The great German composer Ludwig van Beethoven
is still remembered around the world for his beautiful and skillful compositions.
But as wonderful as his musical scores are in themselves, his works are even more
impressive when we remember that Beethoven suffered progressive hearing loss that
began when he was a young man. In fact, it is astounding to realize that Beethoven wrote
many of his greatest works when he was entirely deaf. Knowing the background of Beethoven’s
life makes his music all the more impressive. In important ways, appreciating the
Scriptures is similar to appreciating Beethoven. It isn’t difficult to see the
power and clarity with which the various books of the Bible proclaim God’s
revelation. But when we learn about the backgrounds of the writers of the Bible,
their world, their lives and their purposes, our understanding and appreciation
of the Scriptures become much deeper. This is the first lesson in our series The Book
of Acts. In this series we will explore the New Testament’s fifth book, often called The Acts
of the Apostles or simply Acts. We have entitled this lesson “The Background of Acts,” and we will
look at a number of basic issues that will help us understand and appreciate the teachings
of this book more deeply and more clearly. Our lesson will touch on three crucial aspects
of the background of Acts. First, we will examine the authorship of the book. Second, we will
look at its historical setting. And third, we will explore its theological background.
Let’s begin by looking at the authorship of Acts. Like all Scripture, the book of Acts
was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But its divine inspiration should not
lead us to diminish our attention to its human authors. The Holy Spirit kept the
original writings of Scripture free from error, but he still employed the personalities,
backgrounds and intentions of its human writers. Acts has traditionally been attributed to
Luke, the author of the third gospel. But neither the third gospel nor the book of Acts
specifically mentions the name of the author. So, we should look at the reasons for affirming
the traditional view of Luke’s authorship. We will explore the authorship of
Acts from three perspectives. First, we will compare Acts with
the Gospel of Luke. Second, we will examine early church history and its
witness concerning Luke’s authorship. And third, we will look briefly at other aspects of the New
Testament that indicate that Luke wrote these books. Let’s turn first to what we can learn about
the authorship of Acts from the Gospel of Luke. When we compare the book of Acts with the
third gospel, two types of evidence emerge that strongly suggest one person wrote both
books. On the one hand, there is explicit information stated directly in both books that
points in this direction. On the other hand, there is also implicit evidence from
the style and content of these books. Let’s begin with the explicit evidence that
indicates a common author for both books. In Acts chapter 1 verse 1, the prologue
of the book of Acts, we read these words: Here the writer spoke of his “former book,”
meaning that Acts is the second of at least two volumes. He also indicated that he wrote
this book to a person named Theophilus. Now listen to the similar prologue
in Luke chapter 1 verses 1 through 4: Once again, this passage refers to someone named Theophilus. But there is no
reference to an earlier book. Both Acts and the third gospel are dedicated
to Theophilus, and the book of Acts refers to a “former book.” These facts provide
strong evidence that the author of these books produced at least two volumes, with
the Gospel of Luke being the first volume and Acts being the second volume. In fact,
the connection between these two prologues reflects an ancient literary custom when an author
produced two-volume works. Josephus, for instance, wrote a two-volume work entitled Against Apion
that has similar prefaces in both volumes. Beyond these explicit connections, there
are also implicit correlations between Acts and the third gospel that point toward common
authorship. A number of New Testament scholars have pointed out similarities between the
books. Time will only allow us to mention these briefly, but they provide significant
implicit evidence for common authorship. As we have just seen, Luke chapter 1 verses 1
through 4 states that the author had investigated a variety of sources and had made an orderly
account dedicated to Theophilus. It should not be surprising then that a number of scholars have
noted that the accounts in Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts are ordered and shaped in similar
ways. There are also several similarities in the compositional structure of the books.
The books proceed in an episodic style, and both are roughly the same length,
each filling a standard-sized scroll. Beyond this, there is a similar chronological
length in each book. Both Luke and Acts cover roughly the same number of years. And there are
parallel themes between the books as well. As just one example, the gospel climaxes with the journey
of Jesus toward his arrest, trial, suffering, death and victory in Jerusalem, the capital of
Judaism and the seat of Jewish monarchical power. And corresponding to this, the book of Acts
reaches its conclusion with the Apostle Paul’s journey toward Rome, beginning with his arrest,
trial and suffering, and concluding with his victorious proclamation of the gospel of Christ
in the capital city of the world’s imperial power. In addition, there are similarities between
the books because they are each part of the same story. We might think of the fact
that there are expectations raised in Luke’s gospel that are not fulfilled
until the book of Acts. For example, in the beginning of Luke, faithful Simeon
declared that Jesus would be a light to the Gentiles. Listen to his words in
Luke chapter 2 verses 30 through 32: Jesus’ ministry in Luke’s gospel explains
God’s salvation and the promise given to Israel. But only in Acts do we see God’s
salvation serving as a light of revelation to Gentiles in significant ways. These
and other similarities point to a common redemptive- historical vision between the two
works, and to a shared sense of purpose and belief. And these similarities also suggest that
we are looking at the works of a single author. Now that we have looked at some of the
evidence for common authorship in Acts and the Gospel of Luke, we are ready to consider
the evidence provided by early church history. From the second to the fourth century
A.D., the early church testified that Luke, the traveling companion of Paul, was the
author of both Acts and the Gospel of Luke. We will briefly examine this evidence in two
ways. First, we will look at early written manuscripts of and about the Bible. And second,
we will look at what early church leaders wrote about Luke’s authorship. Let’s begin with
the evidence of some ancient manuscripts. One very old manuscript, referred to as Papyrus75,
was discovered in 1952 in Egypt. It was written on papyrus and includes some of our earliest New
Testament manuscript evidence. It was probably copied sometime between A.D. 175 and 200, and
it includes large portions of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. Between the texts of the
two gospels are written two descriptions of their content. After the conclusion of the Gospel
of Luke, the manuscript contains the words “euangelion kata Loukan,” or “the gospel according
to Luke.” And immediately following these words is the expression “euangelion kata Ioannan,” or
“the gospel according to John.” These notices indicate that the material preceding the words
“the gospel according to Luke” was identified as Luke’s gospel. This manuscript evidence indicates
that from very early on, it was believed that Luke wrote the third gospel. And by extension, it
points to Luke as the author of Acts as well. Second, the Muratorian Fragment,
dated around A.D. 170 to 180, is the earliest known document listing the
New Testament books that the early church considered to be canonical. After affirming
Luke’s authorship of the Gospel of Luke, it explicitly points to him as the author of Acts as
well. In lines 34 through 36 we read these words: This statement indicates that in the second
century, it was widely believed that Luke was the author of Acts and had witnessed at
least some of the events described within it. Third, the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue,
an introduction to the third gospel written around A.D. 160 to 180, describes the
authorship of Luke and Acts in this way: Beyond this early manuscript evidence, we
also have the testimony of early church leaders indicating that Luke was the author
of the third gospel and the book of Acts. The church father Irenaeus, who lived from around
A.D. 130 to 202, believed that Luke was the author of the third gospel. In his work Against
Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1 Section 1, he wrote: Here Irenaeus referred to Acts as the
book that recorded the gospel preached by Paul. His words are important because good
historical evidence indicates that Irenaeus had access to firsthand knowledge
regarding Luke’s authorship of Acts. Clement of Alexandria, who lived from around A.D.
