From a literary perspective, the Acts 2 speech is especially significant because it is the first post-ascension speech in the biblical early church history. As such, it aligns well with a major theme of the book: “Acts evinces an unshaken awareness that the exalted Lord is identical with Jesus, the man of Nazareth.” That Jesus of Nazareth is identical with the Lord of heaven is a “high Christology.” This is not always apparent, especially in the climate of Christological higher criticism which tries to show that Jesus was adopted as “Christ” or created by the early church. I will interact with interpretations of Acts 2 with a special focus on OT usage and Christ-titles to explore the Christology of Acts 2:14-36 as it pertains to higher criticism.
Before looking at the text of Acts 2, briefly examining the threat that that “high Christology” faces is in order. That threat has a storied past in Enlightenment thought, but a most pointed attack has come from Rudolf Bultmann. Pressured by existentialist philosophy, Bultmann felt compelled to interpret Christian theology through the experience of the reader rather than the truth of the events. The effects of higher criticism led him to conclude that the gospels and Acts were not faithful representations of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus the so-called “Christ-event” was not the objective reality of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, resurrected from death, or other orthodox statements of Christology. Rather, it is “considered in relation to the individual’s existential situation and as having importance for his own self-understanding.” The truthfulness of the event is less important than the actualizing effect it has on the observer/believer. For Bultmann, this is true of the Christian in the 20th, 21st,—and 1st century AD. The conceptions of Jesus as the Christ or the Son of God were “widespread in the mythologies of Jews and Gentiles and then were transferred to the historical person of Jesus.” Bultmann particularly accuses Paul of this transfer, that Paul created the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history. In the end, Bultmann’s project was radical, nothing less than “to strip the New Testament account of…all objectivity and factuality,” and reinterpret it in terms of naturalistic materialism. Though the entire New Testament is suspect, how this pertains to Christology, in particular, is the crux. Christology is the key to the Christian gospel. If Jesus is anything less than what the gospels present, then the Gospel kerygma is no longer a message of salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, but a mere model of wisdom, piety, and human brotherhood. Bultmann understood this and explicitly spoke to Jesus’ deity as the creation of the apostles and gospel writers, ticking off all of the divine titles (Son of God, Christ, Lord, Savior, etc) as illegitimate on some point.
If Bultmann provided the milieu, Hans Conzelmann provided the exegesis. Specifically speaking of Luke’s unique Christ titles, he says “[Luke] has taken them over from the tradition and interprets them according to his own conceptions.” Throughout his study of Luke, Conzelmann doubts Luke’s good faith statement in Luke 1 that he is writing an orderly account, and instead proposes that Luke is interpreting—and therefore injecting—his own ideas onto Jesus of Nazareth.
Bultmann’s prose and thought are safely couched in a pious style, and reading him feels like he is gentling easing the Christian into an unavoidable but still fulfilling bed of actualized faith independent of pesky reality. Others are not so gentle. Bart Ehrman also is the high-visibility guru for Bultmann’s work with his popular work on Jesus. Ehrman is less concerned with the existential “Christ event” on the believer’s soul and more interested in what he views the power-play of the early church forcing the Christ role and identity on Jesus of Nazareth, particularly by Paul, but also Luke. Regarding Acts, he assumes a later date, and then (from Conzelmann) writes that Luke injected his theology onto the history of Jesus. Ehrman gives a succinct interpretation of Acts 2.
So this is the threat. From Bultmann, that Jesus is the “Christ event,” significant to the believer’s own faith experience only; from Conzelmann and Ehrman that Luke wrestles the Jesus of history for his own theological agenda. In this context, what does Acts 2 seem to say?
Assuming that this speech is a good-faith document, it is the closest speech to the “Jesus event,” and thus the closest evidence we have for the interpretation of Jesus’ life and person. Ehrman seeks to create a wide chasm between the events of the gospels and their documentation and interpretation in Acts. The reality is there is not a stark divide between the “apostolic age” and “early church,” but a fluid period in which the motley band of Jesus’ disciples became the church through gospel proclamation. Paul Barnett persuasively demonstrates that the time gap was not 50-plus years between Jesus and Christology, but 25 years at max, and in some cases, maybe days (assuming Acts is a faithful testament of Peter’s speeches). If Barnett is right and Luke writes in good faith, then Acts 2 is the closest speech we have to Jesus’ life, and the earliest look at Christology we may have in the New Testament. Thus in Acts 2:14-36, Peter gives us the closest image of how the Apostles understood Jesus of Nazareth, his role, and identity as they pertain to both that particular audience and to the larger redemptive history. So what does Peter believe about Christ from the speech in Acts 2? I will provide a close reading and exegesis of Acts 2:14-36 and examine the salient features as they pertain to Christology.
