Comentarios bíblicos

The Acts of the Apostles.—See Introduction as to the title thus given to the Book.

(1) The former treatise.—Literally, word, or discourse; but the English of the text is, perhaps, a happier equivalent than either. The Greek term had been used by Xenophon (Anab. ii. 1; Cyrop. viii. 1, 2) as St. Luke uses it, of what we should call the several “Books” or portions of his Histories. The adjective is strictly “first” rather than “former,” and the tense of the verb, “I made,” rather than “I have made.”

O Theophilus.—See Note on Luke 1:3. It has been thought that the absence of the words “most excellent” implies that the writer’s friendship with Theophilus was now of a more intimate and familiar nature. It is possible, just as a like change of relation has been traced in Shakespeare’s dedication of his two poems to the Earl of Southampton, but the inference is, in each case, somewhat precarious.

That Jesus began both to do and teach.—The verb “begin” is specially characteristic of St. Luke’s Gospel, in which it occurs not less than thirty-one times. Its occurrence at the beginning of the Acts is, accordingly, as far as it goes, an indication of identity of authorship. He sought his materials from those who had been “from the beginning” eye-witnesses and ministers of the word (Luke 1:2).

1. The former treatise] In the original we have the superlative adjective used, but the idiom which speaks of the first of two is common to Greek with many other languages. An example is found 1 Corinthians 14:30. So Cicero, de Inventione, in his second book (chap, iii.) calls the former book primus liber.

treatise] The original (λόγος) indicates rather an inartistic narrative than a history. It is a book more like a piece of Herodotus than Thucydides.

have I made] Better, I made. The time is indefinite, and we have no warrant in the text for that closer union of the two books, in point of date, which is made by the language of the A. V.

Theophilus] Nothing is known of the person to whom St Luke addresses both his Gospel and the Acts, but the adjective “most excellent” applied to him in Luke 1:3 is the same which is used in addressing Felix in a letter and in a speech (Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3), and Festus (Acts 26:25) in a speech; from which we are perhaps warranted in concluding that Theophilus was a person of rank, and it may be a Roman officer. Josephus uses the same word in addressing Epaphroditus, to whom he dedicates the account of his life (Vit. Josephi, ad fin.). The suggestion that Theophilus (= lover of God) is a name adopted by the writer to indicate any believer, is improbable. Such personification is unlike the rest of Scripture, and is not supported by evidence.

began] for the Gospel is not a history of all that Jesus did, but only an account of the foundations which He laid and on which the Church should afterwards be built So this book is still an account of what the Lord does and teaches from heaven.

to do and teach] As in the Gospel (Luke 24:19) the disciples call Jesus “a prophet mighty in deed and in word.” The acts and life spake first, and then the tongue.

Acts 1:1-14. Link connecting this book with St Luke’s Gospel. Detailed account of the Ascension

The Title. According to the best MSS. this should be simply “Acts of Apostles.” The Cod. Sin. gives only “Acts.” The former of these titles, while having most authority, also most fitly describes the character of the composition. The book is not The Acts of the Apostles, but merely some Acts of certain Apostles which are related by the author, intermixed with the acts of others among the Christian community, where such additions were needful to make the story clear. The writer tells us in the introduction how Christ, when ascending in glory, declared what should be the course which His doctrine should take in its extension, “Ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judæa and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). To describe the fulfilment of this departing prophecy is that on which the whole book is engaged. It is natural, therefore, to find that the two chief actors are the energetic Peter, and, after his conversion, the enthusiastic Apostle of the Gentiles. But even they are only used as representative characters. The writer does not aim at giving us full details of the work of either of these Apostles. We see most of Peter and John while the preaching is confined to Jerusalem, but the narrative leaves them to recount some acts of Philip, because he was the pioneer of the Gospel in Samaria. Peter is again brought before us engaged in preaching in Judæa and Samaria and confirming the work which Philip and his companions had begun; and because the conversion of Cornelius was the beginning of the proclamation of Christ’s message beyond the Jewish race, we have a full account of St Peter’s mission to this first Gentile convert and of the debate which arose among the Jews in consequence. But when Peter has been present at the council of Jerusalem, at which was finally settled the relation between the Jews and Gentiles who became Christians, we lose sight of him, and the further spread of the Gospel is summarized in a description of some of the labours of St Paul; and when he has reached the capital of the west, to shew us that the writer contemplated no biography of St Paul, the history comes to what some have thought an abrupt close. But the writer’s task was done when he had told how the great Apostle brought Christ’s message to the capital of the Gentile world. See Introduction.

The former (τὸν πρῶτον)

Lit., the first. Luke refers to his Gospel.

Treatise (λόγον)

Or narrative.

Began (ἤρξατο)

This is interpreted in two ways. Either, (1), as a simple historical statement equivalent to "all that Jesus did and taught." In favor of this is the fact that the synoptists often record that which is done or said according to its moment of commencement, thus giving vividness to the account. See Matthew 11:20; Matthew 26:22, Matthew 26:37; Mark 6:7; Mark 14:19; Luke 7:38, etc. According to this explanation the word serves "to recall to the recollection from the Gospel all the several incidents and events, up to the ascension, in which Jesus had appeared as doer and teacher" (Meyer). Or, (2), as indicating that the Gospel contains the beginning, and the Acts of the Apostles the continuation, of the doings and teachings of Jesus. "The earthly life of Jesus, concluded with the ascension, has its fruit and continued efficacy; and his heavenly life, commencing with the ascension, has its manifestation and proof in the acts and experiences of the apostles and first churches. The history of the Church was under the immediate control of the exalted Redeemer, and may justly be considered as the continuation in heaven of the work which he had begun on earth" (Baumgarten and Gloag). While the truth and importance of this statement are admitted, it is objected that such an intention on Luke's part would have been more clearly intimated, and not left to be inferred from a single doubtful phrase. As regards Luke's intention, I think the first explanation is more likely to be correct. The second, however, states a truth, the value and importance of which cannot be overestimated, and which should be kept in mind constantly in the study of the book of Acts. This is well put by Bernard ("Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament," Lect. IV.): "Thus the history which follows is linked to, or (may I not rather say) welded with the past; and the founding of the Church in the earth is presented as one continuous work, begun by the Lord in person, and perfected by the same Lord through the ministry of men.... 'The former treatise' delivered to us, not all that Jesus did and taught, but 'all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day when he was taken up.' The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus continued to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up."

The Title is simply Acts (Πραξεις) in Aleph, Origen, Tertullian, Didymus, Hilary, Eusebius, Epiphanius. The Acts of the Apostles (Πραξεις αποστολων) is the reading of B D (Aleph in subscription) Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, Hilary. The Acts of the Holy Apostles (Πραξεις των αγιων αποστολων) is read by A2 E G H A K Chrysostom. It is possible that the book was given no title at all by Luke, for it is plain that usage varied greatly even in the same writers. The long title as found in the Textus Receptus (Authorized Version) is undoubtedly wrong with the adjective "Holy." The reading of B D, "The Acts of the Apostles," may be accepted as probably correct. The former treatise (τον μεν πρωτον). Literally, the first treatise. The use of the superlative is common enough and by no means implies, though it allows, a third volume. This use of πρωτος where only two are compared is seen between the Baptist and Jesus (John 1:15), John and Peter (John 20:4). The idiom is common in the papyri (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 662, 669). The use of μεν σολιταριυμ here, as Hackett notes, is common in Acts. It is by no means true that μεν requires a following δε by contrast. The word is merely a weakened form of μην=surely, indeed. The reference is to the "first treatise" and merely emphasizes that. The use of λογος (word) for treatise or historical narrative is common in ancient Greek as in Herodotus 6 and 9. Plato (Phaedo, p. 61 B) makes a contrast between μυθος and λογος. I made (εποιησαμην). Aorist middle indicative, the middle being the usual construction for mental acts with ποιεω. O Theophilus (Ο Θεοφιλε). The interjection Ο here as is common, though not in Luke 1:3. But the adjective κρατιστε (most excellent) is wanting here. See remarks on Theophilus on Luke 1:3. Hackett thinks that he lived at Rome because of the way Acts ends. He was a man of rank. He may have defrayed the expense of publishing both Luke and Acts. Perhaps by this time Luke may have reached a less ceremonious acquaintance with Theophilus. Which Jesus began (ων ηρξατο Ιησους). The relative is attracted from the accusative α to the genitive ων because of the antecedent παντων (all). The language of Luke here is not merely pleonastic as Winer held. Jesus "began" "both to do and to teach" (ποιειν τε κα διδασκειν). Note present infinitives, linear action, still going on, and the use of τε--κα binds together the life and teachings of Jesus, as if to say that Jesus is still carrying on from heaven the work and teaching of the disciples which he started while on earth before his ascension. The record which Luke now records is really the Acts of Jesus as much as the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. A. T. Pierson called it "The Acts of the Holy Spirit," and that is true also. The Acts, according to Luke, is a continuation of the doings and teachings of Jesus. "The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus continued to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up" (Bernard, Progress of Doctrine in the N.T.).

return to '

Acts 1:1. τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον, a reference beyond all reasonable doubt to St. Luke’s Gospel. Not merely the dedication of both writings to Theophilus, but their unity of language and style is regarded by critics of all schools as convincing proof of the identity of authorship of Acts and the third Gospel; see Introd. and Zöckler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 128 (1895). In the expression πρῶτος λόγος Ramsay finds an intimation from St. Luke’s own hand that he contemplated a third book at least, otherwise we should have had πρότερος λόγος, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 23, 27, 28; see to the same effect Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., ii., 371 (1899), Rendall, Acts of the Apostles, in loco, and cf. comment. on Acts 28:31. So, too, primus is used in Latin not simply as former but as first in a series, Cicero, De Invent., ii., 3. On the other hand, Blass, Grammatik des N.G., p. 34, Acta Apost., p. 16, and more recently Philology of the Gospels, p. 38, maintains that πρῶτος simply = πρότερος (so also Holtzmann and Felten). But Ramsay, whilst pointing out instances in which St. Luke apparently uses πρῶτος differently from this, p. 28 (cf. also Zahn, u. s., p. 389), admits that we cannot attain to any absolute certainty in the passage before us, since no instance occurs of the use of πρότερος by St. Luke.—λόγον: frequently used by classical writers in the sense of a narrative or history contained in a book; see instances in Wetstein. The passage in Plato, Phædo, p. 61, ., is valuable not only for the marked contrast between λόγος and μῦθος, ποιεῖν μύθους ἀλλʼ οὐ λόγους, but also for the use of ποιεῖν (Wendt). Amongst other instances of the phrase ποιεῖν λόγον cf. Galen, De Usu Part., ii., περὶ πρώτων τῶν δακτύλων ἐποιησάμην τὸν λόγον. St. Chrysostom sees in the phrase a proof of the unassuming character of the author: St. Luke does not say “The former Gospel which I preached”. For the anomalous μέν, “solitarium,” without the following δέ, frequent in Luke, see Blass, Grammatik des N. G., p. 261, cf. Luke 8:5, Acts 3:21; Acts 28:22, etc., and several times in St. Paul. μέν occurs thus six times in the Acts without οὖν—on μὲν οὖν see Acts 1:6.—ὦ Θεόφιλε: the interjection used here simply in address, as common in Attic Greek, cf. Acts 18:14, Acts 27:21, 1 Timothy 6:11; without the epithet κράτιστε, as in Luke 1:3, and without ὦ, Θεόφ. alone would have seemed too bold, Winer-Schmiedel, p. 258. It has been suggested that the omission of the epithet κράτιστε, Luke 1:3, denotes that St. Luke’s friendship had become less ceremonious, just as a similar change has been noted in the dedication of Shakespeare’s two poems to the Earl of Southampton; cf. also Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 360. The way in which the epithet κράτιστε is employed elsewhere in the book in addressing Roman officials, Acts 23:26, Acts 24:3, Acts 26:25, has been thought to indicate that Theophilus held some high official post, or that he was at least of equestrian rank (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 388, 389, and his inferences as to the date of Acts). Ramsay is of opinion that the name was given at baptism, and that it was used or known only among Christians, and he infers that this baptismal name is used in Acts because the book was probably written at a time when it was dangerous for a Roman of rank to be recognised as a Christian. But Theophilus was by no means uncommon as a Jewish name; cf. B. D.2, i., p. 25, and also article “Theophilus,” B. D.1 (see also Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 19). The epithet κράτιστος was peculiarly appropriated to Romans holding high office, and actually became during the second century a technical title to denote equestrian rank; and from its use here Zahn maintains not only that Theophilus was a man of some social position, but that he was, when Luke wrote his gospel, not a nember of the Christian Church, since there is no instance in the first two centuries of a Christian addressing his fellow-Christians in a title corresponding as it were to “your Excellency” (Einleitung in das N. T., ii., 360, 383). The instance of the address of the Epist. ad Diognetum, κράτιστε Διόγνητε, is alleged by Blass as an instance that the epithet is not always used in the technical sense mentioned; but to this Ramsay replies that if Diognetus was the friend and teacher of Marcus Aurelius, the emperor might well raise his teacher to equestrian rank; Septimius Severus raised his sons’ tutor to the high dignity of the consulship. Ramsay discusses κράτιστος at length in Was Christ born at Bethlehem? (1898), pp. 65, 71, 72, as against Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 19. Blass fully recognises that Theophilus held a high position, and that the title in question would naturally occur in a book dedicated to a patron; but it must be borne in mind that Blass regards Theophilus as of Greek extraction, possibly a fellow-citizen with Luke of Antioch, whilst Ramsay sees in him a citizen of Rome and a resident in the imperial city. Theophylact asks why Luke should have cared to write to one man only and to value him so highly, and makes answer that it was because the Evangelist was a guardian of the words spoken by the Lord: “It is not the will of my Father that one of these little ones should perish”. There seems no great reason to doubt that Theophilus was a real personage, and the epithet κράτιστε, at all events in its technical significance, is hardly consistent with any other supposition (see Sanday, Inspiration, p. 319, note). The recent attempt to identify Theophilus with Seneca, referred to by Zöckler, Apostelgeschichte, p. 163, must be dismissed as equally groundless and fanciful as the former conjecture that he was no other than Philo.—περὶ πάντων ὧν: the use of πᾶς (mostly after a prep., as here) followed by an attracted relative may be classed amongst the mannerisms of St. Luke (Simcox, Writers of the N. T., p. 24, where other instances are given); see also Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium, pp. 1, 2.—ὧν: in St. Luke’s Gospel and in the Acts the frequency of the attraction of the relative again specially characterises him amongst the N.T. writers, Friedrich, u. s., pp. 36 and 100.—ἤρξατο: often regarded as simply pleonastic, but sometimes as emphatic, to intimate that the work which Jesus began on earth He continued in heaven, or that He began the work of the Gospel and committed its continuance to His followers; Zahn, u. s., p. 366 ff. In Winer’s view to regard ἄρχεσθαι as pleonastic is a mere subterfuge to avoid a difficulty, and he renders the passage “what Jesus began both to do and to teach, and continued to do until,” etc. (see also Grimm-Thayer, sub v.), treating it as an example of breviloquence (Winer-Moulton, lxvi., 1). On the whole it is perhaps best to consider the phrase ἤρξ. ποιεῖν with Bengel (in loco) as equivalent to fecit ab initio, although no doubt there is a sense in which, with every Christian for nineteen centuries, St. Luke would regard the whole earthly life of Jesus as a beginning, a prelude to the glory and mighty working to be revealed and perfected in the ascended Lord. The verb is of frequent use in St. Luke’s writings (Friedrich, Zeller, Lekebusch), although in St. Mark’s Gospel it is also constantly found. In the LXX it is often found like חָלַל hi., and also in Apocr. ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν, “Scilicet prius fecit, deinde docuit; prius docuit exemplo, deinde verbo. Unde prius non docuit, quod prius ipse non fecit” (Corn. à Lap.).

Acts 1:1. Τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησ.] Luke calls his Gospel the first history, inasmuch as he is now about to compose a second. πρῶτος, in the sense of πρότερος. See on John 1:15. λόγος, narrative, history, or the like, what is contained in a book. So in Xen. Ages. 10. 3, Anab. iii. 1. 1, and frequently. See also Schweigh. Lex. Herod. II. p. 76; Creuzer Symbol. I. p. 44 ff. As to ποιεῖν used of mental products, comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 61 B: ποιεῖν μύθονς, ἀλλʼ οὐ λόγους. Hence λογοποιός = ἱστορικός. Pearson, ad Moer. p. 244. μέν, without a subsequent δέ. Luke has broken off the construction. Instead of continuing after Acts 1:2 somewhat as follows: “but this δεύτερος λόγος is to contain the further course of events after the Ascension,”—which thought he had before his mind in the μέν, Acts 1:1,—he allows himself to be led by the mention of the apostles in the protasis to suppress the apodosis, and to pass on at once to the commencement of the history itself. Comp. Winer, p. 535 [E. T. 720]; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 313 [E. T. 365]; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.1; Baeuml. Partik. p. 163 f.

περὶ πάντων] a popular expression of completeness, and therefore not to be pressed.

ὧν ἤρξατο κ.τ.λ.] ὧν is attracted, equivalent to ἅ; and, setting aside the erroneous assertion that ἤρξατο ποιεῖν is equivalent to ἐποίησε (Grotius, Calovius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), it is usually explained: “what Jesus began to do and to teach (and continued) until the day,” etc., as if Luke had written: ὧν ἀρξάμενος Ἰησοῦς ἐποίησε κ. ἐδίδαξεν ἄχρι κ.τ.λ. Comp. Acts 11:4; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 807 D; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 1; Lucian, Somm. 15; also Luke 23:5; Luke 24:27; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:22; Acts 8:35; Acts 10:37. So also Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 775]; Buttm. p. 320 [E. T. 374]; Lekebusch, p. 202 f.[96] But Luke has not so written, and it is arbitrary thus to explain his words. Baumgarten, after Olshausen and Schneckenburger, has maintained that ἤρξατο denotes the whole work of Jesus up to His ascension as initial and preparatory, so that this second book is conceived as the continuation of that doing and teaching which was only begun by Jesus up to His ascension; as if Luke had written ἤρξατο ποιῶν τε καὶ διδάσκων (as Xen. Cyr. viii. 8 2 : ἄρξομαι διδάσκων, I shall begin my teaching, Plat. Theaet. p. 187 A, Menex. p. 237 A; comp. Krüger, § 56. 5, A. 1). In point of fact, ἤρξατο is inserted according to the very frequent custom of the Synoptists, by which that which is done or said is in a vivid and graphic manner denoted according to its moment of commencement. It thus here serves to recall to the recollection from the Gospel all the several incidents and events up to the ascension, in which Jesus had appeared as doer and teacher. The reader is supposed mentally to realize from the Gospel all the scenes in which he has seen Jesus come forward as acting and teaching,—a beginning of the Lord, which occurred in the most various instances and varied ways up to the day of His ascent. The emphasis, moreover, lies on ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν, which comprehends the contents of the Gospel (comp. Papias in Eus. 3:39). It may, consequently, be paraphrased somewhat thus: “The first narrative I have composed of all that, by which Jesus exhibited His activity in doing and teaching during His earthly life up to His ascension.” ποιεῖν precedes, comp. Luke 24:19, because it was primarily the ἜΡΓΑ of Jesus that demonstrated His Messiahship, John 10:38; Acts 10:38.

[96] So also in substance Hackett, Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles, Boston, 1858, ed. 2.

Acts 1:1-3. The former treatise have I made, &c. — The treatise here referred to is undoubtedly the gospel, which was written by Luke, and dedicated by him to Theophilus. See note on Luke 1:1-2. That treatise ends, and this begins, in that important season, which reached from the resurrection of Christ to his ascension; this describing the acts of the Holy Ghost, (by the apostles,) as that does the acts of Jesus Christ; of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach — That is, of all things, in a summary manner, or of the most considerable things which Jesus did and taught from the beginning of his ministry. The reader will readily allow, that all, in this verse, cannot mean every single one of the miracles and sermons which Jesus wrought and preached. For to suppose Luke asserted that, would be to make him contradict the testimony of John. See his gospel, John 20:30-31; John 21:25. By all, here, we must understand, only all that was necessary or expedient to be related, in order to establish the divine mission of Christ, to convince mankind thereof, and to awaken their minds to a deep sense of the importance of it, in order to their salvation, that it might be duly improved, and so answer its intended end upon them. Until the day in which he was taken up — This implies, that Luke considered himself as having given, in his former treatise, an account of the manner in which Christ had opened the gospel, and confirmed it, from his first appearance on earth, to the last period of his abode upon it; including also an account both of his life and doctrine; after that he through the Holy Ghost — With which, as man, he was endowed without measure, to qualify him for the important offices he had to sustain, and the work he had to perform, in order to the redemption and salvation of mankind; had given commandments to — Greek, εντειλαμενος, had solemnly charged; the apostles whom he had chosen — To be the prime ministers of his kingdom, and the chief instruments of extending it in the world. To whom also — In order to fit them more completely for the discharge of their important office, and to enable them to bear witness to his resurrection from their own certain knowledge of its being a fact; he showed himself alive, after his passion, by many infallible proofs — Proofs that amounted to a demonstration, and could not possibly deceive them; for, “by speaking to, by walking, and by eating with them, he gave them a certain indication that he lived; his being seen and handled by them was a sure evidence that he had a true and natural body; and his permitting Thomas to view the scars of his feet and hands, and put his hand into his side, was a certain token that the body, which was raised, was the same that was crucified and pierced by the soldier’s lance.” Being seen of them forty days — That is, many times during that space. He continued on earth forty days after he rose, and in the several interviews which he had with his disciples during that period, he gave them convincing proofs of his resurrection; and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God — Discoursing to them from time to time concerning that divine kingdom, or dispensation of religion, which he was going to erect in the world by their ministry. He discoursed to them, doubtless, “of teaching the doctrine of this kingdom to all nations, and receiving them into it by baptism who believed and professed to own it; of the benefits which were promised to them who cordially believed their doctrine; and the condemnation which belonged to them who would not believe it; of the encouragements and assistances he would afford them in the propagation of it by his continual presence with them, and the assistance of his Spirit; and by the miracles by which their doctrine should be confirmed by them and others who believed it.” — Whitby.