The possible difi'erence must, however, in any case not be exaggerated. The whole of early Christian literature outside Johannine influence is full of appai'ent inconsistencies, because XpiarSs sometimes means ' the person who is by nature and predestination the appointed Messiah,' some- times more narrowly ' the actual Messiah reigning in the Kingdom of God.' In the former sense it was possible to say eXvai rbv Xpia-Tbv'lrja-ovv f (Ac 18^), or that i5ei wadeiv rbv Xpiurdv (17^). In the latter sense it was possible to speak of Jesus as top wpo- Kexeipi.ff/j.ii'ov vfjitv Xpiffrbv (3'-"), where, in the light of the whole passage, the Tbv irpoKex^'-P'-'^l^ivov iifitv mo.st probably has reference to the Resurrection, though other interpretations are possible ; or to say KvpLov avrbv Kai Xpiffrbv iirolTjcrev 6 debs tovtov rbv 'l7);jovv (2"'), which with less doubt may be referred to the Resurrection. The point seems to be that, on the (jue hand, Luke wishes to say that Jesus is the Christ, and that, on the other, he does not
* The text is doubtful : the editors usually give £ru el 6 vJds ixot 6 ayaTTTfTo?, ev (roi ijv£6io)<ra with N B L 33 fani 1, fani 13, and the mass of MSS (i.e. the // and A' texts, and at least two im- portant hranches of / [J and H']), but Harnack prefers to read the quotation from Ps 2 with D a b c ff al. Aug. CIema'«i- (thus possibly the text of /» and certainly of a text coeval with I-E-K [if such a text existed]) ; probably he Is right.
t This must mean that the Messiah (of whom all men know) is Jesus (of whom they had previously not heard) ; and em- phasizes the fact that, whereas Christology means to most people of this generation an attempt to give an adequate doctrinal statement of Jesus, it meant for the earliest genera- tion an attempt to show that Jesus adequately fulfilled an already existing doctrinal definition of the Messiah.
wish to say that the life of Jesus was the Messianic Parousia or ' Coming,' and does wish to say that by the Resurrection Jesus became the heavenly, glorious Being who would come shortly to judge the world.
It should be noted, as an especially archaic characteristic, that in Acts 'It/o-oDs XpLcrbs is not used as a name except in the phrase rb ovofia 'ItjitoO Xpiarov (2^8 3« 4\» S^^ 10« 15-6 le'^*) ; elsewhere X/)<(rr6s is always predicative. In this respect Acts seems to be more archaic than the Pauline Epistles.
The death of the Christ has in Acts but little theological importance. In one place only (20-'* T7}v iKK\T]<Tiav Tov Kvplov [but deov X B vg, a few other authorities, and the TR] iiv wepieTroL-rjaaTo did rod aifxaros tov Idiov) is there anything which approaches the Pauline doctrine, and it is noticeable that this passage is from the speech of Paul to the Ephesian elders. In the speeches of Peter and Stephen, the death of the Christ is regarded as a wicked act of the Jews rather than as a necessary part of a plan of salvation. The most important passage is 3'^^- : Kal vvv, d5e\(pol, olda on Kara dyvoiav ewpd^are, (bairep Kal ol dpxovres vp-uiv. 6 be debs & irpoKaT-qyyeCKev did ffrb/j.aTos irdvrwv twv Trpo(p7]T<I>v TraOeiv tov Xpiarbv avrov iir\-qpwaev ovTuis. iieTavo-qaaTe odv, Kal ewLa-Tpexpare, wpbs rb e^aXeKpdijvai v/xQv rds d/xaprias, Sttws dv ^Xdwai Kaipol dvaypv^ews dwb irpo(T(hirov rod Kvpiov Kal dirocrre'iXy] rbv ir poKexei-pi-(y t^-^vov v/jliv Xpiarbv 'Irjffovv, 5p del ovpavbv fj.kv de^affOai &XP'- Xpo^'^" diroKaracrdcTews irdvTUiv, Kr\. Here there is a verbal connexion between the suffer- ing of the Christ and the blotting out of sins, but no suggestion of any causal connexion. The writer says that the Jews put the Messiah to death, as had been foretold, but they did it in ignorance ; and, if they repent, this and other sins will be blotted out, and Jesus will come as the predestined Messiah. The cause of the blotting out of sins is here, as in the OT prophets, repentance and change of conduct {iin(jrp€\l/are) ; nothing is said to suggest that this would not have been effective without the suffering of the Messiah.
2. Eschatology. — There is comparatively little in Acts which throws light on the eschatological expectation of the writer. As compared with Mark or St. Paul, he seems to be less eschato- logical, but traces of the primitive expectation are not wanting. In P^ the Parousia of the Messiah is still expected : ' This Jesus who has been taken up into Heaven shall so come as ye have seen him go into Heaven ' ; and, though it is not here stated that the witnesses of the Ascension shall also live to see the Parousia, this seems to be implied. The same sort of comment can be made on S-"'* and 17^^ ; but otherwise there is little in Acts to bear on the eschatological expectation. This was, indeed, to be expected in a book written by Luke, who in his Gospel gi-eatly lessened the eschatological elements found in Mark and Q.
3. The OT and Jewish Law. — For the Avriter of Acts the OT was the written source of all revela- tion. The sufficient proof of any argument or exjilanation of any historical event was to be found in the fact tliat it had been prophesied. Like all Greek-writing Christians, he uses the LXX and does not stop to ask whether it is textually accurate.