This is the first of a series of study notes on Acts, adapted from handouts I’m writing for a small group Bible study at our church. I trust the series will be useful to other intentional students of Acts.
What would it be like to read the New Testament without Acts?
Imagine jumping from John 21 to Romans 1. You’ve just read about Jesus’ restoration of Peter, so who is Paul? How did the gospel get to Rome? How did Gentiles get into the church? What is this business about justification that this Paul fellow is so concerned about?
Unless you read Acts, you have no clue how to answer any of these questions.
Acts functions as a sort of bridge between the Gospels—containing Jesus’ teaching for his disciples, and the letters—containing Jesus’ disciples’ teaching for their disciples.
Acts tells us what happened between Jesus’ ascension (Luke 24) and the book of Galatians. We can picture it like this:
Genre: What kind of a book is Acts?
How would you answer the question What kind of book is Acts and why was it written? Here are some common answers:
- Acts is a history book—we shouldn’t derive doctrinal teaching from it.
- Acts is a how-to-do-it manual, a blueprint for the church’s mission today.
- Acts is the background for the letters of Paul.
- Acts is a model that we should follow on how to be empowered by the Spirit.
- Acts is the second of Luke’s two-volume narrative of Jesus and the early church.
- Acts is a defense brief for Paul’s upcoming trial before the emperor.
These common views of Acts should be evaluated in light of how the author of Acts himself answers the question:
- According to the author, Acts is the sequel to the Gospel according to the Luke, which was a carefully composed historical narrative about “all that Jesus began to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:1-4).
- Luke’s Gospel was written to assure Theophilus, a (Gentile?) convert, about the reliability of what he had been taught (Luke 1:1-4).
- Luke’s Gospel was based on what eyewitnesses had seen and heard and told the first followers of Jesus (Luke 1:1-4).
- The “we sections” of Acts (Acts 16, 20-21; 27-28) show that Acts, like Luke, was based on eyewitness perspectives.
- If Luke’s Gospel is about what Jesus began to do and teach until his passion in Jerusalem (Acts 1:1), we may infer that Luke’s Acts is about what Jesus continued to do and teach after his ascension through the church’s witness from Jerusalem to Rome.
- Taken together, Luke-Acts is an orderly historical account of God’s ACTionS in fulfilling his promises to Israel and extending his messianic blessings to all the nations (Luke 1:30-33, 54-55, 72-73; 2:29-32; 3:6; 4:18-19; 24:44-49; Acts 2:39; 9:15; 10:34-45; 11:16-18; 15:7-11, 14-21; 26:19-20, 23; 28:20-28).
Understanding Luke-Acts as intended by its author instructs us on how to apply the book to life and ministry today:
- The simplistic use of Luke-Acts as a blueprint or model for life and ministry today tends to miss Luke’s historical-literary purpose and the unique canonical function of Luke-Acts. A narrative of historical events does not equate to doctrinal teaching or mandated ministry practice.
- We follow the direct teaching contained in the narrative of Luke-Acts, both what Jesus began to teach while on earth and what he continued to teach through his Spirit-empowered apostles.
- We can draw wise lessons and principles from the historical events Acts narrates, just like we do when studying any of the biblical narratives. They were written to instruct and admonish us (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:6, 11; 2 Tim 3:16-18), not to provide a blueprint to be copied today.
Author: Who wrote Luke and Acts?
We are confident in the traditional view that “Luke the beloved physician” (Col 4:14) wrote both Luke and Acts.
- Neither book specifically mentions who wrote it.
- The same person wrote both (compare Luke 1:1-4 to Acts 1:1).
- Judging from the “we-sections” (Acts 16, 20-21; 27-28), a companion of Paul wrote Acts.
- Unanimous early church tradition ascribes both Luke and Acts to Paul’s companion Luke, “the beloved physician” (Col 4:14; Phile 24; 2 Tim 4:11).
- The context of Col 4:14 seems to indicate that Luke was a Gentile.
- Scholars have frequently drawn our attention to Luke’s keen interest in marginalized groups, including women, lepers, Samaritans, “tax collectors and sinners,” and Gentiles.
- I wonder whether Luke was a Gentile who knew and worshipped the God of Israel before he heard the gospel through Paul’s ministry. Luke speaks much about these “god-fearers,” e.g. Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:1-11:18).
Title: What should we call Acts?
Our Bibles refer to this book as “The Acts of the Apostles.” This traditional title goes back as far as Irenaeus in the late 2nd century CE. Some ancient NT manuscripts simply title the book “Acts.” By medieval times, some manuscripts titled it “Acts of the Holy Apostles.”
