This is the first entry in the Bible Junkies Online
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. This will
_f11r.jpg)
be a challenging commentary
to take on in an online format because there are numerous technical issues
associated with the text of the Acts of the Apostles which are not at the heart
of this online commentary project and its goals, but which must be considered
or at least noted for those who are interested in further and deeper study. There
is another matter of some importance which must be dealt with first, however,
and that is why write a commentary on Acts of the Apostles prior to a
commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Acts of the Apostles is widely considered to
be the second volume in a two volume set with the Gospel of Luke being the
first volume, a consideration I share, so why do it out of order?
Apart from the fact that I am able to do online what I
choose to do, there is more significantly a desire to let Acts speak for
itself. This does not mean that I will not be examining Acts in light of Luke,
in fact I will begin to do so from the beginning, but the Luke-Acts model
sometimes gives less attention to Acts as an independent text than is proper.
This commentary will be an exploration of Acts as the first and earliest
attempt to write a history of earliest Christianity and how well it succeeds as
a historical overview of the nascent Jesus movement on these terms. The
theological and literary themes which tie Acts to Luke will also be explored,
but this will done primarily in the context of Acts itself and, as a secondary
consideration, how this links Acts to the Gospel of Luke.
One technical issue which I must mention and then put aside
has to do with the actual Greek text of the Acts of the Apostles. More than
other New Testament documents the variations between manuscript schools of Acts
reveal a great number of differences. These manuscript schools are known as the
“Alexandrian tradition,” which represents the majority textual tradition, and the
“Western text tradition,” “represented most fully by Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis,” which offers “a rather consistent alternative version of Acts” and “as a group it contains a version
of Luke’s story up to ten percent longer than that found in the majority
textual tradition” (Luke Timothy Johnson, Sacra
Pagina: Acts of the Apostles, 2). A
close study of these variations is beyond the technical tasks I have set for
the online commentaries and they will only be mentioned on occasion. I will, as
with previous online commentaries, work from the New Revised Standard Version
while constantly consulting the Greek text to give insight into translation
choices and the complex meaning of Greek words. And with that, the commentary
proper begins!
1. Acts of the
Apostles and the Gospel of Luke:
As mentioned above, Acts is the second volume of a two
volume set. This is seen most clearly in the preface to Acts: “In the first
book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the
beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving
instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen” (Acts
1:1-2). This clear connection also describes the basic content of the Gospel;
in the same way, Luke describes a few verses later the purpose and content of
the Acts of the Apostles. After telling them that he will remain with them for
a period of 40 days before he ascends to heaven, Jesus gives the Apostles their
mission: “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and
you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the
ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Acts, therefore, tells the story of the
Apostles, first in Jerusalem, then in the
regions around Jerusalem, and finally throughout
the Roman Empire. Although called Acts of the
Apostles, implying all twelve of them, it actually focuses first on Peter and
then on Paul. Indeed Paul, who was not one of the twelve, is the great Apostle
of Acts, and the second half of Acts is focused on Paul.
All of the issues regarding authorship, date, and location
are the same as for the Gospel of Luke, and I believe that the author was Luke
the physician, the one mentioned as a companion of the Apostle Paul in
Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11. To my mind, the focus on Paul
in Acts lends credence to the identification of the author as Luke the
companion of the Apostle Paul. For those who do not accept this identification,
the text is, naturally, considered to be written anonymously. The Muratorian
Fragment (c. 170 C.E.; this list was
rediscovered in 1740 and contains the earliest known list of New Testament books)
states that “the third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, was compiled
in his own name on Paul’s authority by Luke the physician, when after Christ’s
ascension Paul had taken him to be with him like a legal expert. Yet neither
did he see the Lord in the flesh; and he too, as he was able to ascertain
events, begins his story from the birth of John”.
