Text -- Acts 23:1-10 (NET)

23:1 Paul looked directly at the council and said, “Brothers, I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God to this day.” 23:2 At that the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 23:3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit there judging me according to the law, and in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” 23:4 Those standing near him said, “Do you dare insult God’s high priest?” 23:5 Paul replied, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.’” 23:6 Then when Paul noticed that part of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, he shouted out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead!” 23:7 When he said this, an argument began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 23:8 (For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) 23:9 There was a great commotion, and some experts in the law from the party of the Pharisees stood up and protested strongly, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 23:10 When the argument became so great the commanding officer feared that they would tear Paul to pieces, he ordered the detachment to go down, take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Act 23:1

Looking steadfastly ( atenisas ).

See note on this word Act 1:10; note on Act 3:12; Act 6:15; Act 7:55; Act 13:9. Paul may have had weak eyes, but probably the earnest gaze was to see if he recognized any faces that were in the body that tried Stephen and to which he apparently once belonged.

Robertson: Act 23:1

I have lived before God ( pepoliteumai tōi theōi ).

Perfect middle indicative of politeuō , old verb to manage affairs of city (polis ) or state, to be a citizen, behave as a citizen. In the N.T. only here and Phi 1:27. The idea of citizenship was Greek and Roman, not Jewish. "He had lived as God’ s citizen, as a member of God’ s commonwealth"(Rackham). God (theōi ) is the dative of personal interest. As God looked at it and in his relation to God.

Robertson: Act 23:1

In all good conscience unto this day ( pasēi suneidēsei agathēi achri tautēs tēs hēmeras ).

This claim seems to lack tact, but for brevity’ s sake Paul sums up a whole speech in it. He may have said much more than Luke here reports along the line of his speech the day before, but Paul did not make this claim without consideration. It appears to contradict his confession as the chief of sinners (1Ti 1:13-16). But that depends on one’ s interpretation of "good conscience."The word suneidēsis is literally "joint-knowledge"in Greek, Latin ( conscientia ) and English "conscience"from the Latin. It is a late word from sunoida , to know together, common in O.T., Apocrypha, Philo, Plutarch, New Testament, Stoics, ecclesiastical writers. In itself the word simply means consciousness of one’ s own thoughts (Heb 10:2), or of one’ s own self, then consciousness of the distinction between right and wrong (Rom 2:15) with approval or disapproval. But the conscience is not an infallible guide and acts according to the light that it has (1Co 8:7, 1Co 8:10; 1Pe 2:19). The conscience can be contaminated (Heb 10:22, evil ponērās ). All this and more must be borne in mind in trying to understand Paul’ s description of his motives as a persecutor. Alleviation of his guilt comes thereby, but not removal of guilt as he himself felt (1Ti 1:13-16). He means to say to the Sanhedrin that he persecuted Christians as a conscientious (though mistaken) Jew (Pharisee) just as he followed his conscience in turning from Judaism to Christianity. It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no "apologies"(in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God’ s commonwealth. He had the consolation of a good conscience (1Pe 3:16). The word does not occur in the Gospels and chiefly in Paul’ s Epistles, but we see it at work in Joh 8:9 (the interpolation 7:53-8:11).

Robertson: Act 23:2

Ananias ( Hananias ).

Not the one in Luk 3:2; Joh 18:13; Act 4:7, but the son of Nebedaeus, nominated high priest by Herod, King of Chalcis, a.d. 48 and till a.d. 59. He was called to Rome a.d. 52 to answer "a charge of rapine and cruelty made against him by the Samaritans, but honourably acquitted"(Page). Though high priest, he was a man of bad character.

Robertson: Act 23:2

Them that stood by him ( tois parestōsin autōi ).

Dative case of second perfect participle of paristēmi , to place, and intransitive. See the same form in Act 23:4 (paresttes ).

Robertson: Act 23:2

To smite him on the mouth ( tuptein autou to stoma ).

See Luk 12:45 and Luk 18:13. Cf. the treatment of Jesus (Joh 18:22). Ananias was provoked by Paul’ s self-assertion while on trial before his judges. "The act was illegal and peculiarly offensive to a Jew at the hands of a Jew"(Knowling). More self-control might have served Paul better. Smiting the mouth or cheek is a peculiarly irritating offence and one not uncommon among the Jews and this fact gives point to the command of Jesus to turn the other check (Luk 6:29 where tuptō is also used).

Robertson: Act 23:3

Thou whited wall ( toiche kekoniamene ).

Perfect passive participle of koniaō (from konia , dust or lime). The same word used in Mat 23:27 for "whited sepulchres"(taphoi kekoniamenoi ) which see. It is a picturesque way of calling Ananias a hypocrite, undoubtedly true, but not a particularly tactful thing for a prisoner to say to his judge, not to say Jewish high priest. Besides, Paul had hurled back at him the word tuptein (smite) in his command, putting it first in the sentence (tuptein se mellei ho theos ) in strong emphasis. Clearly Paul felt that he, not Ananias, was living as a good citizen in God’ s commonwealth.

Robertson: Act 23:3

And sittest thou to judge me? ( Kai su kathēi krinōn mė )

Literally, "And thou (being what thou art) art sitting (kathēi , second person singular middle of kathēmai , late form for kathēsai , the uncontracted form) judging me."Cf. Luk 22:30. Kai su at the beginning of a question expresses indignation.

Robertson: Act 23:3

Contrary to the law ( paranomōn ).

Present active participle of paranomeō , old verb to act contrary to the law, here alone in the N.T., "acting contrary to the law."

Robertson: Act 23:4

Of God ( tou theou ).

As God’ s representative in spite of his bad character (Deu 17:8.). Here was a charge of irreverence, to say the least. The office called for respect.

Robertson: Act 23:5

I wist not ( ouk ēidein ).

Second past perfect of oida used as an imperfect. The Greek naturally means that Paul did not know that it was the high priest who gave the order to smite his mouth. If this view is taken, several things may be said by way of explanation. The high priest may not have had on his official dress as the meeting was called hurriedly by Lysias. Paul had been away so long that he may not have known Ananias on sight. And then Paul may have had poor eyesight or the high priest may not have been sitting in the official seat. Another way of explaining it is to say that Paul was so indignant, even angry, at the command that he spoke without considering who it was that gave the order. The Greek allows this idea also. At any rate Paul at once recognizes the justice of the point made against him. He had been guilty of irreverence against the office of high priest as the passage from Exo 22:18 (lxx) shows and confesses his fault, but the rebuke was deserved. Jesus did not threaten (1Pe 2:23) when smitten on the cheek (Joh 18:22), but he did protest against the act and did not turn the other cheek.

Robertson: Act 23:6

But when Paul perceived ( gnous de ho Paulos ).

Perceiving (second aorist ingressive of ginōskō ). Paul quickly saw that his cause was ruined before the Sanhedrin by his unwitting attack on the high priest. It was impossible to get a fair hearing. Hence, Vincent says, "Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other."So Alford argues with the motto "divide and conquer."Farrar condemns Paul and takes Act 24:21 as a confession of error here, but that is reading into Paul’ s word about the resurrection more than he says. Page considers Luke’ s report meagre and unsatisfactory. Rackham thinks that the trial was already started and that Paul repeated part of his speech of the day before when "the Sadducees received his words with ostentatious scepticism and ridicule: this provoked counter-expressions of sympathy and credulity among the Pharisees."But all this is inference. We do not have to adopt the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means in order to see shrewdness and hard sense in what Paul said and did. Paul knew, of course, that the Sanhedrin was nearly evenly divided between Pharisees and Sadducees, for he himself had been a Pharisee.

Robertson: Act 23:6

I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees ( Egō Pharisaiōos eimi huios Pharisaiōn ).

This was strictly true as we know from his Epistles (Phi 3:5).

Robertson: Act 23:6

Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question ( peri elpidos kai anastaseōs nekrōn krinomai ).

This was true also and this is the point that Paul mentions in Act 24:21. His failure to mention again the fact that he was a Pharisee throws no discredit on Luke’ s report here. The chief point of difference between Pharisees and Sadducees was precisely this matter of the resurrection. And this was Paul’ s cardinal doctrine as a Christian minister. It was this fact that convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah and was "the very centre of his faith"(Page) and of his preaching. It was not a mere trick for Paul to proclaim this fact here and so divide the Sanhedrin. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees held aloof when the Sadducees persecuted Peter and the other apostles for preaching resurrection in the case of Jesus and even Gamaliel threw cold water on the effort to punish them for it (Act 5:34-39). So then Paul was really recurring to the original cleavage on this point and was able to score a point against the Sadducees as Gamaliel, his great teacher, had done before him. Besides, "Paul and Pharisaism seem to us such opposite ideas that we often forget that to Paul Christianity was the natural development of Judaism"(Page). Paul shows this in Galatians 3; Romans 9-11.

Robertson: Act 23:7

When he had so said ( touto autou lalountos ).

Genitive absolute of present participle (Westcott and Hort) rather than aorist (eipontos ). While he was saying this.

Robertson: Act 23:7

A dissension ( stasis ).

This old word for standing or station (Heb 9:8) from histēmi , to place, we have seen already to mean insurrection (Act 19:40 which see). Here it is strife as in Act 15:2.

Robertson: Act 23:7

Was divided ( eschisthē ).

See note on Act 14:4.

Robertson: Act 23:8

There is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit ( mē einai anastasin mēte aggelon mēte pneuma ).

Infinitive with negative mē in indirect assertion. These points constitute the chief doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Robertson: Act 23:8

Both ( amphotera ).

Here used though three items of belief are mentioned as in Act 19:16 where the seven sons of Sceva are thus described. This idiom is common enough in papyri and Byzantine Greek (Robertson, Grammar , p. 745).

Robertson: Act 23:9

Strove ( diemachonto ).

Imperfect middle of diamachomai , old Attic verb, to fight it out (between, back and forth, fiercely). Here only in the N.T. It was a lively scrap and Luke pictures it as going on. The Pharisees definitely take Paul’ s side.

Robertson: Act 23:9

And what if a spirit hath spoken to him or an angel? ( ei de pneuma elalēsen autōi ē aggeloṡ ).

This is aposiopesis, not uncommon in the N.T., as in Luk 13:9; Joh 6:62 (Robertson, Grammar , p. 1203). See one also in Exo 32:32.

Robertson: Act 23:10

When there arose a great dissension ( pollēs tēs ginomenēs staseōs ).

Present middle participle (genitive absolute). Literally, "dissension becoming much."

Robertson: Act 23:10

Lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them ( mē diaspasthēi ho Paulos ).

First aorist passive subjunctive of diaspaō , to draw in two, to tear in pieces, old verb, in the N.T. only here and Mar 5:4 of tearing chains in two. The subjunctive with mē is the common construction after a verb of fearing (Robertson, Grammar , p. 995).

Robertson: Act 23:10

The soldiers ( to strateuma ).

The army, the band of soldiers and so in Act 23:27.

Robertson: Act 23:10

To go down ( kataban ).

Second aorist active participle of katabainō , having gone down.

Robertson: Act 23:10

Take him by force ( harpasai ).

To seize. The soldiers were to seize and save Paul from the midst of (ek mesou ) the rabbis or preachers (in their rage to get at each other). Paul was more of a puzzle to Lysias now than ever.

Vincent: Act 23:1

Earnestly beholding

See on Luk 4:20. Some, who hold that Paul's eyesight was defective, explain this steadfast look in connection with his imperfect vision.

Vincent: Act 23:1

Men and brethren

He addresses the Sanhedrim as an equal.

Vincent: Act 23:1

I have lived ( πεπολίτευμαι )

Lit., have lived as a citizen , with special reference to the charge against him that he taught men against the law and the temple. He means that he has lived as a true and loyal Jew.

Vincent: Act 23:1

Conscience ( συνειδήσει )

See on 1Pe 3:16.

Vincent: Act 23:2

Ananias

He is described as a revengeful and rapacious tyrant. We are told that he reduced the inferior priests almost to starvation by defrauding them of their tithes, and sent his creatures to the threshing-floors with bludgeons to seize the tithes by force.

Vincent: Act 23:3

Shall smite thee ( τύπτειν σε μέλλει )

More strictly, is about to smite. The words are not an imprecation, but a prophecy of punishment for his violent dealing. According to Josephus, in the attack of the Sicarii upon Jerusalem, he was dragged from his hiding-place, in a sewer of the palace, and murdered by assassins.

Vincent: Act 23:3

Thou whited wall

Compare Mat 23:27.

Vincent: Act 23:3

Contrary to the law ( παρανομῶν )

A verb. Lit., transgressing the law.

Vincent: Act 23:4

Revilest ( λοιδορεῖς )

The word signifies vehement abuse, scolding, berating.

Vincent: Act 23:6

The one part were Sadducees, etc

Perceiving the impossibility of getting a fair hearing, Paul, with great tact, seeks to bring the two parties of the council into collision with each other.

Vincent: Act 23:6

The resurrection

A main point of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees, the latter of whom denied the doctrine of the resurrection, of a future state, and of any spiritual existence apart from the body.

Vincent: Act 23:8

Both

Showing that two classes of doctrines peculiar to the Sadducees, and not three, are meant: 1. The resurrection. 2. The existence of spirits, whether angels or souls of men; " neither angel nor spirit."

Vincent: Act 23:9

Strove

The diversion was successful. The Pharisees' hatred of the Sadducees was greater than their hatred of Christianity.

Vincent: Act 23:9

What if a spirit, etc

Neither the A. V. nor Rev. give the precise form of this expression. The words form a broken sentence, followed by a significant silence, which leaves the hearers to supply the omission for themselves: " But if a spirit or angel has spoken to him ..." The words which the A. V. supplies to complete the sentence, let us not fight against God, are spurious, borrowed from Act 5:39.

Wesley: Act 23:1

Professing a clear conscience by his very countenance; and likewise waiting to see whether any of them was minded to ask him any question, said, I have lived in all good conscience before God till this day - He speaks chiefly of the time since he became a Christian. For none questioned him concerning what he had been before. And yet even in his unconverted state, although he was in an error, yet he had acted from conscience, before God - Whatever men may think or say of me.

Wesley: Act 23:3

Being carried away by a sudden and prophetic impulse. God is about to smite thee, thou whited wall - Fair without; full of dirt and rubbish within. And he might well be so termed, not only as he committed this outrage, while gravely sitting on the tribunal of justice but also as, at the same time that he stood high in the esteem of the citizens, he cruelly defrauded the priests of their legal subsistence, so that some of them even perished for want. And God did remarkably smite him; for about five years after this, his house being reduced to ashes, in a tumult begun by his own son, he was besieged in the royal palace; where having hid himself in an old aqueduct, he was dragged out and miserably slain.

Wesley: Act 23:5

He seems to mean, I did not advert to it, in the prophetic transport of my mind: but he does not add, that his not adverting to it proceeded from the power of the Spirit coming upon him; as knowing they were not able to bear it. This answer admirably shows the situation of mind he was then in, partly with regard to the bystanders, whom he thus softens, adding also the title of brethren, and justifying their reproof by the prohibition of Moses; partly with regard to himself, who, after that singular transport subsided, was again under the direction of the general command. Exo 22:28.

Wesley: Act 23:6

So he was in effect; although not formally, or explicitly.

Wesley: Act 23:8

Both the resurrection, and the existence of angels and separate spirits.

Wesley: Act 23:9

Every sect contains both learned and unlearned. The former used to be the mouth of the party.

Wesley: Act 23:9

St. Paul in his speech from the stairs had affirmed, that Jesus, whom they knew to have been dead, was alive, and that he had spoken to him from heaven, and again in a vision. So they add nothing, only they construe it in their own way, putting an angel or spirit for Jesus.

JFB: Act 23:1

With a look of conscious integrity and unfaltering courage, perhaps also recognizing some of his early fellow pupils.

JFB: Act 23:1

The word has an indirect reference to the "polity" or "commonwealth of Israel," of which he would signify that he had been, and was to that hour, an honest and God-fearing member.

JFB: Act 23:2

A method of silencing a speaker common in the East to this day [HACKET]. But for a judge thus to treat a prisoner on his "trial," for merely prefacing his defense by a protestation of his integrity, was infamous.

JFB: Act 23:3-4

As indeed He did; for he was killed by an assassin during the Jewish war [JOSEPHUS, Wars of the Jews, 2.17.9].

JFB: Act 23:3-4

That is, hypocrite (Mat 23:27). This epithet, however correctly describing the man, must not be defended as addressed to a judge, though the remonstrance which follows--"for sittest thou," &c.--ought to have put him to shame.

JFB: Act 23:5

All sorts of explanations of this have been given. The high priesthood was in a state of great confusion and constant change at this time (as appears from JOSEPHUS), and the apostle's long absence from Jerusalem, and perhaps the manner in which he was habited or the seat he occupied, with other circumstances to us unknown, may account for such a speech. But if he was thrown off his guard by an insult which touched him to the quick, "what can surpass the grace with which he recovered his self-possession, and the frankness with which he acknowledged his error? If his conduct in yielding to the momentary impulse was not that of Christ Himself under a similar provocation (Joh 18:22-23), certainly the manner in which he atoned for his fault was Christ-like" [HACKET].

JFB: Act 23:6-9

From the discussion which plainly had by this time arisen between the parties.

JFB: Act 23:6-9

Raising his voice above both parties.

JFB: Act 23:6-9

The true reading seems to be, "the son of Pharisees," that is, belonging to a family who from father to son had long been such.

JFB: Act 23:6-9

That is, not the vague hope of immortality, but the definite expectation of the resurrection.

JFB: Act 23:6-9

By this adroit stroke, Paul engages the whole Pharisaic section of the council in his favor; the doctrine of a resurrection being common to both, though they would totally differ in their application of it. This was, of course, quite warrantable, and the more so as it was already evident that no impartiality in trying his cause was to be looked for from such an assembly.

JFB: Act 23:8

(See on Luk 20:37).

JFB: Act 23:8

As to those startling things which he brings to our ears.

JFB: Act 23:8

Referring, perhaps, to his trance in the temple, of which he had told them (Act 22:17). They put this favorable construction upon his proceedings for no other reason than that they had found him one of their own party. They care not to inquire into the truth of what he alleged, over and above their opinions, but only to explain it away as something not worth raising a noise about. (The following words, "Let us not fight against God," seem not to belong to the original text, and perhaps are from Act 5:39. In this case, either the meaning is, "If he has had some divine communication, what of that?" or, the conclusion of the sentence may have been drowned in the hubbub, which Act 23:10 shows to have been intense).

JFB: Act 23:10

This shows that the commandant was not himself present, and further, that instead of the Sanhedrim trying the cause, the proceedings quickly consisted in the one party attempting to seize the prisoner, and the other to protect him.

Clarke: Act 23:1

I have lived in all good conscience - Some people seem to have been unnecessarily stumbled with this expression. What does the apostle mean by it? Why, that, while he was a Jew, he was one from principle of conscience; that what he did, while he continued Jew, he did from the same principle; that, when God opened his eyes to see the nature of Christianity, he became a Christian, because God persuaded his conscience that it was right for him to become one; that, in a word, he was sincere through the whole course of his religious life, and his conduct had borne the most unequivocal proofs of it. The apostle means, therefore, that there was no part of his life in which he acted as a dishonest or hypocritical man; and that he was now as fully determined to maintain his profession of Christianity as he ever was to maintain that of Judaism, previously to his acquaintance with the Christian religion.

Clarke: Act 23:2

The high priest, Ananias - There was a high priest of this name, who was sent a prisoner to Rome by Quadratus, governor of Syria, to give an account of the part he took in the quarrel between the Jews and the Samaritans; see Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 6, s. 8; but whether he ever returned again to Jerusalem, says Dr. Lightfoot, is uncertain; still more uncertain whether he was ever restored to the office of high priest; and most uncertain of all whether he filled the chair when Paul pleaded his cause, which was some years after Felix was settled in the government. But Krebs has proved that this very Ananias, on being examined at Rome, was found innocent, returned to Jerusalem, and was restored to the high priesthood; see Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. cap. 9, s. 2; but of his death I find nothing certain. See Krebs on this place, (Observat. in Nov. Testament. e Flavio Josepho), who successfully controverts the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, mentioned at the beginning of this note. There was one Ananias, who is said to have perished in a tumult raised by his own son about five years after this time; see Jos. Antiq. lib. x. cap. 9. War, lib. ii. cap. 17

Clarke: Act 23:2

To smite him on the mouth - Because he professed to have a good conscience, while believing on Jesus Christ, and propagating his doctrine.

Clarke: Act 23:3

God shall smite thee, thou whited wall - Thou hypocrite! who sittest on the seat of judgment, pretending to hear and seriously weigh the defense of an accused person, who must in justice and equity be presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty; and, instead of acting according to the law, commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law, which always has the person of the prisoner under its protection; nor ever suffers any penalty to be inflicted but what is prescribed as the just punishment for the offense. As if he had said: "Thinkest thou that God will suffer such an insult on his laws, on justice, and on humanity, to pass unpunished?"

Clarke: Act 23:5

I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest - After all the learned labor that has been spent on this subject, the simple meaning appears plainly to be this: -

St. Paul did not know that Ananias was high priest; he had been long absent from Jerusalem; political changes were frequent; the high priesthood was no longer in succession, and was frequently bought and sold; the Romans put down one high priest, and raised up another, as political reasons dictated. As the person of Ananias might have been wholly unknown to him, as the hearing was very sudden, and there was scarcely any time to consult the formalities of justice, it seems very probable that St. Paul, if he ever had known the person of Ananias, had forgotten him; and as, in a council or meeting of this kind, the presence of the high priest was not indispensably necessary, he did not know that the person who presided was not the sagan , or high priest’ s deputy, or some other person put in the seat for the time being. I therefore understand the words above in their most obvious and literal sense. He knew not who the person was, and God’ s Spirit suddenly led him to denounce the Divine displeasure against him

Clarke: Act 23:5

Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people - If I had known he was the high priest, I should not have publicly pronounced this execration; for respect is due to his person for the sake of his office. I do not see that Paul intimates that he had done any thing through inadvertence; nor does he here confess any fault; he states two facts: -

1.    That he did not know him to be the high priest

2.    That such a one, or any ruler of the people, should be reverenced. But he neither recalled or made an apology for his words: he had not committed a trespass, and he did not acknowledge one. We must beware how we attribute either to him in the case before us.

Clarke: Act 23:6

I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee - Instead of Φαρισαιου, of a Pharisee, ABC, some others, with the Syriac and Vulgate, have Φαρισαιων, of the Pharisees; which, if acknowledged to be the genuine reading, would alter the sense thus, I am a Pharisee, and a disciple of the Pharisees, for so the word son is frequently understood

Clarke: Act 23:6

Of the hope and resurrection - Concerning the hope of the resurrection, the και, and, being here redundant; indeed, it is omitted by the Syriac, all the Arabic, and Ethiopic. St. Paul had preached the resurrection of the dead, on the foundation and evidence of the resurrection of Christ. For this, he and the apostles were, some time before, imprisoned by the high priest and elders, Act 4:1-3; Act 5:17, because they preached, Through Jesus, the resurrection of the dead. This they could not bear; for, if Jesus Christ rose from the dead, their malice and wickedness, in putting him to death, were incontrovertibly established.

Clarke: Act 23:7

And the multitude was divided - St. Paul, perceiving the assembly to consist of Sadducees and Pharisees, and finding he was not to expect any justice, thought it best thus to divide the council, by introducing a question on which the Pharisees and Sadducees were at issue. He did so; and the Pharisees immediately espoused his side of the question, because in opposition to the Sadducees, whom they abhorred, as irreligious men.

Clarke: Act 23:8

The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection - It is strange, since these denied a future state, that they observed the ordinances of the law; for they also believed the five books of Moses to be a revelation from God: yet they had nothing in view but temporal good; and they understood the promises in the law as referring to these things alone. In order, therefore, to procure them, they watched, fasted, prayed, etc., and all this they did that they might obtain happiness in the present life. See the account of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Mat 3:7; Mat 16:1.

Clarke: Act 23:9

The scribes - arose, and strove - Διεμαχοντο, They contended forcibly - they came to an open rupture with the Sadducees; and, in order to support their own party against them, they even admitted as truth, St. Paul’ s account of his miraculous conversion, and therefore they said, if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, etc. He had previously mentioned that Jesus Christ had appeared to him, when on his way to Damascus; and, though they might not be ready to admit the doctrine of Christ’ s resurrection, yet they could, consistently with their own principles, allow that the soul of Christ might appear to him; and they immediately caught at this, as furnishing a strong proof against the doctrine of the Sadducees, who neither believed in angel nor spirit, while the Pharisees confessed both

Clarke: Act 23:9

Let us not fight against God - These words are wanting in ABCE, several others, with the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, later Syriac, Vulgate, and some of the fathers.

Clarke: Act 23:10

The chief captain - commanded the soldiers to go down - It appears that the chief captain was present during these transactions, and that he had a body of soldiers in readiness in the castle of Antonia; and it was from this that he commanded them to come down; for the rescue and preservation of Paul.

Calvin: Act 23:1

1.Looking earnestly Paul beginneth with the testimony of a good conscience, that all the whole multitude may understand that he is unjustly charged with such an heinous offense, as if he had gone about to overthrow the worship of God. It may be, indeed, that a man may offend of ignorance, who will not otherwise be a contemner either of God or of religion; but Paul meant at the first, only with this excuse, to mollify their nettled minds, that he might the better be heard; for it had been in vain for him to have defended himself, so long as that opinion did stick in the minds of the priests, that he was a wicked revolt, [apostate]. Therefore, before he enter the cause, he excuseth himself of that crime, not only that he may purchase favor by that desire which he had to live godlily, but also that he may prevent false accusations, or at least that he may refute unjust prejudices which might have made against him, wherewith he saw the whole multitude infected and corrupted. We know not what he meant to say besides. Notwithstanding, this preface teacheth that no man can rightly handle the doctrine of godliness, unless the fear of God reign and bear the chief sway in him. And now, though he give not the priests so honorable a title here as he did a little before, when he stood upon the steps of the fortress, yet he calleth them brethren, giving them that honor, not because they deserve it, but that he may testify that he is not the cause of the breach of friendship. −

Calvin: Act 23:2

2.And the chief priest Luke’s narration seemeth not to agree with the usual history; for Josephus writeth thus concerning the high priests of that time, that Quadratus, deputy [proconsul] of Syria, deposing Cumanus from the government of Judea, commanded him to answer for himself before Caesar, and sent Ananias, the highest priest, bound with him, into whose place who was chosen he maketh no mention, saving that it is likely that Jonathas had the honor given him, who, as he reporteth, was afterward slain by the subtilty and treachery of Felix, deputy [prefect] of Judea, who succeeded Cumanus; for when he had oftentimes told Felix part of his mind, and he could not away with the constancy of the man, he made a compact with one Doras, that he should privily convey in murderers to slay him. Then, as the same Josephus doth witness, king Agrippa made Ismael, the son of Phebeus, priest. But when he was sent by the people to Rome about a certain suit, and was kept there by Popea, wife to Nero, Agrippa putteth in his place one Josephus, whose name was Chabus, the son of Simon. But immediately being also weary of him, he appointeth Ananus, the son of Ananus, to be high priest. −

Furthermore, he saith that this last thing happened at such time as, after the death of Festus, Albinus did succeed him. And I see not why some call this Ananus Ananias. That hath indeed some color, in that he is called a Pharisee; also in that it is said that he was bold and stout, who, without any lawful authority, caused James, the Lord’s brother, to be stoned. But if we give credence to Josephus, he could not be that Ananias of whom mention is made in this place by Luke, who was then made priest, when many years were past and gone, after that Felix departed out of the province. −

I have another conjecture in my head. For there flourished during all that time one Ananias, an high priest, who, excepting the title of honor, was almost chief in the order. And because Josephus leaveth some void time between Ananias and Ismael, it may be that this man had the room of the highest priest in the meantime. − ⁵²² But though this were not so, it appeareth out of Josephus, that Ananias, who died when the city was besieged, was, in the reign of Claudius Caesar and Nero, equal in dignity with the chief priests which were then. −

Yea, his authority is so highly extolled, as if he had the chief government, howsoever other men did bear the ensigns of honor. Again, he is called αρχιερευς confusedly, − ⁵²³ as those who were the highest priests. Now, let the readers ponder and consider, whether the word αρχιερευς doth not rather signify in this place chief than highest, as it doth in many other places. For the Evangelists do everywhere call the priests who were of the course of Aaron αρχιερεις, that they may distinguish them from the Levites, who had a more inferior degree of priesthood. Moreover, it may be that that Ananias, who was counted stout and courageous, did supply the high priest’s room in his absence. Those things which we have recited out of Josephus are recorded partly in the Twentieth Book of Antiquities, from the third chapter until the eight; partly in the Second Book of the Wars of the Jews. −

He commanded him to be smitten We see that there was in this assembly great distemperature. For whereas the high priest was in such rage, that he commanded Paul to be smitten for nothing, he did it undoubtedly with the consent of all the rest; yea, to the end he might win the favor of mad men. The Lord doth suffer the wicked to be so carried away by Satan, that they fall from all show of equity and temperance. For hypocrites would fain bear some show of moderation; and undoubtedly this high priest went about to pretend such gravity as did beseem his person. But the Lord did pluck this visure [mask] from his face, so that there was not found in him so much as the modesty of a mean man, but he poured out his furious force like a beast. −

In the mean season, we see what horrible and filthy disorder there was at that day in the Church. Ananias, who was the chief of the council, whereas he ought to have stayed others by his gravity, forgetting all modesty, he enforceth them unto violence and savageness. Therefore they had at that day no regard of discipline, but there remained among them confused barbarism. And no marvel, for they had estranged themselves from God; they had most reproachfully rejected Christ; all their religion was set to sale. Therefore it was meet that they should run headlong into furious madness, which might be loathsome even among profane men, that they might be punished in their own shame for their ungodliness. −

Calvin: Act 23:3

3.God shall smite thee Paul cannot put up that injury, but he must, at least, with sharp words reprehend the high priest, − ⁵²⁴ and denounce God’s vengeance unto him. For it is no curse, as appeareth sufficiently by the Greek text, but rather a reprehension, joined with the denouncing of a punishment. If any man object, that Paul did not use that modesty which Christ commandeth his to use, when he commandeth them after they have received a blow on the left cheek to turn the right cheek also, ( Mat 5:39) we may readily answer, that Christ doth not in these words require silence, whereby the wickedness and frowardness of the wicked may be nourished; but he doth only bridle their minds, that they may not take that injury, which they have already received, impatiently. Christ will have those that be his to be ready to suffer another injury after that they have already received one; and by this means he represseth all desire of revenge. This is a brief and true definition of patience which beseemeth all the faithful, that they break not out into wrathfulness, that they do not one evil turn for another; but that they overcome evil with goodness. But this is no let but that they may complain of those injuries which they have suffered, but that they may reprove the wicked, and cite them to the judgment-seat of God; so they do this with quiet and calm minds; and, secondly, without evil will and hatred; as Paul appealeth, in this place, unto God’s judgment-seat, that the high priest may not flatter himself in his tyranny. Therefore he accuseth him, because he breaketh the law, from which (as he pretendeth) he hath his authority; whence he gathereth, that he shall not escape unpunished. −

If any man, being overcome with impatience, do but murmur, he shall not be blameless. But a manifest and sharp accusation, if it proceed from a quiet mind, doth not pass the bounds set down by Christ. If any man say that it is mixed with railing, I answer, that we must always mark with what affection the words be uttered. Christ pronounceth that man to be worthy to be punished by the council who shall only say to his brother raca; and as for him who shall say thou fool, he maketh him subject to a more heavy judgment ( Mat 5:22). But if opportunity be offered to reprove, we must oftentimes reprehend sharply. Whereby it appeareth, that this only was Christ’s drift to keep back his, first, from all indignation, secondly, from speaking anything in despite − ⁵²⁵ of any man. Therefore, let us beware of railing, and then we may not only note in our brethren foolishness, but also it shall be lawful for us to express their offenses by their names when need shall be. So Paul did not speak for his own sake, that he might, with sharp words, requite the injury done to him by the high priest; but because he was a minister of the word of God, he would not wink at an offense which did deserve sharp and serious reprehension; especially seeing it was profitable to bring to light the gross hypocrisy of Ananias. Therefore, so often as we have any dealings with the wicked, if we be desirous to handle a good cause well, we must beware that there break out in us no motion of anger, that no desire of revenge provoke us to break out into railing. But if the spirit of meekness reign in us, we may handle the wicked according to their deserts, as it were out of the mouth of God; yet so that it may appear that we be rather prophets, than that we blunder out anything rashly through immoderate heat. −

Calvin: Act 23:4

4.Those which stood by said By this it appeareth that they were all sick of one disease. − ⁵²⁶ For why do they not rather blame Ananias, when they saw that he had quite forgotten all modesty, and that he brake out into violence and stripes after a barbarous manner? for even this did turn to the reproach of them all. − ⁵²⁷ But this is a solemn [marked] thing among hypocrites, they look narrowly into other men’s faults and wink at their own. Again, this pride is coupled with tyranny, so that their subjects, and those who are under them, may do nothing, but as for themselves, they may do whatsoever they will. So fareth it at this day in Popery, the more liberty that impure clergy doth grant to itself, and the more carelessly it waxeth wanton, and polluteth the whole world with the sins which flow thence, the more straitly do they rule and stay the tongues of the people. Therefore, if any man dare be so bold as once to whisper, a little liberty doth cause them to make outrageous outcries as it were heinous sacrilege. −

Calvin: Act 23:5

5.I knew not, brethren Those who think that this excuse of Paul hath in it no figure, do not well mark the contrary objections wherewith their error is refuted. They say that Paul knew not the high priest, because he had been absent long time; as if he were ignorant that he was chief priest, who is the chief in the council, and hath the uppermost room. Neither was Ananias so base and obscure that Paul was ignorant of his degree. But his words cut off all occasion of disputation, when as he chideth him, because, occupying the place of a judge, under color of the law, he doth, in his rage, that which is contrary to law. Therefore Paul knew what place he had, when he said that he abused his power. Other some invent a more subtle answer, that he spake not here of the mail, but of the office and public person. But, first, the exposition is far fet, [fetched] because, if Paul did reverence the priesthood, he must needs have given some honor to the man which had the same. And now it is not to be thought (forasmuch as the majesty of the priesthood was abolished by the coming of Christ, and that there followed such filthy profanation) that Paul did honor those as he was wont, (as if their perfect and lawful authority did continue) who, under the title of the high priests, did reign as lords without any law or right. −

Therefore, subscribing to Augustine, I do not doubt but that this is a taunting excuse. Neither doth that any whit hinder, because plain speech becometh the ministers of the word. For seeing there be two sorts of ironies, one which is covered with subtilty and means to deceive, another which doth so figuratively note out the thing which is in hand, that it doth prick sorer; in this second, there is nothing which doth not well beseem the servants of Christ. Therefore, this is the meaning of the words, Brethren, I acknowledge nothing in this man which belongeth to the priest. Also, he added a testimony of the 22^nd chapter of Exodus, ( Exo 22:28) in which place, though Moses speak of judges, yet the sentence is extended properly unto any lawful order. Therefore all dignity, which is appointed for maintenance of civil government, ought to be reverenced and had in honor. For whosoever he be that rebelleth against or resisteth the magistrate, or those who are appointed to rule, and are promoted unto honor, he would have no government. − ⁵²⁸ And such desire tendeth to the disturbing of order. Yea, it shaketh and overthroweth all humanity. Therefore Paul purgeth himself of this crime; yet so, that he denieth that Ananias is to be counted a priest of God, who hath corrupted and perverted all the order of the Church. −

But here riseth a question, whether we ought not to obey a ruler, though he exercise tyranny? For if that man be not to be deprived of honor which executeth his office amiss, Paul offended in robbing the high priest of his honor. Therefore I answer, that there is some difference between civil magistrates and the prelates of the Church. For though the exploiting [administration] of earthly or civil rule be confused or perverse, yet the Lord will have men to continue still in subjection. But when the spiritual government doth degenerate, the consciences of the godly are at liberty, and set free from obeying unjust authority; especially if the wicked and profane enemies of holiness do falsely pretend the title of priesthood to overthrow the doctrine of salvation, and challenge to themselves such authority, as that they will be thereby equal with God. So it is not only lawful for the faithful at this day to shake off from their shoulders the Pope’s yoke, but they must do it of necessity, seeing they cannot obey his laws unless they forsake God.

