Introduction to Acts (Wednesday Evening Bible Study)

Introduction to Acts

• Outside of the gospels, Acts can be considered the most important book in the NT. It is the simple truth that, if we did not posses Acts, we would have no information about the early Church outside of what we can deduce from the letters of Paul
• There are two ways of writing history
  • There is the way which attempts to trace the course of events from week to week and day to day; and there is the way which opens a series of windows and gives us vivid glimpses of the great moments and personalities of any period. Acts seems to fit into the second category
• Many call this The Acts of the Apostles. But the book neither gives nor claims to give an exhaustive account of the acts of the apostles. Apart from Paul, only three apostles are mentioned in t. In Acts 12:2, we are told in one brief sentence that James, the brother of John, was executed by Herod. John appears in the narrative, but never speaks. It is only about Peter that the book gives any real information—and very soon, as a leading player, he passes from the scene
  • In the Greek, there is no “The” before Acts; the correct title is Acts of Apostolic Men; and what Acts aims to do is to give us a series of typical exploits of the heroic figures of the early Church
• The Author
  • Although the book never says, from the earliest times Luke has been held to be its writer. About Luke we really know very little; there are only three references to him in the NT—Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24, II Timothy 4:11
  • From these, we can say two things with certainty. First, Luke was a doctor; second, he was one of Paul’s most valued helpers and loyal friends, for he was a companion of Paul in his last imprisonment
  • We can deduce the fact that he was a Gentile from Colossians. In 4:11, a list of mentions and greetings is concluded from men of Jewish background, and in verse 12, a new list begins. We naturally conclude this new list is of Gentiles. So we have the very interesting fact that Luke is the only Gentile author in the NT
• The Recipient
  • Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts to a man named Theophilus. We can only speculate who Theophilus was. Luke 1:3 calls him “most honorable Theophilus”. The phrase literally means “Your Excellency” and indicates a man high up in the service of the Roman government. There are three possibilities
    • Theophilus may not be a real name at all
      • In this time, it might have been dangerous to be a Christian. Theophilus comes from two Greek words—theos, which means God, and philein, which means to love. It may be that Luke wrote to someone who loved God, whose real name he did not mention for safety’s sake
    • If Theophilus was a real person, he must have been a high government official
      • Perhaps Luke wrote to show him that Christianity was a lovely thing and that Christians were good people. Maybe his writing was an attempt to persuade a government official not to persecute Christians
    • Based on the fact that Luke was a doctor, there is another theory
      • Doctors in these days were often slaves. It has been suggested that Luke was the doctor of Theophilus, and that Theophilus had been healed by Luke’s skill. Then Theophilus, as a thank you, gave Luke his freedom. Then, it may be, that Luke wanted to show how grateful he was for this gift; and since the most precious thing he had was the story of Jesus, he wrote it down and sent it
• The Aim in Writing Acts
  • One of his reasons was to comment Christianity to the Roman government
    • Over and over, he goes out of his way to show how courteous Roman magistrates were to Paul. In 13:12, Sergius Paulus, the governor of Cyprus, becomes a Christians. In 18:12, Gallio is absolutely fair minded in Corinth. In 16:35, the magistrates at Philippi discover their mistake and apologize publicly to Paul. In 19:31, the provincial officials in Ephesus are shown to be concerned that no harm should come to Paul
    • Luke was pointing out that in the years before he wrote, Roman officials had often been well-disposed and always just and fair to Christianity
    • Further, Luke takes pains to show that Christians were good and loyal citizens and had always been regarded as such. In 18:14 Gallio declares that there is no question of crime or villainy. In 19:37, the secretary of Ephesus gives the Christians a good report. In 23:29, Claudius Lysias is careful to say that he has nothing against Paul. In 25:25, Festus declares that Paul has done nothing worthy of death and in the same chapter Festus and Agrippa agree that Paul might well have been released had he not appealed to Caesar
    • Luke was writing in the days when Christians were disliked and persecuted; and he told his story in such a way as to show that the Roman magistrates had always been perfectly fair to Christianity and the they had never regarded the Christians as evil. In fact, the very interesting suggestion has been made that Acts is nothing other than the brief prepared for Paul’s defense when he stood trial before Caesar
  • One of Luke’s aims was to show that Christianity was for all people of every country
    • This was one of the things that many Jews found hard to grasp. They had the idea that they were God’s chosen people and that God had no use for any other nation. Luke sets out to prove otherwise. He shows Philip preaching to the Samaritans; he shows Stephen making Christianity universal and being killed for it; he shows Peter accepting Cornelius into the Church; he shows the Christians preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch; he shows Paul traveling far and wide winning men and women of every kind for Chris; and in Acts 15 he shows the Church making the monumental decision to accept the Gentiles on equal terms with the Jews
  • But these were merely secondary aims. Luke’s chief purpose is set out in the words of the risen Christ in 1:8; “…you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
    • It was to show the expansion of Christianity—to show how that religion which began in a little corner of Palestine had in just over 30 years reached Rome
    • The Church historian C. H. Turner has pointed out that Acts falls into six panels, each ending with what might be called a progress report. The six are as follows
      • 1:1-6:7; this tells of the church at Jerusalem and the preaching of Peter; and it finishes with the summary; “7 So the word of God spread, the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly in number, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith.”
