Notes

Notes

Introduction

. Cf. Fee and Stuart 2003: 108 for references to some of these.

. On biblical theology see Rosner 2000: 3–11, esp. p. 10.

. This book therefore obviously does not provide a commentary on all the passages in Acts nor does it summarize all the themes in Acts.

. In addition to the now flourishing amount of technical monographs on various aspects of Lukan theology (cf. Bovon 2006), the most comprehensive discussion of the theology of Acts as a whole is found in the book edited by Marshall and Peterson (1998). As a multi-author volume, however, that book did not seek to integrate substantially the findings of the individual chapters. Jacob Jervell’s book on the theology of Acts (1996) is really the only book written in recent times on the theology of Acts by one author who integrates the theological themes treated. It is helpful in drawing attention to Jewish aspects of Acts, but his views are generally recognized to be rather idiosyncratic (e.g. that ‘the church is Israel’, ‘Torah is the distinguishing mark’ and the Gentiles are an ‘associate people’, 43, 61). The book by Dennis Johnson (1997) is the only book in recent times to look at the theological message of Acts at a level that is also accessible to the wider Christian public (he also manages to look at theological themes without neglecting the historical reliability of Acts). My own approach is closest to Johnson’s understanding of the message of Acts. I would, however, like to highlight and integrate some other themes and develop further the reference to ‘The History of Redemption’ in his title. Chris Green’s book (2005) is a readable, popular-level introduction to the layout of the book of Acts with helps for preachers (cf. Cook 2007). However, it is more of an introduction to the structure and flow of Acts. The best succinct study of the theology of Acts is now that of Peterson 2009: 53–97. Thus, while there continues to be a never-ending stream of books on Pauline theology, and a growing number of technical studies on Acts (which are often doctoral dissertations), there are still very few books at a more ‘accessible’ level on the theology of Acts. It seems as though there is still room for further discussion of the theology of a writer who wrote more than Paul in the NT!

. Peri tōn peplērophorēmenōn en ēmin pragmatōn. Cf. Marshall (1993: 163–182) for a discussion concerning the importance of the prologue of Luke’s Gospel for understanding both Luke’s Gospel and Acts.

. Cf. Peterson 1993: 83–104. In Luke’s Gospel see e.g. 1:20, 57; 2:6, 21–22; 4:21; 9:31; 21:22, 24; 24:44–47. In Acts see 1:4, 16; 2:1, 16, 23, 30–31; 3:18, 24; 4:25–28; 7:52; 8:35; 10:43; 13:23, 32–33; 15:15; 17:2–3; 24:14–15; 26:6–7, 22–23; 28:23. Cf. also Bock 1998: 41–62.

. Hina epignōs . . . tēn asphaleian.

. Bock (1994: 65–66) notes that katēcheō can refer to a report (Acts 21:24) or to receiving instruction (Acts 18:25); logōn can refer to events (Luke 7:17; Acts 8:21; 15:6) or instruction (Luke 4:32; 10:39) or to a ‘message received’ (Luke 1:20; 6:47). Together with the term ‘assurance’, the reference to ‘instruction’ here indicates that a believer is being addressed.

. The term asphaleia is used in Acts 5:23 to mean ‘safe’ (and elsewhere only in 1 Thess. 5:3). Bock (1994: 65) observes that the use of this term here ‘with a verb of knowing points to a psychological goal. It refers to knowing the truth but doing so securely.’ Related terms to asphaleia are used in Acts 2:36, 21:34, 22:30 and 25:26 to refer to assurance or ‘determining the facts with certainty’ (ibid).

. Vanhoozer 1998: 338, 340, citing Fowler 1982: 41.

. Rosner 1993: 65–82. Other similar phrases have also been used, such as ‘theological history’ (Maddox 1982: 16), ‘sacred narrative’ (Sterling 1992: 363) and ‘biblical narrative’ (Gasque 1989: 348). Rosner cites Sterling and Gasque on pp. 81–82 of his article. Cf. also the summary of Rosner’s article in Peterson 2009: 13–14. The ‘biographical’ nature of OT historiography (mentioned in point 4) is also evident in the summaries of OT history in Acts 7 and 13 and reflects the way Luke himself is recounting the history of the church in Acts.

. In referring to Luke’s use of the OT in Acts I will use the general distinction (following R. B. Hays 1989: 23, 29) between ‘quotation’ and ‘allusion’ where ‘quotation’ refers to an explicit citation and ‘allusion’ refers to an intended reference to the OT, which, although not an explicit citation, is more obvious than an ‘echo’ (which is more ‘subtle’; I am not examining ‘echoes’ in this book).

. Other terms Rosner refers to include hē boulē tou theou (the will of God), thelēma (will), horizō (foreordain), proorizō (predestine) and prooraō (foresee). For more on God’s sovereignty in Acts see ch. 1.

. Gasque 1989: 348 (emphasis original), cited by Rosner (1993: 82). Note also the interesting suggestion of Barrett (1996: 94–104) that together Luke and Acts may be described as ‘the first New Testament’.

. House 2005: 229–245.

. Ibid. 232.

. Cf. Hamilton 2008: 34–47; 2010: 419–440.

. My own argumentation for this may be found in A. J. Thompson 2004. An accessible and recent defence of this view may be found in Peterson 2009: 1–5. The phrase ‘sometime companion of Paul’ is used by Witherington (1998: 59), among others, to indicate that Luke was not an ‘inseparable’ companion of Paul. Michael Thompson’s forthcoming article ‘Paul in the Book of Acts: Differences and Distance’ (which will be published in Expository Times) is a recent re-examination of the ‘we-passages’ in Acts which argues that these are the work of Luke as an eyewitness to the events described in these passages.

. The following section borrows from my discussion in A. J. Thompson 2008a: 10–12.

. Cf. Allison 1988: 62–70; Moxnes 1994: 379–389; Barton 1998: 173–194.

. Allison 1988: 66, cited in Barton 1998: 187.

. Kurz 1993: 13.

. Witherington 1998: 63. The term ‘most excellent’ is used only four times in the NT, all by Luke (Luke 1:1; Acts 23:26 [Felix]; 24:3 [Felix]; 26:25 [Festus]). Although it may indicate that Theophilus was an official or person of some rank, it was also a common term for polite address.

. Cassidy (1987: 148–155) argues contra the ‘political apologetic’ view of Haenchen 1971: 105; Conzelmann 1987: xlvii–xlviii; 1960: 138–144; Cadbury 1927: 308–313; Walaskay 1983: esp. 37, 50, 65–67. Note also the mixed portrayals of Roman officials (cf. Gallio, Acts 18:17; Felix, Acts 24:26–27). Cf. also Rowe: 2009: 3–4, 10–11.

. Ravens (1995:13) draws attention to ‘Luke’s allusive use of the LXX’. Cf. also Steyn 1995.

. Marguerat 2002: 23–24. Cf. also Kurz 1993: 14.

. Cf. Fitzmyer 1981: 57–59; Kurz 1993: 13–14. These arguments are summarized in Ravens 1995: 14.

. Esler 1987: 24–26, 30–45; Jervell 1972: 175–177; Ravens 1995: 14–16.

. Marguerat 2002: 83.

. As noted above, in providing a biblical-theological ‘framework’ this book obviously does not cover all that should be said about Acts. For instance, although important for a full understanding of Acts, this book does not examine the ways in which these themes might be heard in a Greco-Roman world with imperial claims for authority (though I have examined aspects of this in A. J. Thompson 2008a; cf. Rowe 2009).

. The classic book which argued that Luke was both a historian and a theologian is that of Marshall 1970. See also the M. B. Thompson article ‘Paul in the Book of Acts’ (forthcoming), where he argues for a positive assessment of Luke’s reliability in his portrait of Paul. On the question of idealization and the portrait of the church in Acts see A. J. Thompson 2008b: 523–542.

. Whether one thinks that Luke and Acts were written separately, with Luke’s Gospel written before and independently of Acts, or if one thinks that Luke produced the two books as two parts of one work, readers of Acts cannot treat Acts as entirely independent from Luke’s Gospel. This is especially so since in Acts 1:1 Luke himself directs us to his Gospel. See the lengthy discussion of this in Verheyden 1999 and the recent summary in Bird 2007.

. Carson and Moo 2005: 203.

. For more information on interpreting Acts see the succinct summaries in C. Green 2005: 13–35 and Peterson 2009: 39–49. For an analysis of literary approaches to Acts see Spencer 1993: 381–414.

. Note the positive portraits in 2:44–45; 4:32, 34–35; 4:36–37; 6:1–7; 9:36, 39; 11:27–30; 16:15, 34; 20:35; and the contrasting negative portraits in 1:18; 5:1–11; 8:18–23; 16:16, 19; 19:23–27; 24:26. Cf. most recently C. Hays 2010.

. Cf. Moessner 1986. Note the helpful table in C. Green 2005: 25. I.e. both Peter and Paul heal a lame man (3:2–8; 14:8–10), do miracles at a distance (5:15; 19:12), exorcise demonic spirits (5:16; 16:16–18), confront sorcerers (8:18–24; 13:6–11), raise the dead (9:36–41; 20:9–12), have heavenly visions (10:9–16; 16:9; 18:9–10; 23:11), are miraculously released from prison (5:19; 12:7–11; 16:25–28) and preach to Jews using Ps. 16:10 (2:27; 13:35). Some parallels extend back to Jesus’ activity in the Gospel of Luke as well (note the pattern at the outset of each person’s ministry where a reference to the Holy Spirit’s activity is followed by a major sermon and the healing of a paralytic in Luke 3 – 5, Acts 2 – 3, 13 – 14).

. 2:47; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:30–31.

. E.g. Cornelius’ conversion (Acts 10 – 11; 15:7–9); Saul’s conversion (Acts 9, 22, 26); sharing resources (Acts 2:42–47; 4:32–37).

. E.g. ‘temple’ (Acts 3:1–3, 8, 10), ‘name’ (Acts 4:7, 10, 12, 17–18), ‘teaching’ (Acts 5:21, 25, 28, 34, 42), ‘our fathers’ (Acts 7:11–15) and ‘eunuch’ (Acts 8:27, 32, 34, 36, 38–39).

. E.g. Acts 6:1 and 7 (the increase of the disciples); 9:2 and 20 (Saul’s actions in Damascus); 9:1 and 31 (from murderous threats to peace); 11:1 and 18 (a contrast concerning the acceptance of the Gentiles); 12:1–4 and 20–23 (the ‘authority’ of Herod, who is called a ‘king’ in 12:1 and 20–21).

. E.g. the use of money and material possessions mentioned above.

Chapter One: Living ‘between the times’: the kingdom of God

. Cf. Squires 1993, Jervell 1996, Gaventa 2003 and esp. the summary in Walton 2008: 291–306.

. Walton 2008: 295–296.

. Cf. Cosgrove 1984: 168–190.

. In addition to dei, Rosner (1993: 79) refers to hē boulē tou theou (the will of God), thelēma (will), horizō (foreordain), proorizō (predestine) and prooraō (foresee). Cf. also Conzelmann 1960: 151–154; Fitzmyer 1981: 170–181; Squires 1993: 1–3; 1998: 19–39; Marguerat 2002: 96–103; Walton 2008: 295–296.

. Walton 2008: 296.

. The primary significance of this speech in its narrative context will be examined further in the discussion of the temple on pp. 164–172.

. The contrast in 7:9–10 between the actions of the patriarchs and God (‘they sold him . . . but God was with him . . . and rescued him . . . gave Joseph . . . and enabled him’) is reminiscent of (though not identical in wording) to Joseph’s assessment in Genesis 50:20 (‘You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives’).

. Spencer (2004: 87) notes that the relationship between Amos 5:25–27 in Acts 7:42–43 (idolatry that led to the exile) and the immediate context in Acts 7:40–41 (idolatry in worshipping the golden calf) seems to be that Amos identified Israel’s wandering as God’s judgment banishing them ‘beyond Damascus’ (i.e. to Assyria), and thus moves directly from the wilderness period to his own idolatrous age on the brink of deportation (i.e. he moves directly from exodus to exile). Stephen agrees with this assessment of Israel’s history but extends it to his own day with the alteration to exile ‘beyond Babylon’ (instead of ‘beyond Damascus’). Stephen therefore alerts these second-temple officials to the fact that they are in no more a privileged position than those being sent to exile before the temple was built.

. Note the similar summary of Israel’s history given by Jesus in Luke 20:9–19 (and Matt. 21:33–46; Mark 12:1–12). Cf. also 2 Chron. 24:19; 36:15–16; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 44:4–6; and esp. Jer. 7:25–29.

. Gathercole (2006: 221–227) suggests that Luke 1:2, Acts 10:36, 13:26 and 20:32 indicate the possibility of ‘an incipient logos Christology in Luke-Acts’.

. Cf. esp. Conzelmann 1960: 153, 200. Conzelmann mistakenly argued, however, that Luke sees no atoning value in the death of Jesus. Cf. Larkin 1977: 325–335.

. Pao 2000: 123–127.

. Cf. Peterson 2009: 124 for the relationship between Matt. 27:5–8 and Acts 1:18.

. Cf. Marshall 2007: 530 regarding the use of Ps. 69 here. In the context of a ‘Davidic typology’ Jesus fulfils supremely the pattern of the betrayal of the Davidic King.

. Ps. 109, like Ps. 69, has to do with betrayal and opposition to David.

. See more on this later in this chapter in the section on the reign of the Lord Jesus.

. Marshall 2007: 531. Cf. also Luke 1:9.

. I.e. God’s power. Cf. Bock 2007: 208.

. Cf. Carson 2000: 53–54 for a discussion of the implications of this text for ‘compatibilism’ between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.

