[1] 5. 11; 8. 1, 3; 9. 31; 11. 22, 26; 12. 1, 5; 13.1; 14. 23, 27; 15. 3,4, 22, 41; 16. 5; 18. 22; 20. 17, 28. In addition, Luke uses the word once of a gathering of Israelites (7. 38) and three times of a gathering of Gentiles in the theatre at Ephesus (19. 32, 39, 41).

[2] Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1970) 93Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London, 1961) 74Google Scholar; Jervell, J., Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis, 1972) 111, note 78.Google Scholar

[3] The plural is clearly to be preferred in 15.41 for only BDpc have the singular. It is unchallenged at 16. 5. We will discuss 9. 31 in detail in due course.

[4] The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (London, 1947) 280.Google ScholarSchmidt, K. L.TDNT, 3 (Grand Rapids, 1966) 504 says that Luther used the plural at this point also.Google Scholar

[5] It has often been the practice to begin the discussion of Luke's use of this word, or more generally his ecclesiology, by reference to Acts 20. 28 as a ‘catholic’ interpretation of έκκλησία is discovered here. It is then assumed that this underlies Luke's usage throughout. We reject this approach for it assumes Acts 20. 28 reflects Lukan theology without establishing the point. See Cadbury, H. J., ‘Names for Christians and Christianity in Acts’, The Beginnings of Christianity, 5, ed. Jackson, F. J. Foakes and Lake, K. (London, 1933) 89–92Google Scholar; K. L. Schmidt, ibid., 505; Lohfink, G., Die Sammlung Israels: Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekklesiologie (Munich, 1975) 89–92et al.Google Scholar

[6] In both cases the theology appears uncharacteristic. 20. 28 would be the only reference in Acts to depict Christ's death in redemptive language. The other possible parallel would be Luke 22. 19–20 which is textually doubtful and in any case may reflect liturgical language rather than Luke's own theology. See Pilgrim, W. E., The Death of Christ in Lukan Soteriology, unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted in 1971 to Princeton Theological Seminary, 167 ff.Google Scholar

[7] W.E. Pilgrim, ibid., 175.

[8] Whether τοῡθεοῡorτοῡκυριοῡ should be read is difficult to decide. The textual alternatives are fairly evenly balanced. But preference may be given to τοῡθεοῡ on the following grounds. It is the more difficult reading for taken with the following clause τοῡαἵματοςτοῡίδίον it raises the question, does God have blood? Furthermore, support for its acceptance can be offered on theological grounds as it corresponds with Pauline terminology. The title τήνέκκλησίαντοῡκνριοῡ would be unique in the New Testament though not in the LXX. So Metzger, B., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London, 1971) 234 ff.Google Scholar

[9] 1 Cor 1. 2; 10. 32; 11. 22; 15. 9; 2 Cor 1. 1; Gall. 13;1 Tim 3.5, 15.

[10] 1 Cor 11. 16; 1 Thess 2. 14; 2 Thess 1. 4. On Paul's usage see Hainz, J., Ekklesia: Struk-turen paulinischer Gemeinde – Theologie und Gemeinde-Ordnung (Regensburg, 1972) 229 ff.Google Scholar

[11] There is no necessity to interpret έκκλησία here in ‘a catholic sense’. The group of elders are charged to feed a particular congregation or ‘flock’ and elsewhere Paul can speak of ‘the brother for whom Christ died’ (1 Cor 8. 11). If Christ can be said to have died for a specific man it must also be possible to say that he died for a specific church. In neither case is the scope of his death limited.

[12] The clause ‘περιεποιήσατο διάτοῡαἴματος’ is difficult. The verb περιποιείσθαι can, in the middle voice, (mean either, a) to save or preserve for (oneself, or b) to acquire, purchase, obtain for oneself. Robinson, J. A., St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (London, 1904) 148Google Scholar, argues for the second meaning in Acts 20. 28, but Jackson, F. J. and Lake, K., Beginnings, 4, 201Google Scholar argue for the former. Whether the ambiguous διάτοῡαἴματοςτοῡίδιοῡ is to be rendered ‘through his own blood’ or ‘through the blood of his own’ is also difficult to decide. A clear discussion of the merits of these alternatives is given by Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1951) 381.Google Scholar

[13] Rom 5. 18; 11. 12–15; 2 Cor 5. 14, 19 etc. That Luke does not develop a theology of sub-stitutionary atonement we could almost say is one of the ‘assured’ results of the study of Lukan theology. So Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (London, 1963) 25Google Scholar; Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke-Acts (London, 1927) 201Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke (London, 1960)Google Scholar; W. Pilgrim, op. cit., passim, et al. Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian and Theologian (London, 1970) 161 ff. is not uncritical of this idea but he largely accepts it.Google Scholar

