The Roman authorities closely watched the movements and gatherings of the pilgrims who flooded into Jerusalem during the great feasts. They sought to prevent any risk of popular unrest, all the more so because social and economic tensions fostered the emergence of protest movements. The Jewish religious authorities shared this same concern. The and the feared that a revolt would bring about a brutal intervention by , the consequences of which would have been disastrous for the whole people (John 11.48).
In this particularly sensitive context, Peter's speech could have been interpreted as a form of sedition. Indeed, the apostle was publicly proclaiming that Jesus, recently crucified under Roman authority, was the promised Messiah and that he had been exalted to the right hand of God, thus becoming “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). A few weeks earlier, the inscription placed on Jesus' cross had mentioned precisely the title “King of the Jews” (John 19.19), an accusation that had led Pilate to authorize his execution (Luke 23.2-3). In other circumstances, such a message could have been perceived as a threat to public order.
Yet nothing suggests an immediate intervention by the Roman authorities. A few weeks earlier, the crucifixion of Jesus had provoked no popular uprising, and the religious leaders could reasonably think that the movement born around the Nazarene would gradually disappear. Nothing seemed to announce that a major event was about to take place.
It is likely that, in the immense crowd of pilgrims who had come to celebrate the Feast of Shavuot, Peter's speech remained relatively unnoticed in the eyes of the authorities. Moreover, the content of his preaching was in no way politically revolutionary. Peter called neither for revolt against nor for the establishment of an immediate earthly kingdom. His appeal was essentially spiritual: he invited his hearers to repentance, to baptism, and to receive the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38). The enthusiasm aroused by this preaching therefore did not translate into popular agitation likely to alarm the authorities.
Jerusalem was then experiencing exceptional activity, and the many purification rites practiced during the feasts probably made baptisms less noticeable than they appear to us today. The numerous ritual pools (mikvaot) near the Temple also made such immersions in large numbers easier.
Furthermore, the new converts were almost exclusively Jews or proselytes from various regions of the Mediterranean world (Acts 2.5-11). Familiar with the Scriptures, they were particularly receptive to the argument Peter developed, based on the Law, the Psalms, and the prophets (Acts 2.14-36).
Thus, the absence of major unrest finally appears quite understandable. Pentecost did not give rise to an insurrectionary movement, but to a religious community still deeply rooted in the Judaism of its time. It was only later, when the growth of this community became more visible and the miracles performed by the apostles drew more attention, that the would begin to react openly against the disciples of the Messiah (Acts 4.1-3).