[73] Brian S. Rosner, “The Progress of the Word,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 221. Likewise, Marshall concludes, “The main story-line in Acts is concerned with the spread of this message.” Marshall, Acts, 26 (emphasis original).

[74] Peterson, Acts, 33.

[75] “Word and Spirit are presented as the primary agents of the reigning Lord in forming and growing his church”; Peterson, Acts, 48; pace Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the “Acts of the Apostles,” trans. K. McKinney, G. J. Laughery, and R. Bauckham, SNTSMS 121 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 37.

[76] Cf. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, The Acts of the Apostles, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 27.

[77] Rimmon-Kenan critiques Forster’s classification by arguing that “round” characters can be static, while “flat” characters can be dynamic; Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London: Routledge, 1983), 40–41; cf. E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1927), 78; Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 126 n. 18.

[78] Adams, The Genre of Acts, 212–14; Bayer, “The Preaching of Peter,” 261–62.

[79] Bayer, “The Preaching of Peter,” 258–74.

[80] Adams, The Genre of Acts, 218.

[81] Clark, “The Role of the Apostles,” 172.

[82] Perkins, Peter, 89.

[83] Resseguie, Narrative Criticism, 126.