150 to 215, also referred to Luke as the author of Acts. In book 5, chapter 12 of his Stromata,
or miscellaneous matters, he wrote these words: And Tertullian, who lived from A.D. 155 to 230, wrote these words in his work
Against Marcion, book 4, chapter 2: Here, Tertullian specifically
attributed the third Gospel to Luke. Finally, the great church historian
Eusebius, writing around A.D. 323, mentioned Luke as the author of Acts in book 1, chapter 5, section 3 of his Ecclesiastical
History. Listen to what he wrote there: In addition to these kinds of affirmative
statements, it is striking that there is not one indication in the literature of the early
church that anyone other than Luke wrote the third gospel and Acts, even though he was never
designated as an apostle. Because of clues like these, we have reason to believe that the early
church did not invent the authorship of Luke, but merely passed on what it had received as
the truth: that Luke wrote both these books. So far we have seen that there is good reason to
affirm common authorship for Acts and the third gospel, and that the early church testified that
this single author was Luke. Now let’s see what inferences we can draw from other portions
of the New Testament about Luke himself. We will examine this evidence in two ways.
First, we will note some clues we gain from the New Testament about our anonymous author.
And second, we will compare these clues with information we have about Luke himself.
Let’s look first at clues about our author. As we have already said, the author of Acts
did not identify himself by name. Apparently, he felt no need to name himself for the sake of
his patron Theophilus. In Luke chapter 1 verse 3 he simply said, “it seemed good also to me to
write,” and in Acts chapter 1 verse 1 he said, “In my former book ... I wrote.” The author
assumed that his patron knew who he was. And while this created no problem for Theophilus, it
has created many questions for modern readers. At the same time, there are a number of things
that the New Testament does tell us about our author. First, he was not an apostle. In fact,
he probably came to faith after Jesus ascended into heaven. Listen to these details from
the Gospel of Luke chapter 1 verses 1 and 2. When the author said that the events
of Jesus’ life were handed down to us, he indicated that he was not an
eyewitness to the life of Jesus. Second, the style of Greek in Acts and the
Gospel of Luke indicates that the author was well educated. Many of the books in the New
Testament are written in a fairly common, even unsophisticated style of Greek.
But the Gospel of Luke and Acts show more sophistication in their use of the language. Third, the second half of Acts indicates that
the author was one of Paul’s close traveling companions. In the early chapters of Acts, the
narratives are consistently in the third person. But beginning in Acts 16, the narrative
often takes on a first-person perspective, using words like “we” and “us.” We find this
type of language in Acts 16 verses 10 through 17; chapter 20 verses 5 through 15; chapter 21
verses 1 through 18; and chapter 27 verse 1 through chapter 28 verse 16. These passages
indicate that the writer accompanied Paul during Paul’s later missionary journeys
and on Paul’s trip from Caesarea to Rome. Now that we have some clues about our author, we are in a position to see how well these
details correspond to what we know about Luke. Let’s look once more at the things we know
about the author of Luke and Acts: He was not an apostle. He appears to have been well educated.
And he was Paul’s traveling companion. How do these details compare to what we know about Luke?
Well, first of all, Luke was not an apostle. The apostles served in a foundational role for the
church, exercising unique authority on Christ’s behalf to establish the church and guard it
from error and trouble. And according to Acts chapter 1 verses 21 and 22, apostles had to
be trained by Jesus himself. But Luke never met Jesus in person and never claimed the type of
authority that belonged to the apostles. Rather, he was simply a faithful supporting member of
Paul’s missionary endeavors. He was the servant of an apostle, or as Paul described him in Philemon
verse 24, a “fellow laborer” of an apostle. Second, it is likely that Luke was well educated.
We can infer this from Colossians chapter 4 verse 14, where Paul identified Luke as a physician.
