The Risen Lord Restores, Commissions, Shepherds, and Testifies through His Witness

Manifested himself (εφανεροσεν εαυτον). First aorist active indicative of φανεροω with the reflexive pronoun (cf. 7:4 ; 13:4 ). For the passive see 1:31 ; 21:14 . Jesus was only seen during the forty days now and then ( Ac 1:3 ), ten instances being recorded. The word φανεροω is often used of Christ on earth ( Joh 1:31 ; 2:11 ; 1Pe 1:20 ; 1Jo 1:2 ), of his works ( Joh 3:5 ), of the second coming ( 1Jo 2:28 ), of Christ in glory ( Col 3:4 ; 1Jo 3:2 ).

Of Tiberias (της Τιβεριαδος). As in 6:1 instead of the usual "Sea of Galilee." Tiberias, the capital city of Galilee, gave this epithet to the Sea of Galilee. This is not the appearance in Galilee prearranged by Jesus ( Mr 16:7 ; Mt 28:7 , 16 ).

There were together (ησαν ομου). These seven (Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others). We know that the sons of Zebedee were James and John ( Mt 4:21 ), mentioned by name nowhere in John's Gospel, apparently because John is the author. We do not know who the "two others of his disciples" were, possibly Andrew and Philip. It seems to me to be crass criticism in spite of Harnack and Bernard to identify the incident here with that in Lu 5:1-11 .

There are a few points of similarity, but the differences are too great for such identification even with a hypothetical common source.

I go a fishing (υπαγω αλιευειν). The present active infinitive αλιευειν expresses purpose as often. It is a late verb from αλιευς (fisherman) and occurs in Jer 16:16 , in Philo, Plutarch, and one papyrus. Peter's proposal was a natural one. He had been a fisherman by practice and they were probably waiting in Galilee for the appointed meeting with Christ on the mountain.

Andrew and Peter, James and John were fishermen also. Peter's proposition met a ready response from all. They took (επιασαν). First aorist active indicative of πιαζω, Doric form for πιεζω, to catch.

When day was now breaking (πρωιας ηδη γινομενης). Genitive absolute and note present middle participle (dawn coming on and still dark). In Mt 27:1 the aorist participle (γενομενης) means that dawn had come. For "beach" (αιγιαλον) see Mt 13:2 . Was (εστιν). Present indicative retained in indirect assertion.

Children (Παιδια). Diminutive of παις and used here alone by Jesus in addressing his disciples. It is a colloquial expression like "my boys." The aged Apostle John uses it in 1Jo 2:13 , 18 . Have ye aught to eat? (μη τ προσφαγιον εχετε;). The negative answer is expected by this polite inquiry as in 4:29 . The rare and late word προσφαγιον from the root φαγ (εσθιω, to eat) and προς (in addition) was used for a relish with bread and then for fish as here. So in the papyri. Nowhere else in the N.T.

The right side (εις τα δεξια μερη). Jesus knew where the fish were. For "net" (δικτυον) see Mt 4:20 , here alone in John. Were now not able to draw it (ουκετ αυτο ελκυσα ισχυον). Imperfect active picturing the disciples tugging at the net.

It is the Lord (ο κυριος εστιν). John's quick insight appears again. Girt his coat about him (τον επενδυτην διεζωσατο). First aorist middle (indirect) indicative with which note διεζωσεν εαυτον in 13:4 . Apparently Peter threw on the upper garment or linen blouse (επενδυτην) worn by fishers over his waistcloth and tucked it under his girdle.

In the little boat (τω πλοιαριω). Locative case of πλοιαριον (diminutive) for the larger boat (πλοιον, verses 3 , 6 ) could come no closer to shore. But the words seem interchangeable in 6:17 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 . About two hundred cubits off (ως απο πηχων διακοσιων). For πηχυς, cubit, see Mt 6:27 and for ως απο see 11:18 . Dragging (συροντες). Present active participle of συρω for which see Ac 8:3 .

