What do you think?
Rate this book
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Acts (07) by Bock, Darrell L [Hardcover (2007)]
Acts (07) by Bock, Darrell L [Hardcover (2007)]
Hardcover
First published October 1, 2007
91 people are currently reading
184 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
October 7, 2024
Read comments on Acts chapter 8. It was very helpful.
January 25, 2020
This is an excellent commentary on Acts. It is exegetical, theological, and historical. It is scholarly, but not so academic as to make it unreadable.
July 6, 2021
The thesis of Darrell L. Bock’s Acts, part of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT) series, is that the author of Acts is “a historian in the ancient mold, whose historiography is rooted more in Jewish models than in Greco-Roman ones” (3). Consequently, in terms of literary genre, Acts is “a piece of Hellenist and Jewish historiography that treats the theme of how the new community is rooted in God’s old promises, the Lord Jesus’s current activity, and the Spirit’s effective presence” (12). Bock’s goal in interpreting the text is “to lead the reader through the fundamental argument of the book by paying special attention to the Greek and its historical context” (43). While not denying the value of “the narrative-critical and literary levels” in Acts, Bock does not focus on them. He points readers toward the application of specific passages—their “central teaching and ethical points” (44)—at the end of his commentary on each pericope.
Bock identifies Acts’ author as Luke, “a sometime companion of Paul” (15), based on a combination of internal and external evidence. Though formally anonymous and narrated in the third person, Acts switches unexpectedly to first-person-plural narration in several passages—16:10–17, 20:5–15, 27:1–28:16—suggesting that the author accompanied Paul on those legs of his various journeys. Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11 name Luke as one of Paul’s missionary coworkers. When postapostolic Christian tradition names Acts’ author, it uniformly identifies Luke. Critical scholars doubt this traditional identification because of “the seemingly different portrait of Paul in his epistles from that in Acts” (16), but Bock notes that “the emphasis and concerns of a student may not always mirror those of the teacher” (18).
Bock notes that Acts could not have been written earlier than A.D. 62, which is the widely accepted date for Paul’s arrival in Rome in Acts 28. Also, the majority of New Testament scholars believe that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a literary source in his Gospel, which means that Luke could not have been written prior to Mark. Given that Acts succeeds Luke, the same reasoning applies to its dating. So, the terminus a quo for Acts is the mid 60s; if Luke is its author and lived an average lifespan, most scholars put the terminus ad quem at 90. Many scholars believe Luke’s redaction of Mark’s eschatology (in the Gospel) places the dating of both Luke and Acts into the 80s. This is so because Luke’s Gospel redacted Mark’s eschatology in light of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Bock doubts Luke’s eschatological redaction determines date, and though he acknowledges the possibility of a post-70 date for Acts, he prefers “the late 60s” (27). “Either Acts is written so m much after AD 70 that these issues are no longer worth noting, because they are given, or it is written before it,” he writes (ibid).
It is difficult to evaluate every interpretive move made in a commentary of this length and complexity. However, Bock’s interpretation of Acts 17:16–34 ably illustrates how he handles the text and responds to criticisms of the book’s historicity. So, it is useful to take a moment to examine his interpretation of that passage.
In Acts 17:16–34, Paul arrives in Athens alone. As was his practice, he ministered in the Athenian synagogue with Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. However, he also ventured into the public square to minister to non-God-fearing Gentiles, some of whom were Epicurean or Stoic philosophers. His message in both the synagogue and marketplace included reference to Christ’s resurrection, which provoked scorn as well as confusion, so Paul’s audience brought him to the Areopagus for an explanation. The resulting speech in verses 22–31 is Paul’s longest speech to a Gentile audience. His concluding mention of the resurrection results in an ambivalent response, with some expressing scorn and others interest in his message. Two notable converts were Dionysius, evidently a member of the Areopagus council, and Damaris, a woman.
