Acts

An exegetical commentary on the Greek Text

THESE DRAFT NOTES AWAIT COMPLETION

The book of Acts records the first 30 years of the Christian church from its origins in Galilee and Jerusalem through the Mediterranean lands and into the centre of the known world, Rome. The author, Luke the physician and companion of Paul the apostle, writes Acts as a sequel to his gospel, detailing the movement of the gospel through the ministry of the apostles, with a particular focus on the Gentile mission of Paul the apostle.

Luke is indeed a historian, but also a theologian. Some have argued he was a novelist, if not myth-maker, but historian and theologian is a far better estimate. Luke sets out to explain the expansion of the way from Jerusalem to Rome under the hand of God's man Paul. Luke reveals how Paul's Gentile mission proceeds under both divine and apostolic authority. Paul is no schismatic running his own race, neither is he a heretic. Paul's gospel of God's grace in Christ bears all the marks of divine and apostolic authority.

When it comes to Paul's mission strategy and to his gospel, Luke is at pains to reveal both the hand of God and the approval of the apostles and the Jerusalem church. Luke's account of the acts of Paul serves to authorise, not just Gentile Christianity, but more particularly, the gospel upon which it rest, namely Paul's gospel of salvation by grace through faith apart from works of the law.

The book of Acts entails Luke's account of the unfolding realisation of Christ's charge to his disciples:

"You will be my witnesses in both Jerusalem,

and in all Judea and Samaria,

and to the ends of the earth", 1:8.

Luke's book of the apostles, proceeds with a particular focus on Paul the apostle and his gospel of grace, so validating his Gentile mission and his gospel. As such, Acts reveals the unfolding realisation of Christ's charge in the power of the Holy Spirit.

In determining the structure of Acts, there is an increasing focus on the book's literary structure, its narrative flow. Various approaches are proposed, eg., Goulder in Lord of the Banquet, suggests that Luke has used the life of Jesus to model the careers of Peter, Stephen and Paul. Tannehill in The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts argues that Luke develops his narrative by constantly cross-referencing episodes in his story so producing a quilted, rather than mono story-line. All this is somewhat artful. It seems more likely that Luke is simply out to tell a story, a story with a particular purpose in mind.

Of the literary approaches to the book of Acts, Gooding in True to the Faith proposes a six part structure:

Christianity and the Restoration of All Things, 1:1-6:7;

Christianity's Worship and Witness, 6:8-9:31;

The Christian Theory and Practice of Holiness, 9:32-12:24;

The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 12:25-16:5;

Christianity and the Pagan World, 16:6-19:20;

Christianity and the Defence and Confirmation of the Gospel, 19:21-28:31.

Luke's account of the movement of the gospel from Jerusalem to the ends of the world / Rome is best treated historically and geographically. Luke is indeed an artful storyteller and theologian, but the book of Acts is shaped by history. Most commentators follow this approach, although, because Luke is a good storyteller, logical divisions are not always evident in the flow of the story. These notes follow the five-part structure proposed by Dunn:

Beginning in Jerusalem, 1-5;

The initial expansion, 6-12;

The Mission from Antioch, and the Jerusalem Council, 13-15;

The Aegean Mission, 16-20;

The final act: Jerusalem to Rome, 21-28.

Numerous other structures suggest themselves, eg., Waters opts for an episode by episode eighteen-part structure. Marshall, on the other hand, proposes a very simple three-part main structure:

Witnesses in Jerusalem, 1:1-5:42;

Witnesses in Judea and Samaria, 6:1-11:18;

Witnesses to the Ends of the Earth, 11:19-28:31.

There are two distinct textual traditions for the book of Acts, the Alexandrian and Western texts. The text usually followed in the Bible is the Alexandrian text; it is assumed to represent the original textual tradition. The Western text incorporates extra details and is best represented by Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, identified as Codex D. This may mean it is a second edition produced by Luke, given that the Alexandrian text often presents as if it is an unedited first version, but most scholars regard it is a second century revision of the original.

There are very few certainties in life, and when it comes to Biblical scholarship, everything is debatable; none-the-less, there is strong evidence to believe that "Luke the beloved physician", Col.4:14, is the author of Luke-Acts. Both books are linked by the writer himself (cf., Acts 1:1-2) and present in a similar writing style and language. The writer is obviously present with Paul at different times during his mission journeys (the use of "we" Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-21:18), and was with Paul when he reached Rome ("When we came to Rome", Acts 27:1-28:16). In his letter to the Colossians, Paul mentions those with him in Rome and Luke stands out in the list as the obvious contender, Col.4:14. By the second century, Luke is accepted as the author of Luke-Acts, eg., the Muratorian fragment AD 120.