In this case of authorial identification, an Apostle who
actually traveled and studied with Jesus is not the source for this document,
but someone who is learned and carries out historical research into Jesus and
the early Church. For some parts of the Acts of the Apostles, notably the “we”
sections in Acts, Luke himself might be the actual source. The “we” sections
are places where Luke begins to speak in the first person plural about travels
with Paul (see Acts 16:10-16 for an example) and they probably came from the
author’s travels with Paul. Most evidence points in the direction of Luke as
the author, though some scholars argue the author is ignorant of Paul’s
theology and is not clear on Paul’s chronology so the author could not have
been a companion of Paul.
Most scholars place the time of composition for the Acts of
the Apostles and the Gospel of Luke around the 80's of the first century
because Luke used Mark as a template for his Gospel as did Matthew. A minority
of scholars have dated Acts to the early 60’s because Luke does not narrate the
martyrdom of Paul after his arrest in Rome (circa 64-67 C.E.) nor hint at
Nero’s persecution (64 C.E.). I think there are better explanations for these
omissions, which I will discuss in some depth later in the commentary: Luke
does not want to create a parallel between Jesus’ death at the end of the
Gospel and Paul’s death at the end of Acts. Paul is simply a missionary for
Jesus; his death is not sacrificial and not atoning; it is not the equivalent
of Jesus’ death. I believe that Luke omits it in order not to create
theological parallel between the two deaths. The message of Acts is not that
Paul has died, but that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has reached the center of
the Roman Empire.
The place of composition is, unlike Mark (Rome) or Matthew
(Antioch), basically anyone’s guess, but tradition says it was written in
Achaia, the Greek province where Corinth was located.
2. Acts and Modern
Criticism:
Acts has been a center of modern critical debate. Here are
some of the major issues involving Acts of the Apostles.
A) The Speeches. You will note that Acts contains numerous
speeches attributed to various figures (esp. Peter, Stephen, Paul, and
James). These speeches make up about 25%
of the entire book of Acts. Numerous
scholars have discussed the question of whether these speeches are based on a
direct record or report of such a speech actually given by these figures, or
whether the speeches may have been simply composed by the author of Acts. Most scholars today incline to the view that
these speeches were composed by the author (in accordance with common practice
among ancient historical writers, as seen in historians such as Lucian of
Samosota, How to Write History, 23; and Josephus, Antiquities of the
Jews, 1:1-17). The author may,
however, have had reports of the things attributed to the various figures in
his narrative. The speeches do seem to
reflect certain variations and are not all simply different versions of the
same speech.
Paul repeats a number of his speeches in chapters 21-28 (see
e.g., the differences in the narration of Paul’s conversion accounts in
chapters 22 and 26). Why would Luke not simply condense these similar speeches
for the sake of reader interest and perhaps even for cost? The interesting
thing is not the repetitiveness, but instead that each time Luke records Paul’s
speeches there are variations, such as “all” for “some”, or some things are
simply omitted from one speech that are found in another. Paul probably did retell
his story in every place he went on his long journey to Rome and Luke tried to get the basic summary
in each place that it was told with differences intact.
There is another factor, if Luke and Paul traveled together
would not the ideas in the speeches represent both Paul and Luke? In fact, we
can extend this argument to other Apostles and to other speeches: would not the
speeches of various figures represent the teaching of the Apostles and the
Church as a whole? There ought, as a result, to be similarities amongst
speakers and themes. On the other hand, some scholars have noted that Peter’s
speeches may be based on Peter’s words because they do not actually reflect
Luke’s greater thematic purposes in Acts of the Apostles. As you can see, there
are a number of factors at play here and it is simplistic to say either that
Luke created the speeches or that they have been transcribed exactly as they
were spoken.
B) Paul in Acts. Another major issue in the study of Acts is
how to deal with the differences between the ways the Apostle Paul is portrayed
here in comparison to his own letters in the NT. The theological terms and emphases of Paul’s
own letters are not fully paralleled in the contents of the speeches attributed
to him in Acts, though certainly some parallels are found between Paul’s
teaching in Acts and in his own letters.
Also, it is hard to fit some of the particulars of Paul's travels in
Acts with information from his letters.
The biggest issue is generally how to reconcile the description of the
Council of Jerusalem meeting in Acts 15 with Paul’s own descriptions of his
contacts with the Jerusalem church in Galatians 2. Is the Acts information basically accurate
and complementary, or is it somewhat erroneous and skewed?