The historical question in Acts 17:16–34 concerns Luke’s report of Paul’s evangelistic speech. Passing references to the city’s name, its plethora of idols, its marketplace, its philosophical orientation—specifically Epicurean and Stoic philosophies in the mid-first century, and the Areopagus are easily confirmed, historically. Both literary and archaeological evidence confirm the existence of altars to unknown gods. The historicity of these incidental details can be acknowledged, however, even if the authenticity of Paul’s speech is denied. In other words, the historical question is whether the speech reflects Paul’s thinking or Luke’s. Scholars critical of Acts’ historicity argue that Paul’s relatively benign portrayal of Athenian idolatry in verses 22–23 is contradictory to his thorough-going condemnation of idolatry in Romans 1:18–32, among other passages. Moreover, whereas Paul is ruthlessly Christocentric and even crucicentric (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12–14), this speech does not mention Jesus by name, let alone refer to the cross. It moves from natural theology to future judgment with only a passing reference to Jesus’ role as judge, confirmed by his resurrection from the dead (verse 31).
Both difficulties can be resolved by remembering that Christians speak differently when they’re talking aboutnonbelievers than when they’re talking to them. As Bock writes, “The tone distinct from Rom. 1 is the difference between Paul addressing Christians about the fallenness of the culture as a ground for the gospel in Romans and the attempt to make a bridge to the culture in presenting the gospel in Acts” (559). Finding a cultural bridge for the gospel explains both the positive tone of Paul’s remarks before the Areopagus as well as the focus on natural theology, including the apparent quotation of the pagans Epimenides and Aratus in verse 28.
And yet, Paul’s positive tone should not be misinterpreted as total acceptance. The gravamen of his speech is exhorting the Athenians to move from ignorance to knowledge in light of a future judgment. This implies that their paganism was wrong, and that they were sinners. Moreover, the capstone of Paul’s speech is the resurrection of Jesus, which Greeks found incomprehensible. So, while Paul acknowledges Athenian religiosity, he also provides a corrective to it at central points: the object of worship and the need to repent in light of coming judgment.
Finally, Bock turns the argument against the historicity of this event on its head by noting that “the lack of an express Christological focus and the lack of results” (559). “In these details, it does not seem like a scene someone would create” (ibid). An author trying to sound like Paul would not go out the way to not sound like Paul, in other words, because a counterfeit speech would undermine the impression of authenticity the author was trying to convey. Furthermore, what purpose is served by reporting such an ambivalent, if not desultory, response to Paul’s message? Is it not more like that the wholesale invention of this event would have been presented as a triumph? As it is, only a small congregation resulted from preaching.
Bock’s treatment of Acts 17 illustrates how he handles the question of historicity throughout, though he goes into far greater detail of exegesis and argumentation than I have summarized here. That attention to understand the meaning of the Acts in its original contexts—literary, cultural, and historical—makes Bock’s commentary well worth reading, even though one will not necessarily agree with every one of his interpretive judgments.
P.S. If you liked my review, please click "Helpful" on my Amazon review page.
Bock identifies Acts’ author as Luke, “a sometime companion of Paul” (15), based on a combination of internal and external evidence. Though formally anonymous and narrated in the third person, Acts switches unexpectedly to first-person-plural narration in several passages—16:10–17, 20:5–15, 27:1–28:16—suggesting that the author accompanied Paul on those legs of his various journeys. Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11 name Luke as one of Paul’s missionary coworkers. When postapostolic Christian tradition names Acts’ author, it uniformly identifies Luke. Critical scholars doubt this traditional identification because of “the seemingly different portrait of Paul in his epistles from that in Acts” (16), but Bock notes that “the emphasis and concerns of a student may not always mirror those of the teacher” (18).
Bock notes that Acts could not have been written earlier than A.D. 62, which is the widely accepted date for Paul’s arrival in Rome in Acts 28. Also, the majority of New Testament scholars believe that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a literary source in his Gospel, which means that Luke could not have been written prior to Mark. Given that Acts succeeds Luke, the same reasoning applies to its dating. So, the terminus a quo for Acts is the mid 60s; if Luke is its author and lived an average lifespan, most scholars put the terminus ad quem at 90. Many scholars believe Luke’s redaction of Mark’s eschatology (in the Gospel) places the dating of both Luke and Acts into the 80s. This is so because Luke’s Gospel redacted Mark’s eschatology in light of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Bock doubts Luke’s eschatological redaction determines date, and though he acknowledges the possibility of a post-70 date for Acts, he prefers “the late 60s” (27). “Either Acts is written so m much after AD 70 that these issues are no longer worth noting, because they are given, or it is written before it,” he writes (ibid).
