Acts 2:22–36

Reading

Peter is preaching to a Jewish audience and begins from common ground — the humanity of Jesus that they witnessed. "A man" describes Jesus' earthly ministry, not his ontological identity. "Made him Lord" refers to the public declaration or enthronement at the resurrection, not an ontological change. Jesus was always Lord; at the resurrection, God publicly installed him in that role.

Reasoning

The sermon's audience — devout Jews gathered for Pentecost — explains the Christological register. Peter builds from what his hearers can accept: Jesus was a man they knew, attested by signs they witnessed. The kerygmatic structure — shared ground first, then theological proclamation — explains why incarnation language is absent: Peter is meeting his audience where they are, not delivering a comprehensive theology lecture. Bock (Acts, BECNT, 2007) argues that the kerygmatic framework is strategic, not reductive — Peter presents Jesus's humanity and divine vindication as the foundation on which fuller Christological understanding will be built. "Made" (epoiesen) can mean "appointed" or "declared" — a public manifestation of an existing status, like a coronation (cf. the Roman Senate "making" someone emperor, which was a declaration of authority, not a creation of the person). The language of "making" Lord and Christ parallels coronation language — a public installation in authority, not the creation of a new status ex nihilo. Peterson (The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC, 2009) notes that Luke's narrative theology in Acts develops progressively, with higher Christological claims emerging as the audience widens beyond Jewish hearers. Psalm 110:1, which Peter quotes, was already applied to a messianic figure who sits at God's right hand — a position of divine authority. Moreover, Paul's letters — which predate Acts — already contain high Christological language (Phil 2:6–11, 1 Cor 8:6), suggesting that high and low Christologies coexisted from the earliest period rather than developing in a neat linear sequence.

Strongest counterargument

If the earliest preaching — Peter at Pentecost, the first Christian sermon — describes Jesus as "a man" whom God "made" Lord, and nowhere mentions incarnation, pre-existence, or deity, why should we assume these were believed but simply omitted? The positive affirmations ("a man," "God made him") point away from deity. Silence about incarnation in the most foundational sermon is significant.

Key scholars: David Peterson, Darrell Bock, C.K. Barrett

Reading

The language is blunt and unambiguous. Jesus is andra — a man. He is "attested by God" — God is the separate, higher authority who validates him. God "made him" (epoiesen) Lord and Christ — the verb means to make, appoint, constitute. Lords are made by a higher authority; God is not made by anyone. The earliest Christian preaching contains no hint of incarnation or pre-existence. (See also BiblicalUnitarian.com.)

Reasoning

This is not peripheral material — this is the first Christian sermon, the foundational proclamation. If the earliest kerygma had believed in incarnation, it would be inconceivable to omit it here. Instead, Peter's Christological framework is consistent: God is the actor (subject), Jesus is the one acted upon (object). God attests, God raises, God exalts, God makes. The relationship is always agent-to-principal, creature-to-Creator, not equal persons of a Godhead. Dustin Smith calls Peter's sermon an "undiluted Christology": every christological title is given by God to a human being, not revealed as the property of a divine person. Acts 2:23 says Jesus was "delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" — he pre-existed in God's plan, not as a conscious being. Dale Tuggy focuses on the verb epoiesen ("made") in v. 36: "God has made him both Lord and Christ." The verb means the status was conferred, not eternally possessed — incompatible with the Nicene formula "eternally begotten." Sean Finnegan observes that this is the earliest Christian preaching as recorded by Luke. If Trinitarian theology were apostolic, we would expect to find it here. Instead, what we find is straightforward human Messianic Christology: a man attested, raised, and appointed by God.

Strongest counterargument

This is early preaching, possibly "pre-theological." Later reflection by Paul (Phil. 2, Col. 1) and John (John 1) developed higher Christology. Peter may be presenting an incomplete picture appropriate for his audience, not the full theological understanding. The church's Christology developed over time, and early kerygma represents the starting point, not the final word.

Key scholars: Anthony Buzzard, James D.G. Dunn, Ernst Haenchen

Reading

Beyond the Trinitarian and Biblical Unitarian readings, scholars highlight additional kerygmatic and history-of-religions considerations. This passage is often read as preserving the earliest layer of Christian proclamation — an "exaltation" Christology in which Jesus was installed as Lord and Messiah at the resurrection. On this view, the resurrection is the moment of divine appointment rather than a disclosure of pre-existing ontological status. God's act of raising and exalting Jesus is the hinge event. This was the starting point from which later "higher" Christologies developed through theological reflection.

Reasoning

The history of Christological development runs from lower to higher: resurrection Christology (Jesus is appointed Lord at exaltation) preceded birth Christology (Jesus is Son from conception, Luke 1:35), which preceded pre-existence Christology (Jesus existed before creation, John 1). Acts 2 preserves the earliest stage. The very awkwardness of "God made him Lord" for later orthodoxy is evidence of its antiquity — no later author would have invented language so difficult for a high Christology. This exaltation Christology is distinct from Dynamic Monarchianism, which focuses on Spirit-empowerment throughout Jesus's ministry rather than a moment of appointment.

Strongest counterargument

Even early preaching may assume more than it states. The sermon's purpose is evangelistic, not a comprehensive theology lesson. Paul's letters, which predate Acts, already contain high Christological language (Phil. 2:6–11, 1 Cor. 8:6). If Paul believed in pre-existence before Luke wrote Acts, the "development" model may be too linear. Different Christologies may have coexisted from the beginning.

Key scholars: James D.G. Dunn, Maurice Casey, Wilhelm Bousset

Reading

Acts 2 is read as incarnational economy: Jesus is the full manifestation of the one God, while Peter's "man attested by God" language describes genuine humanity, not denial of deity.

Reasoning

Oneness interpreters emphasize distinction between Jesus's human messianic role and God's one divine identity. Exaltation language is read as public enthronement of the incarnate Messiah, not creation of a second divine person.

Strongest counterargument

Peter's repeated God/Jesus distinction in this sermon is robust and sustained. Many readers see agency language here as real distinction rather than only two levels within one person.

Key scholars: David K. Bernard, David Norris