Scholars of a more critical bent push the authorship of Acts out to the beginning of the second century, often depicting the book as a historical melodrama authored by an unknown novelist of the time. This seems very unlikely; none-the-less, a late date of around AD 95 is proposed by those who think the author used the Antiquities, the work of Josephus, a Jewish historian, in AD 93. The evidence that the author used Josephus is slender. Given that Acts follows the gospel of Luke ("my earlier book", Acts 1:1), there are those who argue that the work is post AD70, given that the gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, but the mention in the gospel of Jerusalem surrounded by armies doesn't prove the gospel was written after the event. Jesus was well able to read the signs of the times. So, given the way the book of Acts abruptly ends with Paul imprisoned in Rome around AD 62, it is likely that Acts was written around the mid 60's, sometime before Paul's trial and martyrdom. A similar date for the gospel of Luke is also more than likely.

Given that Luke-Acts is a two-part work, Acts is similarly addressed to Theophilus. The ascription is problematic, but it is probably a literary device used to refer to believers in general, while at the same time identifying a key person involved in publication, most likely the person who financed the project. Throughout Acts, the emerging Christian church tended to be mixed congregations of Jews and Gentiles and it is likely that these are Luke's intended audience. The address used of Theophilus indicates his importance, and so possibly also indicates that the social makeup of a normal Christian congregation of the time was mixed - slaves all the way through to an educated elite.

Those of a more critical bent have tended to treat Acts as a historical novel loosely based on the events of the time. So, not really a work of history written to inform, but a melodrama written to entertain, so Haenchen. This judgment of the book is quite unfair because Acts compares well with other ancient historical works; it presents as a classical historical monograph. Luke plays the role of a Greek historian who interprets and dramatises the movement of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. As such, Acts is more like a historical treatise than a fictional novel.

As is typical of Greek historians, Luke includes speeches at important points in the action to draw out the meaning underlying the events. In Greek histories of the time, speeches were more artful creations than records of what was said. We know that Luke was present for some of the speeches and certainly had access to both speakers and audience alike, so we can expect that they at least reflect what was said at the time.

The speeches in Acts reflect the formal rhetoric of the time, at times a mixture of the three main forms:

So, Acts is not just history, just as the gospels are not just history. As already noted, Luke has an axe to grind. There is no agreement on classification, but for myself, Luke-Acts falls into the nonfictional apologetic genre, with a sub-classification of self-help / how-to / self-improvement - how to witness.

Every writer has a purpose when they put pen to paper, and Luke obviously has his. As already noted, the purpose is obviously not to provide a general history of the early church, although Luke may have wanted to provide a history of the spread of Christianity from its Jewish roots to the Gentile world; Acts certainly has much to say about missionary expansion, and Luke's account of that expansion places an ongoing obligation on the church to witness for Jesus.

So, Luke may simply want to provide a practical frame for the life and mission of the church in light of Jesus' teachings. This is particularly evident in the opening of Acts where Jesus confirms that believers, in the power of the Spirit, are to serve as his witnesses worldwide. The rest of the book of Acts explains how this instruction is played out.

Conzelmann works this line, but extends it by arguing that Luke is providing a way forward for the Christian community stymied by the realised eschatology of Jesus - life lived in the Spirit rather than the immediacy of Christ's return (a practical solution to a failed eschatology).

Maddox in The Purpose of Luke-Acts, focuses on Luke's opening statement in the gospel to Theophilus, "the hope of bringing home to Your Excellency the truth of what you have already heard", Lk.1:4, ie., to provide a confirmation of the truth of the gospel. So, Luke sets out "to reassure the Christians of his day that their faith in Jesus is not an aberration, but the authentic goal toward which God's ancient dealings with Israel were driving. The full stream of God's saving action in history has not passed them by, but has flowed straight into their community-life, in Jesus and the Holy Spirit", Maddox.

In providing a model for how to do church, Luke focuses on the particular model evident in the ministry and message of Paul the apostle, such that as Acts progresses, the account becomes an apologia for Paul. This theory is widely held, although often expressed in different ways, eg., Paul is no criminal out to subvert Rome, or Paul is no anti-Semite out to defame Judaism and undermine Biblical teaching. In the nineteenth century, the Tubingen school proposed that Acts was written to gloss over the division that had developed in the early church between Petrine and Pauline factions - an interesting theory, although less than convincing. Luke is at pains to make the point that Paul is no heretic.