Of course, the Eleven apostles are listed in Acts 1:13 (cf Acts 8:1), followed by the addition of Mathias in 1:15-26. But only Peter and John (Acts 3:1, 3, 11), and James the brother of John (martyred in Acts 12), are mentioned later in the book. We’re left to early church tradition to learn about the acts of the rest of the apostles. As someone has wrily said, Acts is “A few of the Acts of a few of the apostles.”
Some have suggested that we think of Acts as “The Acts of the Holy Spirit.” No doubt the third person of the trinity is prominent throughout Acts, but Acts portrays the Spirit like John 14-16 does, as sent by Jesus to continue his ministry on earth. In Acts 2:33, citing Joel 2:18, Peter identifies Jesus as the one who has poured out the Spirit after being raised to the right hand of God. The description of the Spirit as “the Spirit of Jesus” in Acts 16:9 is in keeping with Peter’s teaching in Acts 2. The apostles acted in the power of the Spirit sent by Jesus to equip them for witness in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. The apostles’ acts may be attributed to the Spirit, but the Spirit’s ministry to the apostles comes from Jesus, exalted at the Father’s right hand. The Fourth Gospel portrays Jesus teaching in a similar way about the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-18, 26; 15:26-27; and especially 16:7-15).
We will look into this more fully in our next post, but for now we suggest thinking of Acts as “The Acts of the Ascended Lord Jesus through his Spirit-empowered Church” This is of course too long to serve as a title for the book, but it properly honors Jesus by portraying him as the ultimate heroic protagonist of the book of Acts. The apostles are not at the center of Acts, Jesus is. The prominence of the Holy Spirit should be attributed to the exaltation of Jesus.
It’s interesting to compare the baptism of Jesus, when the Father sent the Spirit to empower Jesus for his ministry, to the Day of Pentecost, when Jesus sent the Spirit to empower the church for its ministry for Jesus:
Contents: What’s in Acts?
We’ll conclude our Acts Intro with some important points about its contents.
- Acts begins in 1:1-14 with a rehash of Luke 24:36-53. Jesus commissions the disciples as witnesses to the nations and commands them to wait for the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem.
- Jerusalem is the geographical and theological center of Luke-Acts. Luke begins with Zechariah ministering in the Jerusalem Temple, but soon widens the perspective by locating the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry in the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias Caesar. Jesus sets his face set toward Jerusalem in Luke 9:51, and Jerusalem is the geographical focus for the next 22 chapters, all the way to Acts 8, when the persecuted disciples scatter from Jerusalem. Jerusalem continues to figure into the story long after this (Acts 11-12 15, 18, 20, 21-23).
- Acts tell the story of the church’s Spirit-empowered testimony to Jesus from Jerusalem to Rome. If Acts was a house, we might say Luke leaves the key (Acts 1:8) under the front doormat.
- Acts shows us how the church expanded from Jerusalem (Acts 1-8) through Judea and Samaria (9-12), Asia (13-16 etc.), Greece (17-18), and ultimately to Rome (Acts 27-28).
- Major transitions are found in several summaries of the stages of the church’s growth (2:47; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:20)
- Peter and James in Jerusalem loom large through the middle of the book, where Paul’s ministry gradually begins to take center stage all the way to Rome. The “Jerusalem Council” in Acts 15, where Peter and James “sign off” on Paul’s ministry, is the key pivot.
You’ll find a very helpful two-part brief animated summary of Acts by the Bible Project here and here .
Looking forward to further teaching about these books. I had not previously considered the coordination between Luke and Acts.
Thanks Jerry. Way back when I took a class on Acts in seminary, I heard nothing that tied Luke to Acts other than Luke being the author of both books.
Thanks so very much for exploring and educating and getting my understanding clearer and better about the books of St. Luke.
Thanks for this. My question is, how do you know Theophilus was a convert? Is this an assumption?
Hello Myron. Long time!
I’ve always taken 1:3-4 as indicating Theophilus was a highly placed convert whose faith would be assured and strengthened by Luke-Acts. Perhaps a patron of Luke’s literary work.
This assumes that T. was a historical individual, not a term that stood for people who were “lovers of God” or “loved by God.” As I said above, I wonder whether he was a “god-fearer.” I have the same ideas about the centurion of Luke 7:1-10, as well as Luke himself.
I guess all this depends on how we translate katexeo in Luke 1:4, whether “Instructed” (implying some sort of Christian catechesis) or simply “informed” (implying only that he had heard of Jesus and his ministry).
I should take a look at Keener’s encyclopedic work to see what he thinks about all this.
Let us know what you think about this.
David:
I am following John Mauck, Paul on Trial, and his suggestion that “most excellent” identifies Theophilus as some sort of Roman official, possibly related to Paul’s upcoming trial before Caesar.