Calvin: Act 23:6

6.And when Paul knew The policy − ⁵²⁹ of Paul, whereof Luke maketh mention, doth seem not to beseem the servant of Christ. For the subtilty which he used was inwrapped in dissimulation, which was not far from a lie. He saith that the state of his cause did consist in the resurrection of the dead: but we know that the strife arose about other matters: because he disannulled the ceremonies, because he admitted the Gentiles into the covenant of salvation. I answer, that though these things be true, yet did not he lie. For he doth neither deny that he was accused of other matters, neither doth this make the whole controversy to consist in one point; but he saith truly that the Sadducees were therefore offended with him, because he did hold the resurrection of the dead. He knew that those who had conspired together against him were enemies also one to another. − ⁵³⁰ He knew that his own conscience was clear; and it had been an easy matter for him to prove his cause good before just judges. Yet because he seeth them cry out on him clamorously, and that he had no place granted to defend himself, he setteth his enemies together by the ears. Whereby it doth also appear, that they were carried away through ignorance and blind zeal. Therefore we must note that Paul did so begin, as that he was desirous truly and plainly to unfold the whole matter; and that he did not craftily refuse to make a pure and sound confession, such as, the servants of Christ ought to make; but because the way was stopt before him, neither could he be heard, he used the last remedy, − ⁵³¹ to declare that his adversaries were carried headlong with blind hatred. For the end doth show, that those are not guided with reason or judgment, who are carried out of the way by mutual discord. −

Now, if any man, which darkeneth the light of doctrine, excuse his craft, by the example of Paul, he is easily refuted. For it is one thing for a man to provide for himself alone with the loss of truth, and another to lead the professed enemies of Christ from resisting him, that they may strive among themselves. −

Furthermore, we see the nature of the wicked, though they disagree among themselves like enemies, yet when they are to make war against the gospel, they forget their own garboils [strifes]. For Satan, the father of discord, doth procure this one consent only among his, that they may be of one mind and of one affection, to extinguish godliness. So we see that the factions which are in Popery hot, − ⁵³² are quiet only so long as they join hand in hand to oppress the gospel. For which cause, the disciples of Christ must be more courageous to foster and nourish truth, that, being joined together, they may the better resist. Also, we gather by this what manner of peace the Scripture commendeth unto us. Christ saith that the peace-makers are the children of God, ( Mat 5:9) and this is true, that they must do what they can to bring all men that they may grow together − ⁵³³ under the Lord. Yet this doth not hinder but that we may, (fighting under the banner of the same Lord) as it were, with the sound of the trumpet, stir up the wicked, that they may, like Midianites, one slay another, ( Jud 7:22) so that both simplicity of zeal, and the wisdom of the Spirit, direct us hither. −

One part were Sadducees We see here again, as in a glass, how deformed and confused the ruin of the Church was at that day. Faith is the soul of the Church; nothing is more proper to faith than agreement, nothing more contrary than sects. And this thing must needs follow, when every man (setting aside the word of God) did draw his disciples unto his own inventions. For there is no other holy bond of unity than the natural and plain − ⁵³⁴ truth of God. So soon as men depart from that, no marvel if they be dispersed and drawn hither and thither like members pulled asunder. −

Therefore, the beginning of sects among the Jews was the corruption of the law; like as the Lord did revenge the profanation of his word, which was corrupt with diverse inventions of men, with like punishment in Popery. Wherefore, we must the more fear, lest horrible and more lamentable scatterings hang over our heads than was that which was in time of Popery, whereof there appear some tokens. And no marvel, seeing we provoke the Lord to wrath so many ways with our unthankfulness. But though the face of the Church be blotted and blurred with many spots and blots; and what manner of deformity soever fall out hereafter, let us comfort ourselves with this, that as God was careful then to deliver the Church wonderfully from destruction, so through his grace there shall always some seed continue. It cannot be, indeed, but that godly minds will somewhat despair, when they see things so far out of order; but let us learn straightway to hold up that buckler, that the Lord, who, in such a thick mist of errors, in such a heap of superstitions, in the unbridled licentiousness of sects, did preserve his Church among the Jews, will never suffer the same to be quite put out wholly in the world. −

The same thing did likewise happen in Popery. For when as the worship of God was overthrown there, the doctrine of salvation was oppressed, the kingdom of Christ was thrown down, and ungodliness did openly reign, yet God did save certain hidden remnants, and there was always some wheat in the chaff. It is very profitable to confer these examples together. When as we inveigh at this day against Popery, the hired patrons thereof cry out on the other side, that nothing is more absurd than that we should imagine that the Church of God was extinguished during many ages, as if we did imagine that God had no people left, when those had forsaken him who ought to have maintained his pure worship. Yea, we complain that those tyrants did corrupt the Church, that the temple was by them profaned, so that it did not greatly differ from an hog’s-sty, that the flock of Christ was scattered abroad, and his sheepfold broken down. Finally, that the Church was hidden from the eyes of men, yet so that the Lord knew his elect, though they were dispersed, and did brood them under his wings. And by this it appeareth how foolishly the Papists brag and boast of the titles of honor, in that not the common sort, or any private men, but the priests themselves did in times past divide the Jewish church by deadly dissension. −

Wherefore, there is no cause why we should be afraid stoutly to resist the pride of the Pope and of all his adherents, with whom we have the same combat which the prophets and apostles had with the priests of their time. And as the reverence of the Church did not keep back holy men, but that they did molest the tyranny of the wicked priests, so we must not be terrified with vain visures, [masks] under which the Papists do vainly boast, seeing they have, notwithstanding, cast from them the doctrine of godliness. It is certain that the people were then divided into three sects; but Luke doth only make mention of the Pharisees and Sadducees, omitting the Essenes, because it was most fit for his purpose thus to do. And though this be the common opinion concerning their names, that the former took their name of separating, because they withdrew themselves from the company of other men, by reason of their reigned holiness; and that the second sort took their name of righteousness, as if they were called zeduchim; notwithstanding, for mine own part, as I have said elsewhere, I am rather of their mind who say that the Pharisees took their name of interpreting. For phrus signifieth exposition, whereupon also interpreters are called phruschim; and we know that the Pharisees, being not content with the natural doctrine of the law and prophets, did put in many inventions which they said they received − ⁵³⁵ of the fathers. −

Calvin: Act 23:8

8.The Sadducees say Though Luke maketh mention of three points wherein these sects did dissent, yet shortly after he bringeth − ⁵³⁶ them to two, because there is like respect to be had of spirits and of angels. Therefore, he saith that the Pharisees did confess both; to wit, that the dead shall rise again, and that human and angelical spirits are immortal. And here Luke declareth in what sense the apostle professed himself to be a Pharisee, not because he did subscribe to all their inventions, but only in the resurrection of the dead. We know how sharply Christ reproveth their errors, ( Mat 22:29) therefore, it had been good that some exception had been added, − ⁵³⁷ lest any man might think that Paul was one with them in all things. Now, though the Sadducees did deny the resurrection, yet may we not think that they were altogether like to the Epicures, [Epicureans]. For they did confess that the world is governed by the providence of God, and that every man is rewarded for his works. In this point they were sounder than the Epicures, [Epicureans]. But they did dote too grossly, when they included the rewards of righteousness and the punishments of wickedness in this life. For that I may omit the Scripture, experience doth teach, that as well the godly as the ungodly are either punished with many miseries, or else gently − ⁵³⁸ dealt withal; and that the wicked do oftentimes live in wealth and pleasures, when as the worshippers of God are oftentimes miserably tormented; as it is Psa 73:4. Therefore, whosoever esteemeth the judgment of God by the present estate of men, whether it be good or bad, he must needs fall away from faith at length unto Epicurish contempt of God. −

Now, this is beastly blockishness to rest in an uncertain and transitory life, and not to be wise above − ⁵³⁹ the earth. For which cause we must flee from that error as from a detestable monster. For though godliness have the promises of the earthly life also, yet because we be most miserable if our hope stay still in this world, the children of God must begin with this, that they may lift up their eyes toward heaven, and think continually upon the glory of the last resurrection. −

Neither angel nor spirit This place is expounded two manner of ways. − ⁵⁴⁰ Many refer it unto the Holy Ghost, which seemeth to be unlikely. For howsoever the Sadducees be to be holden excused in other errors, yet because the Scripture doth so often repeat the name of the Spirit, I will scarce believe that they denied that which the Pharisees believed only lightly and obscurely. For even these men had no distinct faith concerning the Holy Spirit, that they did acknowledge the proper person of the Spirit in the substance of God. − ⁵⁴¹ Some will have angel and spirit to signify one thing, − ⁵⁴² as if one thing were spoken twice. But to what end was it to repeat a thing which was plain enough? I warrant you, that member which followeth did deceive them, where Luke seemeth to make no distinction. But we showed the reason before; because, seeing the souls of men and angels are of one and the same nature and substance, they be both placed in one order. Therefore, I do not doubt but that this is Luke’s true meaning, that the Sadducees did deny angels, and also all manner of spirits. −

Now, forasmuch as Paul crieth that he is a Pharisee in this point of doctrine, he doth flatly condemn all brain-sick fellows, who at this day are in the same error. For there be certain profane and unlearned men who dream that angels and devils are nothing else but good and evil inspirations; and lest they want some color, they say that all that came from the heathen which the Scripture hath concerning good and evil angels, whereas that opinion which was common in the world had his [its] beginning from the heavenly doctrine. But the heathen did with their lies pollute that doctrine which they had from the Fathers. As touching men’s souls, because even at this day certain miscreants do feign that the souls do vanish away in death until the day of the resurrection, their madness is likewise refuted by the testimony of Luke. −

Calvin: Act 23:9

9.There was a great cry That sedition whereof Luke spake a little before is more plainly expressed in this place; to wit, that they were not only of diverse opinions, but did strive clamorously with outcries. Wherefore, ςασις doth signify somewhat more than dissension. Furthermore, this place doth teach what mischief disagreements bring with them. For because they take their beginning for the most part of ambition, men proceed thence unto contention, and straightway stubbornness breaketh out. When they be come thither, because there is no place left either for judgment or moderation, they can no longer judge of the cause. Those who did detest Paul begin at a sudden to defend him. It was well done, if they had done it with judgment. But because they inveigh against the Sadducees, they are so inflamed with hatred against them, that they be blind in Paul’s matter. For which cause we must beware of heat of contention, which disturbeth all things. −

If the Spirit This ought undoubtedly to be expounded of the Holy Ghost. And nothing could be spoken either more godly or modestly. For so soon as it is apparent that any doctrine is revealed from heaven, those do wickedly resist God who do not receive the same. But how is it that the scribes do so suddenly count Paul a prophet of God whom they were once ready to have murdered — whom they had condemned with their prejudice until the contention arose? − ⁵⁴³ Furthermore, as they did cut their own throats with these words as with a sword, so God would have them to be to us teachers to instruct us, that we despise not the oracles which come from heaven. Notwithstanding, we see again that those stand in doubt who take not good heed, and are not careful to mark the word of God; and that they waver so often as any thing is brought to light, because they be unworthy to understand the certain truth. Wherefore, if we be desirous to have our studies governed by the spirit of discretion, let us apply ourselves to learn.

Calvin: Act 23:10

10. We see again what a cruel mischief contention is, which so soon as it doth once wax hot, hath such violent motions, that even most wise men are not well in their wits. Therefore, so soon as any beginning shall show itself, let us study to prevent it in time, lest the remedy be too late in bridling it when it is in the middle, because no fire is so swift as it. As for the chief captain, as he was appointed to be the minister of God’s providence to save Paul’s life, so he delivereth him now the second time by his soldiers from death. For though the chief captain defend − ⁵⁴⁴ him so diligently, for no other purpose save only that he may prevent uproars and murder; yet the Lord, who from heaven provided and appointed help for his servant, doth direct his blind hands thither. −

Defender: Act 23:2

This Ananias, of course, was not the same high priest as at the time of Christ, thirty years before. This priest was a political appointee, notoriously corrupt and cruel, destined soon for assassination by his Jewish countrymen when they rebelled against Rome only a few years hence."

Defender: Act 23:3

Paul had not even been formally charged with any offense, let alone tried and found guilty."

Defender: Act 23:5

Paul had been away from Jerusalem for many years, and could not have known Ananias by sight (Exo 22:28)."

Defender: Act 23:8

The sect of the Sadducees professed to be orthodox Jews, believing in the Mosaic laws, but were actually materialists believing in neither bodily nor spiritual resurrection. Nevertheless, they were more powerful politically than the more Biblically oriented Pharisees.

Defender: Act 23:8

Paul himself was a convinced Pharisee (Phi 3:4, Phi 3:5), and still had deep respect for the law (Rom 7:12), though he knew and preached that salvation was altogether by grace (Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21)."

TSK: Act 23:1

earnestly : Act 23:6, Act 6:15, Act 22:5; Pro 28:1

Men : Act 22:1

I have : Act 24:16; 1Co 4:4; 2Co 1:12, 2Co 4:2; 2Ti 1:3; Heb 13:18; 1Pe 3:16

TSK: Act 23:2

Ananias : Act 24:1

to smite : 1Ki 22:24; Jer 20:2; Mic 5:1; Mat 26:67; Joh 18:22

TSK: Act 23:3

God : God did smite him in a remarkable manner; for about five years after this, after his house had been reduced to ashes, in a tumult raised by his own son, he was besieged and taken in the royal palace; where having attempted in vain to hide himself, he was dragged out and slain.

thou whited : Mat 23:27, Mat 23:28

for : Lev 19:35; Psa 58:1, Psa 58:2, Psa 82:1, Psa 82:2, Psa 94:20; Ecc 3:16; Amo 5:7; Mic 3:8-11

smitten : Deu 25:1, Deu 25:2; Joh 7:51, Joh 18:24

TSK: Act 23:5

I wist : Soon after the holding of the first council at Jerusalem, Ananias, son of Nebedenus, was deprived of the high priest’ s office, for certain acts of violence, and sent to Rome, whence he was afterwards released, and returned to Jerusalem. Between the death of Jonathan, who succeeded him and was murdered by Felix, and the high priesthood of Ismael, who was invested with that office by Agrippa, an interval elapsed in which this dignity was vacant. This was the precise time when Paul was apprehended; and the Sanhedrin being destitute of a president, Ananias undertook to discharge the office. It is probable that Paul was ignorant of this circumstance. Act 24:17

Thou : Exo 22:28; Ecc 10:20; 2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:8, Jud 1:9

TSK: Act 23:6

Paul : Mat 10:16

I am : Act 26:5; Phi 3:5

of the hope : Act 24:15, Act 24:21, Act 26:6-8, Act 28:20

TSK: Act 23:7

there : Act 14:4; Psa 55:9; Mat 10:34; Joh 7:40-43

TSK: Act 23:8

Act 4:1; Mat 22:23; Mar 12:18; Luk 20:27

TSK: Act 23:9

We : Act 25:25, Act 26:31; 1Sa 24:17; Pro 16:7; Luk 23:4, Luk 23:14, Luk 23:15, Luk 23:22

if : Act 23:8, Act 9:4, Act 22:7, Act 22:17, Act 22:18, Act 26:14-19, Act 27:23; Joh 12:29

let : Act 5:39, Act 11:17; 1Co 10:22

TSK: Act 23:10

fearing : Act 23:27, Act 19:28-31, Act 21:30-36; Psa 7:2, Psa 50:22; Mic 3:3; Jam 1:19, Jam 3:14-18; Jam 4:1, Jam 4:2

to take : Act 22:24

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Act 23:1

And Paul, earnestly beholding - ἀτενίσας atenisas . Fixing his eyes intently on the council. The word denotes "a fixed and earnest gazing; a close observation."See Luk 4:20. Compare the notes on Act 3:4. Paul would naturally look with a keen and attentive observation on the council. He was arraigned before them, and he would naturally observe the appearance, and endeavor to ascertain the character of his judges. Besides, it was by this council that he had been formerly commissioned to persecute the Christians, Act 9:1-2. He had not seen them since that commission was given. He would naturally, therefore, regard them with an attentive eye. The result shows, also, that he looked at them to see what was the character of the men there assembled, and what was the proportion of Pharisees and Sadducees, Act 23:6.

The council - Greek: the Sanhedrin, Act 22:30. It was the great council, composed of seventy elders, to whom was entrusted the affairs of the nation. See the notes on Mat 1:4.

Men and brethren - Greek: "Men, brethren"; the usual form of beginning an address among the Jews. See Act 2:29. He addressed them still as his brethren.

I have lived in all good conscience - I have conducted myself so as to maintain a good conscience. I have done what I believed to be right. This was a bold declaration, after the tumult, and charges, and accusations of the previous day Acts 22; and yet it was strictly true. His persecutions of the Christians had been conducted conscientiously, Act 26:9, "I verily thought with myself,"says he, "that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth."Of his conscientiousness and fidelity in their service they could bear witness. Of his conscientiousness since, he could make a similar declaration. He doubtless meant to say that as he had been conscientious in persecution, so he had been in his conversion and in his subsequent course. And as they knew that his former life had been with a good conscience, they ought to presume that he had maintained the same character still. This was a remarkably bold appeal to be made by an accused man, and it shows the strong consciousness which Paul had of his innocence. What would have been the drift of his discourse in proving this we can only Conjecture. He was interrupted Act 23:2; but there can be no doubt that he would have pursued such a course of argument as would tend to establish his innocence.

Before God - Greek: to God - τῷ Θεῷ tō Theō . He had lived to God, or with reference to his commands, so as to keep a conscience pure in his sight. The same principle of conduct he states more at length in Act 24:16; "And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men."

Until this day - Including the time before his conversion to Christianity, and after. In both conditions he was conscientious; in one, conscientious in persecution and error, though he deemed it to be right; in the other, conscientious in the truth. The mere fact that a man is conscientious does not prove that he is right or innocent. See the note on Joh 16:2.

Barnes: Act 23:2

And the high priest Ananias - This Ananias was doubtless the son of Nebedinus (Josephus, Antiq. , book 20, chapter 5, section 3), who was high priest when Quadratus, who preceded Felix, was president of Syria. He was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus, at the same time with Ananias, the prefect of the temple, that they might give an account of their conduct to Claudius Caesar (Josephus, Antiq. , book 20, chapter 6, section 2). But in consequence of the intercession of Agrippa the younger, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. Ananias, however, was not restored to the office of high priest. For, when Felix was governor of Judea, this office was filled by Jonathan, who succeeded Ananias I (Josephus, Antiq. , book 20, chapter 10). Jonathan was slain in the temple itself, by the instigation of Felix, by assassins who had been hired for the purpose. This murder is thus described by Josephus ( Antiq. , book 20, chapter 8, section 5): "Felix bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest complaints should be made against him, since he had procured of Caesar the appointment of Felix as procurator of Judea. Accordingly, Felix contrived a method by which he might get rid of Jonathan, whose admonitions had become troublesome to him. Felix persuaded one of Jonathan’ s most faithful friends, of the name Doras, to bring the robbers upon him, and to put him to death."

This was done in Jerusalem. The robbers came into the city as if to worship God, and with daggers, which they had concealed under their garments, they put him to death. After the death of Jonathan, the office of high priest remained vacant until King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the son of Fabi, to the office (Josephus, Antiq. , book 20, chapter 8, section 8). It was during this interval, while the office of high priest was vacant, that the events which are here recorded took place. Ananias was then at Jerusalem; and as the office of high priest was vacant, and as he was the last person who had borne the office, it was natural that he should discharge, probably by common consent, its duties, so far, at least, as to preside in the Sanhedrin. Of these facts Paul would be doubtless apprised; and hence, what he said Act 23:5 was strictly true, and is one of the evidences that Luke’ s history accords precisely with the special circumstances which then existed. When Luke here calls Ananias "the high priest,"he evidently intends not to affirm that he was actually such, but to use the word, as the Jews did, as applicable to one who had been in that office, and who, on that occasion, when the office was vacant, performed its duties.

To smite him on the mouth - To stop him from speaking; to express their indignation at what he had said. The anger of Ananias was aroused because Paul affirmed that all he had done had been with a good conscience. Their feelings had been excited to the utmost; they regarded him as certainly guilty; they regarded him as an apostate; and they could not bear it that he, with such coolness and firmness, declared that all his conduct had been under the direction of a good conscience. The injustice of the command of Ananias is apparent to all. A similar instance of violence occurred on the trial of the Saviour, Joh 18:22.

Barnes: Act 23:3

God shall smite thee - God shall punish thee. God is just; and he will not suffer such a manifest violation of all the laws of a fair trial to pass unavenged. This was a remarkably bold and fearless declaration. Paul was surrounded by enemies. They were seeking his life. He must have known that such declarations would only excite their wrath and make them more thirsty for his blood. That he could thus address the president of the council was not only strongly characteristic of the man, but was also a strong proof that he was conscious of innocence, and that justice was on his side. This expression of Paul, "God shall smite thee,"is not to be regarded in the light of an imprecatio, or as an expression of angry feeling, but of a prediction, or of a strong conviction on the mind of Paul that a man so hypocritical and unjust as Ananias was could not escape the vengeance of God. Ananias was slain, with Hezekiah his brother, during the agitation that occurred in Jerusalem when the robbers, or Sicarii, under their leader, Manahem, had taken possession of the city. He attempted to conceal himself in an aqueduct, but was drawn forth and killed. See Josephus, Jewish Wars , book 2, chapter 17, section 8. Thus, Paul’ s prediction was fulfilled.

Thou whited wall - This is evidently a proverbial expression, meaning thou hypocrite. His hypocrisy consisted in the fact that while he pretended to sit there to do justice, he commanded the accused to be smitten in direct violation of the Law, thus showing that his character was not what he professed it to be, but that of one determined to carry the purposes of his party and of his own feelings. Our Saviour used a similar expression to describe the hypocritical character of the Pharisees Mat 23:27, when he compares them to whited sepulchres. A whited wall is a wall or enclosure that is covered with lime or gypsum, and that thus appears to be different from what it is, and thus aptly describes the hypocrite. Seneca (De Providentia, chapter 6) uses a similar figure to describe hypocrites: "They are sordid, base, and like their walls adorned only externally."See also Seneca, Epis. 115.

For sittest thou ... - The Law required that justice should be done, and in order to that, it gave every man an opportunity of defending himself. See the note, Joh 7:51. Compare Pro 18:13; Lev 19:15-16; Exo 23:1-2; Deu 19:15, Deu 19:18.

To judge me after the law - As a judge, to hear and decide the case according to the rules of the Law of Moses.

Contrary to the law - In violation of the Law of Moses Lev 19:35, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment."

Barnes: Act 23:4

Revilest thou ... - Dost thou reproach or abuse the high priest of God? is remarkable that they, who knew that he was not the high priest, should have offered this language. He was, however, in the place of the high priest, and they might have pretended that respect was due to the office.

Barnes: Act 23:5

Then said Paul, I wist not - I know not; I was ignorant of the fact that he was high priest. Interpreters have been greatly divided on the meaning of this expression. Some have supposed that Paul said it in irony, as if he had said, "Pardon me, brethren, I did not consider that this was the high priest. It did not occur to me that a man who could conduct thus could be God’ s highest. Others have thought (as Grotius) that Paul used these words for the purpose of mitigating their wrath, and as an acknowledgment that he had spoken hastily, and that it was contrary to his usual habit, which was not to speak evil of the ruler of the people. As if he had said, "I acknowledge my error and my haste. I did not consider that I was addressing him whom God had commanded me to respect."But this interpretation is not probable, for Paul evidently did not intend to retract what he had said.

Dr. Doddridge renders it, "I was not aware, brethren, that it was the high priest,"and regards it as an apology for having spoken in haste. But the obvious reply to this interpretation is, that if Ananias was the high priest, Paul could not but be aware of it. Of so material a point it is hardly possible that he could be ignorant. Others suppose that, as Paul had been long absent from Jerusalem, and had not known the changes which had occurred there, he was a stranger to the person of the high priest. Others suppose that Ananias did not occupy the usual seat which was appropriated to the high priest, and that he was not clothed in the usual robes of office, and that Paul did not recognize him as the high priest. But it is wholly improbable that on such an occasion the high priest, who was the presiding officer in the Sanhedrin, should not be known to the accused. The true interpretation, therefore, I suppose, is what is derived from the fact that Ananias was not then properly the high priest; that there was a vacancy in the office, and that he presided by courtesy, or in virtue of his having been formerly invested with that office.

The meaning then will be: "I do not regard or acknowledge him as the high priest, or address him as such, since that is not his true character. Had he been truly the high priest, even if he had thus been guilty of manifest injustice, I would not have used the language which I did. The office, if not the man, would have claimed respect. But as he is not truly and properly clothed with that office, and as he was guilty of manifest injustice, I did not believe that he was to be shielded in his injustice by the Law which commands me to show respect to the proper ruler of the people."If this be the true interpretation, it shows that Luke, in this account, accords entirely with the truth of history. The character of Ananias as given by Josephus, the facts which he has stated in regard to him, all accord with the account here given, and show that the writer of the "Acts of the Apostles"was acquainted with the history of that time, and has correctly stated it.

For it is written - Exo 22:28. Paul adduces this to show that it was his purpose to observe the Law; that he would not intentionally violate it; and that, if he had known Ananias to be high priest, he would have been restrained by his regard for the Law from using the language which he did.

Of the ruler of thy people - This passage had not any special reference to the high priest, but it inculcated the general spirit of respect for those in office, whatever that office was. As the office of high priest was one of importance and authority, Paul declares here that he would not be guilty of showing disrespect for it, or of using reproachful language in regard to it.

Barnes: Act 23:6

But when Paul perceived - Probably by his former acquaintance with the men who composed the council. As he had been brought up in Jerusalem, and had been before acquainted with the Sanhedrin Act 9:2, he would have an acquaintance, doubtless, with the character of most of those present, though he had been absent from them for fourteen years, Gal 2:1.

The one part ... - That the council was divided into two parts, Pharisees and Sadducees. This was commonly the case, though it was uncertain which had the majority. In regard to the opinions of these two sects, see the notes on Mat 3:7.

He cried out ... - The reasons why Paul resolved to take advantage of their difference of opinion were, probably:

(1) That he saw that it was impossible to expect justice at their hands, and he therefore regarded it as prudent and proper to consult his own safety. He saw, from the conduct of Ananias, and from the spirit manifested Act 23:4, that they, like the other Jews, had prejudged the case, and were driven on by blind rage and fury.

\caps1 (2) h\caps0 is object was to show his innocence to the chief captain. To ascertain that was the purpose for which he had been arraigned. Yet that, perhaps, could be most directly and satisfactorily shown by bringing out, as he knew he could do, the real spirit which actuated the whole council, as a spirit of party strife, contention, and persecution. Knowing, therefore, how sensitive they were on the subject of the resurrection, he seems to have resolved to do what he would not have done had they been disposed to hear him according to the rules of justice - to abandon the direct argument for his defense, and to enlist a large part, perhaps a majority of the council, in his favor. Whatever may be thought of the propriety of this course, it cannot be denied that it was a masterstroke of policy, and that it evinced a profound knowledge of human nature.

I am a Pharisee - That is, I was of that sect among the Jews. I was born a Pharisee, and I ever continued while a Jew to be of that sect. In the main he agreed with them still. He did not mean to deny that he was a Christian, but that, so far as the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees, he was with the former. He agreed with them, not with the Sadducees, in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection, and the existence of angels and spirits.

The son of a Pharisee - What was the name of his father is not known. But the meaning is, simply, that he was entitled to all the immunities and privileges of a Pharisee. He had, from his birth, belonged to that sect, nor had he ever departed from the great cardinal doctrine which distinguished that sect - the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Compare Phi 3:5.

Of the hope and resurrection of the dead - That is, of the hope that the dead will be raised. This is the real point of the opposition to me.

I am called in question - Greek: I am judged; that is, I am persecuted, or brought to trial. Orobio charges this upon Paul as an artful manner of declining persecution, unworthy the character of an upright and honest man. Chubb, a British Deist of the seventeenth century, charges it upon Paul as an act of gross "dissimulation, as designed to conceal the true ground of all the troubles that he had brought upon himself, and as designed to deceive and impose upon the Jews."He affirms also that "Paul probably invented this pretended charge against himself to draw over a party of the unbelieving Jews unto him."See Chubb’ s Posthumous Works, vol. ii. p. 238. Now, in reply to this, we may observe:

(1) That there is not the least evidence that Paul denied that he had been, or was then, a Christian. An attempt to deny this, after all that they knew of him, would have been vain; and there is not the slightest hint that he attempted it.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 he doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was the main and leading doctrine which he had insisted on, and which had been to him the cause of much of his persecution. See Act 17:31-32; 1 Cor. 15; Act 13:34; Act 26:6-7, Act 26:23, Act 26:25.

(3) Paul defended this by an argument which he deemed invincible; and which constituted, in fact, the principal evidence of its truth - the fact that the Lord Jesus had been raised. That fact had fully confirmed the doctrine of the Pharisees that the dead would rise. As Paul had everywhere proclaimed the fact that Jesus had been raised up, and as this had been the occasion of his being opposed, it was true that he had been persecuted on account of that doctrine.

\caps1 (4) t\caps0 he real ground of the opposition Which the Sadducees made to him, and of their opposition to his doctrine, was the additional zeal with which he urged this doctrine, and the additional argument which he brought for the resurrection of the dead. Perhaps the cause of the opposition of this great party among the Jews the Sadducees - to Christianity, was the strong confirmation which the resurrection of Christ gave to the doctrine which they so much hated - the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. It thus gave a triumph to their opponents among the Pharisees, and Paul, as a leading and zealous advocate of that doctrine, would excite their special hatred.

\caps1 (5) a\caps0 ll that Paul said, therefore, was strictly true. It was because he advocated this doctrine that he was opposed. That there were other causes of opposition to him might be true also; but still this was the main and prominent cause of the hostility.

\caps1 (6) w\caps0 ith great propriety, therefore, he might address the Pharisees and say, "Brethren, the doctrine which has distinguished you from the Sadducees is at stake. The doctrine which is at the foundation of all our hopes - the resurrection of the dead; the doctrine of our fathers, of the Scriptures, of our sect, is in danger. Of that doctrine I have been the advocate. I have never denied it. I have everywhere defended it, and have devoted myself to the work of putting it on an imperishable basis among the Jews and the Gentiles. For my zeal in that I have been opposed. I have excited the ridicule of the Gentile and the hatred of the Sadducee. I have thus been persecuted and arraigned; and for my zeal in urging the argument in defense of it which I have deemed most irrefragable the resurrection of the Messiah - I have been arraigned, and now cast myself on your protection against the mad zeal of the enemies of the doctrine of our fathers."Not only, therefore, was this an act of policy and prudence in Paul, but what he affirmed was strictly true, and the effect was as he had anticipated.

Barnes: Act 23:7

A dissension - A dispute, or difference.

And the multitude - The council. Compare Act 14:4. The Pharisees embraced, as he desired and expected, his side of the question, and became his advocates, in opposition to the Sadducees, who were arrayed against him.

Barnes: Act 23:8

For the Sadducees say - They believe.

No resurrection - Of the dead. By this doctrine they also understood that there was no future state, and that the soul did not exist after death. See the notes on Mat 22:23.

Neither angel - That there are no angels. They deny the existence of good or bad angels. See the notes on Mat 3:7.

Nor spirit - Nor soul. That there is nothing but matter. They were materialists, and supposed that all the operations which we ascribe to mind could be traced to some modification of matter. The Sadducees, says Josephus ( Jewish Wars , book ii. chapter 8, section 14), "take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades.""The doctrine of the Sadducees is this,"says he ( Antiq. , book 18, chapter 1, section 4), "that souls die with the bodies."The opinion that the soul is material, and that there is nothing but matter in the universe, has been held by many philosophers, ancient and modern, as well as by the Sadducees.

Confess both - Acknowledge, or receive both as true; that is, that there is a future state, and that there are spirits distinct from matter, as angels, and the disembodied souls of people. The two points in dispute were:

(1)    Whether the dead would be raised and exist in a future state; and,

(2)    Whether mind was distinct from matter. The Sadducees denied both, and the Pharisees believed both. Their belief of the Latter point was, that spirits existed in two forms - that of angels, and that of souls of people distinct from the body.

Barnes: Act 23:9

A great cry - A great clamor and tumult.

The scribes - The learned men. They would naturally be the chief speakers.

Of the Pharisees’ part - Who were Pharisees, or who belonged to that party. The scribes were not a distinct sect, but might be either Pharisees or Sadducees.

We find no evil in this man - No opinion which is contrary to the Law of Moses; no conduct in spreading the doctrine of the resurrection which we do not approve. The importance of this doctrine, in their view, was so great as to throw into the background all the other doctrines that Paul might hold; and, provided this were propagated, they were willing to vindicate and sustain him. A similar testimony was offered to the innocence of the Saviour by Pilate, Joh 19:6.

But if a spirit or an angel ... - They here referred, doubtless, to what Paul had said in Act 22:17-18. He had declared that he had gone among the I Gentiles in obedience to a command which he received in a vision in the temple. As the Pharisees held to the belief of spirits and angels, and to the doctrine that the will of God was often delivered to people by their agency, they were ready now to admit that he had received such a communication, and that he had gone among the Gentiles in obedience to it, to defend their great doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. We are not to suppose that the Pharisees had become the friends of Paul or of Christianity. The true solution of their conduct doubtless is, that they were so inflamed with hatred against the Sadducees that they were willing to make use of any argument against their doctrine. As the testimony of Paul might be turned to their account, they were willing to vindicate him. It is remarkable, too, that they perverted the statement of Paul in order to oppose the Sadducees. Paul had stated distinctly Act 22:17-18 that he had been commanded to go by the Lord, meaning the Lord Jesus. He had said nothing of "a spirit or an angel."Yet they would unite with the Sadducees so far as to maintain that he had received no such command from the Lord Jesus. But they might easily vary his statements, and suppose that an "angel or a spirit"had spoken to him, and thus make use of his conduct as an argument against the Sadducees. Men are not always very careful about the exact correctness of their statements when they wish to humble a rival.

Let us not fight against God - See the notes on Act 5:39. These words are missing in many mss. and in some of the ancient versions. The Syriac reads it, "If a spirit or an angel have spoken to him, what is there in this?"that is, what is there unusual or wrong?

Barnes: Act 23:10

A great dissension - A great tumult, excitement, or controversy.

Into the castle - See the notes on Act 21:34.

Poole: Act 23:1

Act 23:1-5 Paul, pleading his integrity, is smitten at the

command of the high priest, whom he reproveth of injustice.

Act 23:6-9 By declaring himself a Pharisee, and questioned for the hope

of the resurrection, he causeth a division in the council.

Act 23:10,11 He is carried back to the castle, and encouraged by the

Lord in a vision.

Act 23:12-22 A conspiracy against him is discovered to the chief captain,

Act 23:23-35 who sendeth him under a guard with a letter to Felix

the governor at Caesarea.

Said, Men and brethren acknowledging himself to have descended from the patriarchs as well as they; and bespeaks, as much as he could, their favour and attention.

I have lived in all good conscience not that he thought himself to have been without sin or fault, for he acknowledges and bewails his captivity to the law of sin, Rom 7:23,24 ; but that he was not conscious to himself of any notorious impiety (as sacrilege, which they accused him of); nay, he had not suffered willingly any sin to be, much less to reign, in him. And as for his persecuting of the Christians, he did it not to flatter any with it, or upon any sinister design whatsoever, but thinking to serve God by it, 1Ti 1:13 .

Before God in the sense of God’ s seeing of him, and whom St. Paul acknowledges to be the searcher and knower of the heart and conscience.

Poole: Act 23:2

Them that stood by him the officers, probably.

To smite him on the mouth thus Micaiah was smote by Zedekiah the false prophet, 1Ki 22:24 , and Jeremiah by Pashur, Jer 20:2 ; and our blessed Lord escaped not this suffering and indignity, Joh 18:22 . Now this was the rather inflicted on Paul, because of his protesting of his innocency, which did reflect upon the council, as being injurious; but it was indeed no more than what was necessary in his own just defence, and for the glory of the gospel.

Poole: Act 23:3

Thou whited wall an excellent similitude to represent wicked men, especially hypocrites, by, who counterfeit God’ s glory and worship, whilst they intend only their own profit or grandeur. Thus our Saviour compared the scribes and Pharisees unto whited sepulchres, Mat 23:27 . Whited sepulchres and walls, though they seem fair and comely, have within nothing but rottenness and useless rubbish. Now these words are not to be looked upon as a curse or imprecation upon the high priest, which does not consist with the temper of the gospel; but they are rather to be taken as a prophecy or prediction, St. Paul having on occasion had the gift of prophecy amongst the other gifts of the Holy Ghost. And accordingly it is observed, that this high priest either died, or was put out of his place, soon after. And thus Paul’ s imprecation upon Alexander the coppersmith, mentioned 2Ti 4:14 , is to be understood; as also several other curses (seemingly wished) by holy men, especially in the Psalms, as Psa 109:6,7 , &c., and many other places, which are by no means for our imitation; neither were they spoken so much as the wishes or prayers of such as uttered them, as their prophecies or prections; which we know came to pass; as that now mentioned was fulfilled in the person of Judas.

Contrary to the law it was contrary to all law, Divine and human, that any should be punished before that he was heard; and especially to their own judicial law, which in matters of this nature they were yet governed by under the Romans. Now the Jews were first to hear and inquire diligently, whether the matter any were accused of were true, before they might give sentence, or inflict any punishment upon them, Deu 17:4 .

Poole: Act 23:4

These partial parasites take no notice of the real injury done unto Paul by the high priest, and readily catch at the seeming calumny spoke by Paul against him.

Poole: Act 23:5

I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest Paul does not here ironically say this, because the high priest had, contrary to his place and office, caused him to be smitten; but either:

1. Because he knew now no high priest on earth, but only Christ in heaven to be our High Priest, Heb 8:1 . Or rather:

2. Because the high priests being so often changed, (insomuch as in one year sometimes they have had three), and they being in a confusion at this time, and not meeting or sitting in their due place and order, Paul might very well be ignorant who that was, who in such a multitude had commanded that they should smite him.

Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people the scripture here cited by St. Paul, is Exo 22:28 .

Poole: Act 23:6

I am a Pharisee in his former profession, opinion, and conversation; and now also in the points that were controverted betwixt them: and St. Paul, with his dove like innocency, does in this but make use of the serpentine subtlety, to preserve himself, and to gain credit unto the truths of the gospel.

The son of a Pharisee the son of Pharisees, in the plural; either for several descents his ancestors had been of that sect; or that both his father and his mother were of it.