In vs 14, Peter starts the speech with a unique word, ἀποφθέγγομαι. Why does Luke use this work as opposed to normal λεγω? It is the same word in 2:4 when the Spirit “gives utterance” to the Apostles. Thus, like an OT prophet, Peter is God’s spokesman, so that what Peter says are equated with God’s words. This word is always associated with divine utterances, and in chapter 2, seems to allude to OT prophetic words or oracles. This aligns well with Peter’s use of the OT as the single major evidence for his Christological claims throughout the speech. In his largely Jewish audience, this rhetorical method would have been the most persuasive. This aligns a fortiori with Peter’s injunction to “listen carefully,” (lit., “give ear”) which is a clear OT idiom for attending to what follows as oracles from God. Thus Luke signals that Peter is following the model of OT prophets as the mouthpiece of God, and now with the latest Pentecost revelation, acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit (cf. 2:4). Peters sees himself as Yahweh’s prophet, proclaiming more than his existential peace in the “Christ event,” but working in a specific Jewish prophetic tradition following a significant development in redemptive history.
Peter quotes Joel 2. Marshall explains that Peter cites this to say that the events anticipated by Joel have been fulfilled now. For the most part, Peter quotes almost word-for-word from the LXX. The main theme of Joel 2 is that God will pour out His Spirit upon all people with miraculous effects. Peter’s interprets the Pentecost events through an OT lens. In effect, Peter says, “Joel said these things would happen; these things happened, and Jesus is the cause.” “The Spirit’s coming thus confirmed to Jesus’ followers that as Lord, Jesus did give the Spirit…that all that he had said about himself during his early career was true.”
In vs 17, Peter quotes Joel, saying λέγει ὁ θεός, ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα. Then throughout the rest of the speech, Jesus is the passive recipient of all the verbal actions. In other words, Jesus and pronouns referring to him are all in the accusative. He is delivered over and fastened to the cross (23), raised for death (24, 32), exalted to the right hand (33), etc. Then in vs 33, he pours out the Holy Spirit. The verb in 17 is the same verb as 33 (ἐκχέω). On a literary level, Luke is intentional: the one action that Jesus does is the pinnacle action of Joel 2. This literary note has theological weight: more than mere prophecy fulfillment, Luke shows that Jesus is co-equal and active with God in the OT.
A crucial point of the speech is vs 22 when Peter says just this, but then relates them to Jesus of Nazareth. Significantly, Peter, seeming to almost anticipate Bultmann’s accusations, is explicit when he starts with the Jesus of history, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. But then Peter explicitly links this Jesus twice with God, saying that Jesus is the instrument which God uses to accomplish the Joel expectations. He makes this explicit when he uses τέρασι καὶ σημείοις, the same words used by Joel in 2:19. Jesus the man is the causal link God used to accomplish his OT plans. Peter also points to the audience’s own experience of Jesus when he says, “in your midst just as you yourselves know” (my translation). There is no 50-year gap between this Christological interpretation of Jesus. Rather, this Jerusalem audience may well have been witnesses to Jesus’ teaching, miracles, and Passion week.
In 23-24, Peter is unequivocally clear that Jesus was killed, but that God raised him from the dead. This is not a “Christ-event” removed from history, but for Peter, a reality in space-time that the Jewish audience must encounter. In existentialist terms, it is a reality that the individual must even allow to intrude his own reality, and then conform to. Far from the truth being the receiver’s interpretation, the events—Jesus’ death and resurrection—are significant in themselves. The Greek places emphasis on the total sovereignty of God in Jesus’ humiliation by placing the phrase τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ well before the verb and subject. The climax of the phrase is God’s miraculous action in raising Christ (ὃν ὁ θεὸς ἀνέστησεν).
Up to now, Peter has been laying the groundwork for Christology, first explaining the awkward Pentecost events as proof of Jesus’ legitimacy and second by showing Jesus of Nazareth as crucified and resurrected. Now he shifts again toward interpretation, again quoting the OT, this time Ps 16. He hopes to show that David anticipated what was happening in some mysterious fashion. By quoting Ps 16, he links Jesus with the Davidic covenant, which had clear messianic hope. The LXX reading of the Psalm has a clear eschatological slant, and it is unavoidable that Peter intends to say that the same Jesus of Nazareth is the Holy One that David anticipates.
