Thoughts and Acts: The Book of Acts (Introduction)

Mars Hill Church in Seattle recently started a series on the book of Luke so I decided to explore what most scholars consider Luke's sequel, The Acts of the Apostles.

Acts has always been fascinating to me. Outside of the gospels, it is the only historical narrative that we have in the New Testament. While the 4 gospels focus on the life of our Lord and Savior, Acts reports the aftermath. It is the sequel. The followers of Christ owned His message and took His good news to the world- to Jew and Gentile. The book of Acts is exciting and shows the early church as contagious in their faith. Christianity started with Jesus, was passed to 11 disciples who quickly chose a 12th and then suddenly exploded with 3000 members (Acts 2:41). The message flourished among the poor but also encompassed people from all walks of life: from different cultures, races, religions and economic statuses. Today, this very gospel has almost been preached to every people group in our world which is approaching 7 billion people. The message all started here with the expansion of the church.

The statement that Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and Acts is not widely debated among scholars. The books are almost certainly written by the same author because they contain similar styles of writing (Greek grammar, word usage, etc) and Acts 1:1 ties the author of Acts to the writer of the gospel of Luke through the common name of Theophilus. Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all affirm that Luke is the author of both works. If the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were forged, as some liberal scholars maintain, it seems odd they would attach a relatively obscure figure to the title of the gospel. Luke is not often mentioned in the New Testament (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philemon v. 24). A forged work might have helped the circulation by attaching a more prominent apostle's name to the gospel in order to insure a greater readership.

Luke writes both his gospel and Acts to the mysterious Theophilus whose name only appears in these two books at the beginning of each. Luke verses 1:1-4 (ESV) state, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." In the beginning of Acts (1:1-2, ESV), Luke writes: "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen."

Christian scholars often recognize Luke as an early historian. From what I have read, I don't consider Luke primarily a historian. Secondarily, for sure, but based on his comments to Theophilus, he was primarily an evangelist. He was writing an orderly account of the life of Jesus (gospel of Luke) and then the early church in order to persuade an audience (probably mostly Roman and Gentile) that Jesus was the Son of God. He also wrote to persuade that Jesus' immediately followers carried on His truth, frequently at risk of their lives, in order to get this true message out to the world.

Luke was a personal physician (Col. 4:14- called "beloved physician") and was a close traveling companion of Paul's. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul writes, "Luke alone is with me." 2 Timothy is widely viewed among evangelical scholars as being Paul's last epistle that was written at the end of his life. Earlier in 2 Timothy Paul writes, "For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." (4:6-7) Logically, if Luke alone is with Paul at the end of his life, Luke stood as an important figure in Paul's life. Philemon verse 24 has Paul calling Luke his "fellow worker". These are the only references to Luke in the entire New Testament.

Luke, being a doctor, was very well educated in that culture. Simon Kistemaker's commentary on Acts says this, "Luke is an able writer who, compared with other Greek authors, deserves respect and admiration for composing a book that in style, word choice, grammar, and vocabulary takes a place between writers of Koine Greek and those of the classical period. In addition to excellent Greek (including use of the optative and numerous instances of the genitive absolute construction), Luke records many Aramaisms in his account...Perhaps because Luke was recording accounts that were reported to him orally, he often adjusted his style to write popular instead of literary Greek." (New Testament Commentary: Acts, Grand Rapids: Baker House Publishing, pgs 30-31) In other words, Luke would write in his highly stylized Greek but then when quoting what people said he would revert to the "popular" language that they would have spoken or how they would have spoken. Indeed, this speaks to the care and detail that Luke put into his two biblical compositions.

I look forward to exploring Luke's sequel, Acts, and further digging into the history of the early church and the theology that is apparent in this text. The passion and love that the apostles and the early church had for the truth of Jesus Christ is truly inspiring and no one can doubt that they risked all to get his message out to the world so that we could benefit from this message today and be changed.