. Texts such as Acts 2:23 and 4:27–28 also indicate that Luke does not limit those responsible for Jesus’ death to the Jewish leaders, or the Jewish people in Jerusalem: he includes Herod, Gentiles and Pilate. Cf. Bock 1996: 1498; contra e.g. J. T. Sanders 1987.

. Hence the title of Anderson’s 2006 book ‘But God Raised Him from the Dead’: The Theology of Jesus’ Resurrection in Luke-Acts.

. Cf. also 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 17:31.

. Contra Cadbury (1927: 280), who argued that in Acts the death of Jesus is merely a prelude to the resurrection.

. In addition to 1:16, 3:18, 13:27, 33, 17:2–3, 26:22–23, etc., with reference to Jesus’ death, cf. 2:1, 16, 30–31, 3:24, 13:47, 15:15, 28:25 regarding events in the life of the church. Cf. Peterson 1993: 83–104.

. Cf. 8:26, 39; 10:3–6; 12:7–10, 23; 13:2–4; 16:6–10; 18:9–11; 20:22–23; 21:4, 10–11; 23:11; 27:23–26.

. As Spencer (2004: 121) correctly observes, the voice that declares ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean’ does ‘not insist that Peter goes ahead and consumes unclean meat on this occasion, but it does demand that Peter acknowledges God’s sovereignty in determining purity boundaries and, by implication, adjusting those boundaries if he so chooses’.

. Bock 2007: 408.

. In Greek the verb for ‘choose’ is completed with the two infinitives ‘to hear’ and ‘to believe’ (exelexato ho theos . . . akousai . . . kai pisteusai).

. The phrase in Greek is ho theos epeskepsato labein ex ethnōn laon tō onomati autou (God visited to take out from the Gentiles a people for his name).

. This section is often described as Paul’s ‘first missionary journey’. The use of this designation may, however, neglect Paul’s earlier ministry in Damascus (9:20–22), Jerusalem (9:28–29) and Antioch (11:25–26).

. Cf. also Acts 16:10, 14; 18:10–11.

. Cf. the summary of the following texts in Schreiner 2008: 49–50, 53–54.

. Ps. 103:19; cf. also Pss 47:8; 93:1; 97:1; 99:1; Dan. 4:34–35; Matt. 13:41.

. Cf. Carson 2008: 104–107.

. Cf. Dan. 2:44; Isa. 9:7; 24:23; 25:6–9; Zech. 14:9; Obad. 21; Amos 9:11–15.

. The phrases ‘saving promises’ and ‘saving rule’ are taken from Schreiner 2008: 49, 54. Beasley-Murray (1986: 339) uses the phrase ‘saving sovereignty’. Similarly, France (1990: 15) uses the phrase ‘God in saving action’.

. Regarding the fact that some of the OT passages above speak of a new exodus, return from exile and new creation, Schreiner (2008: 48, n. 20) helpfully notes, ‘We see from this that the Gospel writers did not typically refer to the fulfillment of God’s promises in terms of return from exile or as a new exodus. Instead, they spoke of the coming of God’s kingdom. It is important to see, however, that the coming of the kingdom means the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding a new exodus and return from exile. Hence there is no need to drive a wedge between the notion of God’s kingdom and new exodus and return from exile, though it is important for the sake of precision to note that the terminology typically used in the Gospels is not that of a new exodus or a return from exile but of the coming of the kingdom of God (but see Matt. 2:15, 18).’

. Regarding these references to the kingdom in the Synoptic parallel passages, it should be noted that Luke 4:43 is not found in Mark 1:38; Luke 8:1 is not found in Matt. 13 and Mark 4; the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ in Luke 9:11 is not found in the equivalent sections of Matt. 14:14 and Mark 6:34.

. Ladd 1993: 63. Cf. Seccombe (2002: 166–199) for a summary of recent interpretations of the kingdom of God.

. In addition to references to a future second coming in passages such as Luke 12:40–46, 17:22–37, 18:8 and 21:27–28, see also references to a future kingdom of God in 13:23–30; 14:14, 15–24; 19:11–27 (12, 14–15, 27); 21:5–38 (esp. v. 31); 22:18. In these passages it appears that Jesus anticipated a period of time between his first and second coming but emphasizes the certainty and suddenness of the future kingdom’s arrival.

. See also Luke 7:28; 8:10; 9:27; and 16:16. On this last verse see Marshall 1978: 629 and Schreiner 2008: 58–59.

. Cf. the use of engizō (come near) in Luke 12:33; 15:1; 18:40; 22:47; 24:15, 28; Acts 21:33 (‘the commander came up and arrested’ Paul).

. In this verse the verb phthanō is used with the prepositional phrase ‘upon you’ (eph hymas). Cf. also the sense of ‘attain’ in Rom. 9:31; Phil. 3:16; even ‘overtaken’ in 1 Thess. 4:15. Bock 1996: 1080.

. Bock (1996: 1416–1417) notes that the prepositional phrase used here, entos hymōn, is often synonymous with en mesō, which a number of versions of the Greek OT indicate when they translate Exod. 34:9 in either way (see also Exod. 17:7). Note also the present tense ‘is’.

. Cf. Bock (1996: 957–964) and J. B. Green (1997: 394–399) for summaries of the structure and importance of the ‘journey section’ of Luke’s Gospel.

. Cf. J. B. Green 1997: 643; Nolland 1993: 872.

. Note that Jesus’ discussion with the ruler and the follow-up discussion with his disciples in 18:18–30 incorporate many of these expressions. The parallels between the humility described in 18:14 and in 18:15–17 seem to warrant the inclusion of the language of justification here too.

. The parallels between 19:1–10 and 18:18–30 (‘wealth’ in 18:23–25 and 19:2, 8; ‘salvation’, 18:26; 19:9–10) indicate that Zacchaeus is a ‘rich man who enters the kingdom of God’ (18:25). Allusions to Luke 3:8–14 indicate also that Zacchaeus is a ‘child of Abraham’ who ‘produces fruit in keeping with repentance’.

. Earlier predictions in Luke 9:22, 44, 12:49–50, 13:32–33, 17:25 did not contain the specific details found in these verses regarding handing over to Gentiles, mocking, insulting, spitting and flogging.

. Cf. Bock 1996: 957–959 concerning this aspect of the structure of the ‘journey section’. It seems that the journey section does not officially end till 19:44, as Jesus is still approaching Jerusalem in 19:41; but in 19:54 he is clearly in the city (in the temple area).

. Ziccardi 2008: 460–473.

. Note this association between Jerusalem and the rule of God in Pss 2:6; 110:2; and Isa. 52:7–8.

. Cf. Bock 1996: 1526–1529 on the differences between this parable and the similar one in Matt. 25:14–30.

. Note that the rationale given for the parable in Luke 19:11 is not in the introduction to the parable in Matt. 25:14; the references to receiving a kingdom in Luke 19:12 and 15 are not found in Matt. 25 (Matt. 25 just has a man going on a journey with no reference to kingdom); and references to rejecting the reign of the king in Luke 19:14 and 27 are also not found in Matt. 25.

. Cf. Seccombe 2002: 493–499 for a discussion of the second coming of Jesus in this parable (contra Wright 1996: 632–639).

. The hope that Jesus would ‘redeem Israel’ in 24:21 recalls Zechariah’s praise that the God of Israel has come ‘and has redeemed his people’ (1:68), Simeon’s hope for ‘the consolation of Israel’ (2:25) and Anna’s address to ‘all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem’ (2:38). Forgiveness of sins for the nations in 24:47 recalls expectations raised in Simeon’s praise for God’s salvation in Jesus, ‘a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel’ (2:32), expectations that have largely gone unfulfilled in Luke’s narrative so far. The significance of the opening and closing chapters of Luke’s Gospel will be discussed further on pp. 75–76 with reference to the resurrection.

. Cf. ‘The kingdom of God’: Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 28:23, 31. ‘The kingdom’: 1:6; 20:25.

. Cf. Tannehill 1990: 352; Marguerat 2002: 207; C. Green 2005: 17–19.

. Study of the kingdom of God and eschatology in Acts is often done in the shadow of Conzelmann’s arguments (1960: 95–97, 123). Conzelmann assumed that the early Christians expected the end of the world immediately or at least within their lifetimes, the earlier tradition of the teaching of Jesus was that the kingdom was exclusively future and immediate, and that this fervent expectation prevented them from writing a history recording Jesus’ place within what would be world history. Therefore, according to Conzelmann, Luke’s writing is out of place and must be written to correct a crisis; in particular the crisis that the end and Jesus’ return had not happened. Thus he argued that Luke downplays all reference to the future (placing the kingdom in the very distant future) and emphasizes history (he also argued that Luke distinguished between the message of the kingdom and the kingdom itself). Marshall (1970) responded to these arguments and noted that although Luke is interested in salvation history, the evidence for a supposed ‘crisis’ and downplaying of the future is lacking.

. Note the oun (‘so’ NIV) at the beginning of v. 6.

. Contra Fitzmyer 1998: 794–795, Luke’s point is not that Paul was long-winded!

. Note that in Greek the phrase ‘the things about’ (ta peri) Jesus implies broad instruction about Jesus and is similar to what is found at the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel in 24:27, 44.

. It should be noted that a number of narrative indicators in Acts show that the conclusion to Acts was deliberate and is not ‘abrupt’ or due simply to the fact that Luke had run out of room on his scroll or that Paul had died and Luke had now run out of material! For further discussion see Troftgruben 2010. Cf. A. J. Thompson 2008a: 165–169 and Rowe 2009: 99–102 for the significance of these verses in the context of imperial claims for authority.

. Cf. 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31; cf. also 14:22.

. Dodd 1944: 24, cited by Peterson 1993: 94, n. 27.

. Peterson 1993: 94–95, n. 27. See also the discussion on preaching the gospel on pp. 88–101.

. Note also that in Acts 20:25 Paul refers to ‘preaching the kingdom’ in the same context as referring to proclaiming ‘the whole will (or ‘plan’, boulē) of God’. The kingdom, therefore, may be viewed broadly as the ‘plan of God’ through Jesus, something Luke is drawing attention to in the wider narrative of Acts (cf. 2:23; 4:28; 5:38–39; 13:36). C. Green (2005: 17–18) helpfully observes also that inside these four ‘framing’ references at the beginning and end of Acts two references are located in the context of evangelism (8:12; 19:8) and two are located in the context of strengthening churches and leadership in the context of suffering (14:22; 20:25).

. See also Acts 14:22, which is discussed further below (pp. 63–65) in the context of suffering and opposition.

. Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:2; and now here Acts 1:10–11.

. Cf. also the references to a future return of Jesus (3:20) or a future role for Jesus as Judge (10:42; 17:31) indicating that, contra Conzelmann 1960: 95–97, Luke has not eliminated the expectation of an imminent parousia due to some supposed ‘crisis’ brought about by its delay.

. Incidentally, this is therefore not a reason to think that Matthias was the ‘wrong choice’ or that they should have waited for Paul, who was supposedly ‘God’s choice’. This view is not advocated today by many but was held e.g. by G. Campbell Morgan (1924: 19–20). It should be noted, of course, that generic references to ‘the apostles’ occur throughout Acts (e.g. 2:42–43; 4:33, 35–37; 5:12; etc.) and James’s death is mentioned in 12:2.

. Bruce 1988: 31 (following J. A. Bengel and A. T. Pierson). Bruce does, however, argue that Acts 1:1 suggests that Acts is about all that Jesus continued to do and teach (30).

. The phrase ‘absentee Christology’ was coined by Moule 1966: 165, 179–180. Cf. also Conzelmann 1960: 186, 206. Sleeman (2009: 13), however, has shown that Moule’s position was more nuanced than that of Conzelmann’s. Cf. also Buckwalter 1996: 174.

. Zwiep 1997: 182 (emphasis original), cited by Sleeman 2009: 15.

. Achri hēs hēmeras . . . anelēmphthē, 1:2; heōs tēs hēmeras hēs anelēmphthē, 1:22. Cf. Spencer 2004: 33.

. Conzelmann 1987: 12, 25; Fitzmyer 1998: 227; Pervo 2009: 55.

. Hous exelexato, 1:2; hon exelexō, 1:24.

. For other references to prayer to Jesus in Acts see 7:59–60; 9:10–16 (note also Luke 6:13).

. Spencer 2004: 33.

. Cf. Hahn 2005: 294–321 for a discussion of the relationship between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of David.

. Cf. Exod. 15:6; Pss 18:35; 44:3; 60:5; 98:1.

. Buckwalter 1996: 180–182; Turner 1996: 304–305.

. Furthermore, according to Acts 2:34–35 (citing Ps. 110:1), he will reign from God’s right hand until the Father makes his enemies a footstool for his feet. Again this indicates a period of time between the ascension and return, and that during this period of time there will be opposition to his rule, but he nevertheless rules from a position of power and authority.

. This statement is not a contradiction of Luke 2:11, nor does it advocate ‘adoptionist Christology’. Acts 2:31 speaks of the resurrection of the Christ (i.e. he already was the Christ) and 2:34 speaks of the exaltation of the Lord (i.e. he already was Lord). Acts 2:36 indicates that Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation declare the inauguration of his reign in full authority and power. Cf. Strauss 1995: 144–145.

. Note also the discussion of Acts 26:23 on pp. 80–81. In the narrative of Acts this verse comes at a climactic moment in Paul’s climactic defence. The statement here that Jesus ‘as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles’ must refer to the preaching of Jesus’ people (including Paul) to the Gentiles in Acts. This verse indicates, however, that Jesus himself does this preaching (through his people).

