THE BOOK OF THE ACTS INTRODUCTION I.  The Acts of the Apostles covers a period of about thirty years (30 A.D. – 60 A.D.).  Our knowledge of this part of the Apostolic Period is almost exclusively from the Book of Acts.     A.  Other references beyond the Book of Acts. Josephus in his work Antiquities of the Jews tells us in Book 18, “that even to this day the race of Christians who are named from him (Christ) has not died out.”  He wrote this around 93 A.D.  Josephus refers to Jesus Christ and His followers and attests to the growth of the Church (Disciples of Christ) throughout the first century. He refers again in Book 20 to James, the Lord’s brother’s trial before the Sanhedrin Court and he calls James, “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.” Regarding “The Ministry and Crucifixion of Jesus,” Josephus writes the following in his book Jewish Wars, “It was at that time that a man appeared – if ‘man’ is the right word – who had all the attributes of a man but seemed to be something greater.  His actions, certainly, were superhuman, for He worked such wonderful and amazing miracles that I for one cannot regard Him as a man; yet in view of His likeness to ourselves, I cannot regard Him as an angel either.  Everything that some hidden power enabled Him to do He did by an authoritative word.  Some people said that their first Lawgiver had risen from the dead and had affected many marvelous cures; others thought He was a Messenger from heaven.  However, in many ways He broke the Law – for instance, He did not observe the Sabbath in the traditional manner.  At the same time His conduct was above reproach.  He did not need to use His hands: a word sufficed to fulfill His every purpose. Many of the common people flocked after Him and followed His teaching.  There was a wave of excited expectation that He would enable the Jewish tribes to throw off the Roman yoke.  As a rule He was to be found opposite the City on the Mount of Olives, where also He healed the sick.  He gathered round Him 150 assistants and masses of followers.  When they saw His ability to do whatever He wished by a word, they told Him that they wanted Him to enter the City, destroy the Roman troops, and make Himself king; but He took no notice. When the suggestion came to the ears of the Jewish authorities, they met under the chairmanship of the high priest and exclaimed: ‘We are utterly incapable to resisting the Romans; but as the blow is about to fall we’d better go and tell Pilate what we’ve heard, and steer clear of trouble, in case he gets to know from someone else and confiscates our property, puts us to death, and turns our children adrift.’  So they went and told Pilate, who sent troops and butchered many of the common people.  He then had the Miracle-Worker brought before him, held an inquiry, and expressed the opinion that He was a benefactor, not a criminal or agitator or a would-be king.  Then he let Him go, as He had cured Pilate’s wife when she was at the point of death. Returning to His usual haunts He resumed His normal work.  When the crowds grew bigger than ever, He earned by His actions an incomparable reputation.  The exponents of the Law were mad with jealousy, and gave Pilate L 30,000 to have Him executed.  Accepting the bribe, he gave them permission to carry out their wishes themselves.  So they seized Him and crucified Him in defiance of all Jewish tradition.” Josephus continues to write regarding “The Rending of the Veil and the Resurrection” and states, “In the days of our pious fathers this curtain was intact, but in our own generation it was a sorry sight, for it had been suddenly rent from top to bottom at the time when by bribery they had secured the execution of the benefactor of men – the one who by his actions proved that he was no mere man.  Many other awe-inspiring ‘signs’ happened at the same moment.  It is also stated that after his execution and entombment he disappeared entirely.  Some people actually assert that he had risen; others retort that his friends stole him away.  I for one cannot decide where the truth lies.  A dead man cannot rise by his own power; but he might rise if aided by the prayer of another righteous man.  Again, if an angel or other heavenly being, or God Himself, takes human form to fulfill his purpose, and after living among men dies and is buried, he can rise again at will.  Moreover it is stated that he could not have been stolen away, as guards were posted round his tomb, 30 Romans and 1,000 Jews.” In reference to “The Early Christians”, Josephus continues to write, “In the time of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander many of the Miracle-worker’s followers came forward and declared to the adherents of their master that, although he had died, he was now alive and would free them from their slavery.  