It is difficult to evaluate every interpretive move made in a commentary of this length and complexity. However, Bock’s interpretation of Acts 17:16–34 ably illustrates how he handles the text and responds to criticisms of the book’s historicity. So, it is useful to take a moment to examine his interpretation of that passage.
In Acts 17:16–34, Paul arrives in Athens alone. As was his practice, he ministered in the Athenian synagogue with Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. However, he also ventured into the public square to minister to non-God-fearing Gentiles, some of whom were Epicurean or Stoic philosophers. His message in both the synagogue and marketplace included reference to Christ’s resurrection, which provoked scorn as well as confusion, so Paul’s audience brought him to the Areopagus for an explanation. The resulting speech in verses 22–31 is Paul’s longest speech to a Gentile audience. His concluding mention of the resurrection results in an ambivalent response, with some expressing scorn and others interest in his message. Two notable converts were Dionysius, evidently a member of the Areopagus council, and Damaris, a woman.
The historical question in Acts 17:16–34 concerns Luke’s report of Paul’s evangelistic speech. Passing references to the city’s name, its plethora of idols, its marketplace, its philosophical orientation—specifically Epicurean and Stoic philosophies in the mid-first century, and the Areopagus are easily confirmed, historically. Both literary and archaeological evidence confirm the existence of altars to unknown gods. The historicity of these incidental details can be acknowledged, however, even if the authenticity of Paul’s speech is denied. In other words, the historical question is whether the speech reflects Paul’s thinking or Luke’s. Scholars critical of Acts’ historicity argue that Paul’s relatively benign portrayal of Athenian idolatry in verses 22–23 is contradictory to his thorough-going condemnation of idolatry in Romans 1:18–32, among other passages. Moreover, whereas Paul is ruthlessly Christocentric and even crucicentric (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12–14), this speech does not mention Jesus by name, let alone refer to the cross. It moves from natural theology to future judgment with only a passing reference to Jesus’ role as judge, confirmed by his resurrection from the dead (verse 31).
Both difficulties can be resolved by remembering that Christians speak differently when they’re talking aboutnonbelievers than when they’re talking to them. As Bock writes, “The tone distinct from Rom. 1 is the difference between Paul addressing Christians about the fallenness of the culture as a ground for the gospel in Romans and the attempt to make a bridge to the culture in presenting the gospel in Acts” (559). Finding a cultural bridge for the gospel explains both the positive tone of Paul’s remarks before the Areopagus as well as the focus on natural theology, including the apparent quotation of the pagans Epimenides and Aratus in verse 28.
And yet, Paul’s positive tone should not be misinterpreted as total acceptance. The gravamen of his speech is exhorting the Athenians to move from ignorance to knowledge in light of a future judgment. This implies that their paganism was wrong, and that they were sinners. Moreover, the capstone of Paul’s speech is the resurrection of Jesus, which Greeks found incomprehensible. So, while Paul acknowledges Athenian religiosity, he also provides a corrective to it at central points: the object of worship and the need to repent in light of coming judgment.
Finally, Bock turns the argument against the historicity of this event on its head by noting that “the lack of an express Christological focus and the lack of results” (559). “In these details, it does not seem like a scene someone would create” (ibid). An author trying to sound like Paul would not go out the way to not sound like Paul, in other words, because a counterfeit speech would undermine the impression of authenticity the author was trying to convey. Furthermore, what purpose is served by reporting such an ambivalent, if not desultory, response to Paul’s message? Is it not more like that the wholesale invention of this event would have been presented as a triumph? As it is, only a small congregation resulted from preaching.
Bock’s treatment of Acts 17 illustrates how he handles the question of historicity throughout, though he goes into far greater detail of exegesis and argumentation than I have summarized here. That attention to understand the meaning of the Acts in its original contexts—literary, cultural, and historical—makes Bock’s commentary well worth reading, even though one will not necessarily agree with every one of his interpretive judgments.