. The transformation of Saul described here indicates that this is a ‘conversion’ and not a ‘call’ only. Cf. Kern 2003: 63–80.

. Sleeman 2009: 205–208.

. Cf. the discussion of the significance of bridging this divide in discussions of ancient rulers in A. J. Thompson 2008a: 74–79.

. It is interesting that the only use of the term tharsos, ‘courage’, in Acts is found in 28:15, and the only use of the cognate verb tharseō, ‘take courage’, in Acts is found in 23:11. In the light of the Lord’s command to take courage, for he will testify about him in Rome (23:11), Paul indeed ‘takes courage’ when he reaches Rome (28:15).

. House 1990: 321.

. Cf. Cunningham 1997. This verse will be treated in more detail below.

. Acts 4:4, 29, 31; 6:7; 12:24; 13:5–12, 46–48; 14:3; 17:13; 18:5; 19:20. On the importance of the spread of the word in Acts see Kodell 1974: 505–519; O’Reilly 1987: esp. 91–121; Rosner 1998: 215–233; Bovon 2006: 272, 457; and esp. Pao 2000: 147–180. Pao relates the theme of the word to the creation of the community of the word in the midst of opposition within the framework of the Isaianic New Exodus (i.e. Isa. 2:3, ‘the word of the Lord [will go out] from Jerusalem’, and Isa. 40 – 55). Cf. A. J. Thompson 2008a: 135–170 for reference to ancient literary discussions concerning the destructive effects of division and strife and a comparison with the contexts of Luke’s statements concerning the spread of the word in the midst of opposition and cities in states of division, conflict and confusion.

. Pao (2000: 150–156) notes the locations of references to ‘the word’ in the narrative of Acts and observes that ‘the word’ never visits a geographical location twice.

. Pao (2000: 160, 162–163, 167–169) discusses the summary statements in Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20 (and the verbs used) in the context of Exod. 1:7, 20.

. See ch. 5.

. In this context the decision of the apostles to remain in Jerusalem is not a sign of their reluctance to take the gospel to the nations or that they somehow escaped the persecution, but of their bravery in remaining in Jerusalem in the midst of severe persecution. Cf. Schnabel 2004, 1: 670–673.

. The following summarizes A. J. Thompson 2008a: 141–143. Cf. the discussions in Witherington 1998: 382–383; Barrett 1994: 569–573; Allen 1997: 5–24, 93–98. Witherington states that 12:20–23 should be seen as a ‘separate tradition from Luke’s Herodian source, referring to an event that transpired somewhat later’ (389).

. Tannehill 1990: 152. Contra Barrett 1994: 570, who states that Herod ‘is peripheral to the story’.

. Haenchen 1971: 388.

. His title ‘king’ was bestowed on him by the emperor Gaius and his realm included Galilee, Perea and, later, under the reign of Claudius, Judea (cf. Josephus, Ant. 19.292, 351–352; J. W. 2.215–217). Thus at this time Agrippa had received ‘the whole of his grandfather’s kingdom’ (tē patrōa basileia pasē, Josephus, J. W. 2.215).

. Cf. Cunningham 1997: 236.

. Peterson (2009: 365–366) suggests that since the term angelos can mean ‘messenger’ it could be that the church thinks he has just sent them a message. The other alternative is that they thought this was his ‘guardian angel’. Either way, the point is that they think it cannot be Peter himself!

. Although Cunningham (1997: 241) correctly identifies the references to prayer in Acts 12, it appears that the emphasis in 12:12–17 is more on the irony of the situation than on the community’s prayer as such.

. In the context of an emphasis on the ‘lordship of Jesus’ in Acts 10 – 11, it is possible that this account contrasts the ‘kingship’ of Herod with the true King, the Lord Jesus. The word (logos) that God sent to Israel is the good news of peace (eirēnē) through Jesus Christ, ‘who is Lord of all’ (10:36). It is this ‘Lord of all’ who brings peace in contrast to the absence of peace in the realm of this ‘king’ (12:20; cf. also 9:31). In contrast to the tyrannical rule of ‘King’ Herod (12:20), belief in ‘the Lord’ Jesus results in the gifts of forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit (10:43; 11:17) and the presence of his ‘hand’ with them as they proclaim the good news about him in the midst of persecution (11:21).

. Cf. Pao 2000: 199–201 for the placement of this passage within the ‘anti-idol’ theme in Acts. Cf. also Allen 1997: 89–90, 104–107.

. Pao 2000: 152. Cf. also Cunningham 1997: 241–242.

. Note the Gentile opposition also in 14:5; 16:20–21; 17:32; 19:25–41. Cf. Rapske 1998: 235–256; Cunningham 1997: 186–294.

. Some have thought that there is a contradiction between 20:22, where the Spirit compels Paul to go to Jerusalem, and 21:4, where it appears that the Spirit (the disciples ‘through the Spirit’) urges Paul not to go to Jerusalem. In the light of the statement in 20:22 concerning the Spirit’s role in urging Paul to go to Jerusalem and 21:12, where it is clear that it is the believers who are urging Paul not to go to Jerusalem, it is better to see in 21:4 a combination of these two emphases. The Spirit has warned again (as in 20:23) of impending suffering and it is the believers, acting out of human concern, who are urging Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Cf. Bovon 1995: 34 (who cites Chrysostom); cf. also Barrett 1998: 990–991; Fitzmyer 1998: 688; Hur 2001: 264–266.

. Agabus’ prophecy (‘the Holy Spirit says’) in 21:10–11 (that the Jews will bind and hand Paul over to Gentiles) is confirmed by Paul’s statement in 28:17 that he was ‘handed over to the Romans’ (and appears therefore to have been fulfilled in 21:30 when the Jews seized Paul and dragged him from the temple, which then led to the commander of the Roman troops coming in 21:31 and ordering in 21:33 that Paul be bound in chains).

. Cf. Moessner 1986: 220–256.

. For Acts 7:59 see Luke 23:46, and for Acts 7:60 see Luke 23:34. Cf. the discussion on pp. 167–172 (which also indicates the differences between Stephen and Jesus at this point).

. The cry ‘Away with this man!’ in Luke 23:18 is unique to Luke’s Gospel. It should be noted that the repeated statements of Jesus’ innocence in Luke 23 are also similar to the repeated claims to innocence for Paul in Acts 21 – 28. The close identification of the Lord Jesus with his people in Acts indicates that there is also a sense in which as they are persecuted he continues to experience rejection (Acts 9:4–5; 22:7–8; 26:14–15).

. This is the James who was one of Jesus’ own ‘inner circle’ with John and Peter, who witnessed Jesus’ transfiguration, and was with Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane.

. The summary statement in Acts 9:31 also highlights the role of the Holy Spirit in strengthening the church.

. C. Green 2005: 82.

. As mentioned above (in the discussion on pp. 37–38 concerning God’s accomplishment of his purposes in ‘subsequent developments in the church’), note the ‘framing’ reference to ‘the work’ in 13:2 and 14:26. See ch. 6 for an explanation for the continuation of the themes in Acts 15 through to 16:5.

. The following two outlines are simplified adaptations from Spencer 2004: 141.

. As ch. 6 will indicate, 16:1–5 (marked off by the ‘summary statement’ in 16:5) is best kept with Acts 15 rather than as part of another major literary unit that supposedly begins in 15:36. Also, within the narrative of Acts there does not appear to be another major literary break in the narrative between 18:22 and 18:23 (supposedly the end of the ‘second missionary journey’ and the beginning of the ‘third missionary journey’). The focus on Ephesus in 18:19 and 21 continues in 18:24 and into Acts 19.

. I agree that the summary statements are significant narrative markers throughout Acts (hence my divisions already at 9:32 and 12:24–25). These summary statements that plot the growth of the word are, however, occasionally placed at the heart of narrative units rather than necessarily marking the end of narrative units. We will see in ch. 5 that this is the case with Acts 6:7 in the flow of Acts 3 – 7. Here it is perhaps enough to observe that Acts 19 focuses on Ephesus, and the statement of the growth of the word in 19:20 is placed in the middle of that section. The section is concluded, however, with Paul’s sermon to the ‘Ephesian’ elders in Acts 20 (see A. J. Thompson 2008a: 151–159 for a discussion of the significance of Ephesus in Acts 19 – 20).

. Cf. also 13:43 (‘continue in the grace of God’).

. Cf. Kilgallen 1994: 112–121; Cunningham 1997: 267–270.

. The term ‘elders’ (presbyteros, 20:17; cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 22; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5–6; 1 Pet. 5:1; Jas 5:14) is used interchangeably with the term ‘overseers’ (episkopos, 20:28; cf. Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1–2; Titus 1:7) and the task of being ‘shepherds/pastors’ (poimainō, 20:28; cf. 1 Pet. 5:2) in the sense that the same group of people are being addressed in these three ways. Each term, however, has different nuances to the task of leadership.

. Anangelō (‘proclaim’, vv. 20, 27), didaskō (‘teach’, v. 20), diamartyromai (‘declare’, vv. 21, 24), kēryssō (‘preach’, v. 25).

. ‘Anything that would be helpful’ (v. 20), ‘Jews and Greeks . . . must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus’ (v. 21), ‘testifying to the gospel of God’s grace’ (v. 24), ‘preaching the kingdom’ (v. 25), ‘proclaim . . . the whole will of God’ (v. 27).

. ‘The whole time I was with you’ (v. 18), ‘from the first day I came into the province of Asia’ (v. 18), ‘publically’, ‘house to house’ (v. 20).

. ‘To both Jews and Greeks’ (v. 21), ‘innocent of the blood of all men’ (v. 26; cf. Ezek. 3:18–19; 33:1–9).

. Cf. e.g. modified versions of this in Witherington (1998: vii–viii) and Bock (2007: viii, 47–48).

. Cf. n. 118 above.

. Cf. e.g. modified versions of this in Carson and Moo 2005: 286–290 and Köstenberger, Kellum and Quarles 2009: 350–351.

. Cf. n. 119 above. As Spencer (2004: 141) suggests, the discussion in Jerusalem in 21:17–26 is best seen as a concluding ‘wrap-up’ to the previous section in Acts. The closing of the temple in 21:27–36 is therefore a fitting conclusion and a transition to the final chapters of Acts. There is also a slight variation among some outlines at 12:25. This verse is better translated as ‘Barnabas and Saul returned [i.e. to Antioch], after they had completed their mission in Jerusalem’ (i.e. ‘returned from Jerusalem’ niv, rather than ‘returned to Jerusalem’ HCSB). This mission refers to the famine relief visit mentioned in 11:27–30 and provides a conclusion to this section rather than an introduction to the following section. Cf. Witherington 1998: 374–375.

Chapter Two: The hope of Israel: the resurrection and the arrival of the last days

. Wright 2003; Schreiner 2008: 104–105.

. Anderson 2006: 52–61.

. Note this ‘covenant formula’ in similar language in Gen. 17:7 (in the Abrahamic covenant); Exod. 6:7; 19:5; 29:45–46; Lev. 26:12; Deut. 29:13 (in the Mosaic covenant); 2 Sam. 7:14 (in the Davidic covenant); and Jer. 30:22; 31:33; 32:38; Ezek. 14:11; 34:30; 36:28; 37:23, 27 (in the new covenant).

. Schreiner 2008: 105. Anderson (2006: 55, 61) prefers to see more explicit physical resurrection language in Isa. 26:19 and Dan. 12:1–3 than in Hos. 6:1–3 and Ezek. 37:1–14.

. Anderson 2006: 57–58.

. Ibid.

. Again Schreiner (2008: 105), in agreement with Childs 2001: 191–192 (and Wright 2003: 116–118; Motyer 1993: 218–220), notes that in this context ‘it is a false dichotomy to ask whether the promise is for restoration of the nation or a future resurrection’. Anderson (2006: 58) also uses the language of ‘false dichotomy’.

. Anderson (2006: 58–61) highlights numerous parallels between Dan. 12:1–3 and Isa. 26:19 relating to the rising of bodies from the dust of the earth (i.e. a bodily resurrection) and ‘the interrelated motifs of resurrection, covenant-loyalty, and enthronement/exaltation’ (61).

. Ibid. 58.

. Peterson 1998: 30–32; Anderson 2006: 146–196.

. Cf. J. B. Green 1998: 227–246; Peterson 1998: 29–57.

. Luke also highlights a spiritual dimension to grasping the reality and significance of the resurrection. In 24:16 the two disciples are ‘kept from recognizing’ Jesus. When Jesus rebukes the two disciples in 24:25 about their grasp of Scripture, he describes them as ‘foolish’ and ‘slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken’. So, corresponding with v. 16 (where ‘their eyes’ were kept from recognizing him), in v. 31 ‘their eyes were opened and they recognized him’. Similarly, in the third scene, after eyewitness testimony (vv. 33–35), physical appearances and a meal with Jesus (vv. 36–43), a reminder of Jesus’ own words and the teaching of all Scripture (v. 44), it was not until Jesus himself ‘opened their minds’ that they were able to ‘understand the Scriptures’ (v. 45).

. J. B. Green 1997: 833.

. Note also the declaration to Mary in 1:33 that Jesus will ‘reign over the house of Jacob for ever; his kingdom will never end’.

. Bock 1996: 1913–1914; cf. Isa. 41:14; 43:14; 44:22–24; 1 Macc. 4.11; Pss Sol. 9.1.

. Cf. Acts 2:24, 31–32; 3:15; 4:2, 10, 33; 5:30–31; 10:40–41; 13:30, 32–37; 17:3, 18, 31. Cf. Anderson 2006.

. Wagner 2004: 119.

. Cf. also references to Paul’s ‘testimony’ about the Lord Jesus in these contexts: Acts 22:18; 23:11; 26:22.