This is only one small historical event, however, and what
scholars sometimes overlook is how complementary the historical information in
Acts is with the general information we get in Paul’s letters. I will give two
examples. In Acts 17:1-10, Luke outlines the disturbances caused by Paul’s
preaching in Thessalonica; this agrees very closely with Paul’s first letter to
the Thessalonians about what took place there (see chapters 1 and 2). Second,
Acts 16:11-15 tells us that Paul first went to preach to women in Philippi; in
Philippians 4:2-3 he discusses problems between two of his co-workers in Philippi, both of whom are women. You would have to
immerse yourself in the sources and in modern scholarly literature to deal with
this question properly, but you should note this as a relevant question in the
study of Acts.
C) Acts and Ancient
History.
To the modern reader, Acts
probably resembles historical narrative most closely.
Modern scholars want to know, however,
whether (and how much) the author consciously modeled his work according to the
standards and conventions of Greco-Roman era historians.
To deal with this issue requires a thorough
study of Acts and some familiarity with the practices of ancient historical
writers, but I would like, nevertheless, to make a couple of comments about the
historical value of Luke’s writing in Acts and Luke as a historian.
[1]
The question of historicity arises with relation to the
author Luke for two reasons. The first
is that it is a unique account of the growth of the early church and as such
our only source for this development.
The second reason is Luke’s claim, in the prologue of his gospel, and
then again in Acts, to give us an accurate and orderly account of the things
accomplished among the early Christians. He, more than any other early
Christian author, asks to be judged as an historian.
Yet, whether we, as 21st century historians and
readers, are to take heed of Luke’s claim to be an historian cannot be answered
simply. The question is two
pronged. On the one hand, we may ask if
Luke is an historian rather than a theological writer. If he is concerned with
theology, does this mean he cannot be an historian? This in turn raises the
question of whether it is just to judge Luke by the contemporary standards of a
historian. Modern historians today might not inject theology into their
history, but they do tend to explain events using political, military or
economic reasons. Perhaps, Luke should be compared to his contemporaries, who
also judged events in light of divine influences or fate. On the other hand, we may ask what value does
Luke’s work hold for the modern historian on its own; how reliable is Luke-Acts
as a historical source, or how can it be used as a historical source?
In response to the first question, it seems self-evident
that Luke should be judged by his contemporaries, in which case he stacks up
quite well. His initial claims, the
historical preface, the praise of history, the claim of the importance of the
value of his subject indicate that he intends to be ranked as a historian. The questions that Luke asks are the
questions of an historian. Who are the
Christians? Where do they come from,
historically and culturally speaking?
What is their vocation? And what
justification do they have for their existence as a self-consciously distinct
group?
Luke is not less trustworthy than other historians of
antiquity.
They all elaborate for
stress, combine separate historical traditions, and omit things that do not fit
into narrative purposes.
(So do modern
historians by the way.) Their speeches are based on the principle that the
words of the person should match his concern.
Thucydides stated that “my habit has been to make the speakers say what
was in my opinion adhering as much as possible to the general sense of what
they really said.”
So if Peter’s
speeches on occasion resemble Paul’s speeches, Luke does not depart from
ancient methods of historiography.
Charles
H. Talbert compares Luke’s work to Diogenes Laertius’s
Lives of Eminent
Philosophers, which relate the lives of founders of philosophical or
religious communities, and a list or narrative of successes and a summary of
teachings.
Luke shows the same tendency to follow one
source at a time as many other ancient historians such as Josephus.
Luke may be judged by the care he takes to anchor the growth
of the church to the events of human history. Here is a partial list of
examples of Luke’s attention to historical detail:
i) Acts 5.36-37;
ii) Acts 10.1;
iii) Acts 11.28;
iv) Acts 12.1-2;
v) Acts 18.2;
vi) Acts 18.12.
