-
The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic
COMMENTARY
ONThe Acts
OF THE APOSTLES
By the REV. THOMAS WHITELAW, M.A., D.D.
NEW YORK
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY
LONDON AND TORONTO
1892THE PREACHER’S COMPLETE HOMILETIC
COMMENTARY
ON THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
WITH CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES, INDEXES, ETC., BY VARIOUS AUTHORSTHE
PREACHER’S HOMILETICAL COMMENTARY
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLESINTRODUCTION
WHILE the present volume does not aim at furnishing an elaborate and exhaustive discussion of such topics as are usually included in the department of Introduction, on the following points, as likely to be useful to the student, a few observations may be offered—the title and contents; the integrity and credibility; the author and date; the sources and aim of the Acts.
§ 1. TITLE AND CONTENTS
1. The Title.—Like the name “Gospel,” εὐαγγέλιον, prefixed to the first four Books of the New Testament, that of “The Acts of the Apostles,” πραζεις τῶν�, Acta or Actus Apostolorum—in some MSS. “Acts,” “Acts of all the Apostles,” and “Acts of the Holy Apostles”—though of long standing, is not original, but was added by a later hand. Neither can it be pronounced remarkably appropriate, since the volume to which it is prefixed is mainly occupied with the words and deeds of the two principal apostles, Peter and Paul, and does little more than mention the others—the eleven once (Acts 1:13), Judas (Acts 1:16; Acts 1:25), and Matthias the twelfth (Acts 1:23; Acts 1:26) twice, and John five times (Acts 3:1; Acts 3:11, Acts 4:13, Acts 8:14, Acts 12:2)—while it introduces a variety of persons who were not of apostolic rank, such as Stephen and Philip, Barnabas and Mark, Silas and Timothy. If for the author himself the work had a title, that was probably “The Second Treatise” as distinguished from “The First,” or the Gospel of Luke, which claims to have proceeded from the same pen, and to have been addressed to the same patron, the most excellent Theophilus (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:3).
2. The Contents.—These, as just indicated, concern chiefly the apostolic and missionary activity of Peter and of Paul—of the former in planting and establishing the Christian Church within the bounds of the Holy Land, of the latter in carrying the Gospel into regions beyond. Beginning with what might be styled “The Acts of Peter” (1–12), after a brief account of the appearances of our Lord to the eleven during the forty days which intervened between His resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:1-11), the writing treats in succession of
(1) the election of a twelfth apostle, at Peter’s instigation, to supply the place left vacant by Judas (Acts 1:12-26);
(2) the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, with Peter’s sermon explanatory of the wonderful phenomena that followed thereupon
(2);
(3) the growing acceptance of the New Faith among the inhabitants of Jerusalem consequent upon Peter’s healing of a lame man
(3);
(4) the first symptoms of Jewish Opposition against the Church, shown in the imprisonment of Peter and John
(4);
(5) the first signs of corruption inside the Church, with the strong measures used by Peter for its suppression
(5);(6) the first murmurs of division in the ranks of the disciples, with the means adopted by the Twelve for its removal (Acts 6:1-6); and
(7) the first actual persecution that assailed the Church, which arose in connection with Stephen (Acts 6:8 to Acts 8:3); after which
(8) it traces the forward movement and outward spread of Christianity from Jerusalem as a centre, till first the Gospel is planted in Samaria (Acts 8:4-24), carried north to Damascus
(9), preached in Cæsarea (Acts 8:40; Acts 10:1 to Acts 11:18), and finally established in Antioch (Acts 11:19-22). Then continuing in what with equal fitness may be termed “The Acts of Paul,” it reports how, through the missionary enterprise of that illustrious servant of Jesus Christ whose conversion has been related in the preceding part
(9), the Gospel finds its way now from Antioch as a centre, first through Asia Minor, in Paul’s first missionary journey with Barnabas (Acts 11:13-15); next to the shores of Europe, in a second journey with Silas and a third with Timothy (Acts 11:16-21); and ultimately, through Paul’s imprisonment, reaches Rome, the capital of the world (Acts 11:28).