Peter does make a minor grammatical adjustment in vs 31 which is significant. In Ps 16(LXX)/2:27, the pronouns are 1st and 2nd person (τὴν ψυχήν μου and τὸν ὅσιόν σου), but then in vs 31, Peters transitions to all 3rd person (ἐγκατελείφθη εἰς ᾅδην οὔτε ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ εἶδεν διαφθοράν), so that the referents are only Jesus. Second, he changes τὸν ὅσιόν to ἡ σὰρξ, placing emphasis not on Jesus as the Holy One, but Jesus of Nazareth, as to say, “The human being who was killed only 50 days ago, his flesh is restored, and he is David’s Lord” of Ps 110. Marshall notes that this was common for NT writers to adjust OT texts to their purposes. Marshall is bold: “Peter’s point is thus that David was consciously prophesying the resurrection of the Messiah, and not that there was a deeper sense in David’s words than he himself was conscious of.” Perhaps this is too bold, but there can be no doubt that Peter is re-reading David’s hope through Jesus, and seeing Jesus as David’s hope’s completion.
Whatever the result, Peter is persuaded by Ps 16 of Jesus’ messianic status. In vs 29-31, he is explicit as he interprets the Psalm: David is dead, buried, and decomposed, yet he anticipates a descendant who will not suffer any of these, repeating Ps 16 for emphasis. Peter does not use Psalm 16 to prove the resurrection, but to prove Jesus’ Messianic status. Rather, his own eyewitness testimony is the proof of the resurrection. A resurrected descendant of David must, in Peter’s mind, be the Messiah. And that is his conclusion in vs 36, which is certainly the rhetorical and theological climax of the speech. This knowledge is not pious aspiration, not like Bultmann’s subjective experience, but knowledge modified by ἀσφαλῶς, or certainty. Per usual, Greek imperatives are hard to communicate in English, but Peter drives his point home with γινωσκέτω, to say, “All of Israel, KNOW for certain that Jesus (this same one of Nazareth you know) is the Messiah and Lord David anticipated.” Acts 2:36 is the lynch pin for the speech’s Christology, and in it, Peter asserts that God “has made” Jesus “Lord”/κύριος and “Christ”/χριστος. These are major titles and the subject of great study. We will examine each briefly.
Of “Lord,” Cullman traces that this word did have more semantic range than Messiah in the larger Greco-Roman world. The Roman emperor was called κύριος, with connotations of absolute power and even deity. In Judaism, through the evolution of יהוה to אֲדֹנָי in the Hebrew oral tradition, to κύριος in the LXX translation, κύριος became the “liturgical designation for God,” and a divine title. The varied use of κύριος in the gospels is beyond our scope, but sufficient that Cullmann proves that Jesus identifies himself as κύριος in a divine sense. Of Acts 2:36, Cullmann says the joint usage of “Christ and Lord,” “shows clearly that reverence for Jesus as the κύριος after his resurrection was connected with reverence for him as the Messiah.” Thus Paul could not have invented a lordship of Jesus, but that the designation goes back to the apostolic testimony of the words of Jesus himself, and that this word, in the Jewish context, links directly to divinity.
The same may be said of Christ. To the Jewish mind, the Christ/Messiah was linked to the anointed king of Israel, and therefore to the Davidic covenant. Gradually, this figure became an eschatological figure as the Jewish people remained under political oppression from 586 BC on, growing into fervor under Greece and Rome. It is only with Jesus’ death and resurrection that the apostles learn that Jesus’ Christ-ship is not only political, but spiritual, not only eschatological but imminent. Thus the early church inherited elements of Jewish Messianic hope, but redirected them toward the events of Jesus’ life and work on a cosmic, ecclesial, and salvific plane.
Of 2:36, Conzelmann concludes that Jesus’ status in Luke’s eyes of “Lord and Christ” is a status bestowed on Jesus by God and that Jesus (of Nazareth) is the function of God’s salvation event in history. Conzelmann writes, “The longer the [Church in the world] period lasts, the more clearly do the two elements in the description stand out: the ministry of the historical Jesus and the present ministry of the Ascended Lord,” so that Luke “makes no distinction between the historical figure and the Exalted Lord.” And through source criticism and an anti-supernatural hermeneutic, Conzelmann maintains this is untenable to the reality of Jesus of Nazareth. He concludes that there is no systematic, ontological relationship between Father and Son in Luke, and “from the point of view of the community” Jesus is identical with the Father, and therefore “Lord.” His larger conclusion: the life of Jesus of Nazareth is must be separated from the work of God’s Christ in history while maintaining the salvific elements in the Christian’s subjective faith life.
