The Acts of the Apostles is the second to the last book of the New Testament not to have a volume appear on it in the Word Biblical Commentary series.  Now that the first of three volumes on Acts by Steve Walton has appeared, only 1 Corinthians remains.  In both instances, several would-be contributors have bowed out, contributing to the extreme delay.  In the case of Acts, it would appear the wait has been worth it, as Walton’s first volume is an absolute gem.

Eschewing a typical commentary introduction, Walton explains that it will come at the end of volume 3, after he and his readers have worked through Acts, so that it will emerge from the text rather than be superimposed on it.  Although his bibliographies are ample and footnotes copious, Walton stresses that he wants to write a commentary on Acts rather than a commentary on commentaries on Acts.  Thus far, he has clearly succeeded.

While occasionally “intrigued” by the Western text, Walton explains that he largely follows the Alexandrian text.  His translational and text-critical notes are extensive, he includes helpful reflections supporting historicity in the Form/Structure/Setting sections, and he well balances historical, theological and literary concerns in his detailed Comment sections.  Walton encourages readers to read the shorter summaries of the meaning of each passage under the Explanation sections first, and this is wise advice.  Readers can then decide which parts of the passage they want to follow up on, if they are not planning on reading the nearly 700 pages word-for-word.

A selection of exegetical insights will give a feel for the positions Walton finds most promising.  Theophilus (Acts 1:1) is “probably a man of some social standing who hosted and supported a Jesus community and who may have a role in making Luke’s writings known” (p. 112).  The ascension (1:9) does not mark Jesus’ departure from the world but his exaltation to the place of power over it, so that he is active in the world’s and especially Israel’s affairs.  Pentecost (2:1-41) shows “that the church originated in a ‘big bang’ rather than a slower evolutionary development over a longer period” (p. 166).  Jesus continues to act from heaven in the healing miracles early in the church’s history; the agency is attributed both to the power of Jesus’ name and the recipient’s faith.

While the fledgling church remains largely in Jerusalem, the central debate is about who constitutes restored Israel, with believers claiming that it is those who follow Jesus who do.  The apostles’ pronouncement in 4:12 is Luke’s way of showing that Christianity is absolute and that salvation is not available through any from of Judaism that rejects Jesus as Messiah. “Implicitly, Peter is arguing that the Sanhedrin have lost the right to speak for God, and the believing community now has that position” (p. 308).

 The principle involved in early Christian sharing (4:32-37) “was not compulsion but an openhearted holding of possessions lightly, seeing the needs of others in the community as of greater importance than individuals or families accumulating goods for themselves” (p. 339). The story of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11) illustrates several points that contrast with the behavior of the majority of the community, including greed’s destructive power.  But it is hard to explain the severity of their punishment except that they violated the holiness of God and the community.

Luke portrays the miraculous release of the apostles from arrest as “comical,” inasmuch as they don’t know what is common knowledge to the public (5:25)—the apostles are back in the temple precincts again preaching about Jesus.  As helpful as Gamaliel’s principle was for convincing the Sanhedrin not to punish the apostles beyond a flogging (5:39-40), Luke recognizes it can’t be generalized to all situations.  Sometimes ignoring what one believes is false teaching simply permits it to grow much more influential.

The daily distribution, in which the Hellenistic Jewish Christian widows were being neglected (6:1), was of food rather than money.  The choice of seven individuals separate from the apostles to meet this need (6:3-6) was not the first diaconate, but it may have functioned at a later date as a precedent for establishing that office. In his speech to the high court, Stephen turns on its head the accusations that he is the one speaking blasphemy.  The Old Testament highlight reel he discusses focuses primarily on how Abraham didn’t need the land all the time to serve God, Moses (the Lawgiver) pointed ahead to the Messiah, and the portable Tabernacle rather than the Temple formed God’s first place of residence on earth.  Stephen’s teaching was not against God; the Sanhedrin’s was, not least by treating the temple as an idol.  That “all were scattered” (8:1) has to be a generalization and not an absolute statement, since Saul could still drag people out of their homes shortly thereafter (v. 3).

As the gospel moves to Samaria (8:4-25), the unusual timing of the arrival of the Holy Spirit in Samaria is due to the need to have the apostles involved in a visible experience of the legitimacy of these new converts from a different background.  That Simon Magus is not struck down like Ananias and Sapphira were and that he asks Peter to pray for him, suggest that he was a true Christian who was subsequently repentant for wanting to buy the power of the Spirit. The reunification of Jews and Samaritans in Christ was needed before the gospel could move to the Gentiles.

Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40) takes place in a liminal place (Gaza) with one who appeared liminal by conventional standards of masculinity.  That the ruler (the Candace) of the Ethiopians at that time was female increases the probability that eunochos here means not just a high-ranking courtier but a literal eunuch as well.

Luke’s account of the conversion of Saul (which is that and not just a call or commission, especially when we understand it as a change of allegiance to communities) has many well-known discrepancies when compared with Galatians 1 and Paul’s own defense speeches later in Acts.  But none of these is insuperable once we understand the very different purposes behind the writings of each of the accounts and the nature of ancient historiography that did not follow modern standards of precisions or styles of narration.

Walton does not present an outline of the entire Acts, but it appears he is following the basic threefold progression of Acts 1:8.  If one asks why he didn’t finish chap. 9, it is because he sees 9:43 (Simon Peter staying with one Simon a tanner)clear preparation for his ministry to the Gentile God-fearer Cornelius (10:1-11:18).  Given the shift at 9:32, however, from Saul to Peter as the main character and the geographical proximity of Lydda and Joppa that unite vv. 32-43, he might just have easily ended volume 1 at 9:31.

With the sheer number of difficult exegetical decisions that Acts requires, reviewers will invariably find a few issues with which to quibble.  It is true that Luke offers no criticism of the casting of lots in 1:26, but we never hear of the disciples using this model again, and the coming of the Spirit in chap. 2 would seem to offer a more secure method of determining God’s will.  The xenolalia at Pentecost may not be explicitly said to be a miracle of hearing, but how could it be anything else when the number of speakers did not match the number of languages in which their message was heard?  One does not have to suggest affusion as a probable method for the mass baptisms early on once one realizes that Bethesda and Siloam were probably giant mikvaot, and that Jerusalem handled well over 3000 ritual immersions whenever pilgrims swarmed the city at festival time as they purified themselves to enter the temple precincts. 

The headers on each left-hand page for the section on 4:32-35 are mistakenly labeled 3:32-35.  The author index shows Walton citing Barrett, Bruce and Haenchen, in that order, more than anyone else; it is somewhat surprising that Keener’s massive work receives comparatively few references.  But these are all very minor matters.  Overall, the commentary is a wonderful guide to the rich detail of the first nine chapters of Acts and, despite Walton’s disclaimer, to the scholarship and commentary-writing on Acts as well.  We can only hope that Steve’s stamina and willpower remain to see him complete the project, since he will turn seventy two months before I do this summer!

Craig L. Blomberg, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus of New Testament
Denver Seminary
January 2025