Got out (απεβησαν). As in Lu 5:2 . They see (βλεπουσιν). Vivid historical present. A fire of coals (ανθρακιαν). See 18:18 for this word. Cf. our "anthracite." There (κειμενην). Lying as placed, present middle participle of κειμα. Fish (οψαριον). As in 6:9 , 11 , like προσφαγιον above. Laid thereon (επικειμενον). So broiling with bread ready (toast).

Which (ων). Ablative case by attraction from α to agree with οψαριων. They had caught the fish by Christ's direction.

Went up (ανεβη). Into the little boat or dinghy. Drew (ειλκυσεν). Same verb as ελκυσα in verse 6 . Peter now did what they had failed to do. Three (τριων). The addition "three" to the "hundred and fifty" looks as if they were actually counted these "large" (μεγαλων) fish. It was a great fish story that John recalls vividly. Was not rent (ουκ εσχισθη). First aorist passive indicative of σχιζω, to split (our word "schism").

Break your fast (αριστησατε). First aorist active imperative of αρισταω from αριστον, first to breakfast, as here and then later to dine as in Lu 11:37 . What a delightful breakfast of fresh broiled fish just caught (verse 10 ) with the hush of joyful surprise in the presence of the Risen Lord. Durst (ετολμα) Imperfect active of τολμαω. The restraint of silence continued.

Taketh the bread, and giveth them (λαμβανε τον αρτον κα διδωσιν αυτοις). Vivid presents again. Jesus acts as host at this early breakfast, his last meal with these seven faithful followers.

Now the third time (το ηδη τριτον). "To the disciples" (apostles) John says, the two others being told by him ( 20:19 , 26 ) on the two Sunday evenings. There were four other appearances already (to Mary Magdalene, to the group of women, to the two on the way to Emmaus, to Peter).

Lovest thou me more than these? (αγαπαις με πλεον τουτων;). Ablative case of comparison τουτων (disciples) after πλεον. Peter had even boasted that he would stand by Christ though all men forsook him ( Mr 14:29 ). We do not know what passed between Jesus and Peter when Jesus first appeared to him ( Lu 24:34 ). But here Christ probes the inmost recesses of Peter's heart to secure the humility necessary for service.

I love thee (φιλω συ). Peter makes no claim here to superior love and passes by the "more than these" and does not even use Christ's word αγαπαω for high and devoted love, but the humbler word φιλεω for love as a friend. He insists that Christ knows this in spite of his conduct. Feed my lambs (Βοσκε τα αρνια μου). For the old word βοσκω (to feed as a herdsman) see Mt 8:33 .

Present active imperative here. Αρνια is a diminutive of αρνος (lamb).

Lovest thou me? (αγαπαις με;). This time Jesus drops the πλεον τουτων and challenges Peter's own statement. Peter repeats the same words in reply. Tend my sheep (ποιμαινε τα προβατια). Present active imperative of ποιμαινω, old verb from ποιμην (shepherd), "shepherd my lambs" (προβατια, diminutive of προβατον, sheep).

Lovest thou me? (φιλεις με;). This time Jesus picks up the word φιλεω used by Peter and challenges that. These two words are often interchanged in the N. T. , but here the distinction is preserved. Peter was cut to the heart (ελυπηθη, first aorist passive of λυπεω, to grieve) because Jesus challenges this very verb, and no doubt the third question vividly reminds him of the three denials in the early morning by the fire.

He repeats his love for Jesus with the plea: "Thou knowest all things." Feed my sheep (βοσκε τα προβατια). Many MSS. both here and in verse 16 read προβατα (sheep) instead of προβατια (little sheep or lambs).

Thou girdest thyself (εζωννυες σεαυτον). Imperfect active of customary action of ζωννυω, old verb, in N.T. only here and Ac 12:8 . So as to περιεπατεις (walkedst) and ηθελες (wouldest), two other imperfects of customary action. When thou shalt be old (οταν γηρασηις). Indefinite temporal clause with οταν and the first aorist active subjunctive of γηρασκω, old verb to grow old, in N.T. only here and Heb 8:13 , "whenever thou growest old."

By what manner of death (ποιω θανατω). Undoubtedly John, who is writing long after Peter's death, seems to mean that Peter was to die (and did die) a martyr's death. "Whither thou wouldest not." There is a tradition that Peter met death by crucifixion and asked to be crucified head downwards, but that is not made plain here.