But contra Conzelmann, the reality is that vs 36 is the climax for Peter’s Christology in Acts 2, not Luke’s. Marshall writes of 2:36 that “it is very questionable whether Luke, writing at least thirty years after Pentecost, would have written what can be construed as adoptionism.”  It is well-documented that the titles κυριος and χριστος were full of Old Testament meaning and Jewish expectation, and for Peter to say them meant that Peter understood that these were applied to Jesus in their fullest OT sense, and even enlarged by Jesus’ resurrection. These OT expectations, compounded by Luke’s Gospel’s presentation of Jesus “suggest that in 2:36, Peter is using the fact that God raised Jesus to life…to confirm to his audience that Jesus really was the Christ.” Thus, by the proximity of writing to the events themselves, Luke’s awareness and respect for the authority of Apostolic interpretation alone, and Peter’s use of the OT, it is safest to assume that Peter in Acts 2 understands Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ and Lord of the universe. And by “Christ” and “Lord,” we must conclude that he means savior and ruler not just individual salvation, but the single greatest redeeming figure in human history as understood in traditional orthodoxy.
Peter’s main point is unavoidable when he drives his speech home: Jesus of Nazareth is, in unequivocal terms, the Messiah David expected, the fulfillment of Jewish expectations, and resurrected and exalted Lord of all, coequal with God. This is not a reality that each individual must own for their unique “redemptive event” or some kind of noumenal salvation history, but reality that each individual person must respond to either by faith or rejection.
Acts 2 corresponds well with the larger Luke-Acts project, which is to present the eyewitness testimonies of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, with their authoritative interpretation. “The various missionary speeches in Acts follow this broad structure, which involved constructing a picture of the Christ from the Scriptures and then arguing that this picture fitted Jesus—and Jesus only.” This is significant because it shows that Luke understood that theological interpretation was inevitable (and as Conzelmann notes well, it’s all over the text), but that Luke left that interpretation to the Apostles, who were the ones authorized to do it.
 C.F.D. Moule, “The Christology of Acts” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1966), 165. Moule’s essay is particularly
 H.D. McDonald, “The Kerygmatic Christology of Rudolf Bultmann” in Christ the Lord: Studies Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed H.H. Rowdon (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1982) 313.
 McDonald, 314.
 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958), 17. It is fascinating to note is that in Jesus Christ and Mythology, a seminal start to Bultmann’s project, he does not reference the Book of Acts once.
 Bultmann, 32.
 McDonald, 321.
 Hans, Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, Trans. Geoffrey Buswell (London: Faber and Faber, 1961), 170-1.
 Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, (New York, Harper Collins: 2014),215-216. Marshall responds obliquely to this when he says that this speech is likely not verbatim Peter’s words, but a faithful summary (I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2008), 77.
 Ibid, 227. Ehrman says that already in the pre-literary tradition, “The man Jesus had been made the Lord Christ.”
 Leander Keck outlines the history of the higher criticism’s transition from Judaic eschatology to the Pauline redemption cult in Why Christ Matters, Toward a New Testament Christology (Waco, Baylor University Press: 2015), 19-33.
 Justifying Acts as a “good faith” document is beyond the scope of this paper. For this paper, I assume the reliability of the given text as textually and literarily coherent, an assumption that I fully admit critics may not grant.
 I use this tongue-in-cheek, that is, the real life occurrences of Jesus of Nazareth,
 Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: the First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 65-68. Barnett’s conclusion for Acts is that the book’s events in 1-9 (From Jesus to Paul’s conversion) “credibly explain future developments [ie,. Galatian’s Christology], in particular the early development of christological thought” (78).
 Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 1.447. This OT emphasis in Acts 2 is a relatively unique literary feature to this speech, demonstrating that Luke does capture the nuance of each speech, contra Ehrman’s accusation that the speeches are literarily homogenous.
 I. Howard Marshall, “Christology of Luke’s gospel and Acts” in Contours of Christology, ed. Richard N. Longnecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 77.
 Buckwalter notes the 4 major Greek deviations and their intentional theological meaning (H. Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and purpose of Luke’s Christology (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1996), 196.). The gist is that Peter emphasizes the eschatological realization of Pentecost and to build to his rhetorical climax in vs 36.
 Marshall, “Christology of Luke’s gospel and Acts,” 78. Marshall, Acts, 193-205.)
