The Acts of the Apostles

Anyone with but a slight acquaintance of the Holy Scriptures takes the book of 'The Acts' for granted as an integral part of the New Testament; and so, of course, it is.  A little reflection, however, will make us realise how much poorer we would be if, for any reason, this book had not been included in our Bible.  'The Acts' provides us with an invaluable and irreplaceable account of the history and progress of Christianity from its beginnings.

It gives us details of how, through the work of dedicated men, the first Christian communities were formed and organised.  It also tells us how these communities fared during the first thirty or more years of their history.  Perhaps most important of all, it informs us of the grounds and nature of their religious convictions.  This enabled them to hold fast in the face of severe persecution, so that Christianity eventually triumphed over the older religions of the Roman Empire.

The book of 'The Acts' is the sequel to the gospel records, and to Luke's gospel in particular.  It plays a parallel role, after the gospels, to that of the historical books from Joshua to Esther in their follow-up of the books of Moses.  Just as the teaching of the Old Testament prophets is high-lighted by reference to their historical context, particularly in the books of Kings and Chronicles, so the teaching of the New Testament Apostles in their Letters is supported and illuminated in the context of 'The Acts.'

This especially applies to the earlier Letters of Paul to various Christian churches in Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome and Galatia, which can be fairly confidently allotted to specific stages of Paul's travels and experiences.  The value of 'The Acts' is shown negatively by the relative uncertainty we now have of Paul's movements after his first imprisonment in Rome.  This is the point where Luke's record ends, and consequently differing conclusions have been advanced as to Paul's later movements.

According to tradition, Luke was a Greek-speaking native of Antioch in Syria.  When we come to the first of the series of 'we' passages in 'The Acts,' (starting at chapter 16.10 and chapter 20 ff - i.e. the occasions when he was with the Apostle Paul in his travels and uses the pronoun 'we' in his writing), Luke is already a mature believer in Christ and co-labourer in preaching the gospel.  His conversion to Christianity must therefore have been considerably earlier, possibly soon after its extension to the Gentiles.  Before that he may well have been a Jewish proselyte, as he was obviously well acquainted with the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament and with Jewish law and customs. 

Apart from the task of writing his gospel and 'The Acts', Luke is perhaps best known and appreciated for his faithful companionship with Paul during the latter's travels, possibly as his personal physician.  For in his letter to Colosse, Paul affectionately calls him 'Our dear friend Luke the doctor' (Colossians 4.14 NIV).  Again, just before his execution by the emperor Nero Paul again writes: 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4.  11).  Yet Luke's modesty and self-effacement are such that he never mentions himself by name.  It is only when the personal pronouns switch to 'we' and 'us' that his narrative betrays that he has joined Paul and is relating what he personally saw and heard.

Thus he is an eyewitness of what happened at Philippi (chapter 16), Troas (chapter 20 ff.) and thenceforward.  As Paul's close travelling companion, Luke would have received a firsthand account of Paul's earlier life.  He would especially have heard of the persecutions Paul inflicted on the infant church before he 'saw the light' on the way to Damascus (Acts 9.1-30), and, of course, his subsequent experiences before Luke joined him.  Luke would also have had opportunity to converse with the twelve Apostles of Jesus when Paul and he arrived in Jerusalem (Acts 21.18).  All these men had been eyewitnesses of Jesus earthly life from his baptism onwards (Acts 1 21-22) and notably of his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension to heaven (Acts 1.9; cp. 2 Peter 1.16; 1 John 1.1-3).

Luke's medical training had made him a careful and accurate recorder of all the happenings he observed.  We cannot reasonably doubt that the care with which he said he investigated all relevant details, in order to give an orderly account in his gospel record, (Luke 1.1-4) would be equally used in compiling The Acts of the Apostles.  Historians, travellers and archaeologists have all paid tribute to the accurate descriptions, whether of persons or places, which Luke is careful to give at the appropriate points.  For example, he mentions the correct official designations of the chief men of Paphos in Cyprus, of Thessalonica, Ephesus and Malta (proconsul, politarchs, asiarchs and 'first man' respectively).  These are all now confirmed from contemporary inscriptions.