[14] So Gardner, P., ‘The Speeches of St. Paul in Acts’, Cambridge Biblical Essays, H. Swete (1909) 384.Google Scholar

[15] It is important to remember that it is often in the speeches that non-Lukan motifs appear. See by Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Christology of Acts’, Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L. (Nashville, 1966) 166 ff.Google Scholar, who notes that it is only in the Petrine speeches of Acts 3 and 4 that we find Jesus called παῑς, only in the Pauline speeches that Jesus is called νίός (13. 38–39; 26. 18) and only on the lips of Paul that we find the doctrine of justification by faith enunciated (13. 19). The linguistic peculiarities of the speeches are also significant. Wilcox, M., The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, 1965) 158–64Google Scholar, has shown that it is in the speeches that semitisms most frequently appear. On the unique elements in the Acts speeches see also Gasque, W. W., ‘The Speeches in Acts; Dibelius Reconsidered’, New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Longenecker, R. N. and Tenney, M. C. (Grand Rapids, 1974) 246–8.Google Scholar

[16] The Making of Luke-Acts, op. cit., 189.Google Scholar

[17] Op. cit., 401.Google Scholar

[18] Bruce, F. F., ‘A Review of the Acts of the Apostles by E. Haenchen’, EQ 44 (1972) 48–9.Google Scholar See also Bruce, F. F., ‘The Speeches in Acts - Thirty Years Afterwards’, Reconciliation and Hope (London, 1974), ed. Banks, R., 53–68.Google Scholar

[19] Haenchen, E., op. cit., 82, 595 f.Google Scholar; Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1951) 138–85Google Scholar; Wilckens, U., Die Missionsreden in der Apostelgeschichte (Neukirchen, 1961) 152Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke, 201, et al.Google Scholar

[20] Schulze, H., Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 73 (1900) 119–25Google Scholar, gives a large number of parallels with 1 Thess. Gardner, P., op. cit., 420 f.Google Scholar and Bruce, F. F., op. cit, 377 ff. give comparisons with all the Pauline epistles.Google Scholar

[21] The situation isquite different with the other references to έκκλησία in Acts, excepting 7. 38 which is also in a speech but is not used of Christians. In most cases it seems that Luke has actually introduced the word for it appears most commonly either at the end or at the commencement of a pericope where Luke is either beginning or finishing an episode.

Although the source question in regard to Acts is largely dormant today it is of interest to note that in the commentary by F. J. Jackson and K. Lake, Beginnings, 4, most texts in which the word έκκλησία appears are designated Lukan editorial comment. Thus 9. 31 and 16. 5 are described as Lukan summaries; 8. 1, 3; 12. 1, 5; 13.1; 20. 17 are called Lukan introductions and 5. 11; 11. 26; 14. 23; 15. 41; 18. 22 are said to be Lukan conclusions.

[22] Notable exceptions are Clark, A. C., The Acts of the Apostles: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages (London, 1933) 57Google Scholar, and Jackson, F. J. and Lake, K., Beginnings, 4, 107. The latter's comment is important for it not only allows that the plural reading may be the ‘original one’ but also asks if Acts has really the ‘catholic’ usage of the word ‘church’?Google Scholar

[23] Acts 15. 41; 16. 5. For Paul's use see note 9 above.

[24] Col 1.18, 24; 4. 15, 16; Eph 1. 22; 3. 10, 21; 5. 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; 1 Cor 12. 28?

[25] Op. cit., 74, note 89.

[26] The Christian Ecclesia (London, 1908) 55–6.Google Scholar

[27] Peake's Commentary of the Bible, ed. Black, M. & Rowley, H. H. (London, 1963) 889Google Scholar; Richardson, A., Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1958) 289, note 1Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen, 1963) 67Google Scholar; Lohfink, G., op. cit., 56.Google Scholar

[28] Metzger, B. M., 367Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., op. cit., 333, n. 3Google Scholar; H. Conzelmann, ibid., 60, et al.

[29] See note 20 above.

[30] D is defective at this point.

[31] Bruce, F. F., op. cit., 208 and more generally 40–48.Google ScholarEpp, E. J., The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge, 1966) 12 ff. discusses the problems of recovering the Western text and its relationship with Byzantine readings.Google Scholar

[32] Cf. Acts 1. 14; 2. 42–47; 4. 32–37. Cf. E. J. Epp, ibid., 100.

[33] This is a characteristic Lukan phrase. E.g. Lk 4.14; 8. 39; 23. 5; Acts 9. 42; 10. 37; 13. 49.

[34] Elliott-Binns, L. E., Galilean Christianity (London, 1956) 43Google Scholar; Rackham, R. B., The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1925) 143. Both comment that only in Acts 9. 31 is there mention of a church in Galilee although much of Jesus' ministry was spent there.Google Scholar