Many of the common people listened to their preaching and accepted their call – not because they were men of mark, for they were working men, some only shoemakers, others cobblers, others labourers.  But they worked marvelous ‘signs’; in fact nothing was beyond their power. Seeing the unsettlement of the people, these excellent procurators decided after consulting the scribes to arrest the men and put them to death, for fear that the movement, though of no consequence at the moment, might end in a major upheaval.  But in face of the ‘signs’ they hesitated and dared not take any action, convinced that no medical treatment could account for such marvelous cures, and surmising that if these were not the work of God Himself they would soon be shown up.  So they gave the men complete freedom of action. Later, however, they were persuaded by the scribes to send them to Rome or Antioch to be tried, banishing others to distant countries.” In the 2nd and 3rd centuries there were apocryphal books that were produced that attempted to give the same kind of information that are given in the Book of Acts.  These writings were producing what is called the Apocryphal Acts, that is, books that attempted to duplicate (in terms of the miraculous) some of the things we find in the canonical Book of Acts.  There was a book written called the Acts of Paul.  Also, there was a book called Paul’s Thecla. Others included Acts of John, Peter, Thomas, Andrew, etc.  We speculate that some of these apocryphal books may have been written in order to enhance the miraculous; however, we are unsure exactly why they were written. The most important document during the Apostolic Period would be the Book of Acts, together with the twenty-one epistles in the New Testament. Acts and the epistles tell us about the early life and developing life, early thought and developing thought of the Church of the first century. Acts and the 21 epistles tell us about the origin, the expansion and the experiences of the Early Church in the eastern and north-central area of the Mediterranean Sea.     B.  The Authorship of the Book of Acts - There is almost a unanimous concurrence that Luke is the writer of Acts. Evidence that sustain that Luke is the writer of Acts: a.  There is external evidence and there is internal evidence. b.  External evidence (evidence outside the book itself) or outside the Bible. (1)  The Muratorian Canon:  This canon was produced about 170 A.D.  It was found in the East by a Roman Catholic churchman in the 1700’s whose name was Muratory. This canon is a list of books found among the papyri. It comprised a list of New Testament books that was accepted as early as 170 A.D. The book of Acts is listed and Luke is assigned as the author in this early list of canonical books. (2)  Clement of Alexandria:  In his book called Stromata, which had to do with pieces indicate that Luke is the author of Acts. (3)  Tertullian:  His book called On Fasting, Book 10, refers to Luke as the author of Acts. (4)  Irenaeus:  In Book One of Irenaeus’ work called Against Heresies there is reference to Luke as the author of Acts. NOTE:  So what we are saying is that there is very early opinion that Luke was the author of the Book of Acts.  As we notice from these names, Muratory, Clement, Tertullian, Irenaeus that we have witnesses from the Western Church, the African Church and the Eastern Church that Luke is the writer of Acts. c.  The Internal Evidence:  (The Bible) (1)  The Book of Acts is dedicated to Theophilus (Acts 1:1) who is the same person apparently to whom the Gospel of Luke is addressed. (2)  The style and vocabulary of both books (Luke and Acts) are very similar. (3)  Luke was a physician (some scholars content that the title “doctor” could have been a professional term and therefore, could relate to Luke being a professional Artist, etc.) and a frequent traveling companion of Paul. So it would seem that Luke would be involved in some of the experiences that Paul had as recorded. [For example, Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24. A passage that describes him as being a Gentile is found in 2 Timothy 4:12-14.] (4)  Medical terminology of Luke:  i.e. when healings occur, the terminology that Luke applies to it seems that a physician had written it.  (5)  The “we sections” of Acts.  This is where the writer says in referring to the journeys of Paul, that we did it, not just Paul. The “we sections” of the writer indicate that he was a very close companion of Paul. The “we sections” of Acts include 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18 and 27:1-28:16.     C.  