Under Jesus' imperative to go into all the world and proclaim the gospel, it is Paul, and his understanding of the gospel as outlined in his general letter to the Romans, who spearheads the gospel from Jew to Gentile, even to the centre of the known world, Rome, and this with the approval of the apostles, in particular, Peter and James. It is this model that Luke would have the Christian church emulate.

God has raised up a mighty Saviour;

The day of salvation is upon us.

A study of the third gospel indicates that Luke is not just a historian, a rote recorder of gospel tradition and reporter of early church history. Luke-Acts reflects Luke's theological perspective. This is not to suggest that Acts is a theological work, it is not, it is just that Luke's apologia reflects his theological perspectives, particularly in the recorded speeches.

Luke's theological perspective reflects Paul's gospel of grace. In the language of today we would say that Luke is reformed.

It is very easy to think that Romans is a model for gospel preaching - sin, sacrifice, salvation - and that for some strange reason, Luke ignores the Pauline model. Yet, Romans is not a gospel tract; it addresses the heresy of nomism, arguing that God's grace is realised through faith in the faithfulness of Christ apart from works of the Law. Yes, Luke's account of the gospel is light on the blood / sacrifice of Jesus, but this most likely reflects early preaching, including Paul's preaching - Christ is Lord and he is risen, cf., Rom.10:9, Phil.2:6-11, 1Thess.1:9-10. And as for the consequences, as for Paul, so for Luke in Acts, it's all about accepting in faith the offer of forgiveness of sins, an offer made without any strings attached. Luke understands Paul's doctrine of grace.

FAITH = RIGHTEOUSNESS = BLESSINGS = WORKS.

There is a sense where Paul, in his early letters, expected the parousia within his own lifetime, but then, in his later letters, he felt that he would be dead by the time Jesus returned. Luke's eschatology reflects the not yet, evident in a number of sermons, both in the terms of good news = blessing, and bad news = cursing / judgment, 17:31. Yet, at the same time, Luke's eschatology is realised, God's reign in Christ is now, a now experienced in the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus' ministry inaugurated the kingdom of God as a PRESENT reality, a now reality realised in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. For Luke, Gabriel has sounded his trumpet, the new age of the kingdom of God has dawned and so, in the final moments of human history, Jesus' disciples are to share in sounding the trumpet, declaring the news from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Yet, at the same time, they await the final consummation of the kingdom, the not yet, where, in the presence of all his disciples throughout the ages, Jesus will be enthroned in the HEAVENLY kingdom, bringing to an end the world as we know it.

Commentators argue over whether Luke's eschatology is realised or futuristic, but as the mouse-over diagram below seeks to illustrate, it is both. The cross and empty tomb proclaim Jesus' victory; he is ascended to heaven and has come to the Ancient of Days with his elect, and is at this moment seated in glorious splendour upon his throne, with all the powers of this age bowed before him, Eph.6:2. The kingdom is now, realised, yet, at the same time it is not yet - only inaugurated. Jesus' disciples still await his coming in power, having only tasted his coming in their baptism with the Spirit.

When it comes to Luke's ecclesiology, he presents a pattern to follow. Bengel, when commenting on the final verse of Acts, states "Here, O Church, you have your pattern: it is your task to preserve it and guard what has been entrusted to you", Gnomen Novi Testamenti, 1862.

With respect to nurture / the business of fellowship, Luke reflects Paul's stress on the oneness believers possess in Christ - "neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, ....", Gal.3:28. Luke stresses the commonality of the Christian fellowship in Jerusalem. In fact, reading his description of the early church we could easily conclude that he was a socialist at heart, cf., 2:42-47. Conzelmann argues that such descriptions serve only to provide an authoritative link to Luke's own generation, a time when the Christian fellowship is no longer reliant on the ministry of the apostles. In fact, Kasemann, Essays, goes further, arguing that Luke presents an "ideological theology of history" which serves to authorise early catholicism in its struggle against Gnosticism. Such theories go well beyond the text. Luke's ideal of a Christian fellowship is not perfect, it comes with its failings (sin is always near at hand), but it remains our "pattern".

At the heart of Luke's ecclesiology is the business of evangelism, of implementing Jesus' commission to be "my witnesses ...... to the ends of the earth." Luke takes time to explain both the message and the method.

