The Acts of the Apostles

James D. G. Dunn

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781467446068
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Authored by one of the world's leading New Testament scholars, this commentary on the Acts of the Apostles was originally published in 1996. James Dunn first takes the reader through questions of authorship, audience, date, purpose, and literary structure. He then considers the kind of history writing that we find in the narrative of Acts, delineates the book's theological teaching, and offers bibliographic comments on sources and selected studies, including work published between 1996 and 2016. This commentary as a whole provides the information and perspective necessary for reading to best effect what Dunn believes is the most exciting book in the New Testament.

Part I

Beginning in Jerusalem

(1–5)

It began in Jerusalem. That is the first clear message which Luke wants his readers to understand. That is why he locates the first obvious section of his narrative (chs 1–5) entirely in Jerusalem. Equally deliberate will be his ending of his narrative in Rome (Ch. 28). For his whole account hangs between these two poles, and the character of his narrative is shaped by this tension.

The very identity of his subject matter is determined by the same tension between beginning and goal. What is the ‘it’ which began in Jerusalem? (1) We today want most naturally to answer, ‘Christianity’, and to label Luke’s account as ‘the first history of Christianity’. And indeed, so it is. But it is not a history as we understand history, as we have already observed (Introduction §4) and as we will have plenty of occasion to confirm. More to the point, such a title is anachronistic. That is to say, to use the term ‘Christianity’ at this stage is historically inaccurate. Properly speaking, ‘Christianity’ did not yet exist. The term ‘Christians’ was first coined some way into Luke’s story (11.26; 26.28; cf. I Peter 4.16), and the term ‘Christianity’ itself first appears in our sources in the 110s (by Ignatius, Magnesians 10.1–3; Romans 3.3; Philadelphians 6.1) — that is, some eighty years after the events narrated by Luke in chs 1–5 here. The term is important as indicating the extent to which the identity of the new movement was bound up with ‘Christ’, but that simply confirms emphases made by Luke by other means from the first (see on 1.1 and Introduction §5(2)).

If we are to let our description be determined by Luke’s preferred terms we could speak of the history of (2) ‘the church’, so long as we appreciate that by ‘the church’ Luke always means the assembly (cf. 19.32, 39, 41) or community of believers in a particular place — in Jerusalem (e.g. 5.11; 12.1; 15.4, 22; 18.22), or in Antioch (13.1; 15.3), or in Ephesus (20.17), or, once, in a region, ‘the whole of Judaea’ (9.31). Notable here is the fact that Luke also includes reference to ‘the church/assembly (of Israel) in the wilderness’ (7.38). (3) Another term which sums up identity in a single action and attitude is ‘the believers’ (see on 2.44). Luke also occasionally speaks of ‘the faith’ (13.8; 14.22; 16.5), but in each case a better translation is ‘their (or his) faith’. (4) ‘The disciples’ first appears in Ch. 6 (see on 6.1).

(5) Alternatively, if we limit ourselves to terms actually used at the time, within the narrative itself, rather than by Luke as narrator, we would have to speak of the beginning of ‘the way’ (8.36; 9.2; 19.9, 23; 22.4; 24.14, 22), that is, the way of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. 18.25–26; see also on 9.2), or (6) of ‘the sect of the Nazarenes’ (24.5, 14; 28.22). This is a reminder that, in Jewish eyes at least, the new movement centring on the name of the Nazarene (see on 4.10) was simply another sect, like the ‘sects’ of the Sadducees or the Pharisees (cf. 5.17; 15.5; 26.5). Which is also to say that at this beginning stage we are not yet talking of a new religion, far less a religion sprung full grown into existence at the first Christian Easter or Pentecost. We are talking rather of a movement within the first-century Judaism of the land of Israel, a messianic movement (Jews who were followers of the way of Jesus of Nazareth), indeed, from Christian perspective at least, a renewal movement, whose potential for renewal within the religion of Israel has never been fully realized. (7) Similar conclusions can be drawn from Luke’s use of the title ‘the saints’ (see on 9.13). (8) A related term is ‘brothers’; but see on 1.15.

‘Beginning in Jerusalem’, therefore, describes not simply a geographical location. It is also a theological description. It indicates that the identity of the movement whose beginnings Luke now sets out to relate was and remains largely determined by those beginnings. Even when the movement has made its ironically triumphant entry into the capital of the civilized world (Rome), it is still ‘the hope of Israel’ (28.20) which is at stake. The historical narrative which follows this opening tells of a geographical expansion of that movement. The underlying theological narrative, however, is of how that ‘hope of Israel’ was re-expressed, how the identity of the Jewish way of Jesus was opened and enlarged to embrace the wider world of the Gentiles. The tension thus set up between Jerusalem and Rome, between beginning and goal, becomes the theological drama which underlies the more surface drama of expansion and rejection, of bold proclamation, persecution and shipwreck.

The Prologue: Awaiting the Spirit

(1.1–26)

The beginning begins with an introduction, a prelude to the majestic (and sometimes sombre) themes which will be given their first full expression in ch. 2. The first chapter of Acts thus fulfils the same role in Luke’s second volume that the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel fulfil in his first volume. As the birth narratives are prologue to the account of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 1–2), begun by his being anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power at the river Jordan (Acts 10.38), so the account of the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost is prologue to the account of Jesus’ first followers being anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power for their ministry.

Chapter 1 also shares with the birth narratives of the Gospel a problem for the historian. The problem is that the theological shaping of the account is so extensive that we cannot be sure just how much is rooted in sound historical memory of any participants. On the whole, in Acts we can be confident that at least most of the basic narrative data is derived from good eyewitness recollection. But here it would appear that the theological emphases have been given top priority — precisely in order to drive home several points relating to the theological character of the new movement’s beginnings. In which case, since Luke has been the less concerned with brute facts, the less able are we to say what they were.

The historical problems can be briefly summarized.

(1) The restriction of the disciples to Jerusalem (1.4). The implication is that the disciples remained in Jerusalem between Easter and Pentecost — an inference confirmed by Luke 24.49. But all the other Gospels contain accounts of appearances of the risen Jesus elsewhere, in Galilee in particular. Luke must have known of at least some of these accounts, but he seems to have modified the tradition (cf. Luke 24.6 with Mark 16.7) in order to focus everything in Jerusalem. There must be no uncertainty that it began in Jerusalem.

(2) The separation of ascension from resurrection by forty days (1.3) is a feature confined to Acts. Elsewhere either Jesus’ ascension is portrayed as the other side of the same coin (e.g. John 20.17; Acts 2.32–33; Phil. 2.9), or else it follows his resurrection very quickly (Matt. 28; Luke 24!). In contrast, the earliest account of resurrection appearances (I Cor. 15.3–8) implies that they spanned a much longer period. ‘More than 500’ (I Cor. 15.6) sounds like a gathering which already reflected the initial growth of the new movement (according to Acts 1.15, there were only about 120 awaiting the coming of the Spirit). The appearance to ‘all the apostles’ (I Cor. 15.7) also probably relates to the first missionary expansion out of Jerusalem, linked with the Hellenists (Acts 8.4; 11.19–21). And for the appearance to Paul to have been accepted by others as a genuine appearance suggests that it must have followed sufficiently closely to the previous appearance for Paul’s claim to have been the last so honoured (I Cor. 15.8) to be credible.

(3) The third major historical problem relates to the death of Judas and his replacement. The difficulty of correlating the other account of Judas’ death (Matt. 27.6–10) with the one given here (Acts 1.18) are obvious. Given the state of our traditions it is no longer possible to gain a clear account of Judas’ actual end. More important for the Acts narrative is the oddity of the disciples’ action in replacing Judas. Why was it done without any command from the risen Christ? Why was it done prior to the coming of the Spirit? Why was it done precisely in the period when neither risen Lord nor outpoured Spirit was there to direct them? There is evidently something important below the surface of the narrative to which these anomalies are probably intended to alert the reader. And finally we should just note the often commented feature that for all their concern to fill Judas’ place, we never hear one word more about this new apostle as such. Here again the reader has to ask, What should this fact say about the importance or necessity of this act carried out in the interregnum between Christ and Spirit?

All that being said, however, we can be confident of the basic historical data utilized by Luke. (1) That it did begin in Jerusalem is sufficiently clear from other evidence (see Introduction to Ch. 2). Luke’s editing has the effect of bringing out the theological significance of this historical fact. (2) There was a period during which the risen Christ was seen by/appeared to individuals or groups, including not least ‘the twelve’, and this period did come to an end. This is also the clear implication of the early tradition cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3–7 and by Paul’s own ‘last of all’ claim in I Cor. 15.8. (3) Judas did die! Yet, despite his defection, it was a matter of theological principle for the first Christians to be able to speak of an unbroken group of ‘the twelve’ as a fundamental factor in Christian beginnings (I Cor. 15.5; Rev. 21.14). The very oddity of what is narrated in Acts 1.23–26 may even indicate that these were actions of bewildered men uncertain what to do, waiting for something to happen, and taking the only action they could in the meantime.

More important for an appreciation of Acts 1, however, is a sensitivity to the theological claims which Luke embodies in his narrative. These can be highlighted most simply by following the course of Luke’s narrative. And since Luke’s emphases in these opening paragraphs help shape the reader’s appreciation of the subsequent narrative it is worth pausing longer over them than space really allows.

The transition from the previous volume

1.1–5

Luke’s first objective is to ensure that his readers recognize the continuity with his earlier account of Jesus’ ministry (the Gospel of Luke). This is not merely a concern for narrative continuity. It is first and foremost a theological concern. The reader must understand that the history of ‘the way’ about to be narrated cannot be detached from what has gone before. Quite the contrary: what began in Jerusalem really began with Jesus. Failure to appreciate this theological (as well as historical) fact will mean failure to understand the character and purpose of both the narrative and its subject matter.

1.1 The point is made at once by referring back to ‘the first part of my work’, literally ‘the first (or former) word’, which Luke had previously written, and to the same person (see Introduction §1). The implication is that Acts is the second volume in the sequence, picking up where the first left off, but continuing the same story and with the same end in view (cf. Luke 1.1–4). The inference is strengthened by the second half of the verse: the account is ‘of all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning’, or, better, ‘all that Jesus began to do and teach’ (translations and commentators are divided on the proper translation). Either way the implication is of an unbroken continuity from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry through into the history of those who gave the lead in following the way of the Nazarene.

1.2 The continuity is re-enforced by emphasizing four further features. (1) The overlap period with the former account runs right up to the end of the forty days. The double narration of Jesus’ ascension (at the end of the Gospel and beginning of Acts) thus functions as a kind of clamp, binding the two accounts together. (2) The overlap period was filled with instruction from Jesus himself (1.3). It is Jesus himself who forms the overlap and ensures that what is to follow is in direct continuity with what went before. (3) The instruction was given ‘through the Holy Spirit’. This is a unique theological note within the New Testament: the claim that Jesus’ post-resurrection ministry was also inspired or even required the inspiration of the Spirit (but cf. Rom. 1.4; I Tim. 3.16; I Peter 3.18–19). But its function is not so much to say anything about the risen Christ as to ensure that the link from the opening of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 3.22; 4.18–21) to the beginning of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2) is as complete as possible.

(4) Not least of importance was the claim that the instruction was given to ‘the apostles’. More than any other Evangelist, Luke had emphasized the role of the disciples of Jesus as ‘the apostles’ (Luke 6.13; 9.10; 17.5; 22.4; 24.10). And in Acts ‘the apostles’ become the ones who hold everything together and ensure continuity in the initial expansion (e.g. Acts 2.42–43; 6.6; 8.1, 14; 9.27; 15.22–23). Hence the importance of 1.15–26 (see Introduction to 1.15–26). In later decades and centuries, Gnostic Christians wanted to claim that Jesus had given much more (secret) teaching during a longer eighteen-month period, of which they (the Gnostics) were now the custodians. So it was important to be able to refer to this passage in maintaining that the only custodians recognized by the early church traditions were the apostles.

1.3 A second concern of Luke here is to reassert the tangible character of Jesus’ resurrection: ‘he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs’ (NRSV). This again serves the purpose of clamping Luke’s two documents together, since the sort of ‘convincing proof’ that he evidently had in mind was already given in Luke 24.39–43. But the primary concern here was evidently to root the church’s beginnings in the certainty of Christ’s resurrection. That the resurrection appearances were experienced in such a physical way is the testimony of Luke alone; in contrast we might note Matt. 28.17 (‘some were doubtful’) and Paul’s reminder that the resurrection body is different in character from the body of this life (I Cor. 15.44–50).

Why Luke should make this distinctive emphasis is less clear. Possibly it was in response to some fresh or increasing scepticism about the bodily character of Christ’s resurrection. Or possibly it is a reflection of Luke’s own perspective on spiritual experience, since elsewhere he seems to emphasize the tangible character of such experience (e.g. Luke 3.22 — ‘in bodily form’; Acts 2.1–4; 12.9). It would be somewhat disturbing if belief in the resurrection of Jesus had been dependent in every case on such tangible manifestations. But Luke is a lone voice within the New Testament at this point. Which is not to say that Luke is mistaken in putting such an emphasis on the tangibility of spiritual manifestations. Simply to say that other attestations of the resurrection did not feel the same need.

On the ‘forty days’ of Jesus’ appearances see above (Introduction to Ch. 1) and below (1.9–11).

The subject of the risen Jesus’ teaching during the forty days is given as ‘the kingdom of God’, or, as many would prefer, ‘God’s rule as king’. This is a further striking point of continuity between the Gospel and Acts. If any phrase characterizes Jesus’ teaching during his ministry after Jordan it is ‘the kingdom of God’ (Luke 4.43; 6.20; 7.28; 8.1, 10; 9.2, 11, etc.). And the same phrase recurs sufficiently regularly in Acts as the theme of the expanding mission, not least of the hero of the second half of Acts (Paul), to be more than accidental (8.12; 14.22; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23). Particularly noticeable is its appearance in the very last verse of Acts (28.31): the continuity of gospel theme runs not just through Acts but beyond into the phase following the closure of Acts. This is all the more striking since the phrase occurs so infrequently elsewhere in the New Testament, and still more rarely as characterizing the evangelistic preaching. Here again, then, we can detect a particularly Lukan emphasis as he attempts to reinforce the closeness of the bond between Jesus’ preaching and that of the apostles’ mission. As will become clear in 1.6, the phrase also plays a part in defining the tension which characterized the new movement’s identity.

1.4 It is unclear what Luke means by the first phrase — ‘while he was in their company’. Most recent commentators prefer the rendering, ‘while he was eating with them’ (cf. Acts 10.41). This would reinforce the link back to the table-fellowship which characterized Jesus’ earlier ministry (e.g. Luke 7.31–50; 14; 15.2), not least Luke’s earlier account of Jesus’ appearance to the twelve (Luke 24.30, 35, 41–43), and the importance of ‘breaking bread’ in the earliest church from the first (Acts 2.42, 46). The continuity of table-fellowship between Jesus and his church, both in its symbolical significance and in its practical implementation, has been one of the primary marks of Christianity from the first.

Otherwise what the phrase entails remains unclear. The tense of the verb, as indeed the flow of the narrative, could imply a continuous presence. But all other accounts of post-Easter appearances indicate much briefer encounters. At this point it doesn’t make much difference. Luke’s main point is to stress the continuity between Jesus’ earlier ministry and the mission of the church, and the language used makes that point clearly enough.

On the significance of the apostles staying in Jerusalem, see above (Introduction to Ch. 1 [p.3]).

‘The promise of the Father’ (REB — ‘the gift promised by the Father’) is another phrase which binds the end of Luke (Luke 24.49) closely into the beginning of Acts (Acts 2.33, 39). But still more it binds this new phase of the work begun by Jesus into the purpose and plan of God from long before. The sort of passages Luke would no doubt have had in mind would be Ezek. 36.27 and, of course, Joel 2.28–29 (Acts 2.16–21). As will become steadily clearer as we progress through Acts, it is of utmost importance for Luke that the Christian mission be recognized not as a departure from God’s earlier purpose through Israel, but as its completion. The Acts of the Apostles not only continue the work of Jesus, but in the power of the same Spirit, and in accordance with the purpose of the one God of Israel.

1.5 The final point of continuity emphasized by this opening paragraph is that between the Pentecost narrative to follow in this Luke’s second volume (Acts 2) and the opening of Jesus’ ministry in his earlier volume (Luke 3.16). As the repeated references back to John’s baptism indicate (Acts 1.22; 10.37; 13.24; 18.25; 19.3–4), it is a point of major concern for Luke to remind his readers that ‘the way’ of the Nazarene began with John the Baptist. This new phase is not discontinuous or an unexpected departure from the earlier one (see further on Acts 18.24–19.7).

It is equally Luke’s concern that his readers shoul...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Part I Beginning in Jerusalem (1–5)
• Part II The Initial Expansion (6–12)
• Part III The Mission from Antioch and the Jerusalem Council (13–15)
• Part IV The Aegean Mission (16–20)
• Part V The Final Acts: From Jerusalem to Rome (21–28)
• Index of Names
• Index of Ancient Sources