Turning about (επιστραφεις). Second aorist passive participle of επιστρεφω, old verb, here a sudden turning round (ingressive aorist). For the simplex verb στρεφω see 20:14 , 16 . Following (ακολουθουντα). Following both Jesus and Peter, perhaps having heard the graphic dialogue above.

And what shall this man do? (ουτος δε τι;). Literally, "But this one ... what?" The abrupt ellipsis is intelligible.

If I will (εαν θελω). Condition of the third class with εαν and the present active subjunctive of θελω. Till I come (εως ερχομα). Literally, "while I am coming" (εως and the present indicative, not εως ελθω (second aorist active subjunctive). What is that to thee? (τ προς σε;). A sharp rebuke to Peter's keen curiosity. Follow thou me (συ μο ακολουθε). "Do thou me keep on following." That lesson Peter needed.

That that disciple should not die (οτ ο μαθητης εκεινος ουκ αποθνησκε) (present active indicative), because Peter or others misunderstood what Jesus meant as John now carefully explains. He was rebuking Peter's curiosity, not affirming that John would live on till the Master returned. John is anxious to set this matter right.

That is (ουτος εστιν). The one just mentioned in verse 20 , "the disciple whom Jesus loved." And wrote these things (κα ο γραψας ταυτα). Here there is a definite statement that the Beloved Disciple wrote this book. We know (οιδαμεν). The plural here seems intentional as the identification and endorsement of a group of disciples who know the author and wish to vouch for his identity and for the truthfulness of his witness.

Probably we see here a verse added by a group of elders in Ephesus where John had long laboured.

If they should be written every one (εαν γραφητα καθ' εν). Condition of the third class with εαν and present passive subjunctive of γραφω, "If they should be written one by one" (in full detail). I suppose (οιμα). Note change back to the first person singular by the author. Would not contain (ουδ' αυτον τον κοσμον χωρησειν). Future active infinitive in indirect discourse after οιμα.

This is, of course, natural hyperbole, but graphically pictures for us the vastness of the work and words of Jesus from which the author has made a small selection ( 20:30 f. ) and by which he has produced what is, all things considered, the greatest of all the books produced by man, the eternal gospel from the eagle who soars to the very heavens and gives us a glimpse of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

But for the Acts we should know nothing of the early apostolic period save what is told in the Epistles. There are various apocryphal "Acts," but they are without historical worth. Hence the importance of this book. It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes ( The Acts of the Apostles , English Translation by Rev.

J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen , Chapter XII of Pauline and Other Studies . A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts by Dr. D. A.

Hayes, in Robertson's Luke the Historian in the Light of Research , and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of The Acts of the Apostles , Vol. II of The Beginnings of Christianity , edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: The Case for the Tradition by C.

W. Emmet, The Case against the Tradition by H. Windisch. The Internal Evidence of Acts is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys The Tradition (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars.

A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, The Making of Luke--Acts (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a Tendenz writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while.

In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL ALSO The author of the Acts expressly states that he wrote "the first treatise (τον πρωτον λογον) concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach until which day he gave command through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen and was received up" ( Ac 1:1 f. ). There is no room for dispute that the reference is directly to the Gospel according to Luke as we have it now.

Like the Gospel the book is dedicated to Theophilus. And, what is even more important, the same style appears in both Gospel and Acts. This fact Harnack has shown with great pains and conclusiveness. There is the same interest in medical matters and even Cadbury, who denies by implication the Lukan authorship, admits identity of authorship for both books. THE UNITY OF THE ACTS There are some scholars who are willing to admit the Lukan authorship of the "we" sections when the author uses "we" and "us" as in chapter 16:10-40 ; 20:6-28:31 .

It has been argued that Luke wrote a travel-document or diary for these sections, but that this material was used by the editor or redactor of the whole book. But, unfortunately for that view, the very same style appears in the Acts as a whole and in the Gospel also as Harnack has proven. The man who said "we" and "us" in the "we" sections wrote "I" in 1:1 and refers to the Gospel as his work.