P.S. If you liked my review, please click "Helpful" on my Amazon review page.
May 8, 2024
Cannot believe I made it through every page but it truly sharpened me!! I would absolutely recommend this commentary though it is a challenging read it articulated the points of Acts well. Nick does an amazing job of outlining his views as well as other popular scholars to provide a broad treatment of the book of Acts.
There was some dating questions throughout the book (Galatians/Corinthians) that I didn’t always agree with, but Bock included various views and was not harsh.
Overall one of the easiest commentaries to read and flowed very nicely.
It is scholarly views of Acts but gives an amazing theological treatment, as well as ample background information.
“God is the hero of Acts, and the plot line is how he reveals his word through Jesus and a faithful church. God will make sure it happens and so will a faithful church.” Pg 760.
There was some dating questions throughout the book (Galatians/Corinthians) that I didn’t always agree with, but Bock included various views and was not harsh.
Overall one of the easiest commentaries to read and flowed very nicely.
It is scholarly views of Acts but gives an amazing theological treatment, as well as ample background information.
“God is the hero of Acts, and the plot line is how he reveals his word through Jesus and a faithful church. God will make sure it happens and so will a faithful church.” Pg 760.
June 13, 2017
"God is the hero of Acts, and the plot line is how he reveals his word through Jesus and a faithful church. God will make sure it happens, and so will a faithful church" (Bock).
That is a great way to end a very helpful commentary. My only disappointment about this commentary was that as a progressive dispensationalist (of which I am as well), his exposition of Acts 2 and 3 was not as clear as I would have hoped for.
11 Commentaries I used cover to cover through an expositional series through the book of Acts. Of course, this ranking doesn't take into account that some that are lower were higher in specific ways, but all of these "made the cut" for me to spend the time each week to read.
1. Peterson, Schnabel, Polhill
2. Bock
3. Bruce
4. Kistemaker
5. Marshall, Stott
6. MacArthur
7. Custer, Kent
That is a great way to end a very helpful commentary. My only disappointment about this commentary was that as a progressive dispensationalist (of which I am as well), his exposition of Acts 2 and 3 was not as clear as I would have hoped for.
11 Commentaries I used cover to cover through an expositional series through the book of Acts. Of course, this ranking doesn't take into account that some that are lower were higher in specific ways, but all of these "made the cut" for me to spend the time each week to read.
1. Peterson, Schnabel, Polhill
2. Bock
3. Bruce
4. Kistemaker
5. Marshall, Stott
6. MacArthur
7. Custer, Kent
July 5, 2019
A good blend of scholarship, background information, exegesis, and exposition, written by an evangelical scholar who actually believes the Bible. Bock is one of my favorite Bible teachers.
September 23, 2022
An outstanding commentary, very thorough, very orthodox.
I'm coming to the end of a six plus year series in Acts, just completing Bock tonight. It will count in my books read in 2022, but it's been a slow steady slog through all these years. I like Bock, but find almost too much information in this work. I could do with a more concise and more certain commentary, as others I will comment on in the coming days will show.
Nonetheless, if anyone is preaching Acts, Bock is essential.
I'm coming to the end of a six plus year series in Acts, just completing Bock tonight. It will count in my books read in 2022, but it's been a slow steady slog through all these years. I like Bock, but find almost too much information in this work. I could do with a more concise and more certain commentary, as others I will comment on in the coming days will show.
Nonetheless, if anyone is preaching Acts, Bock is essential.
July 16, 2022
Great commentary! I would recommend Bock's commentary on Acts to anyone wanting to learn for personal study and/or academia.
April 27, 2024
Helpful at points but overall not very pleasant to read. More debate than real conclusions on issues
July 29, 2018
19 Jun 2018
Although I have used F. F. Bruce's commentary on Acts in the past and thoroughly enjoyed it, I wanted a fresh perspective this time around. Bock looked good. His commentary was published in 2007, nearly 20 years after Bruce's, and it received good reviews on Amazon and Goodreads.