The Purpose for the Book of Acts What were the circumstances provoking the writing of the Book? (Why was it written?) a.  There was a need for authoritative information concerning the activities of certain leading apostles: Peter, John, James and Paul. b.  The need for showing that Christianity was one whole movement although its constituency came from varied backgrounds.  This means that the Early Christians comprised of Jews and Gentiles. There were disciples of John the Baptist, and individuals like Apollos who had come into contact with the Messianic message but did not have the full understanding of it. c.  There was the need for putting Paul’s experiences (missionary experiences) in the right light.  By this we mean: Luke tells us, and is telling the Jewish people as well, that Paul was not a traitor to Judaism.  He was a convert to Christianity.  Jews believed that “Becoming a Christian betrays Judaism.”  Paul’s answer, “No it is not. For me, it is an embracing of the message which is the fulfillment of Judaism.  I haven’t denied Old Testament Judaism.  I have used it as a foundation and have built upon it just as Christ and his life’s work intended to do.” d.  There was also the need to authenticate the whole Christian movement by connecting it with the work of the risen Christ.  The Gospel of Luke starts by telling Theophilus what Jesus “began to do and to teach until the day in which he was received up.”  So the Book of Acts begins where the Gospel of Luke leaves off. Christ had been raised from the dead by the end of Luke. The book of Acts begins with Jesus being with His disciples, blessing them and then ascending back to His Father.  So we must see the gospel and Acts as a sequel. e.  There was the need for recording the dissemination (spreading) of Christianity into the very heart of western civilization (Rome). f.  There was the need to confirm Theophilus in the faith:  We are not sure who he was, but the name Theophilus means “friend of God.”  No doubt that name indicates that he was a Christian. It is very widely assumed that he may have been a recent convert to Christianity, an employee of the state, a man of some significance who was inquiring into what Christianity was all about and Luke is helping to meet this need.     D.  The Destination of the Letter. All we can say is that it was going to Theophilus, wherever he was.     E.  The Date of the Letter 60 A.D. Reasons for establishing this date: a.  The book ends with Paul in Rome which was around 59 A.D. He is at this time under house arrest (28:30-31.)  Therefore, we would put the date immediately thereafter. b.  Paul resided in Rome on this occasion for probably two years.  This may have some bearing on Luke’s writing in 60 A.D. or 61 A.D. if he wanted to get this information out prior to Paul’s release. c.  The book ends simply where it does because there is nothing else to record at this point, the year being 60 A.D.  Luke was concerned to show the westward movement of Christianity to the very heart of the empire.  He succeeds when he gets Paul to Rome.  He understands Paul is going to be there a while so he concludes his book there. d.  One liberal writer states, “We know that it could not have been later than 60 A.D. because this was the time that spiritual manifestations were still occurring and regarded as significant.”  What this writer is saying is that “miracles have ceased.” Thus, his explanation for this date – “Since the miraculous has ceased, then Luke could not have written beyond 60 A.D.”  Luke is recording the miraculous and “we know they ceased at a very early time.” Of course, as a Pentecostal Christian, we know there is no truth in this liberal’s statement; however, this is the liberal’s explanation for the date 60 A.D. e.   The destruction of Jerusalem:  Luke makes no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D.  Therefore, Luke had to write the Book of Acts prior to 70 A.D. f.    Luke makes no hint of Nero’s persecution which began in 64 A.D.     F.  The Methodology of Luke   (Outline we will follow in studying Luke’s Methodology) I.       The Method of Luke the Historian II.      The Range of Luke the Historian III.     The Purpose of Luke as an Historian IV.     The Speeches and Sermons in Acts V.      The Limitations of the Book of Acts VI.     The Chronology of the Book of Acts VII.    A Broad Six-Part Division Outline of Acts PLEASE NOTE: This Introduction to the Acts of the Apostles is copyright by Miracle Valley Bible College & Seminary. No one is permitted to copy, duplicate; email any of the above without the expressed permission of the Melvin Harter Ministries/Miracle Valley Bible College & Seminary. © Miracle Valley Bible College & Seminary, 2009