. Cf. J. B. Green 1998: 227–246.

. Cf. Peterson 1998: 32; 1 Cor. 15:14.

. Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:32–37; 17:31.

. Acts 4:2; 17:31–32; 23:6; 24:15, 21; 26:6–7; 26:23.

. Cf. Anderson 2006: 281–284. See ch. 5 for the significance of Peter’s sermon in Acts 3.

. The following two outlines are slightly adapted from Spencer 2004: 227–228, 236, 238.

. ‘There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked’ (24:15); ‘it is concerning the resurrection of the dead (plural) that I am on trial’ (24:21).

. Prōtos ex anastaseōs nekrōn (first to rise from the dead). This phrase reflects the terminology of ek nekrōn in Acts 3:15; 4:2, 10; 10:41; 13:30, 34; 17:3, 31. Anderson (2006: 282–283) notes that this phrase means that Jesus is the ‘first from the resurrection of the dead’ in the sense of ‘the first to take part in the eschatological resurrection of the dead’.

. The eschatological nature of Jesus’ resurrection is also evident in Acts 17:31, where Jesus’ resurrection is given as proof of the final judgment that will be administered by Christ with justice.

. Cf. Kepple 1977: 231–241; Anderson 2006: 266–269, 286–291.

. 24:14; 26:6–7, 22; 28:17.

. As we noted in ch. 1, Acts 2:33 follows the declaration of Jesus’ resurrection in 2:32 with therefore being exalted to the right hand of God ‘he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear’.

. Peterson 1998: 40.

. Schreiner 2008: 105.

. This view is especially associated with Conzelmann (cf. 1960: 200–202).

. Cf. the brief summary of this view in Doble 1996: 3–9. Cf. also Larkin 1977: 325–329.

. Franklin 1975: 65–67; Ehrman 1991: 576–591.

. Cf. France 2002: 41–45 for a succinct summary of the difficulties surrounding the ‘simple literary dependence of one writer on another’ (43).

. Cf. Bock 1996: 1721–1723.

. Marshall 1978: 831.

. Bolt 2004: 125–126; Bock 1996: 1858–1861.

. Larkin 1977: 329–335. Cf. also Mallen 2008: 120–125.

. Peterson 2009: 221–222.

. Note too that the same point is made by Paul in Gal. 3:13, where he elaborates on the significance of Jesus’ death on a tree and states that Jesus bore God’s curse or punishment in our place. The audience in Acts 13 is possibly the same (south) Galatian audience to whom Paul writes the letter to the Galatians (perhaps soon after he visited there in Acts 13 but before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15). For this early dating of Galatians and provenance of the letter to south Galatia see Hemer 1989: 247–251, 277–307 and M. B. Thompson forthcoming.

. Cf. Witherington 1998: 623–624 and Peterson 2009: 570 for the translation of Acts 20:28 as ‘the blood of his own (Son)’.

. Soards 1994: 1.

. Peter: 1:16–25; 2:14–26; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:29–32; 10:34–43; 11:5–17; 15:7–11. Stephen: 7:2–56. James: 15:13–21. Paul: 13:16–41; 14:15–17; 17:22–31; 20:17–35; 22:3–21; 24:10–21; 26:2–29; 27:21–26; 28:17–20. Padilla (2008) has also recently drawn attention to the importance of the speeches of ‘outsiders’ in Acts.

. Cf. accessible summaries in D. E. Johnson 1997: 141–165 and Wagner 2004: 15–37.

. C. Green 2005: 27.

. Ibid. 26–28, 59–60. The numbering here differs from Green’s.

. I have omitted Acts 7 – 8, 14, 17, 15, 20 and 21 – 28 in the following discussion because Acts 7 (Stephen) is more of a defence against specific charges regarding law/temple (see ch. 5); Acts 8 (Philip to the Ethiopian) is a particular response to an individual’s reading/question (see ch. 3); Acts 14 (Paul at Lystra) is a brief and particular response to the attempt to worship Paul and Barnabas (though similar main themes are developed in Acts 17); Acts 15 (Jerusalem Council) is a meeting with a number of speakers and not an ‘evangelistic speech’ (see ch. 6); Acts 20 (Paul to Ephesian elders) is to Christian leaders (see ch. 1); Paul’s speeches in Acts 21 – 28, like Stephen’s, are more ‘defence’ speeches against charges than primarily ‘mission’ speeches (though similar themes emerge and Paul seeks to shift his defence to evangelistic appeal when he can; cf. Acts 24:24–25; 26:27–29; see above on the resurrection in Acts).

. The role of the Holy Spirit in enabling this proclamation will be discussed in ch. 4.

. Cf. also D. E. Johnson 1997: 143, who adapts Dodd’s outline (1944: 21–23).

. Pao (2000: 193–197; cf. also Schnabel 2004, 2: 1399–1403) notes the following biblical allusions to Isaiah’s polemic against idols in Acts 17: God is the creator of heaven and earth and gives life to all (Isa. 42:5; 45:18; and is therefore not dependent on his creatures; cf. also Ps. 50:10–12); he does not live in temples built by hands (Isa. 66:1–2); he is not like gold, silver, stone, an image made by man’s skill (Isa. 40:18–20); he is near and must be sought (Isa. 55:6).

. Cf. Wagner 2004: 87–96.

. Ibid. 150–151.

. The observations concerning ‘you/they killed him’, ‘we/they saw him’ and ‘God raised him’ in the table above and in this section are borrowed from C. Green 2005: 27–28.

. Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15, 18; 23:11; 26:16, 22.

. Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:32–37; 17:31.

. Cf. the references earlier in this chapter to Acts 2:33, 4:10–12, 5:30–31, 13:37–38 and Paul’s references to ‘the hope of the resurrection’ (23:6; 24:14–15, 21; 26:6–8, 22–23; 28:20) and Jesus as ‘the first to rise from the dead’ (26:23).

. Stenschke 1998: 125–144.

. In the context of ‘forgiveness’ (13:38), ‘justification’ (13:39) here is acquittal or freedom from guilt through Jesus. Cf. Bock 2007: 459.

. See pp. 141–143 for a brief discussion of the relationship between the responses of faith, repentance and baptism, and the reception of the Holy Spirit in Acts.

. Cf. Paul’s concern in Acts 20:19–21.

. For a full and helpful discussion of this see Wagner 2004: 39–86.

. Ibid. 42.

. Cf. Eph. 6:19; Col. 4:4 (cf. also 2 Cor. 3:1–18).

. Apophthengomai (see further on pp. 131–134).

. Wagner 2004: 39, 64.

Chapter Three: Israel and the Gentiles: the kingdom and God’s promises of restoration

. The kai (and) at the beginning of v. 4, although capable of a variety of translations, seems to imply a continuation from v. 3 (‘on one occasion’, NIV) rather than the beginning of something disconnected from this context.

. Cf. the recent popular-level articulation of this in Pentecost 2010: 31–34. Though see Bock 1992: 37–67, esp. pp. 45–46, for a discussion of these verses in the context of a more nuanced ‘progressive dispensational’ position.

. D. Hill 1984: 16–26; Stott 1990: 41.

. It should also be noted that emphasis on the fulfilment of God’s promises for Israel in the early chapters of Acts does not necessarily entail a rejection of the Jewish people altogether in the final verses of Acts (nor does it contradict Paul’s hope for Israel in Rom. 9 – 11). The pattern is repeatedly shown throughout Acts that even though some Jews in a particular location reject the gospel, leading to a greater focus on Gentiles, other Jews regularly respond and Paul continues to approach Jews in the next location (cf. Acts 13:46 and 14:1–7; 18:7 and 18:7–11; cf. also 18:19; 19:8–10; 26:20). There is every indication, therefore, that hope for Jewish responses to the gospel continues beyond Acts 28 (hence Paul welcomes ‘all’ who come to him in 28:30, contra J. T. Sanders 1987).

. Ziccardi 2008: 102–104. Ch. 4 will discuss the role of the Holy Spirit.

. Further discussion of this will follow when we examine Acts 8 below (pp. 112–116) in this chapter.

. Cf. Isa. 1:26; 9:7; Jer. 16:14–15; 23:5–8; 33:15–17; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11–12; Zech. 9:9–10.

. This has been developed by Pao (2000: 91–93); cf. also Marshall 2007: 528.

. Allusions to Isaiah in Acts 1:8 have been noted by many. Cf. Pao 2000: 91–96; Turner 1996: 299–303; Tiede 1986: 278–286. On the influence of Isaiah in the book of Acts as a whole see Pao 2000, who highlights the ‘Isaianic New Exodus’, and Mallen 2008, who emphasizes the mission of the Servant in bringing salvation. For earlier succinct studies on the extensive use of Isaiah in Acts see J. A. Sanders 1982: 144–155 and Seccombe 1981: 252–259.

. Pao (2000: 92) notes that Luke 24:49 contains the phrase ‘from on high’, which is found in Isa. 32:15.

. Some suggest that although Jesus (and Luke) may intend a reference to Gentiles, the disciples themselves would not have recognized this but would only have thought in terms of Jews dispersed throughout the world (Bock 2007: 66). In support of this, it is claimed that otherwise there would be no difficulty in including Gentiles in Acts 10 – 11. However, in the light of the commission to ‘all nations’ in Luke 24:47 and the association of the phrase ‘ends of the earth’ with Gentiles in Isa. 49:6, it is just as likely that the disciples did in fact understand a reference to the inclusion of Gentiles here. Note also that in Acts 11:20 (which takes us back to the scattering that took place at the death of Stephen in Acts 8:1) the good news about Jesus is told to Greeks. The difficulties in Acts 10 – 11 and 15 have more to do with understanding how the Gentiles may be included in the people of God and their status in the people of God than whether they should be included. Cf. Schnabel 2004, 1: 709.

. Pao 2000: 127.

. Peterson 2009: 185.

. It might be objected that the language of ‘restoration’ is used in Acts 3:21 for something that will occur only after Jesus returns. Thus Bock (2007: 176–177) notes parallel terms in 1:7 and 3:19–21. This view is especially based on the preposition achri (until) in 3:21 (‘he must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything as he promised long ago through his holy prophets’). It should be noted that this would not contradict the view presented here that the restoration of what God has promised is taking place ‘already’. The emphasis on fulfilment in Acts already indicates this. Acts 3:21 would then refer to the ‘not yet’ aspects of that fulfilment (the ‘consummation’ of the kingdom). However, Pao (2000: 133–135) notes that the same preposition is used in Acts 20:6 to mean ‘after’ (these two passages are Luke’s only uses of the preposition with a plural object). Translating the preposition as ‘after’ (as it should be in 20:6) then results in the translation ‘whom heaven must receive until after the times of restoration of all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old’. This, coupled with the use of the phrase ‘time of universal restoration’ in the LXX for Israel’s restoration, indicates that Peter is referring to a process that will reach its completion at the end of times. It should also be noted that in this same context (of 3:21) Peter declares that ‘all the prophets . . . have foretold these days’ (3:24), which is clearly a reference to the time of fulfilment contemporaneous with Peter’s audience.

. The reference in Acts 2:1 to ‘when the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled’ (en tō symplērousthai) is already an indication that the day of Pentecost is meant to be understood within the general framework of the fulfilment of God’s promises. Tannehill (1990: 26–27) refers to the use of the term in Luke 9:51. The prophecies in view here then would be Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–5, 8; Isa. 32:15; 44:3–5; Joel 2; though, in view of Jesus’ description of the Holy Spirit as ‘promised’ (Acts 1:4; cf. also 2:33), the language of ‘fulfilment’ here may also refer to the Father’s promises concerning the Holy Spirit elsewhere in the OT (i.e. Ezek. 36 – 37).

. Spencer (2004: 44) uses the phrase ‘four corners of the earth’ in this context.

. Though it should be noted that throughout this account Peter is associated with the other apostles (cf. 2:14, 37, 42).

. The term for ‘people’ in 2:14 and 22 is andres (men). However, as 17:34 indicates, the term may include women. Thus the translations ‘People of Judea’ or ‘People of Israel’ are used here. In 2:36 the NIV has ‘all Israel’.

. Bauckham 2001: 473 (essay repr. in Bauckham 2008: 325–370). As further evidence for this, Bauckham notes the spread of the northern tribes in the diaspora and the list of diaspora Jews in Acts 2 (particularly Media in 2:9).

. The allusion to Isa. 2:3 in the opening words (‘in the last days’) of Peter’s quote from Joel will be mentioned further in chs. 4 and 5.

. Cf. Luke 9:51–56; 10:30–37; 17:11–19; Acts 1:8; 8:1–25; 9:31; 15:3. Cf. Ravens 1995: 72–106.

. Cf. Younger 2004: 254–280.

. The Greek Sebastos being used for the Latin Augustus. Cf. the succinct summary of Samaria’s history in Ferguson 1993: 386, 500.

. Note Matt. 10:5–6, where they are distinguished from Gentiles and ‘the house of Israel’, and John 4:7–10, where John remarks in an aside that ‘Jews do not associate with Samaritans’.

. As noted above, see Luke 9:51–56; 10:30–37; 17:11–19.

. The following discussion summarizes Pao 2000: 127–129. Cf. also Ravens 1995: 92–93.

. Pao (2000: 128) notes that ‘the occurrence together of both “Judea” and “Samaria” is a unique Lukan feature that appears in the New Testament only in Acts’ (referring to 1:8; 8:1; 9:31).

. Cf. Peterson 2009: 280; Bock 2007: 337; Metzger 1994: 311. The translation ‘the city of Samaria’ is found in the ESV, AV, NKJV, NASB and NLT. Manuscripts which omit the article are C D E Ψ 33 1739 . Manuscripts which retain the article include ⁷⁴ A B 69 181 460* 1175 1898.