Though the continuously flowing narrative contains no indications of divisions properly so called, yet various attempts have been made to arrange its material into appropriate sections. Zeller, for example, distributes it into three groups of passages, of which the first (1–5; 12) “treats” of the original apostles and the Jerusalem Church, while the second (6–11, with the exception of Acts 9:1-30) deals with the two Hellenist deacons, Stephen and Philip, and the third (Acts 9:1-30; Acts 13-28) narrates the history of Paul. As this, however, is rather a rearrangement of the contents of the work for study than a natural division of these into sections, a different method of partition is usually adopted. The threefold division, corresponding roughly to the three centres of activity, Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, has found pretty general acceptance, only the dividing lines between the sections are not always drawn by different writers in the same places, Weiss inserting them at Acts 8:4 and Acts 15:33, Schulze at Acts 6:7 and Acts 19:20, and Baumgarten at Acts 8:4 and Acts 12:25. The Rev. J. O. F. Murray, M.A., in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible, p. 71, following our Lord’s words in Acts 1:8, arranges the contents of the Book thus: I. The witness in Jerusalem (1–5). II. The witness in Judæa and Samaria (6–9:31) in three stages:
(1) the dispersion caused by Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 6:8 to Acts 8:3);
(2) the work of Philip (Acts 8:4-40); and
(3) the conversion and early preaching of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1-31). III. The witness unto the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 9:32 to Acts 28:31) again in three sub-divisions:
(1) the opening of the door for world-wide extension of the gospel by the baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10:1 to Acts 11:26),
(2) the activity of the Church at Antioch through its accredited representatives, Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:11-14); and
(3) the independent missionary activity of Paul (Acts 11:15-28). Perhaps, however, the simplest distribution of the material is that already indicated, which divides it into two parts, of which the first (Acts 11:1-12) reports the development of the Church under the leadership of Peter and within the Holy Land, from Jerusalem as a centre, till it reaches Antioch, and the second (Acts 11:13-28) rehearses the story of its progress, through the missionary activity of Paul, outside those limits in Asia Minor and on the shores of Europe, or in other words from Antioch to Rome.
§ 2. INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY
1. The Integrity.—That the Book of Acts is no mere patchwork or mosaic of literary fragments left by a variety of writers and put together by a late editor who flourished at some considerable distance of time from the incidents narrated, but a homogeneous composition, proceeding from one hand, may be said to admit of almost unchallengeable demonstration. In its second part, indeed, occur portions (the “we” passages as they are commonly styled, Acts 16:10-17; Acts 20:5-15; Acts 21:1-18; Acts 27:1 to Acts 28:16) which excite suspicion of diverse authorship; but as the result of investigations conducted by Gersdorf, Credner, and Zeller, it may now be confidently maintained that both portions of the Book—the first in which the writer preserves the third person throughout, and the second in which he occasionally speaks in the first person—have emanated from one mind and been set down by one pen. The actual composer may have utilised pre-existing documents, or such other helps as were available for his purpose; he may even have modified and combined these according to the plan and aim he had in view in the construction of his narrative; but there can be no ground for charging him with having simply set these documents side by side without regard to any particular design. What is signified by asserting the unity and integrity of the work is that such documents as may have been possessed by the author were not inserted unchanged in his pages without respect to any connection between them and the main thread of his history, but were employed by him as sources of information from which to draw materials for his work, so that the work itself could in no sense be regarded as a collection of fragments, but constituted a homogeneous whole. Those who care to understand how completely this character has been vindicated for the Acts will find a thoroughgoing discussion of the question in the Apostelgeschichte of Zeller (pp. 387 ff.), who has conclusively shown not only that the two portions of the Book possess points of resemblance in respect of diction and style, doctrinal contents and method of composition, as well as of forward and backward reference of passages in the different parts to one another, but that the citations commonly adduced as presenting traces of different authorship are totally insufficient to support the thesis for which they are produced. So satisfactorily has the unity of Acts been established that no one now thinks of assailing it on this point. The Acts of the Apostles is admittedly the work of one composer.
2. The Credibility.—
(1) The grounds upon which this has been challenged, though varied, may be reduced to six: (α) the miracles reported in its narrative, which, after the manner of rationalising critics, are ascribed to the mythical tendency of a later age to embellish the historical facts of an earlier generation; (β) the speeches it contains, which, objectors allege, were never delivered as set down, but can only be regarded as having been manufactured by the author; (γ) the artificial structure of its narrative, which shows itself in the parallelisms apparent in the histories of Peter and of Paul; (δ) its author’s defective understanding of the antagonisms of the apostolic age; (ε) the supposed conflict between its statements and those of Paul’s epistles; and (ζ) its remarkable silence about the differences between Paul and the other apostles.
With regard to (α), the miracles reported in the Acts, unless criticism is to start with the presupposition that anything approaching the supernatural in a writing is sufficient to discredit it, these must be held to be, abstractly considered, neither impossible nor incredible; while their authenticity, in each particular instance, must be determined by the marks of truthfulness or its opposite which appear in the document reporting them. But apart from the dogma that “miracles are incredible, if not impossible,” it has never been proved either that the supernatural phenomena incorporated in the Acts are susceptible of natural explanation, or that the parts of Acts which record these phenomena are intrinsically contradictory or untrustworthy; while in almost every instance marks of verisimilitude can be pointed out which justify the reader in accepting both the record and the fact recorded as true.
Concerning (β), the speeches which it is alleged the speakers never spoke, but the author manufactured, it may suffice to answer, that while on the one hand it is not denied that the author may have set down not the ipsissima verba which were uttered, but the substance of what was spoken, and may have frequently done so with more or less of touching up from his own pen, on the other hand it cannot be demonstrated either that he ever drew upon his imaginanation instead of deriving his information from written documents or reliable oral communications (see below on the sources of the Acts), or that he ever deviated by so much as a hair’s breadth from the truth, so as to convey to his readers an impression different from what they would have received had they listened with their own ears to the speech.
