The Apostles Whom He Chose because of the Holy Spirit
A Suggestion Regarding Acts 1,2

There is practically universal agreement that in, Acts 1,2, dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou means ‘through the Holy Spirit’, ‘by means of the Holy Spirit’; this phrase could, with a thought appropriate to the Holy Spirit, be better expressed thus: ‘under the influence of the Holy Spirit’. Such is understood to be the force of dia/ with the genitive.

As regards the syntax of Acts 1,2, scholars have two suggested readings regarding dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou. Some would see dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou as modifying the participle e)nteila/menoj, and thus would read the phrase: ‘having given orders through (i.e., under the influence of) the Holy Spirit’¹. Others would understand dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou to belong with e)cele/cato and so would read the phrase: ‘whom he chose through (under the influence of) the Holy Spirit’². Each of these readings is possible — certainly each is grammatically possible, using the usual sense of dia/ with the genitive.

The problem here is primarily one of sense, but also one of grammar. That is, if one agrees grammatically that dia/ with the genitive can only mean ‘through’,‘under the influence of’, then one is well on the exegetical path that makes one interpret the dia_ phrase with either e)nteila/menoj or with e)cele/cato in quite hypothetical ways.

For instance, one can, in regard to the first of the opinions above, assert that Jesus gave orders while under the influence of the Spirit, but one would be hard put to find any sure indication from the Gospel (especially Luke 24) that Jesus gave any orders at any time ‘under the influence of the Holy Spirit’. Yes, there is always the early description of Jesus to reflect upon: ‘And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Holy Spirit’ (Luke 4,14); and one must always make allowance for the constancy of the Spirit in his adult life: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ... He has anointed me’ (Luke 4,18). But that these texts are the justification for saying that Jesus gave orders (we are dealing with the latter verses of Luke 24) while under the influence of the Holy Spirit is an argument that rates the qualification ‘possible’, but not much

more³. Undoubtedly, it is always possible that Luke, in a second volume, means to include a detail now which he did not include when he provided the same basic narration at an earlier time. But, after some reflection, one is left with a certain dissatisfaction if one reads Acts 1,2: ‘having given orders under the influence of the Holy Spirit’. One simply does not understand that, in the resurrection chapter, Jesus was under the influence of the Spirit when he ordered⁴ his apostles to ‘stay in the city till you are clothed in power from on high’ (Luke 24,49).

Again, in the second of the above suggestions, the matter is immediately one of grammar and of sense. No doubt, the phrase dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou can, despite its position⁵, modify e)cele/cato. But the problem brought against the first opinion can be brought now against this second opinion. In the story of Jesus’ choosing the Twelve (Luke 6,12-16), there is no reference to the influence of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus. True, he is described at prayer all night⁶. This detail, coupled with the remarks noted above at Luke 4,14 and 4,18, might justify a later statement, that ‘under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Jesus chose the apostles’. But again the conclusion drawn is ‘possible’, but little more.

Finally, one more rightly, on the basis of sentence structure, should choose in favor of the second of the two opinions cited above. The reason for this preference is the flow of the sentence⁷. If, as the first opinion suggests, one links in thought e)nteila/menoj, a)posto/loij and dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou, while all the time keeping the Lucan word-order, one ends up with a very precariously dangling clause ou$j e)cele/cato which appears to be a last-minute addition. Whereas, if one links in thought a)posto/loij, dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou and ou$j e)cele/cato, one has a comfortable thought unit, which gives emphasis to either the third or second of its elements. Luke often shifts forward words he wishes to stress⁸. It seems more reasonable, from the structural point of view, to read dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou with ou$j e)cele/cato. But given the difficulties noted above regarding this way of reading Acts 1,2, the structural argument helps one only in a small measure.

A Suggestion

Given the difficulty in choosing either of the traditional understandings indicated above⁹, I would propose a third option. It has to do with both grammar and sense. First, grammar. The Grammar of Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich observes, ‘At times dia/ w. gen. seems to have causal mng.’¹⁰. Examples are given: from Romans (8,3) and 2 Corinthians (9,13)¹¹. So we do find this usage of dia/ with the genitive in the New Testament; it is an admittedly rare usage, and not found in Luke-Acts. Yet, rare as it is, it does exist, and so can be, grammatically speaking, a possible reading here.

The sense of this usage of the preposition presents a two-fold question. First, what does dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou modify? I would apply it to the ou$j e)cele/cato clause, which indicates that Jesus chose his apostles ‘because of the Holy Spirit’.

Second, what would be the meaning of this reading? Luke had concluded his resurrection chapter with a look to the future, to the gift of the Holy Spirit ‘from my Father’, to be received soon in Jerusalem. It is a gift to be sent upon ‘you’. ‘You are witnesses of these things’. ‘As for you, you stay...’ The reader looks forward to the apostles’ reception of this promise.

Once Luke begins his second volume, logically he refers first to his first volume, then in particular to the deeds and teachings of Jesus recounted therein, and finally to the last-mentioned item of that volume: the day of Jesus’ being taken up. But as he prepares his reader for this second volume, he also notes, in the present understanding of the text, that the apostles were chosen because of the Holy Spirit. That is, they were chosen ‘then’ to be given ‘soon now’ the Holy Spirit. Of this choice, and its purpose, Luke explicitly reminds his reader¹². And in a manner typical of Luke, he three times, at the beginning of Acts, brings to the reader’s attention, in a short space of time, this coming of the Spirit upon the apostles: vv. 2, 5 and 8.