. Pao 2000: 128. Pao notes that Barrett (1994: 402) and Hengel (1983: 123–126) are also favourable to this suggestion. Cf. also Bock 2007: 337.

. In Acts 8:9–11 the emphasis on the people as a whole is seen in the descriptions of them as ‘the nation/people of Samaria’ (to ethnos tēs Samareias, 8:9) and ‘all from the least to the greatest’ (pantes apo mikrou heōs megalou, 8:10).

. Pao 2000: 128.

. Again, for Acts 8:26–40, see Pao 2000: 140–142. Marshall (2007: 573) summarizes various approaches to this section and the reasons for including it here in Acts.

. Pao (2000: 141) notes that the ethnic identity of the man is not settled with the description of him as Ethiopian. He may still simply be an ‘Ethiopian Jew’, as the list of people groups in Acts 2:9–11 were ‘Jews from every nation under heaven’.

. Cf. also A. J. Thompson 2008a: 96–98.

. Pao 2000: 142.

. Cf. Isa. 20:3.

. Oswalt 1998: 287.

. Ibid. Note also that in 49:9b–12 those ‘returning’ are not just the ones taken to Babylon. There is a great crowd from the north, west and the south (the region of Aswan). The emphasis in this context is on the mission to the Gentiles that will follow the restoration to the Lord of the Lord’s people by the Servant. Furthermore, in 50:10–11 the people are described as those who obey the word of the Servant. Cf. Webb 1996: 200.

. Motyer 1993: 322.

. Webb 1996: 195.

. Note the shift from the plural ‘the Lord has commanded us’ to the singular ‘I have made you (sing.) a light for the Gentiles’ (Acts 13:47). Contra Koet (1989: 113–118) the plural is not to be understood as an invitation to collective Israel here. Paul and Barnabas are describing their mission here (note the first person plurals in vv. 46 and 47, ‘we had to speak . . . we now turn . . . for the Lord commanded us . . . ’).

. Note also that, as we have seen, in Acts 8:35 Philip tells the eunuch about Jesus from the Servant Song of Isa. 53. Cf. Bock (1987: 262–270) and Mallen (2008: 102–105) for further discussion of the ‘Servant-Christology’ in Luke-Acts. D. E. Johnson 1990: 343–345 also notes Servant texts in Luke 1:79 (allusion to Isa. 42:7); 3:22 and 9:35 (allusion to Isa. 42:1); 4:18–19 (citation of Isa. 61:1–2); 7:22 (allusions to Isa. 35:5; 42:7; 61:1–2); 9:51–53 (allusion to 50:6–9); 22:20 (allusion to Isa. 53:12); 22:37 (citation of Isa. 53:12); Acts 3:13–14, 26 (allusion to Isa. 53:13); 4:27, 30 (allusion to Isa. 61:1); and 8:32–35 (citation of Isa. 53:7–8). Furthermore, the use of pais (theou), ‘servant (of God)’, the typical LXX translation of ‘ebed yâweh in the Servant Songs of Isaiah, is applied to Jesus only in Acts 3:13, 26, 4:27, 30 in the NT.

. Thus, although God obviously gives this instruction in Isaiah, the context of Acts 1:8 (note the use of entellomai, which is found in Acts only in 1:2 and 13:47), together with the commission from the Lord Jesus in Paul’s conversion (cf. Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:17–18) indicate that ‘the Lord’ who commands here is the Lord Jesus (which further identifies the Lord Jesus with the God of Isaiah; he is the Lord as well as the Servant of the Lord).

. Barrett 1994: 658. Note also the association between Jesus and his disciples in Luke 10:16. In the light of Acts 26:23 there is also a sense in which the Lord Jesus himself enables the preaching and is himself ‘proclaiming light to his own people and to the Gentiles’ through Paul and the apostles (cf. Luke 21:15).

. Cf. also Acts 13:47–48. The role of the Holy Spirit in this restoration will be discussed in ch. 4.

. C. Green 2005: 87–92. The role of the law will be discussed in ch. 6.

. Thus the issue raised at the Council is theological rather than an issue of contextualization. Cf. Wiarda 2003: 233–248 (esp. 233–236).

. Episkeptomai (15:14, ‘showed his concern’ NIV).

. Cf. Exod. 3:16; 4:31; 13:19; Ruth 1:6.

. Cf. Exod. 23:22 (LXX); Deut. 7:6; 14:2. Note that up to this point in Luke-Acts (cf. Acts 2:47; 3:23; 4:10; 5:12; 7:17, 34; 13:17) the term laos (people) is usually reserved for Israel. A shift appears to occur here and in 18:10 where Gentiles are included in this term for God’s people (contra Jervell 1996: 23, 34).

. Given the allusions to other texts in this section, this is a better option than the suggestion that he is referring to the book of the twelve ‘Minor Prophets’ (contra Peterson 2009: 430, n. 41). Marshall (2007: 589–593) notes allusions to Zech. 2:11, Jer. 12:15 and Isa. 45:21 in Acts 15:16–18.

. Strauss 1995: 180–192; Turner 1996: 312–315; Peterson 2009: 431. Contra Haenchen 1971: 99, who views this as a reference solely to the resurrection, and Bauckham 1995: 452–458, who views this as a reference to the eschatological temple.

. Cf. Acts 13:23 and esp. 13:34, which cites the fulfilment of the promises to David anticipated in Isa. 55:3.

. A purpose clause is indicated in 15:17 where hopōs is followed by the subjunctive ekzētēsōsin (‘that the rest of men may seek the Lord’, RSV). Marshall (2007: 589–593) succinctly summarizes the range of issues related to the textual variations in Acts 15:17 from the Hebrew text of Amos 9:11–12.

. Peterson (2009: 432) notes that the passive tense of epikeklētai (‘have been called’, indicating divine agency) and the reference to God’s ‘name’ in v. 17 provide the basis for James’s observation concerning God’s action in taking a people for his ‘name’ in v. 14.

. Cf. pp. 182–187 for a discussion of the role of the ‘Jerusalem decree’ in 15:19.

Chapter Four: The promise of the Father: the gift of the Holy Spirit

. Cf. Hamilton 2006: 25–55 for a discussion of the teaching in the OT on the Holy Spirit.

. Because Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant that transforms hearts is similar to Ezekiel, Jer. 31 may also be added to this list.

. Ziccardi 2008: 102–106.

. See e.g. 2:42–47 and 3:1–2 (see the discussion on p. 150). See also 4:34–35 followed by a positive example in 4:36–37 and a negative example in 5:1–2.

. Cf. O’Toole 1987: 149; Turner 1996: 294–297.

. Cf. also the references to the Spirit as ‘the promise’ in 2:33 and 2:39 (2:39, in this context, probably refers to ‘the promise of the Holy Spirit’ in 2:33).

. Pao 2000: 92; Turner 1996: 300–303.

. As mentioned in the last chapter, the cluster of phrases in Acts 1:8 that refer to the Holy Spirit ‘coming upon you’ (Isa. 32:15; 44:3), the disciples being ‘my witnesses’ (43:10–12; 44:8) and the extension of the witness to ‘the ends of the earth’ (49:6) all recall passages from the prophet Isaiah.

. Isa. 2:3; Mic. 4:2. Bruce 1990: 89; Bock 2007: 112; Peterson 2009: 141. Pao 2000: 156–159 discusses the relationship between Isa. 2 and Mic. 4, and the relationship between Isa. 2:2–4 and 40 – 55 (and the significance of the spread of the word in the context of Acts). Pao also notes that this exact phrase (en tais eschatais hēmerais) is found only in Isa. 2:2 and Acts 2:17 in the LXX and NT (though a similar phrase is found in 2 Tim. 3:1 and Jas 5:3; cf. also Heb. 1:2; 2 Pet. 3:3).

. This is less direct, however, than the more obvious citation from Joel in Acts 2 and the allusions to Isaiah in Acts 1.

. Bauckham 2001: 473. Cf. Ezek. 37:11, 21 (though the phrase ‘house of Israel’ is a more common designation in the OT, it is also found much more often in Ezekiel than anywhere else in the OT). Cf. also Ezek. 39:29, where the Lord describes the regathering of Israel as a time when ‘I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel’. In Ezek. 36:21–32 the placement of God’s Spirit in his people and the restoration of the ‘house of Israel’ are for the sake of the Lord’s holy name.

. Observations from Ezek. 37 and Acts 2 are adapted from Bauckham 2001: 473. Repr. 2008: 325–370.

. Turner (1996: 48–53, 344) disagrees with Dunn (1970: 47–49) and argues that Luke does not intend any reference to Ezek. 36 in Acts 2. Bauckham’s observations from Ezek. 37, however, strengthen this possibility.

. Turner 1996: 265–266, 301–303, 306. Cf. Pao 2000: 131–135. Cf. also Buckwalter 1996: 180–182, 193–205, though Buckwalter primarily shows parallels between Jesus’ role and the role of Yahweh in the OT as part of a ‘Christological apologetic’.

. The same phrase eis ton ouranon is used on each occasion, though the NIV alternates between ‘sky’ and ‘heaven’.

. The phrase in 2:2 is ek tou ouranou. The description of those present in 2:5 as Jews from ‘every nation under heaven’ (hypo ton ouranon) is perhaps another indication in this context of the universal sovereignty of the Lord Jesus (cf. also 2:34). Cf. Sleeman 2009: 94–96 for a discussion concerning the Christological significance of this phrase.

. Ps. 132:11 is alluded to in Acts 2:30. The use of dexia (right hand) in Acts 2:34 (citing Ps. 110:1) and the phrase en tē dexia sou (at your right hand) in Ps. 16:11 (just after the citation used in Acts 2:25–28) indicate that a locative sense is intended here. This ‘position’ of the Lord Jesus, however, is one of power and authority. Strauss 1995: 140–141; Turner 1996: 295–296; Peterson 2009: 150.

. Hence the description of the Holy Spirit in Acts 16:7 as ‘the Spirit of Jesus’; i.e. the Spirit sent by the authority of Jesus.

. 2:17, legei ho theos encheō (I will pour out . . . ).

. 2:33, tēn te epangelian tou pneumatos tou hagiou . . . execheen (the promise of the Holy Spirit . . . he has poured out).

. The wording of the heading for this section comes from Fee’s well-known book on the Holy Spirit in Paul’s letters (1994).

. The reference to young men seeing visions and old men dreaming dreams between these two references and ‘prophesying’ indicates that dreams and visions here are also associated with prophesying; they were a means of knowing the will of God that was to be proclaimed (cf. for visions Isa. 1:1; Jer. 14:14; Ezek. 1:1; 8:2–4; and for dreams Dan. 1:17; Zech. 10:2). Peterson (2009: 141–142) notes that visions occur occasionally in Acts (Ananias and Saul in Acts 9:10–12; Cornelius and Peter in Acts 10 – 11; Paul in 16:9; 18:9–10; 27:23), and dreams are not explicitly mentioned (though Paul’s visions take place at night). It seems that this reference to dreams and visions for young men and old men situated between references to all people prophesying is meant to be understood as another, poetic, way of saying the same thing: ‘all will prophesy’.

. Cf. also Jer. 31:34.

. The speaking in other languages then, as with Peter’s sermon, in this context, is a subset of the activity of ‘prophesying’. Those who speak in other languages are described as ‘declaring the wonders of God’ (2:11).

. Cf. also similar uses of pimplēmi with the action of speaking in Luke 1:15–16, 41–42, 67.

. Turner (1996: 402) argues that the Spirit is the means of ‘God’s saving/transforming presence for Israel (and through her to the nations)’. Turner (344) thinks that ‘the gift of inward transformation by the Spirit (as in Ezek. 36)’ is not in view here. The allusions to Ezek. 37 in Acts 2, however, weaken Turner’s argument at this point. See also the discussion in ch.1 about the kingdom’s ‘not yet’ aspect.

. The passive voice of sōthēte (be saved) recalls the promise of 2:21 that ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (sōthēsetai)’; i.e. by the Lord.

. The terminology of a ‘portrait of a restored people’ is used by L. T. Johnson 1992: 56.

. Cf. Pao 2000: 118–120. Cf. esp. Isa. 45:22, ‘Turn to me and be saved, / all you ends of the earth; / for I am God, and there is no other’; 55:6–7, ‘Seek the Lord while he may be found; / call on him while he is near. / Let the wicked forsake his way / and the evil man his thoughts. / Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, / and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

. Cf. Robertson 2004: 184–186. Cf. e.g. Ezek. 18:30–31, ‘Therefore, O house of Israel . . . Repent! Turn away from all your offences . . . get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?’ Cf. also Joel 2:11–13, ‘The day of the Lord is great; / it is dreadful. Who can endure it? / “Even now,” declares the Lord, “return to me with all your heart . . . ” / Rend your heart / and not your garments. / Return to the Lord your God . . . ’

. Cf. Isa. 58:6–7. Cf. Robertson 2004: 161–168 for numerous references to the prophetic charge to love God and people (e.g. idolatrous loves in Isa. 57:8–9; Jer. 2:25, 33; Ezek. 8:1–18; Hos. 3:1; 9:10; Amos 4:4–5; and failure to care for the needy among them in Isa. 1:17; Jer. 5:28–29; 7:5–7; Mic. 6:7–8; Zech. 7:9–10; Mal. 3:5; cf. also Deut. 24:17–22).

