← Contents Introduction ←→

Introduction

The book of Acts is the first volume of church history. It records the story of the church from its explosive beginning on the Day of Pentecost to the imprisonment at Rome of its greatest missionary. During those three decades, the church expanded from a small group of Jewish believers gathered in Jerusalem to embrace thousands in dozens of congregations throughout the Roman world. Acts describes how the Spirit of God superintended, controlled, and empowered the expansion of the church. Indeed, the book could well be called “The Acts of the Holy Spirit Through the Apostles.”

Acts is a significant book for several reasons. With the epistles, but without Acts, we would have much difficulty understanding the flow of the early history of the church. With it, we have a core history around which to assemble the data in the epistles, enriching our comprehension of them. The book follows first the ministry of Peter, then of Paul. From it we learn principles for discipling believers, building the church, and evangelizing the world.

Although a work of history, not theology, Acts nevertheless emphasizes the doctrinal truths concerning salvation. Jesus of Nazareth is boldly proclaimed as Israel’s long-awaited Messiah, and that truth is ably defended from the Old Testament (2:22ff.; 3:12ff.; 4:10ff.; 7:1ff.; 8:26ff.; 13:14ff.; cf. 9:22; 18:5, 24–28; 28:23).

The book of Acts also teaches much about the Holy Spirit, who is mentioned more than fifty times. He regenerates, baptizes, fills, and sanctifies believers. The Holy Spirit is seen choosing missionaries (13:2) and directing their operations (8:29). He presided at the first church council (15:28) and, in short, directed and controlled all operations of the church.

The doctrinal importance of Acts is not limited, however, to its teaching on Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. While it does not flow around doctrinal issues, but historical events, it nevertheless touches many theological truths. Donald Guthrie aptly summarizes the theological significance of Acts: “The importance of the book of Acts is in its preservation of the main doctrinal themes presented in apostolic preaching, even if there is no evidence of an attempt to develop a systematized theology” (New Testament Introduction [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1978],338).

AUTHOR

The unanimous testimony of the early church was that Luke, author of the gospel bearing his name, and the traveling companion and close friend of Paul, wrote Acts. In the second century, the anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke’s gospel, the Muratorian Fragment (the earliest extant list of New Testament books), Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all attest to Luke’s authorship of Acts. Other church Fathers, such as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome also attribute Acts to Luke.

The internal evidence for Luke’s authorship is equally impressive. That the author of Acts was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul is clear from the so-called “we passages” (16:10–17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16). In those passages, the writer switches to the first person plural, showing he was present. D. Edmond Hiebert summarizes the significance of that as it relates to the authorship of Acts:

References to various companions of Paul in these we-sections at once distinguish the author from other of Paul’s close companions. Other well-known companions appearing in the Pauline epistles do not fit into the pattern set by these we-sections and can be located elsewhere at one time or another. Of the known close companions of Paul only Titus and Luke are never named in Acts. That Titus is not named is strange, but no one has ever seriously suggested that Titus was the author of Luke-Acts. This leaves only Luke as the probable author, and he is strongly supported by the external evidence. (An Introduction to the New Testament: Volume 1: The Gospels and Acts [Chicago: Moody, 1979], p. 121)

It should be noted too that “although Titus accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem and worked in the churches of Corinth, Crete, and Dalmatia, he appears not to have been one of Paul’s companions whom the apostle mentions in the greetings of his epistles” (Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Acts [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], p. 21). By process of elimination, then, we are left with Luke as author of the “we passages,” and-therefore of the entire book.

It is also unlikely anyone would have forged a work in Luke’s name. If someone were going to attribute a forgery to one of Paul’s companions, why would he choose the relatively obscure Luke, mentioned only three times in the New Testament? Would he not choose a more prominent figure?

DATE

There are two schools of thought among evangelical scholars as to when Luke wrote Acts. Some hold he wrote while Paul was still living, probably near the end of his first imprisonment (Acts 28). Others date Acts between the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) and Luke’s death (ca. A.D. 85).

The main argument for the later date is Luke’s alleged use of Mark as a source for the gospel of Luke. Advocates of this view follow this line of reasoning: Mark was written after Peter’s death during Nero’s persecution. Luke’s gospel could not have been written until after that. And since Acts was written after Luke, it must be dated later still.

Although a discussion of the so-called Synoptic Problem is beyond the scope of this introduction, it should be noted that the priority of Mark has never been established. Serious objections to Luke’s dependence on Mark have been raised by competent scholars (cf. Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, eds., A Harmony of the Gospels [Chicago: Moody, 1979], 274–79; Eta Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992]). Unless this theory of Luke’s dependence on Mark can be established, the chief argument for a later date for Acts collapses.

There are good reasons for believing Luke wrote Acts during Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. They may be summarized as follows:

First, that view best explains the abrupt ending of Acts. Luke stopped writing because he had brought events to the present, and he had no more to relate. Also, Acts ends on a note of triumph, with Paul proclaiming the gospel in Rome unhindered by the Roman authorities. That triumphant ending is difficult to comprehend if Acts were written following Paul’s death and the outbreak of the Neronian persecution (F. F. Bruce, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary: Revised [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19781, 968).