While medicine was not as formal a discipline in the days of the New Testament as it is today, it
still required a person with skill and aptitude. Third, Luke was Paul’s traveling companion. The
apostle Paul mentioned that Luke traveled with him in Colossians chapter 4 verse 14; 2 Timothy
chapter 4 verse 11; and Philemon verse 24. We can sum up the issue of authorship for Acts
in this way. There is a great deal of historical evidence that points to Luke’s authorship
of Acts. Luke and Acts have a common author. The evidence of the early church consistently
attributes authorship to Luke. And the biblical data is consistent with this idea. In light
of these evidences, we have good reason to believe that Luke was the author of both the
third gospel and Acts. And we should always remember that Luke had excellent access and
proximity to the subject matter he described. Now that we have looked at Luke’s
authorship, we are ready to turn to the historical setting of Acts. When did Luke
write? And for whom did he compose his book? As we investigate the historical setting of Acts,
we will look at three topics. First, we will consider the date of composition of Acts, pursuing
the question of when Luke wrote Acts. Second, we will investigate the original audience of the
book. And third, we will explore the audience’s social context. Looking into these matters will
help us to clarify further the proximity of Luke to the narrated events. It will also help us
to understand in a deeper and fuller way the impact the gospel had in the first century A.D.
Let’s begin with the date of the book’s writing. Although there have been many different opinions
on when the book of Acts was first written, in general terms, we can divide the opinions of New
Testament scholars into two basic orientations. On the one hand, some have argued that Luke wrote
after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. And on the other hand, others have
argued that he wrote before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The tragic events of A.D.
70 were critical to Jewish history, and for this reason it is helpful to think of opinions on
these matters in terms of these events. We’ll look at each of these outlooks, beginning with
the possibility that Luke wrote after A.D. 70. Scholars who hold that Acts was written
after A.D. 70 base their views on a number of considerations. For instance, many have
claimed that the optimism of the book of Acts indicates a date of A.D. 80 to 90. In
this view, Acts is too positive about the early church to have been written early on.
Instead, it is a nostalgic look at the early church requiring many years of separation from
the events themselves. But this view overlooks the sober way that Acts deals with all kinds
of problems inside and outside the church. For the most part, those who believe that Acts was
written after A.D. 70 do so because they believe that some material in the book of Acts depends
on the works of the Jewish historian Josephus. Josephus’ relevant writings were composed no
earlier than A.D. 79, and would not have been widely available much before A.D. 85. So, those
who believe that Acts depended on the works of Josephus conclude that Acts was written no earlier
than A.D. 79 and probably sometime after A.D. 85. While advocates of this position have
pointed to many connections between Acts and the works of Josephus, we will touch on
just four connections they have mentioned. First, Acts chapter 5 verse 36 refers to
Theudas, a Jewish revolutionary who may also have been mentioned in book 20 section 97
of Josephus’ Antiquities. Second, Acts chapter 5 verse 37 mentions the revolutionary Judas the
Galilean, who appears in book 2, sections 117 and 118 of Josephus’ Jewish Wars, and in book
18, sections 1 through 8 of his Antiquities. Third, the revolutionary called The Egyptian
in Acts chapter 21 verse 38 may also appear in book 2, sections 261 through 263 of
Josephus’ Jewish Wars, and in book 20, section 171 of his Antiquities. And fourth, a
number of interpreters have also argued that the description of Herod’s death in Acts chapter
12 verses 19 through 23 depended on book 19, sections 343 through 352 of Josephus’ Antiquities. Despite the number of interpreters who follow
this line of reasoning, we need to point out that the parallels between Acts and the writings
of Josephus do not prove that Acts was dependent on Josephus’ works. In fact, the descriptions of
events in Acts differ from Josephus’ descriptions. So, it seems more likely that Acts and Josephus
simply recounted well-known historical events separately or depended on common sources.
Since the people mentioned were relatively well-known historical figures, it should not be
surprising that they are remembered in more than one historical record. And more than this, in
the case of Theudas we are dealing with a very common name. It is possible that two separate
individuals with the same name are in view. The second major view on the date of Acts has
been that it was written before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. There are many
evidences in favor of this earlier date, but for our purposes we will focus on what we may
conclude from the last scene in the book of Acts. Listen to the last two verses in Acts chapter 28 verses 30 and 31. There Luke
wrote these words about Paul: The book of Acts closes with Paul under house
arrest in Rome, boldly proclaiming the Christian gospel. This ending offers important evidence for
believing that Acts was written before A.D. 70. First, Luke’s description of Paul’s ministry
stops short of a crucial event that took place in A.D. 64. In A.D. 64, Nero blamed
Christians for the devastating fire in Rome and began to persecute Christians.
It would be strange for Luke not to mention such a major turn of events if it had
already occurred by the time he wrote Acts. Second, Paul is generally thought to have been
martyred during Nero’s persecution of the church, probably in A.D. 65 or shortly thereafter.
If Acts had been written after this, it would almost certainly have mentioned the martyrdom of
Paul, one of the book’s most prominent characters. Third, when the Jewish temple in Jerusalem
was destroyed in A.D. 70 it significantly impacted the relationships between Jews
and Gentiles in the church. The book of Acts focuses on these relationships
in many places. So, it seems quite unlikely that Acts would have omitted the
destruction of the temple had it occurred. In light of facts like these, it seems best
to conclude that Luke completed Acts close to the time of Paul’s imprisonment and
ministry in Rome in A.D. 60 through 62, the last historical detail mentioned in the book. With this understanding of the early date
of Acts in mind, we should turn to a second feature of the historical setting of Acts: the
original audience of Luke’s work. An awareness of the audience Luke sought to reach with the book
of Acts is critical to understanding his work. We will explore the original audience of Acts
in two ways. First, we will look at the book’s explicit dedication to Theophilus. And second,
we will look at the possibility that the book was also intended for a broader audience. Let’s
begin with Theophilus as Luke’s first reader. Luke’s prologues imply that Theophilus was his
patron, the one who commissioned his writing. As we have seen, in Luke chapter 1 verse 3
and Acts chapter 1 verse 1, Luke dedicated his works to Theophilus. Beyond this, in Luke
chapter 1 verse 3, Luke called Theophilus most excellent Theophilus. Luke used the term “most
excellent” (or "kratistos" in Greek) as an expression of honor. This terminology has led many
to believe that Theophilus was his wealthy patron. But the relationship between Luke and
Theophilus was more complex than mere patronage. By reading the books of Luke and
Acts, Theophilus became Luke’s student. We can see this aspect of Theophilus’ relationship
to Luke in the prologue to Luke’s gospel. In Luke chapter 1 verses 3
through 4 we read these words: As this passage indicates, Luke’s book was
designed in part so that Theophilus would know the certainty of the things he had been taught. To
put it simply, Luke wrote to instruct Theophilus. Having seen that Luke explicitly
cited Theophilus as his first reader, it is also helpful to think of Luke’s
original audience in broader terms. From what we read elsewhere in the New Testament,
it is not difficult to see that the broader church in the first century struggled with
a number of issues that Luke addressed in the book of Acts. Luke’s history mentioned
strife between Jewish and Gentile believers, and divisions based on the leadership of different
apostles and teachers. His record touches on doctrinal errors introduced by false teachers.