The effort to disprove the unity of the Acts has failed. It stands as the work of the same author as a whole and the same author who wrote the Gospel. Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for this great history as he did for the Gospel ( Lu 1:1-4 ). In fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third volume or not.

Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the "we" sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul's own notes or suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapters 8 to 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he finished the Book.

This would include Paul's sermons and addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do, that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence of that for each address differs from the others and suits precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes of his addresses.

Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues in his Composition and Date of Acts (1916) that Luke used an Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after Lu 1:1-4 . It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case for such a single document.

Luke may have had several such documents besides access to others familiar with the early days of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited for two weeks in Jerusalem ( Ga 1:18 ) besides other points of contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch ( Ac 15 and Ga 2 ). There was also Barnabas who was early Paul's friend ( Ac 9:27 ) and who knew the beginnings as few did ( Ac 4:36 f.

). Besides many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy ( Ac 21:8 f. ). But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same style all through that appears in the "we" sections where the writer is confessedly a companion of Paul.

No other companion of Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a physician and no author has the external evidence from early writers. There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship.

Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy post eventum .

The other reason is the alleged use of the Antiquities of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work A. D. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean.

They differ so widely ( Ac 5:36 f . and Josephus, Ant . XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz ( Dictionary of the Apostolic Church , art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. So Luke ( Lu 13:1 f. ) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke.

A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in Ac 12:20-23 and Ant . XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release, that is by A. D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts.

Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of πρωτον (first) in Ac 1:1 is a common Koine idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three.

Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts. It was once a fad with a certain school of critics to decry Luke in the Acts as wholly untrustworthy, not above the legendary stage.

But the spade has done well by Luke for inscriptions and papyri have brought remarkable confirmation for scores of points where Luke once stood all alone and was discounted because he stood alone. These will be duly noted in the proper places as they occur. Ramsay has done most in this restoration of the rank of Luke as a credible historian, as shown in particular in his St.

Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen and in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament . In every instance where discoveries have been made they have confirmed the testimony of Luke as concerning politarchs in Thessalonica, proconsul in Cyprus, etc. The result is that the balance of evidence is now in favour of Luke even when he still stands alone or seems to be opposed by Josephus.

Luke, as it stands today, is a more credible historian than Josephus. Ramsay dares to call Luke, all things considered, the greatest of all historians, even above Thucydides. An interesting book on this phase of the subject is Chase's The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles (1902). THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTS It is not easy to say in a word precisely the object of Luke in writing this book.

It is not the Acts of all the apostles. Outside of Peter and John little is told of any of them after chapter 3. And all the acts of Peter and John are not given for Peter disappears from the narrative after chapter 15, though he has been the central figure through chapter 11. Paul is not one of the twelve apostles, but Luke follows Paul's career mainly after chapter 8.

Stephen and Barnabas come in also. Still ( St. Paul on Trial , 1923) argues that Luke meant the book as an apology to be used in Paul's trial at Rome or at any rate to put Paul in the right light with the Jews in Rome. Hence the full account of Paul's series of defences in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome. There may be an element of truth in this idea, but it clearly does not cover the whole purpose of Luke.

Others hold that Luke had a dramatic plan to get Paul to Rome as the climax of his campaign to win the Roman Empire to Christ. The book is not a history of all early Christianity. Peter and Paul dominate the atmosphere of the book with Paul as the great hero of Luke. But one can easily see that the work is done with consummate skill. The author is a man of culture, of Christian grace, of literary power.

The book pulses with life today. A special problem arises concerning the text of Acts inasmuch as the Codex Bezae (D) with some other Western support presents a great many additions to the Neutral-Alexandrian text of Aleph A B C. Blass has even proposed the idea that Luke himself issued two editions of the book, an attractive hypothesis that is not generally accepted.

J. M. Wilson has published The Acts of the Apostles from Codex Bezae . The whole subject is elaborately treated by J. H. Ropes in Vol. III, The Text of Acts in Part I of The Beginnings of Christianity . Besides thorough discussion of all the problems of text involved Ropes gives the text of the Vatican Codex (B) on the left page and that of Codex Bezae (D) on the right, making comparison easy.

Blass's ideas appear in his Acta Apostolorum .