In support of the third charge (γ), the artificial structure of the narrative, it is customary to affirm that there is no sort of act or experience ascribed to Peter in the first division of the Acts that has not its counterpart in the second division which relates the history of Paul. “Both epistles begin their miraculous healings with the restoration of a lame-born man (Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8). Peter works miracles through his own shadow (Acts 5:15); Paul through his aprons and napkins (Acts 19:12). Peter’s name is feared by demons (Acts 5:16; Acts 8:7); as afterwards is that of Paul (Acts 16:18; Acts 19:11; Acts 19:15; Acts 28:9). If Peter overcomes Simon Magus (Acts 8:18), so does Paul overthrow Elymas (Acts 13:6) and the Ephesian wizards (Acts 19:13). Miracles of punishment are performed in the above-cited cases by Paul as well as by Peter (Acts 5:1). To awaken the dead is just as possible to the one as to the other (Acts 9:36; Acts 20:9). To Tabitha corresponds Eutychus, as to Æneas (Acts 9:33), Publius’s father (Acts 28:8). Does Cornelius fall down and worship Peter (Acts 10:25)? So is Paul deemed worthy of divine honour at Lystra (Acts 14:11) and Malta (Acts 28:6), which he refuses in almost the same words as Peter.… Is Paul imprisoned and placed before the judgment-seat? The same thing happens first to Peter and John, and afterwards to all the apostles. Has Paul been beaten at Philippi before the two Duumviri? So were the first apostles before the Sanhedrim. Was Paul stoned at Lystra? So was Stephen in Jerusalem. Has an angel delivered Peter from his prison? An earthquake does the same thing for Paul” (Holtzmann, Einleitung, pp. 410, 411). The correspondences are undoubted, but after all they exist in only a few instances, and seldom in any instance in more than a few particulars. Anything like a complete parallel between the histories of Peter and Paul such as the Tübingen critics suggested cannot be made out. “Where,” for instance, “are the parallels to the Pentecostal wonder, to the choice of the Seven, to the sea voyage of Paul, or to his four years’ imprisonment in Cæsarea and Rome?” And “Why,” more particularly, “did the composer forget to set the crown upon his whole presentation [of history] by bringing Peter to Rome and making both apostles die as martyrs in the same persecution?” (Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 415.) The truth is, as the writer just cited remarks, the parallel is almost always accidental (which proves it to have been undesigned), and always breaks down in its most crucial point, as, for example, when attempted to be established between the stoning of Paul at Lystra and the stoning of Stephen in Jerusalem. If the writer wished to make the two correspond, why did he allow Paul to rise up and walk away unhurt after lapidation, when he knew that Stephen lost his life in passing through a similar experience? In short, whatever resemblances exist between the two histories are “not more than might be expected in any age from simple parity of situation and condition” (Sanday, Inspiration, p. 327), and all the rest is, on the part of critics, baseless imagination.
The charge (δ) of not understanding the antagonisms of the apostolic age, which some have pressed against the author of the Acts, is entirely a matter of opinion; and concerning this the judgment of so competent a scholar as Professor Sanday will probably have as much weight as the contrary allegation. “Looking at the matter with such a measure of intelligence as I can command for myself,” writes he, “I should say that the Acts showed, on the whole, a very good understanding of the different opposing forces which brought the history to the point at which the author left it” (Inspiration, p. 321). With this verdict the majority of candid readers will agree. The first conflict which arose within the Church out of the supposed or real neglect of the widows of Hellenistic Jews in favour of those of native-born Palestinians is introduced and explained in a manner which shows the writer to have been in possession of authentic information about the whole dispute; while it is sheer assertion to maintain that the author of the Acts failed to comprehend the controversy which inevitably sprung up and for some time fiercely raged around the question of what terms of communion should be imposed upon Gentile converts. Nor is there ground for contending that the author inadequately grasped Paul’s theological teaching, of which the central doctrine, that of Justification by Faith, is reported by him in the Apostle’s speech at Antioch (Acts 13:38 ff.), and that of the Atonement in the address to the elders at Miletus (Acts 20:28), though even could it be established that he did not thoroughly comprehend the Pauline theology in all its details, that would not prove him to have been incapable of writing authentic history.