      • 6:8-9:31; this describes the spread of Christianity through Palestine and the martyrdom of Stephen, followed by the preaching in Samaria. It ends with the summary; “31 So the church throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.”
      • 9:32-12:24; this includes the conversion of Paul, the extension of the Church to Antioch, and the reception of Cornelius into the Church by Peter. Its summary is: “24 But the word of God spread and multiplied.”
      • 12:25-16:5; this tells too the extension of the church through Asia Minor and the preaching tour of Galatia. It ends; “5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.”
      • 16:6-19:20; This describes the extension of the Church to Europe and the work of Paul in great Gentile cities like Corinth and Ephesus. Its summary; “20 In this way the word of the Lord spread and prevailed.”
      • 19:21-28:31; this tells of the arrival of Paul in Rome and his imprisonment there. It ends with Paul “31 proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.”
    • This plan of Acts answers its most puzzling question—why does it finish where it does? It finishes with Paul in prison awaiting judgement. We would have like to know what happened to him; and the end remains a mystery. But Luke stopped there because he had achieved his purpose; he had shown how Christianity began in Jerusalem and swept across the world until it reached Rome. One NT scholar has said that the title of Acts might be: “How they brought the Good News from Jerusalem to Rome.”
• Luke’s Sources
  • Luke was a historian, and the sources from which a historian draws information are all important. Where did Luke get his facts? We actually see two parts to this in Acts
    • There are the first fifteen chapters, describing events of which Luke had no personal knowledge. He most probably had access to two sources
      • There were the records of the local churches. They may never have been set down in writing, but the churches had their stories. In this section, we can distinguish three records
        • There is the record of the Jerusalem church, which is found in chapters 1-5 and in 15-16. There is the record of the church at Caesarea, which covers 8:26-40 and 9:31-10:48. There is the record of the church at Antioch, which includes 11:19-30 and 12:25-14:28
      • It is very likely that there were cycles of stories which were the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, the Acts of Philip, and the Acts of Stephen. Beyond a doubt, Lukes’ friendship with Paul would bring him into touch with all the great figures of all the churches, and their stories would be at his disposal
    • There are chapters 16-28. Luke had personal knowledge of much that is included in this section
      • When we read Acts, we notice a strange thing. Most of the time, Luke’s narrative is in the third-person plural; but in certain passages it changes over to the first-person plural, and they becomes we. On all these occasions, Luke apparently was present, and  in these passages we have eyewitness accounts
      • As for the times when he was not present, many were the hours he must have spent in prison with Paul, and many were the stories Paul must have told him. There can have been no great figure Luke did not know, and in every case he must have gotten his story from someone who was there
  • When we read Acts, we may be quite sure that no historian ever had better sources or used those sources more accurately
• Date of writing
  • Acts 1:1 indicates that Luke wanted Acts to serve as the second volume of a two-volume work. For this reason Acts must be dated at the same time or later than the gospel of Luke. The earliest dates that scholars assign to Luke are  in the late 50s. Festus had already ascended to power when Acts was written, an even which is dated in 60. So those things set the earliest Acts could be dated
  • The real question is how late can Acts be dates. Some radical Bible critics have dated Acts as late as 115-130. This date reduces the chances that Luke was the author. Many scholars fix the date between 70-80. The reasons often given for this date have to do with the subject matter of Luke’s gospel, especially Luke 21:5-38. In these verses Jesus speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem. His description is so vivid that many scholars believe Luke must have recorded it after the even had occurred in 70
  • One question which must arise in discussing the dat of Acts has to do with the last verses. Acts closes with a description of Paul under house arrest in Rome. He was taken there to stand trial before Caesar. The account ends by nothing that he remained there “Two whole years” preaching the gospel as he waited for his accusers to arrive. Tradition indicates that he was martyred in Rome during the reign of Nero 54-68. The question to be answered is whether Paul was martyred during this Roman imprisonment. If so, why didn’t Luke record Paul’s death in Acts? Is the absence of any word on Paul’s death significant? Was Luke avoiding the issue in order to preserve his focus on the victorious progress of the church? If so, maybe Acts was meant to end at this point in the story. This would allow for Acts to be written later than the year of Paul’s death. The dat of writing could then be fixed somewhere between 70-80
  • On the other hand, it may be that Luke does not record Paul’s death because it had not occurred when he wrote Acts, meaning that the dating of Acts would be earlier. If Luke finished Acts before Paul’s death occurred, the work must be dated somewhere in the early or mid 60s. Church tradition, especially Jerome and Eusebius, dates Paul’s martyrdom in Rome around 67-68. Many scholars believe, however, that Paul was released from his house arrest described in Acts 28. They argue that he resumed his missionary travels until the day he was once again arrested and take to Rome. They also contend that the Pastoral letters (I & II Timothy, Titus) were written before this second imprisonment. If this is true, then Acts may have been written at the end of Paul’s first imprisonment, or around 63