Introduction
Overview
Luke’s purpose in Acts coincides with his purpose in the Gospel of Luke. In this two-volume work, he explains how God has continued to work out his redemptive purposes through the church. What Jesus started, the Spirit continues through his people (Ac 1:1–2). More specifically, Luke provides in Acts a “theological history” of the early church. Luke has assured his readers he has a keen interest in writing a carefully investigated, orderly history (Lk 1:1–4). Yet anyone who writes history must select events and experiences to include and others to exclude because of space restrictions. Luke’s account is accurate but selective. For example, Luke does not dedicate as much space to telling us about Paul’s eighteen-month stay in Corinth (Ac 18:1–18) as he does to reporting Paul’s much shorter stay in Philippi (probably several months; see Ac 16:12–40) or Athens (probably several weeks; see Ac 17:16–34). Luke makes these decisions based on his purpose of presenting an accurate account of what God is doing through the early church. Luke gives his readers typical or representative experiences that serve to advance God’s purpose. For this reason, we can say Luke is writing “theological history”—an accurate record of events and words that demonstrates what God has been doing in and through his people.
The first half of Acts features Peter as the primary character, while the second half features Paul.
The Unity of Luke-Acts
Since the work of Henry Cadbury in the 1920s (The Making of Luke-Acts), most scholars recognize that Luke-Acts must be read as two parts of a single work. This affirmation of the unity of Luke-Acts not only points to the need to interpret any one passage within the literary context of this wider narrative but also allows the reader to notice the numerous parallels between the two parts of the narrative. These parallels in turn reveal the theological emphases of the author, and these emphases often serve to address the needs of the church. In his Gospel, for example, Luke emphasizes the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus as he begins his ministry on earth (Lk 3:21–22). In Acts, Luke likewise draws attention to the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles as they begin their ministries (Ac 2:1–13). Such parallelism addresses a practical concern of the church: Luke encourages the early Christians that although Jesus is no longer with them in person, the Spirit, who works behind him, is the one who is working behind the church that bears his name.
Although some scholars have continued to question the unity of Luke-Acts, most see this as the basic assumption behind any informed reading of the Lukan writings. In terms of genre, these two works are not simply representatives of the ancient biographies and histories; together they point to the faithful God who fulfills his promises to Israel. In terms of narrative flow, several themes introduced in Luke (e.g., Holy Spirit, Gentiles, repentance, Samaria/Samaritans, temple, rejection of the prophet) are fully developed only in Acts; therefore, to read only one part would provide a partial picture. In terms of theological framework, one finds the same emphases on significant theological topics: identity of Jesus, the mission of the apostles, the progression of the kingdom of God, the universal relevance of the gospel message. In terms of the use of OT paradigms, both works also draw from one prophetic tradition in the description of the climactic work of God at the dawn of the eschatological era.
The recognition of the unity of Luke-Acts also affects our consideration of several significant background issues for the reading of Acts: authorship, audience/recipients, date of writing, purpose, and literary structure.
Authorship
Who wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts? Overwhelming external evidence points to Luke, the companion of Paul, as the author. The oldest manuscript (late second century AD) of the Gospel identifies Luke in the attached title. The roughly contemporary Muratorian Canon, as well as early church fathers beginning with Irenaeus, supports this identification. The internal evidence in the Lukan writings supports this. The “we-passages” in Acts, where the narrator includes himself in the story (16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16), most naturally point to the author as a companion of Paul. According to the Pauline tradition, Luke was indeed a coworker of Paul (Col 4:14; Phm 24; 2 Tm 4:11).
Since Luke is identified as a medical doctor in Col 4:14, scholars in the nineteenth century sought to show that the “medical language” in Luke-Acts is sufficient to prove that the author is indeed a physician. Recent scholars, however, have noted that such “medical language” falls short of technical medical jargon. Nevertheless, features in the Lukan writings are consistent with the fact that the author is a medical doctor. First, the preface (Lk 1:1–4) reflects the affinity of this work with scientific writings. This indirectly points to an author who is aware of the scientific literature. Second, ancient documents testify to the fact that physicians had the need and luxury to travel extensively. This again can explain Luke’s interest in the journey motif in both his Gospel (Lk 9–19) and Acts (Ac 8–28).
According to early traditions, Luke was a resident of Antioch. Noting that the we-passages begin with the account of Paul’s travel in Macedonia (16:10–17; cf. 20:5–15), it is also possible that Luke came from Macedonia. Some have therefore suggested that Luke wrote from Antioch or Macedonia, while others, for various reasons, have pointed instead to Caesarea, Asia Minor, Greece, and even Rome. Most would agree, however, that knowing the exact location from which this work originated is not critical to our reading of this narrative.