As to (ε), the pretended conflict between the statements in Acts and certain other statements in Paul’s Epistles, more is made of this than the actual facts of the case will warrant. When it is urged, for example, that because Paul’s epistles never refer to his second visit to Jerusalem in company with Barnabas (Acts 11:30), or to the apostolic decrees
(15), these cannot have been historical; or that the chronicles in Acts cannot be trustworthy because of not mentioning either Paul’s bodily weakness (1 Corinthians 4:9 ff.; 2 Corinthians 1:8-9; Galatians 4:13-14), or the stake in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7) under which he suffered, or the “deaths oft,” “prisons more abundant,” “three shipwrecks,” and “eight bodily punishments” of which he speaks (2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:23-25), or the journey he made to Arabia (Galatians 1:17), or the dispute he had at Antioch with Peter (Galatians 2:11); any one can perceive that such reasoning is not conclusive, unless it can be shown that a writer is always bound to mention everything he knows; while as for the so-called contradictions between the Acts and Epistles which critics so confidently parade as evidence of the unreliable character of the former, these mostly exist in the imaginations of the critics. The intellect which can discern irreconcilable antagonisms between such statements as that Paul went up to Jerusalem as the messenger of the Church at Antioch (Acts 15:2), and likewise in obedience to divine revelation (Galatians 2:2); that he laid his own personal views about the gospel before a private meeting of the apostles (Galatians 2:2), and afterwards the public question concerning the terms of communion for Gentile converts before a general assembly of the apostles and elders (Acts 15:6; Acts 15:12; Acts 15:23; Acts 15:25); that he refused to circumcise Titus because of the false brethren who wanted to enforce this rite upon all Christians (Galatians 2:3), and afterwards in Lystra circumcised Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess (Acts 16:3), in order (it is believed) to make his ministry more acceptable to the Jews: that when Paul reached Rome the Jews spoke as if Christianity had scarcely been heard of in that city (Acts 28:21-22), whereas the Apostle had years before written that the faith of the Roman Church was spread abroad throughout the whole world (Romans 1:8); the intellect that can see in these propositions irreconcilable antagonisms deserves to be pronounced incapable of reasonable criticism.
The last objection (ζ) the silence of Acts concerning the differences between Paul and the other Apostles, and in particular Peter, is no real difficulty unless, as already explained, on the assumption that a writer is always bound, on pain of losing his reputation for truthfulness, to communicate all he knows. Besides, by the time the Acts was penned, the supposed friction between the two Apostles, if it ever reached the severity suggested by this objection, which there is no reason to believe it did, must have been considerably allayed, so that no good purpose could have been served by recalling it to the remembrance of Christian readers, or even by disturbing the flow of his narrative through the introduction of personalities, which probably both good men regretted, the more especially as the story had already been told to the Church in the Epistle to the Galatians.
(2) The positive evidence in support of the trustworthy character of the Acts is extremely satisfactory.
(α) A considerable portion of the Book—the “we” passages already more than once alluded to—consists of reports from an eyewitness, who, even on the supposition of a late authorship for the whole work, must have been a fellow-traveller of the Apostle in those districts to which his reports refer; while, if the writer of the “we” passages was the actual author of the whole, a presumption arises from his having been a contemporary of Paul’s, that he had access to reliable sources of information for what he wrote. (See below on the sources of the Acts.)
(β) The undesigned coincidences which have been detected between statements in the Acts on the one hand, and statements in the Epistles of Paul on the other, furnish a second testimony to the accuracy of the author of the Acts. For these Paley’s Horæ Paulinœ, Blunt’s Undesigned Coincidences, and Birks’s Horæ Apostolicæ, should be consulted, though the following instances may be studied as illustrations of the sort of evidence that is meant:—
ACTS.
EPISTLES.
Paul’s conversion
Paul’s escape from Damascus
Acts 9:28; Acts 15:2; Acts 20:16; Acts 24:17
Paul’s visits to Jerusalem
Galatians 1:17-18; Galatians 2:1; Romans 15:25-26.
Paul’s stoning at Lystra
Paul’s sufferings at Philippi
Philippians 1:29-30; Philippians 2:1-2; 1 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 3:4.
Paul’s sufferings at Thessalonica
Paul left alone at Athens
1 Thessalonians 2:18; 1 Thessalonians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:6-7.
Paul’s two visits to Corinth
1 Corinthians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 16:5.
Work of Apollos at Corinth
1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 3:6.
The “effectual door” opened at Ephesus
“Fighting with wild beasts” at Ephesus
Alexander the silversmith
Gospel preached in Illyricum
Tychicus known to the Ephesians
Trophimus left at Miletus
Paul a prisoner
(γ) The speeches in the Acts which purport to have been delivered by Peter, Paul, and James, when compared with the Epistles left by these writers, are found to exhibit an agreement with them which could hardly have existed had the speeches been fictitious. Of the correctness of this assertion one may quickly convince himself by means of a concordance. Nor does it accord with fact, as is sometimes asserted, that the characteristics of Luke run through the discourses of Peter and Paul, but on the contrary, by “the general type of their teaching and minute peculiarities of style,” these are most carefully distinguished from Luke’s compositions (Ebrard, The Gospel History, p. 501, E. T.).
(δ) The knowledge now possessed of the countries and age to which Acts refers enables the correctness of its statements to be placed beyond dispute. Not only does the writer show himself accurately informed about the titles of Roman magistrates in the first century, calling Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7) and Gallio (Acts 18:12) proconsuls and governors of senatorial provinces, ἀνθύπατοι, the magistrates of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) politarchs, πολιτάρχαι, those of Philippi (Acts 16:21), prætors, στρατηγοί, and the governor of Melita merely head man, πρῶτος (Acts 28:7), but he can tell that in Asia Minor (Acts 13:50), and indeed throughout the Roman empire (Acts 17:4; Acts 17:12), during the first century women exercised great social influence, that Iconium, though from B.C. 100 to A.D. 100 regarded by the Romans as included in the district of Lycaonia, was by the native population distinguished as belonging to Phrygia (Acts 14:6), and that until towards the close of the first century Christians were never persecuted by the Roman State for being Christians, but only for being disturbers of the peace and (supposed) enemies of social order (Acts 16:7; Acts 24:5-6). (See Ramsay’s The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 37, 38, 67, 68, 194, 195.) Recent archæological discovery also has set its seal on the historical character of such narratives as those of Paul’s three years’ residence in Ephesus (Ibid., 143), and of Paul’s voyage to Rome. In short, notwithstanding the minutest criticism to which this work has been subjected, it may be fairly said that no single instance can be produced in which the writer has erred in a geographical, political, or social allusion. Indeed it has been well said, “A man who could have been so wondrously accurate in his forgeries concerning countries so widely separated, as the writer of the Acts must have been, would have been a greater miracle than the greatest miracle which his pen records” (George T. Stokes, D.D., Recent Discoveries and the Christian Faith; Sunday at Home, August 1889, p. 552).
§ 3. AUTHOR AND DATE
1. The Author.—The following line of thought may aid in arriving at a just conclusion with respect to the personality of the writer from whom Acts emanated.
(1) The writing claims to have proceeded from the pen which composed the Gospel of Luke (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:3); and an examination of the two treatises abundantly confirms this claim. Not only do the two bear a close resemblance to one another in diction, in the use of words and phrases either peculiar to themselves or more frequently occurring in them than in other writings, but the Acts in several instances refers to incidents which are mentioned elsewhere only in Luke—as, e.g., the command not to depart from Jerusalem (Luke 24:29), and the return of the eleven to the city after the Ascension (Luke 24:52), while its catalogue of the Apostles (Acts 1:13) agrees with that of Luke (Acts 6:14-15), rather than with that of Matthew or with that of Mark, in calling Simon the Zealot rather than the Canaanean (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18), and in substituting for Thaddeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18) Judas the son of James. It has also been observed that Stephen’s prayer (Acts 7:59) echoes words of our Lord which have been preserved by the third evangelist alone (Luke 23:34). Hence whatever arguments go to establish Luke’s authorship of the Third Gospel (upon which it is not proposed to enter here) may be reasonably claimed as making for Luke’s authorship of the Acts.
(2) The writing has so manifestly emanated from one composer (see above on the integrity), that, if the author of one portion of it can be agreed upon, that person must be forthwith pronounced responsible for the whole. Now the “we” passages leave no uncertainty upon the mind as to their authorship. They must have proceeded from a travelling companion of the Apostle, who joined him at Troas (Acts 16:10), left him at Philippi (Acts 16:40), was again picked up by him in that city some years after (Acts 20:5-6), and journeyed with him to Jerusalem (Acts 21:17), Cæsarea (Acts 27:1), and Rome (Acts 28:16). Of course the hypothesis is far from being impossible, that a late writer—say about the end of the first or beginning of the second century—having obtained access to these “we” documents, incorporated them in his own narrative without alteration, only it does not appear why so skilful a composer as the author of Acts should not have changed the “we” into “they,” unless it was that he desired his readers to understand that he himself was included in the “we.” In other words, it is hard to resist the inference that the hand which recorded the “we” passages wrote the whole book.
(3) As to who the author of the “we” passages actually was, the best existing evidence points to Luke, the beloved physician who was with Paul in Rome (Colossians 4:14). Claims have been advanced for Timothy, Titus, and Silas, but the considerations favourable to any one of these are outweighed by those which speak for Luke. The way in which the first “we” passage (Acts 16:10) is introduced excludes the supposition that Timothy composed it, while Acts 16:19 does the same for Silas. Again, when “we” reappears (Acts 20:6), Silas is not among Paul’s companions, though Timothy, already excluded, is. As for Titus, who certainly accompanied Paul to the Jerusalem council (Galatians 2:1), no reason exists for believing that he attended Paul and Silas on the second missionary journey, or was ever with Paul in Philippi. So that Luke alone remains as a possible author of the passages in question. It only needs to be added that this conclusion harmonises with the almost unanimous verdict of ecclesiastical tradition.
