DENVER SEMINARY

The Acts of the Apostles

David G. Peterson
Jan 7, 2010
Series: Volume 13 - 2010

David G. Peterson. The Acts of the Apostles. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans;
Nottingham, UK: Apollos, 2009. lv + 790 pp. Cloth, $65.00. ISBN 978-0-8028-3731-8.
Each entry that emerges seems to solidify the reputation of the Pillar series as a premier guide to reading the New Testament
books today. Petersons Acts contribution certainly confirms this judgment. Moving through Acts twenty-eight chapters in two
to three-verse chunks, Peterson treats the reader to lucid explanations, judicious insights, and his considerable command of
the important literature on Lukes second volume. Peterson is a research fellow at Moore Theological College, Sydney,
Australia, and previously composed the book, with I. Howard Marshall, Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts. His
commitment to biblical theology shines through this monograph.
Petersons aim is not merely to exegete Acts, but also to show how Lukes goal to edify and encourage the growth of the early church can inform
ministry today. Peterson focuses attention on such areas as: the ministry of the Holy Spirit, divine guidance, miracles, the nature of the gospel,
priorities for mission, the character and purpose of Christian gatherings, the relevance of the Old Testament, and Christian attitudes towards Jews.
This makes for lively engagement throughout the volume, even where the reader may differ with Peterson on precisely how Acts might inform
contemporary issues. [As an aside, the author and publisher may at some point regret the decision to employ the tniv as the base translation given
Biblicas and Zondervans recent decision to cease its publication in favor of a revised niv.]
The commentarys introduction takes up the standard topics. Peterson sides with tradition in assigning authorship to Luke. He tentatively adopts the
early date of ad 62-64 for the writing and interprets the book as the intended sequel to the third Gospel. As to its genre, Peterson agrees with
Witherington in placing it within the category of Hellenistic historiography. He places high value on its historicity, in the end preferring the phrase
confessional history (borrowed from D. Marguerat, First Christian Historian). The commentary includes a helpful section on Character, Structure,
and Purpose that concludes in this way: Lukes attempt to outline the continuity between Christians and Israel and between the events of Jesus
career and OT prophecies was an important aspect of his response to criticism of Christianity that may have been made, both by Jews and by
pagans (p. 39). The introduction section concludes with almost fifty pages devoted to the theological contributions of Lukes narrative, including
(along with the more predictable entries) miracles and magic and the demonic.
The commentary itself very helpfully brings to bear many crucial insights and tactics of literary criticism (particularly narrative criticism) along with
the more common textual, lexical, and grammatical procedures. His discussions are typically fair and employ both recent and time-honored
resources to illuminate Lukes treatise. I was impressed that Peterson takes pains to rethink many standard interpretations and not merely accept
simple explanations. He regularly shows the several ways that a feature in Lukes narrative might be understood (for example, see his discussion of
8:2), and then brings his skills to bear to argue for the better or best alternative.
Obviously, this review can survey only a few samples of Petersons accomplishments. Perceptively, he notes that Luke was convinced of the
historicity of the events he portrayed observing, e.g., that Luke wrote for ... people in the Greco-Roman world, where belief in the physical
resurrection of Jesus was just as difficult as it is for skeptics today (p. 105). Peterson opines that the gift of tongues (intelligible languages) at
Pentecost is different from the sort of tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians. Concerning the problem of the Samaritans conversion and the magician
Simon Magus, Peterson concludes that the Samaritans were convinced by the truth of Philips message, not that they were necessarily truly
converted, which leads Peterson then to conclude that Simon was never really saved, though Luke says, Simon himself believed and was baptized
(8:13). The Ephesian disciples were not believers in Jesus until Paul explained the gospel to them, after which they were re-baptized (19:1-7).
Let me close this review with a few instances in which Peterson caused me to raise my eyebrows, at least a bit. He interprets Gods foreknowledge
as the actual determination of events in advance. So God determined the players roles in Jesus crucifixion (2:23) without diminishing those
players responsibility for their actionsa typical Calvinist explanation. Petersons Calvinism also surfaces clearly in his explication of Acts 13:48-52,
where he says, ...God uses the gospel to call out his elect and to save them (p. 399). Then, ... God enables some to believe through the
proclamation of the gospel (p. 400). While this is the viewpoint of many observers, I found something strange about Petersons exegesis here.
While he favorably cites scholars I. H. Marshalls and Ben Witheringtons works throughout the commentary, at these points those Arminian scholars
are nowhere to be found in the footnotes, as if there were no other ways to understand what Luke says. This stands apart from most of his
deliberations where he does consider other explanations and defends his position. In a startling example of eisegesis Peterson states, ... we may
assume that wherever resistance to the message is recorded, Luke believed the Lord had not yet acted in grace and power to enable belief (p.
404). May we? In fact Luke explains that the Jews rejected the word of God and judged themselves unfit for eternal life (13:46). I guess this shows
how we all see what we want to see in texts and may wish to ignore other ways of seeing things.
Some readers might quibble with Petersons assessment of the phenomenon of baptism in the aftermath of Lydias conversion (and drawing on the
other examples of household conversion in Acts). In assessing what Luke means that the members of her household were baptized (16:15),
Peterson opines that this likely included infants, thus justifying the later practice of infant baptism. Can Peterson really assume that entire
households were baptized without any basis in their personal faith in Christ? Would Paul baptize an infant or slave in a household, simply assuming
that one was elect and before God opened their hearts to believe (according to Petersons stance on election)? I doubt an exegete coming from a
tradition supporting believers baptism would draw this conclusion. This is even more surprising given Petersons explanation of the meaning of
baptism surrounding Pauls conversion in 22:16. He says, rightly, Baptism expresses repentance and faith because it is a means of calling on his
name (emphasis his; p. 603). How might infants then call on Jesus name?

These reservations are not meant to overturn the overwhelmingly positive response I have to what Peterson has accomplished in this commentary.
We are in his debt.
William W. Klein, Ph.D.
Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
December 2009
Comments(0)

Comments:
Login to post comments (https://ssl.monkdev.com/loginMCMS.php?siteid=683&cmstype=CMS&cmscode=EKK&server=http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/the-actsof-the-apostles/&from=popup&cartsessid=&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=400&width=400)
6399 South Santa Fe Drive, Littleton, CO, USA 80120
800-922-3040 | info@denverseminary.edu | contact us
Copyright Denver Seminary. | Degree Programs (/degree-programs-at-denver-seminary/) | Privacy Policy (/about-us/seminary-policies/privacy-policy/)
Academia 360 (http://www.academia360.com/) College CMS (http://www.ekklesia360.com/academia-360-college-university-website-cms/)