At first, Bock's approach reminded me of another commentary I've used for one of the gospels, and I was concerned that I had landed on another author who seemed detached from his subject matter. Technical brilliance (which I have to hand to the other commentator) isn't enough for me. I want the author's beliefs, his or her faith, to shine through. I look for technical brilliance and heart in my reading.
I am now on Acts 4, and I am glad to find that my fears were unfounded. I am thoroughly engaged in Bock's writing as I read through Acts.
To me, Acts is the ultimate guide to evangelism. Bock's commentary supports that view. I would recommend that every evangelism team or evangelist hold the Bible in one hand and Bock's commentary in the other and walk along with the early evangelists as they set out to set the world on fire in the name of Jesus. The role of prayer, the cost of discipleship, the overwhelming drive and desire given by the Spirit - It's all there.
One of Bock's main points is that God is the protagonist in Acts and Jesus is alive and performing miracles. He emphasizes this over and over.
Bock includes a lot of source words in the received languages and cites references to other authors. I quickly skim those areas and move on to his analysis and explanations. I am not a scholar - just a lay student, and much of that is beyond me. However, those word analyses and citations lead me to believe that this volume would be suitable to one whose Biblical education and scholarship are much greater than mine,
Initial reaction: 5 stars.
27 Jun 2018
I am still enthused about this commentary, even though it's impact for me is uneven. I am now on Acts 8, and some of the commentary between here and Acts 4 seemed to be little more than a summary of the text, impressing me at a 3 to 4 star level. Bock gives much to think about, however, with his treatment of the activities leading to the stoning of Stephen and the subsequent dispersal of at least some Hellenistic Christians from Jerusalem immediately after due to mob violence. He considers the effect of the dispersal, where that which was meant for bad is used by God for good. His treatment of Philip's visit to the Samaritans and of Simon the magician give me much to think about. Bock's work again rises to 5 stars in my estimation.
One of the strong points of Bock's commentary is that he carefully and respectfully gives the thoughts of other commentary writers as he arrives at his own assessments. I really appreciate that and learn much from this approach. Periodically, I supplement that information by referring back to Bruce.
07292018
Overall, a very good commentary. I found with Bock, my best study approach seemed to be to slowly read the daily readings (using Biblegateway.com "The New Testament in a Year" plan), note areas of particular interest, my thoughts, questions, and proposed answers, then go to Bock to see if he and other experts had a different opinion or thoughts that hadn't occurred to me. This was very effective for me, helping me to be transported to the time of Acts and the environment there. I contrast this with other commentaries that seemed to lead me through the subject matter. I ended Acts with the thought that I had gleaned more, with the help of Bock, than I had expected. Interesting to me was the way the many characters seemed to come alive for me. Instead of mining just for Biblical principals, I came away with a feeling that I understood the people and the times better than I ever have in the past. I attribute this to Bock's manner of covering Acts.
Although I have used F. F. Bruce's commentary on Acts in the past and thoroughly enjoyed it, I wanted a fresh perspective this time around. Bock looked good. His commentary was published in 2007, nearly 20 years after Bruce's, and it received good reviews on Amazon and Goodreads.
At first, Bock's approach reminded me of another commentary I've used for one of the gospels, and I was concerned that I had landed on another author who seemed detached from his subject matter. Technical brilliance (which I have to hand to the other commentator) isn't enough for me. I want the author's beliefs, his or her faith, to shine through. I look for technical brilliance and heart in my reading.
I am now on Acts 4, and I am glad to find that my fears were unfounded. I am thoroughly engaged in Bock's writing as I read through Acts.
To me, Acts is the ultimate guide to evangelism. Bock's commentary supports that view. I would recommend that every evangelism team or evangelist hold the Bible in one hand and Bock's commentary in the other and walk along with the early evangelists as they set out to set the world on fire in the name of Jesus. The role of prayer, the cost of discipleship, the overwhelming drive and desire given by the Spirit - It's all there.
One of Bock's main points is that God is the protagonist in Acts and Jesus is alive and performing miracles. He emphasizes this over and over.