Thus, instead of asking the reader to think that Jesus had been under the influence of the Spirit when he chose his disciples at Luke 6,12-16, or even to think that his giving orders at Luke 24,49 was under the inspiration of the Spirit, Luke, I suggest, is asking his reader to recall, at Acts 1,2, one of the central elements of the Gospel story: he chose his apostles because one day they should wait for the coming of the Spirit.

It seems reasonable, then, to think that Luke began his second volume with the reminder that Jesus had given orders to his apostles because of the imminent coming of the Holy Spirit.

Given the difficulties of the traditional interpretations of dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou (Acts 1,2), and the fitting sense given the text if the preposition be understood to mean ‘because of’ — a sense allowed to dia_ with the genitive, inside and outside the New Testament — it seems reasonable to translate Acts 1,2: ‘until the day when, having given orders to his apostles whom he had chosen because of the Holy Spirit, he was taken up’.

SUMMARY

In Acts 1,2 Luke has placed ‘through the Holy Spirit’ between two verb forms, the participle ‘having given orders’ and the verb ‘he had chosen’; suggestions have been offered over the years as to which of these two verb forms ‘through the Holy Spirit’ is supposed to modify. In this note, there is offered a fresh suggestion to resolve this syntactical problem; moreover, with this suggestion Luke’s intention is better clarified.

NOTES

¹ Cf. F.F. BRUCE, The Acts of the Apostles. The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, ³1990) 99; J.D.G. DUNN, The Acts of the Apostles (Epworth Commentaries; London 1996) 6; P. BOSSUYT – J. RADERMAKERS, Tйmoins de la Parole de la Grвce. Lecture des Actes des Apфtres (Institut d’Йtudes Thйologiques 16; Brussels 1995) II, 98; C.K. BARRETT, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; Edinburgh 1994) I, 69; H. CONZELMANN, Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT 7; Tьbingen 1963) 24.

² J. ROLOFF, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Gцttingen ¹⁷1981) 19; R. PESCH, Die Apostelgeschichte (EKKNT 5; Zurich 1986) 61, n.11; E. HAENCHEN, Die Apostelgeschichte (MeyerK 3; Gцttingen ¹⁴1965) 145-146; J. DUPONT, Les Actes des Apфtres (SBJ; Paris ³1964) 239; I.H. MARSHALL, The Acts of the Apostles (TynNTC; Grand Rapids 1980) 57; G. SCHNEIDER, Die Apostelgeschichte (HTKNT; Freiburg im B. 1980) I, 193 n. 33; A. WIKENHAUSER, Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT 5; Regensburg ⁴1961) 24; A. WEISER, Die Apostelgeschichte (Gьtersloh 1985) 49.

³ J. FITZMYER, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York 1998) 196, notes, when commenting on his understanding of dia/ with e)nteila/menoj, ‘Christ uses God’s Spirit in the instruction of his apostles after his death and resurrection. Cf. Matt 28,19-20’. This comment is true, if the traditional interpretation is accepted, something which this essay contests.

⁴ Here is the only real order Luke could possibly refer to from the Gospel.

⁵ BRUCE, Acts, 99, points to ‘the unnatural separation of ou$j e)cele/cato from toi=j a)posto/loij’. Certainly, ‘unnatural’ cannot be understood to mean non-Lucan.

⁶ WEISER, Apostelgeschichte, 49, suggests that dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou can modify e)cele/cato because Jesus would have chosen his apostles under the influence of the Spirit, which influence resulted from his lengthy prayer.

⁷ Cf. FITZMYER, Acts, 196: ‘That [dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou modifies e)cele/cato], however, unduly forces the flow of the Greek text, and there is no mention of the Spirit in the choice of the apostles in Luke 6:12-13’.

⁸ Cf. Acts 1,10; 3,19; 4,33; 5,13; 7,35; 9,14; 12,25; 16,14; 19,4.10. Note F. BLASS – A. DEBRUNNER, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Revision of the Ninth-Tenth German Edition Incorporating Supplementary Notes of A. Debrunner by Robert W. Funk (Chicago 1961) 248 (no. 472,2): ‘Any emphasis on an element in the sentence causes that element to be moved forward’.

⁹ WIKENHAUSER, Apostelgeschichte, 25, is one of a few exegetes who would claim, because of the difficulties the traditional understandings occasion, that dia_ pneu/matoj a(gi/ou is an insertion into the already established Acts text. Quite opposed to this opinion, with his reasons, is J. ZMIJEWSKI, Apostelgeschichte (RNT; Regensburg 1994) 47.

¹⁰ W. BAUER, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Adaptation of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wцrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ьbrigen urchristlichen Literatur by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago 1952) 179.

¹¹ Cf. BAUER, A Greek-English Lexicon, 179-180.

¹² It is difficult to say that the Gospel’s e)kleca/menoj ... ou$j kai_ a)posto/louj w)no/masen (Luke 6,13) is not meant to be recalled by toi=j a)posto/loij ... ou_j e)cele/cato (Acts 1,2). It seems fair to say that Luke’s manner of expressing himself – ‘having chosen from them twelve, whom he also called apostles...’ – suggests a desire to emphasize the apostolicity of the Twelve, not only as it is found in Luke 9,1-6, but as it will be taken up in a much more profound way in Acts. It is in this latter volume that one will learn how the apostles were chosen to be filled with the Holy Spirit; they were chosen because of the Spirit.