Acts also addresses strife between the church and civil governments. It focuses on issues faced
by women and the poor. It records persecutions, sufferings and imprisonments. Acts touches on
these kinds of doctrinal, moral and practical difficulties because the broader church struggled
with these kinds of issues in its early decades. Since Luke wrote the book of Acts to address a
very broad set of issues, it seems reasonable to assume that he intended his work to be read
by many different believers. He was concerned to help both Theophilus and the early church at
large deal with the many challenges they faced. Having considered the date and original audience
of the book of Acts, we are ready to address a third concern: the general social context of
Luke’s work, the kind of world in which the book of Acts was written. The more we can understand
about the social forces at work in Luke’s day, the better equipped we will be to
grasp many features of his book. We will explore the social context of Acts
by looking at two central features of life in the first century church: first, the rule
and power of the Roman Empire; and second, the new relationship between the church and
the Jews. Let’s look first at the Roman Empire. By the time Luke wrote the book of Acts, the
Roman Empire had conquered and controlled the entire Mediterranean world, and had extended
its reach as far as present- day Britain, North Africa and parts of Asia. In the days of
the early church, the empire was still growing, adding more and more peoples and territories
to its domain. As it did so, the Roman Empire deeply influenced all aspects of society with its
distinctively Roman values, goals and beliefs. Without a doubt, the greatest influences Rome
had on conquered territories were political and economic. One of the chief political concerns
of the Roman Empire was to ensure peace and loyalty within the empire by exerting
forceful control over local authorities. Conquered nations were allowed a measure of
local autonomy, but their local governments were often reconfigured and were always in
subjection to the Roman hierarchy. For example, the book of Acts mentions two Roman governors
of Caesarea, namely Felix and Festus, who ruled the entire land of Judea from
Caesarea. In addition to overseeing taxation, they were responsible for maintaining peace
and order in their part of the Roman Empire. The empire also exercised cultural
and political influence through the integration of Roman citizens into
the population of conquered nations. Often, Rome offered retiring military
forces land in newly conquered territories. This practice established enclaves of loyal
Roman citizens all across the entire empire, and promoted the values and commitments of
Rome in both official and social settings. This is why the book of Acts mentions people from
Rome from time to time. As early as Pentecost, we read in Acts chapter 2 verses 10 and 11 that
there were “visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism).” Again, Cornelius, the
God-fearing Roman centurion in Acts chapter 10, plays an important role in the
spread of the gospel in Acts. Beyond this, local cultures were influenced
by Rome’s public works, such as roads, elaborate buildings and public meeting places.
This aspect of Roman rule explains how Paul and others traveled so freely and safely
in their missionary efforts. The apostles also used these public venues to proclaim the
gospel as they traveled from place to place. Perhaps the most important
feature of the Roman Empire for the early church was its influence on
the religions of the people it conquered. At the time of Luke’s writing, one man stood
at the center of the entire Roman Empire: Caesar. The emperor or Caesar was not only
seen as the lord of his people and realm, but also as the soter or savior of the
people. According to Roman propaganda, Caesars delivered their people from chaos
and darkness. And the extension of the Roman Empire was presented as an extension
of his salvation, freeing people from the tyranny of their local kings and bringing
everyone under Rome’s benevolent rule. In most places, conquered people were allowed to
continue many of their own religious practices, but they were required to confess the superiority
of the Caesar and the traditional Roman gods. Now, in many respects, most Jews and Christians in the
first century were respectable subjects of Rome, but faithful Jews and Christians refused to
acknowledge the supremacy of Roman religion. The Roman Empire designated the Jewish faith as
a "religio licita" or “legal religion,” and it tolerated the Christian faith as much as possible
— even though it still repressed both groups. Through its control of government,
population, public works and religion, Rome attempted to spread its
influence everywhere it could. Now that we have looked at the social context
of Acts in terms of the influences of the Roman Empire, we are ready to examine another
crucial dimension of the social situation into which Luke wrote: the relationship between
Unbelieving Jews and the early Christian church. We will consider the relationship between
the Jews and the early church first by noting the deep connection between
them, and second by exploring their fundamental differences. Let’s begin with
the connection between these two groups. The early church shared a common heritage
with the Jewish people. As obvious as it is, in the modern world we often have to remind
ourselves of the fact that Jesus was Jewish, the apostles were all Jewish, and at first,
the church itself consisted almost entirely of Jewish converts. So, it should not be
surprising that in the mind of the early church, loyalty to the promised Jewish Messiah
implied a certain faithfulness to Judaism. According to the book of Acts, many people
in the early church attended temple worship, met in synagogues to hear the Scriptures,
and maintained appreciation for many Jewish customs. For example, listen to Paul’s words
in Acts chapter 13 verses 32 through 33: Paul and those who traveled with him identified
themselves with the Jews in the synagogue, speaking of the patriarchs as “our fathers”
and of Christians as us, their children. In addition, the early church and
the Jewish community at large were both committed to the same Scriptures. In
the book of Acts, Christians consistently appealed to the Scriptures when they
proclaimed the gospel in Jewish contexts. Acts chapter 17 verses 1 through
3 records how Paul turned to the Scriptures when proclaiming Christ to
Jews. Listen to Luke’s words there: Beyond this, the deep connection
between Christianity and Judaism resulted in significant interactions between
the Jewish authorities and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early
church’s boldness in proclaiming the gospel of Christ often led to conflict with
Jewish authorities. But as much as possible, the early Christians acknowledged
Jewish leaders and resisted them only when they ordered them to
disobey the commands of God. Despite the deep connection between
the Jewish people and the early church, they were still distinguished
by fundamental differences. First and most fundamentally,
Christians and unbelieving Jews disagreed over the person and work
of Jesus. The church proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah who had conquered
death and was restoring all creation, beginning with his own resurrection from the
dead. But the unbelieving Jews considered it impossible for a man crucified as a criminal to
be the promised Messiah. This difference created a rift between Christians and non-Christian
Jews that continues even to our own day. Second, while the early church and the Jewish
leaders agreed on the authority of the Hebrew Bible, they disagreed vigorously over the
correct interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly with regard to Jesus.