Of the hope and resurrection or, for the hope of the resurrection; an hendyadis: although he did not agree with the Pharisees in all their opinions, yet in this he did; and the resurrection was the common subject he preached upon: and the gospel does give us the best proof and evidence of it; insomuch that Paul was taxed for preaching Jesus and the resurrection, Act 17:18 ; and unless there be a resurrection, his preaching was vain, and his faith vain, 1Co 15:13,14 .

Poole: Act 23:7

Not only of the common people, or standers-by, but of the senators and judges; God by this means dividing and infatuating of them, that they could not bring about Paul’ s intended destruction.

Poole: Act 23:8

The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection against this our Saviour argued, Mat 22:23 , &c.

Neither angel it seems strange that they should deny that there were angels, whereas they owned the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, in which mention is made frequently of angels: but it seems that they understood those places allegorically, either for good instincts, or apparitions caused by God to manifest his mind by them unto men, wresting those places to their own destruction.

Nor spirit they denied the existence of the soul of man, as different from the crasis and temperament of his body; and therefore believed that the soul perished with the body. Nay, they were so far from believing there was any spirit, that they held, blasphemously, that God himself was corporeal.

But the Pharisees confess both the three things here mentioned, which the Sadducees denied, may be well spoken of as but two, viz. the resurrection and the existence of spirits. When men sin with much obstinacy against supernatural light, God justly withdraws from them even natural light, and they are, punished (as the Egyptians were) with such darkness which may be felt, Exo 10:21 .

Poole: Act 23:9

Scribe is a name denoting an office or place; and the sribes were men skilled in the law

A spirit or an angel ome take the latter to be exegetical of the former, and that by a spirit is only meant an angel; by such messengers God many times sending his messages to the children of men. Yet others by spirit understand prophetical revelation, and the Spirit of prophecy, which was expected to be shed abroad in large measures about that time; as appears, Joh 7:39 .

Let us not fight against God: See Poole on "Act 5:39".

Poole: Act 23:10

A great dissension: feuds about pretended religion are usually among all men very sharp, because their opinions, being the issues of their own brains, are more beloved than their children, the fruit of their bodies.

Commanded the soldiers to go down from the fort or castle, unto which there was an ascent or stair, to go up and down by.

Haydock: Act 23:1

With an entire good conscience. With an upright sincerity. But St. Paul is far from excusing himself from all sin. He laments elsewhere his blind zeal in persecuting the Christians. See 1 Corinthians xv. 9. (Witham)

Haydock: Act 23:3

God will strike thee, thou whited wall. [1] These words are rather by way of a prophecy. (Witham) ---

Whited wall. That is, hypocrite, for pretending to judge me according to law; whereas, against all sense of justice, thou strikest me before my condemnation; nay, even without giving me a hearing. The Fathers admire, on this occasion, the greatness of mind and freedom St. Paul exhibited, in reproving the great. (Tirinus) ---

This expression was not the angry words of an irritated man, nor the effect of personal resentment, but the just freedom which insulted innocence may lawfully use in its own defence. (Haydock) ---

It was likewise a prophecy of what was going to happen. To those who do not consider it, it may seem a curse; but to others a prophecy, as it really was. (St. Augustine, lib. i. cap. 19. de Verb. Dni.) ---

For St. John Chrysostom relates that the high priest, being thunderstruck by this answer, became speechless and half deaf; so that not being able to reply a single word, the bystanders did it for him. (Tirinus) ---

It was also, as Ven. Bede says, to shew that the Jewish priesthood was to be destroyed, as now the true priesthood of Christ was come and established. (Beda in hunc locum. [Ven. Bede in this place.])

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Pecutiet, Greek: tuptein se mellei, futurum erit ut te percutiat.

Haydock: Act 23:5

I knew not, &c. Some think St. Paul here speaks ironically, or to signify that now he could be no longer high priest since the Mosaic law, with its rites and ceremonies, was abolished. But St. John Chrysostom rather judges that St. Paul having been long absent from Jerusalem, might not know the person of the high priest, who was not in the sanhedrim but in the place whither the tribune had called the council, and who did not appear with that habit, and those marks which distinguished him from others. (Witham) ---

It seems rather surprising that St. Paul did not know that we was the high priest. The place which he held in the council, one would suppose, would have been sufficient to have pointed him out. The apostle's absence from Jerusalem is perhaps a sufficient reason to account for his not knowing this circumstance; especially, as the order of succession to the priesthood was at that time much confused and irregular, determined by favour of the Roman emperor, or by purchase. (Calmet) ---

At all events, any difficulties we may now find in assigning a probable or true reason, are merely negative arguments; and therefore too futile to be an impeachment of the apostle's veracity. (Haydock) ---

St. Cyprian supposes that St. Paul, considering the mere shadow of the name of priest, which Ananias then held, said: I knew not, brethren, that he is high priest. (Ep. lxv. 69. nu. 2.) St. John Chrysostom says, that the apostle here shews the wisdom of the serpent; but that in his preaching, teaching, and patience, he used the simplicity of the dove.

Haydock: Act 23:6

I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees. [2] It may signify only a disciple of the Pharisees, though the common Greek copies have of a Pharisee. (Witham) ---

The address of the apostle in this is great. Knowing the different dispositions of his judges, he throws disunion into their councils, in order to draw himself from danger. Such innocent artifices are allowed in the defence of a just cause. It is one of our Saviour's counsels, to use the prudence of the serpent. St. Gregory, in his Morality, (lib. xxxiv. cap. 3. and 4.) and St. Thomas Aquinas in his Sum. Theol. (2. 2. quæst. 37. art. 2.) observe, that on similar occasions you may, without sin, cause divisions among the wicked; because their union being an evil, it is consequently a good thing that the enemies of peace and righteousness should be divided in sentiments and interests. It must, however, be acknowledged that this principle is very easily stretched beyond its proper limits, and therefore ought not to be acted upon but with the greatest caution and prudence. (Calmet) ---

St. Paul knew from divine revelation that he was to go to Rome; but this did not hinder the apostle from taking every prudent care of his own life; as we may see from the following chapter.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Filius Parisæorum; and so divers of the best Greek manuscripts Greek: pharisaion; but the common Greek, Greek: uios pharisaiou.

Haydock: Act 23:7

There arose a dissension. By the Greek, a division, or schism among them, occasioned by St. Paul's declaring himself for the resurrection, which made the Pharisees favour him, and incensed the Sadducees. (Witham)

Gill: Act 23:1

And Paul earnestly beholding the council,.... Fastening his eyes upon them, looking wistly and intently at them, and thereby discovering a modest cheerfulness, and a becoming boldness, confidence, and intrepidity, as being not conscious of any guilt, and well assured of the goodness of his cause:

said, men and brethren; see Act 22:1.

I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day; not only from the time of his conversion, but throughout the whole of his life; for though, strictly speaking, there is no good conscience but what is awakened by the Spirit of God, and is unprincipled by his grace, and is purged from sin by the blood of Christ; in which sense he could only have a good conscience, since he believed in Christ; yet whereas in his state of unregeneracy, and even while he was a blasphemer, and persecutor, he did not act contrary to the dictates of his conscience, but according to them, in which his view was to the glory of God, and the honour of his law; he therefore says he lived before God, or unto God, in all good conscience, though an erroneous and mistaken one; he thought he ought to do what he did; and what he did, he did with a zeal for God though it was not according to knowledge: besides, the apostle has here respect to his outward moral conversation, which, before and after conversion, was very strict, and even blameless, at least unblemished before men; nobody could charge him with any notorious crime, though he did not live without sin in the sight of the omniscient God.

Gill: Act 23:2

And the high priest Ananias,.... This could not be the same with Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, but rather Ananus his son; though this is more generally thought to be Ananias the son of Nebedaeus, whom Josephus ^m speaks of. There is one R. Ananias, the sagan of the priests, often spoken of in the Jewish writings ⁿ, who lived about these times, and was killed at the destruction of Jerusalem; and in the times of King Agrippa, there was one Chanina, or Ananias the priest, who was a Sadducee ^o; and from the number of Sadducees in this sanhedrim, who very likely were the creatures of the high priest, one would be tempted to think he might be the same with this: who

commanded them that stood by him: that is, by Paul, who were nearest to him, some of the members of the sanhedrim; unless they should be thought to be some of the high priest's officers, or servants, as in Joh 18:22 though if they were, one would think they would be so called: these he ordered

to smite him on the mouth: or give him a slap on the face, by way of contempt, and as if he had spoken what ought not to be said, and in order to silence him; the reason of which might be, either because Paul did not directly address him, and give him such flattering titles as he expected, or because he set out with such declarations of his innocence, and spotless behaviour, and with so much courage and boldness.

Gill: Act 23:3

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee,.... Which may be considered either as a prophecy of what would be, that God would smite him with some judgment here, or with death quickly, or with eternal damnation hereafter; taking up his own words, and suggesting that a retaliation would be made, and that the measure he meted, would be measured to him again; or else as an imprecation upon him; for the words may be rendered, "may God smite thee"; the future tense being often used by the Jews for the imperative, and that in this very phrase; for certain it is, that this is the form of an imprecation with them: for it is said, if anyone should say, יככה אלהום, "may God smite", or "so may God smite"; this is אלה, "a curse", written in the law ^p; though this instance of the apostle ought not to be drawn into example, any more than those of other saints, who might be under a direction of the Holy Ghost to deliver out such things, which would come to pass in righteous judgment: and if this was Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, as is generally thought, it is remarkable, that five years after this, in the beginning of the wars of the Jews with the Romans, this Ananias, hiding himself under the ruins of a conduit, was discovered, and taken out, and killed ^q: and no doubt but he very fitly calls him

thou whited wall; or hypocrite, in like manner as Christ compares the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees to whited sepulchres, Mat 23:27.

for sittest thou to judge me after the law; the law of Moses, which was the rule of judgment in the sanhedrim, at least professed to be, and which was allowed of by the Romans, especially in matters relating to the Jewish religion:

and commandest me to be smitten contrary to law? which condemns no man before he is heard, and much less punishes him, Joh 7:51 and which is contrary not only to the Jewish laws, but to the Roman laws, and all others founded upon the law of nature and reason.

Gill: Act 23:4

And they that stood by,.... The members of the sanhedrim that were next to the apostle; or the servants of the high priest, since they are said to stand, whereas those of that court sat: said,

revilest thou God's high priest? which seems to confirm that the apostle's words were not a bare prediction, but an imprecation, since they are charged with reproaching, reviling, and speaking evil of him; and the aggravation of which was not only that the person reviled was a priest, an high priest, but an high priest of God; though this could not have been proved, for there was now no high priest of God but Jesus Christ; the priesthood was changed and abrogated, and there were no more high priests among men of God's appointing and approving.

Gill: Act 23:5

Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest,.... Or I did not know that he was the high priest; and the sense is, that he did not really know him, either because he had been long absent from Jerusalem; and besides there were new high priests made, sometimes every year, and sometimes oftener, that it is no wonder he should not know him; or because he might not sit in his usual place; or chiefly because he was not, in his habit, an high priest; for the priests, both the high priest, and the common priests, only wore their priestly robes, when they ministered in their office, and at other times they wore other clothes, as laymen did, according to Eze 44:19 which the Targum paraphrases thus;

"when they (the priests) shall go out of the holy court into the outer court, to be mixed with the people, they shall put off their garments in which they ministered, and lay them up in the holy chamber, and shall clothe themselves with other garments, that they may not be mingled with the people, בלבושיהון, "in their garments".''

For as soon as they had performed their office, there were servants that attended them, who stripped them of their robes, and laid them up in chests which were in the temple ^r till they came to service again, and put them on common garments; for they might not appear among the common people in their priestly garments; which when they were off of them, they were, as Maimonides says ^s, כזרים, "as strangers", or as laymen, like the rest of the people; for which reason Paul might not know Ananias to be the high priest: and this points to another sense of these words; for it was a rule with the Jews ^t, that

"at the time the priests' garments were upon them, their priesthood was upon them, but when their garments were not on them, אין כהונ־תאם עליהן, "there was no priesthood upon them"; for lo, they were as strangers.''

And then the sense is, Ananias not being in the discharge of his office, nor in his habit, the apostle did not know, or own him as an high priest, or consider him as in such a station; or rather, since the priesthood was changed, and there was no other high priest of God but Jesus Christ, he did not own him as one; had he, he should not have spoke to him in the manner he did. Moreover, if this was Ananias, the son of Nebedaeus, as is the opinion of many, he had no right to the office of the priesthood when he was first made an high priest; after which he was sent a prisoner to Rome; during which time several succeeded in the priesthood; and at this time not he, though he had got the management of affairs in his hands, was high priest, but Jesus the son of Gamaliel; so that the apostle's sense might be, he did not own or acknowledge him high priest. Some take the apostle's words in an ironical sense; he an high priest, I should not have known him to be an high priest, he looks and acts more like a furioso, a madman, an unjust judge, and a tyrant, than an high priest, who ought to behave in another guise manner. But what follows shows rather that the apostle spoke seriously, unless the words can be thought to be a citation made by Luke,

for it is written, in Exo 22:28 "thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people"; which the Jewish writers generally understand of the head of the great sanhedrim, as Ananias might be, or of a king ^u.

Gill: Act 23:6

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees,.... That is, that one part of the sanhedrim consisted of Sadducees, which was often the case; sometimes the high priest was of this sect, as Ananias probably was, and sometimes the greater part of the sanhedrim were Sadducees, and even sometimes the whole; See Gill on Act 5:17, but this sanhedrim were only part of them Sadducees:

and the other Pharisees; of both these sects; see Gill on Mat 3:7.

he cried out in the council; with a loud voice, that he might be heard by all:

men and brethren,

I am a Pharisee; he was not only brought up in that sect from his youth, and lived according to it before his conversion, but he was still a Pharisee; wherefore he does not say, I "was", but I "am" a Pharisee; for whatever distinguished the Pharisee from the Sadducee, whether in principle, or in practice, and manner of living, which agreed with Christianity, the apostle still retained; as the belief of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, and strict holiness of life and conversation.

The son of a Pharisee; the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version, read in the plural number, "the son of Pharisees"; his father and his mother were both Pharisees; for there were women Pharisees ^w, as well as men; so that he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, as well as an Hebrew of the Hebrews; and this is said to show that he was by education of that sect.

Of the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am called in question; that is, either for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, Act 24:15 or for professing the hope of eternal life, and happiness in a future state, and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, when the soul and body will be reunited, and enjoy endless felicity together: not that these were the particular things now charged upon him, and for which he was now trying and judging; but that these were the ground and foundation of the hatred and persecution of him, because he preached the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the resurrection of men through him, and that there was hope of eternal life and salvation by him. And in this the apostle showed the prudence and wisdom of the serpent, along with the innocence of the dove, hereby to divide the assembly, and free himself from them; and it was but just and right; for since they would not hear him about to make a fair and open defence of his cause, but ordered him to be smitten on the mouth, it was but justice to throw them into confusion, and save himself.

Gill: Act 23:7

And when he had so said,.... He stopped and made a pause:

and there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; about the things which he had spoken of, particularly the resurrection of the dead; and this was what the apostle intended, so that his end was answered by the speech he made:

and the multitude was divided; that is, the members of the sanhedrim were divided, some being on one side of the question, and some on the other; for this multitude cannot design the multitude of the common people, who were not convened together on this occasion.

Gill: Act 23:8

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection,.... Of the dead, being ignorant of the Scriptures, and the power of God; see Mat 22:23.

neither angel nor spirit; the Ethiopic version reads, "nor Holy Spirit": but the sense seems to be, that they did not believe any such species of beings as angels, nor indeed any spirits whatever, which were immaterial or immortal; for as for the spirit or soul of man, they took that to be only the temperament of the body, and that it died with it, and did not exist in any separate state after this life: for so Josephus ^x says, that they deny the permanence of the soul, and rewards and punishments in the invisible state. And, according to the Talmudic ^y writers, they denied that there was any other world than this:

but the Pharisees confess both; the resurrection of the dead, and that there are spirits, both angels and the souls of men, which are immortal. Josephus, in the place before referred to, says, that they hold that every soul is incorruptible or immortal; and that they held the resurrection of the dead, is manifest from the Talmud ^z, and other writings of theirs; the Syriac version renders it, "the Pharisees confess all these things"; to which agree the Arabic and Ethiopic versions.

Gill: Act 23:9

And there arose a great cry,.... Or noise, a loud clamour; they began to be very noisy, and to talk loud, and in high spirits, one against another:

and the Scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose; there were Scribes in the sanhedrim, and these were some of them on the side of the Sadducees, and some on the side of the Pharisees; though, generally speaking, they agreed with the latter, and are often in Scripture mentioned with them, and for them: however, that part in this sanhedrim that were on their side rose up from their seats,

and strove; that is, contended, disputed, and litigated the point with the Sadducees:

saying, we find no evil in this man; why he should be hated, persecuted, and punished:

but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him; that is, if the Holy Spirit, as the Ethiopic version reads, has inspired him, or God by an angel has revealed anything to him, who has to say anything against it? This they said in agreement with their own principles, and more for the sake of establishing them, and in opposition to the Sadducees, than in favour of Paul:

let us not fight against God; as in Act 5:39. These words are not in the Alexandrian copy, nor in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions.

Gill: Act 23:10

And when there arose a great dissension,.... When that was come to a very great height, hot words were spoken, and they were ready to come to blows, and there was like to be a riot and tumult among them:

the chief captain fearing lest Paul should be pulled in pieces of them; either of the Sadducees, whom he had greatly offended and provoked, or of both Sadducees and Pharisees, the one laying hold on him to preserve him from the fury of the other, and the other endeavouring to pluck him out of their hands; and the fears of the chief captain were not so much out of affection to Paul, but lest there should be an uproar, which might issue in sedition, and rebellion against the Roman government, of which the Roman officers were always jealous; and because that Paul was a Roman, and should he suffer him to be destroyed in an illegal manner, he must be accountable for it: wherefore he

commanded the soldiers to go down: either from the castle of Antonia, or from a superior part of the temple, where he with his guards were, to hear this cause before the sanhedrim, to that part where it sat, and Paul was: and

take him by force from among them; if they refused to deliver him up, to make use of their arms:

and bring him into the castle; of Antonia, where he was before.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Act 23:1

¹ tn Grk “Paul, looking directly at the council, said.” The participle ἀτενίσας (atenisa") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

² tn Grk “the Sanhedrin” (the Sanhedrin was the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews).

³ tn BDAG 846 s.v. πολιτεύομαι 3 has “W. a double dat. συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ πεπολίτευμαι τῷ θεῷ I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God Ac 23:1.”

NET Notes: Act 23:2

¹ tn Grk “and” (δέ, de); the phrase “at that” has been used in the translation to clarify the cause and effect relationship.

² tn BDAG 778 s.v. παρίστημι/παριστάνω 2.b.α has “οἱ παρεστῶτες αὐτῷ those standing near him Ac 23:2.”

³ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Paul) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ tn Or “hit” (‘strike’ maintains the wordplay with the following verse). The action was probably designed to indicate a rejection of Paul’s claim to a clear conscience in the previous verse.

NET Notes: Act 23:3

¹ sn You whitewashed wall. This was an idiom for hypocrisy – just as the wall was painted on the outside but something different on the inside, so this person was not what he appeared or pretended to be (L&N 88.234; see also BDAG 1010 s.v. τοῖχος). Paul was claiming that the man’s response was two-faced (Ezek 13:10-16; Matt 23:27-28). See also Deut 28:22.

² tn Grk “And do.” Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, καί (kai) has not been translated here.

³ tn The law refers to the law of Moses.

⁴ tn BDAG 769 s.v. παρανομέω has “παρανομῶν κελεύεις in violation of the law you order Ac 23:3.”

sn In violation of the law. Paul was claiming that punishment was given before the examination was complete (m. Sanhedrin 3:6-8). Luke’s noting of this detail shows how quickly the leadership moved to react against Paul.

NET Notes: Act 23:4

¹ tn The word “him” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

² tn L&N 33.393 has for λοιδορέω (loidorew) “to speak in a highly insulting manner – ‘to slander, to insult strongly, slander, insult.’”

sn Insult God’s high priest. Paul was close to violation of the Mosaic law with his response, as the citation from Exod 22:28 in v. 5 makes clear.

NET Notes: Act 23:5

¹ tn Grk “said.”

² tn Or “know.”

³ sn A quotation from Exod 22:28. This text defines a form of blasphemy. Paul, aware of the fact that he came close to crossing the line, backed off out of respect for the law.

NET Notes: Act 23:6

¹ tn BDAG 200 s.v. γινώσκω 4 has “to be aware of someth., perceive, notice, realize”; this is further clarified by section 4.c: “w. ὅτι foll….Ac 23:6.”

² sn See the note on Sadducees in 4:1.

³ sn See the note on Pharisee in 5:34.

⁴ tn Grk “the Sanhedrin” (the Sanhedrin was the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews).

⁵ tn That is, concerning the hope that the dead will be resurrected. Grk “concerning the hope and resurrection.” BDAG 320 s.v. ἐλπίς 1.b.α states, “Of Israel’s messianic hope Ac 23:6 (ἐ. καὶ ἀνάστασις for ἐ. τῆς ἀν. [obj. gen] as 2 Macc 3:29 ἐ. καὶ σωτηρία).” With an objective genitive construction, the resurrection of the dead would be the “object” of the hope.

NET Notes: Act 23:7

¹ tn The participle εἰπόντος (eiponto") has been translated temporally.

² tn Or “a dispute” (BDAG 940 s.v. στάσις 3).

³ tn Grk “there came about an argument.” This has been simplified to “an argument began”

NET Notes: Act 23:8

¹ tn BDAG 55 s.v. ἀμφότεροι 2 has “all, even when more than two are involved…Φαρισαῖοι ὁμολογοῦσιν τὰ ἀ. believe in them all 23:8.” On this belief see Josephus, J. W. 2.8.14 (2.163); Ant. 18.1.3 (18.14).

sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

NET Notes: Act 23:9

¹ tn Or “clamor” (cf. BDAG 565 s.v. κραυγή 1.a, which has “there arose a loud outcry” here, and Exod 12:30).

² tn Or “and some scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 4:5.

³ tn Grk “standing up.” The participle ἀναστάντες (anastante") has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

⁴ tn Grk “protested strongly, saying.” L&N 39.27 has “διαμάχομαι: to fight or contend with, involving severity and thoroughness – ‘to protest strongly, to contend with.’…‘some scribes from the party of the Pharisees protested strongly’ Ac 23:9.” The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant and has not been translated.

⁵ sn “We find nothing wrong with this man.” Here is another declaration of innocence. These leaders recognized the possibility that Paul might have the right to make his claim.

NET Notes: Act 23:10

¹ tn This genitive absolute construction with the participle γινομένης (ginomenhs) has been taken temporally (it could also be translated as causal).

² tn Grk “the chiliarch” (an officer in command of a thousand soldiers). In Greek the term χιλίαρχος (ciliarco") literally described the “commander of a thousand,” but it was used as the standard translation for the Latin tribunus militum or tribunus militare, the military tribune who commanded a cohort of 600 men.

³ tn Grk “that Paul would be torn to pieces by them.” BDAG 236 s.v. διασπάω has “of an angry mob μὴ διασπασθῇ ὁ Παῦλος ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν that Paul would be torn in pieces by them Ac 23:10.” The passive construction is somewhat awkward in English and has been converted to an equivalent active construction in the translation.

⁴ tn Normally this term means “army,” but according to BDAG 947 s.v. στράτευμα, “Of a smaller detachment of soldiers, sing. Ac 23:10, 27.” In the plural it can be translated “troops,” but it is singular here.

⁵ tn Or “to go down, grab him out of their midst.”

⁶ tn Or “the headquarters.” BDAG 775 s.v. παρεμβολή 2 has “barracks/headquarters of the Roman troops in Jerusalem Ac 21:34, 37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32.”

Geneva Bible: Act 23:1

And ^{( 1 )} Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

^{( 1 )} Paul, against the false accusations of his enemies, displays a clear conscience, for proof of which he repeats the whole course of his life.

Geneva Bible: Act 23:2

^{( 2 )} And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

^{( 2 )} Hypocrites are forced at length to betray themselves by their violence.

Geneva Bible: Act 23:3

^{( 3 )} Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, [thou] ^{( b )} whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten ^{( c )} contrary to the law?

^{( 3 )} It is lawful for us to complain of injuries, and to summon the wicked to the judgment seat of God, but yet we must do it without hatred, and with a quiet and peaceable mind.

^{( b )} This is a vehement and severe speech, but yet not reproachful: for the godly may speak severely, and yet be void of the bitter affection of a severe and angry mind.

^{( c )} For the Law commands the judge to hear the person that is accused patiently, and to pronounce the sentence judiciously.

Geneva Bible: Act 23:5

^{( 4 )} Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

^{( 4 )} We must willingly and from the heart give honour to magistrates, although they are tyrants.

Geneva Bible: Act 23:6

^{( 5 )} But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

^{( 5 )} We may sometimes lawfully set the wicked against themselves, so that they stop assaulting us, in order that the truth is not hindered.

Geneva Bible: Act 23:7

^{( 6 )} And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.

^{( 6 )} The agreement between the wicked is weak, even though they conspire together to oppress the truth.

Geneva Bible: Act 23:8

^{( 7 )} For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither ^{( d )} angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

^{( 7 )} It is an old heresy of the Sadducees to deny the existence of angels and souls, and in addition the resurrection of the dead.

^{( d )} Things that exist without a body.

Geneva Bible: Act 23:9

^{( 8 )} And there arose a great cry: and the ^{( e )} scribes [that were] of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

^{( 8 )} The Lord, when it pleases him, finds defenders of his cause, even amongst his enemies.

^{( e )} The scribe's office was a public office, and the name of the Pharisees was the name of a sect.

Geneva Bible: Act 23:10

^{( 9 )} And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring [him] into the castle.

^{( 9 )} God will not forsake his own, even to the very end.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Act 23:1-35

1 As Paul pleads his cause,

2 Ananias commands them to smite him.

7 Dissension among his accusers.

11 God encourages him.

14 The Jews' laying wait for Paul,

20 is declared unto the chief captain.

27 He sends him to Felix the governor.

Combined Bible: Act 23:1

1, 2. No sooner had the prisoner and the Sanhedrim come face to face, than the chiliarch must have perceived that he was again to be disappointed in his efforts to understand the case; for, instead of preferring formal charges against Paul, the proceedings were opened by calling upon him to defend himself: (1) " Then Paul, looking earnestly on the Sanhedrim, said: I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (2) Then the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him, to smite him in the mouth."No doubt the blow was as prompt as the word. The interruption was as unexpected as it was exasperating.   

  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:2

notes on verse 1  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:3

For once in the history of his persecution, the provocation was too great for Paul, and found vent in a burst of anger. (3) " Then said Paul to him, God shall smite thee, thou whitewashed wall. And do you sit to judge me according to the law, and command me to be smitten contrary to the law? (4) But those who were standing by said, Do you revile God's high priest? (5) Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. " The flash of anger was but momentary. No sooner were the words spoken than his habitual self-control regained its ascendancy. He frankly admits that he had done wrong, but excuses himself by the fact that he knew not that it was the high priest. If he had been disposed to further excuse himself, by urging that the high priest deserved all he had said of him, his plea would have been true, but insufficient. For how can we return good for evil, if we return to men their deserts? It were well if his example should be imitated by all disciples who meet with injustice at the hands of their rulers.   

  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:4

notes on verse 3  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:5

notes on verse 3  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:6

The presence in which Paul stood was not unfamiliar to him. He doubtless remembered the faces of many in the Sanhedrim, and was intimately acquainted with the party feelings which often distracted their councils, and which had been known to stain the streets of Jerusalem with blood. Seeing that they were determined not to do him justice, he resolved to take advantage of their party feuds in order to secure his own safety. (6) " But when Paul knew that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrim, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. (8) For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But the Pharisees confess both. (9) And there arose a great outcry; and the scribes, who were of the Pharisees' party, arose and contended, saying, We find no evil in this man. And if an angel or a spirit has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. (10) And there being a great dissension, the chiliarch, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from their midst, and lead him into the castle. " It will be observed, that in stating the difference between the two parties, Luke uses the term both when the reference is to three specifications, viz.: resurrection, angel, and spirit. This arose, no doubt, from the fact that the three specifications are really combined in two, as the existence of angels or spirits involves but the one question of the existence of purely spiritual beings.  

Under ordinary circumstances, it is not probable that so violent a dissension could have been so easily excited. The circumstance is indicative of an unusual exasperation of the parties just preceding this event. Such a state of things, combined with the complete agreement declared by Paul with the Pharisees on the points at issue, naturally inclined them to favor this release. He declared this agreement in strong terms, asserting not only that he was a Pharisee, but the son of a Pharisee, and that it was for the hope peculiar to the party that he was arraigned as a criminal. They saw that the establishment of his doctrine would certainly be the ruin of the opposing sect, and losing sight, for a moment, of its effects upon their own party; forgetting, too, the ill-founded charge against Paul, in reference to the law and temple, they declared that they could find no fault in the man. Perhaps, also, the awkward position they were in with reference to the proof of those charges rendered them somewhat willing to find an excuse for admitting his innocence. But the slightest hint, on their part, of his innocence, was sufficient to arouse the Sadducees, because they saw that it was prompted chiefly by hatred to themselves. On the part of the Sadducees, the two most violent passions to which they were subject, hatred toward the disciples and jealousy toward the Pharisees, combined to swell the uproar which broke up the deliberations of the assembly. Paul was near being a victim to the storm which he had raised, when the Roman soldiery came to his rescue. Lysias was once more disappointed in his efforts to learn the truth about his case, and must have been in greater perplexity than ever, as he commanded the soldiers to lead him back into the castle.   

  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:7

notes on verse 6  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:8

notes on verse 6  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:9

notes on verse 6  

  

Combined Bible: Act 23:10

notes on verse 6  

  

MHCC: Act 23:1-5

See here the character of an honest man. He sets God before him, and lives as in his sight. He makes conscience of what he says and does, and, according to the best of his knowledge, he keeps from whatever is evil, and cleaves to what is good. He is conscientious in all his words and conduct. Those who thus live before God, may, like Paul, have confidence both toward God and man. Though the answer of Paul contained a just rebuke and prediction, he seems to have been too angry at the treatment he received in uttering them. Great men may be told of their faults, and public complaints may be made in a proper manner; but the law of God requires respect for those in authority.

MHCC: Act 23:6-11

The Pharisees were correct in the faith of the Jewish church. The Sadducees were no friends to the Scripture or Divine revelation; they denied a future state; they had neither hope of eternal happiness, nor dread of eternal misery. When called in question for his being a Christian, Paul might truly say he was called in question for the hope of the resurrection of the dead. It was justifiable in him, by this profession of his opinion on that disputed point, to draw off the Pharisees from persecuting him, and to lead them to protect him from this unlawful violence. How easily can God defend his own cause! Though the Jews seemed to be perfectly agreed in their conspiracy against religion, yet they were influenced by very different motives. There is no true friendship among the wicked, and in a moment, and with the utmost ease, God can turn their union into open enmity. Divine consolations stood Paul in the most stead; the chief captain rescued him out of the hands of cruel men, but the event he could not tell. Whoever is against us, we need not fear, if the Lord stand by us. It is the will of Christ, that his servants who are faithful, should be always cheerful. He might think he should never see Rome; but God tells him, even in that he should be gratified, since he desired to go there only for the honour of Christ, and to do good.

Matthew Henry: Act 23:1-5

Perhaps when Paul was brought, as he often was ( corpus cum causa - the person and the cause together ), before heathen magistrates and councils, where he and his cause were slighted, because not at all understood, he thought, if he were brought before the sanhedrim at Jerusalem, he should be able to deal with them to some good purpose, and yet we do not find that he works at all upon them. Here we have,

I. Paul's protestation of his own integrity. Whether the chief priest put any question to him, or the chief captain made any representation of his case to the court, we are not told; but Paul appeared here,

1. With a good courage. He was not at all put out of countenance upon his being brought before such an august assembly, for which in his youth he had conceived such a veneration; nor did he fear their calling him to an account about the letters they gave him to Damascus, to persecute the Christians there, though (for aught we know) this was the first time he had ever seem them since; but he earnestly beheld the council. When Stephen was brought before them, they thought to have faced him down, but could not, such was his holy confidence; they looked stedfastly on him, and his face was as that of an angel, Act 6:15. Now that Paul was brought before them he thought to have faced them down, but could not, such was their wicked impudence. However, now was fulfilled in him what God promised to Ezekiel (Eze 3:8, Eze 3:9): I have made thy face strong against their faces; fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks.

2. With a good conscience, and that gave him a good courage.

- Hic murus aheneus esto,

Nil conscire sibi -

Be this thy brazen bulwark of defence,

Still to preserve thy conscious innocence.

He said, " Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day. However I may be reproached, my heart does not reproach me, but witnesses for me."(1.) He had always been a man inclined to religion; he never was a man that lived at large, but always put a difference between moral good and evil; even in his unregenerate state, he was, as touching the righteousness that was in the law, blameless. He was no unthinking man, who never considered what he did, no designing man, who cared not what he did, so he could but compass his own ends. (2.) Even when he persecuted the church of God, he thought he ought to do it, and that he did God service in it. Though his conscience was misinformed, yet he acted according to the dictates of it. See Act 26:9. (3.) He seems rather to speak of the time since his conversion, since he left the service of the high priest, and fell under their displeasure for so doing; he does not say, From my beginning until this day; but, "All the time in which you have looked upon me as a deserter, an apostate, and an enemy to your church, even to this day, I have lived in all good conscience before God; whatever you may think of me, I have in every thing approved myself to God, and lived honestly,"Heb 13:18. He had aimed at nothing but to please God and do his duty, in those things for which they were so incensed against him; in all he had done towards the setting up of the kingdom of Christ, and the setting of it up among the Gentiles, he had acted conscientiously. See here the character of an honest man. [1.] He sets God before him, and lives as in his sight, and under his eyes, and with an eye to him. Walk before me, and be thou upright. [2.] He makes conscience of what he says and does, and, though he may be under some mistakes, yet, according to the best of his knowledge, he abstains from that which is evil and cleaves to that which is good. [3.] He is universally conscientious; and those that are not so are not at all truly conscientious; is so in all manner of conversation: "I have lived in all good conscience; have had my whole conversation under the direction and dominion of conscience."[4.] He continues so, and perseveres in it: "I have lived so until this day. "Whatever changes pass over him, he is still the same, strictly conscientious. And those who thus live in all good conscience before God may, like Paul here, lift up their face without spot; and, if their hearts condemn them not, may have confidence both towards God and man, as Job had when he still held fast his integrity, and Paul himself, whose rejoicing was this, the testimony of his conscience.

II. The outrage of which Ananias the high priest was guilty: he commanded those that stood by, the beadles that attended the court, to smite him on the mouth (Act 23:2), to give him a dash on the teeth, either with a hand or with a rod. Our Lord Jesus was thus despitefully used in this court, by one of the servants (Joh 18:22), as was foretold, Mic 5:1, They shall smite the Judge of Israel upon the cheek. But here was an order of court for the doing of it, and, it is likely, it was done. 1. The high priest was highly offended at Paul; some think, because he looked so boldly and earnestly at the council, as if he would face them down; others because he did not address himself particularly to him as president, with some title of honour and respect, but spoke freely and familiarly to them all, as men and brethren. His protestation of his integrity was provocation enough to one who was resolved to run him down and make him odious. When he could charge him with no crime, he thought it was crime enough that he asserted his own innocency. 2. In his rage he ordered him to be smitten, so to put disgrace upon him, and to be smitten on the mouth, as having offended with his lips, and in token of his enjoining him silence. This brutish and barbarous method he had recourse to when he could not answer the wisdom and spirit wherewith he spoke. Thus Zedekiah smote Micaiah (1Ki 22:24), and Pashur smote Jeremiah (Jer 20:2), when they spoke in the name of the Lord. If therefore we see such indignities done to good men, nay, if they be done to us for well doing and well saying, we must not think it strange; Christ will give those the kisses of his mouth (Son 1:2) who for his sake receive blows on the mouth. And though it may be expected that, as Solomon says, every man should kiss his lips that giveth a right answer (Pro 24:26), yet we often see the contrary.

III. The denunciation of the wrath of God against the high priest for this wickedness in the place of judgment (Ecc 3:16): it agrees with what follows there, Act 23:17, with which Solomon comforted himself ( I said in my heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked ) : God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, Act 23:3. Paul did not speak this in any sinful heat or passion, but in a holy zeal against the high priest's abuse of his power, and with something of a prophetic spirit, not at all with a spirit of revenge. 1. He gives him his due character: Thou whited wall; that is, thou hypocrite - a mud-wall, trash and dirt and rubbish underneath, but plastered over, or white-washed. It is the same comparison in effect with that of Christ, when he compares the Pharisees to whited sepulchres, Mat 23:27. Those that daubed with untempered mortar failed not to daub themselves over with something that made them look not only clean, but gay. 2. He reads him his just doom: " God shall smite thee, shall bring upon thee his sore judgments, especially spiritual judgments."Grotius thinks this was fulfilled soon after, in his removal from the office of the high priest, either by death or deprivation, for he finds another in that office a little while after this; probably he was smitten by some sudden stroke of divine vengeance. Jeroboam's hand was withered when it was stretched out against a prophet. 3. He assigns a good reason for that doom: "For sittest thou there as president in the supreme judicature of the church, pretending to judge me after the law, to convict and condemn me by the law, and yet commandest me to be smitten before any crime is proved upon me, which is contrary to the law? "No man must be beaten unless he be worthy to be beaten, Deu 25:2. It is against all law, human and divine, natural and positive, to hinder a man from making his defense, and to condemn him unheard. When Paul was beaten by the rabble, he could say, Father, forgive them, they know not what they do; but it is inexcusable in a high priest that is appointed to judge according to the law.