I haven’t read Mauck. It’s clear that kratistos is commonly used as a formulaic title of Roman officials- Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25 and literature outside the NT.
So far so good for the theory.
But katecheo is commonly used in the NT for oral catechetical teaching in the church- Acts 18:25; Rom 2:18 (Judaism); 1 Cor 14:19; Gal 6:6. But cf. Acts 21:21, 24
Would Luke use katecheo in a legal brief addressing a pagan Roman official about what he has heard about Paul?
I haven’t pursued the semantic range of either of these two words outside the NT, but it seems to me that it’s more plausible that Theophilus was some sort of dignitary who had been converted than that he was a Roman official presiding over Paul’s trial.
I see there’s a Liberty PhD diss. “Reconsidering the Apologetic Purpose of Luke-Acts” by James C. Williams available online that might help us with this question.
Quick check of TDNT on katecheo. It is consistently used of religious instruction in Paul, but the author of Luke-Acts is familiar with both a general sense so that Luke 1:4 could be rendered “the stories that have been reported to you,” and a specific sense, which would be rendered “the doctrines in which you have been instructed.” Beyer favors the more general meaning but cites others who favor the specific religious sense. BDAG lists Luke 1:4 under the more general sense. LSJ lists the general meaning, but seems to assign all NT references, including Luke 1:4 under “instruct in elements of religion.” NET Bible acknowledges both senses, but favors the more specific meaning and suggests that Theophilus was probably a believer.
I located James C. Williams’ dissertation. He spends 9 pages discussing katecheo. He concludes that 3 out of 4 uses in Luke are general, with Acts 18:25 possibly referring to religious instruction. Luke prefers didasko when referring to religious instruction. He references Mauck and Beyers’ TDNT article and favors a more general sense for katecheo in Luke 1:4.
Thanks Dave. I love your perspective!
Thanks Dave. It is good to hear your \’voice.\’ I will look forward to more notes. Hi to Beverly.
Great to hear from you Esther. Hope you’re feeling well. IOU an email!
Paul the routinizer of Christianity. I always found it interesting that Luke was , in some cases, the only one with Paul. I remember being enamored with Dear and Glorious Physician by Taylor Caldwell.
Hi Leslie. 2 Tim 4:11 re Luke being Paul’s only companion as he apparently awaited execution by Nero is one of the sadder verses of the NT.
I don’t buy the idea of “Paul as routinizer” and the Pastoral Epistles as “early Catholicism.” Paul’s ministry was anything but routine to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 11, 15, 21). I think the organizational emphasis of his later letters is a natural step in maturing and preserving his congregations., not evidence that Paul had turned from the spontaneous ministry of the Spirit to bureaucracy.
I didn’t know about Taylor Caldwell’s historical novel about Luke. Maybe some day I’ll try to read that.
David, You wrote that you will be teaching a class at your church on Acts. Any way you could post the lectures to your web page?
Mark, the notes are for a small group setting with lots of Q&A and discussion, so no “lecture” audio-video is available.
But thanks for asking.
Thanks so much, Dave. I’m always looking for outlines, research, such like, to help as I teach the Word.
And now, for something REALLY important…Did Michigan deserve another second on the clock
You’re welcome Michael. May your tribe increase!
The NCAA publicly and officially stated that the game was over and the Wolverines did not deserve another second. But they have some senseless rule that says they cannot reverse the outcome of a games even when it’s agreed the outcome was contrary to their own rules. No justice for the little MAC team from Kalamazoo when big brother’s dignity is in question.
The NCAA also officially exposed MI’s cheating sign-stealing campaign and then merely slapped their dirty hands. Not to mention the other coaches who got fired for sleazy stuff and the head coach’s immorality and implosion.
One can’t help thinking the fix is in, but maybe the new coach will reform the corruption.
O-H! . . . I-O!
Greetings from Montana. We happen to be preaching on the significant sermons and addresses recorded in the book of Acts on Sunday mornings. We’ve preached and taught the people through Acts during our years as pastor here before, so we’ve taken this approach for the already instructed and to catch up the newcomers. Reviewing your insights has left us with confirmation of our present understanding of the book. I wonder if I should avoid reading your future discussions lest I lose my present sense of confidence in handling Acts? Or if I choose to “read on” in the future as you post these good thoughts, could you arrange an honorary ThM for me even though you counseled me in 1983 at GTS to stay and “study on?” Just wondering.
Monty, good to hear from you and learn your tongue is still inserted in your cheek. Also good to know you have the internet out there in Montana!
I think ongoing study, ike you’ve been doing for 40+ years now, is the only way to maintain confidence in your views. Don’t stop.
Why settle for an honorary ThM from me? There are “schools” that will send you a pretty PhD diploma suitable for framing if you send them your sermon notes and a few hundred bucks.