His description of the storm and shipwreck in chapter 27 has been described as 'one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship.' His impartiality, too, is repeatedly shown in such delicate matters as the sharp disagreement between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15.36-40) and the Jerusalem debate on whether it was necessary for Gentiles to keep Moses' law (Acts 15.1-30).  He also reports the earlier complaint of discrimination against the Greek speaking Jewish Christians (Acts 6.1-6).  Altogether we have the strongest impression of a faithful and meticulous recorder of what he had personally satisfied himself as authentic history.  It is an impression to be borne in mind when we ponder the supernatural events that he also includes in his account.

In view of all this evidence, it is not surprising that 'The Acts' was endorsed by the contemporary Spirit-gifted eldership.  These men gave the seal of their approval to the books, which make up our divinely inspired New Testament.

Luke's account opens with a reference to his former book, also written for Theophilus (Luke 1.3).  This clearly intimates that he was picking up the thread of his narrative where he left off, at the ascension of Jesus.  We are indebted to him for the information that 40 days elapsed between Jesus' resurrection and his final ascension to heaven.  All New Testament writers agree with Luke in affirming the certainty of Christ's return to earth, as indeed the angels assured the eleven as they watched their Master disappear into the clouds (Acts 1.9-11).  Just before this, Jesus had appointed them to bear witness throughout the whole world to his life's work and teaching (Acts 1.8).  The places named (Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and 'the uttermost part of the earth') form the framework and main divisions of 'The Acts', each section ending with words such as: 'the word of God increased.'

The first section (Acts 1.1 to 6.7) describes Jesus' departure and the choice of Matthias to replace the traitor Judas in the number of the twelve Apostles.  It then relates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on these men on the Day of Pentecost.  This was a gift which conferred on them the power of speaking in foreign tongues.  It made their witness more effective to the large assembly of Jews of the Dispersion who had come to Jerusalem to keep this particular festival (Acts 2).  Further witness, particularly by Peter and John, in spite of the hostile reaction of the Jewish religious leaders, led to a rapid increase in the ranks of the believers.  Even a large number of priests, hitherto bitterly opposed to this new teaching, became obedient to the faith (Acts 6.7).

Stephen's arrest trial and martyrdom sets the scene in section two of Luke's account (Acts 6.8 to 12.24).  Included here is a masterly appeal to Old Testament history as providing many precedents of Israel's rejection of God-appointed leaders and prophets.  It then relates the persecution of the Christians at Jerusalem which resulted in their fleeing to safer areas, and thus carrying the gospel message to Judea in the south and Samaria northwards (Acts 8.1).

After Philip's successful preaching in Samaria and to an important official about to return to the Ethiopian court, Luke tells us how Paul was converted by the appearance of Jesus to him as he was actively persecuting the adherents of this new faith.  After this our author reverts to Peter's experiences, and especially how 'a door of faith was opened to the Gentiles' in the case of the Roman centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10).  We see here Peter's use of the 'keys' of the kingdom of heaven, as foretold by Jesus (Matthew 16.19).

In the choice of this Apostle as foremost among the Twelve we have a marvellous instance of the wisdom of 'divine psychology' in forestalling the inevitable doubts of the Jewish believers to the widening of the invitation to include Gentiles in the gospel call (Acts 11.1-18).  It should be remembered that Paul was brought up with all the deep-rooted Jewish objections of association with Gentiles (Acts 10.28). 

This second section ends with the angelic rescue of Peter from prison (and almost certain execution), and divine judgement on his chief opponent, Herod Agrippa, a grandson of Herod the Great (Acts 12).

Peter's second key had now opened the door to evangelism on a much larger scale than had so far been achieved.  In the remainder of 'The Acts', in its two major sections, Luke devotes his attention to the three missionary journeys (beginning at 13.3; 15.40 and 18.23).  He also depicts the subsequent history of the Apostle Paul, who had been specially chosen by the Spirit for this extraordinarily far-ranging and demanding task (Acts 9.15).

It should be noted that Paul was not travelling all the time.  He spent considerable periods in various cities during or in between one journey and the next.  For example look at Acts 14.28, 15.35, 18.11 and 19.8-10.  Further, after his arrest and preliminary trial, he was held in prison at Caesarea for two years before being sent to Rome (Acts 24.27).  During this long and busy period he gave many expositions of the gospel message to both Jews and Gentiles, several of which Luke reproduces.  The call to belief, repentance and baptism goes out in turn to provincial Jews (Acts 13.16-41; 28.17-28), to Greek philosophers (Acts 17.22-31) and to Roman governors (Acts 24.10-21; 26.2-29).