Bock includes a lot of source words in the received languages and cites references to other authors. I quickly skim those areas and move on to his analysis and explanations. I am not a scholar - just a lay student, and much of that is beyond me. However, those word analyses and citations lead me to believe that this volume would be suitable to one whose Biblical education and scholarship are much greater than mine,
Initial reaction: 5 stars.
27 Jun 2018
I am still enthused about this commentary, even though it's impact for me is uneven. I am now on Acts 8, and some of the commentary between here and Acts 4 seemed to be little more than a summary of the text, impressing me at a 3 to 4 star level. Bock gives much to think about, however, with his treatment of the activities leading to the stoning of Stephen and the subsequent dispersal of at least some Hellenistic Christians from Jerusalem immediately after due to mob violence. He considers the effect of the dispersal, where that which was meant for bad is used by God for good. His treatment of Philip's visit to the Samaritans and of Simon the magician give me much to think about. Bock's work again rises to 5 stars in my estimation.
One of the strong points of Bock's commentary is that he carefully and respectfully gives the thoughts of other commentary writers as he arrives at his own assessments. I really appreciate that and learn much from this approach. Periodically, I supplement that information by referring back to Bruce.
07292018
Overall, a very good commentary. I found with Bock, my best study approach seemed to be to slowly read the daily readings (using Biblegateway.com "The New Testament in a Year" plan), note areas of particular interest, my thoughts, questions, and proposed answers, then go to Bock to see if he and other experts had a different opinion or thoughts that hadn't occurred to me. This was very effective for me, helping me to be transported to the time of Acts and the environment there. I contrast this with other commentaries that seemed to lead me through the subject matter. I ended Acts with the thought that I had gleaned more, with the help of Bock, than I had expected. Interesting to me was the way the many characters seemed to come alive for me. Instead of mining just for Biblical principals, I came away with a feeling that I understood the people and the times better than I ever have in the past. I attribute this to Bock's manner of covering Acts.
November 27, 2023
I'm just wrapping up a sermon series on the book of Acts, and this commentary was very helpful throughout. It provides a good blend of exegesis, historical background, and application.
I appreciated that the analysis of Greek words never fell into the trap of reading into individual vocabulary choices, verb tenses, etc. more meaning than they could legitimately support. Since this is primarily an exegetical commentary the applications are more of the "this is the basic point Luke was making" variety than the "this is how this principle applies to 21st century Christian living" variety.
One strand of the commentary that I found superfluous was the author's constant attempt to establish Luke's source for each section. In my opinion, this is, at best, educated guesswork and contributes little or nothing to how the text should be understood. Similarly, some of his interactions with other commentaries whose authors regard parts of Acts as historically implausible definitely had academic and apologetic value, but were not terribly relevant to the sermon preparation of someone who accepts biblical inerrancy.
Overall: an excellent, helpful exegetical commentary that leaves contemporary application largely up to the reader (as is to be expected in an exegetical commentary)
I appreciated that the analysis of Greek words never fell into the trap of reading into individual vocabulary choices, verb tenses, etc. more meaning than they could legitimately support. Since this is primarily an exegetical commentary the applications are more of the "this is the basic point Luke was making" variety than the "this is how this principle applies to 21st century Christian living" variety.
One strand of the commentary that I found superfluous was the author's constant attempt to establish Luke's source for each section. In my opinion, this is, at best, educated guesswork and contributes little or nothing to how the text should be understood. Similarly, some of his interactions with other commentaries whose authors regard parts of Acts as historically implausible definitely had academic and apologetic value, but were not terribly relevant to the sermon preparation of someone who accepts biblical inerrancy.
Overall: an excellent, helpful exegetical commentary that leaves contemporary application largely up to the reader (as is to be expected in an exegetical commentary)
August 21, 2008
Bock wrote what is probably the best commentary on Luke, since Luke wrote Acts you would expect this one to be good as well. It is. Bock is a conservative scholar and theologically astute. As an Arminian and non-covenant theologian, I have some disagreements with Bock. But his general orthodoxy and knowledge of the times makes this a definite go-to Commentary for this foundational NT book. The BECNT scores again.
June 3, 2020
Comprehensive. Not the commentary I ended up using the most for preaching or personal understanding.
August 17, 2011
this book sucks.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews