Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles
The Structure of History
A lecture given at Nedlands Anglican Church 3rd March 2024
Beginning and End
Christianity did not begin with Acts; it was Jesus who set the ball rolling, and of course, as always there was a story leading up to that. And, of course, Luke’s story is not the end. Time refuses to stop still. History ends with the present; so the philosophers say. It can go no further. But as we shall see, for Luke it goes even into a future which has not yet come.
The story of Acts ends in Rome in the year 62. I am going to suggest it ends there because Luke knew no more. It was at about that point that he wrote.
Acts begins with the coming into being of the church. It is a real beginning, because Jesus never started a church. There was a simple reason for this: there was already a church, Israel. His intention was to renew Israel to be the people it was meant to be, and achieve its destiny. All his actions were aimed at Israel’s restoration; he made no effort to establish a separate community. That changed with the decision of the nation’s leadership that he was an imposter; he was “reckoned with transgressors”—a criminal, in other words—and I suppose that means his followers were too, and perhaps still are. His death, resurrection, and ascension marked the beginning of a new era. However, we will see in the early chapters of Acts that every effort was made to remain part of the Jewish people (laos), and to urge it to realize its mistake and return before it was too late. Still, it was inevitable in the midst of so much hostility that a Christian community would separate and coalesce, and Jesus anticipated this. He once spoke of “my community,” not meaning at that point a separate community, but laying claim to kingship of the community of Israel. Then, on the night of his arrest, when he met with his disciples for a Passover meal, he looked forward, appointed them as leaders of the future restored Israel, and commanded them to keep a memory of his death until his return. The expectation was there of a new community.
Two Centuries of Controversy
Acts became a hot potato about 1830. Prior to that Luke was regarded as the church’s first historian, and Acts as a straightforward account of what happened, written sometime in the first-century . Ferdinand Christian Baur and the so called Tübingen School turned that on its head, claiming that Acts was the work of a second-century Christian attempting to reconcile two conflicting parties within the church: a Jewish party originally led by Peter, and a Gentile, Pauline party. The author of Acts sought reconciliation by presenting a largely fictious picture of first-century Christianity in which Peter and Paul were part of a unified movement. The idea of an alleged rewrite of Christian history held sway in Germany for the rest of the nineteenth century.
This was part of a bigger movement to discover a Christianity that was different to what was represented in the New Testament. It was part of a movement to detach Jesus and Christianity from the church, and create something more palatable to moderns. There were intense efforts to recover “the Jesus of history,” which for some meant discrediting or correcting the history in the Gospels, and a similar thing happened with Acts. This, naturally, generated a counter-movement; this created a mountain of research into Jesus, the Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, first-century Judaism (“second-temple Judaism”) and early Christianity. It cannot be said that Christianity has suffered from this in the long term. As a research student, I recall hearing about the difficulties being faced by Christians in Egypt, up against a Muslim opposition citing church theologians who doubted Christianity’s authenticity. I expressed my anger in the presence of my professor. “Ah,” he said. “Wait until Muslims have their own Rudolf Bultmann.” The research into every conceivable aspect of Acts has largely vindicated the historicity of Luke’s account, as we shall see.
At the present time there are three schools of thought. There is a new movement mainly in America that has resurrected the discredited view of Baur, that Acts belongs in the second century and has little historical value. Now, most agree that it was written in the first-century, but they are divided over when, and how closely the author was connected with Paul. Some place it at about the time the story breaks off. Others think it should be placed after the war, in the seventies, eighties, or nineties of the first-century. Some think it was written by Paul’s companion, others by an admirer in the next generation. There is a recent fourth “school,” which sidesteps the question of history altogether, and insists on appreciating Acts purely as a work of literature—as if that is possible without reference to the time of writing. Along with these go different ideas about why the author of Acts wrote what he wrote. They range from the enjoyment of a good novel, through providing Paul with a brief for his trial, commending Christianity to Roman authorities, commending Roman rule to the church, helping Christians to understand themselves over against hostile Judaism, and so on. As to the audience to which Acts is directed. The majority view thinks it addresses God-fearing Gentiles in the Graeco-Roman world, but recently some writers have argued for a Jewish readership. We will consider these various suggestions in their place.
Thesis
Before getting into Acts itself, I will outline the understanding I have come to myself. As we go on, I will give reasons for what I think, but it will be helpful if you know where I am heading.
I am convinced Acts and the Third Gospel were written by Luke, a doctor by profession, a man of education and literary ability, a one-time companion of Paul. I am convinced he wrote in the early sixties. I think the author was formerly involved in leadership of the church in Philippi—perhaps the churches in the region of Macedonia. I think he set out to produce a two-volume teaching manual for church leaders, to help them in their evangelism, preaching, care of their congregations, and in defending Christianity to enquirers. I think he intended his books to be instruction for pastors, materials for instruction, and also tools for the task. I think the first thing Theophilus would have done when he received Acts—he already had the Gospel—was to invite people to his home to hear it read. The audience would have comprised Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, slaves and free. I will show you that Luke was especially concerned to convince the Jews in the group(s) that Jesus was truly Israel’s promised king, that the Christian church was part of God’s plan, and that the much spoken-against troublemaker, Paul, was a true servant of God. Once Theophilus set the ball rolling with a performance in his home. Acts was meant to be copied and circulated to pastors, who would do exactly as Theophilus had done: use it for readings aimed at converting the undecided, and teaching the Christians. Some of this is speculative; I will give my reasons as we go along.
Acts as History and Literature
There is no doubt Acts purports to be history, and needs to be analysed accordingly. History contains information about the past along with some kind of judgement, or appreciation, or interpretation. But, there is nothing preventing a work of history from also being good literature; think of Churchill’s History of the Second World War. The Greek and Roman historians strove to create literature that was beneficial and enjoyable to read, and Luke is clearly no slouch when it comes to both these concerns. We begin by briefly considering the prologues to his Gospel and the Acts.
The Prologues: Luke Explains Himself
The prologue of Acts is very short; it simply signals that it is a second volume, a continuation of what Jesus began. It is the reason Luke and Acts are commonly referred to as Luke-Acts.
We should take a look at the prologue to the Gospel, because it is also the prologue to Acts, if what we are saying is correct.
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
The Greek and Roman historians struggled with ancient history; they thought a good historian should have participated in some of the action he describes, and have the rest of his history from eyewitnesses. Luke doesn’t claim to have been an eyewitness of the Jesus-event, but the way he speaks leaves open that he may have participated in some of the later story; we shall see that was in fact the case. That he was close to the events he records is important when we come to evaluating the importance of his account for Christianity, and for history.
Whether we should regard Acts as part of Luke’s conscious intention when he decided to write is debated; it seems to me likely that he did; he was certainly addressing many of the same concerns. We notice immediately that he begins by mentioning the ascension, which is where he concludes the Gospel; in one terse line he connects together the two volumes with a comment about the apostles, the Holy Spirit, and the ascension:
… until the day, having commanded the apostles—through the Holy Spirit—whom he had chosen, he was taken up (analemphthe).[1]
He uses the same way of describing Jesus’ ascension as he uses at the turning point of the Gospel, where Jesus “set us face to go to Jerusalem” when the time of his “taking up” (analempsis) came.
When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him …[2]
Analempsis (Latin: assumptio) signals a likeness to Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, who in Jewish understanding were all taken straight to heaven.
Luke will say more about the ascension, but first he tells us about Jesus’ time with his disciples after his resurrection.
The Resurrected Jesus Teaches his Apostles
He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
Two things should be noted here. First the emphasis on many proofs (ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις). Luke wants us to know that Jesus understood his disciples’ difficulty believing he was really alive—and ours. It is no small thing to claim that a man has come back from the dead, and yet it is the foundation of all that Christians believe. As Paul will say later, “If Christ has not been raised, then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”[3] As Acts goes on we will see the importance of the resurrection for Luke. It is barely an exaggeration to say that it is his gospel. Jesus appeared “living,” and this became clearer and clearer to the disciples the longer he was with them.
The second thing to note is that Luke can sum up all of Jesus’ teaching as “speaking to them about the kingdom of God.” This is important: Jesus came announcing the arrival of the kingdom of God, and most of his teaching was connected with it. His disciple’s great frustration during his public ministry was that their hopes for the kingdom did not seem to be materializing. For them, the kingdom meant liberation from Rome, a new government for Israel, and an era of blessedness—an end to evil and suffering. But Jesus bewildered them by speaking of his death. If he was truly the promised king, he would live forever, surely? Death would mean the defeat of his kingdom—that he was an imposter. Yet even at the last supper, knowing his death was less than a day away, he spoke of the kingdom of God being fulfilled. Now, after his resurrection, things begin to make more sense, and it is important to see that the kingdom of God still remains central. That was the mission God had given him, and it was still on track. If you read the last chapter of Acts you will see it is still a going concern:
He [Paul] lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.[4]
The whole of Acts as well as the Gospel is about the kingdom.
The Holy Spirit
I have said that all Jesus taught could be put under the heading of the kingdom of God, which was Jesus’ mission. You could also say his mission was to unleash the Holy Spirit.
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.
In the Jewish mind the kingdom and the Spirit were closely linked. The Holy Spirit was the power which created the universe, and is the power which will renew and restore it to life at the end. At the very beginning of the Gospel, John the Baptist declared that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. We see how the Gospel and Acts are bound together by this. To Jews his image of baptism would indicate immersion and cleansing. Jesus’ mission was (is) to bring about a new world without any taint of evil (the kingdom of God); the Holy Spirit is the power that will bring this about.
The Restoration of Israel
As I have said, for Jews the connection between the promised future kingdom and the Spirit of the Lord is very close. Nothing could be more natural, then, for his disciples to bring up the question of Israel’s restoration when Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s arrival.
So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
An essential part of the promised future kingdom was God’s fulfilment of all his many promises to Israel. Urgent for them now was their liberation from Rome. The rescue God had promised through the prophets is what is called “the restoration of Israel.”
It is common amongst Christians to think that the apostles were misguided with their question: they were imagining a worldly political kingdom, where Jesus had taught about a spiritual kingdom. But is it true that Jesus had done anything to change their understanding on this point? Does he anywhere say there would be no future political solution? I do not think so. Notice then, that here in Acts he does not change their idea of what is entailed in the coming of the kingdom, but simply corrects their understanding of when it would come.
He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’
We will see that Israel’s restoration remained the hope of Jesus’ followers, and that even the Gentile, Luke, held it dear. It would happen when the Father appointed; we suppose it will be part of what happens when Jesus comes again.
In the meantime, the apostles have a task, to tell the world what they have witnessed. The Holy Spirit will be with them to provide power for this task.
The Age of Witness
We should pause and reflect on this. Jews divided history into two ages: this evil age, and the age-to-come. A Jewish scholar was asked how soon after the end of this-age we should expect the age-to-come?. It will be like Esau and Jacob, he said. Esau stands for this age, and Jacon for the age-to-come. Jacob emerged from Rebecca’s womb holding the heel of his twin brother. In other words, there is nothing in between. Messiah would come and usher in the new age. But now Jesus is telling them to slow down. There is work to be done. Salvation has been accomplished through his death and resurrection, but now it must be applied. The world must hear of the new kingdom. Men, women, and children must be invited to enter. We live in an age which no one anticipated, an in-between age: the evil age continues, but the coming kingdom is also an active force. It is the age of the Holy Spirit, the age of witness.
Departure and Return
It is the end of the forty days Jesus spent with his apostles and time for him to go to his Father in heaven.
And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.’
What we have here is a solemn promise that this in-between age will close with Jesus’ return. The scene alludes to the promise of Daniel 7, that God will one day take away the control of the beast-governments that rise from the sea—that is from the human chaos—and give it to a human, a son of man who comes with the clouds of heaven.
In this short half chapter Luke has linked the action of the story he is about to tell with the story of Jesus, and projected us forward to the end of history. And he has established the essential reason for the continuance of the age in which we live, and its meaning. It is as profound a beginning to a book as any I can think of.
The Church’s Beginning
Luke now records the presence of Jesus’ mother and brothers with the eleven apostles and an unnamed number of women.
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with [the] women [and children] and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
The Western manuscript adds children, but that can only be an early copiest’s understanding of what the situation would have been. If there was a gathering of women, there would have been children. The mention of brothers is surprising; Luke has said nothing of any of them following Jesus, though James is mentioned by Paul as one of those to whom the resurrected Jesus appeared.[5] It is also curious that apart from Jesus’ mother, none of the women are named.
The group devotes itself to prayer. Throughout the Gospel Luke has paid special attention to Jesus as a man of prayer, who several times urged prayer upon his disciples. After his ascension prayer becomes a characteristic of their meeting together. Once again, we see the Gospel and Acts tying together. Paul, when he lays down instructions for Christian meetings makes prayer the paramount activity, and the special responsibility of the men.[6] Christians today need to ask themselves whether prayer is given the importance it is given by Jesus, Luke, and the early Christians.
Two oddities in the above passage call for comment. Why does Luke need to tell us that Jesus’ ascension took place a sabbath-day’s journey from Jerusalem? This is a possible clue to the identity of the people for whom his is writing. Jerusalemites, Judaeans, or Galileans would not need this information. Luke must be writing for people who live away from the Holy Land. Though he consciously addresses Gentiles in the Graeco-Roman world, we will see later that he is particularly concerned to persuade Diaspora Jews of the truth of Christianity. For this reason, in the Gospel and Acts he gives special attention to the law-keeping of those associated with the Christian movement. If it were known that the ascension took place on a Sabbath Day, he might well have wanted to make it clear the disciples were no further from Jerusalem than the law allowed.
Luke names one of Jesus’ disciples “Simon the Zealot.” A zealot was someone known to be passionate about the keeping of the law. However, it was also the name adopted by the movement which led the Jews into the disastrous war with the Romans. For at least thirty years after this war it would have been suicidal for Luke to suggest one of Jesus’ followers was a member of this party. It is one of the reasons for thinking Luke and Acts were written in the early sixties when the term did not have such a sinister meaning. Any later, Acts would have been a dangerous document to have in your possession. It is perhaps a reason there is little evidence of its being widely used before the second-century.
Restoring the Apostolic Group
In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and ‘Let another take his office.’
“So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Several things catch our attention here. First there is the size of this report. Why does Luke give such attention to something that seems to us not of great importance? There are two reasons. One is his interest in the idea of Israel’s restoration. We have seen it, and we will see it again. At the last supper Jesus spoke to the twelve about their role in the future Israel.
“You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[7]
This is startling, all the more so, when we consider that in Acts the apostles show no interest in leadership of the nation as it stood. It must, therefore, pertain to the age-to-come. Peter took Israel’s restoration seriously; it was what the Scriptures foretold. The reconstitution of the twelve mattered. Someone had to join them who had been a follower of Jesus since the time of John the Baptist, and had seen him alive after his death. The name Matthias means nothing to us; he is never again mentioned in Luke’s story. He gets no mention in Paul’s listing of witnesses of the resurrection. But for us he is one more assurance of the reality of the resurrection, and the existence in the earliest church of a large number of witnesses. His real significance lies in a future that has not yet come.
A second puzzle is the meaning of Judas’s fate. The defection of one of the twelve must have been an embarrassment to the first Christians; it always is when someone breaks ranks. But Jesus had chosen Judas—and not without prayer; he had accompanied the little band throughout their three years of wandering. Could his betrayal have been used by some as an argument against Jesus? The apostles searched for Scriptures which would help them make sense of what had happened—Jesus had opened the Scriptures for them. It was important to show that Scripture itself foretold such a thing—that Scripture laid down even specifics of what was to be done. Psalm 69 speaks of Messiah’s enemies among his own people. Psalm 109 speaks of a betraying friend and prays that his leadership role be given to another.
What of the manner of Judas’s death? The very different account in Matthew’s Gospel is often pointed out. But is it so different. Matthew says Judas hanged himself. Luke that he “became headfirst,”[8] whatever that may have signalled to his audience—that he burst open and all his bowels gushed out. Perhaps his body hung undiscovered for some time, until it fell and his stomach burst. Something truly gruesome is indicated. Matthew and Luke both record that the place of Judas’s death became known as “Field of Blood.” The event was widely reported in Jerusalem and became a matter of dark memory.
Next time we will explore what happened at Pentecost, and delve into what the first Christians were claiming.
[1] Acts 1.2.
[2] Luke 9.51.
[3] 1 Corinthians 15.17.
[4] Acts 28.30–31.
[5] 1 Corinthians 15.7.
[6] 1 Timothy 2.1–8.
[7] Luke 22.28–30.
[8] Prenes genomenos