We also have the record of his defence before his Jewish accusers in Jerusalem (Acts 22.1-21; 23.1-6).  The wisdom and appeal of his approach to such widely differing audiences is particularly notable.  By contrast Luke includes only one major address to a Christian audience.  This is to the elders of the Ephesian church who had been asked to meet him at Miletus.  This passage is a mine of information about his teaching and labours amongst them and the other Christian communities which he had worked hard to found and sustain (Acts 20.17-35).

This subject of Paul's teaching, and that of the other Apostles, as recorded by Luke in 'The Acts', is at the pure fountain-source of Christianity, and as such is very important.  When Luke takes leave of Paul, he is still actively engaged in preaching the kingdom of God, although under 'house arrest' and uncertain of what lay before him (Acts 28.30-31).  Preaching Christ, and living in patient expectation of his return, was Paul's total aim and achievement, and in this he is an example to us all.

So far we have tried to summarise the content and scope of Luke's account and the way he set about it, guided as he was by the Holy Spirit.  We turn now to the crucial subject of his frequent references to first century doctrine and practice, bearing in mind that 'The Acts' is one of the earliest Christian documents, and largely first-hand at that.  It informs us of just what Christ's twelve Apostles taught in the years immediately following the Resurrection.  Jesus had expressly promised 'the Twelve' that the Spirit would guide them into all Truth and enable them to recall everything he had taught them (John 14.26).

In this book, then, we have a detailed description of the beliefs and practices of Christianity at its source, and therefore in its purest form.  It should be the yardstick by which we measure our conformity of belief and practice to the divine standard.

That there is need to check our 'orthodoxy', i.e.  the soundness of our doctrine, with the first century pattern, is stressed by Paul in his farewell address to the Ephesian eldership.  He warned these leaders to guard the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them shepherds because he knew that after his departure the flock would be attacked by fierce 'wolves'.  Even from their own number, men would rise up and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20.29, 30).

Parallel warnings of coming apostasy appear in the gospels and apostolic letters (Matthew 7.15; 24.11; 2 Thessalonians 2.3; 1 Timothy 4.1).  It is a sobering observation of Jesus himself that few would find the 'narrow way' that leads to eternal life.  Even sadder is the fact that the love of most of his followers would grow cold (Matthew 7.14; 24.12 - literally 'the many', i.e. the majority).

In reviewing then, the evidence of 'The Acts' we find, not surprisingly, that the main theme of apostolic testimony is identical with that which Jesus taught during his Palestinian ministry.  This was the gospel [good news] of the kingdom of God (Matthew 4.23; Luke 4.  43; 8.1).  For the forty days after his resurrection Jesus discoursed to the eleven on this very theme (Acts 1.3).  It is again expressly referred to as the subject of Philip's testimony when the Word of God spread to Samaria.  (Acts 8.12) Paul too uses the phrase as the pith and summary of his missionary message (Acts 20.25).  It is still the main theme of his preaching while imprisoned in Rome, where our narrator takes leave of him as far as 'The Acts' is concerned (Acts 28.23,31).  Thus, teaching concerning 'the kingdom of God' pervades the whole of the book.

There was no need to explain the meaning of the phrase 'kingdom of God' to Jewish audiences.  It was basic Old Testament teaching that God made Israel His 'kingdom of priests and holy nation' (Exodus 19.6), and had later appointed David and his descendants as sole heirs to 'the throne of the Lord' in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 29.12; Jeremiah 33.17-26).  This former 'kingdom of God' was overthrown by the Babylonians because of continued disobedience by the Jews to God's law. 

However, the predictions of its overthrow are accompanied by promises of its literal restoration to even greater splendour than it had enjoyed previously (Ezekiel 21.25, 27; Isaiah 9.6,7; Psalm 72).  In all this prophetic testimony (and there is a great deal) there is no hint whatever that we are to interpret it in a different way, e.g. spiritually or figuratively as distinct from literally.  Unless this fundamental fact is both understood and accepted, the main basis of apostolic testimony will be missed.  Indeed it has been missed by Christendom at large, which has substituted either 'the church' or the idea of Christ reigning in people's hearts for the prophetic and apostolic message of a restored kingdom of Israel.