2. The Date.—The authorship of Luke established, the contention of those who relegate the Acts to the second century will need no refutation. Internal evidence reveals that the work belongs to the first century; and the sole question calling for solution is at what point of time in Luke’s own life it was issued. That it presupposed the existence of Luke’s Gospel is apparent. As, according to some critics, that Gospel could not have been composed till after the destruction of Jerusalem, then the date of the Acts must be looked for after A.D.
70. As, however, no plausible reason for assigning the Gospel to this late date can be found, except the dogmatic assumption that Luke 19:43 could not have been written till after the event, those who still regard prediction in the strict sense of the term as neither impossible, nor incredible may be excused if they demand stronger evidence for setting aside the widely accepted belief that Acts was composed in the lifetime and during the imprisonment (Döllinger, Langen, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Godet, etc.) of Paul, and therefore about A.D. 62. Had Paul been dead when Luke wrote, it is at least likely that some hint would have been dropped that the great missionary had finished his course.
§ 4. SOURCES AND AIM
1. The Sources.—
(1) It is obvious that for the “we” passages Luke would require simply to draw upon his own recollection or notes of the scenes and incidents of which he had been an eyewitness.
(2) Of those portions of Paul’s missionary journeys of which he had not been an eyewitness his information would most likely be derived from the Apostle himself. Whether Paul had prepared such a travel document as Ramsay contends for (The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 6) may be uncertain, though highly probable. It is undeniable that Luke, through long companionship with Paul at Cæsarea and at Rome—two years in each—had ample opportunity for hearing the story over and over again from the Apostle’s lips, while “it is hard to believe that Paul’s letters were unknown to Luke” (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, and the Roman Citizen, p. 16).(3) Nor could he have experienced much difficulty in becoming acquainted with the facts recorded in the earlier Chapter s of his Book, as, while Paul could have told him all about the martyrdom of Stephen, Philip the Evangelist, whom he met at Cæsarea (Acts 21:18), could as readily have informed him about the conversion of Cornelius of Cæsarea
(10), of which he must have often heard, of the conversion of the Eunuch, which was brought about through his own instrumentality (Acts 8:26), and of the preaching in Samaria, which also had been carried on by himself (Acts 8:1-24). About the Pentecostal wonder and the commencement of the Church in Jerusalem, as Luke accompanied Paul to the Jewish metropolis, and without doubt (Acts 21:18) was introduced to James and the elders, it is easy to perceive that he stood in immediate connection with those to whom the history of the first days was perfectly familiar. If amongst these written documents already existed, beyond question Luke would not be denied access to them; if written documents did not exist, Luke would have had no difficulty in preparing them from the oral accounts to which he listened.
NOTE.—With the explanation above given corresponds in some measure that put forth by Friedrich Spitta (Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlicher Wert, 1891), who detects in the Acts “two separate documents—one, A, probably composed by Luke, beginning with the report of the Ascension, in Luke 24:50-53, containing the ‘we’ passages, and concluding with the narrative of Paul’s voyage to Rome; another, B, commencing with the Ascension story in the Acts, and ending with Paul’s discussion with the Jews in Rome; and both put together by an editor, R, who worked still in the first century.” The different characteristics of these documents are thus indicated: “In A the history is authentic, while that in B, which relates the miracles, is manufactured. From A the editor extracted the speeches, but from B the narratives about the miracles. In A the question chiefly is about Paul’s relation to the Jews, whilst his relation to the Gentiles retreats into the background; in B, on the other hand, Paul’s relation to the Gentiles steps to the front, whilst his relation to the Jews retires into the shade. Hence it is in B that signs first appear of the separation of the Jewish Christians from the Law-free Gentile Christians. For R the question is the combination of these two sources. Neither A nor B concluded with the two years’ imprisonment of Paul at Rome, where R stops. This writer had in view the composition of a third essay, a τρίτος λόγος, though he appears never to have carried it out” (A. Hilgenfeld im Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie (1895), 1, pp. 67, 68). Though a good deal of this is fanciful and arbitrary, yet its main idea of “separate documents” may be harmonised with what has been stated above by supposing that A was a record written by Luke of what he had seen and heard, while B consisted in large part of narratives prepared by Paul and others, and that Luke himself was R. (Compare Ramsay’s The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 6–8, 148–168; and St. Paul, the Traveller, etc., pp. 10 ff.).
2. The Aim.—
(1) That Luke’s aim in composing this work was neither, as Grotius imagined, to write a biography of the two principal apostles, nor, as Credner suggested, to prepare a Pauline Church history, may be regarded as self-evident. To neither of these conceptions does the treatise answer.