Audience
The intended audience is equally difficult to identify. The prologues of both Luke (1:3) and Acts (1:1) mention Theophilus. The fact that Luke uses the descriptive phrase “most honorable” in the prologue to his Gospel points to the elevated social status of this Theophilus (cf. Ac 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). One should not, however, assume that Luke is simply writing to one individual. First, Theophilus could serve as a sponsor of the work. If so, Theophilus would not even be the primary intended audience of this work. Second, ancient biographies and histories were always written to wider communities and not one individual. Therefore, Luke is most likely addressing a wider audience. Third, the content of Luke-Acts addresses a wide variety of issues. To limit the work to one individual seems inappropriate.
The content of Luke’s writings shows that the audience was composed of believers at home in a Gentile environment while at the same time aware of Jewish culture. First, details in this narrative point to a Gentile audience: (1) emphasis on the salvation of the Gentiles (Lk 2:30–32; 3:4–6; Ac 1:8; 13:46–47); (2) portrayal of the Roman political system (Lk 2:1–2; 3:1–2; Ac 26:26); (3) use of Greco-Roman literature (Ac 17:28); (4) use of Greco-Roman literary conventions (Lk 1:1–4; Ac 1:1); and (5) lack of lengthy Jewish legal matters (cf. Mt 5:21–48). Luke does, however, quote frequently from the OT (e.g., Lk 3:4–6; 4:4, 8, 12, 18–19; 7:27; 20:17, 37, 43; 22:37; Ac 1:20; 2:17–21, 25–28, 34–35; 4:25–26; 7:42–43, 49–50; 8:32–33; 28:26–27), and the use of these quotes assumes that the audience is well versed in the OT. It seems likely, therefore, that these are Gentiles who have in some way been affiliated with Jewish synagogues.
These first-century Gentiles who may have worshiped in the synagogue but were not full proselytes were “God-fearers,” and these God-fearers appear often in the pages of Acts (14:1; 16:13–14; 17:2–4, 10–11, 17; 18:4; 19:8). Moreover, the phrase “the things about which you have been instructed” in the Lukan prologue (Lk 1:4) suggests that these God-fearers have already accepted the gospel. This work, therefore, addresses concerns of an early Christian community dealing with issues related to their faith in Jesus the Messiah. The Lukan text does not allow us to be more precise in identifying this Christian community.
Date
The date of writing is yet another area of scholarly debate. The events in Ac 28 took place in the 60s, and Luke’s writings were quoted as early as the mid-second century. Some have suggested that Luke wrote his works in the early second century, but the issues discussed in Luke-Acts point to the struggles of the first-century church, and the focus on the active work of the Spirit points to an earlier period. Most, therefore, have adopted a first-century dating instead.
Scholars who affirm a first-century dating are generally divided into two camps: those who argue for a pre-70 dating, and those who do not. Those who insist on a pre-70 dating point to the following observations: (1) Luke does not mention the death of Paul in the 60s; (2) Luke also fails to mention the fall of Jerusalem in 70; and (3) Luke does not mention the Letters of Paul. Those who argue for a post-70 dating counter by pointing out that (1) Luke did not intend to write a biography of Paul but wrote an account of the progression of the gospel; (2) other post-70 writings (e.g., Hebrews) also did not feel the need to explicitly mention the fall of Jerusalem; and (3) although Luke does not quote from the Pauline Epistles, his writings do reflect the influence of Pauline thought. These scholars also provide additional arguments for a post-70 dating: (1) assuming that Mark is among the sources of Luke’s Gospel and that Mark was written in the 60s, the earliest Luke could have been written is the 70s; (2) Luke mentions that “many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us” (Lk 1:1), and this may point to a certain gap between Luke and the other, earlier Gospels. In light of these observations, it is difficult to insist on a pre-70 dating for the Lukan writings. Strong arguments are lacking, however, for a considerably later dating for these volumes. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Luke wrote his two-volume work around 70.
Purpose
Any reasonable reading has to assume that the author writes with a set of purposes in mind. To discern the purposes of Luke-Acts, one must examine the literary and historical contexts of this work as well as the themes, motifs, and conceptual emphases embedded within the narrative. In light of the complexity of this two-volume work, many have acknowledged that Luke wrote his work to address a number of concerns, although some are less prominent than others.
1. In his prologue, Luke explicitly notes the purpose of his work: that the readers “may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed” (Lk 1:4). In light of this note, it seems apparent that Luke intends to strengthen and confirm the faith of the readers. It remains unclear what aspects of the “things” that they have heard require affirmation.
2. In his classic work The Theology of St. Luke, Hans Conzelmann argues that Luke includes a history of the church to deal with the problem created by the delay of Jesus’s return. This history of the church provides meaning for the period between the first and second comings of Jesus. To Conzelmann, this “invention” of salvation history allows the readers to replace an eschatological urgency with the affirmation of the meaning of present existence between the times. While this proposal seeks to provide a firm historical rationale for Luke’s work, contemporary works in the first and second centuries fail to confirm the significance of the problem created by the delay of Jesus’s return. Moreover, eschatology remains a prominent topic in Luke-Acts (Lk 13:22–30; 17:22–37; 21:25–33; Ac 3:20–21).
Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria
3. Noting Luke’s emphasis on the innocence of Jesus and his apostles in the eyes of Roman officials (Lk 23:1–5, 13–16; Ac 18:12–17; 19:35–41; 23:26–30; 24:24–27; 25:13–21; 26:30–32), some have suggested that Luke aims at convincing the Romans that Christianity should be considered a harmless and acceptable “movement.” While this certainly explains a certain set of passages, others provide a rather negative picture of the Roman officials (see Lk 13:1; 22:24–30; Ac 4:27; 24:27). Moreover, much of the content of these two volumes, such as the use of the OT, cannot be explained by this proposal alone.
4. In light of the significance in both Luke and Acts of the gospel of salvation being proclaimed, this certainly should be considered as one of the main reasons for Luke’s project. The first volume points to the foundation and center of the gospel, with the second volume depicting the power of this gospel to conquer the world. This focus on the proclamation of the gospel of salvation is able to explain the focus on both Jesus the Messiah and the church that builds on the ministry of the Messiah. Without further qualification, this proposal can suffer from the weakness of proposal 1 above in that it may fail to define the precise focus of Luke’s work.
5. To specify which aspect of this gospel of salvation Luke is focusing on, one unique and constant concern throughout this two-volume work can be underscored: the universality of God’s salvation and the impact of such a salvation on the identity of God’s people. At every turning point in the development of the plot, Luke emphasizes that this gospel is not to be limited to ethnic Israel (Lk 2:30–32; 3:4–6; 4:16–30; 24:46–47; Ac 1:8; 13:46–47; 28:28). Moreover, in all these turning points, one finds Luke quoting or alluding to the OT text, thus highlighting the emphasis he places on these passages. In Acts, the movement from Judea to Gentile territory is the driving force behind the development of the narrative. In terms of historical context, Paul, who has traveled with Luke (see discussion of we-passages above), shares Luke’s concern as he also emphasizes the universality of the gospel message and the corresponding issue of the identity of Gentile believers as they relate to ethnic Israel (Rm 9:1–11:21; 1 Co 1:10–17; 2 Co 8:1–9:15; Gl 2:11–5:1; Eph 2:22–3:20; Php 3:1–11; Col 1:15–2:19). In this two-volume work, Luke aims to describe the powerful work of Jesus the Messiah, whose death and resurrection usher in a new era in salvation history, an era that witnesses the powerful work of the gospel on both Jewish and Gentile soil. Through this lens one can read this historical work as theologically meaningful, as Luke is not content with the mere reproduction of historical records but is also presenting such material as a way to explain the powerful work of God in history.
Outline
1. Ascension and Commission (1:1–11)
2. Restoration of God’s People in Jerusalem (1:12–7:60)
A. Fulfillment of the Twelve (1:12–26)
B. Descent of the Spirit (2:1–47)
C. Opposition to the Apostles by Jewish Leadership (3:1–4:31)
D. Unity and Division in the Early Church: Ananias and Sapphira (4:32–5:11)
E. Continuing Opposition to the Apostles by Jewish Leadership (5:12–42)
F. Unity and Division in the Early Church: Appointing the Seven (6:1–7)
G. Stephen and the Preparation for Missions beyond Judea (6:8–7:60)
3. Reunification of God’s People in Judea and Samaria (8:1–12:25)
A. Saul and the Persecution of the Church (8:1–4)
B. Ministries of Philip (8:5–40)
C. Conversion and Call of Paul (9:1–31)
D. Ministries of Peter (9:32–11:18)
E. Church at Antioch (11:19–30)
F. Persecution in Jerusalem (12:1–25)
4. Mission to the Gentiles (13:1–21:16)
A. Paul’s First Missionary Journey (13:1–14:28)
B. Jerusalem Council and the Identity of Gentile Believers (15:1–35)
C. Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (15:36–18:22)
D. Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (18:23–21:16)
5. Appeal to Caesar and the Proclamation of God’s Kingdom (21:17–28:31)
A. Paul’s Arrest and Imprisonment in Jerusalem (21:17–23:35)
B. Paul’s Imprisonment in Caesarea (24:1–26:32)
C. Paul’s Voyage to Rome (27:1–28:16)
D. Paul’s Proclamation of God’s Kingdom in Rome (28:17–31)