Introduction to Acts

When introducing the gospel of Luke, I pointed out that the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were almost certainly written by the same author around the time of 90 CE. Acts begins with the words, “In my earlier work.” Both works are dedicated to Theophilus, an unknown person, most probably a Roman official. There are striking similarities in grammatical style and the vocabulary used in the two works. There is also a logical progression to the two works. Luke presents the story of Jesus while Acts documents the activities of the early church.

Acts examines the history of the early church from the resurrection to the house arrest of Paul in Rome. The author describes the spread of the early Christian movement from its beginnings in Jerusalem outward into the Hellenistic world. The Holy Spirit comes to the followers of Jesus at Pentecost (2: 1-4) which guides their efforts as they preach the good news in Judea and Samaria and later to Paul for his work as a missionary in the Gentile world.

A central theme of Acts is the unity of the church in this effort. It is unified by the Holy Spirit. Yes, there are conflicts as is seen in the debate over whether Gentiles must be circumcised, but these conflicts are healed by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. At the Jerusalem Conference (15: 1-21), the issue of whether Gentiles must become Jews first in order to be saved is taken up. Following a spirited debate, James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Christian community, rules that they do not. James’ decision heals the split within the community.

An important question regarding Acts is whether the author’s presentation is historical. It is certainly not history as we know it. There are three problems. First, the book contains several speeches—four long ones by Peter, Stephen, Paul, and James, and shorter ones by an array of characters. It is not possible that these speeches are accurately reported fifty or sixty years after taking place. Obviously they were not recorded, and there are no hints that the author was there.

Second, there is a parallel structure between the gospel of Luke and Acts which is troubling from an historical perspective. In Luke, Jesus heals the sick, casts out demons, and raises the dead. The apostles in Acts perform identical actions. At his trial as described in Acts (24:1-27), Paul stresses that he has done nothing against the Jewish people. After examining his testimony, the Roman authorities find him to be innocent. Paul’s problem is with the Jewish establishment. Sound familiar!

The last historical problem is the picture in Acts of Paul as a good Jew to the end. He accepts the main tenets of Judaism, his differences with the Jerusalem Christian community are played down. This picture of harmony contrasts sharply with Paul’s letters where the apostle to the Gentiles portrays himself as a Jew who has definitely moved to a new place. To cite but one example, in Galatians 2:21 Paul tells his Gentile followers that for them to obey Jewish law is an affront to God. The author of Acts clearly wants to demonstrate the work of the Holy Spirit in minimizing conflict within the Christian community. The question is whether this harmony accurately reflects the early history of the Christian movement.

One of the most important topics presented in Acts is Paul’s resurrection encounter of Jesus in heaven on the Damascus road. Paul describes it three times—Acts 9: 1-30, 22:1-21, and 26: 9-20. You might want to read these three passages in preparation for next week’s blog.