Second, the Roman officials in Acts are tolerant of, if not favorable to, Christianity. That was certainly not the case after the outbreak of the Neronian persecution in A.D. 64. Further,

the only time when the picture of the Roman state’s originally friendly attitude toward the Christians would have been worth recalling to people’s minds was the time when it was still valid but in danger of being lost. And this means that it was the time of Paul’s trial, after he had made an appeal to the court of Caesar. (Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1973], Iii)

Third, Luke does not mention the persecution initiated by Nero. Kistemaker remarks, “If Luke had written Acts in the seventies, he would have done violence to his sense of historical integrity by not reflecting these cruel persecutions instigated by Nero” (Acts, 23).

Fourth, there is no mention in Acts of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Luke’s silence is puzzling if that momentous event had already taken place, especially since “Luke in his gospel centres more attention on Jerusalem than do his fellow synoptists” (Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 340). Similarly, his failure to mention the martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord (A.D. 62 according to Josephus [Antiquities XX, ix, 1]) is strange if he wrote afterward. Luke certainly viewed the martyrdoms of the apostle James and Stephen as worthy of mention. Why not the head of the Jerusalem church?

Fifth, the subject matter of Acts reflects the situation in the early days of the church. Such topics as the conflict between Jews and Gentiles, the inclusion of Gentiles in the church, and the Jewish dietary regulations (Acts 15) lost their urgency after the fall of Jerusalem. Similarly, Acts does not reflect the theological concerns of the latter decades of the first century (Kistemaker, Acts, 23).

Sixth, Luke reflects no familiarity with Paul’s epistles. That argues that Acts was written before the collection of Pauline epistles was widely circulated in the church.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Luke is silent about the further career of Paul. No mention is made in Acts of Paul’s travels after his release, his second imprisonment (though Luke was with him then [2 Tim. 4:11]), or his death. Yet Luke devotes more than half of Acts to Paul’s ministry. Why would he not carry that theme through to its triumphant completion if he knew more about the great apostle? These omissions are best explained by the assumption that these events had not yet taken place when Luke wrote.

PURPOSE

Luke states his purpose for writing his two-volume work in the prologue to Luke: “It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:3). Acts was also addressed to Theophilus, continuing where Luke’s gospel left off.

Theophilus is unknown, though Luke’s address of him as “most excellent” (Luke 1:3) suggests he was a Roman official (cf. Acts 24:3; 26:25). Whether he was a Christian Luke was instructing, or a pagan he was trying to persuade, is also not known. Some have argued that he was Paul’s lawyer for his hearing before the emperor, though that also is speculation.

Luke did not write a complete account of the first three decades of the church. He selectively chose those events and persons that suited his inspired purpose. Nevertheless, he was a remarkably accurate historian. Acts shows familiarity with Roman law and the privileges of Roman citizens, gives the correct titles of various provincial rulers, and accurately describes various geographical locations. Such accuracy convinced the nineteenth-century British archaeologist Sir William Ramsay that his earlier doubts about Acts were wrong. He writes,

I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory [which dated Acts in the second century] had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. (St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen [reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975], 7–8. Italics in original.)

More recent scholars have confirmed Ramsay’s view of the historical reliability of Acts (cf. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 354–55).

Luke wrote in part to commend Christianity to the Roman world. He directs attention to the high character of the Christians and to the fact that they were law-abiding people. He also relates the favorable treatment given Christians by Roman officials (cf. 18:12ff.; 19:31, 37; 25:25; 26:32; 27:3).

He also makes clear to the Jewish people that the gospel was not their exclusive possession. It was for all people. Nor did the Gentiles first have to become Jews before becoming Christians (Acts 15).

But Luke’s primary purpose is to show the spread of Christianity, empowered and energized by the Holy Spirit, throughout the Roman world (1:8).

OUTLINE

I. Jerusalem (1:1–8:4)

  1. The beginning of the church (1:1–2:47)

  2. The expansion of the church (3:1–8:4)

II. Judea and Samaria (8:5–12:25)

  1. The witness to the Samaritans (8:5–25)

  2. The conversion of a Gentile (8:26–40)

  3. The conversion of the apostle to the Gentiles (9:1–31)

  4. The witness to the Gentiles (9:32–12:25)

III. The remotest part of the earth (13:1–28:31)

  1. The first missionary journey (13:1–14:28)

  2. The Jerusalem council (15:1–35)

  3. The second missionary journey (15:36–18:22)

  4. The third missionary journey (18:23–21:16)

  5. The journey to Rome (21:17–28:31)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott-Smith, G. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977.

Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament: Acts-Romans. Grand Rap- ids: Baker, reprint of the 1884-85 edition.

Blaiklock, E. M. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Bruce, F. F. “Acts of the Apostles.” In vol. 1 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rap- ids: Eerdmans, 1989.

______. “The Acts of the Apostles.” In The New Bible Commentary: Revised. Edited by D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

______. The Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York, Macmillan, 1957.

Erdman, Charles R. The Acts. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.

Gundry, Robert H. A Survey of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1978.

Harrison, Everett E Interpreting Acts: The Expanding Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 986.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament: Volume I: The Gospels and Acts. Chicago: Moody, 1979.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. Jerusalem to Rome. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961.

Linnemann, Eta. Is There a Synoptic Problem? Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the Apostles.” In vol. 9 of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Munck, Johannes. The Acts of the Apostles. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1973.

Polhill, John B. The New American Commentary: Acts. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Rackham, Richard B. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978.

Ramsay, W. M. St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975.

Robertson, A. T. Acts. Vol. 3 of Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman, 1930.

Thomas, Robert L., and Stanley N. Gundry, eds. A Harmony of the Gospels. Chicago: Moody, 1979.