IV. The offence which was taken at this bold word of Paul's (Act 23:4): Those that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? It is a probable conjecture that those who blamed Paul for what he said were believing Jews, who were zealous for the law, and consequently for the honour of the high priest, and therefore took it ill that Paul should thus reflect upon him, and checked him for it. See here then, 1. What a hard game Paul had to play, when his enemies were abusive to him, and his friends were so far from standing by him, and appearing for him, that they were ready to find fault with his management. 2. How apt even the disciples of Christ themselves are to overvalue outward pomp and power. As because the temple had been God's temple, and a magnificent structure, there were those who followed Christ that could not bear to have any thing said that threatened the destruction of it; so because the high priest had been God's high priest, and was a man that made a figure, though he was an inveterate enemy to Christianity, yet these were disgusted at Paul for giving him his due.

V. The excuse that Paul made for what he had said, because he found it was a stumbling-block to his weak brethren, and might prejudice them against him in other things. These Jewish Christians, though weak, yet were brethren, so he calls them here, and, in consideration of that, is almost ready to recall his words; for who is offended, saith he, and I burn not? 2Co 11:29. His fixed resolution was rather to abridge himself in the use of his Christian liberty than give offence to a weak brother; rather than do this, he will eat no flesh while the world stands, 1Co 8:13. And so here though he had taken the liberty to tell the high priest his own, yet, when he found it gave offence, he cried Peccavi - I have done wrong. He wished he had not done it; and though he did not beg the high priest's pardon, nor excuse it to him, yet he begs their pardon who took offence at it, because this was not a time to inform them better, nor to say what he could say to justify himself. 1. He excuses it with this, that he did not consider when he said it to whom he spoke (Act 23:5): I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest - ouk ēdein . "I did not just then think of the dignity of his place, or else I would have spoken more respectfully to him."I see not how we can with any probability think that Paul did not know him to be the high priest, for Paul had been seven days in the temple at the time of the feast, where he could not miss of seeing the high priest; and his telling him that he sat to judge him after the law shows that he knew who he was; but, says he, I did not consider it. Dr. Whitby puts this sense upon it, that the prophetic impulse that was upon him, and inwardly moved him to say what he did, did not permit him to notice that it was the high priest, lest this law might have restrained him from complying with that impulse; but the Jews acknowledged that prophets might use a liberty in speaking of rulers which others might not, as Isa 1:10, Isa 1:23. Or (as he quotes the sense of Grotius and Lightfoot) Paul does not go about to excuse what he had said in the least, but rather to justify it; "I own that God's high priest is not to be reviled, but I do not own this Ananias to be high priest. He is a usurper; he came to the office by bribery and corruption, and the Jewish rabbin say that he who does so is neither a judge nor to be honoured as such."Yet, 2. He takes care that what he had said should not be drawn into a precedent, to the weakening of the obligation of that law in the least: For it is written, and it remains a law in full force, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. It is for the public good that the honour of magistracy should be supported, and not suffer for the miscarriages of those who are entrusted with it, and therefore that decorum be observed in speaking both of and to princes and judges. Even in Job's time it was not thought fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked, or to princes, You are ungodly, Job 34:18. Even when we do well, and suffer for it, we must take it patiently, 1Pe 2:20. Not as if great men may not hear of their faults, and public grievances be complained of by proper persons and in a decent manner, but there must be a particular tenderness for the honour and reputation of those in authority more than of other people, because the law of God requires a particular reverence to be paid to them, as God's vicegerents; and it is of dangerous consequence to have those any way countenanced who despise dominions, and speak evil of dignities, Jud 1:8. Curse not the king, no not in thy thought, Ecc 10:20.

Matthew Henry: Act 23:6-11

Many are the troubles of the righteous, but some way or other the Lord delivereth them out of them all. Paul owned he had experienced the truth of this in the persecutions he had undergone among the Gentiles (see 2Ti 3:11): Out of them all the Lord delivered me. And now he finds that he who has delivered does and will deliver. He that delivered him in the foregoing chapter from the tumult of the people here delivers him from that of the elders.

I. His own prudence and ingenuity stand him in some stead, and contribute much to his escape. Paul's greatest honour, and that upon which he most valued himself, was that he was a Christian, and an apostle of Christ; and all his other honours he despised and made nothing of, in comparison with this, counting them but dung, that he might win Christ; and yet he had sometimes occasion to make use of his other honours, and they did him service. His being a citizen of Rome saved him in the foregoing chapter from his being scourged by the chief captain as a vagabond, and here his being a Pharisee saved him from being condemned by the sanhedrim, as an apostate from the faith and worship of the God of Israel. It will consist very well with our willingness to suffer for Christ to use all lawful methods, nay, and arts too, both to prevent suffering and to extricate ourselves out of it. The honest policy Paul used here for his own preservation was to divide his judges, and to set them at variance one with another about him; and, by incensing one part of them more against him, to engage the contrary part for him.

1. The great council was made up of Sadducees and Pharisees, and Paul perceived it. He knew the characters of many of them ever since he lived among them, and saw those among them whom he knew to be Sadducees, and others whom he knew to be Pharisees (Act 23:6): One part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, and perhaps nearly an equal part. Now these differed very much from one another, and yet they ordinarily agreed well enough to do the business of the council together. (1.) The Pharisees were bigots, zealous for the ceremonies, not only those which God had appointed, but those which were enjoined by the tradition of the elders. They were great sticklers for the authority of the church, and for enforcing obedience to its injunctions, which occasioned many quarrels between them and our Lord Jesus; but at the same time they were very orthodox in the faith of the Jewish church concerning the world of spirits, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. (2.) The Sadducees were deists - no friends to the scripture, or divine revelation. The books of Moses they admitted as containing a good history and a good law, but had little regard to the other books of the Old Testament; see Mat 22:23. The account here given of these Sadducees is, [1.] That they deny the resurrection; not only the return of the body to life, but a future state of rewards and punishments. They had neither hope of eternal happiness nor dread of eternal misery, nor expectation of any thing on the other side death; and it was upon these principles that they said, It is in vain to serve God, and called the proud happy, Mal 3:14, Mal 3:15. [2.] That they denied the existence of angels and spirits, and allowed of no being but matter. They thought that God himself was corporeal, and had parts and members as we have. When they read of angels in the Old Testament, they supposed them to be messengers that God made and sent on his errands as there was occasion, or that they were impressions on the fancies of those they were sent to, and no real existences - that they were this, or that, or any thing rather than what they were. And, as for the souls of men, they looked upon them to be nothing else but the temperament of the humours of the body, or the animal spirits, but denied their existence in a state of separation from the body, and any difference between the soul of a man and of a beast. These, no doubt, pretended to be free-thinkers, but really thought as meanly, absurdly, and slavishly, as possible. It is strange how men of such corrupt and wicked principles could come into office, and have a place in the great sanhedrim; but many of them were of quality and estate, and they complied with the public establishment, and so got in and kept in. But they were generally stigmatized as heretics, were ranked with the Epicureans, and were prayed against and excluded from eternal life. The prayer which the modern Jews use against Christians, Witsius thinks, was designed by Gamaliel, who made it, against the Sadducees; and that they meant them in their usual imprecation, Let the name of the wicked rot. But how degenerate was the character and how miserable the state of the Jewish church, when such profane men as these were among their rulers!

2. In this matter of difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees Paul openly declared himself to be on the Pharisees' side against the Sadducees (Act 23:6): He cried out, so as to be heard by all, " I am a Pharisee, was bred a Pharisee, nay, I was born one, in effect, for I was the son of a Pharisee, my father was one before me, and thus far I am still a Pharisee that I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and I may truly say that, if the matter were rightly understood, it would be found that this is it for which I am now called in question. "When Christ was upon earth the Pharisees set themselves most against him, because he witnessed against their traditions and corrupt glosses upon the law; but, after his ascension, the Sadducees set themselves most against his apostles, because they preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead, Act 4:1, Act 4:2. And it is said (Act 5:17) that they were the sect of the Sadducees that were filled with indignation at them, because they preached that life and immortality which is brought to light by the gospel. Now here, (1.) Paul owns himself a Pharisee, so far as the Pharisees were in the right. Though as Pharisaism was opposed to Christianity he set himself against it, and against all its traditions that were set up in competition with the law of God or in contradiction to the gospel of Christ, yet, as it was opposed to Sadducism, he adhered to it. We must never think the worse of any truth of God, nor be more shy of owning it, for its being held by men otherwise corrupt. If the Pharisees will hope for the resurrection of the dead, Paul will go along with them in that hope, and be one of them, whether they will or no. (2.) He might truly say that being persecuted, as a Christian, this was the thing he was called in question for. Perhaps he knew that the Sadducees, though they had not such an interest in the common people as the Pharisees had, yet had underhand incensed the mob against him, under pretence of his having preached to the Gentiles, but really because he had preached the hope of the resurrection. However, being called in question for his being a Christian, he might truly say he was called in question for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, as he afterwards pleaded, Act 24:15, and Act 26:6, Act 26:7. Though Paul preached against the traditions of the elders (as his Master had done), and therein opposed the Pharisees, yet he valued himself more upon his preaching the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, in which he concurred with the Pharisees.

3. This occasioned a division in the council. It is probable that the high priest sided with the Sadducees (as he had done Act 5:17, and made it to appear by his rage at Paul, Act 23:2), which alarmed the Pharisees so much the more; but so it was, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Act 23:7), for this word of Paul's made the Sadducees more warm and the Pharisees more cool in the prosecution of him; so that the multitude was divided; eschisthē - there was a schism, a quarrel among them, and the edge of their zeal began to turn from Paul against one another; nor could they go on to act against him when they could not agree among themselves, or prosecute him for breaking the unity of the church when there was so little among them of the unity of the spirit. All the cry had been against Paul, but now there arose a great cry against one another, Act 23:9. So much did a fierce furious spirit prevail among all orders of the Jews at this time that every thing was done with clamour and noise; and in such a tumultuous manner were the great principles of their religion stickled for, by which they received little service, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Gainsayers may be convinced by fair reasoning, but never by a great cry.

4. The Pharisees hereupon (would one think it?) took Paul's part (Act 23:9): They strove, diemachonto - They fought, saying, We find no evil in this man. He had conducted himself decently and reverently in the temple, and had attended the service of the church; and, though it was but occasionally, yet it showed that he was not such an enemy to it as he was said to be. He had spoken very handsomely in his own defence, and given a good account of himself, and had now declared himself orthodox in the great principles of religion, as well as regular and conscientious in his conversation; and therefore they cannot see that he has done any thing worthy of death of bonds. Nay, they go further, " If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him concerning Jesus, and put him upon preaching as he does, though we may not be so far satisfied as to give credit to him, yet we ought to be cautioned not to oppose him, lest we be found fighting against God; "as Gamaliel, who was himself a Pharisee, had argued, Act 5:39. Now here, (1.) We may observe, to the honour of the gospel, that it was witnessed to even by its adversaries, and confessions, not only of its innocency, but of its excellency, were extorted sometimes by the power of truth even from those that persecuted it. Pilate found no fault in Christ though he put him to death, nor Festus in Paul though he detained him in bonds; and the Pharisees here supposed it possible that Paul might have a commission sent him for heaven by an angel to do what he did; and yet it should seem, as elders, they after this joined with the high priest in prosecuting him, Act 24:1. They sinned against the knowledge which they not only had, but sometimes owned, as Christ had said of them, They have both seen and hated both me and my Father, Joh 15:24. Yet, (2.) We will hope that some of them at least did henceforward conceive a better opinion of Paul than they had had, and were favourable to him, having had such a satisfactory account both of his conversation in all good conscience and of his faith touching another world; and then it must be observed to their honour that their zeal for the traditions of the elders, which Paul had departed fRom. was so far swallowed up in a zeal for the great and fundamental doctrines of religion, to which Paul still adhered, that if he will heartily join with them against the Sadducees, and adhere to the hope of the resurrection of the dead, they will not think his shaking off the ceremonial law to be an evil in him, but charitably hope that he walks according to the light God has given him by some angel or spirit, and are so far from persecuting him that they are ready to patronize and protect him. The persecuting Pharisees of the church of Rome are not of this spirit: for let a man be ever so sincere and zealous for all the articles of the Christian faith, yet, if he lay not his neck under the yoke of their church's authority, they find evil enough in him to persecute him unto the death.

II. The chief captain's care and conduct stand him in more stead; for when he has thrown this bone of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees (which set them together by the ears, and gained a fair testimony from the Pharisees), yet he is never the nearer, but is in danger of being pulled in pieces by them - the Pharisees pulling to have him set at liberty, and the Sadducees pulling to have him put to death, or thrown to the people, like Daniel into the den of lions; so that the chief captain is forced to come with his soldiers and rescue him, as he had done, Act 21:32, and Act 22:24. 1. See here Paul's danger. Between his friends and his enemies he had like to have been pulled to pieces, the one hugging him to death, the other crushing him to death, such violences are those liable to that are eminent, and that are become remarkable, as Paul was, who was by some so much beloved and by others so much maligned. 2. His deliverance: The chief captain ordered his soldiers to go down from the upper wards, and to take them by force from among them, out of that apartment in the temple where he had ordered the council to meet, and to bring him into the castle, or tower of Antonio; for he saw he could make nothing of them towards the understanding of the merits of his cause.

III. Divine consolations stood him in most stead of all. The chief captain had rescued him out of the hands of cruel men, but still he had him in custody, and what might be the issue he could not tell. The castle was indeed a protection to him, but withal it was a confinement; and, as it was now his preservation from so great a death, it might be his reservation for a greater. We do not find that any of the apostles or elders at Jerusalem came to him; either they had not courage or they had not admission. Perhaps, in the night following, Paul was full of thoughts and cares what should become of him, and how his present troubles might be turned to answer some good purpose. Then did the Lord Jesus make him a kind visit, and, thought at midnight, yet a very seasonable one (Act 23:11): The Lord stood by him, came to his bed-side, though perhaps it was but a bed of straw, to show him that he was all the day long with him really as sure as he was in the night with him visibly. Note, Whoever is against us, we need not fear if the Lord stand by us; if he undertake our protection, we may set those that seek our ruin at defiance. The Lord is with those that uphold my soul, and then nothing can come amiss. 1. Christ bids him have a good heart upon it: " Be of good cheer, Paul; be not discouraged; let not what has happened sadden thee, nor let what may yet be before thee frighten thee."Note, It is the will of Christ that his servants who are faithful should be always cheerful. Perhaps Paul, in the reflection, began to be jealous of himself whether he had done well in what he said to the council the day before; but Christ, by his word, satisfies him that God approved of his conduct. Or, perhaps, it troubled him that his friends did not come to him; but Christ's visit did itself speak, though he had not said, Be of good cheer, Paul. 2. It is a strange argument which he makes use of to encourage him: As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. One would think this was but cold comfort: "As thou hast undergone a great deal of trouble for me so thou must undergo a great deal more;"and yet this was designed to encourage him; for hereby he is given to understand, (1.) That he had been serving Christ as a witness for him in what he had hitherto endured. It was for no fault that he was buffeted, and it was not his former persecuting of the church that was now remembered against him, however he might remember it against himself, but he was still going on with his work. (2.) That he had not yet finished his testimony, nor was, by his imprisonment, laid aside as useless, but was only reserved for further service. Nothing disheartened Paul so much as the thought of being taken off from doing service to Christ and good to souls: Fear not, says Christ, I have not done with thee, (3.) Paul seems to have had a particular fancy, and an innocent one, to go to Rome, to preach the gospel there, though it was already preached, and a church planted there; yet, being a citizen of Rome, he longed for a journey thither, and had designed it (Act 19:21): After I have been at Jerusalem, I must also see Rome. And he had written to the Romans some time ago that he longed to see them, Rom 1:11. Now he was ready to conclude that this had broken his measures, and he should never see Rome; but even in that Christ tells him he should be gratified, since he desired it for the honour of Christ and to do good.

Barclay: Act 23:1-10

There was a certain audacious recklessness about Paul's conduct before the Sanhedrin; he acted like a man who knew that he was burning his boats. Even his very beginning was a challenge. To say Brethren was to put himself on an equal footing with the court; for the normal beginning when addressing the Sanhedrin was, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel." When the high priest ordered Paul to be struck, he himself was transgressing the Law, which said, "He who strikes the cheek of an Israelite, strikes, as it were, the glory of God." So Paul rounds upon him, calling him a white-washed wall. To touch a dead body was for an Israelite to incur ceremonial defilement; it was therefore the custom to white-wash tombs so that none might be touched by mistake. So Paul is in effect calling the high priest a white-washed tomb.

It was indeed a crime to speak evil of a ruler of the people (Exo 22:28). Paul knew perfectly well that Ananias was high priest. But Ananias was notorious as a glutton, a thief, a rapacious robber and a quisling in the Roman service. Paul's answer really means, "This man sitting there--I never knew a man like that could be high priest of Israel." Then Paul made a claim that he knew would set the Sanhedrin by the ears. In the Sanhedrin there were Pharisees and Sadducees whose beliefs were often opposed. The Pharisees believed in the minutiae of the oral Law; the Sadducees accepted only the written Law. The Pharisees believed in predestination; the Sadducees believed in free-will. The Pharisees believed in angels and spirits; the Sadducees did not. Above all, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead; the Sadducees did not.

So Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and that it was for the hope of resurrection from the dead he was on trial. As a result the Sanhedrin was split in two; and in the violent argument that followed Paul was nearly torn in pieces. To save him from violence the commander had to take him back to the barracks again.

Constable: Act 9:32--Rom 1:1

III. THE WITNESS TO THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH 9:32--28:31

Luke next recorded the church's expansion beyond Palestine to the uttermost parts of the earth (1:8). The Ethiopian eunuch took the gospel to Africa, but he became a Christian in Judea. Now we begin to read of people becoming Christians in places farther from Jerusalem and Judea.

Constable: Act 19:21--Rom 1:1

D. The extension of the church to Rome 19:21-28:31

"The panel is introduced by the programmatic statement of 19:21-22 and concludes with the summary statement of 28:31. Three features immediately strike the reader in this sixth panel: (1) the disproportionate length of the panel, including one-third of the total material of Acts; (2) the prominence given the speeches of Paul in his defense; and (3) the dominance of the we' sections in the narrative portions (cf. 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). It cannot be said that the length is related to the theological significance of the material presented. It seems rather to be related to the apologetic purpose of Luke, particularly in the five defenses, and to the eyewitness character of the narrative with its inevitable elaboration of details (cf. the Philippian anecdotes of 16:11-40). The events narrated here span the time from approximately 56 through 62."⁷⁸⁷

"This ending of the Acts forms a striking parallel to the ending of the [third] Gospel. There the passion of the Lord with all its immediate preparation is related in great detail; so here the passion' of Paul is on a scale altogether disproportionate to the rest of the book. The Acts however does not end in fact with S. Paul's death, but with a condition of renewed life; similarly at the end of Part I the passion' of S. Peter had ended with a deliverance. Thus in each case there is a parallel to the resurrection in the Gospel."⁷⁸⁸

Constable: Act 21:17--23:33

2. Ministry in Jerusalem 21:17-23:32

The events that transpired in Jerusalem when Paul visited the city on this occasion proved crucial in spreading the gospel to Rome. Luke wrote these events to reveal God's methods to his readers.

Constable: Act 22:30--23:11

Paul's defense before the Sanhedrin 22:30-23:10

"The irregular structure of Luke's account of Paul's defense before the Sanhedrin evidently reflects the tumultuous character of the session itself. Three matters pertaining to Luke's apologetic purpose come to the fore: (1) Christianity is rooted in the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (cf. 23:6); (2) the debate Paul was engaged in regarding Christianity's claims must be viewed as first of all a Jewish intramural affair (cf. 23:7-10); and (3) the ongoing proclamation of the gospel in the Gentile world stems from a divine mandate (cf. 23:11)."⁸⁷⁰

22:30 The commander released Paul from his chains but kept him in custody. He decided the Sanhedrin could discover why the Jews were accusing Paul since he could not figure this out. He ordered this body to meet to examine Paul because he was responsible for keeping peace in Jerusalem. If Paul's offenses proved inconsequential, Claudius Lysias would release him. If the Jews charged him with some religious crime, the Sanhedrin could try him. If they charged him with a civil crime, the Roman provincial governor would try him.⁸⁷¹

This was at least the sixth time that the Sanhedrin had to evaluate the claims of Christ. The first occasion was when it met to consider reports about Jesus (John 11:47-53), and the second was Jesus' trial (Matt. 26:57-68; 27:1-2; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1; Luke 22:66-71). The third meeting was the trial of Peter and John (4:5-22), the fourth was the trial of the Twelve (5:21-40), and the fifth was Stephen's trial (6:12-7:60).

23:1 Evidently Paul intended to give his testimony again to the Sanhedrin. He addressed this body using the formal address common among Jews (lit. "Men brothers," Gr. Andres adelphoi). He identified himself as a Jew since his loyalty to Judaism was in question.

Paul frequently claimed to have lived with a clear conscience before God (cf. 20:18-21, 26-27; 24:16; Rom 15:19, 23; Phil 3:6; 2 Tim. 4:7). Here this claim meant that he believed that nothing he had done, which he was about to relate, was contrary to the will of God contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically his Christian beliefs and conduct did not compromise his Jewish heritage.

"He was not, of course, claiming sinlessness, nor was he referring to the inner spiritual conflicts of Rom. 7. The reference was to the externals of his life, and the blamelessness of his conduct as measured by the demands of the Law (cf. Phil. 3:4-6)."⁸⁷²

23:2 Paul's claim to uprightness so incensed Ananias that he ordered a soldier to strike Paul on the mouth. Probably Ananias, who was a Sadducee, had already made up his mind that Paul, who had been a Pharisee, was guilty. An officer of the high priest had also struck Jesus as he testified before the Sanhedrin (cf. John 18:20-23).

Ananias became high priest in 47 A.D. The Jewish high priesthood was a political appointment during Rome's occupation of Palestine. Josephus painted Ananias as a despicable person. He seized for his own use tithes that should have gone to the ordinary priests and gave large bribes to Romans and Jews. The emperor summoned him to Rome on charges of being involved in a bloody battle between Jews and Samaritans, but he escaped punishment. He was very wealthy and resorted to violence and even assassination to accomplish his ends. He was also very pro-Roman, and the Jews finally killed him in their uprising against Rome in 66 A.D.⁸⁷³

23:3 Jewish law considered a person innocent until proved guilty, but Ananias had punished Paul before he had been charged much less tried and found guilty. Paul reacted indignantly and uttered a prophecy of Ananias' judgment that God fulfilled later. A white-washed wall is one that was frequently inferior on the inside but looked good outwardly (cf. Ezek. 13:10-16; Matt. 23:27). Paul's reaction was extreme, but as he proceeded to explain, it resulted from misunderstanding.

23:4-5 Paul may not have known that the person who commanded the soldier to strike him was the high priest for any number of reasons. Paul had not been in Jerusalem for an extended visit for over 20 years and may not have been able to recognize the current high priest by sight. Perhaps Ananias was not wearing his high priestly robes since this was not a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin.⁸⁷⁴ Perhaps Paul was looking in another direction when Ananias gave the order to strike him. Perhaps Paul had poor eyesight,⁸⁷⁵ though this seems less likely in view of verse 1.⁸⁷⁶ Another possibility is that Paul was speaking in irony: "I did not think that a man who would give such an order could be the high priest.'"⁸⁷⁷ Some interpreters believe that Paul simply lost his temper.⁸⁷⁸ Others believe he was apologizing.⁸⁷⁹ Paul voiced similar passionate utterances on other occasions (cf. Gal. 2:11; 5:12; Phil. 3:2).

The high priest was a ruler of the Jews in a higher sense than was true of the rest of the Sanhedrin members. Paul's quotation from Exodus 22:28 showed that he was in subjection to God's revealed will that he was on trial for repudiating. Being subject to governmental authorities is a requirement under the New Covenant as it was under the Old (cf. Rom. 13:1-7; et al.). Paul quoted the Old Covenant here for the benefit of the Jews who lived under it.

23:6 Paul recognized that he could not get a fair trial in a court that did not even observe the law it purported to defend, so he changed his tactics. He decided to divide the jury and began his defense again ("Men brethren"). This time he took the offensive.

The issue of the resurrection of the dead was fundamental in Paul's case (cf. 17:32). Israel's national hope of deliverance by her Messiah rested on the resurrection of that Messiah as predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. By raising the old controversy of whether resurrection is possible, Paul divided his accusers.

"Paul keeps coming back to the theme of hope and resurrection even when it no longer provokes disruption (cf. 24:15, 21; 28:20), and it will be a central theme in Paul's climactic defense speech before King Agrippa (26:6-8, 23). Paul is doing more than injecting a controversial subject into the Sanhedrin hearing. He is trying to change the entire issue of his trial, and he will persist in this effort in subsequent scenes. Therefore, the significance of Paul's statement that he is on trial concerning hope and resurrection of the dead' can be understood only by considering the development of this theme in later scenes."⁸⁸⁰

23:7-8 Paul's belief in the resurrection divided the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees denied the resurrection as well as the existence of (good) angels and (evil) spirits, but the Pharisees believed in these things.⁸⁸¹

23:9-10 The Pharisees sided with Paul, and the Sadducees opposed him. Their emotional dispute excluded any possibility of a serious examination of Paul's conduct or even a clarification of the charges against him. The Pharisees likewise defended Paul's claim to having received a vision on the Damascus road (22:6-11) or in the temple (22:17-21), but the Sadducees repudiated it. The Roman commander must have thrown up his hands in dismay. For a second time he could not discover what Paul had done and why so many Jews hated him. Pilate had a similar problem with Jesus (John 18:28-19:15). Claudius Lysias decided to take Paul into protective custody in the Fortress.

College: Act 23:1-35

ACTS 23

7. The Trial before the Sanhedrin (22:30-23:10) (continued)

The Confrontation with the High Priest (23:1-5) (continued)

¹ Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day." ² At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. ³ Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" ⁴ Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?" ⁵ Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.' ^a"

^a 5 Exodus 22:28

In an attempt to get the accurate information on the charges against Paul, the tribune, Claudius Lysias, brought him before the Sanhedrin. Paul seemed undaunted as he "looked straight at the Sanhedrin" and began his address.

His words also were confident. He said that he had fulfilled his "duty to God in all good conscience." Paul's word for the phrase "fulfilled my duty" was pepolivteumai ( pepoliteumai ), a word which underscored his desire to "live as a good citizen." Appropriately enough, the issue of Paul's citizenship is a prominent theme in these last chapters of Acts (see 21:39; 22:28).

Some scholars have focused on this matter of Paul's conscience. It is probably true that the modern reader should not attach to the word "conscience" here the sense of a "moral faculty which is a guide for conduct." For Paul the thought is that his "conscious record of his past acts" was that he had faithfully served the Lord. Nevertheless, Paul's memory of his past surprises those who remember his persecution of the church (see 7:58; 8:1,3; 9:1-2). How could he say that he served God "in all good conscience?" In this context Paul was emphasizing his Jewish heritage (see 23:6). His service had been zealously rendered to God even when he persecuted the Christians. Now he was still zealously serving God, though he had left behind his rage against Christians. In this way he could say that before the law he stood blameless (Phil 3:6).

Ananias became high priest in A.D. 47 and held the office for eleven or twelve years. His reputation for corruption is reported by Josephus, a description which makes his careless disregard of the law in Paul's case very credible. When Ananias heard Paul's declaration of innocence, he ordered that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul saw this move as so hypocritical that he could not remain silent. As a judge, Ananias was charged with maintaining fair treatment of those who were being heard. Now he himself was breaking the law by calling for the punishment of a defendant who had not been convicted of any offense. This was surely a violation of Jewish law. Jesus had suffered the same injustice when he stood trial before the same body in Jerusalem (see John 18:22).

For this reason Paul spoke sharply to the high priest, calling him a "whitewashed wall." The metaphor speaks of a wall that has its ugliness covered by whitewash so as to appear acceptable on the exterior. The word for "whitewash" (koniavw, koniaô) is the same word used by Jesus when he spoke of Pharisees who were whitewashed tombs (Matt 23:27). What Jesus had in mind was the Jewish practice of painting tombs white so that law-keeping Jews would not accidentally touch one and become ritually unclean. Paul was likewise accusing Ananias of hypocrisy. Paul's prediction that God would strike Ananias may have found its fulfillment less than ten years later. When the Jewish revolt of A.D. 66 began, Ananias was dragged from an aqueduct where he was hiding and was murdered along with his brother Hezekiah.

When Paul uttered these words the officers of the Sanhedrin were shocked. They could not believe that he dared "to insult God's high priest." Paul's response is somewhat puzzling. How could Paul not know that Ananias was the high priest? Even if Paul were personally unfamiliar with him, the high priest could always be distinguished during hearings such as this by his white robes and prominent seat. In addition, no evidence exists to suggest that Paul was unable to see clearly who gave the command to strike him. Perhaps the best way to understand Paul's comment is to suggest that he spoke the words with some irony; as if to say that the behavior of Ananias made it difficult to recognize him as the high priest. After all, high priests were to be leaders who honored the laws they were charged with enforcing.

The Division of the Pharisees and the Sadducees over the Resurrection Hope (23:6-10)

⁶ Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." ⁷ When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. ⁸ (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) ⁹ There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. "We find nothing wrong with this man," they said. "What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?" ¹⁰ The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.

Having been interrupted when he began his defense, Paul now continued by declaring his connection with Pharisaism. Far from being dishonest in this situation, Paul merely accented a point in his favor which he had emphasized many times before. He had called himself a Pharisee even during his missionary travels (see Phil 3:5). Especially when he stood before Jewish audiences he forcefully insisted that his background and training was Pharisaic (see 22:3-5). It was not unnatural for him to highlight this point before the Sanhedrin.

Knowing that the Sanhedrin consisted of both Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul raised a point which between them was controversial. Most of the time the Sanhedrin was composed of a large majority of Sadducees with a minority of Pharisees. As a Pharisee, Paul held to the doctrine of the general resurrection at the end of time, a belief that was not uncommon among Jews (see John 5:28-29; 11:24; Dan 12:2). Paul himself insists on the importance of the concept of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.

The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the notion of the resurrection. Thus Paul summed up his ministry not only by calling himself "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee," but also noting that he was standing trial because of his "hope in the resurrection of the dead." Again, Paul's contention was not fabricated. His proclamation of Jesus as the resurrected Christ was a major source of resistance against him (see 13:26-47). The matter of Jesus as the Messiah raised from the dead stood very much in the way of Paul's acceptance by both the Pharisees and Sadducees. Of the two Jewish sects, however, the Pharisees had more sympathy with the gospel of the resurrected Jesus. Since they believed in the concept of the resurrection, they were just one step away from Paul. If only they could accept the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead, Paul would be able to feel a close kinship with them.

For the Sadducees, however, the story was different. The dispute that resulted from Paul's statement demonstrated how far apart the two groups were on the matter of the resurrection. Luke offers a parenthetical explanation for his non-Jewish readers who might not understand the difference between these Jewish sects. The Sadducees were characterized by denying that there is a resurrection "and that there are neither angels nor spirits." Though plenty of testimony can be found regarding the rejection of the resurrection by the Sadducees, no other verse or extra-biblical reference mentions their rejection of angels or spirits. What makes their denial of angels especially surprising is that the Sadducees were staunch believers in the Pentateuch, a part of the Old Testament which features angels in several passages (see Gen 18-19; 28:10-15; 32:22-30).

For this reason it is probably better to understand Luke's comment to mean that the Sadducees rejected "the belief in a spirit world of angels and demons" which included a hierarchy of spirit beings. One other possibility is that they rejected the concept of an afterlife which involved an angelic or spiritual state of being. Both of these concepts were part of Pharisaism (see Matt 22:30).

At any rate, the discussion now focused on the theological distinctions between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the matter of the resurrection. The controversy was so heated that the meeting degenerated into chaos. Some of the Pharisees even found reasons to support Paul. His contention that an angel had spoken to him did not seem so far-fetched to them. Lysias soon realized that Paul was becoming the object of the wrath of the largest share of the council and he had him pulled away to safety within the Fortress of Antonia.

8. The Word of Encouragement from God (23:11)

¹¹ The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, "Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome."

After two days of attacks on Paul, he may have felt very much alone. He had been beaten in the temple, shouted down by a mob, tied to a post for a Roman flogging, and rejected by the Sanhedrin. Had Paul been brought to Jerusalem to accomplish anything? Would he ever see some good come from his suffering?

At this moment in Paul's life the Lord moved to lift him up. "Take courage" were the words spoken by the Lord Jesus as he revealed that Paul would indeed "testify in Rome." Paul's endurance would pay off. He would not die before the angry mobs in Jerusalem. He was going to Rome.

9. The Conspiracy against Paul's Life (23:12-15)

¹² The next morning the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. ¹³ More than forty men were involved in this plot. ¹⁴ They went to the chief priests and elders and said, "We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. ¹⁵ Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here."

Encouragement was just what Paul was going to need. Still another danger awaited. A conspiracy was agreed upon the next day by an impressive segment of the Jewish population. A group of forty men, especially if armed with small weapons, would represent a significant threat. When they obtained the cooperation of the "chief priests and elders" (all from the Sadducees), they placed themselves in a powerful position to accomplish their goal. Their determination was obvious in their vow "not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul."

10. The Discovery of the Conspiracy (23:16-22)

¹⁶ But when the son of Paul's sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul. ¹⁷ Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, "Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him." ¹⁸ So he took him to the commander. The centurion said, "Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you." ¹⁹ The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, "What is it you want to tell me?" ²⁰ He said: "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. ²¹ Don't give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request." ²² The commander dismissed the young man and cautioned him, "Don't tell anyone that you have reported this to me."

The plan was thwarted when the son of Paul's sister heard rumors about the plot and went straight to the Fortress of Antonia to reveal it. Nothing else is known regarding Paul's family, but his sister's presence in Jerusalem with her son became Paul's salvation now. His access to Paul is not surprising given the Roman customs regarding prisoners of high rank (especially Roman citizens). Family and friends could frequently visit. Paul's ability to receive attention from a centurion also fits this model. The centurion took the "young man" (neaniva", neanias ), who may have been as young as twenty, to the tribune who listened seriously to the report. Luke records the details of the plot again in this conversation between Paul's nephew and the tribune. In doing so the drama of the situation rises to a peak. Will the tribune take action to avoid the trap? The tribune dismissed the young man with the warning that he should not reveal his visit to the Fortress.

11. The Decision to Transfer Paul to Caesarea (23:23-24)

²³ Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, "Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen ^a to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. ²⁴ Provide mounts for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix."

^a 23 The meaning of the Greek for this word is uncertain.

The tribune, Lysias, called two of his centurions to prepare a detachment of soldiers to escort Paul away from the trouble. His urgency was motivated by the fact that he did not want the assassination of a Roman citizen within his jurisdiction and he wanted Paul safely out of reach of the danger. Besides this, the tribune would have eventually transferred Paul to Caesarea anyway, since the Jews were accusing Paul of a capital offense.

Paul's protection required a total of 470 men-200 soldiers, seventy cavalry, and 200 "spearmen" (dexiolavbou", dexiolabous ). Though Haenchen scoffs at so large a number of soldiers to protect one prisoner, it should be remembered that the tribune had no way of knowing how large the rebel plot might be (perhaps beyond the forty men reported by Paul's nephew) against Paul. The detachment of such a large force would still leave 500 troops in Jerusalem, since the Fortress of Antonia held an auxiliary cohort of 1,000 men.

Given the urgency of the situation, the tribune ordered the force to leave immediately, even though it was long past nightfall. Paul was provided with "mounts" (kthvnh, ktçnç) which included horses or mules. The march would be a difficult one.

12. The Letter from the Tribune to Felix (23:25-30)

²⁵ He wrote a letter as follows: ²⁶ Claudius Lysias, To His Excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings. ²⁷ This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. ²⁸ I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. ²⁹ I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment. ³⁰ When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him.

As he sent his forces on their way toward Caesarea, the tribune also ordered them to carry a letter addressed to the procurator in Caesarea. The letter is given here, the only time in the New Testament that a secular letter is recorded. The phrase "as follows" (e[cousan toÉn tuvpon tou'ton, echousan ton typon touton ) suggests that Luke's report of this letter reflects not only the actual content, but also the form of this official governmental communication. How Luke gained access to official documents is unclear.

The terminology and form of the letter are quite true to available samples of such correspondence in the first century. The commander began by identifying himself as Claudius Lysias, then naming the recipient, and finally giving the usual greeting (caivrein, chairein ). The name Claudius Lysias implies that the commander was a Greek, since Lysias was the name he would have taken when he became a Roman citizen. The name Claudius suggests that he became a citizen during the reign of the emperor Claudius.

He addressed the letter to Governor (hJgemovni, hçgemoni) Felix, an appropriate title for the position of Felix as procurator. Added to this address was the title "Excellency," a description that communicated respect for the position. All of these elements gave the letter the official tone considered necessary for such a communication.