The message is the kerygma, the gospel, the announcement that "the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God at hand, repent and believe the gospel." The recorded speeches in Acts follow this formula. The first element, "the time is fulfilled", explains how Jesus, messiah and Lord, is the long-promised anointed one of prophecy, as confirmed by his life, death and resurrection. The second element of the message is consequential on the first, therefore "the kingdom of God is upon us." The reality of the covenant's realisation is presented as both good and bad news - good news for those who are inside the tent; bad news for those who are outside. The good news entails the forgiveness of sins, salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit, cf., 2:38, 10:43, 22:16. The bad news involves judgment, 17:31. The third element, "repent and believe", involves a call to respond to the message, "faith in the Lord Jesus", etc., cf., 2:38, 3:26, 4:30, 10:43, 11:18 ("life-giving repentance"), 16:18, .... For Luke, the outward sign of repentance / faith is baptism, at times administered as a family unit, 10:47, 16:31. This is associated with the gift of the Spirit. On a number of significant occasions of gospel extension - Jew, Samaritan, God-fearer, Gentile - the gift is accompanied by "tongues" / ecstatic prophecy.

As for the practical business of communicating the gospel, it is first and foremost universal - the message is for everyone, even to the ends of the earth. As for the messengers, they were initially the apostles, an exclusive number of twelve who have been with Jesus from the beginning. They are the prime witnesses to the words and works of Jesus. The responsibility to witness is then extended to others empowered by the Spirit to do so.

Luke constantly refers to people being filled with / full of the Spirit and speaking, 4:8, 31, .... For Luke, as for Paul, the gift of the Spirit is an essential element of a person's conversion, 19:2, serving as a ground for assurance, 4:31, 13:52. and the power for ministry, particularly in mission - the Spirit is "the Spirit of prophecy." Unlike Paul, Luke does not develop the Spirit's role in renewal / sanctification, but such is obviously beyond his remit.

By describing how the early church fulfilled Jesus' instruction to communicate the gospel to the ends of earth, Luke provides us with a pattern for gospel ministry today.

If our assumption is correct that Luke is using his Acts of the Apostles (specifically with respect to the ministry and message of Paul the apostle), as a model for doing church, then it is right to draw general conclusions from the narratives and speeches in Acts, even though they are specific to the occasion.

None-the-less, we do need to keep in mind that reports of events and speeches do not necessarily constitute, in themselves, a promise or command to us:

An is is not an ought; a description is not a prescription.

When it comes to promises and commands made to certain people at certain times, we must avoid the temptation of extending them uncritically beyond their time and situation and apply them to our own situation. A promise or command to a particular person at a particular point in time is not necessarily a promise or command for all believers. So, take for example the Philippian jailer: On the basis of his faith, salvation is promised to him and his whole family. It would be unwise to extend this promise to all who believe in Jesus, but the promise does show that God works in families, as evident elsewhere in the book of Acts, and scripture as a whole. Maybe the most that can be said is that a child is covered by a parent's faith until they choose to reject that faith, but even that may be going too far.

The point is, it is notoriously difficult to draw a propositional truth (a truth applying to all people throughout all time) from a narrative, or from a specific word addressed to a specific group of people. Luke's model for the Christian church, at best, only provides guidelines. If arrested, singing hymns won't necessarily open gaol doors - although, there's no harm trying!

It may help if we remind ourselves of the words of Miles Coverdale, "It shall greatly helpe ye to understand scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten, but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth."

The Cambridge Bible Commentaries from Cambridge University Press, produced in conjunction with the release of the New English Bible, were an excellent non-technical note-format commentary series which included the full text of the New English Bible translation. As the editors said at the time, they wanted the text of the new translation to do all the hard work, and for the commentary to take a supportive role. The series was produced throughout the 1960's after the release of the NEB New Testament in 1961, and I cut my teeth on many of them way back ..... The commentaries are, of course, now long out of print, but they were often penned by notable scholars of the time and so are still worthy of reference - simple, but not banal. It is worth noting that most were produced as paperbacks, and as we all know, Perfect Binding is not perfect - they simply fall apart! Stitched hardback versions are hard to come by.

Anyway, the purpose of this comment is to note the commentary on Acts in this series penned by J.W. Packer, not to be confused with J.I. Packer, the prominent evangelical author writing around the same time. J.W. was the headmaster of the Canon Slade Grammar School in Bolton, England, and his teaching abilities are evident in the commentary. This is particularly so with his use of maps, all serving to give a sense of place to Luke's account. J.W. has long gone to meet with his Maker, but I hope he, and the publishers, don't mind me reproducing their maps in this commentary.

Level of complexity:

1, non-technical, to 5, requiring a workable knowledge of Greek.

Deceased: D. For publications no longer in print

Other identifiers:

Recommended R;

Greek Technical G;

Theology / Themes / Background / Interpretation T

Acts: Expositions

Abbreviations

Greek Syntax

Index of studies

Home page

Draft A5 commentary, Part I

Teknia Greek font download

lectionarystudies.com