. Cf. also Luke 13:2–5; 15:7; 16:30–31. Peterson (2009: 154) notes the link made in the preaching of Jesus between repentance and the kingdom of heaven (‘repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’). Though this specific connection is not made in the wording of Luke’s Gospel, Peterson is correct to note that repentance ‘involves a change of mind about Jesus and his role in God’s kingdom purposes’ as well as a ‘radical reorientation of life with respect to Jesus, expressing sorrow for having rejected the one accredited by God as Lord and Christ’.

. Cf. Ezek. 36:25–27; 37:24. Cf. also Jer. 31:33. Note that in Acts 5:31 Jesus is the one who gives ‘repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel’, and in 11:18 God is said to have given repentance to the Gentiles. Cf. also 3:26.

. Cole 2007: 114.

. In 6:8 Stephen is described as ‘full of grace and power’.

. In 13:52 the cognate verb plēroō is used.

. This feature of Luke’s teaching on the work of the Holy Spirit has been neglected in studies of Lukan pneumatology. Thus Turner (1996: 349–350) lists five categories for the Spirit’s role in Acts: the author of revelatory visions and dreams, gives revelatory words or instruction or guidance, grants charismatic wisdom or revelatory discernment, inspires praise, and inspires preaching or witness. Menzies (1991: 224–225) basically groups the Spirit’s role in Acts under two categories: the Spirit is the agent of inspired speech; the Spirit gives special revelation to direct the mission of the church. Wenk (2000: 303–307) corrects this neglect (though his view that Acts 15 relates to conditions for Gentiles after entering the Christian community neglects the soteriological emphasis in Acts 15).

. As we have noted, the tangible expression of this unity (‘fellowship’ in 2:42, or ‘one heart’ in 4:32) was also displayed in 2:42–47 and 4:32–37. That is, from time to time, as people had need, they gave voluntarily to meet the needs of others (2:45; 4:34–35). This was not ‘communal living’ or an idealized ‘community of goods’ from a distant utopian age; it was the concrete expression of concern for others expressed in other ways elsewhere in Acts (cf. 9:39; 20:33–35). Cf. A. J. Thompson 2008a: 70–74, 88–93.

. As proposed e.g. by Menzies 1991.

. Carson 1987: 137–158.

. I have referred to Acts 2 and 8 in terms of the restoration of Israel and the northern kingdom. Even if that discussion is not accepted, however, the point here is simply that the emphasis in Acts 2 and 8 is still on Jewish believers as a group and Samaritans as a group.

. Dedektai (dechomai) hē Samareia ton logon tou theou (8:14); kai ta ethnē edexanto (dechomai) ton logon tou theou (11:1).

. Note the numerous accounts of conversions in Acts that occur without a so-called additional empowering paradigm (cf. 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 8:36–38; 9:35, 42; 11:21, 24; 13:12, 48; 14:1; 16:14–15, 31–34; 17:4, 12, 34; 18:8, 27; 28:24).

. Contra Bock 2007: 599. Note that the term ‘disciples’ was used for disciples of John the Baptist (Luke 5:33; 7:18; 11:1).

. This appears to be the point of their answer (cf. the similar wording in John 7:39, that the Holy Spirit is ‘not yet’) rather than the suggestion that they have not heard that there is a Holy Spirit. As followers of John the Baptist they would have heard that there is a Holy Spirit. However, as those who had not seen the arrival of Jesus and subsequent events they would not yet have heard that the Holy Spirit had come.

. Twelftree 2009: 93–94.

. As the parallels to Pentecost in the account in Acts 10 – 11 also indicated. Peterson (2009: 328) is probably correct to suggest that Cornelius is presented as a faithful believer (who is relying on OT promises) transitioning to faith in Jesus. This faith in Jesus (as Peterson notes) is nevertheless essential for Cornelius to ‘be saved’ (11:14).

. It might also be noted that given the deliberate links between Acts 10 – 11 and 19 to Pentecost, the references to tongues speaking in Acts 10 and 19, since they are the only references to tongues in Acts apart from Acts 2, are most likely meant to be understood in the way tongues are described in Acts 2 (i.e. speaking in other human languages). There does not appear to be any indication in Acts that the ‘tongues’ of Acts 10 and 19 are different to Acts 2 (cf. Schreiner 2008: 722). The question of their cessation does not appear to be directly addressed in Acts. The disciples in Acts 19, however, are presented as a kind of last remaining group caught in this ‘time warp’ of hearing John the Baptist but without transitioning to faith in Jesus.

. Cf. Twelftree 2009: 85–86.

. For this section I must acknowledge indebtedness to Stein’s very helpful essay (2006: 35–66).

. Cf. Acts 3:16 (‘faith that comes through him’); 10:1 – 11:18 (God’s initiative throughout); 13:48 (‘appointed for eternal life’); 16:14 (‘opened her heart’); 18:27 (‘by grace had believed’); cf. also perhaps 2:37 (‘were cut to the heart’).

. Belief: 2:44; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 9:42; 10:43; 11:17; 13:12, 39, 48; 14:1, 27; 15:7, 9; 16:15, 31–34; 17:12; 18:8, 27; 19:2, 9, 18; 24:24; 26:18; 28:24. Repentance: 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 9:35; 11:18; 17:30; 26:18, 20. Repentance and Faith: note 2:38 (repent) and 2:44 (believers); 9:35 (turned) and 9:42 (many believed); 10:43 (believe) and 11:18 (repentance); 17:30 (repent) and 17:34 (a few believed); but see esp. 11:21; 19:4; 20:21; 26:18 and 20. Stein 2006: 36–41.

. Repentance and the Spirit: 2:38; 11:16–18. Faith and the Spirit: 10:43–46; 19:2 (cf. also 5:32).

. Stein 2006: 40–41.

. Cf. 2:38, 41; 8:12–13 (13, Simon), 37–38; 9:17–18 (cf. also 22:14–16); 10:43–47; 16:14–15, 31–34; 18:8; 19:4–6.

. Dunn 1970: 90.

. The same Greek term existēmi (amazed) is used in both instances.

. To argyrion sou syn soi eiē eis apōleian (‘May your money perish with you’ NIV).

. Cf. also Acts 9:17–18 and 22:13–16.

. In this regard it should also be noted that ‘household baptism’ in Acts is based on ‘household belief’. Thus the emphasis in the account of the Philippian jailer is that if he believes he will be saved and the same goes for the rest of his household (probably including servants). Therefore, the word is preached to ‘all the others in the house’ (16:31–32). The implication is that they were all baptized because they all believed (16:33–34). The deliberate similarities of belief, household, baptism and hospitality between the Philippian jailer and Lydia indicate that the same is intended in her case. She is a believer and is baptized (16:15). However, what is implicit in the case of Lydia is made explicit in the case of Crispus, the synagogue ruler. Not only Crispus, but also ‘his entire household believed in the Lord’ (18:8; cf. also 11:14). The subsequent statement that many of the Corinthians believed and were baptized may indicate ‘household baptism’ followed ‘household belief’ in Crispus’ house too.

Chapter Five: The end of an era: the temple system and its leaders

. Cf. pp. 63–67 for a brief discussion of the role elders play in strengthening local churches through teaching and modelling the apostolic message of God’s grace. The phrase ‘authorized delegates’, used in this chapter and the next, is taken from Clark 1998: 190.

. Of the 71 occurrences of the term hieron (temple) in the NT 39 occur in Luke-Acts (though naos, ‘shrine’, is used only 5 times out of 45 in the NT). In Luke-Acts hieron refers more generally to the temple courts, whereas naos refers more specifically to the temple sanctuary (rather than the outer precincts). Cf. Head 2004: 106–109 for a discussion of the terms used by Luke. There is a focus on the temple at both the beginning and the end of Luke’s Gospel; and although the word moves out from Jerusalem, there is a return to the themes of Jerusalem, temple and Jewish leadership in Acts 21 – 23 (on this latter point see A. J. Thompson 2008a: 159–170). References to the temple predominate in Acts 3 – 7 and do not reappear until Acts 21, where they again occur regularly.

. Cf. Walton’s summary (2004: 135–149) of the debate over the role of the temple in Acts. I will discuss Luke’s Gospel briefly below.

. Barrett 1991: 364. Barrett is referring, on the one hand, to practices in Acts 3 – 5, 21, and, on the other hand, to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7.

. Sylva (1987: 261–275) argues for the ‘transcendence’ view against the ‘rejection’ view. He refers to a ‘replacement’ view but dismisses it in a footnote as having little to support it. Walton’s survey (2004: 138) refers to three views but does not interact with the ‘replacement’ view.

. Hurtado (2003: 195–196, 208–210) states that not only is Luke positive towards the temple and has no problem with the disciples continuing to take part in the temple system, but that neither Jesus nor Paul critiqued the temple. Thus there is no contradiction between Acts and the teachings of Jesus and Paul elsewhere in the NT: they were all positive towards the temple (though critical of the temple leadership)!

. Chance 1988: 85. Chance explicitly rejects any notion that there is a ‘transferral of temple motifs to Jesus’ (41–45). In this regard he sees Luke as contradictory to the other NT writers (35).

. Walton 2004: 149. Though Walton does argue for a ‘transcendence’ view of Stephen’s speech, he also suggests that Jesus may be understood as the true temple in Acts.

. This view is closest to that of Franklin 1975: 99–108 (cf. also Perrin 2010: 63–65).

. As noted above, references to the temple predominate in Acts 3 – 7 and do not reappear until Acts 21 (Acts 21 will be treated briefly in ch. 6).

. Beale (2004: 201–216), in his discussion of the temple in Acts 2, though correctly highlighting the judgment upon the old temple, does not discuss the relationship between the Davidic kingship of Jesus in Acts 2 and the significance of this for the theme of the temple in Acts.

. Hahn 2005: 300. Hahn notes the wordplay on ‘house’ (‘temple’ or ‘dynasty’) in 2 Sam. 7:11–13. Cf. also 1 Kgs 8:17–19.

. For the temple generally see Isa. 2:1–4; 56:6–8; 60:3–16; Ezek. 40 – 44; Joel 3:18; Mic. 4:1–4; Hag. 2:1–9; Zech. 6:12–15 (some of these are cited by Hahn 2005: 300).

. Isa. 2:2. As noted in ch. 4, the exact phrase ‘in the last days’ (en tais eschatais hēmerais), which Peter adds to his quotation from Joel in Acts 2:17, is found only in Isa. 2:2 in the LXX (though an explicit link with Isa. 2:2 is not crucial for the point here). The association of king and temple continued into Jewish hopes in the intertestamental period (cf. Sib. Or. 5.420–427 [414–432]; 1 En. 53.6). Cf. Hahn 2005: 302.

. Spencer 2004: 54. Though, as we will note below, this event is not specifically called a ‘sign’ until 4:16 and 22.

. Although Luke records the events in Acts 3 as taking place in the location of the temple courts because that is where the lame man was healed and that also is where crowds then came to see what had happened, the disciples were not at the temple all the time. In 2:42–47 Luke has referred to the occasional selling of possessions and helping those in need, meeting in homes and having meals together – none of which may have taken place in the temple. Luke is being selective and, given that he has made some obvious links to ch. 2, it is reasonable to suggest that he has chosen this one event in the temple to illustrate the role of the temple in the light of the momentous events of Acts 1 – 2.

. Cook 2007: 95. In 4:16, 22 the NIV translates sēmeion as ‘miracle/miraculously’. General statements about ‘signs’ are given in 2:22 (Jesus); 2:43; 4:30; and 5:12 (apostles); 6:8 (Stephen); 7:36 (Moses); 8:6 and 13 (Philip); 14:3 and 15:12 (Paul and Barnabas). However, 4:16 and 22 are the only places where a particular event is called a ‘sign’ in Acts. It should also be noted that 4:22 is the concluding statement regarding this healing and its explanation in 3:1 – 4:22.

. Beale (2004: 201–244) in his discussion of the new temple in the book of Acts lacks any reference to Acts 3 – 5, except for a brief mention of Acts 3:25–26 and 4:11, as he moves from a discussion of Acts 2 to focus on Acts 7.

. Spencer 2004: 51 (my tr. slightly modified from Spencer’s observations).

. Adapted in modified form from ibid. In Luke’s Gospel there is also a ‘frame’ between Luke 19:47 – 20:1 and 21:37–38, which refers to Jesus’ activity of daily teaching in the temple. Within this ‘frame’ of teaching activity in the temple there is (as in Acts 3 – 5) an emphasis on the judgment and end of the temple leadership (20:17–18; Ps. 118:22 is cited, as in Acts 4:11) and the temple itself (19:44, 45–46; 21:6), as well as a stress on the authority and lordship of Jesus (20:1–44; Ps. 110:1 is cited, as in Acts 2:34–35), which follows a focus on the kingship of Jesus as he arrives in Jerusalem (19:11–12, 14–15, 27, 38). At the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel Jesus’ name is declared to be the means of forgiveness (24:47) and the disciples worship the ascended Lord Jesus (24:52, near Bethany, and therefore not in the temple!).

. The repetition in Acts 3:1 – 4:22 and in 5:12–42 of a pattern of healing activity, followed by proclamation, arrest, trial and release is also indicative of the parallel nature of these two sections. Cf. C. Green 2005: 54–57.

. Chance 1988: 82–85; Barrett 1991: 347–350; Fitzmyer 1998: 277.

. As mentioned earlier, the term Luke uses for temple, hieron, more accurately refers to the temple courts and this is clarified with references to Solomon’s Colonnade later (3:11; 5:12).

. Bock 2007: 159; Walton 2004: 136.

. However, they also ‘continued together in prayer’ in an upper room in 1:14 (cf. also 1:24–25). The same terms proskarterountes homothymadon (continue together) are found together only in 1:14 and 2:46. Cf. also 22:17.

. Paul’s activity in Acts 21 will be discussed in the next chapter.