(2) Still less can the view of Schneckenburger, Zeller, Baur, and their followers be entertained—that it was written for the purpose of conciliating the opposing parties in the early Christian Church (the Petrine or Jewish and the Pauline or Gentile), by showing that, while on the one hand Paul was an orthodox Jew, on the other hand Peter was in full sympathy with Paul’s universalism. In support of this theory, besides pointing to the parallelism (designed, as this theory requires it to have been) between the acts and experiences of Peter and of Paul, it is usual to call attention to the facts that the first Gentile mission was undertaken by Peter, who opened the door of the Church to Cornelius(10), and that Paul, by his constant practice of offering the gospel first to the Jews (Acts 13:16; Acts 14:1; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4), by his frequent journeyings to Jerusalem to keep the feasts (Acts 18:21; Acts 20:16), by his circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3), and by his Nazarite vow (Acts 21:24), showed himself to be deeply and heartily attached to the old Hebrew faith. But while all this is true, it is pure imagination to assert either that such antagonism as is ordinarily depicted by the Tübingen critics raged between the Petrine and Pauline parties among the early Christians—if, indeed, the existence of such parties at all is not a fiction of the critical mind—or that the reconciliation of such parties formed any part of Luke’s object in writing his treatise. If it was, he assuredly took a most unfortunate way to do so, by calling attention so repeatedly and emphatically as he does to the unbelief of the Jews, and by accentuating at the very crises in Paul’s history (Acts 21:20) the jealousy which was felt towards him by his countrymen. Besides, as Weiss pertinently asks, what hope could there have been of gaining over the Paulines by setting up a criterion of the apostolate (Acts 1:21; Acts 10:41) which, in view of the Judaists, would have excluded Paul from it? (A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, ii., pp. 330, 331.) And “How,” inquires Holtzmann, “does it agree with the conciliatory character of the work that exactly that tangible token of brotherly love, the collection, which Paul brought to Jerusalem from his third journey, is scarcely mentioned?” (Einleitung, p. 416.) In short, so inadequately can this theory be made out, that not a few advanced critics are becoming disposed to give it up, like Schenkel, who says: “Having never been able to convince myself of the sheer opposition between Petrinism and Paulinism, it has also never been possible for me to get a credible conception of a reconciliation effected by means of a literature sailing between the contending parties under false colours” (Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., Preface).
(3) A third object with which the writer of the Acts is credited is that of preparing an apology which should make Christianity acceptable to the Roman or Gentile public by representing its distinguished champion as a Roman citizen, who, in the tumult raised against him by the Jews as he passed from city to city preaching Christ, constantly found protection against their violence at the hands of Roman magistrates, and who, ultimately conveyed to Rome by a Roman centurion, carried on in the metropolis the duties of his apostleship under the protection of Roman laws (Schwegler, Schneckenburger, Overbeck). “Everywhere,” says Haweis, “there is a wide sympathy with the Gentiles. The future of the Church is felt to be with them. Luke’s respect for the Roman officials and the Roman government is quite Pauline. Gallio, the Corinthian magistrate, the Ephesian town-clerk, the Roman soldiers, the Roman governors, even Felix and Agrippa, appear to advantage. The Roman police are kind to Paul; the judges are indulgent and conciliatory. One hears him gladly; another wishes to set him at liberty; a third only wants a little bribe, but means no harm to Paul” (The Story of the Four, p. 132). Those who embrace this view of the aim contemplated by the author do not hold the just-recited details of Paul’s history to be historical occurrences, but look upon them as pure invention. This opinion, however, may in just retort be characterised as “vain imagination,” as no ground whatever can be found for challenging either the Roman citizenship of the Apostle or the authenticity of his reported appeal to the Roman tribunal; while, if he enjoyed the protection of Roman officials, this harmonised exactly with the attitude of the Empire to Christianity during the first century (see Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 194).
4. The only tenable account of Luke’s aim is that which is indirectly given by himself (Acts 1:8)—that he wished to show how the apostles, in carrying out their commission to be “witnesses for Christ in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth,” had borne the glad tidings of salvation through a crucified and risen Christ first through the Holy Land as far as to Antioch, and then from Antioch to Rome, the metropolis of the world.
NOTE
The Theology of Paul as set forth in the Acts of the Apostles.IT is frequently asserted that so glaring a contradiction exists between Paul’s theology in the Acts of the Apostles and his theology in the four larger Epistles bearing his name, that if the latter represents Paul’s doctrinal system the former can only be regarded as the free composition of the author of the Acts. A careful examination of the various discourses attributed to Paul in the Acts, however, will show that this allegation is not well founded. These discourses are:
1. That delivered in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:16-41).
2. The address to the Lycaonians (Acts 14:15-17).
3. The exposition given to the Athenians on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-31).
4. The farewell charge to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20:17-35).
5. The defence made to his countrymen from the castle stairs of Antonia in Jerusalem (Acts 22:1-21).
6. The answer before Felix to the charges of Tertullus (Acts 24:10-21).
7. The oration before Agrippa (Acts 26:2-23). And the last words spoken to his countrymen in Rome (Acts 28:23-28). A study of these with the isolated utterances which have been preserved in illustration of his teaching, as, for instance, at Philippi (Acts 16:31), Thessalonica (Acts 17:3), and Corinth (Acts 18:5), shows that the germs at least of the teaching developed in the Epistles may be detected in the Acts.