Luke very quickly affords evidence for the literal restoration of the kingdom of God on earth in the first few verses of his account.  At the end of their forty days instruction by the Lord, the Apostles asked him specifically when the kingdom of Israel would be restored (Acts 1.6).  They had a very personal interest in its restoration, for Jesus had promised them rulership over the twelve tribes of Israel when the time came (Matthew 19.28).

It should be noted that Jesus does not 'correct' their evident belief in a literal restoration.  It would be a poor reflection indeed on his forty days instruction if they were still under a misapprehension on so important a matter.  In effect he repeats what he told them in the Mount Olivet prophecy, that times and dates were his Father's province, not his (Matthew 24.36).  The fact of the coming restoration of the kingdom of Israel is confirmed later both by Peter (Acts 3.21; - 'restitution' AV, means 'restoration') and notably by James (Acts 15.16-18), and in no uncertain terms.  Further, in his preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, Peter makes specific reference to the Davidic covenant.  This covenant was that God had promised on oath to set one of his descendants on his throne, now guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus, the Son of David (Acts 2.30; cp. Psalm 89.3,4, 28-37).

To Gentile audiences, on the other hand, this important divine promise would be something new and unfamiliar.  Accordingly, Paul is specific at Athens in telling his audience plainly that God had set a day when He will judge (i.e. 'rule') the world with justice by the man He has appointed, and has given proof of this fact to all men by raising him from the dead (Acts 17.30,31 - Paul is quoting from Psalms 9.8; 96.13; 98.9).

There was however, a revelation even for Jews in the apostolic ministry after the Resurrection.  It is pin-pointed in Philip's mission to the Samaritans, when he preached good 'tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 8.12 RV).

During Christ's earthly ministry the twelve disciples had preached the gospel of the kingdom of God.  They were, however, quite unaware that Jesus had to die as a sacrifice for sin and to be raised on the third day, although he had told them just this, time and again (Cp. Luke 9.2,6 with 18.31-34).  Once the crucifixion and resurrection had been fulfilled in Jesus it was necessary for the Apostles to incorporate them into their testimony.  They were eyewitnesses of these events which were truths essential to be believed for salvation (Mark 16.15, 16; Acts 4.12; 13.38, 39).

In short, the message to Jews was that their long-expected Messiah, the Son of David and heir to his throne, had now come, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  Further, it was essential in the purpose of God that he should first die as a sacrifice to secure forgiveness of sins for all who would be reconciled to God.  Afterwards (on the 'set day' spoken of by Paul at Athens) he would return to earth to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords (Luke 17.24, 25; Revelation 19.16).

Luke's account shows how slow the Jews were to realise that their Messiah had first to suffer and die, although to us the Old Testament Scriptures are plain enough, with the wisdom of hindsight (Luke 24.25; Acts 13.27; Isaiah 53).  Even less did the Jews relish the idea.  Nationally they had rejected and crucified their Messiah, and because of this the gospel invitation would be extended to Gentiles.  It would be offered on exactly the same terms, that is faith in the promises of God as centred in His Son, and obedience to His commands (Acts 11.17,18).

Today it is easy for Gentiles to recognise these Jewish shortcomings.  Unfortunately the churches of Christendom, although they accept the sacrificial role of Jesus, are equally at fault in rejecting the true gospel of the kingdom and substituting for it the unscriptural idea of heaven-going as the reward of a faithful Christian life.  A little reflection will confirm how pointless the frequent references to Christ's return would be if believers were already enjoying their reward in heaven.  Probably this is why the 'Second Coming', so prominent in 'The Acts' and the epistles, has taken very much of a 'back seat' in the teaching of the established church, although still affirmed in the Apostles' Creed which forms part of regular Anglican worship.

Sadly 'The Acts' proves to us that Christendom has declined further still from apostolic teaching.  One of the extraordinary facts in Luke's account, is his silence about any controversy on the subject of the Trinity.  An orthodox Christian who attempts to convert Jews today will quickly realise that on this matter he has run up against a virtually insuperable barrier, for Judaism totally rejects any concept of 'three persons in the Godhead.' Where then in 'The Acts' do we find any of the Apostles contending with their Jewish contemporaries on what is now reckoned to be so fundamental a Christian doctrine? The straight answer is 'Nowhere,' and the inescapable conclusion must be that Peter, John, Paul or anyone else never broached this subject!

This uncomfortable fact has been frankly admitted by church historians, as the following extracts illustrate:

Biblical teaching on the Father's supremacy over the Son is implicit in 'The Acts' (in contrast with the Trinitarian concept of 'co-equality').  There are many references to the initiative shown by the Father in raising Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24; 3.15; 4.10; 10.40; 13.30), glorifying him by exalting him to His own right hand (Acts 2.33; 5.31) and announcing His intention to send him back to earth (Acts 3.20,21).  More explicit teaching on this subject is to be found in other parts of the New Testament, especially in John's gospel and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (John 14.28; 1 Corinthians 11.3; 1 Corinthians 15.24-28).  On the other hand, 'The Acts' does have a good deal to say about the 'Holy Spirit', and it is relevant here to enquire whether a 'third person' of the Trinity is ever taught, seeing it is an intrinsic component of traditional Christianity.

We discover that within the first few lines of 'The Acts', Luke notes Jesus' promise to the eleven that they would receive power when the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 1.8 RV).  The close association of Spirit with 'power' is not accidental but is consistent with many other references in Scripture (E.g. Luke 4.14; Acts 10.38; Romans 15.19; 1 Corinthians 2.4).  When the angel Gabriel informed Mary that she would become the mother of the Messiah, he explained that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her (Luke 1.35).

This typical example of Hebrew poetic parallelism confirms that the Holy Spirit is quite simply, the power of the Most High God.  The exercise of creative power as such to initiate the conception of Jesus may be readily appreciated, whereas a 'personal' relationship with Mary is wholly unacceptable.  So too the promise of baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.5), which was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out on the Apostles (Acts 2.17,18,33) is intelligible in terms of power, but incomprehensible if it refers to a person and especially so to one equal with the Father.  Paul wrote later to the Corinthians:

'What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.' (1 Corinthians 2.11)

Just as man's spirit (or mind) is an integral part of his physical and mental constitution, so the Holy Spirit is part of the Father's person, and therefore not a separate and distinct individual.  In the same context Paul understands 'the Spirit of the Lord' (Isaiah 40.13) 'as the mind of the Lord' in his citation (1 Corinthians 2.16).

Properly understood, Bible teaching on the identity of the Holy Spirit adds to the exaltation of Jesus, which is the grand fact of New Testament teaching.  All authority was given Jesus by his Father after his resurrection (Matthew 28.18 RV).  This involved exercise of the Spirit conferred upon him without measure or restriction (John 3.34).  Because God has vested all His majesty and authority in His Son, the terms 'Holy Spirit' and 'Spirit of Jesus' are used in the closest context as being one and same power (Acts 16.7 RV; Romans 8.9-11; cp. Romans 8 verse 27 with verse 34; 2 Corinthians 3.17,18).

The New Testament avoids the extremes of both Trinitarianism (as we have shown) and Unitarianism, which holds Jesus to be a mere man and son of Joseph, instead of Son of God by miraculous conception in the virgin Mary (Matthew 1.18; Luke 1.  35).

In conclusion, a brief note is needed on the mode and importance of Christian baptism in the first century, as illustrated in 'The Acts'.  All authorities concede that first century baptism required total immersion in water as a symbolic burial, from which the believer 'rises' to a new life (Romans 6.4).  This aspect of baptism is borne out by Luke's reference to the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, whom Philip accompanies 'into the water' (Acts 8.38).  How very different a concept from the modern and unscriptural idea of sprinkling 'holy water' on irresponsible infants!

'The Acts' also repeatedly reports submission to baptism as the next step after arriving at an understanding and belief of the gospel of the kingdom (Acts 2.38; 8.12,13; 9.18; 10.47; 16.15,33; 19.5).  This is in harmony with Jesus' own insistence on this act of obedience for entering the Way to eternal life (Mark 16.15, 16; John 3.5).  Christendom has had no authority whatever to change a procedure which both Christ and his Apostles lay down as mandatory for believers.

Here we must leave this necessarily brief review of some of the salient features of first century Christian doctrine.  May we ask the reader frankly - Have you been baptised (i.e. by immersion in water) into Christ?  Has this followed a proper understanding of the gospel of the coming kingdom of God on earth and a true appreciation of the nature of the Godhead, including the scriptural roles of Jesus as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as God's power?  This is the all-important challenge of 'The Acts' to us today, as it has been to every generation since Luke first wrote it for the benefit of his friend Theophilus some nineteen centuries ago.