42 Paul Danove Jesus never transfers himself. This is significant because, even in his glo- rious end-time coming (ἔρχομαι, 1,11; cf. Luke 9,26; 12,40; 18,8) as Son of Man, which is also connected to clouds (νεφέλη, Acts 1,9; cf. Luke 21,27), Jesus is attributed only with initiating his own motion. Thus, the third interpretation must be deemed thematically unviable in this context. These considerations indicate that the first interpretation (tra. act.) is thematically and narratively viable, that the second interpretation (mot. pass.) is thematically, narratively, and grammatically viable, and that the third interpretation (tra. pass.) is thematically unviable. Any attempt to rank the two viable interpretations, however, proves fruitless. The second interpretation’s explicit grammatical parallel to the verbs of motion is balanced by the inherent grammatical viability of that always characte- rizes the first interpretation. Again, although the second interpretation’s primary grammatical emphasis on the Source more appropriately intro- duces a majority of the following explicit content, which focuses explicitly on what the apostles and disciples do and teach, the first interpretation’s emphasis on the Goal more appropriately introduces the following con- tent, which 1,1 interprets as the continuation of what Jesus began to do and teach. That is, Acts itself ultimately views the heavenly ministry of Jesus and the earthly ministry of the apostles as inextricably linked. These considerations recommend that Christological studies of this verse recognize and develop the implications of the traditional and second interpretations and leave undeveloped the thematically unsupported possibilities of the third interpretation. 7. Implications and Conclusions The introductory grammatical study specified the conditions under which passive occurrences of verbs that designate transference admit to a three-fold possible grammatical interpretation. Studies of illustrative examples then clarified contextual considerations that recommended two of the three grammatically possible interpretations of verbs in Heb 9,28 and Acts 1,11 and of all three possible grammatical interpretations of the verb in Mark 14,41. The discussion noted that the seventeen occurrences of verbs that admit to a three-fold interpretation with Jesus as the refe- rent of the subject traditionally are interpreted with the passivized form of an active usage of transference and that this traditional interpretation excludes the attribution of agentive properties to Jesus in his passion, death, and ascension. Studies of the illustrative examples, however, esta- blished the viability of the interpretations that attribute to Jesus the weak agentive property of initiation (mot. pass.) in Mark 14,41, Heb 9,28, and