. The name of the gate is, perhaps ironically, ‘beautiful’. Translations throughout this section are my own.

. Cf. Spencer 2004: 55.

. Though a different term is used in v. 10 (pylē, ‘gate’) than v. 2 (thyran, ‘door’), the references to the name ‘beautiful’ with respect to this ‘gate of the temple’ and the request for ‘alms’ all indicate that v. 10 is deliberately recalling v. 2. Peterson (2009: 168) leans towards the view that the gate is the Nicanor (or Corinthian) Gate, which led from the ‘eastern part of the outer Court of the Gentiles into the first of the inner courts of the temple (the Court of the Women)’.

. It may also be said, of course, that these references to ‘the temple’ are here because that is where the incident took place. However, since we have observed that Luke has selected this particular incident, we are enquiring into the significance of this selection in this narrative context.

. Spencer 2004: 55.

. Peterson (2009: 168) does not think that the lame man was ‘prevented from entering the temple because of his condition’. Bock (2007: 162), however, states that the healing ‘allows the man to walk into the temple proper for the first time’ (citing Lev. 21:17–20; 2 Sam. 5:8).

. Spencer 2004: 55.

. The narrative location of Luke 21:1–4 makes the ‘widow’ of Luke 21:1–4 an example of what is described in Luke 20:47. J. B. Green 1997: 725, 728–729.

. Spencer 2004: 55.

. ‘He went walking and leaping and praising God, walking and leaping and praising God. “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” ’ The lyrics to ‘Silver and Gold Have I None’ are in the public domain.

. In ch. 3 I referred to the pervasiveness of Isaiah in Acts and the likelihood that Luke expected his readers to know Isaiah in order to understand what was taking place in Acts.

. The same terminology for ‘lame’ (chōlos) and ‘leaping’ (hallomai) is found in Isa. 35 and Acts 3 (exallomai, hallomai).

. The terms pais (servant) together with the language of doxazō (glorify) in 3:13 alludes to Isa. 52:13, the introductory verse to the song about the ‘Suffering Servant’ in Isa. 52:13 – 53:12. The reference to the servant blessing Israel ‘first’ in Acts 3:26 alludes to the sequence found in Isa. 49:5–6.

. Righteous One’ is probably also an allusion to the ‘righteous Servant’ of Isa. 53 (Isa. 53:11). Though ‘righteous’ was a common designation in the prophets for the Messiah (cf. Isa. 32:1; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 9:9). The term ‘Holy’ here perhaps adds to the picture of Jesus as ‘set apart’ (Bock 2007: 170), though the combination of ‘holy and righteous’ with one article probably indicates that the terms are synonymous here (Peterson 2009: 175).

. Given the contrast with murder here (i.e. taking life), the phrase ‘author of life’ probably means that Jesus is the one who grants life, as evidenced in this healing (cf. also 5:20). Bock 2007: 171.

. Cf. Deut. 18:15, 19; Lev. 23:29.

. The reference to Samuel as one of the prophets who ‘foretold these days’ indicates that Peter is referring to Samuel’s involvement with David. Samuel anointed David (1 Sam. 16:13) and spoke of the granting of the kingdom to David (1 Sam. 28:17).

. Cf. Gen. 12:3; 22:18 (‘offspring’ NIV).

. Whether the number is seven or eight depends on whether ‘holy and righteous’ in 3:14 is one designation or two.

. Thus, contra Bock 1987: 197–198, it is not quite accurate to say that this sermon has a ‘Pentateuchal emphasis’.

. Just over a hundred years ago Warfield (1907: 198–199) observed that this ‘composite portrait’ which Peter ‘presents of Jesus the Messiah as he passes freely from one of these designations to another is a complex and very lofty one; what is most apparent is that he conceives Him as the focus upon which all the rays of OT prophecy converge, and as exalted above all earthly limitations’.

. Spencer 2004: 57.

. Cf. Pss 20:1–7 (esp. v. 7, ‘we trust in the name of the Lord our God’); 44:4–8; 54:1–7.

. For a summary of the issues related to ‘Name theology’ in OT scholarship see I. Wilson 1995: 3–11.

. Though varying emphases may be found in different contexts, the ‘name’ as a reference to the presence of God in the fullness of his character may be suggested by 1 Kgs 8:11, 28; 9:3. Cf. also Exod. 20:24; 34:5–7, 14; Deut. 16:11. Cf. House 1998: 254–255.

. O’Reilly (1987: 100) refers to the titles ‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’ (cited by Peterson 2009: 169). The ‘name’ of Jesus as a reference to the power and authority of Jesus is noted e.g. in Calvin 1965: 94; Barrett 1994: 183; Peterson 2009: 169.

. Franklin 1975: 100. Cf. also Peterson 1998: 377.

. Cf. also 4:30; 5:28, 40–41 (5:41 concludes these references in Acts 3 – 5 with the absolute use of ‘the name’).

. Cf. also Luke 22:52–53.

. In both Ps. 118:22 and in Luke 20:17 the verse simply refers to ‘the builders’. Cf. Head (2004: 116) and Beale (2004: 184) for the use of this psalm in Luke 20:17.

. Beale 2004: 216.

. The rest of 4:1–22 shows that the leaders are powerless in the face of this obvious ‘sign’ (vv. 14, 16, 18–21). The concluding verse of this section highlights again the remarkable transformation of this man (i.e. the power of the Lord Jesus) with even more force, as we are told for the first time that he had been lame for more than forty years (v. 22).

. Pros tous idious (to their own). The heading for this section (‘Leadership of the new Israel’) is taken from Peterson 2009: 185. Peterson, however, uses this heading with reference to 4:1–22 only. Although these themes run throughout the entire section of Acts 3 – 5, in 4:1–22 the emphasis is more on the (universal) authority of ‘the name of Jesus’. The leadership of the apostles over the new people of God becomes more prominent in 4:23 – 5:42.

. The verb ‘threaten’ (apeileō) is used in 4:17, ‘threaten further’ (prosapeileō) is used in 4:21 and the noun ‘threat’ (apeilē) is used in 4:29. Cf. also 3:23 (‘anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people’), 4:10–11 (‘the stone you builders rejected’) and 4:19 (judge whether it is right ‘to obey you rather than God’).

. This has already been indicated in 4:13 (‘they took note that these men had been with Jesus’), not least because the apostles are quoting the same passage of Scripture (Ps. 118:22) that Jesus quoted to them in Luke 20:17!

. Cf. A. J. Thompson 2008a: 71–74, 89–90 for a comparison of these summary passages in their narrative contexts.

. Note that the selling and giving was ‘from time to time’ (as the imperfect tense in the context of 4:34 indicates), it was distributed to anyone ‘as he had need’ (4:35) and Ananias’ property belonged to him before it was sold, and after it was sold the money was still at his ‘disposal’ (5:4). Thus this is not a ‘community of goods’ (contra Capper 1998: 499–518) but a ‘community of unity’, a unity expressed in concern for the needs of others.

. My tr.

. Note the contrasts between 4:3 and 4:4, 5:18 and 5:19–21, which highlight the unstoppable word.

. The threats against the church throughout Acts 3 – 7 alternate between external opposition (Acts 3 – 4), internal conflict (5:1–11), external opposition (5:12–42), back to internal conflict (6:1–7) and again to external opposition (6:8 – 7:60). In 6:1–7 the apostles demonstrate wise and godly leadership. The interplay between the initiative taken by the apostles in gathering ‘all the disciples’ and proposing a solution (6:2–4), followed by the involvement of ‘the whole group’ in choosing seven men (6:5), and finally the presentation of the chosen helpers to the apostles again who ratified the decision (6:6) is a model of harmonious cooperation. The ‘frame’ of 6:1 and 7 shows not only that God is preserving his people and enabling their growth despite the threat of internal conflict and external opposition, but also that the leadership of the apostles over the people of God is crucial to their continued survival. Furthermore, it is the apostles, rather than the Jewish leadership, who, like Jesus, care for widows as God has commanded (cf. Luke 18:1–8; 20:45 – 21:4; see further in ch. 6). See A. J. Thompson 2008a: 93–96 for discussion concerning the emphasis on the unity of the Christian community in this narrative context and a response to suggestions that Acts 6:1–7 conceals a so-called theological divide between ‘Hellenists’ and ‘Hebrews’.

. Acts 6:7 notes that ‘a large number of priests became obedient to the faith’. These priests are perhaps (like Barnabas in 4:36) contrasted with the priestly (i.e. temple leadership) opposition that has been escalating in Acts 3 – 5.

. Cf. Cunningham 1997: 204.

. Peterson 2009: 241.

. Haenchen 1971: 285; Barrett 1991: 350–352; and Matthews 2010: 69.

. Walton 2004: 138–143; Bock 2007: 302–303.

. Schreiner 2008: 633–634. Schreiner states that Stephen ‘suggested a change in the status of the temple in light of the fulfillment of salvation history with the coming of Jesus but he did not explicitly argue that the law and temple were no longer in force’ (634). This may depend on the force of ‘explicitly’. We will see below that at the conclusion of Stephen’s speech he points to the fulfilment of the temple in Jesus (which therefore ends the need for the temple).

. This telling of Israel’s history by focusing on significant characters to recount God’s dealings with his people is also reflected in Paul’s speech in Acts 13:20–25 and reflects the way Luke himself is recounting the history of the church in Acts as the fulfilment of God’s purposes in Jesus and his people.

. In addition to these references, the patriarchs were earlier ‘jealous’ of Joseph (v. 9), and in vv. 42–43 this pattern (of turning to idols and Egypt and rejecting the pattern given by God to Moses, vv. 39–41) is what led to the exile.

. Tannehill 1990: 91 (my translations, adapted from Tannehill’s observations). Cf. also Luke 18:14.

. The language of stiff-necked (Exod. 33:3, 5; Neh. 9:16–17), uncircumcised hearts and ears (Jer. 6:10; 9:26), resisting the Spirit (Isa. 63:10; cf. also Acts 5:3, 9; though cf. also Acts 6:10!), killers of prophets (Neh. 9:26) and lawbreakers, reflects OT (prophetic) denunciations. Tannehill 1990: 87; Peterson 2009: 264–265.

. Spencer (2004: 91) notes that ‘gnashing of teeth’ recalls the response that Jesus said would come from those excluded from the kingdom (Luke 13:27–28).

. The idea that Stephen ‘yells’ his prayer for forgiveness over ‘yelling’ of the crowd is indicated by the repetition of the verb krazō (cried out) in 7:57 and 60 (‘with a loud voice’). Cf. Bock 1996: 1867–1868 for a discussion of the text-critical issues in Luke 23:34.

. The tables in C. Green 2005: 64–68 helpfully point out what Green calls ‘theological geography’.

. The ‘glory of God’ was associated with Solomon and the priests at the temple dedication (1 Kgs 8:10–13), Isaiah in the temple (Isa. 6:1–3) and Ezekiel in exile (Ezek. 1:4–28; 8:1–4; 10:1–22).

. Ergois tōn cheirōn autōn (‘works of their hands’, v. 41); cheiropoiētois (‘handmade’, v. 48).

. Pao (2000: 195) refers to Isa. 10:11; 16:12; 19:1; 21:9; 31:7; 46:6; Lev. 26:1, 30.

Cf. also Acts 17:24.

. Pao 2000: 195.

. Just as Solomon’s praise to God for the temple notes God’s approval of David’s desire to build a temple (1 Kgs 8:18), so Stephen associates David’s finding favour with God with his request to build a dwelling place for God (Acts 7:46). Furthermore, the quotation from Isa. 66:1–2 concerning God’s uncontainable presence is the same point made by Solomon in his prayer of dedication (1 Kgs 8:27).

. Beale 2004: 217–218. Franklin (1975: 106–107) argues that the contrast between David and Solomon, though not a criticism of the actual building of the temple, is meant to highlight that the promise to David ‘is realized not through the Temple, but through Jesus to whom the temple points’. Beale (2004: 219) notes that the context of Isa. 66 (esp. Isa. 63 – 66) refers to a new creation and the extension of God’s heavenly temple.

. Sleeman (2009: 165–169) highlights the importance of this conclusion to Stephen’s speech and the geographical locations for God’s presence referred to throughout the speech.

. Note again the references to the association of God’s glory with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10–13; Isa. 6:1–3; Ezek. 8:1–4; 10:1–22).

. The term ‘eunuch’ is not used in Deut. 23. Note also that in Acts 8:27 the eunuch ‘had gone to Jerusalem to worship’. His (disappointing) relationship with the temple is in view here.

. Though this has already been indicated in Acts 3:1–10.

. Thus, contra Barrett 1994: 338, it is unlikely that Stephen’s speech contains two different responses to the temple and law (i.e. being critical of the temple but positive towards the law).

Chapter Six: The end of an era: the law is no longer the direct authority for God’s people

. Luke 16:17–18 then shows that the law continues to point to the kingdom (v. 16) but that nevertheless Jesus is now the ‘sovereign interpreter’ of the law (v. 18). For a succinct summary of the role of the law in Luke-Acts see Schreiner 2010: 171–180 (the phrase ‘sovereign interpreter’ is Schreiner’s, 175–176).

. In this sense we are focusing on the role of the law as the authority for how believers must conduct themselves. The phrase ‘direct guiding authority’ is borrowed from Moo’s phrase ‘direct and immediate source of guidance’ (1993: 375 [319–376]).

. Catchpole (1977: 428) used this phrase in his summary of Lukan scholarship on the law. Cf. also the evaluation in Blomberg 1998: 398–399. Some of the following discussion on Luke’s view of the Mosaic law is adapted from A. J. Thompson 2008a: 79–81, 89–104. The focus there was on Luke’s view of the law in the wider literary context of ancient discussions of unity.

. Vielhauer 1966: 33. Vielhauer even claimed that Luke advocates a doctrine of salvation by works (42).

. The essay appears in Jervell 1972: 133–151 (the citation here is from p. 143). Cf. also Jervell’s defence of this view in 1996: 54–61; and 1998: 100–103. Tyson (2001: 140, 142) notes the influence of F. C. Baur (that the Lukan Paul is essentially Jewish in his adherence to the Mosaic law) in the work of John Knox, Gerd Lüdemann, Jervell, Goulder and Barrett. Indeed, Tyson speaks of a ‘Tübingen revival’.

. Representatives of this view are Bruce 1975–6: 282–305; Turner 1982: 99–158; Seifrid 1987: 39–57; Blomberg 1984: 53–80; 1998: 397–416. S. G. Wilson (1983: 58) criticizes several of Jervell’s arguments (see below on Acts 15) yet argues that, on balance, in Acts ‘the criticism of the law is generally implicit and has to be read between the lines, whereas the affirmation of the law is generally explicit’.

. That Paul does not view himself as directly under the law may be seen e.g. in 1 Cor. 9:20–21; Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16; Gal. 2:3–5. That Paul views the law as being able to be ‘fulfilled’ by Christians may be seen e.g. in Rom. 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14; 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21. On ‘fulfilling the law’ in Pauline theology see Westerholm 2004: 433–439 and Moo 1993: 319–376.

. In these same contexts Paul is portrayed in contrast to his accusers who really are lawbreakers. Paul speaks with prophetic judgment against the High Priest for commanding that Paul be struck in violation of the law (23:2–3) and in this same context the chief priests, elders and Sanhedrin are involved in a plot to murder Paul: an obvious violation of the law (23:14–15; cf. also 7:52–53, 57–58).

. A focus merely on the first set of statements that Paul is in agreement with the law and the prophets to the neglect of these clarifications by Paul as to why he is in agreement with the law and the prophets (i.e. he proclaims their fulfilment in Jesus’ resurrection) leads to a more one-sided emphasis on the continuity of the Mosaic law in the recent study of Butticaz (2009: 128).

. The uniqueness of this appointment is indicated by these qualifications and the fact that no replacement was necessary following James’s death in Acts 12.

. Barrett 1994: 254; Fitzmyer 1998: 314; Witherington 1998: 207; Bock 2007: 214–215; Peterson 2009: 205.

. Oude gar endeēs tis ēn en autois (‘there was not a needy person among them’, Acts 4:34); ouk estai en soi endeēs (‘there will be no needy person among you’, Deut. 15:4).

. This is often neglected in studies of Acts 6. C. C. Hill (1992) in his response to Baur has no discussion of widows in his study. Similarly, Conzelmann (1987: 44–46) discusses ‘the disciples’, ‘the twelve’ and ‘the seven’ but not ‘the widows’; Blomberg’s discussions of Acts 6 – 7, in 1984: 63–64 and 1998: 403–404, also have no mention of the widows. Spencer (1994: 715–733) draws attention to the neglect of the widows in this passage. He, however, blames the apostles for their condescending response in comparison to Peter’s treatment of the widows in Acts 9:41 (728–733). For further discussion see A. J. Thompson 2008a: 93–96. In addition to the texts cited above, see Deut. 16:11, 14; Isa. 1:17, 23; 10:2; 47:8; Jer. 5:28 (LXX); 7:6; 22:3; Ezek. 22:7; Mal. 3:5; Zech. 7:10.

. Peterson (2009: 205) notes that the Greek text of Acts 4:34 indicates that this is evidence of the grace of God at work among them with the conjunction gar (for). Thus 4:33–34 should read, ‘much grace was upon them all for there was no needy person among them’ (brought out more clearly in the tniv).

. Contra Fitzmyer 1998: 314, who states that the ideal of Deut. 15 was ‘actually governing the life of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem’.

. Abrogation of aspects of the Mosaic law is hinted at already in the inclusion of the eunuch in Acts 8. As indicated in ch. 3, the demands of Deut. 23:1–4 appear to be overcome in the inclusion of the eunuch as a full member of God’s people in fulfilment of Isa. 56:3–8. Cf. A. J. Thompson 2008a: 96–99.

. Cf. Acts 10:34.

. Jervell 1972: 139–140, 149. Jervell’s argument that the law is not abrogated here because Peter enters the house only after God had cleansed him is countered by Peter’s statement that he would be transgressing Jewish standards (athemiton) after entering the house and that the cleansing took place after the gospel was heard (Acts 15:7–9). Cf. the criticism of Jervell in Turner 1982: 116. Contra Klinghardt 1988: 212–213, who argues that the reference to food is merely symbolic and that the focus is on the Gentiles as not unclean. Salo (1991: 208–210) claims that Luke is deliberately ambiguous.

. Cf. S. G. Wilson 1983: 68–70; Bovon 1970: 22–45, cited by Pao 2000: 236. The emphasis of the passage on the acceptance of and ‘table fellowship’ with Gentiles is seen in 10:45; 11:1, 18; 15:7. Cf. J. T. Sanders 1991: 434–455; contra Jervell 1988: 11–20.

. Spencer 2004: 121.

. It is often suggested that Acts 15 is a ‘Lukan’ view of the events described from a Pauline view in Gal. 2:1–10 (cf. most recently Marguerat 2009: 106–107, 109–110). More persuasive, however, is the view that these accounts refer to two different events addressing different concerns with different settings and that Gal. 2:1–10 fits better with Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:27–30 (Witherington 1998: 440–449; Schnabel 2004, 2: 987–992).

. Contra Butticaz 2009: 120–121, 15:1 indicates that the issue of circumcision here has to do with soteriology, how one is saved, rather than merely social identity. Furthermore, the restatement of the issue in 15:5 indicates that circumcision is mentioned not merely as an ‘identity marker’ but as part of adherence to the law of Moses more broadly.

. As noted earlier, this translation (‘through the grace of the Lord Jesus we believe in order to be saved’) of 15:11 better reflects the structure of the Greek text (pisteuomen sōthēnai) than that of the NIV (‘we believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved’). Nolland 1980–1: 112–113; Tannehill 1990: 185.

. Blomberg 1984: 64; Turner 1982: 118–119; Pao 2000: 239–240. Salo (1991: 237–243) thinks that Acts 15:10 is inconsistent with Luke’s view, expressed in James’s speech. The view of Peter here is consistent with that expressed by Paul in 13:38–39 that ‘it is faith in Christ, not Law, that grants forgiveness of sins’ (Marguerat 2009: 103). Contra Marguerat, however, in view of Rom. 4:4–8, the close association between justification by faith and forgiveness of sins in Acts 13:38–39 is certainly faithful to Paul’s presentation of justification (Marguerat cites only Col. 1:14 and Eph. 1:7 as ‘deutero-Pauline’).

. See ch. 3 regarding James’s reference to Amos, the restoration of Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles.

. Contra Polhill 1992: 331–332, the inclusion of porneia in this list indicates that the requirements are more than just ceremonial laws. The manuscript evidence is against the Western text with its three prohibitions (omitting pniktos) and the addition of the golden rule in its negative form. Cf. Metzger 1994: 379–383.

. Jervell 1972: 144.

. Jervell 1998: 396–398. Cf. also Polhill 1992: 331–332; Bauckham 1995: 459–480; Schnabel 2004, 2: 1016–1018; Pervo 2009: 376–378.

. S. G. Wilson 1983: 84–94.

. Cf. Exod. 23:12; Lev. 16:29; 20:2; 22:10, 18; Num. 15:30; Deut. 16:11, 14; 26:11. Blomberg (1998: 409) cites these references and observes that Deut. 31:12 even implies that ‘the sojourner was expected to obey all the law’. Pao (2000: 241–242) notes that the laws in Lev. 17 – 18 are intended for ‘foreigners living among the Jews in the land of Israel’ and that residence in the land of Israel is obviously not the context of Acts 15. Cf. also Witherington 1998: 464–465.

. Seifrid 1987: 50.

. Blomberg 1998: 408–410. Cf. also Seifrid 1987: 44, 47; Turner 1982: 118–119. Schreiner (2008: 638; 2010: 183–184) also sees the issue here as sensitivity to Jews.

. Blomberg 1998: 408.

. Ibid.

. As many have noted, this term is ‘widely used for official declarations and laws’. L. T. Johnson 1992: 284. Cf. also Witherington 1998: 477; Barrett 1998: 763. Haenchen (1971: 479) notes the similarity to imperial edicts.

. Contra Tyson 2001: 105–124, the transition from Peter to James and the appearance of ‘elders’ together with the apostles is not evidence of underlying conflict. Cf. Bauckham 1995: 427–441.

. Note also that the basis for James’s decision in v. 19 (‘therefore’) appears to be the new salvation-historical situation brought about by the Davidic King and the restoration of the Davidic kingdom (vv. 16–18).

. S. G. Wilson (1983: 107) emphasizes the apostolic authority of the Council. Contra Jervell 1996: 59, who disputes the apostolic authority of the decree in favour of Mosaic authority. Marguerat (2009: 109–112) likewise claims that Mosaic authority is being upheld in the Jerusalem Council (he briefly describes the decree as an ‘apostolic didache legitimated by the Holy Spirit’ [111], but this is overshadowed by his insistence that they are merely mandating Mosaic prescriptions).

. Witherington 1993: 237–254; 1998: 459–467. A view entirely overlooked in the recent discussions of the decree by Marguerat (2009: 109–112) and Butticaz (2009: 124–129), but taken up by Steffeck in the same volume (2009: 133–140).

. Cf. 2 Macc. 6.4–5 (RSV), ‘the temple was filled with debauchery and revelling by the Gentiles, who dallied with harlots and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that were unfit’. Cf. also Mal. 1:7 (LXX), where alisgeō refers to food offered on altars.

. Pao 2000: 242. Epistrephousin epi ton theon (Acts 15:19); epestrepsate pros ton theon (1 Thess. 1:9).

. Ibid. 181–216.

. Thus putting an end to speculation as to whether or not Paul would agree with the supposed imposition of these ‘Mosaic laws’ upon Gentiles.

. In addition to 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, Witherington (1998: 466–467) refers to Rev. 2:14, 22 and the Didache (6:2).

. Contra Butticaz 2009: 128–129, the decree is not discussing cultural customs only. Note that as Peter’s emphasis on salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus has already indicated, it is the requirements for salvation in the message of the gospel that are being debated in this context.

. A view consistent with Stephen’s assessment of Jewish inability to keep the law (Acts 7:53) and also Paul’s assessment in Acts 13:39 and in his letters (Gal. 3:10–11; Rom. 3:19–20; 4:15; 5:20; 7:7–25).

. Contra Marguerat 2009: 111, ‘the Mosaic antiquity of the demands of the decree’ is not affirmed in 15:21.

. I.e. in contrast to the ‘Lev. 17 – 18 view’.

. I.e. in contrast to the ‘ad hoc view’.

. Spencer 2004: 163. Thus in the narrative of Acts a major break does not take place at 15:36, as seen in the ‘missionary journey’ structures of Acts.

. C. Green 2005: 95.

. Contra Jervell 1972: 145. In this sense, of course, this is not a contradiction of Paul’s rejection of Titus’ circumcision in Gal. 2:3–5, which, as a requirement, would have compromised ‘the truth of the gospel’ (2:5). It should also be noted that even in Paul’s letters he did not oppose circumcision in itself. Circumcision was a matter of indifference to Paul: ‘neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value’ (Gal. 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor. 7:19).

. L. T. Johnson 1992: 284.

. Bruce 1990: 352; Witherington 1998: 475–476; Peterson 2009: 450. Witherington correctly observes that the implication here is that the Jews thought Timothy should have been circumcised and therefore he was viewed as Jewish (though apostate) because of his Jewish mother.

. Note the references to Timothy in 17:14–15 and 18:5 in the context of Jewish evangelism. This freedom is also evident in Acts 18:18.

. As noted above (n. 52), this is also the case regarding Paul’s references to circumcision in his letters. That these are false charges recalls the charges against Stephen in 6:11, 13–14.

. It is likely that two actions are involved here. Paul (1) pays for the fulfilment of the Nazaritic vows of the four men and (2) undertakes another ritual of purification, perhaps for those who come from unclean lands. Witherington 1998: 649; Peterson 2009: 586–587.

. Porter 1999: 179. Porter follows Mattill 1970: 115–116. Dunn (1990: 256) states that the Jerusalem church leaders ‘washed their hands of Paul, left him to stew in his own juice’. Bauckham (1995: 478) rightly criticizes the views of Mattill and Dunn by noting the likelihood that James and the church leaders would have had little influence in the situation anyway. Bauckham correctly observes that ‘no doubt the elders recognized that Paul was in some danger in Jerusalem, but their advice was calculated to dispel the danger, not to increase it’.

. Porter (1999: 175), after noting the emphasis on the harmony between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders, then surprisingly states that ‘the narrative does not make it clear that the leaders were convinced that the accusations [of 21:21] were false’.

. Tajra (1989: 63) notes that ‘Luke stresses Paul’s agreement to do exactly what James and the elders suggested’, but does not draw attention to the parallelism of 21:24 and 26. Cf. Porter 1999: 180–182 for a summary of the main views concerning the nature of the purification rites in 21:24, 26.

. In the light of the emphasis on agreement in both Acts 15 and in this context (21:17–20a), this is a more plausible explanation for this reference to the decrees than the idea that Paul was not at the Council (Catchpole 1977: 431) or that it is a source-critical error (Conzelmann 1987: 180–181).

↑ Back to top