 Buckwalter, 194.
 Moule notes that Nazareth’s “frequent use for Jesus in post-resurrection settings seems to reflect an awareness of his continuity with the Jesus of history” (166).
 This is clearer in the phrase οἷς ἐποίησεν διʼ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς, which is an instrumental use of δια (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 369.).
 This may be the most challenging element to Bultmann’s “Christ-event” theory.
 In the large sentence that is vs 23-24, ὃν ὁ θεὸς ἀνέστησεν is the grammatical core, where ὁ θεὸς is the subject, ὃν a pronoun referring to Jesus, and ἀνέστησεν the main verb.
 It is well-documented that Davidic hopes were expressed in messianic expectations in 1st century BC Judaism. See below. The use of εις αυτον is not “concerning” but “alluding to/anticipating” in a referential sense (Wallace, 369; John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, Victor Lechler Gotthard, Charles Gerok, and Charles F. Schaeffer, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Acts (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 47.).
John B. Polhill, Acts, Vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 113.
 A different paper could explore the relation in the Hebrew’s נְאֻם יהוה לַאדֹנִי and Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου from Ps 110:1. Cullmann notes that this usage may mean that the Messiah may also be the Lord (130, 203). See below.
 Marshall, Acts, 78. This is not Peter injecting Christological meaning onto Jesus, but interpreting Jesus himself as his own life and words demand.
 Marshall, Acts, 83.
 Pohill, 114.
 By word order, the emphasis is on the certainty (Lange, 48).
 Moule does a nice cross-book study of the use of κυριος in Acts, and concludes the usage and theology are the same across the book (171-2).
 See Marshall, “The Christology of Luke’s Gospel and Acts” 135-145; Barnett, 69-70; Marinus De Jonge, Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press: 1988), 104-7.
 Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A.M. Hall (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press: 1963), 198. Thus, Ehrman claims that Paul conflates a cultural emperor cult with worship of the “Lord Jesus.”
 Ibid, 201.
 Ibid, 216.
 Ibid, 136; Barnett, 69.
 In his commentary, Conzelmann, says that 2:36 “has an adoptionist ring, as if Jesus were made κυριος “Lord,” and χριστος, “Christ” only through his resurrection” and that this adoptionism may have come from Luke, and not his sources (Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 21.).
 Conzelmann, Theology of St Luke, 176.
 Hans Conzelmann, Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 96-98.
 Marshall, “Christology of Luke’s gospel and Acts,” 140.
 Marshall, “Christology of Luke’s gospel and Acts,” 141. Grammatically, the sentence if front-loaded. The accusatives (Lord and Christ) precede both the verb and subject, so a wooden gloss is that Lord and Christ, God made him.
 This is Peter’s conclusion in vs 37 when he calls his audience to repentance and is hinted in vs 27.
 Marshall, “Christology of Luke’s gospel and Acts,” 130.
 Ibid. Barnett agrees: “In short, what brought about the “birth” of Christianity was Christology, the apostles’ “teaching” that Jesus was “the Christ,” “the Son of God,” and “the Lord”…[u]ltimately the NT itself arose from this earliest Christology” (70).
Barnett, Paul. The Birth of Christianity: the First Twenty Years. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Buckwalter, H. Douglas. The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1996.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958.
Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Conzelmann, Hans. Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.
Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Trans. Geoffrey Buswell. London: Faber and Faber, 1961.
Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A.M. Hall. Philadelphia, The Westminster Press: 1963.
De Jonge, Marinus. Christology in Context: The Earlier Christian Responses to Jesus. Philadelphia, The Westminster Press: 1988.
Ehrman, Bart. How Jesus Became God. New York, Harper Collins: 2014.
Keck, Leander E. Why Christ Matters: Toward a New Testament Christology. Waco, Baylor University Press: 2015.
Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–. 1.447.
Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, Victor Lechler Gotthard, Charles Gerok, and Charles F. Schaeffer. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Acts. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
Marshall, I. Howard. “Christology of Luke’s gospel and Acts” in Contours of Christology. ed. Richard N. Longnecker, 122-147. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Marshall, I. Howard. Acts: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2008).
McDonald, H.D. “The Kerygmatic Christology of Rudolf Bultmann” in Christ the Lord: Studies Presented to Donald Guthrie. ed H.H. Rowdon, 311-325, (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1982.
Moule, C.F.D. “The Christology of Acts” in Studies in Luke-Acts. ed. Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, 159-185. Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1966.
Polhill, John B. Acts. Vol. 26. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.