Claudius Lysias now summarized the events surrounding Paul's situation. As true with any story where politics is involved, Lysias described the incident in the way which most flattered himself. He mentioned the trouble in the temple courts, but carefully worded his report to make it look as if he had found out about Paul's Roman citizenship before the mob scene ever took place. Thus he portrayed himself as the vigilant ruler always prepared to come to the defense of a Roman citizen. Of course, the reader of Acts knows better!

One thing which Lysias had discovered for certain was that Paul was innocent of any crime "that deserved death or imprisonment." The commander had gathered enough facts to know the charges were motivated by "questions about their law." This means that Lysias had eliminated at least one charge which could have been serious - that Paul had taken a Gentile into the temple (see 21:28), a crime punishable by death.

Lysias concluded his letter by observing that he had advised (or would by the time the letter arrived) the Jewish accusers that they would need to prepare a case against Paul. Felix would soon have the opportunity to hear this case.

F. THE IMPRISONMENT AT CAESAREA (23:31-26:32)

1. Paul's Transfer to Caesarea (23:31-35)

³¹ So the soldiers, carrying out their orders, took Paul with them during the night and brought him as far as Antipatris. ³² The next day they let the cavalry go on with him, while they returned to the barracks. ³³ When the cavalry arrived in Caesarea, they delivered the letter to the governor and handed Paul over to him. ³⁴ The governor read the letter and asked what province he was from. Learning that he was from Cilicia, ³⁵ he said, "I will hear your case when your accusers get here." Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod's palace.

With the letter in hand and the prisoner on a pack animal, the troops began their journey toward Caesarea three hours after sunset. Normally this kind of travel would be out of the question. In this highly-charged atmosphere, a sense of urgency surrounded the mission. They marched to Antipatris, a military station which had been fortified by Herod the Great and named for his father Antipater. From Jerusalem the force would travel some thirty-five miles. Such a distance could not be covered in one day unless the troops moved in a forced march.

The issue of the distance covered in this march has raised eyebrows among commentators. Looming above the whole discussion is some uncertainty of the location of Antipatris, but few doubt that the distance could be less than thirty-five miles. Usually troops moved a maximum distance of twenty to twenty-five miles in a day.

Marshall suggests that the problem is solved if one assumes that the infantry marched out of Jerusalem only as far as was necessary for Paul's safety, and then turned back to Jerusalem. At that point the cavalry could move on toward Antipatris, a distance which could be covered by horses in a day.

The problem with this suggestion (and Marshall is aware of it) is that the text states that they reached Antipatris before the infantry turned back. The only solution that can be offered is to say that the sense of urgency made this a forced march that lasted through the night, the morning hours, and well into the afternoon hours. The march was possible, but unusual, and implies that the tribune Lysias was quite concerned about this mission. At that point the infantry turned back to Jerusalem, and the cavalry prepared to go on to Caesarea.

The prisoner was finally brought to Caesarea, some twenty-eight miles from Antipatris. Caesarea was the seat of Roman administration for Judea. The governor Felix resided there and before him Paul now was going to stand. As far as the reputation of Felix is concerned, nothing good may be said. His full name was Claudius Felix, a freedman who owed his rise to power to his brother Pallas, whose position in the court of Claudius meant plenty of political power. For a former slave, Felix had reached a position unheard of. The comment of Tacitus was that Felix "held the power of a tyrant with the disposition of a slave."

During his reign as procurator (A.D. 52-59) the Jewish state was becoming more and more dangerous. Nationalism was on the rise, and the cruel manner in which Felix handled the Jewish problems alienated some of the more moderate Jews.

In addition to these problems, Felix made a mockery of the institution of marriage, pursuing and marrying in succession three different wives of royal birth. The first of these was a granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra. The third of his wives was Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I (the Herod of Acts 12), and sister of Herod Agrippa II, who appears in an upcoming trial scene in Acts (see 24:24).

When Felix read the letter he immediately wanted to know from what Roman province Paul came. If Felix found that Paul was from one of the client kingdoms in the region, he may have initiated contacts with the client king before proceeding. As it stood, Paul was from the Roman province Cilicia, which was connected to Syria, and thus Felix prepared to hear the case. The hearing would take place when the accusers arrived, and until then Paul would be held prisoner in "Herod's palace," a residence constructed by Herod the Great. Now the structure served as the "praetorium," or procurator's headquarters.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Act 23:1

XXIII: 1, 2. No sooner had the prisoner and the Sanhedrim come face to face, than the chiliarch must have perceived that he was again to be disappointed in his efforts to understand the case; for, instead of preferring formal charges against Paul, the proceedings were opened by calling upon him to defend himself: (1) " Then Paul, looking earnestly on the Sanhedrim, said: I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (2) Then the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him, to smite him in the mouth." No doubt the blow was as prompt as the word. The interruption was as unexpected as it was exasperating.

McGarvey: Act 23:3-5

3-5. For once in the history of his persecution, the provocation was too great for Paul, and found vent in a burst of anger. (3) " Then said Paul to him, God shall smite thee, thou whitewashed wall. And do you sit to judge me according to the law, and command me to be smitten contrary to the law? (4) But those who were standing by said, Do you revile God's high priest? (5) Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. " The flash of anger was but momentary. No sooner were the words spoken than his habitual self-control regained its ascendancy. He frankly admits that he had done wrong, but excuses himself by the fact that he knew not that it was the high priest. If he had been disposed to further excuse himself, by urging that the high priest deserved all he had said of him, his plea would have been true, but insufficient. For how can we return good for evil, if we return to men their deserts? It were well if his example should be imitated by all disciples who meet with injustice at the hands of their rulers.

McGarvey: Act 23:6-10

6-10. The presence in which Paul stood was not unfamiliar to him. He doubtless remembered the faces of many in the Sanhedrim, and was intimately acquainted with the party feelings which often distracted their councils, and which had been known to stain the streets of Jerusalem with blood. Seeing that they were determined not to do him justice, he resolved to take advantage of their party feuds in order to secure his own safety. (6) " But when Paul knew that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrim, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. (8) For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But the Pharisees confess both. (9) And there arose a great outcry; and the scribes, who were of the Pharisees' party, arose and contended, saying, We find no evil in this man. And if an angel or a spirit has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. (10) And there being a great dissension, the chiliarch, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from their midst, and lead him into the castle. " It will be observed, that in stating the difference between the two parties, Luke uses the term both when the reference is to three specifications, viz.: resurrection, angel, and spirit. This arose, no doubt, from the fact that the three specifications are really combined in two, as the existence of angels or spirits involves but the one question of the existence of purely spiritual beings.

Under ordinary circumstances, it is not probable that so violent a dissension could have been so easily excited. The circumstance is indicative of an unusual exasperation of the parties just preceding this event. Such a state of things, combined with the complete agreement declared by Paul with the Pharisees on the points at issue, naturally inclined them to favor this release. He declared this agreement in strong terms, asserting not only that he was a Pharisee, but the son of a Pharisee, and that it was for the hope peculiar to the party that he was arraigned as a criminal. They saw that the establishment of his doctrine would certainly be the ruin of the opposing sect, and losing sight, for a moment, of its effects upon their own party; forgetting, too, the ill-founded charge against Paul, in reference to the law and temple, they declared that they could find no fault in the man. Perhaps, also, the awkward position they were in with reference to the proof of those charges rendered them somewhat willing to find an excuse for admitting his innocence. But the slightest hint, on their part, of his innocence, was sufficient to arouse the Sadducees, because they saw that it was prompted chiefly by hatred to themselves. On the part of the Sadducees, the two most violent passions to which they were subject, hatred toward the disciples and jealousy toward the Pharisees, combined to swell the uproar which broke up the deliberations of the assembly. Paul was near being a victim to the storm which he had raised, when the Roman soldiery came to his rescue. Lysias was once more disappointed in his efforts to learn the truth about his case, and must have been in greater perplexity than ever, as he commanded the soldiers to lead him back into the castle.

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Act 23:5

ACTS 23:5 —Did Paul lie when he said he didn’t know the high priest?

PROBLEM: The high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul rebuked him for doing so, and those who stood by condemned Paul for reviling the high priest. Paul responded by claiming, “I did not know … that he was the high priest” ( Acts 23:5 ). But this is highly unlikely, since Paul himself was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and worked closely with him before his conversion ( Acts 9:1-3 ).

SOLUTION: There are several views taken on this passage. Some suggest that Paul may have not known the high priest personally, even though he was previously a member of the Jewish Council. Others claim that Paul may have had poor vision (perhaps his “thorn in the flesh”) and not been able to see him clearly. Still others believe that Paul could have been lying to get himself out of a bad situation. Apostles sinned too (cf. Gal. 2:11-13 ). In this case, Acts is simply giving us a true record of Paul’s sin.

It seems more plausible, however, to take Paul’s statement as sarcastic but not false. In this case, his statement, “I did not know … he was the high priest,” could be translated something like this: “This is the high priest of God’s Law? I would never have known it by his unlawful command to strike me!”   

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Acts (Book Introduction)

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

By Way of Introduction

But for the Acts we should know nothing of the early apostolic period save what is told in the Epistles. There are various apocryphal " Acts," but they are without historical worth. Hence the importance of this book.

Luke the Author

It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes ( The Acts of the Apostles , English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay’s view may be found in Chapter I of St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen , Chapter XII of Pauline and Other Studies . A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson’s Luke the Historian in the Light of Research , and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of The Acts of the Apostles , Vol. II of The Beginnings of Christianity , edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: The Case for the Tradition by C. W. Emmet, The Case against the Tradition by H. Windisch. The Internal Evidence of Acts is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys The Tradition (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, The Making of Luke--Acts (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a Tendenz writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

The Author of the Gospel Also

The author of the Acts expressly states that he wrote " the first treatise ( ton prōton logon ) concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach until which day he gave command through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen and was received up" (Act_1:1.). There is no room for dispute that the reference is directly to the Gospel according to Luke as we have it now. Like the Gospel the book is dedicated to Theophilus. And, what is even more important, the same style appears in both Gospel and Acts. This fact Harnack has shown with great pains and conclusiveness. There is the same interest in medical matters and even Cadbury, who denies by implication the Lukan authorship, admits identity of authorship for both books.

The Unity of the Acts

There are some scholars who are willing to admit the Lukan authorship of the " we" sections when the author uses " we" and " us" as in chapter 16:10-40; 20:6-28:31. It has been argued that Luke wrote a travel-document or diary for these sections, but that this material was used by the editor or redactor of the whole book. But, unfortunately for that view, the very same style appears in the Acts as a whole and in the Gospel also as Harnack has proven. The man who said " we" and " us" in the " we" sections wrote " I" in Act_1:1 and refers to the Gospel as his work. The effort to disprove the unity of the Acts has failed. It stands as the work of the same author as a whole and the same author who wrote the Gospel.

Sources of the Acts

Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for this great history as he did for the Gospel (Luk_1:1-4). In fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third volume or not. Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the " we" sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul’s own notes or suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapter 8 to chapter 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he finished the Book. This would include Paul’s sermons and addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do, that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence of that for each address differs from the others and suits precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes of his addresses. Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues in his Composition and Date of Acts (1916) that Luke used an Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after Luk_1:1-4. It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case for such a single document. Luke may have had several such documents besides access to others familiar with the early days of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited for two weeks in Jerusalem (Gal_1:18) besides other points of contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts 15 and Galatians 2). There was also Barnabas who was early Paul’s friend (Act_9:27) and who knew the beginnings as few did (Act_4:36.). Besides many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy (Act_21:8.). But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same style all through that appears in the " we" sections where the writer is confessedly a companion of Paul. No other companion of Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a physician and no author has the external evidence from early writers.

The Date

There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship. Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy post eventum . The other reason is the alleged use of the Antiquities of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work a.d. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They differ so widely (Act_5:36. and Josephus, Ant . XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz ( Dictionary of the Apostolic Church , art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. So Luke (Luk_13:1.) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in Act_12:20-23 and Ant . XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul’s release, that is by a.d. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of prōton (first) in Act_1:1 is a common Koiné[28928]š idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark’s Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts.

The Historical Value

It was once a fad with a certain school of critics to decry Luke in the Acts as wholly untrustworthy, not above the legendary stage. But the spade has done well by Luke for inscriptions and papyri have brought remarkable confirmation for scores of points where Luke once stood all alone and was discounted because he stood alone. These will be duly noted in the proper places as they occur. Ramsay has done most in this restoration of the rank of Luke as a credible historian, as shown in particular in his St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen and in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament . In every instance where discoveries have been made they have confirmed the testimony of Luke as concerning politarchs in Thessalonica, proconsul in Cyprus, etc. The result is that the balance of evidence is now in favour of Luke even when he still stands alone or seems to be opposed by Josephus. Luke, as it stands today, is a more credible historian than Josephus. Ramsay dares to call Luke, all things considered, the greatest of all historians, even above Thucydides. An interesting book on this phase of the subject is Chase’s The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles (1902).

The Purpose of the Acts

It is not easy to say in a word precisely the object of Luke in writing this book. It is not the Acts of all the apostles. Outside of Peter and John little is told of any of them after chapter 3. And all the acts of Peter and John are not given for Peter disappears from the narrative after chapter 15, though he has been the central figure through chapter 11. Paul is not one of the twelve apostles, but Luke follows Paul’s career mainly after chapter 8. Stephen and Barnabas come in also. Still ( St. Paul on Trial , 1923) argues that Luke meant the book as an apology to be used in Paul’s trial at Rome or at any rate to put Paul in the right light with the Jews in Rome. Hence the full account of Paul’s series of defences in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome. There may be an element of truth in this idea, but it clearly does not cover the whole purpose of Luke. Others hold that Luke had a dramatic plan to get Paul to Rome as the climax of his campaign to win the Roman Empire to Christ. The book is not a history of all early Christianity. Peter and Paul dominate the atmosphere of the book with Paul as the great hero of Luke. But one can easily see that the work is done with consummate skill. The author is a man of culture, of Christian grace, of literary power. The book pulses with life today.

The Text of the Acts

A special problem arises concerning the text of Acts inasmuch as the Codex Bezae (D) with some other Western support presents a great many additions to the Neutral-Alexandrian text of Aleph A B C. Blass has even proposed the idea that Luke himself issued two editions of the book, an attractive hypothesis that is not generally accepted. J. M. Wilson has published The Acts of the Apostles from Codex Bezae . The whole subject is elaborately treated by J. H. Ropes in Vol. III, The Text of Acts in Part I of The Beginnings of Christianity . Besides thorough discussion of all the problems of text involved Ropes gives the text of the Vatican Codex (B) on the left page and that of Codex Bezae (D) on the right, making comparison easy. Blass’s ideas appear in his Acta Apostolorum .

JFB: Acts (Book Introduction)

THIS book is to the Gospels what the fruit is to the tree that bears it. In the Gospels we see the corn of wheat falling into the ground and dying: in the Acts we see it bringing forth much fruit (Joh 12:24). There we see Christ purchasing the Church with His own blood: here we see the Church, so purchased, rising into actual existence; first among the Jews of Palestine, and next among the surrounding Gentiles, until it gains a footing in the great capital of the ancient world--sweeping majestically from Jerusalem to Rome. Nor is this book of less value as an Introduction to the Epistles which follow it, than as a Sequel to the Gospels which precede it. For without this history the Epistles of the New Testament--presupposing, as they do, the historical circumstances of the parties addressed, and deriving from these so much of their freshness, point, and force--would in no respect be what they now are, and would in a number of places be scarcely intelligible.

The genuineness, authenticity, and canonical authority of this book were never called in question within the ancient Church. It stands immediately after the Gospels, in the catalogues of the Homologoumena, or universally acknowledged books of the New Testament (see Introduction to our larger Commentary, Vol. V, pp. iv, v). It was rejected, indeed, by certain heretical sects in the second and third centuries--by the Ebionites, the Severians (see EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, 4.29), the Marcionites, and the Manicheans: but the totally uncritical character of their objections (see Introduction above referred to, pp. xiii, xiv) not only deprives them of all weight, but indirectly shows on what solid grounds the Christian Church had all along proceeded in recognizing this book.

In our day, however, its authenticity has, like that of all the leading books of the New Testament, been made the subject of keen and protracted controversy. DE WETTE, while admitting Luke to be the author of the entire work, pronounces the earlier portion of it to have been drawn up from unreliable sources (New-Testament Introduction, 2a, 2C). But the Tubingen school, with BAUR at their head, have gone much farther. As their fantastic theory of the post-Joannean date of the Gospels could not pretend even to a hearing so long as the authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles remained unshaken, they contend that the earlier portion of this work can be shown to be unworthy of credit, while the latter portion is in flat contradiction to the Epistle to the Galatians--which this school regard as unassailable--and bears internal evidence of being a designed distortion of facts for the purpose of setting up the catholic form which Paul gave to Christianity in opposition to the narrow Judaic but original form of it which Peter preached, and which after the death of the apostles was held exclusively by the sect of the Ebionites. It is painful to think that anyone should have spent so many years, and, aided by learned and acute disciples in different parts of the argument, should have expended so much learning, research, and ingenuity in attempting to build up a hypothesis regarding the origination of the leading books of the New Testament which outrages all the principles of sober criticism and legitimate evidence. As a school, this party at length broke up: its head, after living to find himself the sole defender of the theory as a whole, left this earthly scene complaining of desertion. While some of his associates have abandoned such heartless studies altogether for the more congenial pursuits of philosophy, others have modified their attacks on the historical truth of the New Testament records, retreating into positions into which it is not worth while to follow them, while others still have been gradually approximating to sound principles. The one compensation for all this mischief is the rich additions to the apologetical and critical literature of the books of the New Testament, and the earliest history of the Christian Church, which it has drawn from the pens of THIERSCH, EBRARD, and many others. Any allusions which it may be necessary for us to make to the assertions of this school will be made in connection with the passages to which they relate--in Acts, First Corinthians, and Galatians.

The manifest connection between this book and the third Gospel--of which it professes to be simply the continuation by the same author--and the striking similarity which marks the style of both productions, leave no room to doubt that the early Church was right in ascribing it with one consent to Luke. The difficulty which some fastidious critics have made about the sources of the earlier portion of the history has no solid ground. That the historian himself was an eye-witness of the earliest scenes--as HUG concludes from the circumstantiality of the narrative--is altogether improbable: but there were hundreds of eye-witnesses of some of the scenes, and enough of all the rest, to give to the historian, partly by oral, partly by written testimony, all the details which he has embodied so graphically in his history; and it will appear, we trust, from the commentary, that De Wette's complaints of confusion, contradiction, and error in this portion are without foundation. The same critic, and one or two others, would ascribe to Timothy those later portions of the book in which the historian speaks in the first person plural--"we"; supposing him to have taken notes of all that passed under his own eye, which Luke embodied in his history just as they stood. It is impossible here to refute this gratuitous hypothesis in detail; but the reader will find it done by EBRARD (The Gospel History, sect. 110, Clark's translation; sect. 127 of the original work, Wissenschaftliche Kritik der Evangelische Geschichte, 1850), and by DAVIDSON (Introduction to New Testament, Vol. II, pp. 9-21).

The undesigned coincidences between this History and the Apostolic Epistles have been brought out and handled, as an argument for the truth of the facts thus attested, with unrivalled felicity by PALEY in his Horæ Paulinæ, to which Mr. BIRKS has made a number of ingenious additions in his Horæ Apostolicæ. Exception has been taken to some of these by JOWETT (St. Paul's Epistles, Vol. I, pp. 108 ff.), not without a measure of reason in certain cases--for our day, at least--though even he admits that in this line of evidence the work of PALEY, taken as a whole, is unassailable.

Much has been written about the object of this history. Certainly "the Acts of the Apostles" are but very partially recorded. But for this title the historian is not responsible. Between the two extremes--of supposing that the work has no plan at all, and that it is constructed on an elaborate and complex plan, we shall probably be as near the truth as is necessary if we take the design to be to record the diffusion of Christianity and the rise of the Christian Church, first among the Jews of Palestine, the seat of the ancient Faith, and next among the surrounding Gentiles, with Antioch for its headquarters, until, finally, it is seen waving over imperial Rome, foretokening its universal triumph. In this view of it, there is no difficulty in accounting for the almost exclusive place which it gives to the labors of Peter in the first instance, and the all but entire disappearance from the history both of him and of the rest of the Twelve after the great apostle of the Gentiles came upon the stage--like the lesser lights on the rise of the great luminary.

JFB: Acts (Outline)

• INTRODUCTION--LAST DAYS OF OUR LORD UPON EARTH--HIS ASCENSION. (Act 1:1-11)
• RETURN OF THE ELEVEN TO JERUSALEM--PROCEEDINGS IN THE UPPER ROOM TILL PENTECOST. (Act 1:12-26)
• DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT--THE DISCIPLES SPEAK WITH TONGUES--AMAZEMENT OF THE MULTITUDE. (Act 2:1-13)
• PETER FOR THE FIRST TIME, PUBLICLY PREACHES CHRIST. (Acts 2:14-36)
• BEAUTIFUL BEGINNINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. (Act 2:41-47)
• PETER AND JOHN DISMISSED FROM THE SAMHEDRIM, REPORT THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES--THEY ENGAGE IN PRAYER--THE ASTONISHING ANSWER AND RESULTS. (Act 4:23-37)
• ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA. (Act 5:1-11)
• THE PROGRESS OF THE NEW CAUSE LEADS TO THE ARREST OF THE APOSTLES--THEY ARE MIRACULOUSLY DELIVERED FROM PRISON, RESUME THEIR TEACHING, BUT ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE CONDUCTED BEFORE THE SAMHEDRIM. (Act 5:12-26)
• SECOND APPEARANCE AND TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SAMHEDRIM--ITS RAGE CALMED BY GAMALIEL--BEING DISMISSED, THEY DEPART REJOICING, AND CONTINUE THEIR PREACHING. (Acts 5:27-42)
• FIRST ELECTION OF DEACONS. (Act 6:1-7)
• STEPHEN ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE SAMHEDRIM. (Act 6:8-15)
• DEFENSE AND MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. (Acts 7:1-60)
• PERSECUTION CONTINUED, IN WHICH SAUL TAKES A PROMINENT PART--HOW OVERRULED FOR GOOD. (Act 8:1-4)
• SUCCESS OF PHILIP'S PREACHING IN SAMARIA--CASE OF SIMON MAGUS. (Acts 8:5-25)
• THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. (Act 8:26-40)
• CONVERSION OF SAUL, AND BEGINNINGS OF HIS MINISTRY. (Acts 9:1-25)
• SAUL'S FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM AFTER HIS CONVERSION. (Act 9:26-31)
• FLOURISHING STATE OF THE CHURCH IN PALESTINE AT THIS TIME. (Act 9:31)
• PETER HEALS ENEAS AT LYDDA AND RAISES TABITHA TO LIFE AT JOPPA. (Act 9:32-43)
• ACCESSION AND BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS AND HIS PARTY; OR, THE FIRST-FRUITS OF THE GENTILES. (Acts 10:1-48)
• THE GOSPEL BEING PREACHED TO GENTILES AT ANTIOCH ALSO BARNABAS IS SENT THITHER FROM JERUSALEM, WHO HAILS THEIR ACCESSION AND LABORS AMONG THEM. (Act 11:19-24)
• BARNABAS, FINDING THE WORK IN ANTIOCH TOO MUCH FOR HIM, GOES TO TARSUS FOR SAUL--THEY LABOR THERE TOGETHER FOR A WHOLE YEAR WITH MUCH SUCCESS, AND ANTIOCH BECOMES THE HONORED BIRTHPLACE OF THE TERM CHRISTIAN. (Act 11:25-26)
• BY OCCASION OF A FAMINE BARNABAS AND SAUL RETURN TO JERUSALEM WITH A CONTRIBUTION FOR THE RELIEF OF THEIR SUFFERING BRETHREN. (Act 11:27-30)
• PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH BY HEROD AGRIPPA I--MARTYRDOM OF JAMES AND MIRACULOUS DELIVERANCE OF PETER. (Acts 12:1-19)
• HEROD'S MISERABLE END--GROWING SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL--BARNABAS AND SAUL RETURN TO ANTIOCH. (Act 12:20-25)
• BARNABAS AND SAUL, DIVINELY CALLED TO LABOR AMONG THE GENTILES, ARE SET APART AND SENT FORTH BY THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH. (Act 13:1-3)
• ARRIVING IN CYPRUS THEY PREACH IN THE SYNAGOGUES OF SALAMIS--AT PAPHOS, ELYMAS IS STRUCK BLIND, AND THE GOVERNOR OF THE ISLAND IS CONVERTED. (Act 13:4-12)
• AT PERGA JOHN MARK FORSAKES THEM--AT ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA, PAUL PREACHES WITH GLORIOUS EFFECT--THE JEWS, ENRAGED, EXPEL THEM OUT OF THEM COASTS. (Acts 13:13-52)
• MEETING WITH SIMILAR SUCCESS AND SIMILAR OPPOSITION AT ICONIUM, PAUL AND BARNABAS FLEE FOR THEIR LIVES TO LYSTRA AND DERBE, AND PREACH THERE. (Act 14:1-7)
• AT LYSTRA PAUL HEALING A CRIPPLE, THE PEOPLE ARE SCARCE RESTRAINED FROM SACRIFICING TO THEM AS GODS, BUT AFTERWARDS, THEIR MINDS BEING POISONED, THEY STONE PAUL, LEAVING HIM FOR DEAD--WITHDRAWING TO DERBE, THEY PREACH AND TEACH THERE. (Act 14:8-21)
• COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM TO DECIDE ON THE NECESSITY OF CIRCUMCISION FOR THE GENTILE CONVERTS. (Acts 15:1-35)
• DISSENSION BETWEEN PAUL AND BARNABAS--THEY PART COMPANY TO PROSECUTE SEPARATE MISSIONARY TOURS. (Act 15:36-46)
• THEY BREAK NEW GROUND IN PHRYGIA AND GALATIA--THEIR COURSE IN THAT DIRECTION BEING MYSTERIOUSLY HEDGED UP, THEY TRAVEL WESTWARD TO TROAS, WHERE THEY ARE DIVINELY DIRECTED TO MACEDONIA--THE HISTORIAN HIMSELF HERE JOINING THE MISSIONARY PARTY, THEY EMBARK FOR NEAPOLIS, AND REACH PHILIPPI. (Act 16:6-12)
• AT THESSALONICA THE SUCCESS OF PAUL'S PREACHING ENDANGERING HIS LIFE, HE IS DESPATCHED BY NIGHT TO BEREA, WHERE HIS MESSAGE MEETS WITH ENLIGHTENED ACCEPTANCE--A HOSTILE MOVEMENT FROM THESSALONICA OCCASIONS HIS SUDDEN DEPARTURE FROM BEREA--HE ARRIVES AT ATHENS. (Act 17:1-15)
• PAUL AT ATHENS. (Acts 17:16-34)
• PAUL'S ARRIVAL AND LABORS AT CORINTH, WHERE HE IS REJOINED BY SILAS AND TIMOTHY, AND, UNDER DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENT, MAKES A LONG STAY--AT LENGTH, RETRACING HIS STEPS, BY EPHESUS, CÆSAREA, AND JERUSALEM, HE RETURNS FOR THE LAST TIME TO ANTIOCH, THUS COMPLETING HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. (Acts 18:1-22)
• PAUL'S THIRD AND LAST MISSIONARY JOURNEY--HE VISITS THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA AND PHRYGIA. (Acts 18:23-21:16)
• EPISODE CONCERNING APOLLOS AT EPHESUS AND IN ACHAIA. (Act 18:24-28)
• SIGNAL SUCCESS OF PAUL AT EPHESUS. (Acts 19:1-41)
• PAUL FULFILS HIS PURPOSE OF PROCEEDING AGAIN TO MACEDONIA AND GREECE--RETURNING THENCE, ON HIS ROUTE FOR JERUSALEM, HE REVISITS PHILIPPI AND TROAS--HIS MINISTRATIONS AT TROAS. (Act 20:1-12)
• CONTINUING HIS ROUTE TO JERUSALEM HE REACHES MILETUS, WHENCE HE SENDS FOR THE ELDERS OF EPHESUS--HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THEM. (Acts 20:13-38)
• SAILING FROM EPHESUS, THEY LAND AT TYRE, AND THENCE SAILING TO PTOLEMAIS, THEY PROCEED BY LAND TO CÆSAREA AND JERUSALEM. (Acts 21:1-16)
• PAUL REPORTS THE EVENTS OF HIS THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY--IN THE TEMPLE, PURIFYING HIMSELF FROM A JEWISH VOW, HE IS SEIZED BY A MOB AND BEATEN TO THE DANGER OF HIS LIFE--THE UPROAR BECOMING UNIVERSAL, THE ROMAN COMMANDANT HAS HIM BROUGHT IN CHAINS TO THE FORTRESS, FROM THE STAIRS OF WHICH HE IS PERMITTED TO ADDRESS THE PEOPLE. (Acts 21:17-40)
• PAUL'S DEFENSE FROM THE STAIRS OF THE FORTRESS--THE RAGE OF THE AUDIENCE BURSTING FORTH, THE COMMANDANT HAS HIM BROUGHT INTO THE FORT TO BE EXAMINED BY SCOURGING, BUT LEARNING THAT HE IS A ROMAN, HE ORDERS HIS RELEASE AND COMMANDS THE SAMHEDRIM TO TRY HIM. (Acts 22:1-30)
• PAUL'S DEFENSE BEFORE THE SAMHEDRIM DIVIDES THE RIVAL FACTIONS, FROM WHOSE VIOLENCE THE COMMANDANT HAS THE APOSTLE REMOVED INTO THE FORTRESS. (Act 23:1-10)
• IN THE FORTRESS PAUL IS CHEERED BY A NIGHT VISION--AN INFAMOUS CONSPIRACY TO ASSASSINATE HIM IS PROVIDENTIALLY DEFEATED, AND HE IS DESPATCHED BY NIGHT WITH A LETTER FROM THE COMMANDANT TO FELIX AT CÆSAREA, BY WHOM ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR A HEARING OF HIS CAUSE. (Acts 23:11-35)
• PAUL, ACCUSED BY A PROFESSIONAL PLEADER BEFORE FELIX, MAKES HIS DEFENSE, AND IS REMANDED FOR A FURTHER HEARING. AT A PRIVATE INTERVIEW FELIX TREMBLES UNDER PAUL'S PREACHING, BUT KEEPS HIM PRISONER FOR TWO YEARS, WHEN HE WAS SUCCEEDED BY FESTUS. (Acts 24:1-27)
• FESTUS, COMING TO JERUSALEM, DECLINES TO HAVE PAUL BROUGHT THITHER FOR JUDGMENT, BUT GIVES THE PARTIES A HEARING ON HIS RETURN TO CÆSAREA--ON FESTUS ASKING THE APOSTLE IF HE WOULD GO TO JERUSALEM FOR ANOTHER HEARING BEFORE HIM, HE IS CONSTRAINED IN JUSTICE TO HIS CAUSE TO APPEAL TO THE EMPEROR. (Act 25:1-12)
• HEROD AGRIPPA II ON A VISIT TO FESTUS, BEING CONSULTED BY HIM ON PAUL'S CASE, DESIRES TO HEAR THE APOSTLE, WHO IS ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT FORTH. (Act 25:13-27)
• PAUL'S DEFENSE OF HIMSELF BEFORE KING AGRIPPA, WHO PRONOUNCES HIM INNOCENT, BUT CONCLUDES THAT THE APPEAL TO CÆSAR MUST BE CARRIED OUT. (Acts 26:1-32)
• THE VOYAGE TO ITALY--THE SHIPWRECK AND SAFE LANDING AT MALTA. (Acts 27:1-44)
• THE WINTERING AT MALTA, AND NOTABLE OCCURRENCES THERE--PROSECUTION OF THE VOYAGE TO ITALY AS FAR AS PUTEOLI, AND LAND JOURNEY THENCE TO ROME--SUMMARY OF THE APOSTLE'S LABORS THERE FOR THE TWO FOLLOWING YEARS. (Acts 28:1-31)
• PAUL AND BARNABAS RETRACE THEIR STEPS, RETURN TO ANTIOCH IN SYRIA, AND THUS COMPLETE THEIR FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. (Act 14:21-28)
• VISITATION OF THE CHURCHES FORMERLY ESTABLISHED, TIMOTHEUS HERE JOINING THE MISSIONARY PARTY. (Acts 15:41-16:5)
• AT PHILIPPI, LYDIA IS GAINED AND WITH HER HOUSEHOLD BAPTIZED--AN EVIL SPIRIT IS EXPELLED, PAUL AND SILAS ARE SCOURGED, IMPRISONED, AND MANACLED, BUT MIRACULOUSLY SET FREE, AND THE JAILER WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD CONVERTED AND BAPTIZED. (Act 16:12-34)

TSK: Acts (Book Introduction)

The Acts of the Apostles is a most valuable portion of Divine revelation; and, independently of its universal reception in the Christian church, as an authentic and inspired production, it bears the most satisfactory internal evidence of its authenticity and truth. St. Luke’s long attendance upon St. Paul, and his having been an eyewitness of many of the facts which he has recorded, independently of his Divine inspiration, render him a most suitable and credible historian; and his medical knowledge, for he is allowed to have been a physician, enabled him both to form a proper judgment of the miraculous cures which were performed by St. Paul, and to give an authentic and circumstantial detail of them. The plainness and simplicity of the narrative are also strong circumstances in its favour. The history of the Acts is one of the most important parts of the Sacred History, for without it neither the Gospels nor Epistles could have been so clearly understood; but by the aid of it the whole scheme of the Christian revelation is set before us in a clear and easy view.

TSK: Acts 23 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Act 23:1, As Paul pleads his cause, Act 23:2, Ananias commands them to smite him; Act 23:7, Dissension among his accusers; Act 23:11, God encourages him; Act 23:14, The Jews’ laying wait for Paul, Act 23:20. is declared unto the chief captain; Act 23:27, He sends him to Felix the governor.

Poole: Acts 23 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 23

MHCC: Acts (Book Introduction)

This book unites the Gospels to the Epistles. It contains many particulars concerning the apostles Peter and Paul, and of the Christian church from the ascension of our Saviour to the arrival of St. Paul at Rome, a space of about thirty years. St. Luke was the writer of this book; he was present at many of the events he relates, and attended Paul to Rome. But the narrative does not afford a complete history of the church during the time to which it refers, nor even of St. Paul's life. The object of the book has been considered to be, 1. To relate in what manner the gifts of the Holy Spirit were communicated on the day of Pentecost, and the miracles performed by the apostles, to confirm the truth of Christianity, as showing that Christ's declarations were really fulfilled. 2. To prove the claim of the Gentiles to be admitted into the church of Christ. This is shown by much of the contents of the book. A large portion of the Acts is occupied by the discourses or sermons of various persons, the language and manner of which differ, and all of which will be found according to the persons by whom they were delivered, and the occasions on which they were spoken. It seems that most of these discourses are only the substance of what was actually delivered. They relate nevertheless fully to Jesus as the Christ, the anointed Messiah.

MHCC: Acts 23 (Chapter Introduction)

(Act 23:1-5) Paul's defence before the council of the Jews.

(Act 23:6-11) Paul's defence. He receives a Divine assurance that he shall go to Rome.

(Act 23:12-24) The Jews conspire to kill Paul, Lysias sends him to Cesarea.

(Act 23:25-35) Lysias's letter to Felix.

Matthew Henry: Acts (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Acts of the Apostles

We have with an abundant satisfaction seen the foundation of our holy religion laid in the history of our blessed Saviour, its great author, which was related and left upon record by four several inspired writers, who all agree in this sacred truth, and the incontestable proofs of it, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Upon this rock the Christian church is built. How it began to be built upon this rock comes next to be related in this book which we have now before us, and of this we have the testimony only of one witness; for the matters of fact concerning Christ were much more necessary to be fully related and attested than those concerning the apostles. Had Infinite Wisdom seen fit, we might have had as many books of the Acts of the Apostles as we have gospels, nay, as we might have had gospels: but, for fear of over-burdening the world (Joh 21:25), we have sufficient to answer the end, if we will but make use of it. The history of this book (which was always received as a part of the sacred canon) may be considered.

I. As looking back to the preceding gospels, giving light to them, and greatly assisting our faith in them. The promises there made we here find made good, particularly the great promises of the descent of the Holy Ghost, and his wonderful operations, both on the apostles (whom here in a few days we find quite other men than what the gospels left them; no longer weak-headed and weak-hearted, but able to say that which then they were not able to bear (Joh 16:12) as bold as lions to face those hardships at the thought of which they then trembled as lambs), and also with the apostles, making the word mighty to the pulling down of Satan's strong holds, which had been before comparatively preached in vain. The commission there granted to the apostles we here find executed, and the powers there lodged in them we here find exerted in miracles wrought on the bodies of people - miracles of mercy, restoring sick bodies to health and dead bodies to life - miracles of judgment, striking rebels blind or dead; and much greater miracles wrought on the minds of people, in conferring spiritual gifts upon them, both of understanding and utterance; and this in pursuance of Christ's purposes, and in performance of his promises, which we had in the gospels. The proofs of Christ's resurrection with which the gospels closed are here abundantly corroborated, not only by the constant and undaunted testimony of those that conversed with him after he arose (who had all deserted him, and one of them denied him, and would not otherwise have been rallied again but by his resurrection, but must have been irretrievably dispersed, and yet by that were enabled to own him more resolutely than ever, in defiance of bonds and deaths), but by the working of the Spirit with that testimony for the conversion of multitudes to the faith of Christ, according to the word of Christ, that his resurrection, the sign of the prophet Jonas, which was reserved to the last, should be the most convincing proof of his divine mission. Christ had told his disciples that they should be his witnesses, and this book brings them in witnessing for him, - that they should be fishers of men, and here we have them enclosing multitudes in the gospel-net, - that they should be the lights of the world, and here we have the world enlightened by them; but that day - spring from on high the first appearing of which we there discerned we here find shining more and more. The corn of wheat, which there fell to the ground, here springs up and bears much fruit; the grain of mustard-seed there is here a great tree; and the kingdom of heaven, which was then at hand, is here set up. Christ's predictions of the virulent persecutions which the preachers of the gospel should be afflicted with (though one could not have imagined that a doctrine so well worthy of all acceptation should meet with so much opposition) we here find abundantly fulfilled, and also the assurances he gave them of extraordinary supports and comforts under their sufferings. Thus, as the latter part of the history of the Old Testament verifies the promises made to the fathers of the former part (as appears by that famous and solemn acknowledgment of Solomon's, which runs like a receipt in full, 1Ki 8:56, There has not failed one word of all his good promises which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant ), so this latter part of the history of the New Testament exactly answers to the world of Christ in the former part of it: and thus they mutually confirm and illustrate each other.

II. As looking forward to the following epistles, which are an explication of the gospels, which open the mysteries of Christ's death and resurrection, the history of which we had in the gospels. This book introduces them and is a key to them, as the history of David is to David's psalms. We are members of the Christian church, that tabernacle of God among men, and it is our honour and privilege that we are so. Now this book gives us an account of the framing and rearing of that tabernacle. The four gospels showed us how the foundation of that house was laid; this shows us how the superstructure began to be raised, 1. Among the Jews and Samaritans, which we have an account of in the former part of this book. 2. Among the Gentiles, which we have an account of in the latter part: from thence, and downward to our own day, we find the Christian church subsisting in a visible profession of faith in Christ, as the Son of God and Saviour of the world, made by his baptized disciples, incorporated into religious societies, statedly meeting in religious assemblies, attending on the apostles' doctrine, and joining in prayers and the breaking of bread, under the guidance and presidency of men that gave themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word, and in a spiritual communion with all in every place that do likewise. Such a body as this thee is now in the world, which we belong to: and, to our great satisfaction and honour, in this book we find the rise and origin of it, vastly different from the Jewish church, and erected upon its ruins; but undeniably appearing to be of God, and not of man. With what confidence and comfort may we proceed in, and adhere to, our Christian profession, as far as we find it agrees with this pattern in the mount, to which we ought religiously to conform and confine ourselves!

Two things more are to be observed concerning this book: - (1.) The penman of it. It was written by Luke, who wrote the third of the four gospels, which bears his name; and who (as the learned Dr. Whitby shows) was, very probably, one of the seventy disciples, whose commission (Luk 10:1, etc.) was little inferior to that of the twelve apostles. This Luke was very much a companion of Paul in his services and sufferings. Only Luke is with me, 2Ti 4:11. We may know by his style in the latter part of this book when and where he was with him, for then he writes, We did so and so, as Act 16:10; Act 20:6; and thenceforward to the end of the book. He was with Paul in his dangerous voyage to Rome, when he was carried thither a prisoner, was with him when from his prison there he wrote his epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, in both which he is named. And it should seem that St. Luke wrote this history when he was with St. Paul at Rome, during his imprisonment there, and was assistant to him; for the history concludes with St. Paul's preaching there in his own hired house. (2.) The title of it: The Acts of the Apostles; of the holy Apostles, so the Greek copies generally read it, and so they are called, Rev 18:20, Rejoice over her you holy apostles. One copy inscribes it, The Acts of the Apostles by Luke the Evangelist. [1.] It is the history of the apostles; yet there is in it the history of Stephen, Barnabas, and some other apostolical men, who, though not of the twelve, were endued with the same Spirit, and employed in the same work; and, of those that were apostles, it is the history of Peter and Paul only that is here recorded (and Paul was now of the twelve), Peter the apostle of the circumcision, and Paul the apostles of the Gentiles, Gal 2:7. But this suffices as a specimen of what the rest did in other places, pursuant to their commission, for there were none of them idle; and as we are to think what is related in the gospels concerning Christ sufficient, because Infinite Wisdom thought so, the same we are to think here concerning what is related of the apostles and their labours; for what more is told us from tradition of the labours and sufferings of the apostles, and the churches they planted, is altogether doubtful and uncertain, and what I think we cannot build upon with any satisfaction at all. This is gold, silver, and precious stones, built upon the foundation: that is wood, hay, and stubble. [2.] It is called their acts, or doings; Gesta apostolorum; so some. Praxeis - their practices of the lessons their Master had taught them. The apostles where active men; and though the wonders they did were by the word, yet they are fitly called their acts; they spoke, or rather the Spirit by them spoke, and it was done. The history is filled with their sermons and their sufferings; yet so much did they labour in their preaching, and so voluntarily did they expose themselves to sufferings, and such were their achievements by both, that they may very well be called their acts.

Matthew Henry: Acts 23 (Chapter Introduction)

The close of the foregoing chapter left Paul in the high priest's court, into which the chief captain (whether to his advantage or no I know not) had removed his cause from the mob; and, if his enemies act there against him with less noise, yet it is with more subtlety. Now here we have, I. Paul's protestation of his own integrity, and of a civil respect to the high priest, however he had upon a sudden spoken warmly to him, and justly (Act 23:1-5). II. Paul's prudent contrivance to get himself clear of them, by setting the Pharisees and Sadducees at variance one with another (Act 23:6-9). III. The governor's seasonable interposal to rescue him out of their hands likewise (Act 23:10). IV. Christ's more comfortable appearing to him, to animate him against those difficulties that lay before him, and to tell him what he must expect (Act 23:11). V. A bloody conspiracy of some desperate Jews to kill Paul, and their drawing in the chief priests and the elders to be aiders and abettors with them in it (Act 23:12-15). VI. The discovery of this conspiracy to Paul, and by him to the chief captain, who perceived so much of their inveterate malice against Paul that he had reason enough to believe the truth of it (Act 23:16-22). VII. The chief captain's care of Paul's safety, by which he prevented the execution of the design; he sent him away immediately under a strong guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea, which was now the residence of Felix, the Roman governor, and there he safely arrived (Act 23:23-35).

Barclay: Acts (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

A Precious Book

In one sense Acts is the most important book in the New Testament. It is the simple truth that if we did not possess Acts, we would have, apart from what we could deduce from the letters of Paul, no information whatever about the early Church.

There are two ways of writing history. There is the way which attempts to trace the course of events from week to week and from day to day; and there is the way which, as it were, opens a series of windows and gives us vivid glimpses of the great moments and personalities of any period. The second way is the way of Acts.

We usually speak of The Acts of the Apostles. But the book neither gives nor claims to give an exhaustive account of the acts of the apostles. Apart from Paul only three apostles are mentioned in it. In Act_12:2 we are told in one brief sentence that James, the brother of John, was executed by Herod. John appears in the narrative, but never speaks. It is only about Peter that the book gives any real information, and very soon, as a leading character, he passes from the scene. In the Greek there is no The before Acts; the correct title is Acts of Apostolic Men; and what Acts aims to do is to give us a series of typical exploits of the heroic figures of the early Church.

The Writer Of The Book

Although the book never says so, from the earliest times Luke has been held to be its writer. About Luke we really know very little; there are only three references to him in the New Testament--Col_4:14 , Phm_1:24 , 2Ti_4:11 . From these we can say two things for sure. First, Luke was a doctor; second, he was one of Paulmost valued helpers and most loyal friends, for he was a companion of his in his last imprisonment. We can deduce the fact that he was a Gentile. Col_4:11 concludes a list of mentions and greetings from those who are of the circumcision, that is, from Jews; Col_4:12 begins a new list and we naturally conclude that the new list is of Gentiles. So then we have the very interesting fact that Luke is the only Gentile author in the New Testament.

We could have guessed that Luke was a doctor because of his instinctive use of medical words. In Luk_4:35 , in telling of the man who had the spirit of an unclean devil, he says "when the devil had thrown him down" and uses the correct medical word for convulsions. In Luk_9:38 when he draws the picture of the man who asked Jesus, "I beg you to look upon my son" he employs the conventional word for a doctor paying a visit to a patient. The most interesting example is in the saying about the camel and the needleeye. All three synoptic writers give us that saying (Mat_19:24 ; Mar_10:25 ; Luk_18:25 ). For needle both Mark and Matthew use the Greek raphis (G4476), the ordinary word for a tailoror a household needle. Luke alone uses belone, the technical word for a surgeonneedle. Luke was a doctor and a doctorwords came most naturally to his pen.

The Recipient Of The Book

Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts to a man called Theophilus (Luk_1:3 ; Act_1:1 ). We can only guess who Theophilus was. Luk_1:3 calls him "most excellent Theophilus." The phrase really means "your excellency," and indicates a man high up in the service of the Roman government. There are three possibilities.

(i) Just possibly Theophilus is not a real name at all. In those days it might well be dangerous to be a Christian. Theophilus comes from two Greek words, theos (G2316) which means God and philein (G5368) which means to love. It may be that Luke wrote to a lover of God whose real name he did not mention for safetysake.

(ii) If Theophilus was a real person, he must have been a high government official. Perhaps Luke wrote to show him that Christianity was a lovely thing and that Christians were good people. Maybe his writing was an attempt to persuade a government official not to persecute the Christians.

(iii) There is a more romantic theory than either of these based on the facts that Luke was a doctor and that doctors in the ancient days were often slaves. It has been conjectured that Luke was the doctor of Theophilus, that Theophilus had been gravely ill, that by Lukeskill and devotion he was brought back to health, and that in gratitude he gave Luke his freedom. Then, it may be, Luke wished to show how grateful he was for this gift; and since the most precious thing he had was the story of Jesus, he wrote it down and sent it to his benefactor.

LukeAim In Writing Acts

When a man writes a book he does so for a reason, and maybe for more than one. Let us consider now why Luke wrote Acts.

(i) One of his reasons was to commend Christianity to the Roman government.

Again and again he goes out of his way to show how courteous Roman magistrates were to Paul. In Act_13:12 Sergius Paulus, the governor of Cyprus, becomes a Christian. In Act_18:12 Gallio is absolutely impartial in Corinth. In Act_16:35 . the magistrates at Philippi discover their mistake and apologize publicly to Paul. In Act_19:31 the Asiarchs in Ephesus are shown to be concerned that no harm should come to Paul. Luke was pointing out that in the years before he wrote Roman officials had often been well-disposed and always just to Christianity.

Further, Luke takes pains to show that the Christians were good and loyal citizens. and had always been regarded as such. In Act_18:14 Gallio declares that there is no question of wickedness or villainy. In Act_19:37 the secretary of Ephesus gives the Christians a good testimonial. In Act_23:29 Claudius Lysias is careful to say that he has nothing against Paul. In Act_25:25 Festus declares that Paul has done nothing worthy of death, and in the same chapter Festus and Agrippa agree that Paul might well have been released had he not appealed to Caesar.

Luke was writing in the days when Christians were disliked and persecuted; and he told his story in such a way as to show that the Roman magistrates had always been perfectly fair to Christianity and that they had never regarded the Christians as evil men. In fact, the very interesting suggestion has been made that Acts is nothing other than the brief prepared for Pauldefense when he stood his trial before the Roman Emperor.

(ii) One of Lukeaims was to show that Christianity was for all men of every country.

This was one of the things the Jews found it hard to grasp. They had the idea that they were Godchosen people and that God had no use for any other nation. Luke sets out to prove otherwise. He shows Philip preaching to the Samaritans; he shows Stephen making Christianity universal and being killed for it; he shows Peter accepting Cornelius into the Church; he shows the Christians preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch; he shows Paul travelling far and wide winning men of all kinds for Christ; and in Ac 15 he shows the Church making the great decision to accept the Gentiles on equal terms with the Jews.

(iii) But these were merely secondary aims. Lukechief purpose is set out in the words of the Risen Christ in Luk_1:8 , "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." It was to show the expansion of Christianity, to show how that religion which began in a little corner of Palestine had in not much more than thirty years reached Rome.

C. H. Turner has pointed out that Acts falls into six panels, each ending with what might be called a progress report. The six panels are:

(a) Ac 1-5; Act_6:1-7 ; this tells of the church at Jerusalem and the preaching of Peter; and it finishes with the summary, "The word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem; and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith."

(b) Act_6:8-15 ; Ac 7-8; Act_9:1-31 ; this describes the spread of Christianity through Palestine and the martyrdom of Stephen, followed by the preaching in Samaria. It ends with the summary, "So the Church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it was multiplied."

(c) Act_9:32-43 ; Ac 10-11; Act_12:1-24 ; this includes the conversion of Paul, the extension of the Church to Antioch, and the reception of Cornelius, the Gentile, into the Church by Peter. Its summary is, "The word of God grew and multiplied."

(d) Act_12:25 ; Ac 13-15; Act_16:1-5 ; this tells of the extension of the Church through Asia Minor and the preaching tour of Galatia. It ends, "So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily."

(e) Act_16:6-40 ; Ac 17-18; Act_19:1-20 ; this relates the extension of the Church to Europe and the work of Paul in great Gentile cities like Corinth and Ephesus. Its summary runs, "So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily."

(j) Act_19:21-41 ; Ac 20-28; this tells of the arrival of Paul in Rome and his imprisonment there. It ends with the picture of Paul "preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered."

This plan of Acts answers its most puzzling question, why does it finish where it does? It finishes with Paul in prison awaiting judgment. We would so much have liked to know what happened to him and the end is wrapped in mystery. But Luke stopped there because his purpose was accomplished; he had shown how Christianity began in Jerusalem and swept across the world until it reached Rome. A great New Testament scholar has said that the title of Acts might be, "How they brought the Good News from Jerusalem to Rome."

LukeSources

Luke was an historian, and the sources from which an historian draws his information is all important. Where then did Luke get his facts? In this connection Acts falls into two parts.

(i) There are the first fifteen chapters, of whose events Luke had no personal knowledge. He very likely had access to two sources.

(a) There were the records of the local churches. They may never have been set down in writing but the churches had their stories. In this section we can distinguish three records. There is the record of the Jerusalem church which we find in Ac 1-5 and in Ac 15-16. There is the record of the church at Caesarea which covers Act_8:26-40 , Act_9:31-43 and Act_10:1-48 . There is the record of the church at Antioch which includes Act_11:19-30 , Act_12:25 , Ac 13 and Act_14:1-28 .

(b) Very likely there were cycles of stories which were the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, the Acts of Philip and the Acts of Stephen. Beyond a doubt Lukefriendship with Paul would bring him into touch with all the great men of all the churches and all their stories would be at his disposal.

(ii) There is Ac 16-28. Of much of this section Luke had personal knowledge. When we read Acts carefully we notice a strange thing. Most of the time Lukenarrative is in the third person plural; but in certain passages it changes over to the first person plural and "they" becomes "we". The "we" passages are as follows--Acts 16:10-17; Act_20:5-16 ; Act_21:1-18 ; Ac 27 ; Act_28:1-16 . On all these occasions Luke must have been present. He must have kept a travel diary and in these passages we have eye-witness accounts. As for the times when he was not present, many were the hours he must have spent in prison with Paul and many were the stories Paul must have told him. There can have been no great figure Luke did not know and in every case he must have got his story from someone who was there.

When we read Acts we may be quite sure that no historian ever had better sources or used his sources more accurately.

FURTHER READING

Acts

F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (NLC; E)

E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (G)

F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, The Beginnings Of Christianity (A five-volume work; especially useful are Vol.

IV, The Commentary and Vol. V, Additional Notes)

W. Neil, The Acts of the Apostles (NCB; E)

Abbreviations

NCB: New Century Bible

NLC: New London Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Acts 23 (Chapter Introduction)

The Strategy Of Paul (Act_23:1-10)

A Plot Unmasked (Act_23:11-24)

The Captain's Letter (Act_23:25-35)

Constable: Acts (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The title "Acts of the Apostles" is very ancient. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke (150-180 A.D.) contains the oldest reference to the book by this name. The title is a bit misleading, however, because the book contains only a few of the acts of some of the apostles, primarily Peter and Paul.

Writer

Two lines of argument lead to the conclusion that Luke, the friend, fellow missionary, and physician of Paul wrote this book under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. First, there is the internal evidence, the passages written in the first person plural that can refer to Luke (16:10-40; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16). Second, we have external evidence indicating that Luke wrote Acts. This evidence includes references by early church fathers,¹ comments in collections of New Testament books,² and editorial statements in early notes on certain New Testament books.³

Date and place of composition

The date of composition was probably in the early sixties, 60-62 A.D. In view of his emphases Luke probably would have mentioned several important events had they occurred by the time he wrote. These include the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Paul's death in 68 A.D., and the Neronian persecution of Christians that began in 64 A.D.

We do not know for sure where Luke was when he wrote Acts. Perhaps he composed it over a period of years drawing on various sources and then put it into its final form in Rome where Paul was in confinement for two years (28:30-31; 60-62 A.D.).

"Fortunately the intelligibility and value of the book are largely independent of a knowledge of the precise situation in which it was written. While the finer points of the interpretation of Acts can still cause intense discussion among scholars, the essential themes of the book are basically clear and simple."⁴

Scope

The events recorded in Acts cover a period of about 30 years beginning with the Lord's ascension in 33 A.D. to Paul's two-year Roman house arrest that ended about 62 A.D.⁵

Purpose

There seems to have been a three-fold purpose for the writing of Acts. As with the other books of the Bible that record history in narrative form, certainly the Holy Spirit had a historical purpose.⁶ He intended to provide an inspired record of selected events that show the spread of the gospel and the church. They branched out from Jerusalem, the center of Judaism where the church began, to Rome, the uttermost part of the Gentile earth.

"Streeter suggested that an alternative title for the book of Acts might be The Road to Rome', for this is indeed the significance of Luke's work. Whatever minor motifs Luke had in mind, such as the establishment of Christianity in men's minds as a constructive and not destructive element in the social order, his main concern was to show that, in God's plan for the renewal of the life of mankind, Jerusalem, the heart of old Israel, was the goal of Stage I [i.e., the Book of Luke], while Rome, the centre of the world, was the goal of Stage II [i.e., the Book of Acts]."⁷

However the fact that Luke included what he did and omitted much other historical data indicates a second theological purpose. He showed how the plans and purposes of God were working out through history. In particular he showed how Jesus Christ was faithfully and irresistibly building His church (Matt. 16:18).⁸ This involved clarifying how God's dealings with humankind had taken a different course because of the Jews' rejection of their Messiah.

Third, Luke evidently had an apologetic purpose in writing. He frequently pointed out the relationship of the church to the Roman state by referring to many Roman officials not one of whom opposed Christianity because of its doctrines or practices. This would have made Acts a powerful defensive tool for the early Christians in their struggle to survive in a hostile pagan environment.⁹

". . . the Acts is to be seen in close literary association with the Gospel [of Luke]. They form two parts of one work, conceived in its final form as a unity, whether or not the original composition of the Gospel took place independently of the plan to produce the two-part work. Although there are other examples of literary compositions in two parts (Josephus, Contra Apionem, is one of the nearest parallels to Luke-Acts in time and cultural context), Luke's work appears to be unique among Christian writings and to have no close secular precedents in its combination of the stories of a religious leader and of his followers."¹⁰

". . . Luke in Acts is not merely concerned to draw a link between the time of Jesus and the time of the early church, as is commonly noticed, but also between the time of Israel and the time of Jesus and His church. Acts insists that the God who was at work in the history of his ancient people, Israel, bringing them salvation, is the same God who is at work in the church."¹¹

Unique features

Acts is the only New Testament book that continues the history begun in the Gospels. It is also an indispensable historical record for understanding the Apostle Paul's epistles; without it we could not understand some of the things he wrote. It is the only Bible book that records the historical transition from Judaism to Christianity. It provides basic information about and insight into the early church. And it challenges every modern Christian.¹²

Structure

Longenecker identified five phenomena about the structure of Acts that the reader needs to recognize to appreciate what Luke sought to communicate.

"1. It begins, like the [Third] Gospel, with an introductory section of distinctly Lukan cast dealing with the constitutive events of the Christian mission (1:1-2:41) before it sets forth the advances of the gospel in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth' (1:7).

"2. This introductory section is followed by what appears to be a thematic statement (2:42-47). This material, while often viewed as a summary of what precedes, most probably serves as the thesis paragraph for what follows.

"3. In his presentation of the advance of the Christian mission, Luke follows an essentially geographical outline that moves from Jerusalem (2:42-6:7), through Judea and Samaria (6:8-9:31), on into Palestine-Syria (9:32-12:24), then to the Gentiles in the eastern part of the Roman Empire (12:25-19:20), and finally culminates in Paul's defenses and the entrance of the gospel into Rome (19:21-28:31).

"4. In his presentation, Luke deliberately sets up a number of parallels between the ministry of Peter in the first half of Acts and that of Paul in the last half.¹³

"5. Luke includes six summary statements or progress reports' (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; and 28:31), each of which seems to conclude its own panel' of material.¹⁴

"Taking all these literary and structural features into account, we may conclude that Luke developed his material in Acts along the following lines:

"Introduction: The Constitutive Events of the Christian Mission (1:1-2:41)

Part I: The Christian Mission to the Jewish World (2:42-12:24)

Panel 1--The Earliest Days of the Church at Jerusalem (2:42-6:7)

Summary Statement: So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith' (6:7).

Panel 2--Critical Events in the Lives of Three Pivotal Figures (6:8-9:31)

Summary Statement: Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord' (9:31).

Panel 3--Advances of the Gospel in Palestine-Syria (9:32-12:24)

Summary Statement: But the word of God continued to increase and spread' (12:24).

Part II: The Christian Mission to the Gentile World (12:25-28:31)

Panel 4--The First Missionary Journey and the Jerusalem Council (12:25-16:5)

Summary Statement: So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers' (16:5).

Panel 5--Wide Outreach Through Two Missionary Journeys (16:6-19:20)

Summary Statement: In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power' (19:20).

Panel 6--To Jerusalem and Thence to Rome (19:21-28:31)

Summary Statement: Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ' (28:31)."¹⁵

Message¹⁶

If I were to boil down to one sentence what the Book of Acts is in the Bible to teach us, I would say this.

The message of Acts is that the church of Jesus Christ is God's instrument to glorify Himself in the present age. The subject of the Book of Acts, what is its primary focus of attention, is the church of Jesus Christ.

Acts contains three major revelations regarding the church that I would like to point out.

The first of these concerns is the origin of the church. Jesus Christ created the church.

During His earthly ministry Jesus Christ prepared for the creation of the church. He instructed His disciples with truth they did not fully understand at the time, and He demonstrated for them life that they did not fully appreciate at the time (John 14:6). We have this record in the Gospels.

After His ascension Christ poured out His Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. This was the birthday of the church. The baptism of the Spirit did something God had never done before in history. It united believers with Christ in a new relationship as fellow members of the spiritual body of Christ (John 14:17). Believers then shared the life of Christ in a way never before experienced. God united them with Him. The same Spirit of God that indwelt Him now indwells us. The unity of the church is not external: what we believe (creeds), how we organize ourselves (polity), where we meet (culture), etc. It is internal: who indwells us. The basis of our unity in the church goes back to the origin of the church. It began when the Holy Spirit first baptized believers on the day of Pentecost (1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:9).

The second major revelation of the church that we receive in Acts concerns the nature of the church. The church is one with Jesus Christ. That is its nature. It shares one life with its risen Lord.

In Luke's Gospel our writer presented Jesus Christ as the Head of a new race. As Adam was the head of one race, Christ is the last Adam, the Head of a new race. As Adam was the first man, Christ is the second man, the Head of a new race. As the First-born from the dead, Christ is the Head of a new race.

In Acts we see the new race springing from the First-born from the dead. We see the brotherhood of which Christ is the elder Brother. We see the body growing of which Christ is the Head. The spiritual bonds that unite the members of Christ's race are stronger than the physical bonds that unite the members of Adam's race (Matt. 12:47-50). The members of the new race are feeble, faulty, and foolish, but they possess the life of Christ. Christ is manifesting His life through those who have become partakers of His life by Holy Spirit baptism. The nature of the church is that it is one organic whole empowered by the life of Christ. The Holy Spirit has joined us organically to Christ.

The third major revelation of the church that Acts gives us concerns the function of the church. The function of the church is to be the instrument of Jesus Christ, His hands and feet and mouth, to carry out His will in the world. What is the will of Christ? Let me point out three things that Acts emphasizes.

The will of God is the imparting of life where there is death. Jesus Christ ministers divine life through His human instruments. We see Peter, Paul, and all God's other servants in Acts, doing the same kinds of things Jesus did when He walked this earth. They even did the same types of miracles. Christ by His Spirit was working through them (1:1-2). References to their being filled with the Spirit reflect Christ's control of these people as His instruments. He wants to impart life through us too.

The will of God is also the manifestation of light where there is darkness. The light of the gospel shines through Spirit filled believers to bring the lost into the light of God's presence. In Acts we see Christ through the Holy Spirit choosing the persons to whom the gospel would go. We see Him indicating the places where the gospel would reach. We see Him initiating the processes by which the gospel would penetrate the darkness caused by Satan. This is what Christ wants to do today too. He wants to manifest light through us.

Third, the will of God is the production of love where there is apathy, bitterness, and hatred. Christ's love reaches through believers, His instruments, by the Holy Spirit. It produces in the believer love for the Lord, love for the brethren, and love for the world. We see this illustrated in Acts. This is what Christ wants to do through us: produce love.

In summary, these are three great revelations of the church in Acts. As to its origin, Jesus Christ created it (Matt. 16:18). As to its nature, the church is one with Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). As to its function, the church is the instrument of Christ. Rom. 6:13 says, "Present yourselves to God . . . and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God."

Acts also warns us of three major antagonists facing the church.

The first of these is prejudice. Prejudice means prejudging, judging on the basis of limited information.

The outstanding example of this type of opposition in Acts is the unbelieving Jews. They refused to accept the witness of the Christians. They would not tolerate the evidence the Christians presented. They became the major enemies of the church as well as missing the blessings that could have been theirs if they had acknowledged their Messiah. The church faces the same opposition today (e.g., traditional concepts as opposed to Scriptural revelation).

The root cause of this problem is lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit. Prejudice says, "I do not trust what the Holy Spirit has said in Scripture." We must always interpret experience in the light of revelation, not the other way around.

The second antagonist the church faces that Acts identifies is personal interests. By this I mean the desire for something other than the will of God.

There are several examples of this peril in Acts. Ananias and Sapphira wanted a reputation for spirituality as well as spirituality. Simon Magus wanted a supernatural gift for personal glory as well as for the glory of God. Our flesh also tempts us to serve ourselves as well as God. This is compromise.

The root cause of this problem seems to me to be lack of passive yielding to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit does not fill or control us. We are doubleminded.

A third antagonist the church faces that we also see in Acts is pride.

Two men provide perhaps the outstanding examples of this peril: Felix and Agrippa. Their desire for personal prestige determined their response to God's will. Many a person's career goals and ego needs have limited God's use of him.

The cause of this problem is lack of active obedience to the Holy Spirit. When the Spirit through His Word says "Do this," and we refuse, it is because we set our wills against His. That is pride. We need to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God. In chapter 10 Peter said, "Not me, Lord."

These are three major perils to the church corporately as well as to Christians individually. Luke has warned us of them in Acts. They are major obstacles to Christ's building His church in the world.

Acts also presents three major lessons for the church that it should always keep in view.

First, the church's passion must be the glory of God. This was the driving motive in the lives of Peter, Paul, and the other faithful missionaries and witnesses that Luke recorded in this book. Their passion was not their own personal safety or their physical comfort, or the opportunity to relieve the sufferings of others, or the desire to create better living conditions in the world. They subordinated all these to God's glory in their hearts. We too must commit ourselves to glorifying God above everything else personally and corporately. My goal for this course is that it will glorify God.

Second, the church's governing principle must be loyalty to Christ. Again, the leaders of the early church modelled this for us. They put Christ's interests before their own. They were singleminded in their living. This is the evidence of their being filled with the Spirit. Their primary commitment was to letting His life work in and through them, and to carrying out His work, not their own. How loyal are we to Christ individually and corporately? John the Baptist said, "He must increase, but I must decrease."

Third, the church's power must be the Holy Spirit. The constant references to prayer in Acts show us how conscious the early Christians were of their dependence on God's power. They did not go out in self-confidence but in God-confidence. They called on Him to reveal Christ's life in and through them (4:24-30). They called on Him to direct Christ's works in and through them (12:12; 20:36). We must not only be obedient and yielded to the Holy Spirit but also dependent on Him because He is our power individually and corporately (John 15:5). I'll be praying for you this semester. Please pray for me.

Finally I would like to leave you with three challenges that grow out of the emphases of Acts.

First, what is your motivation? Why do you do what you do? What motivated the Spirit filled believers in Acts was the desire that God get the glory above everything else. Who do you want to get the credit for what you do?

Second, what is your method? How do you do what you do? Our models in Acts cooperated with God so Christ could work through them by His Holy Spirit. This involved having confidence in His revelation, yielding to His will, obeying His Word, and depending on His Holy Spirit.

Third, what is your emphasis? What do you do? In Acts the leaders of the church gave priority to what is most important to God, not to what was most important to them personally. Furthermore they emphasized the essentials, not the incidentals. Let's not get so fascinated with the incidentals, such as how God manifested His power (healings, speaking in tongues, etc.), that we fail to give priority to the essentials. One essential is that He is powerful enough to do anything to accomplish His purposes. Let's give ourselves to the task before us wholeheartedly and enthusiastically (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8).

Constable: Acts (Outline)

Outline

I. The witness in Jerusalem 1:1-6:7

A. The founding of the church 1:1-2:46

1. The resumptive preface to the book 1:1-5

2. The command to witness 1:6-8

3. The ascension of Jesus 1:9-11

4. Jesus' appointment of a twelfth apostle 1:12-26

5. The birth of the church 2:1-41

6. The early state of the church 2:42-46

B. The expansion of the church in Jerusalem 3:1-6:7

1. External opposition 3:1-4:31

2. Internal compromise 4:32-5:11

3. Intensified external opposition 5:12-42

4. Internal conflict 6:1-7

II. The witness in Judea and Samaria 6:8-9:31

A. The martyrdom of Stephen 6:8-8:1a

1. Stephen's arrest 6:8-7:1

2. Stephen's address 7:2-53

3. Stephen's death 7:54-8:1a

B. The ministry of Philip 8:1b-40

1. The evangelization of Samaria 8:1b-25

2. Philip's ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch 8:26-40

C. The mission of Saul 9:1-31

1. Saul's conversion and calling 9:1-19a

2. Saul's initial conflicts 9:19b-30

3. The church at peace 9:31

III. The witness to the uttermost part of the earth 9:32-28:31

A. The extension of the church to Syrian Antioch 9:32-12:24

1. Peter's ministry in Lydda and Joppa 9:32-43

2. The conversion of Cornelius 10:1-11:18

3. The initiatives of the Antioch church 11:19-30

4. The persecution of the Jerusalem church 12:1-24

B. The extension of the church to Cyprus and Asia Minor 12:25-16:5

1. The divine appointment of Barnabas and Saul 12:25-13:3

2. The mission to Cyprus 13:4-12

3. The mission to Asia Minor 13:13-14:25

4. Paul and Barnabas' return to Antioch of Syria 14:26-28

5. The Jerusalem Council 15:1-35

6. The strengthening of the Gentile churches 15:36-16:5

C. The extension of the church to the Aegean shores 16:6-19:20

1. The call to Macedonia 16:6-10

2. The ministry in Macedonia 16:11-17:15

3. The ministry in Achaia 17:16-18:17

4. The beginning of ministry in Asia 18:18-22

5. The results of ministry in Asia 18:23-19:20

D. The extension of the church to Rome 19:21-28:31

1. Ministry on the way to Jerusalem 19:21-21:16

2. Ministry in Jerusalem 21:17-23:32

3. Ministry in Caesarea 23:33-26:32

4. Ministry on the way to Rome 27:1-28:15

5. Ministry in Rome 28:16-31

Constable: Acts

Acts

Bibliography

Albright, William Foxwell. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondswroth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.

Alexander, L. C. A. "Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing." Novum Testamentum 18 (1986):48-74.

Allen, Roland. Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? 2nd American ed., Chicago, Moody Press, 1959.

Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1945.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Regency Reference Library, 1982.

Ballance, M. The Site of Derbe: A New Inscription. Anatolian Studies series. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankora, 1957.

Bammel, Ernst. "Jewish Activity against Christians in Palestine according to Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 357-64. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Barclay, William. The Acts of the Apostles. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. and reprint ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1962.

Barker, Kenneth L. "The Scope and Center of Old and New Testament Theology and Hope." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 293-328. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Barnhouse, Donald G. God's River. Vol. IV in Exposition of Bible Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.

Barrett, C. K. "The Apostolic Decree of Acts 15.29." Australian Biblical Review 35 (1987):50-59.

_____. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 1. The International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994.

_____. The New Testament Background: Selected Documents. New York: Harper & Row, 1961.

Bauckham, Richard. "James and the Jerusalem Church." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 415-80. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Bellshaw, William G. "The Confusion of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:478 (April-June 1963):145-53.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th revised ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

Blaiklock, E. M. The Acts of the Apostles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. London: Tyndale Press, 1959; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

Blaising, Craig. A. "The Extent and Varieties of Dispensationalism." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 9-56. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

_____. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants Through Jesus Christ." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

_____. "The Kingdom of God in the New Testament." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 232-83. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Bock, Darrell L. "Evidence from Acts." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 181-98. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "Jesus as Lord in Acts and in the Gospel Message." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):146-54.

_____. "The Reign of the Lord Christ." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 37-67. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Luke-Acts." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 87-166. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Bruce, F. F. "Chronological Questions in the Acts of the Apostles." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 68:2 (Spring 1986):273-95.

_____. Commentary on The Book of Acts. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

_____. "The Church of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):641-61.

_____. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1982; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. "Paul's Apologetic and the Purpose of Acts." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 39:2 (Spring 1987):379-93.

Brunner, Emil. The Misunderstanding of the Church. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953.

Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49.

Burton, Ernest DeWitt. "The Politarchs." American Journal of Theology 2 (1898):598-632.

Butcher, J. Kevin. "A Critique of The Gospel According to Jesus." Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 2:1 (Spring 1989):27-43.

Cadbury, Henry J. The Book of Acts in History. London: Black, 1955.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vols. XXI and XXII in The Library of Christian Classics. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Campbell, Donald K. "Paul's Ministry at Ephesus--A Devotional Study." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:472 (October-December 1961):304-10.

Capper, Brian. "The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 323-56. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Carroll, J. Response to the End of History: Eschatology and Situation in Luke-Acts. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Carson, Donald A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Casson, Lionel. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton: University Press, 1971.

Catalog of Oral Roberts University. Tulsa, Ok: Oral Roberts University, 1973.

Chafer, Lewis S. Grace. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1922.

_____. He That Is Spiritual. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1819.

_____. Salvation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1917.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Chase, F. H. The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles. London: Macmillan Co., 1902.

Cocoris, G. Michael. Evangelism: A Biblical Approach. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.

_____. "John MacArthur, Jr's, System of Salvation: An Evaluation of the Book, The Gospel According to Jesus." Glendora, CA: By the Author, 1989.

_____. Lordship Salvation--Is It Biblical? Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1983.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. "Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1-3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrilineal Descent." Journal of Biblical Literature 105:2 (June 1986):251-68.

Cole, Dan P. "Corinth & Ephesus." Bible Review 4:6 (December 1988):20-30.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Criswell, W. A. Acts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Crocker, Piers T. "The City of Meroe and the Ethiopian Eunuch." Buried History 22:3 (September 1986):53-72.

Croy, N. Clayton. "Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32)." Novum Testamentum 39:1 (1997):21-39.

Culver, Robert Duncan. "Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):131-43.

Dalman, Gustaf H.. The Words of Jesus. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Dana, H. E., and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1955.

Darby, John Nelson. Meditations on the Acts of the Apostles. London: G. Moorish, n.d.

_____. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Dean, David A. "A Study of the Enthronement of Christ in Acts 2 and 3." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1992.

Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light From the Ancient East. Revised ed. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. Grand Rapids: Baker Book Houst, 1965.

_____. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Translated by William E. Wilson. Harper Torchbook ed. New York: Harper and Row, Harper Torchbooks, 1957.

deSilva, David A. "Paul and the Stoa: A Comparison." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:4 (December 1995):549-64.

_____. "Paul's Sermon in Antioch of Pisidia." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):32-49.

Detwiler, David F. "Paul's Approach to the Great Commission in Acts 14:21-23." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):33-41.

de Waard, J. A. A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1965.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Acts of the Apostles," by Kirsopp Lake.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Acts of the Apostles," by A. C. Headham.

_____. S.v. "The Chronology of the New Testament," by C. H. Turner.

_____. S.v. "Temple," by W. T. Davies.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

_____. Speaking in Tongues: Seven Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.

"Doctrinal Statement of Dallas Theological Seminary." Dallas Theological Seminary 1988-89 Catalog.

Documents of the Christian Church. Edited by Henry Bettenson. Second ed. London, Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbet, 1952.

Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970.

Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):371-86.

_____. Miraculous Gifts. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1983.

English, E. Schuyler. "Was St. Peter Ever in Rome?" Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):314-20.

Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Falk, Daniel K. "Jewish Prayer Literature and the Jerusalem Church." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 267-301. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Feldman, Louis H. "The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers." Biblical Archaeology Review 12:5 (September-October 1986):58-63.

Fiensy, David A. "The Composition of the Jerusalem Church." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 213-36. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Finegan, Jack. The Archaeology of the New Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Foakes-Jackson, F. J. The Acts of the Apostles. Moffat New Testament Commentary series. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931; reprint ed. 1960.

Foakes-Jackson, F. J. and Lake, Kirsopp. The Acts of the Apostles. Part I of The Beginnings of Christianity, vols. 4 and 5. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition. New York: Our Hope, 1912.

_____. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1970.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "Paul's Areopagus Speech." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):308-12.

Gentry, K. L. "The Great Option: A Study of the Lordship Controversy." Baptist Reformation Review 5 (1976):49-79.

Gerlach, Joel C. "Glossolalia." Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 70:4 (October 1973):233-61.

Gill, David W. J. "Acts and Roman Policy in Judaea." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 15-26. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Goodspeed, Edgar J. "Gaius Titius Justus." Journal of Biblical Literature 69:4 (December 1950):382-83.

Grant, F. W. The Numerical Bible. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert G. The Modern Tongues Movement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1967; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n.d.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.

Harm, Frederick R. "Structural Elements Related to the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts." Concordia Journal 14:1 (January 1988):28-41.

Harnack, Adolph. The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels. Translated by J. R. Wilkinson. London: Williams & Norgate, 1911.

_____. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity. 2 vols. Translated by J. Moffatt. London: Williams & Norgate, 1908.

Hays, J. Daniel. "The Cushites: A Black Nation in the Bible." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):396-409.

Heater, Homer, Jr. "Evidence from Joel and Amos." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 147-64. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Helyer, Larry R. "Luke and the Restoration of Israel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):317-29.

Hengel, Martin. "The Geography of Palestine in Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 27-78. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Herodotus. 4 vols. With an English translation by A. D. Godley. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann, 1960.

Hesner, Colin. "The Name of Felix Again." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (October 1987):45-49.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working With God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "A Dispensational Understanding of Acts 2." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 167-80. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. The Gospel Under Seige. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "The Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):226-33.

_____. Review of "A Review of The Gospel According to Jesus, by Darrell L. Bock in Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March 1989, pp. 21-40." Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 2:1(Spring 1989):79-83.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapid: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

_____. "Chronology of the Apostolic Age." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965.

_____. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Homer. The Odyssey. 2 vols. With an English translation by A. T. Murray. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann, 1946.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Horsley, Richard A. "High Priests and the Politics of Roman Palestine." Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:1 (June 1986):23-55.

Ice, Thomas D. "Dispensational Hermeneutics." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 29-49. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Acts of the Apostles," by A. T. Robertson.

Ironside, Harry A. Except Ye Repent. New York: American Tract Society, 1937.

_____. Lectures on the Book of Acts. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Translated by F. H. and C. H. Cave. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

_____. "Untersuchungen zum Quellenproblem der Apostelgeschichte." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschrift 36 (1937):208-13.

Jewett, Robert A. A Chronology of Paul's Life. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Jewish Encyclopedia. S. v. "Alexandrians in Jerusalem," by Emil Schürer.

Johnson, Elliott E. "Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation of Psalm 110." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:596 (October-December 1992):428-37.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

_____. "How Faith Works." Christianity Today 33:13 (September 22, 1989):21-25.

Jones, A. H. M. Studies in Roman Government and Law. New York: Praeger, 1960.

Jones, Bruce. "Real Repentance." Moody Monthly 88:2 (October 1987):21-23.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. Jerusalem to Rome. New Testament Studies series. Brethren Missionary Herald, 1972; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House and BMH Books, 1985.

Ladd, George E. "Acts." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1123-78. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 9: John--Acts, by J. P. Lange and Gotthard Victor Lechler. Translated by Philip Schaff and Charles F. Schaeffer.

Larkin, William J., Jr. "The Recovery of Luke-Acts as Grand Narrative' for the Church's Evangelistic and Edification Tasks in a Postmodern Age." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):405-15.

Law, Robert. The Tests of Life. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909.

Lawrence, William D. "The New Testament Doctrine of the Lordship of Christ." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.

Lawson, Steven J. "The Priority of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Acts 2:42-47." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):198-217.

Légasse, Simon. "Paul's Pre-Christian Career according to Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 365-90. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964.

Levinskaya, Irena. The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. Vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1996.

Lewellen, Thomas G. "Has Lordship Salvation Been Taught throughout Church History?" Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):54-68.

Lightner, Robert P. Speaking in Tongues and Divine Healing. 2nd ed. Schaumburg, Il: Regular Baptist Press, 1978.

Longenecker, Richard N.. "The Acts of the Apostles." In John-Acts. Vol. 9 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. Paul, Apostle of Liberty. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Lumby, J. Rawson. The Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1885.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

_____. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

_____. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

_____. Justification by Faith. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.

Macartney, Clarence E. N. Paul the Man. Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1961.

MacLennan, Robert S. and A. Thomas Kraabel. "The God-Fearers--A Literary and Theological Invention." Biblical Archaeology Review 12:5 (September-October 1986):46-53.

Maile, John F. "The Ascension in Luke-Acts." Tyndale Bulletin 37 (1986):29-59.

Malina, Bruce J. "Religion' in the World of Paul." Biblical Theology Bulletin 16:3 (July 1986):92-101.

Malphurs, Aubrey M. "A Theological Critique of the Churches of Christ Doctrine of Soteriology." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981.

Man, Ronald E. "The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):146-57.

Manek, Jindrich. "The New Exodus in the Books of Luke." Novum Testamentum 2 (1957):8-23.

Manson, T. W. Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Edited by Matthew Black. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.

Marshall, I. Howard. "Acts and the Former Treatis.'" In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 1: The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, pp. 163-182. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1993.

_____. The Acts of the Apostles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Mason, Steve. "Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 115-77. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Reprint ed. Winona Lake, In.: BMH Books, 1974.

McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena: Thru the Bible Radio, 1983.

McGrath, Alister E. "Apologetics to the Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:620 (October-December 1998):387-93.

McIntyre, Luther B., Jr. "Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January-March 1996):53-62.

McLean, John A. "Did Jesus Correct the Disciples' View of the Kingdom?" Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):215-27.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Willilams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Meisner, Donald R. "Chiasm and the Composition and Message of Paul's Missionary Sermons." S.T.D. thesis, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1974.

_____. "The Missionary Journeys Narrative: Patterns and Implications." In Perspectives on Luke-Acts, pp. 199-214. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Danville, Va: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Paul's Use of About 450 Years' in Acts 13:20." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:551 (July-September 1981):246-57.

Metzger, Bruce M. "St. Paul and the Magicians." Princeton Seminary Bulletin 38 (1944):27-30.

Meyer, F. B. Paul: A Servant of Jesus Christ. London: Morgan and Scott, n.d.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moore, Thomas S. "To the End of the Earth': The Geographical and Ethnic Univarsalism of Acts 1:8 in Light of Isaianic Influence on Luke." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:3 (September 1997):389-99.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Acts of the Apostles. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1924; reprint ed., London: Pickering and Inglis, 1965.

_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Moule, C. F. D. "Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?" Expository Times 70 (October 1958-September 1959):100-2.

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. "The Cenacle--Topographical Setting for Acts 2:44-45." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 303-22. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

_____. "On the Road and on the Sea with St. Paul." Bible Review 1:2 (Summer 1985):38-47.

Murray, George W. "Paul's Corporate Evangelism in the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):189-200.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

"Must Christ be Lord to be Savior?" Eternity, September 1959, pp. 14-18, 36-37, 48.

Neil, William, The Acts of the Apostles. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1973; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1981.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. 1962 ed. S.v. "Cilicia," by E. M. B. Green.

_____. Edited by J. D. Douglas. 1962 ed. S.v. "Judas Iscariot," by R. P. Martin.

The New Scofield Reference Bible. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelien, William Culbertson, et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

The New Testament in Modern English. Translated by J. B. Phillips. New York: Macmillan Co., 1958.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First series. Edited by Philip Schaff. 14 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

O'Connor, E. D. The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church. Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 1971.

Orr, J. Edwin. The Fervent Prayer: The Worldwide Impact of the Great Awakening of 1858. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

O'Toole, Robert F. "Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost." Journal of Biblical Literature 102:2 (1983):245-58.

Packer, James I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1961.

Palmer, D. W. "The Literary Background of Acts 1.1-14." New Testament Studies 33:3 (July 1987):427-38.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Peterson, David. "The Motif of Fulfilment and Purpose of Luke-Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 1: The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, pp. 83-104. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1993.

Philostratus. The Life of Appollonius. 2 vols. With an English translation by F. C. Conybeare. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: London: William Heinemann, and New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1921.

Pink, Arthur W. Studies on Saving Faith. Swengel, Pa: Reiner Publications, n.d.

Pocock, Michael. "The Role of Encouragement in Leadership." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 301-7. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Pollock, A. J. The Apostle Paul and His Missionary Labors. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Praeder, Susan Marie. "The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts." Novum Testamentum 29:3 (July 1987):193-218.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Rackham, Richard Belward. The Acts of the Apostles. Westminster Commentaries series. 9th ed. London: Methuen and Co., 1922.

Ramm, Bernard. Rapping about the Spirit. Waco: Word Books, 1974.

Ramsay, William M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953.

_____. The Church in the Roman Empire. 3rd ed. London: Hoddar and Stoughton, 1894.

_____. Pictures of the Apostolic Church. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910.

_____. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. London: Hoddar and Stoughton, 1897; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Reinhardt, Wolfgang. "The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church" In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 237-65. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Richard, Ramesh. "Soteriological Inclusivism and Dispensationalism." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):85-108.

Riesner, Rainer. "Synagogues in Jerusalem." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 179-211. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Roberts, C.; Skeat, T. C.; and Nock, A. D. "The Guild of Zeus Hypsistos." Harvard Theological Review 29 (1936):39-88.

Robertson, Archibald, and Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. International Critical Commentary series. Second ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

_____. "The Davidic Covenant in the Gospels." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:600 (October-December 1993):458-78.

Rosner, Brian S. "Acts and Biblical History." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 1: The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, pp. 65-82. Edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1993.

Ross, Bob L. Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Regeneration. Pasadena, TX.: Pilgrim Publications, 1976.

Ruble, Richard L. "The Doctrine of Dreams." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):360-64.

Russell, Walt. "The Anointing with the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts." Trinity Journal 7NS (Spring 1986):47-63.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Acts of the Apostles. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1961.

_____. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953.

_____. "The Christian and Civil Disobedience." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):153:62.

_____. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):243.

_____. So Great Salvation. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Sanders, John. "Inclusivism." In What about Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, pp. 21-55. Edited by John Sanders. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Sarles, Ken L. "All Power & Signs." Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):8-11.

_____. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):57-82.

_____. "A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):329-52.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1987):30-46.

Schwartz, Joshua. "Peter and Ben Stada in Lydda." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 391-414. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Scofield, C. I. Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. 1896; reprint ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.

Sherrill, John. They Shall Speak with Other Tongues. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1964.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, James. The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1848.

Stagg, Frank. The Book of Acts. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1955.

Stewart, James S. A Man in Christ. Reprint ed. London: Hoddar and Stoughton, 1964.

Stonehouse, Ned. "The Gift of the Holy Spirit." Westminster Theological Journal 13 (1949-51):1-15.

Stott, John R. W. Basic Christianity. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. The Message of Acts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Strabo. Geography. 8 vols. With an English translation by Horace Leonard Jones. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann, 1960.

Strom, Mark R. "An Old Testament Background to Acts 12. 20-23." New Testament Studies 32:2 (April 1986):289-92.

Suetonius. "The Deified Claudius." In The Lives of the Caesars. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. The Loeb Classical Lubrary. Cambridge, Mass.: and London: Harvard University Press, 1939.

Swindoll, Charles. "Dallas's New Dispensation." Christianity Today, October 25, 1993, pp. 14-15.

Sylva, Dennis D. "The Meaning and Function of Acts 7:46-50." Journal of Biblical Literature 106:2 (1987):261-75.

Tacitus. The Histories. The Loeb Classical Library series. Translated by Clifford H. Moore. London: William Heinemann Ltd., New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1931.

Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974.

_____. Luke and the Gnostics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 2: The Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

Tannenbaum, Robert F. "Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphradite." Biblical Archaeology Review 12:5 (September-October 1986):54-57.

Tanton, Lanny T. "The Gospel and Water Baptism: A Study of Acts 2:38." Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 3:1 (Spring 1990):27-52.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S.v. "kyrios," by Werner Foerster.

_____. S.v. "pneuma . . .," by Eduard Schweizer.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. The Acts of the Apostles: Outline Studies in Primitive Christianity. Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Association, n.d.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "Acts." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 349-432. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

_____. "The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 222-37. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Treier, Daniel J. "The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: A Multiple-Lens Approach." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:1 (March 1997):13-26.

Trites, Allison A. "Church Growth in the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):162-73.

Unger, Merrill F. "Archaeology and Paul's Visit to Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:470 (April-June 1961):107-12.

_____. The Baptizing Work of the Holy Spirit. Chicago: Scripture Press, 1953.

_____. "Historical Research and the Church at Thessalonica." Bibliotheca Sacra 119:473 (January-March 1962):38-44.

_____. "Pisidian Antioch and Gospel Penetration of the Greek World." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:469 (January-March 1961):46-53.

_____. "The Significance of Pentecost." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:486 (April-June 1965):169-77.

_____. Zechariah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1963.

Unger's Bible Dictionary. Edited by Merrill F. Unger. 1957 ed. S.v. "Herod," by S. L. Bowman.

van Ommeren, Nicholas M. "Was Luke an Accurate Historian? Bibliotheca Sacra 148:589 (January-March 1991):57-71.

van Unnik, W. C. Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul's Youth. Translated by G. Ogg. London: Epworth, 1962.

Walvoord, John F. "The Ascension of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):3-12.

_____. "Biblical Kingdoms Compared and Contrasted." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 75-91. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. The Holy Spirit at Work Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1973.

_____. Jesus Christ Our Lord. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

Warfield, Benjamin B. Counterfeit Miracles. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1918; reprint ed., London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972.

Weinert, Francis D. "Luke, Stephen, and the Temple in Luke-Acts." Biblical Theology Bulletin 17:3 (July 1987):88-90.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wilkin, Robert N. "An Exegetical Evaluation of the Perseverance of the Saints." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1982.

_____. "Did H. A. Ironside Teach Commitment Salvation?" Grace Evangelical Society News 4:6 (June 1989):1, 3.

_____. "Repentance and Salvation." Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 1:1 (Autumn 1988):11-20; 2:1 (Spring 1989):13-26.

_____. "Repentance and Salvation: A Key Gospel Issue." Grace Evangelical Society News 3:6 (June-July 1988):3.

Williams, Ernest Swing. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Springfield, Mo: Gospel Publishing House, 1953.

Williams, Margaret H. "Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 79-113. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Wimber, John. Power Evangelism. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986.

Winter, B. W. "Providentia for the Widows of 1 Timothy 5:3-16." Tyndale Bulletin 39 (1988):93-99.

Woodbridge, Charles J. A Study of the Book of Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955.

Zimmerman, Charles. "To This Agree the Words of the Prophets." Grace Journal 4:3 (Fall 1963):28-40.

Zuck, Roy B. "Cheap Grace?" Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):4-7.

_____. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Zweck, Dean W. "The Areopagus Speech of Acts 17." Lutheran Theological Journal 21:3 (December 1987):111-22.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Acts (Book Introduction)

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

INTRODUCTION.

St. Luke, who had published his gospel, wrote also a second volume, which, from the first ages, hath been called the Acts of the Apostles. Not that we can look upon this work, as a history of what was done by all the apostles, who were dispersed in different nations; but we have here a short view of the first establishment of the Christian Church, a small part of St. Peter's preaching and actions, set down in the first twelve chapters, and a more particular account of St. Paul's apostolical labours, in the following chapters, for about thirty years, till the year 63, and the 4th year of Nero, where these acts end. (Witham) --- St. Luke, after giving us the history of the life, actions, miracles, sufferings, and instructions of Jesus Christ, in his gospel, here give us the life and actions of the apostles, the primitive Christians, and particularly all that relates to St. Paul, by way of an appendix. And what could he give more useful or more important to the Church, whether we consider the noble examples he offers for our imitation, or the excellent lessons for our improvement in spiritual wisdom? He describes in this book the accomplishment of many things that had been predicted by Jesus Christ, the descent of the Holy Ghost, the prodigious change effected in the minds and hearts of the apostles: we behold here the model of Christian perfection, in the lives of the first Christians, and the practice of the most eminent virtues, in the conduct of the blessed apostles; the miraculous operations of the holy Spirit, in the conversion of the Gentiles, and this wonder of wonders, the foundation of the holy Catholic Church, the establishment of the spiritual kingdom of God promised through all the inspired oracles, and the daily addition which the Lord made to his Church, of such as should be saved. (chap. 2. ver. 47. and chap. xv. ver. 5.) --- St. Luke has entitled this work, the Acts of the Apostles, that we may seek therein, says St. John Chrysostom, (tom. 5. hom. xii.) not so much the miracles that the apostles performed, as their good deeds, and eminent virtues. In appearing to give us a simple history, says St. Jerome, this holy physician furnishes us with as many remedies, to cure the maladies of our souls, as he gives us words for our instruction. (Ep. 103.) --- It is thought, that his principal design was to oppose to the false acts of the apostles, that were then in circulation, a true and authentic history of the actions of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Catholic Church has ever held this work in such great esteem, that it has not only superseded every pretended history of the kind, that preceded it, but also every ascititious one that has succeeded it. (St. Augustine, de consen. Evang. lib. iv. chap. 8.) --- It is very probable, that St. Luke wrote his acts at Rome, whilst he was near St. Paul, during the time of his confinement, for he remained with him till his deliverance. There can be no doubt that the work was written in Greek, and in a more pure and polished style, than we find in any other writings of the New Testament. St. Luke generally cites the Septuagint, apparently because he was ignorant of the Hebrew; and because, St. Paul more frequently having to preach to the Gentiles, preferred citing the sacred text in the language known in common, sooner than in Hebrew, which was understood by few. See St. Jerome, in Isai. vi. and again, tradit. Hebr. in Genes. 45. --- The Catholic Church has ever admitted this book into the canon of Scriptures; though many heretics, says St. Augustine, have rejected it. (ep. 253. and lib. de util. cred. 7.) St. John Chrysostom, (hom. i. in Acta) complains, that this book, in his time, was not sufficiently attended to, which he esteems as no less useful than the gospel itself. Erasmus, in his preface to the Acts, says, that he had, in the first instance, some notion of adding this book to St. Luke's gospel, as they are both addressed to the same person, and the Acts are not inconsiderable part of the sacred history; for, as the gospel shews the seed committed to the earth, and sown in the field, the Acts represent it as taking root, shooting up, and producing its fruit. --- The Acts have not uniformly held the same place in the Testament which they hold at present. Sometimes this book was inserted immediately before the book of Revelation, as St. Augustine and others insinuate. At other times, we find it between the epistles of St. Paul and the canonical epistles. Some persons express their surprise, that St. Luke, who was the inseparable companion of St. Paul, has not given the account of St. Paul's martyrdom. St. John Chrysostom (hom. i. in Acta) gives an excellent solution: "the apostles, and other apostolic men, wrote little, but did a great deal." The martyrdom of St. Paul, that took place in the public theatre of Rome itself, and before the eyes of all the Christians of this capital of the world, could not remain unknown, but the voyages and other circumstances of his life, too useful to the Church to be suffered to pass into oblivion, called for the exertions of St. Luke's eloquent pen, which, though admirably accommodated to an historic design, is not wholly free from Hebraisms, and Syriacisms. The Acts of the Apostles include the history of the infant Church, from the day of our Lord's ascension into heaven, till the deliverance of St. Paul, two years after his arrival at Rome, i.e. a space of thirty years, from the year 33, to the year 63 of Jesus Christ, or from the 19th year of Tiberius, till the 9th year of Nero. This golden book paints, as it were, the face of the primeval Christian Church; it places before our eyes the singular providence of God, in founding and protecting his Church, and how the apostles, (in spite of every opposition of the armed power of the whole world, to oppress the gospel,) without any foreign assistance of learning, credit, power, or expectation of any temporal advantages, but relying solely on the power of truth, and the virtue of the holy Spirit, laboured in the propagation of the faith, without intermission, till the power of God, under the ignominy of the cross, became eventually triumphant. See Wm. Whitfield Dakins, LL.D. in his prolegomena. --- It may be divided into four parts. In the first eight chapters, St. Luke gives the origin and progress of the Christian Church among the Jews. From the 9th to the 16th, he shews how widely it was spread among the Gentiles: from the 16th to the 20th, the diverse peregrinations of St. Paul, till his last journey to Jerusalem: and from the 20th to the end, with what patience he underwent innumerable sufferings, trials, and indignities, with what magnanimity he had head against the violent surges of persecution, and his astonishing equanimity under every possible calamity. --- This account, which is not continued beyond his two years' imprisonment in Rome, contains a general sketch of the history of the Church during the epoch it describes of thirty years. The leading facts therein contained are, the choice of Matthias to be an apostles, in the room of Judas; the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; the preaching, miracles, and sufferings of the apostles at Jerusalem; the conversion of St. Paul; the call of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert; the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the preaching of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, by the express command of the Holy Ghost; the decree made at Jerusalem, declaring that circumcision, and a conformity to other Jewish rites and ceremonies were not necessary in Gentile converts; the miraculous cures performed by the handkerchiefs and aprons which had only touched the body of St. Paul; whilst the latter part of the book is exclusively confined to the history of St. Paul, of whom, as we have already seen, St. Luke was the constant companion for several years. --- The place of its publication is doubtful. A learned prelate advances, that the probability appears to be in favour of Greece, though some contend for Alexandria, in Egypt. This latter opinion rests upon the subscriptions at the end of some Greek manuscripts, and of the copies of the Syriac version; but the best critics think, that these subscriptions, which are also affixed to other books of the New Testament, deserve but little weight; and in this case they are not supported by any ancient authority. But the sentiment of this learned prelate, does not bias the opinion we gave at the beginning, and which we find confirmed by Alban Butler, in his life of St. Luke, vol. x. p. 432. where he says, "that St. Luke attended St. Paul at Rome, whither he was sent prisoner from Jerusalem in 61. The apostle remained there two years in chains; but was permitted to live in a house which he hired, though under the custody of a constant guard; and there he preached to those who daily resorted to hear him. From ancient writings and monuments belonging to the Church of St. Mary in via lata, which is an ancient title of a Cardinal Deacon, Boronius, in his Annals ad. an. 55. and Arringhi, in his Roma Subterranea, lib. iii, chap. 41. tell us, that this Church was built upon the spot where St. Paul then lodged, and where St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles."

====================

Gill: Acts (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO ACTS

This book, in some copies, is called, "The Acts of the holy Apostles". It contains an history of the ministry and miracles of the apostles of Christ, and is a sort of a journal of their actions, from whence it takes its name. It begins at the ascension of Christ, and reaches to the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul at Rome; and is a history of upwards of thirty years: it gives an account of the first Gospel church at Jerusalem, and of the progress of the Gospel there, and in Judea, by the means of all the apostles, and particularly Peter, the minister of the circumcision, and who also first opened the door of faith to the Gentiles: it shows how the Gospel went forth from Jerusalem, and was spread in the Gentile world, especially by the Apostle Paul, whose companion Luke was, that was the writer of this book; for that it was written by him is very evident from the beginning of it, it being dedicated to the same person his Gospel is, and of which he makes mention; and in the Complutensian edition the book is called, "The Acts of the Apostles of Saint Luke the Evangelist"; and so the title of it in the Syriac version is, "the Book of the Acts: that is, the history of the blessed apostles, which my Lord Luke the Evangelist collected for the saints". It was by him written in the Greek language; and we are told ^a, that there was a version of it into the Hebrew language, and which was laid up in the library of the Jews at Tiberias; and is cited by R. Azarias ^b under the name of twlweph, "the Acts": of the authority of this book there has been no doubt, among the ancients, only Cerinthus the heretic endeavoured to discredit it; and it was not received by another sort of heretics called Severiani, from Severus, a disciple of Tatian ^c. It is a most excellent and useful work, showing the first planting of Christianity, and of Christian churches, both among the Jews and Gentiles; the spread and progress of the Gospel in several parts of the world; what sufferings the apostles endured for the sake of it; and with what patience and courage they bore them; and what success attended them; and is a standing proof and confirmation of the Christian religion.

College: Acts (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

As early as the second century the title "The Acts of the Apostles" was given to this document. Before that time the work probably circulated with its companion volume, "The Gospel of Luke." When the other three Gospels were collected and the New Testament was formed, The Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles were separated. Both were included in the New Testament as books of history.

AUTHORSHIP

Like the Third Gospel, the Book of Acts does not identify its author. Evidence must be gathered, therefore, from both within the document itself and from references to the document in early church history.

The strongest evidence within the Book of Acts is its Prologue (1:1-3). When the Prologue of Acts is compared with the Prologue of the Third Gospel (1:1-4), the similarities are striking. Both books mention the name Theophilus as the recipient. Acts refers to "the former book," implying that the Third Gospel is that book. Acts also intends to begin the story at the point that the Third Gospel ends it-the ascension of Christ. The style of Greek used in both cases is polished and formal. The implication that both works were written by the same author is unavoidable.

In addition, the passages in Acts which use the pronoun "we" imply an eyewitness account. Appearing toward the end of Acts, these passages give the impression that whoever was writing the book was also present when some of the recorded events took place. It seems that the author makes himself a companion of Paul at these points in the narrative (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16). At other points in the record the author was content to use "they" in describing events.

Inevitably, then, the question of authorship focuses on Paul's traveling companions. Because some of the "we" sections overlap with Paul's years in prison at both Caesarea and Rome, the companions who were with him at that time become prime candidates. When Paul wrote the letters to Philemon and to the Colossians from prison, Luke was one of the companions Paul mentioned (Phlm 23-24; Col 4:10-17).

Another line of reasoning was proposed by W.K. Hobart in 1882. He analyzed the vocabulary of Acts and concluded that the language indicated that the author of Acts was a physician. This proposal did not survive the scrutiny of scholarship for long. By 1920 H.J. Cadbury offered a study which showed that much of the language which Hobart considered "technical" medical terminology was in use by such nonmedical writers as Josephus, Plutarch, and Lucian. The most that can be said for this evidence today is that the terminology of Acts is compatible with authorship by a person with a medical background.

These pieces of evidence are consistent with the external evidence. Though references to The Acts of the Apostles do not appear as early in the church fathers as do references to other books of the New Testament, they do appear nonetheless. Diognetus (A.D. 130) and The Didache (A.D. 140) allude to the work, as does The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (A.D. 177), according to Eusebius. The latter source quotes the words of Stephen's prayer in which he asks that his accusers not have their sin charged against them ( Ecclesiastical History V.2). Similarly, Irenaeus (A.D. 180), Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190), Tertullian (A.D. 200), and Eusebius (A.D. 325) quote from Acts without naming their source.

In addition to this evidence, many early church writers refer to the Third Gospel as written by Luke. This is important since the internal evidence makes the author of the Third Gospel the same as the author of Acts. Such testimony comes from the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170). Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Jerome, on the other hand, speak directly of Acts as written by Luke.

Much attention has also been given to the sources used by Luke in writing Acts. Harnack was the primary scholar who promoted the position that underlying Acts are several sources. He argued that one could detect first an "Antioch" source, then a second source describing Paul's conversion, and finally a third source which contained the "Jerusalem Caesarean" tradition. This third source, he said, was actually two sources blended together, one more reliable than the other.

Harnack's proposals ran into trouble on a couple of counts. His approach seemed dominated by a rationalism which excised the miraculous from the text. In addition his theories about the parallels between the two "Jerusalem Caesarean" sources did not hold up under the scrutiny of Joachim Jeremias and others.

Another proposal regarding written sources for Acts came from C.C. Torrey. He argued that an Aramaic source was used in the composition of Acts 1-15, but absent from Acts 16-28. This argument was made on the basis of Semitisms which he found in these earlier chapters. Later scholars argued that these terms and phrases are best explained as coming from the Septuagint or the synagogue.

Also among the possible sources for Acts are oral traditions. C.J. Hemer lists dozens of passages which he thinks are best explained as deriving from reports passed along verbally to Luke.

In recent years scholars have been far more interested in Luke as a writer and theologian than as a compiler of sources. In some cases studies have concentrated on comparing Luke's style with other ancient writers.

With the work of Hans Conzelmann in 1953 the emphasis on Luke's theology as reflected in Acts became pronounced. This perspective continues to dominate scholarly discussions today. One problem with this perspective is that it frequently ignores or denies the value of Acts as a historical record of events in the early church.

DATE OF WRITING

Acts 1:1 indicates that Luke wanted Acts to serve as the second volume of a two-volume work. For this reason Acts must be dated at the same time or later than the Gospel of Luke. The earliest dates that scholars assign to Luke are in the late 50s. Festus had already ascended to power when Acts was written, an event which is dated in A.D. 60. These boundaries fix the earliest date for Acts.

The real question is how late can Acts be dated. Some radical Bible critics have dated Acts as late as A.D. 115-130. This date reduces the chances that Luke was the author. Many scholars fix the date between A.D. 70-80. The reasons often given for this date have to do with the subject matter of Luke's Gospel, especially Luke 21:5-38. In these verses Jesus speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem. His description is so vivid that many scholars believe Luke must have recorded it after the event had occurred in A.D. 70.

One question which must arise in discussing the date of Acts has to do with the last verses of the Book. Acts closes with a description of the Apostle Paul under house-arrest in Rome. He was taken there to stand trial before Caesar. The account ends by noting that he remained there "two whole years," preaching the gospel as he waited for his accusers to arrive. Tradition indicates that he was martyred in Rome during the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68). The question to be answered is whether Paul was martyred during this Roman imprisonment. If so, why didn't Luke record Paul's death in Acts? Is the absence of any word on Paul's death significant? Was Luke avoiding the issue in order to preserve his focus on the victorious progress of the church? If so, maybe Acts was meant to end at this point in the story. This would allow for Acts to be written later than the year of Paul's death. The date of writing could then be fixed somewhere between A.D. 70-80.

On the other hand, it may be that Luke does not record Paul's death because it had not occurred when he wrote Acts, meaning that the dating of Acts would be earlier. If Luke finished Acts before Paul's death occurred, the work must be dated somewhere in the early or mid 60s. Church tradition (especially Jerome and Eusebius) dates Paul's martyrdom in Rome around A.D. 67-68. Many scholars believe, however, that Paul was released from his house-arrest described in Acts 28. They argue that he resumed his missionary travels until the day he was once again arrested and taken to Rome. They also contend that the Pastoral letters (1, 2 Timothy and Titus) were written before this second imprisonment. If this is true, then Acts may have been written at the end of Paul's first imprisonment, or about A.D. 63.

THEME OF ACTS

Acts opens with a statement from Jesus which seems to set the tone for the entire work. Jesus promises the Apostles that they will receive power in the form of the Holy Spirit (see 1:8). He then tells them that they will be his "witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (NIV). This theme of being a witness for the gospel is carried throughout the Book of Acts. Consider the following verses in Acts:

1:22 - the replacement for Judas had to be a witness of Christ's resurrection

2:32 - Peter's sermon on Pentecost emphasized that the apostles were witnesses of the resurrection

3:15 - after healing the beggar Peter proclaimed the resurrected Christ and that the apostles were witnesses

4:20 - the apostles told the Jewish authorities they could not help proclaiming what they had seen and heard

5:32 - when the apostles were again persecuted they said they must obey God because they were witnesses along with the Holy Spirit

8:25 - Peter and John went to Samaria where they "testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord"

10:39 - Peter proclaimed to Cornelius that he was a witness to the ministry of Jesus

13:31 - Paul told the crowd in Pisidian Antioch that Jesus' followers had witnessed Christ's resurrection

22:15 - Ananias went to Paul with the message that Paul would be a witness to all men of what he had seen and heard

23:11 - God appeared to Paul encouraging him that he would testify in Rome concerning the Lord These references do not include the numerous passages in which individuals are found witnessing falsely (e.g., 6:13; 7:58; 24:1; 25:7).

As the witnesses for Christ carried the gospel toward the far reaches of the world, the church advanced everywhere. This theme is also important in Acts. The expansion of the church is presented in a historical context. Luke even dates some of the events in his record by using key Roman names and events as reference points (see 12:1, 19; 18:12; 23:24; 24:24; 25:1, 23).

As Acts 1:8 indicates, Luke shows how the gospel prevailed wherever it was proclaimed. In Jerusalem, huge numbers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. Later, thousands were added (4:4), even though the believers were being persecuted by the Jewish authorities. Such incidents as the striking down of Ananias and Sapphira and the dissension over the ministry to Hellenistic widows did not slow down the rapid increase of converts to the gospel (5:14; 6:1,7).

Beyond the walls of Jerusalem, the gospel also found fertile ground for growth. After the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the church in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and saw its numbers increasing (9:31). Peter's work in Lydda bore rich fruit (9:35) and his raising of Tabitha in Joppa brought many to believe in the Lord (9:42).

The ever-widening influence of the gospel was felt beyond Judea and Samaria as well. Antioch saw increasing numbers of believers, especially among the Gentile populations (11:21,24). The cities of southern Galatia felt the gospel's impact as Paul and Barnabas evangelized in places like Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe (see 14:1,21). Later, Paul and Silas revisited these cities and more growth came (see 16:5). On this same missionary journey Paul and Silas even crossed into Macedonia where the results were the same (see 17:12). The gospel continued to conquer hearts and minds for Christ with each passing day.

Through all of Luke's record, the role of the Holy Spirit is highlighted. From the Day of Pentecost when he was poured out (see 2:14ff), the Spirit was essential to God's purposes for the proclamation of the gospel. When the men were chosen to administer the benevolence to widows, Stephen was appointed because he was a man full of "faith and of the Holy Spirit" (see 6:5). In Samaria the new converts received a visit from the apostles who placed their hands on them, granting them the power of the Holy Spirit (see 8:17). This was a power which Simon the Sorcerer wanted to buy (see 8:18). Philip heard from the Spirit that he was to go to the chariot of the Ethiopian (see 8:29). While Peter was preaching to Cornelius, the Holy Spirit came on the listeners, interrupting Peter's address (see 10:44). Barnabas and Saul were first selected as missionaries at Antioch when the Spirit spoke to the church (see 13:2). Their travels were guided by the Holy Spirit (see 16:7) and in Ephesus Paul rebaptized believers who had not received the Spirit (see 19:1-7). When Paul addressed the Ephesian elders, he reminded them that they had become leaders because of the Spirit's ministry (see 21:28).

While Acts emphasizes that the apostles received the power of the Spirit (1:8), it also emphasizes how they used this power. They faithfully bore witness for Christ. Acts underscores the work of the apostles, or at least some of the apostles. Roughly speaking, Acts 1-12 focuses on the work of the Apostle Peter. His role in the choosing of a successor for Judas (see 1:15ff) and the preaching on the Day of Pentecost (see 2:14ff) open the book. Almost every chapter which follows contains some report on the work of Peter. He and John heal the lame man (see 3:1-10), and then stand before the Sanhedrin (see 4:1-22). He confronts Ananias and Sapphira (see 5:1-11) and Simon the Sorcerer (see 8:9-25). He experiences the vision which results in the preaching to Cornelius and the conversion of his family (see 10:9-48). He then defends his actions before the church leaders in Jerusalem (see 11:1-18). Finally, he miraculously escapes imprisonment by Herod (see 12:1-19).

With Acts 13 the spotlight shifts to the Apostle Paul. Paul and Barnabas are sent from Antioch as missionaries (see 13:2). Their report at the Jerusalem conference is crucial (see 15:12), and though they cannot agree about John Mark, a second missionary journey is undertaken by Paul and Silas (see 15:40). The second journey is followed immediately by a third (see 18:23), and then comes the account of Paul's tragic visit to Jerusalem and his arrest in the temple (see 21:30). The rest of the book describes the series of hearings Paul endures and his transport to Caesarea and on to Rome. Paul's ministry as a Roman prisoner is the focus of the final comment in Acts. For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ (28:30-31).

THE PURPOSE OF ACTS

For years scholars have puzzled over why Luke produced Acts. Comparing the opening of Acts with that of Luke's Gospel shows that a particular disciple named Theophilus was central to Luke's motives. Was he a new convert? Was he a wealthy patron? Was he an influential Christian? These questions have no obvious answer.

Luke implies in the opening of the gospel that he had carefully researched his material (see Luke 1:1-4). He was concerned to provide a proper sequence of events. He shows awareness of other accounts which have been written concerning Jesus.

One purpose often noted is a historical one. Luke wanted to provide a historical record of the events of Jesus' life and the progress of the first-century church. Though some scholars argue that his reasons had to do with his concerns about the return of Christ, it is possible that he saw the end of the age of the apostles coming. Perhaps Luke wanted a written record of the apostles' work in carrying on the ministry of Jesus.

The immediate purpose of Luke may be indicated in his words in the opening of the gospel. He tells Theophilus that he writes so that this believer will "know the certainty of the things" he had been taught (1:4). This comment may indicate that the two-volume work was meant for Christian instruction.

The apologetic value of Acts has often been noted. Some have wondered if Luke's work was intended to serve as a defense-brief for the Apostle Paul as he stood before Caesar. The problem with this suggestion is that Luke includes so much material that has nothing to do with Paul's defense. Why would he include the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of the Lord? Why would he focus on the Apostle Peter in the early chapters of Acts? Acts would be very tedious reading if the main purpose were a defense of Paul.

Nevertheless, it is true that much of Acts emphasizes that the believers posed no threat to the Roman empire. When the apostles are summoned before the Jerusalem authorities, their only crime is healing the lame man (see 3:1ff). When Stephen is martyred, his only fault is his zeal for the faith (see 6:8ff). Peter's imprisonment at the hands of Herod Agrippa I is due to no fault of the Apostle (see 12:1ff). Paul's hearing before Gallio is a matter of questions about the Jewish Law (see 18:12-16). The series of trials experienced by Paul repeatedly emphasizes his innocence (see 21:29; 23:29; 24:27; 25:19; 26:31). The cumulative effect of these statements establishes that the church was never any real threat to Caesar.

Beyond these purposes, Acts has a theological purpose. Luke intends to show how the apostles began the work Jesus initiated on the earth. Acts 1:1 describes Luke's Gospel as an account of "all that Jesus began to do and to teach." Acts intends to describe how the apostles continued this work of Jesus. The Gospel begins in Jerusalem and fans out over the whole Roman world to the Imperial City itself. The salvation of the Lord is, in Paul's language, "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (Rom. 1:16). Acts records how God used human means to send out the divine message of salvation in Christ.

THE HISTORICITY OF ACTS

Concerning the historical accuracy of the Book of Acts modern scholarship appears to be at an impasse. Questions have been raised for years about Luke's account of events. Many of the questions have been aimed at the portrait of Paul which is presented in Acts. Since the days of F.C. Baur and the Tübingen school, the issue of how Paul is presented in Acts as compared with the Pauline letters has been prominent among scholars who study Acts. The result has been a series of scholars who cast doubts upon the historical accuracy of Acts.

Drawing much of this attention has been the relationship between Acts and Galatians. Especially important to scholars are such topics as the number of visits Paul made to Jerusalem, the description of the debate about circumcision, the matter of Paul's relationship to the other apostles, the position of Paul regarding the "apostolic decrees" (see 15:19-20), and other matters relating to Paul's association with the Jerusalem leaders. In addition questions have been raised about Paul's portrait in Acts as an apostle who would carry the decrees from church to church when he says nothing of them in his letters to some of the same churches. Also a problem is the fact that Acts is silent with regard to any of these letters Paul was addressing to the churches, even though he wrote during the very time covered in Acts. Beyond this strange silence is the other important event in Paul's ministry about which Acts is so quiet-the collection for the believers in Judea (see 1 Cor 16:1-4; Rom 15:23-33).

These differences have caused some scholars to speak of the "Lucan Paul" in contrast to the "Paul of the epistles." Another scholar explains the difference (in the tradition of Baur) by referring to the "Paulinism of Acts." Luke is viewed not as a historian recording events in the ministry of Paul, but as a theologian who carefully constructs a historical explanation of Paul even if it is at odds with historical reality. The Pauline speeches of Acts, in particular, are viewed as fabrications of Luke's theological genius, motivated by the need to present Paul in terms which agree with his own theological perspective.

For many scholars, then, Acts is regarded as so preoccupied with theological concerns as to render it suspect as a historical report of events in the life of the first-century church. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries this skepticism was met with a wave of scholars who resisted such a pessimistic assessment of the historicity of Acts. Such scholars as James Smith, Henry Alford, J.B. Lightfoot, F.W. Farrar, R.B. Rackham, William Ramsay, Theodor Zahn, Adolf Harnack, Arthur McGiffert, C.C. Torrey, and H.J. Cadbury found more reasons for confidence in the historical value of Acts. The impact of Martin Dibelius, however, was decisive. His critical studies of Acts produced a significant trend toward the conclusion that Acts should be understood in terms of descriptive theology rather than history. Hans Conzelmann and Ernst Haenchen were instrumental in systematically applying the approach of Dibelius to the text of Acts. Thus a powerful stream of thought continues to influence scholars who study Acts for the purpose of clarifying the theological tendencies of early church teaching, while dismissing the historical contribution of the work.

These trends have been called into question in recent years by such scholars as F.F. Bruce, I.H. Marshall, Martin Hengel, and C.J. Hemer. But no consensus among scholars has been reached. To some extent, then, the study of Acts advances on two entirely different (if not always unrelated) tracks. Work goes on in the effort to understand the theological tendencies which shape Luke's production of the Book of Acts. At the same time other scholars look to historical and archaeological studies as potential sources for additional help in comprehending the contribution Acts makes to the historical picture of the emerging church of the first century.

Whenever scholars from the Restoration Movement have engaged in major studies of Acts, the issue of the historicity of the Book has been dominant. Alexander Campbell's Acts of the Apostles is largely a grammatical analysis of the text of Acts, but the historicity of Luke's work is assumed throughout. J.W. McGarvey's New Commentary on Acts of Apostles not only proceeds on the presupposition that Acts can be trusted as a historical representation of the events it records, but argues the point against such "infidel" scholars as Baur and Zeller. Another commentary was produced in 1896, this time by David Lipscomb. His work makes theology the primary focus, but once again the issue of the historical credibility of Acts is central.

More recent volumes have appeared which offer the same balance. H. Leo Boles produced his commentary in 1941, a study which follows in the same tradition. Don DeWelt's commentary appeared in 1958, and it is stamped with a devotional and didactic quality that makes the message of Acts practical for the believer, yet it never compromises on the assumption that Acts is reliable as a historical account. Finally, the work of Gareth Reese was pivotal. His New Testament History: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts is from the very start a work which argues the case for the historicity of Acts. With full awareness of the challenges from the Bible critics, Reese builds his case for the credibility of Luke's account of these events.

In this commentary our approach is to appreciate the theological motivations of Luke's work while not rejecting this record as the most valuable source we have regarding the developing church. Our confidence does not rest entirely on the fact that Luke's abilities as a historian have proven to be convincing. We also believe in the promise of the Lord to direct his servant into all truth.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Commentaries:

Arrington, French. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988.

Boles, H.L. A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles . Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1941.

Campbell, Alexander. Acts of the Apostles . Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1858.

Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles , trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, Donald Juel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Carter, C.W. and Ralph Earle. Acts of the Apostles . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.

DeWelt, Don. Acts Made Actual . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1969.

Foster, Lewis. "Acts," in The NIV Study Bible . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

Harnack, Adolf. The Acts of the Apostles , trans. J.R. Wilkinson. London: Williams & Norgate, 1909.

Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary , trans.Bassil Blackwell. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.

Harrison, E.F. Interpreting Acts . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Lake, Kirsopp and H.J. Cadbury. The Beginnings of Christianity , ed. F.J. Foakes-Jackson. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.

Lipscomb, David. Commentary on Acts of the Apostles . Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1896.

McGarvey, J.W. New Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles . 2 Vols. in One. Cincinnati: Standard, 1892.

Marshall, I.H. The Acts of the Apostles , Tyndale Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Munck, Johannes. The Acts of the Apostles . The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967.

Pesch, Rudolf. Die Apostelgeschichte . Teilband I: Apg. 1-12. Zurich: Benziger, 1986.

Polhill, John. Acts . The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Stagg, Frank. The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for an Unhindered Gospel . Nashville: Broadman, 1955.

Reese, Gareth. New Testament History: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1991.

Williams, C.S.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles . Harper's New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988.

Special Studies:

Arrington, French. New Testament Exegesis: Examples . Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1977.

Barrett, C.K. The New Testament Background: Selected Documents . New York: Harper & Row, 1961.

Bassler, Jouette. Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom . Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982.

Beasley-Murray, George. Baptism in the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Behm, Johannes. "Glossa," in TDNT , ed. Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich; trans. Geoffrey Bromiley. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Beitzel, Barry. The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands . Chicago: Moody, 1985.

Blaiklock, E.M. "The Acts of the Apostles as a Document of First-Century History," in Apostolic History and the Gospel , ed. Ward Gasque, Ralph Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Cadbury, H.J. "Roman Law and the Trial of Paul," in The Beginnings of Christianity , ed. F.J. Foakes-Jackson. Vol. 5. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975.

. Style and Literary Method of Luke Part 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920.

. The Making of Luke-Acts . New York: MacMillan, 1927.

Casson, Lionel. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.

. The Ancient Mariners . New York: Macmillan, 1959.

Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke , trans. G. Buswell. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Cottrell, Jack. Baptism: A Biblical Study . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1989.

Dahl, Nils. "The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts," in Studies in Luke-Acts , ed. Leander Keck, J.L. Martyn. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Davies, W.D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism . London: SPCK, 1958.

. The Gospel and the Land . Berkeley: University of California, 1974.

. Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come. Philadelphia: SBL, 1952.

Dibelius, Martin. "The Acts of the Apostles in the Setting of the History of Early Christian Literature," in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles , trans. M. Ling. London: SCM, 1956.

. "Paul on the Areopagus," Ibid.

Dunn, J.D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.

. Jesus and His Spirit . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.

Dupont, Jacques. The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles . New York: Paulist, 1967.

. The Sources of Acts: The Present Position , trans. Kathleen Pond. London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1964.

Easton, Burton. Early Christianity: The Purpose of Acts and Other Papers , ed. F.C. Grant. London: SPCK, 1955.

Ellis, E.E. Paul's Use of the Old Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Enslin, Morton. Reapproaching Paul . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987.

Esler, Philip. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Filson, Floyd. "The Journey Motif in Luke-Acts," in Apostolic History and the Gospel , ed. W.W. Gasque and Ralph Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament . London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971.

Flew, R.N. Jesus and His Church: A Study of the Idea of the Ecclesia in the New Testament . London: Epworth, 1943.

Gärtner, Bertil. The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation . Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955.

Gasque, Ward. A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles . Tübingen: Mohr, 1975.

Gaston, Lloyd. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels . Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970.

Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Goulder, M.D. Type and History in Acts . London: SPCK, 1964.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1970.

Hamey, L.A. and J.A. The Roman Engineers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Harnack, Adolf. Luke the Physician , trans. J.R. Wilkinson. New York: Putnam's, 1907.

Harris, J.R. Testimonies , I, II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916.

Hemer, C.J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History , ed. Conrad Gempf. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul , trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period , trans. John Bowden. 2 Vols. in One. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.

Hobart, W.K. The Medical Language of St. Luke . London: Longmans Green, 1882.

Horsley, Richard. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus . New York: Harper and Row, 1985.

Horton, Jr., Fred. "Reflections on the Semitisms of Luke-Acts," in Perspectives on Luke-Acts , ed. Charles Talbert. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978.

Hubbard, Benjamin. "The Role of Commissioning Accounts in Acts," in Perspectives on Luke-Acts , ed. Charles Talbert. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978.

Hurd, John. The Origin of 1 Corinthians . London: SPCK, 1965.

Jensen, Irving. Acts: An Independent Study . Chicago: Moody, 1974.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus , trans. F.H. and C.H. Cave. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.

Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979.

Jewett, Paul. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Jewett, Robert. A Chronology of Paul's Life . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Johnson, Luke. S haring Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.

Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul's Gospel . Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981.

Kurz, William. "Luke-Acts and Historiography in the Greek Bible," in SBL Seminar Papers 1980, ed. P.J. Achtemeier. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980.

Ladd, George. A Theology of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lohse, Eduard. "Pentekoste," in TDNT , ed. Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich; trans. Geoffrey Bromiley. Vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Longenecker, Richard. Paul, Apostle of Liberty . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts . Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982.

Manson, T.W. The Servant-Messiah . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Marshall, I.H. Luke: Historian and Theologian . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

Martin, Ralph. New Testament Foundations . 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Miesner, Donald. "The Missionary Journeys Narrative: Patterns and Implications," in Perspective on Luke-Acts , ed. Charles Talbert. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978.

Minear, Paul. Images of the Church in the New Testament . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.

Moore, G.F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era . New York: Schocken, 1971.

Moule, C.F.D. "Obligation in the Ethic of Paul," in Essays in New Testament Interpretation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

. "The Christology of Acts," in Studies in Luke-Acts , ed. Leander Keck, J.L. Martyn. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Moulton, J.H., W.F. Howard, and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963.

Munck, Johannes. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind , trans. Frank Clarke. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1959.

Nickle, K.F. The Collection . London: SCM, 1966.

Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos . Stuttgart: Teubner, 1923.

O'Neill, J.C. The Theology of Acts in Its Historical Setting . London: SPCK, 1961.

Plevnik, Joseph. What Are They Saying about Paul? New York: Paulist Press, 1986.

Ramsay, William. Luke the Physician . London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908.

. St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978.

Richard, Earl. Acts 6:1-8:4: The Author's Method of Composition. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978.

Rienecker, Fritz. A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament , trans. Cleon Rogers, Jr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.

Rivkin, Ellis. A Hidden Revolution . Nashville: Abingdon, 1978.

Robertson, A.T. Luke the Historian in Light of Research . Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920.

Robinson, J.A.T. Twelve New Testament Studies . London: SCM, 1962.

Robbins, Vernon. "By Land and by Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages," in Perspectives on Luke-Acts , ed. Charles Talbert. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978.

Russell, Bob. Making Things Happen: The Power of Christian Leadership . Cincinnati: Standard, 1987.

Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Scharlemann, Martin. Stephen: A Singular Saint . Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968.

Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ , ed. and rev. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979.

Shepard, J.W. The Life and Letters of the Apostle Paul: An Exegetical Study . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament . Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.

Smith, James. The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul , 3rd ed. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1866.

Spiro, Abram. "Stephen's Samaritan Backgound," in Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles , Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967.

Stagg, Frank. The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for an Unhindered Gospel . Nashville: Broadman, 1955.

Stagg, Frank and Evelyn . Woman in the World of Jesus . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

Stendahl, Krister. "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," in Paul among Jews and Gentiles . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Swidler, Leonard. Biblical Affirmations of Woman . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979.

Talbert, Charles. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts . Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974.

Tarn, W.W. and G.T. Griffith. Hellenistic Civilization . Cleveland: World Publishing, 1969.

Torrey, C.C. The Composition and Date of Acts . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916.

Trites, Allison. The New Testament Concept of Witness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

van Unnik, W.C. "Luke-Acts, A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship," in Studies in Luke-Acts , ed. Leander Keck and J.L. Martyn. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

. "Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul's Youth," trans. G. Ogg, in Sparsa Collecta . Part 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973.

Veltman, Fred. "The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts," in Perspectives on Luke-Acts , ed. Charles Talbert. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978.

Via, E.J. "An Interpretation of Acts 7:35-37 from the Perspective of Major Themes in Luke-Acts," in Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papters , ed. Paul Achtemeier. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978.

Vielhauer, Philipp. "On the 'Paulinism' of Acts," in Studies in Luke-Acts , ed. Leander Keck, J.L. Martyn. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Wilson, Stephen. "Law and Judaism in Acts," in SBL Seminar Papers 1980, ed. Paul Achtemeier. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980.

. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Periodicals:

Acworth, Angus. "Where Was St. Paul Shipwrecked? A Re-examination of the Evidence." JTS 24 (1973): 190-193.

Bamberger, Bernard. "The Sadducees and the Belief in Angels." JBL 82 (1963): 433-435.

Best, Ernest. "Acts XIII.1-3." JTS 11 (1960): 344-348.

Blevins, William. "The Early Church: Acts 1-5." RevEx 71 (1974): 463-474.

Bowker, J.W. "Speeches in Acts." NTS 14 (1968): 96-111.

Bruce, F.F. "Chronological Questions in the Acts of the Apostles." BJRL 68 (1986): 273-295.

Bull, Robert. "Caesarea Maritima: The Search for Herod's City." BAR 8 (1982): 24-41.

Cadbury, H.J. "Erastus of Corinth." JBL 50 (1930): 42-58.

. "Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts: V. Luke and the Horse-Doctors." JBL 52 (1933): 55-65.

Catchpole, David. "Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree." NTS 23 (1977): 428-444.

Cosgrove, Charles. "The Divine dei in Luke-Acts." NovT 26 (1984): 168-190.

Clark, David. "What Went Overboard First?" BTr 26 (1975): 144-146.

Culpepper, R.A. "Paul's Mission to the Gentile World." RevEx 71 (1974): 487-497.

Daube, David. "On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels." JBL 109 (1990): 493-497.

Davis, J.C. "Another Look at the Relationship between Baptism and Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2:38." RestQ 24 (1981): 80-88.

Downing, F.G. "Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and Josephus." NTS 28 (1982): 546-559.

Duncan, G.S. "Paul's Ministry in Asia - The Last Phase." NTS 3 (1957): 211-218.

Filson, Floyd. "The Christian Teacher in the First Century." JBL 60 (1941): 317-328.

Fitzgerald, Michael. "The Ship of Saint Paul: Comparative Archaeology." BA 53 (1990): 31-39.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. "The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost." TS 45 (1984): 409-440.

Gilchrist, J.M. "On What Charge Was St. Paul Brought to Rome?" ExpT 78 (1967): 264-266.

Goldsmith, Dale. "Acts 13:33-37: A Pesher on II Samuel 7." JBL 87 (1968): 321-324.

Goodspeed, E.J. "Gaius Titius Justus." JBL 69 (1950): 382-383.

Gordon, Alasdair. "The Fate of Judas according to Acts 1:18." EQ 43 (1971): 97-100.

Greenhut, Zvi. "Burial Cave of the Caiaphas Family." BAR 18 (1992): 29-36.

Haldane, Douglas. "Anchors of Antiquity." BA 53 (1990): 19-24.

Hemer, C.J. "First Person Narrative in Acts 27-28." TB 36 (1985): 97-98.

Hirschfield, Nicolle. "The Ship of St. Paul - Part I: Historical Background." BA 53 (1990): 19-24.

Hohlfelder, Robert. "Caesarea beneath the Sea." BAR 8 (1982): 42-47.

Horsley, G.H.R. "The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament." NovT 34 (1992): 105-168.

Kepple, Robert. "The Hope of Israel, The Resurrection of the Dead, and Jesus: A Study of Their Relationship in Acts with Particular Regard to the Understanding of Paul's Trial Defense." JETS 20 (1977): 231-241.

Kilgallen, John. "The Function of Stephen's Speech (Acts 7:2-53)." Biblica 70 (1989). 173-193.

Kilpatrick, G.D. "Acts XXIII.23 DEXIOLABOI ." NTS 14 (1963): 393-394.

Kodell, Jerome. "'The Word of God grew': The Ecclesial Tendency of logos in Acts 1,7; 12,24; 19,20." Biblica 55 (1974): 505-519.

Ladouceur, David. "Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context for Acts 27-28." HTR 73 (1980): 435-449.

Lofthouse, W.F. "The Holy Spirit in the Acts and the Fourth Gospel." ExpT 52 (1940-41): 334-337.

Malherbe, Abraham. "Gentle as Nurse." NovT 12 (1970): 203-217.

Mare, Harold. "Acts 7: Jewish or Samaritan?" WThJ 34 (1971): 1-21.

Mastin, B.A. "Scaeva the Chief Priest." JTS 27 (1976): 405-412.

Meinardus, Otto. "St. Paul Shipwrecked in Dalmatia." BA 39 (1976): 145-147.

Merrill, Eugene. "Paul's Use of 'About 450 Years' in Acts 13:20." BiblThecSac 138 (1981): 246-257.

Metzger, Bruce. "The Meaning of Christ's Ascension." ChrT 10 (1966): 863-864.

Miles, Gary and Garry Trompf. "Luke and Antiphon: The Theology of Acts 27-28 in the Light of Pagan Beliefs about Divine Retribution, Pollution, and Shipwreck." HTR 69 (1976): 259-267.

Nash, Donald. "For the Remission of Sin." ChrSt (3-30-75): 270-272.

Palmer, Darryl. "Acts and the Historical Monograph." TB 43 (1992): 373-388.

Parrat, J.K. "The Rebaptism of the Ephesian Disciples." ExpT (1968): 182-183.

Parker, Pierson. "Once More, Acts and Galatians." JBL 36 (1967): 175-182.

Rapuano, Yehudah. "Did Philip Baptize the Eunuch at Ein Yael?" BAR (1990): 44-49.

Scott, J.J. "Stephen's Speech: A Possible Model for Luke's Historical Method?" JETS 17 (1974): 91-97.

. "The Cornelius Incident in the Light of Its Jewish Setting." JETS 34 (1991): 475-484.

Slater, Thomas. "The Possible Influence of LXX Exodus 20:11 on Acts 14:15." AUSS 30 (1992): 151-152.

Stagg, Frank. "The Unhindered Gospel." RevEx 71 (1974): 451-462.

Stein, Robert. "The Relationship of Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-35: Two Neglected Arguments." JETS 17 (1974): 239-242.

Stoops, Jr., R.F. "Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23-41." JBL 108 (1989): 73-91.

Talbert, Charles. "The Place of the Resurrection in the Theology of Luke." Int 46 (1992): 19-30.

Thornton, T.C.G. "Stephen's Use of Isaiah LXVI.1." JTS 25 (1974): 432-435.

Tiede, David. "The Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1." HTR 79 (1986): 278-286.

Trites, Allison. "The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of Acts." NovT 16 (1974): 278-284.

Viviano, Benedict and Justin Taylor. "Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection (Acts 23:8-9)." JBL 111 (1992): 496-498.

Walker, William. "Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered." JSNT 24 (1985): 3-23.

Wall, Robert. "Successors to 'the Twelve' according to Acts 12:1-17." CBQ 53 (1991): 628-643.

Wilcox, Max. "The 'God-Fearers' in Acts - A Reconsideration." JSNT 13 (1981): 102-122.

Workman, W.P. "A New Date Indication in Acts." ExpT 11 (1900): 316-317.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

AUSS . . . Andrews University Seminary Studies

BA . . . Biblical Archaeology

BAR . . . Biblical Archaeology Review

BiblThecSac . . . Bibliotheca Sacra

BJRL . . . Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

BTr . . . Bible Translator

ChrSt . . . Christian Standard

ed. . . . edited by

EQ . . . Evangelical Quarterly

ExpT . . . Expository Times

HTR . . . Harvard Theological Review

JBL . . . Journal of Biblical Literature

JSNT . . . Journal of Studies in the New Testament

JETS . . . Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JTS . . . Journal of Theological Studies

n. . . . note

NovT . . . Novum Testamentum

RevEx . . . Review and Expositor

TB . . . Tyndale Bulletin

TDNT . . . Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TS . . . Theological Studies

trans . . . translated by

WThJ . . . Westminster Theological Journal

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Acts (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM - 1:1-8:1a

A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BOOK - 1:1-3

B. THE COMMISSIONING OF THE APOSTLES - 1:4-8

C. THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST - 1:9-11

D. WAITING FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT - 1:12-14

E. THE REPLACEMENT OF JUDAS ISCARIOT - 1:15-26

F. THE DAY OF PENTECOST - 2:1-47

1. The Apostles Baptized with the Holy Spirit - 2:1-4

2. The Amazement of the Crowd - 2:5-13

3. The Sermon of Peter - 2:14-36

a. The Promise of Joel - 2:14-21

b. The Proclamation of Jesus' Resurrection - 2:22-28

c. Jesus the Lord and Messiah - 2:29-36

4. The Call to Repentance - 2:37-40

5. The First Church - 2:41-47

G. THE HEALING OF THE LAME MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES - 3:1-4:31

1. A Cripple Cured - 3:1-10

2. Peter's Address in Solomon's Colonnade - 3:11-26

a. The Power of Jesus' Name - 3:11-16

b. The Call to Repentance - 3:17-21

c. The Witness of the Prophets - 3:22-26

3. The Arrest of Peter and John - 4:1-4

4. Peter and John before the Sanhedrin - 4:5-12

5. The Debate in the Sanhedrin - 4:13-17

6. The Prohibition against Preaching Christ - 4:18-22

7. The Release of Peter and John - 4:23-31

a. Their Reunion with the Twelve - 4:23

b. Their Prayer for Boldness - 4:24-30

c. Their Power from the Holy Spirit - 4:31

H. THE UNITY AND GENEROSITY OF THE EARLY CHURCH - 4:32-5:16

1. The Sharing of Material Possessions by Believers - 4:32-35

2. The Example of Barnabas - 4:36-37

3. The Deceit of Ananias and Sapphira - 5:1-11

4. The Signs and Wonders from the Apostles - 5:12-16

I. THE ARREST OF THE APOSTLES - 5:17-42

1. The Imprisonment of the Apostles - 5:17-26

2. The Apostles before the Sanhedrin - 5:27-40

3. The Continued Witness of the Apostles - 5:41-42

J. THE CHOOSING OF THE SEVEN DEACONS - 6:1-7

K. THE ARREST, TRIAL, AND STONING OF STEPHEN - 6:8-8:1a

1. False Accusations Against Him - 6:8-15

2. Stephen's Defense - 7:1-53

a. The Old Testament Patriarchs - 7:1-8

b. Israel in Egypt - 7:9-19

c. Early Days of Moses - 7:20-29

d. The Call of Moses - 7:30-34

e. The Wilderness Wanderings - 7:35-43

f. The Tabernacle and the Temple - 7:44-50

g. The Personal Application - 7:51-53

h. The Final Witness of Stephen - 7:54-56

i. The Death of Stephen - 7:57-60

j. The Consent of Saul - 8:1a

II. THE CHURCH IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA - 8:1b-12:25

A. PERSECUTION AND DISPERSION OF THE CHURCH - 8:1b-3

B. MINISTRY OF PHILIP - 8:4-40

1. Philip in Samaria - 8:4-8

2. The Conversion of Simon Magus - 8:9-13

3. The Visit of Peter and John to Samaria - 8:14-17

4. Peter's Condemnation of Simon's Offer to Pay for the Holy Spirit - 8:18-24

5. The Return of the Apostles to Jerusalem - 8:25

6. Philip and the Conversion of the Ethiopian - 8:26-40

C. THE CONVERSION OF SAUL OF TARSUS - 9:1-31

1. The Expedition of Saul to Damascus - 9:1-2

2. The Light and the Voice from Heaven - 9:3-7

3. The Entrance of Saul to Damascus - 9:8-9

4. The Commissioning of Ananias to Visit Saul - 9:10-16

5. The Visit from Ananias - 9:17-19a

6. The Preaching of Saul in Damascus - 9:19b-22

7. The Escape of Saul from Damascus - 9:23-25

8. The Ministry of Saul in Jerusalem and His Departure for Tarsus - 9:26-30

D. PEACE AND PROSPERITY FOR THE CHURCH - 9:31

E. PETER'S MINISTRY IN WESTERN JUDEA - 9:32-43

1. The Ministry at Lydda: Healing of Aeneas - 9:32-35

2. The Ministry at Joppa: The Raising of Dorcas - 9:36-43

F. THE CONVERSION OF THE FIRST GENTILES - 10:1-11:18

1. The Ministry of Peter at Caesarea - 10:1-48

a. The Vision Seen by Cornelius - 10:1-8

b. The Vision Seen by Peter - 10:9-16

c. The Arrival at Joppa of Servants Sent by Cornelius - 10:17-23a

d. The Visit of Peter to the House of Cornelius - 10:23b-33

e. The Sermon by Peter - 10:34-43

f. The Reception of the Holy Spirit by Gentiles - 10:44-48

2. The Endorsement of Peter's Ministry by the Jerusalem Leadership - 11:1-18

a. The Questioning of the Jerusalem Leaders - 11:1-3

b. The Defense by Peter - 11:4-17

c. The Defense Accepted - 11:18

G. THE CHRISTIANS AT ANTIOCH - 11:19-30

1. Evangelism among the Gentiles of Antioch - 11:19-21

2. The Ministry of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch - 11:22-26

3. The Famine Relief Work from Antioch - 11:27-30

H. THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH BY HEROD AGRIPPA I - 12:1-25

1. The Martyrdom of James and Imprisonment of Peter - 12:1-4

2. The Escape of Peter from Prison - 12:5-11

3. The Report of Peter about the Escape - 12:12-17

4. The Discovery of Peter's Escape - 12:18-19a

5. The Death of Herod Agrippa I - 12:19b-23

6. The Continued Progress of the Gospel - 12:24

7. The Return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch - 12:25

III. THE CHURCH IN THE ENDS OF THE EARTH - 13:1-28:31

A. THE FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY - 13:1-14:28

1. The Commissioning of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch - 13:1-3

2. The Arrival of Barnabas and Saul on Cyprus - 13:4-5

3. The Confrontation at Paphos - 13:6-12

4. The Arrival at Pisidian Antioch - 13:13-15

5. Paul's Address in the Synagogue - 13:16-41

a. Old Testament Prelude to Christ - 13:16-22

b. Fulfillment in Christ - 13:23-37

c. Conclusion and Warning - 13:38-41

6. The Response to Paul's Address - 13:42-43

7. Gentile Interest and Jewish Opposition - 13:44-52

8. The Visit to Iconium - 14:1-7

9. The Healing at Lystra - 14:8-13

10. Paul's Address about the Living God - 14:14-18

11. The Stoning of Paul - 14:19-20a

12. The Visit to Derbe and Return to Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch - 14:20b-23

13. Return to Antioch of Syria - 14:24-28

B. THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM - 15:1-35

1. The Visit of Judaizers to Antioch - 15:1-2

2. The Journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem - 15:3-5

3. The Convening of the Council - 15:6

4. The Address of Peter - 15:7-11

5. The Address of Paul and Barnabas - 15:12

6. The Summation by James - 15:13-21

7. The Apostolic Letter to Gentile Christians - 15:22-29

8. The Reception of the Apostolic Letter by the Church in Antioch - 15:30-35

C. THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY - 15:36-18:22

1. The Proposal and the Debate about John Mark - 15:36-39

2. The Journey through Syria and Cilicia - 15:40-41

3. The Visit to Derbe and Lystra - 16:1-4

4. The Growth of the Churches - 16:5

5. The Journey through Phrygia and Galatia - 16:6-7

6. The Macedonian Vision in Troas - 16:8-10

7. The Visits to Samothrace and Neapolis - 16:11

8. The Visit to Philippi - 16:12-40

a. The Faith of Lydia - 16:12-15

b. The Slave Girl with the Spirit of Divination - 16:16-22

c. The Imprisonment - 16:23-26

d. The Conversion of the Jailer - 16:27-34

e. The Departure - 16:35-40

9. The Visits at Amphipolis and Apollonia - 17:1a

10. The Visit at Thessalonica - 17:1b-9

a. Paul's Preaching in the Synagogue - 17:1b-4

b. The Backlash from the Jews - 17:5-9

11. The Visit of Paul and Silas in Berea - 17:10-14

12. The Visit at Athens - 17:15-34

a. Paul's Preaching in Athens - 17:15-17

b. Paul's Encounter with the Philosophers - 17:18

c. Paul's Address in the Areopagus - 17:19-31

1) Paul's Acknowledgement of Their Idols - 17:19-23

2) God the Creator of Everything - 17:24-26

3) God Who is Near Enough to Touch - 17:27-29

4) God Who Judges and Demands Repentance - 17:30-31

d. The Reaction to Paul's Preaching - 17:32-34

13. The Visit at Corinth - 18:1-17

a. Paul's Arrival and Ministry with Aquila and Priscilla - 18:1-4

b. Resistance from the Jews and Paul's Decision to Preach to the Gentiles - 18:5-6

c. Encouragement in a Night Vision - 18:7-10

d. Paul's Trial before Gallio - 18:11-17

14. The Visit at Cenchrea - 18:18

15. The Visit at Ephesus - 18:19-21

16. The Journey to Caesarea, Jerusalem,and Antioch of Syria - 18:22

D. THE THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY - 18:23-21:16

1. The Journey through Galatia and Phrygia - 18:23

2. The Ministry of Apollos in Ephesus and Corinth - 18:24-28

3. The Twelve Disciples at Ephesus - 19:1-7

4. Paul's Preaching in the Synagogue and the School of Tyrannus - 19:8-10

5. The Conflict with the Exorcists - 19:11-19

6. The Growth of Paul's Ministry - 19:20

7. Paul's Plans to Visit Rome - 19:21-22

8. The Riot of Demetrius and the Silversmiths - 19:23-41

a. The Anger of the Silversmiths - 19:23-28

b. The Demonstration in the Theater - 19:29-34

c. The Calming Words of the Town Clerk - 19:35-41

9. The Journey through Macedonia and Greece - 20:1-6

10. The Visit at Troas - 20:7-12

11. The Visits at Assos, Mitylene, Kios (Chios), Samos, and Miletus - 20:13-15

12. The Meeting with the Ephesian Elders - 20:16-38

a. Paul's Summons of the Ephesian Elders - 20:16-17

b. Paul's Reflections on His Ephesian Ministry - 20:18-21

c. Paul's Expectations for the Future - 20:22-24

d. Paul's Charge to the Ephesian Elders - 20:25-31

e. Paul's Final Admonition - 20:32-35

f. The Emotional Parting - 20:36-38

13. The Stops at Cos, Rhodes, and Patara - 21:1-2

14. The Arrival at Tyre - 21:3-6

15. The Arrival at Ptolemais and Caesarea - 21:7-14

a. The Entrance into the Home of Philip - 21:7-9

b. The Warning of Agabus and Paul's Response - 21:10-14

16. The Arrival at Jerusalem - 21:15-16

E. PAUL'S VISIT TO THE TEMPLE AND HIS ARREST - 21:17-23:30

1. Paul's Reception by the Church - 21:17-26

a. Paul's Report of the Gentile Response to the Gospel - 21:17-19

b. The Proposal of James and the Elders - 21:20-26

2. The Riot in the Temple - 21:27-30

3. Paul's Rescue by the Romans - 21:31-36

4. Paul's Request for Permission to Address the Mob - 21:37-40

5. Paul's Defense to the Jews - 22:1-21

a. Paul's Early Days - 22:1-5

b. The Episode on the Damascus Road - 22:6-11

c. The Visit from Ananias of Damascus - 22:12-16

d. The Vision in the Temple - 22:17-21

6. The Reaction of the Mob and Paul's Imprisonment - 22:22-29

7. The Trial before the Sanhedrin - 22:30-23:10

a. The Confrontation with the High Priest - 22:30-23:5

b. The Division of the Pharisees and Sadducees over the Resurrection Hope - 23:6-10

8. The Word of Encouragement from God - 23:11

9. The Conspiracy Against Paul's Life - 23:12-15

10. The Discovery of the Conspiracy - 23:16-22

11. The Decision to Transfer Paul to Caesarea - 23:23-24

12. The Letter from the Tribune to Felix - 23:25-30

F. THE IMPRISONMENT AT CAESAREA - 23:31-26:32

1. Paul's Transfer to Caesarea - 23:31-35

2. Paul's Trial before Felix - 24:1-21

a. The Accusations Against Paul - 24:1-9

b. The Defense by Paul - 24:10-21

3. The Postponement of a Verdict by Felix - 24:22-23

4. Paul's Interviews with Felix - 24:24-26

5. The Ascension of Festus: Paul's Continued Custody - 24:27

6. The Visit of Festus to Jerusalem - 25:1-5

7. Paul's Appeal to Caesar - 25:6-12

8. The Visit of Agrippa II and Bernice to Festus - 25:13-22

9. Paul's Appearance before Agrippa - 25:23-26:32

a. The Presentation of Paul to Agrippa by Festus - 25:23-27

b. Paul's Address to Agrippa - 26:1-23

1) The Introduction - 26:1-3

2) Paul's Pharisaic Heritage - 26:4-8

3) Paul's Former Zeal Against Christians - 26:9-11

4) Paul's Experience on the Road to Damascus - 26:12-18

5) Paul's Obedience to God - 26:19-20

6) Paul's Arrest - 26:21

7) Paul's Continuing Preaching of Christ - 26:22-23

c. The Interchange Between Festus, Paul, and Agrippa - 26:24-29

d. The Agreement Regarding Paul's Innocence - 26:30-32

G. PAUL'S VOYAGE TO ROME - 27:1-28:31

1. The Journey from Caesarea to Sidon - 27:1-3

2. The Journey from Sidon to Myra - 27:4-6

3. The Journey from Myra around Crete - 27:7

4. The Arrival at Fair Havens - 27:8-15

a. Paul's Warning About the Coming Danger - 27:8-12

b. The Storm at Sea - 27:13-15

5. The Difficult Journey around Cauda - 27:16-17

6. The Shipwreck - 27:18-44

a. The Attempts to Lighten the Ship - 27:18-19

b. Paul's Words of Encouragement - 27:20-26

c. The Sighting of Land - 27:27-29

d. The Attempt of the Sailors to Escape - 27:30-32

e. Paul's Encouragement of the Crew to Eat - 27:33-38

f. The Running Aground of the Ship - 27:39-41

g. The Escape to Dry Land - 27:42-44

7. The Winter at Malta - 28:1-10

a. The Welcome by the Barbarians - 28:1-6

b. Paul's Ministry of Healing - 28:7-10

8. The Journey to Syracuse - 28:11-12

9. The Journey to Rhegium and Puteoli - 28:13-14

10. The Welcome at Three Taverns - 28:15

11. The Imprisonment at Rome - 28:16-29

a. The Arrival at Rome - 28:16

b. Paul's Preaching to the Jews - 28:17-29

1) Paul's Defense - 28:17-20

2) The Request for Further Information by the Jews - 28:21-22

3) The Interview with the Jews - 28:23

4) The Mixed Response - 28:24-29

12. Paul's Two Years in Rome - 28:30-31

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV