Acts 28:31

τὰ περὶ : on the phrase see p. 481. τοῦ Κ. Ἰ. Χ., see critical note, and cf. Acts 11:17; Acts 15:26, the full phrase corresponds with the solemn conclusion of the book. μετὰ π. παῤῥ.: the phrase with or without πάσης four times in Acts, and nowhere else in N.T., see on p. 128. In Jerusalem by the Twelve, Acts 4:29, and in Rome no less than in Jerusalem by St. Paul, the witness was given “with all boldness,” cf. Philippians 1:14; and so the promise in the vision vouchsafed to the Apostle of the Gentiles was verified, Acts 23:11, and the aim of the Gentile historian fulfilled when the Gospel was thus preached boldly and openly, ἕως ἐσχ. τῆς γῆς, see note on Acts 1:8. ἀκωλύτως : “eadem plane dicuntur in ep. ad Phil. Roma data, Acts 1:12 sqq.,” Blass, and the word of God had free course and was glorified. The adverb is found in Plato, Epict., Herodian, and also in Josephus. In LXX the adjective is found in Wis 7:22, and the adverb is used by Symm., Job 34:31. There is a note of triumph in the word, Bengel, Zöckler, and we may note with Wordsworth and Page the cadence of these concluding words, μετα π. π. ἀκωλ. But all this does not forbid the view that the writer intended to give a third book to complete his work. This latter view is strongly insisted upon by Prof. Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 23 ff., while Bishop Lightfoot, B.D., i., 27, can see no conceivable plea for any third treatise, if the purpose of the narrative is completed by Paul coming to Rome and there delivering his message, so, although less strongly, Harnack, Chron., i. p. 248, see note on Acts 1:8. But Prof. Ramsay has received the strong support not only of Zöckler, and curiously enough of Spitta, Apostelgeschichte, p. 318, but still more recently amongst English writers of Rendall, and in Germany of Dr. Zahn. Just as in St. Luke's Gospel Luke 24:44 forms not merely a starting point for, but an anticipation of, the succeeding history, or just as Luke 24:44-53 contain in a summary what is afterwards related in greater detail, Acts 1:2, so in Acts 28:30-31 of Acts 28 we have, as it were, a brief sketch of what succeeded the events hitherto recorded, and an anticipation of what followed upon them. This probability remains quite apart from the additional force which is given to it if Ramsay is right in regarding πρῶτος, Acts 1:1, as signifying not simply πρότερος, but the first of a series, a view strongly supported by Zahn, Einleitung, ii., p. 371. Certainly the aorist, Acts 28:30 (see above), and the expression διετίαν ὅλην seem to show that some fact was known to the writer which followed the close of the two years, and we can therefore hardly say that he wrote no more because he knew no more, unless we also suppose that he wrote his history at the conclusion and not during the course of the two years. This he may have done while the result of St. Paul's first trial was still unknown, although Philippians 1:25-27; Philippians 2:24; Philemon 1:22, show us plainly with what confidence the Apostle awaited the issue. At all events almost any conjecture seems more probable than that the writer should have concluded so abruptly if he had nothing more to chronicle than the immediate and tragic death of his hero! Zöckler, Apostelgeschichte, p. 162, Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums, I., 15, 16. To say with Jülicher, Einleitung, p. 27, that he refrained from doing this because in such an event he would chronicle not the triumph but the defeat of the Gospel is certainly a strange argument, and no one has given a better answer to it than Harnack by asking, Since when did the early Christians regard martyrdom as a defeat? Is the death of Christ, or of Stephen, in the mind of the author of Acts a defeat? is it not rather a triumph? Chron., i., 247. The elaborate discussion of the abrupt conclusion in Acts by Wendt, 1899, pp. 31, 32, is entirely based upon the assumption that Luke was not the author of Acts, and that therefore this author, whoever he was, wrote no more because his information failed him, and he knew no more. This could not have been so in the case of Luke, who was with the Apostle at Rome, as we have from undoubted testimony quite apart from Acts. See further Introd. For the release of St. Paul, his subsequent journeys to Spain and to the East, and his second imprisonment, see in support, Zahn, Einleitung, i., p. 435 ff., Harnack, Chron., i., 239, Spitta, u. s., Salmon, Introd., p. 403 ff., Die zweite römische Gefangenschaft des Apostels Paulus, Steinmeyer (1897), and Critical Review (July), 1898. There were many possible reasons why the hearing of St. Paul's appeal was so long delayed. The record of the previous proceedings forwarded by Festus may have been lost in the wreck, and it was therefore necessary to wait for fresh official information, as the prisoner's accusers had not arrived. And when they arrived, it is very possible that they may have been glad to interpose fresh obstacles, and that they would be content to keep Paul bound as before; as evidence was probably wanted, not only from Jerusalem, but from various parts of the empire, the interposition of these fresh delays was easy. St. Paul had himself suggested that the Jews in Asia ought to be summoned, or to be present, Acts 24:19. That such delays would not be unusual we may learn from Tacitus, e.g., Ann., xiii., 43; cf. Suet., Nero, 15. When we remember how long a delay occurred in the case of the Jewish priests, the friends of Josephus, Vita, 3, who were sent to Rome by Felix to plead their cause, it ceases to be surprising that St. Paul was detained so long without a trial; see on the whole question Lewin, St. Paul, ii., 277 ff.; Lightfoot, Phil., p. 4; Knabenbauer, Actus Apostolorum, pp. 453, 454, 1899.