To this list we may add William Ramsay’s observation that
“every person is found just where he ought to be, proconsuls in senatorial
provinces,
asiarchs in Ephesus,
strategoi,
in Philippi,
politarchs in Thessalonica”, all of which have been substantiated
by inscriptional evidence.
The instance of Luke referring to
the
politarch in Thessalonica is
perhaps the most remarkable instance for until recently the fact that the chief
men of Thessalonica were called
politarchs
was not verified. A recent inscriptional find has confirmed Luke’s historical
accuracy. Luke is not an untrustworthy historian, we might conclude, but like
every historian we have to check his data.
3. Contents:
The first twelve chapters of Acts describe the spread of the
Christian message from Jerusalem through the
rest of Palestine and some nearby areas (e.g., Damascus, Antioch).
This is the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in Acts 1:8 that the Apostles will
be Jesus’ witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Chapters 13-28 are devoted
to the ministry of the Apostle Paul, although not exclusively, and this
fulfills the second half of Jesus’ prophecy that the Apostles will be his
witnesses to the end of the earth.
In geographical terms, the contents are guided by the
proclamation of the Christian message that begins in Jerusalem and moves onward
to Rome. Rome was the center of the known world in Luke’s life and the arrival of the Gospel in Rome is a
driving force throughout the second half of Acts The original literary connection of Acts with
the Gospel of Luke also means that the figures and events in Acts are to be
seen as the divinely-directed continuation of the ministry begun by Jesus; this
is why the Holy Spirit, which attended Jesus even prior to his birth (see Luke
1-2), is active at the beginning of the Church (Acts 2:1-13) all the way until
the end of Acts (28:25). Also, of course, from the beginning of the Church’s
ministry in Acts (2:22-36), throughout the narrative (19:5 and numerous other
locations), until the very end (28:31), the message is about salvation in Jesus
Christ.
Here is a ten part breakdown of the contents of Acts which I
will follow along with a basic outline and some critical questions which will
be considered throughout the commentary:
A) Prolog and Account of Jesus Ascension (1:1-11):
The mission which Jesus outlines for his Apostles is
prominent here.
B) Founding of the
Jerusalem Church (1:12-2:47):
Matthias is chosen as Judas Iscariot’s replacement. The Holy
Spirit is given to the Church on Pentecost (see Leviticus 23:15-21; Pentecost
is based on the Festival of Weeks, a harvest festival, which later came to
celebrate the giving of the Law (Torah) to the Jewish people), which is seen to
fulfill the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32. Glossalalia is given to the Believers –
what does this indicate? What is it? The early Christians live communally in
Jerusalem (2:43-45; cf. 4:32-35). Does this reflect historical reality or
Luke’s concern for the poor?
C) Work of Peter and the Apostles (3:1-5:42):
The Church does work in Jerusalem with great success according
to Luke, with large numbers of converts listed. The Apostles have conflicts
with the Jewish leaders, generally the Sadducees. The Christians are supported
by the Pharisees on occasion and even by Rabbi Gamaliel (5:34-40).
D) Persecutions of
the “Hellenist” Jewish Christians and the First Mission outside of Jerusalem
(6:1-8:40):
The division between Hellenists and Hebraioi is narrated (6:1-6). These are both groups of Jewish
Christians, but one group speaks Greek and the other Hebrew. It represents a
conflict amongst Christians in Acts, which runs counter to the ideal picture of
the early Church that Luke often presents. This leads to what has traditionally
been understood to be the choosing of the first seven deacons, all of whom have
Greek names. Stephen, one of the seven deacons, is presented as the Church’s
first martyr (6:8-7:60). The “Way,” the
name by which the first Christians designated themselves, begins to spread
outside of Jeruslaem and conversions are made (Simon, 8:9-13; and the Ethiopian
eunuch, 8:26-40).
E) Preparation for the Gentile Mission: the Conversions of Paul and
Cornelius (9:1-12:25):
Saul, who has been a ferocious persecutor of the Church, and
was present as a formal witness at Stephen’s death, is converted (9:1-19).