I. The doctrine of God—Theology proper—which appears in the Acts, represents the Supreme Being:
(1) as a living, personal intelligence, unlike the dumb idols of wood and stone which were worshipped by heathen nations (Acts 14:15; Acts 17:29);
(2) as a spiritual essence, who could neither be confined to temples made with hands (Acts 17:24) nor worshipped by mere external performances (Acts 17:25);
(3) as the Creator of the universe (Acts 14:15), and in particular as the Author of human life (Acts 17:25; Acts 17:28);
(4) as the Lord of providence (Acts 14:16-17; Acts 17:26) and of grace (Acts 17:30; Acts 26:18); and
(5) as the final Judge of mankind (Acts 27:31).
II. The doctrine of Christ—Christology—is equally explicit.
1. The human nature of Jesus is repeatedly and clearly emphasised (Acts 13:23; Acts 13:38; Acts 17:31).
2. So also is His essential Godhead—directly by calling Him God (Acts 20:28), and indirectly by styling Him Lord (Acts 16:31).
3. His Divine Sonship, if not unambiguously stated, is at least suggested (Acts 13:33).
4. His Messiahship is proclaimed in language that admits of no hesitation (Acts 13:27; Acts 17:3; Acts 26:23).
5. His death as an atonement for sin is assuredly implied in such statements as these, that “through this man”—who had been slain for no sin of His own and raised again from the dead—“is preached the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 13:38), and that “the Church of God” (Christ) had been “purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28).
6. His resurrection from the dead is set forth in the clearest light (Acts 13:30; Acts 13:34; Acts 17:31; Acts 26:23).
7. His future advent as the Judge of men is not forgotten (Acts 17:31).
III. The doctrine of man—Anthropology—is also admirably outlined.
1. The heavenly origin of man’s spiritual nature is impressively taught (Acts 17:28-29); as also is
2. The reality of his fallen condition, which, in order to salvation, demands the forgiveness of sins (Acts 13:38).
3. The responsibility of man for his dealing with the Gospel offer (Acts 13:46; Acts 28:19-28); and
4. His ultimate accountability to God (Acts 17:31; Acts 24:25), are likewise plainly set forth.
IV. The doctrine of salvation—Soteriology—finds a place, and that in several particulars.
1. The blessings of which salvation consists are indicated as at least three in number:
(1) forgiveness of sins (Acts 13:38);
(2) sanctification (Acts 20:32; Acts 26:18); and
(3) an inheritance in the great hereafter (Acts 20:32; Acts 26:18),
2. The method by which salvation is imparted is explained to be
(1) by a Divine act of justification, which acquits the sinner, and renders him righteous in the eyes of the law (Acts 13:39);
(2) by an equally Divine work of up building through the word of God or truth of the Gospel (Acts 20:32); and
(3) by a Divine bestowment of heavenly glory when the work of sanctification has been completed (Acts 20:32).
3. The ground on which salvation is bestowed on any is the atoning death of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:39), and not the performance of any ceremonial or moral works whatsoever.
4. The condition of salvation is in every instance faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).
5. The principal source of salvation is grace (Acts 18:27; Acts 20:32).
6. Its world-wide intention is expressly pointed out (Acts 13:46-47; Acts 22:15; Acts 22:21, Acts 26:17; Acts 26:20; Acts 26:23; Acts 28:28).
7. So also is its rejection by some who hear (Acts 28:27).
V. The doctrine of the last things—Eschatology—is not forgotten.
1. The resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust, is repeatedly insisted on (Acts 17:32; Acts 23:6; Acts 24:15; Acts 26:8).
2. The judgment of the last day is lifted into view more than once (Acts 17:31, Acts 24:25).
3. The blessed portion of believers is declared to be eternal life (Acts 13:46), or an inheritance among the sanctified (Acts 20:32; Acts 26:18).
It is impossible to note these several points of doctrine extracted from the Acts without perceiving how completely they harmonise with the fuller statements contained in the Epistles.
CHAPTER 8
THE CHURCH PASSES BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF JUDÆA—MOVING TOWARDS THE GENTILES§
1. The Fires of Persecution rekindled; or, Evil overruled for Good (Acts 7:1-4).
§
2. Philip the Deacon in Samaria; or, the Gospel spreading (Acts 7:5-8).
§
3. The Accession of Simon Magus; or, the Reception of a doubtful convert (Acts 7:9-13).
§
4. The Mission of Peter and John; or, the Confirmation of the Saints (Acts 7:14-17; Acts 7:25?).
§
5. The Two Simons; or, the Detection of a Hypocrite (Acts 7:18-24).
§
6. The Conversion of the Eunuch; or, the Gospel carried into Ethiopia (Acts 7:26-40).