The early church believed that the hopes of the Hebrew Scriptures for the
coming Messiah were fulfilled in Jesus, but unbelieving Jews denied this
understanding. There were many parties within Judaism that held to a wide
range of views, but most of them found it impossible to accept that Jesus fulfilled
the messianic hopes of the Old Testament. In the third place, the early church and
the Jewish people of the first century differed over how they viewed Gentiles. For
the most part, observant Jews did not share company with Gentiles. But on the other
hand, many uncircumcised Gentiles were so attracted to the beliefs and ethical
teaching of Judaism that they attached themselves to local Jewish synagogues and
were known as God-fearers. The God-fearers were respected above other Gentiles, but they
were not full members of the Jewish community. Gentile proselytes converted to Judaism, but
this involved undergoing initiation rites, including a baptism and circumcision, and
the observance of the Jewish traditions. While the early Jewish Christians began
with this same understanding of Gentiles, they gradually came to understand that
Gentiles who followed Christ were to be granted full status in the Christian church. In
light of new revelation from the Holy Spirit, the early church determined that faith in Christ
expressed in confession and baptism was sufficient for membership in the Christian church. So, the
apostles made it their practice to proclaim the gospel of Christ’s universal Lordship to both Jews
and Gentiles, accepting the gifts and ministry of both peoples as the church grew. They understood
that God was using the Gentiles to fulfill the hope of the kingdom that he had extended to his
people in the Old Testament. Not surprisingly, this led to many conflicts between
unbelieving Jews and early Christians. Knowing some of the details about the time
when Luke wrote, the audience to whom he wrote, and the social context in which he wrote
will help us greatly as we study the book of Acts. We will be better prepared to
appreciate the problems Luke addressed, to understand his solutions, and to
apply them to our own lives today. Now that we have examined the authorship and
historical setting of Acts, we are ready to explore our third main topic in this lesson,
the theological background of the book of Acts. As we study the book of Acts, many theological
questions come to mind. Where did Luke learn his theological perspectives? How did
he decide what to address in his book and what to omit? What overarching
principles guided his writing? Well, the answers to these questions can be
found in Luke’s theological background. Our discussion of the theological background
of Acts will divide into three parts. First, we will explore the foundations of Luke’s theology
in the Old Testament. Second, we will consider how his theology was influenced by his beliefs
about the Messianic kingdom of God. And third, we will see how Luke’s gospel, the first
volume of Luke’s work, helps us understand the message of Acts. Let’s begin with the Old
Testament foundations to the book of Acts. The Old Testament influenced Luke’s writing in
at least two ways. In the first place, Luke was deeply influenced by the Old Testament’s view
of history in general. And in the second place, he was deeply impacted by its treatment of
the history of Israel in particular. Let’s look first at how the Old Testament’s view of
history in general informed Luke’s theology. In his great work Pensées, the 17th century
Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal spoke of three great truths that human beings
have recognized throughout history. First, he refers to the glory and beauty of
creation, the wonder that permeates the universe because God made all things good.
Second, he spoke of the perplexing conflict between the creation’s original glory and
its present misery and corruption. And third, Pascal spoke of redemption, the hope that
there will be a solution to this conflict. Pascal’s reflections parallel the Old
Testament’s division of world history into the three main stages of creation, the
fall into sin, and redemption. And in Acts, Luke wrote about the early church in ways that
reflected this threefold outlook on history. Consider the period of creation. In Genesis
chapter 1, God prepared the world to be an extension of his heavenly kingdom. He ordered
the universe; formed a paradise in Eden; placed humanity, his royal image, within that
paradise; and commanded humanity to multiply and to rule over the earth, beginning in
Eden and stretching to the ends of the globe. In short, God set the stage for the
full development of his kingdom on earth. Luke’s awareness of this important Old
Testament idea is evident in many places in Acts. For instance, in chapter 4 verses 24
through 30, Peter and John spoke of creation as evidence of God’s royal lordship over the
earth. In chapter 14 verses 15 through 17, Paul and Barnabas spoke of creation as the
basis for God’s rule over the nations. In chapter 7 verse 49, Stephen asserted that
God had created the world to be his royal footstool. Listen to Paul’s words in Athens
in Acts chapter 17 verses 24 through 27: According to this passage, the backdrop to
Paul’s gospel ministry reached all the way to creation. God is the Lord who made the world and
everything in it. He ordered the world so that men would seek him, reach out for him and find him.