Tabitha is located in Acts 9:36-43, an example of an early Jewish Christian who
engages in good works for people; it also demonstrates in Luke’s narrative the spiritual
power of the Apostles. Chapters 10-11 focus on Peter’s conversion of Cornelius,
a Roman centurion, and Peter’s vision that Gentiles are now welcome in the
Church (10:9-16). If the Gentiles can receive the Holy Spirit and be baptized
also, a significant move has been made toward bringing the Gospel to the Roman
world and not just the Jews (11:19-21). We also see the outreach to Gentiles
taking place concurrently with Paul and Barnabas teaching the Church in Antioch
(11:19-30). Are the other Apostles and disciples on board with the inclusion of
Gentiles in the “Way”?
F) First
Missionary Journey of Barnabas and Paul: The Jerusalem Conference (13:1-15:35):
The issue in this section is whether a Gentile must first follow
the Jewish law before becoming a Christian; Peter has already made a de
facto decision, but now the Church must agree and ratify the decision. This
section also clearly indicates that Paul has also been active amongst Gentiles
in Antioch and has traveled elsewhere in the Roman world. This becomes known as
Paul’s first Missionary journey. The difficulty with the account of the Council
of Jerusalem here and that of Paul’s in Galatians 2 is that according to Acts, the
Church accepts a number of regulations governing gentile Christian which are not
mentioned in Galatians (Acts 15:20). The
whole Church, however, does ultimately side with the actions of Peter and Paul.
G) Paul’s Second Missionary Journey: Evangelizing Greece
(16:1-18:21):
Paul and Barnabas split up after this Council (15:36-41),
which indicates another “contention” in Acts amongst Christians. The reason
they split up is not stated in Acts, but it is said to be over whether
Christians should follow the Law (Torah) in Gal. 2:13. Paul chooses Silas as his partner and then
begins to move throughout the Greek world on his second Missionary journey. The
speech on the Aeropagus in Athens is a high point (17:16-34), but also
indicates that Paul does not always meet with success. It is on these journeys
that Paul founds some of the Churches to whom he will later write, such as
those at Corinth, Thessalonica and Philippi.
H) Paul’s Third Missionary Journey: Revisiting Asia Minor
and Greece
(18:22-20:38):
Paul goes to Ephesus
and spends almost three years there preaching. This is his longest stay in any
city on his mission journeys and he has great success and much opposition
there. The account regarding the silversmiths of Artemis and their attempt to
bring Paul up on charges indicate some of the opposition Paul faced in his
missionary activity. Paul then indicates he is heading to Rome (19:21-22) and
possible martyrdom (20:17-38).
I) Paul’s Arrest in Jerusalem
and Imprisonment in Caesarea (21:1-26:32):
Paul returns to Jerusalem and he meets with the Jerusalem
Apostles, the leaders of the Church, again (21:17-26) and there is some
conflict regarding whether Paul is a loyal Jew and what he is teaching the Gentiles.
They also indicate that information regarding regulations for the Gentile
converts was sent by letter. Paul is then arrested and succeeds in dividing the
Council (21:27-23:10). When Paul is
taken to the Roman tribune they discern that Paul is a Roman citizen
(22:22-29), which means he will have to be taken to Rome to be tried. Until
that time, there is a plot to kill Paul, various hearings before rulers, and an
attempt to convert the Jewish ruler Agrippa.
J) Paul’s Journey to Rome and his preaching to Roman Jews
(27:1-28:31):
Paul finally is put on a ship to Rome,
but only arrives in Rome’s port
of Puteoli after a shipwreck and a
beaching at Malta.
Paul was initially blamed for the shipwreck and considered a murderer, but
after a snake bites his hand and he has no ill effects, the people change their
minds about him. Paul uses this occasion to preach about Jesus. When Paul
finally reaches Rome
he is placed under house arrest and allowed to see emissaries from the Jewish
community. They seem to reject the message, so Paul states that he knows the
Gentiles will accept it.
Next entry, we begin with the prologue.
John W. Martens
I encourage you to
“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
For a discussion of the relationship of the
NT writings to other literature of the Greco-Roman era, see D. E. Aune,
The
New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1987).
_f11r.jpg)