Paul’s gospel ministry grew out of the purposes God established at creation. By including
these details in his book, Luke indicated that the theme of creation was important to
his own understanding of the early church. In much the same way, Luke’s awareness
of humanity’s fall into sin also comes to the foreground in the book of Acts. As we know,
Genesis chapter 3 teaches that after God created humanity, Adam and Eve rebelled against him.
And the impact of this was tremendous. According to the Old Testament, humanity had such a
central role in the world that their fall into sin brought the entire human race under the
curse of death and corrupted the entire creation. Luke wrote of the misery of sin in many places
throughout Acts. We find references to the fall in Peter’s sermons in chapter 2 verse 38 and chapter
3 verse 19, in the apostles’ defense before the Sanhedrin in chapter 5 verses 29 through 32, in
Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders in chapter 20 verses 18 through 35, and in Paul’s speech
before King Agrippa in Acts chapter 26 verse 20. The book of Acts repeatedly illustrates that
everything in creation — the physical world, our economic structures, our political systems, and even the church itself — suffers
because of humanity’s fall into sin. Happily, Luke’s history in Acts also
indicates that he not only believed in the Old Testament teaching
about creation and the fall, but also embraced what the Old Testament said
about the redemption. As horribly as sin had corrupted humanity and creation, Luke knew
that God had not left the world without hope. The Old Testament taught that God had been
redeeming or saving people from the curse of sin since it first entered the world. But more than
this, OT prophets also predicted a day when sin and its curse would be entirely eliminated from
the creation. As Luke wrote the book of Acts, he frequently displayed his belief that
this redemption was coming to the world through the saving work of Christ.
This theme appears throughout Acts. To name just a few, we find these themes of
redemption in: Peter’s sermon in chapter 2 verses 21 to 40; the apostles’ defense before
the Sanhedrin in chapter 5 verses 29 through 32; the angel’s words to Cornelius in chapter 11 verse
14; Paul’s speech in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch in chapter 13 verse 23; Peter’s argument
in the Jerusalem counsel in chapter 15 verses 7 through 11, and Paul and Silas’ words to the
Philippian jailor in chapter 16 verses 30 and 31. As we approach the book of Acts, we
must always remember that Luke was deeply influenced by the Old Testament
view of world history as he wrote. This is why he so often recorded moments from the
first century that reflected the broad scope of world history from creation, to the
fall into sin, to redemption in Christ. Now that we have looked at the Old
Testament’s vision of history in general, we are ready to turn to its vision of
the history of Israel in particular, and to the way Luke’s record in Acts depended
on the history of this special nation. There are countless ways that Luke relied on
the history of Israel as he was writing Acts. For the sake of illustration, we will limit our
discussion to three events from Israel’s history: God’s choice of Abraham, the Exodus under Moses,
and the establishment of David’s dynasty. First, consider how God’s choice of
Abraham informed Luke’s history. Genesis chapter 12 verses 1 through
3 records God’s choice of Abraham to be the father of a special
nation. There we read these words: According to these verses, God called Abraham to
go to the Promised Land for two main purposes. On the one hand, Abraham would father a great
nation, become famous, and receive many spiritual and material blessings. God’s blessings to
Abraham and his descendants after him were to be symbolic demonstrations that there is hope
in God’s salvation, even in this fallen world. But on the other hand, God’s call went far
beyond what Abraham and his descendants would receive. Through Abraham, all peoples
on earth would be blessed. Abraham and his descendants would become a conduit of divine
blessings to all the families of the earth. This twofold focus of God’s choice of Abraham
underlies much of Luke’s thinking in Acts. On the one hand, Luke frequently reported how the
blessing of salvation in Christ came to the Jews, the descendants of Abraham, fulfilling
God’s promises to the great patriarch. But on the other hand, Luke also
focused on how Jewish Christians brought the gospel of Christ to the
Gentiles. Time and again in Acts, Luke reported that Jews like Phillip,
Peter, Paul and Barnabas took the gospel of salvation to the Gentile world. This
too fulfilled God’s promises to Abraham. In the second place, Luke’s outlook in Acts also
showed his understanding of the relationship between Moses and the Christian church. As God’s
deliverer, Moses led Israel from slavery in Egypt, presented God’s Law to the nation, and held them
accountable to the Law. And in that same Law, Moses prophesied that God would one day send
another prophet like himself to redeem his people from their slavery to sin. And as Luke pointed
out in Acts, this prophet like Moses turned out to be Jesus. Listen to Stephen’s words that Luke
recorded in Acts chapter 7 verses 37 through 39: From Stephen’s point of view, Jesus
was the prophet Moses had foretold. So, to reject Jesus was also to reject Moses and
the Law, just as the ancient Israelites had done. To be truly committed to Moses
and the Law, one must embrace Christ. And consider how Luke summarized Paul’s words to
the Jewish leaders in Acts chapter 28 verse 23: For Paul and the rest of the early
church, acceptance of Moses and the Law was foundational to faith in Christ. And
this belief influenced what Luke wrote in Acts. In the third place, Luke was influenced by
the Old Testament record of David’s dynasty. It would be difficult to imagine any Old
Testament theme that was more important to Luke than the establishment of David’s house
as the permanent dynasty to rule over Israel. As Israel grew into an empire in the Old
Testament, God chose the family of David as the permanent dynasty to lead his people.
But the Old Testament also anticipated the day when the house of David would extend the reign
of God from Israel to the ends of the earth. As we read in Psalm chapter 72 verses 8 and 17: As these verses reveal, it was through his
descendant David that Abraham would become a blessing to the world. But David would
not accomplish this himself. Rather, one of his descendants would be the king to extend his
benevolent, peaceful rule over the entire world. In the book of Acts, Luke drew deeply from
this hope in David’s house. He understood that Jesus was the son of David, the
royal ruler of God’s kingdom who was expanding his reign from Jerusalem to the
ends of the earth by means of the church. For example, listen to James’
words at the Jerusalem Council, found in Acts chapter 15 verses 14 through 18: Here James referred to Amos
chapter 9 verses 11 and 12, where Amos predicted that God would
restore David’s dynasty and extend his reign over the Gentile nations. As he
indicated here, James believed the success of the gospel among the Gentiles was the
fulfillment of these Old Testament hopes. Luke wanted his readers to understand that Jesus
was the heir to Abraham’s promises, the prophet like Moses, and the final Davidic king. Jesus
had ascended to his throne and was conquering the world through the proclamation of the gospel and
the growth of the church, extending his kingdom of salvation from Jerusalem to the ends of the
earth, just as the Old Testament had foretold. Having looked at Luke’s dependence on the
Old Testament, we are ready to see how the messianic kingdom of God contributed
to the theological background of Acts. Our discussion of the kingdom of God will divide
into three parts. First, we will consider the Jewish messianic theology that was prevalent in
the first century. Second, we will focus on the theology of John the Baptist. And third, we will
briefly compare these views with the Christian messianic theology that Luke endorsed. Let’s
begin with the perspectives of Jewish theology. After the last books of the Old Testament
were written in the fifth century B.C., Israel entered a period of spiritual darkness. For
hundreds of years, the vast majority of Israelites lived outside the Promised Land, and those who
remained in the Land suffered under the tyranny of Gentile rulers. At first it was the Babylonians,
then the Medes and Persians, then the Greeks, and finally the Romans. As a result of this prolonged
history of suffering, the hope that God would send a messianic liberator to Israel became one of
the most dominant motifs of Jewish theology. Jewish messianic hopes took many different
directions. For example, the zealots believed that God wanted Israel to usher in the day of
the Messiah by mounting insurrection against the Roman authorities. Various apocalyptic groups
believed that God would supernaturally intervene to destroy his enemies and to establish his
people as victors. There were also nomists, such as the popular Pharisees and Sadducees,
who believed that God would not intervene until Israel became obedient to the Law.
At various points in the book of Acts, Luke mentioned that many Jews rejected the
Christian view of the messianic kingdom. Although the Jews had many different hopes
for the Messiah, Luke saw that a significant transition in Jewish theology took place
through the ministry of John the Baptist. Both the Gospel of Luke and the book of
Acts indicate that John the Baptist called for true repentance, and proclaimed the
good news that the Messiah was about to bring the kingdom of God to earth. And more
than this, John rightly identified Jesus as the Messiah. Listen to John the Baptist’s
words in Luke chapter 3 verses 16 and 17: Here John rightly declared that
the Messiah would bring the great blessing and purification of the Holy
Spirit, including judgment. But he was under the mistaken impression that the
Messiah would do this work all at once. John did not foresee that the Messiah would
bring salvation and judgment to the world in stages. Later, John became perplexed
by the fact that Jesus had not yet done everything that Jewish theologians had
expected the Messiah to do. John was so troubled that he sent messengers to
ask Jesus if he really was the Messiah. Listen to the way Luke described their question and Jesus’ response in Luke
chapter 7 verses 20 through 23: In his reply to John the Baptist, Jesus alluded
to a number of messianic prophecies in the book of Isaiah. He did this to assure John that he was
in the process of fulfilling various expectations of Old Testament messianic prophecy, even
though he hadn’t finished them all. Jesus also encouraged John not to fall away because
of the way his messianic work was unfolding. In short, Jesus’ messianic mission looked
very different from what was expected. Jewish messianic hopes looked for an immediate earthly
political kingdom under the rule of the Messiah, similar to the kingdom that David had
ruled centuries before. But Jesus did not attempt to establish this type of
kingdom during his earthly ministry. With this understanding of Jewish messianic
theology and the outlooks of John the Baptist in mind, we are ready to turn to the early Christian
theology of the Messiah and the kingdom of God. In Luke’s writings, as in the
rest of the New Testament, Christian messianic theology is
closely connected to the Christian gospel or good news. We can summarize the
New Testament gospel message in this way: You’ll note that the gospel message touches
on two essential ideas. On the one hand, we find what we might call the more objective side of
the Christian gospel. The kingdom of God comes to earth through the person and work of Jesus. Luke
believed that as the Messiah, Jesus had begun the final phase of God’s kingdom on earth, and that
he would one day return to finish what he started. And on the other hand, the New Testament
gospel message also had a more subjective side. It announced that the final phase
of God’s kingdom expands toward its great consummation as God grants salvation to
those who receive and trust in Jesus as the Messiah. The rule of God over the world
moves forward as the gospel touches the hearts of those who believe, and brings them
into the salvation that Jesus accomplished. In the book of Acts, Luke drew attention to both
these dimensions of the gospel. On the objective side, he emphasized the realities of God’s great
work of salvation in Christ. He recorded the church’s proclamation that Jesus had died for
the sins of his people, that he had been raised from the dead, that he reigns at the right hand of
God the Father, and that he will return in glory. For example, listen to Luke’s
record of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 verses 22 through 24: Notice that Peter’s gospel
proclamation includes the objective facts of the Messiah’s
life, death and resurrection. But Luke also drew attention to the
more subjective side of the gospel. On many occasions he stressed the
importance of people personally embracing the truth of Christ so
that it transformed their lives. For example, Luke’s record of
Peter’s Pentecost speech also includes these words in Acts
chapter 2 verses 37 and 38. The Christian gospel cuts to the heart of
those who hear it. It is not just a bare acknowledgement of facts, but a heartfelt,
life-transforming embrace of the Savior. As we have said, first-century Jewish theology
believed that the Messiah would establish a political kingdom all at once. But Jesus and his
apostles taught that the Messiah’s kingdom grows gradually through the expansion of the church
and the personal transformation of people. This is one reason that Luke focused
so much attention on the conversion of unbelievers through the proclamation
of the gospel. He knew that this was the means through which the messianic kingdom
of God would expand throughout the world. With the broad contours of the Old Testament
vision in mind, we should consider a third aspect of the theological background of
Acts: its foundation in Luke’s gospel. As we read the book of Acts, we must always
remember that it is the second of two volumes that Luke wrote to Theophilus. Luke always intended
these books to be read together. His gospel is the first part of the story and the book of Acts
is the second part of the story. So, to read the book of Acts rightly, we need to understand how it
continues the story that is begun in the gospel. There are many ways Luke’s gospel prepares us
to understand the message of Acts. But for our purposes we will focus on the theme of the kingdom
of God that spans both volumes. In Luke’s gospel, Jesus established the pattern and goal for the
kingdom of God and prepared his apostles to continue his work after his ascension. In the book
of Acts, Jesus ascended into heaven and left his apostles, aided by the Holy Spirit, in charge
of expanding his kingdom through the gospel. We will consider two ways that the
Gospel of Luke prepares the way for the apostles’ kingdom-building
work in the book of Acts. First, we will look to Jesus as the one
who brought the kingdom. And second, we will explore the role of the apostles
in continuing to bring in the kingdom after Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Let’s begin with
Jesus as the one who brings the kingdom of God. Throughout his gospel, Luke characterized Jesus
as the prophet who proclaimed the coming of the kingdom of God, and as the king who was bringing
the kingdom into power by ascending to its throne. Jesus himself spoke of both these ideas in
many places. But by way of illustration, we will consider just two times that
he mentioned it in his public ministry. On the one hand, in Luke chapter 4 verse 43, Jesus spoke these words near the
beginning of his public ministry: On the other hand, at the
end of his public ministry, just before his triumphal entry into
Jerusalem where he was heralded as king, Jesus told the parable of the ten minas in Luke
chapter 19 verses 12 through 27. In this parable, he explained how the kingdom would come
slowly. Most Jews in his day hoped for a kingdom that would come immediately in all its
fullness. But Jesus taught that he was bringing in the kingdom slowly and in stages. Jesus had
begun the kingdom, but he was going away for a long time to be crowned king, and he would
not complete his kingdom until his return. Listen to the way the parable of the ten minas
begins in Luke chapter 19 verses 11 and 12: Notice what happened here. Jesus was about
to enter Jerusalem and to be proclaimed king, but he did not want the people to assume that
he would install himself as an earthly ruler at this time. Instead, he would be leaving for
a long time, in order to receive his kingship, and would return to rule his
earthly kingdom in the future. And this is exactly what happened.
In Jerusalem, Jesus was arrested and crucified. Then he rose from the dead and
ascended into heaven, at which point he received his kingship from the Father. And he
has yet to return to consummate his kingdom. With this understanding of the way the
Gospel of Luke established Jesus as the one who brings the kingdom, we should turn
to a second matter established in the gospel: the role of the apostles in furthering
the kingdom through the gospel. On the night before Jesus was crucified, he instructed his apostles to carry on
his work of bringing in the kingdom. Listen to his words to them in
Luke chapter 22 verses 29 and 30: Jesus appointed his apostles as leaders
and judges in his kingdom. Their job was, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit,
to continue where he left off, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and
expanding the kingdom to fill the world. So, we can see that Luke’s Gospel establishes that
inaugurating the kingdom was Jesus’ primary task, and that he commissioned the apostles to carry
on this work after his ascension into heaven. And the book of Acts picks up
right where the Gospel of Luke ends. It begins with Luke explaining
that after Jesus rose from the dead and before he ascended into heaven,
he spent time teaching the apostles. Listen to Luke’s account in Acts
chapter 1 verses 3 through 8: Once again, Jesus encouraged his followers
not to look for an immediate completion of the kingdom. Instead, he confirmed that
the apostles would be responsible to carry on his work by proclaiming
the gospel throughout the world. And this is just what the apostles did in the book
of Acts. They built up the church as the current form of the kingdom of God. And they brought the
gospel of the kingdom to new lands and people, expanding the kingdom from Jerusalem, to
Judea, to Samaria, to the ends of the earth. Listen to the way Luke concluded the book
of Acts in chapter 28 verses 30 and 31: Notice that rather than simply saying that
Paul preached the “gospel,” Luke said that Paul preached the kingdom of God. The book
of Acts ends just as it begins, emphasizing the apostles’ role as those who expanded God’s
kingdom on earth, through their proclamation. As we approach the book of Acts, we must
always keep in mind that Luke wrote out of his background in the Old Testament and
first century beliefs about the kingdom of God in Christ. And we must also remember that
Acts follows the Gospel of Luke by reporting how the kingdom work that began through the
ministry of Christ was continued through the apostles and the early church, as
they relied upon the Holy Spirit. In this lesson, we have examined
the authorship of the book of Acts; we have described its historical setting; and
we have explored its theological background. Keeping these details in mind as we
study the book of Acts will help us to discover its original meaning, and
to apply it properly in our own lives. As we continue in this series, we will
see how the background to Acts opens many windows into this wonderful book. We
will discover how Luke’s inspired record of the early church led Theophilus and
the early church into faithful service to Christ. And we will see that the book of
Acts offers crucial guidance for the church today as we continue to proclaim the
gospel of the kingdom to our own world.
