The Acts of the Apostles A Commentary by John Stott

1. Introduction to Luke (Luke 1: 1-4)

Before reading any book it is helpful to know the author's purpose in writing it. The biblical books are no exception to this rule. So why did Luke write?

He actually wrote two books. The first was his Gospel, which ancient and unassailed tradition attributes to his authorship and which is almost certainly the 'former book' referred to at the beginning of Acts. So the Acts was his second book. The two form an obvious pair. Both are dedicated to Theophilus and both are written in the same literary Greek style. Further, as Henry J. Cadbury pointed out sixty years ago, Luke regarded the Acts as 'neither an appendix nor an afterthought', but as forming with his gospel 'a single continuous work'. Cadbury went to to suggest that, 'in order to emphasize the historic unity of the two volumes... the expression "Luke-Acts" is perhaps justifiable'.

Reverting to the question why Luke wrote his two-volume work on the origins of Christianity, at least three answers may be given. He wrote as a Christian historian, as a diplomat and as a theologian-evangelist.

a) Luke the historian
It is true that the more destructive critics of the past had little or no confidence in Luke's historical reliability. F.C. Baur, for example, leader of the 'Tubingen School' in the middle of the last century, wrote that certain statements in the Acts 'can only be looked at as intentional deviations from historical truth in the interest of the special tendency which they possess'. And the very unorthodox Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), who could describe the Acts as 'this great historical work' , also wrote in the same book that Luke 'affords gross instances of carelessness, and often of complete confusion in the narrative'.

There are a number of reasons, however, why we should be sceptical of this scepticism. To begin with, Luke claimed in his preface to the Gospel to be writing accurate history, and it is generally agreed that he intended this to cover both volumes. For 'it was the custom in antiquity', whenever a work was divided into more than one volume, 'to prefix to the first a preface for the whole'. In consequence, Luke 1:1-4 'is the real preface to Acts as well as to the Gospel'. Here it is:-

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, (2) just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. (3)Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (4)so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

In this important statement Luke delineates five successive stages:

First came the historical events. Luke calls them certain 'things that have been fulfilled among us'. And if 'fulfilled' is the right translation, it seems to indicate that these events were neither random nor unexpected, but took place in fulfilment of Old Testament prophesy.

Next Luke mentions the contemporary eye-witnesses, for the things 'fulfilled among us' were then 'handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word'(2). Here Luke excludes himself, for, although he was an eyewitness of much that he will record in the second part of the Acts, he did not belong to the group who were eyewitnesses 'from the first'. These were the apostles, who were witnesses of the historic Jesus and who then handed down (the meaning of 'tradition') to others what they had themselves seen and heard.

The third stage was Luke's own personal researches. Although he belonged to the second generation who had received the 'tradition' about Jesus from the apostolic eyewitnesses, he had not accepted it uncritically. On the contrary, he had 'carefully investigated everything from the beginning'(3).

Fourthly, after the events, the eyewitness tradition and the investigation came the writing, 'Many have undertaken to draw up an account' of these things(1), he says, and now 'it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account'(3). The 'many' authors doubtless include Mark.

Fifthly, the writing would have readers, among them Theophilus whom Luke addresses, 'so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught'. Thus events which had been accomplished, witnessed, transmitted, investigated and written down were (and still are) to be the ground of Christian faith and assurance.

Moreover, the Luke who claimed to be writing history was well qualified to do so, for he was an educated doctor (Col.4:14), a travelling companion of Paul, and had resided in Palestine for at least two years.

Even in those far off days doctors underwent quite a rigorous training, and Luke's stylish Greek is that of a cultured person. There is also some evidence in Luke-Acts of the vocabulary and powers of observation which one would expect to find in a member of the medical profession. In 1882 the Irish scholar W.K.Hobart wrote his book 'The Medical Language of St.Luke', whose aim was to show that Luke was 'well acquainted with the language of the Greek medical schools' and that 'the prevailing tinge of medical diction' reveals a medical author throughout both Gospel and Acts. Adolf Harnack endorsed this theory. More recent critics have rejected it, however. H.J. Cadbury in several studies, after scrutinizing Hobart's list of supposedly medical words used by Luke, pointed out that they belonged not so much to a technical medical vocabulary as to the repertoire of any educated Greek. The truth probably lies at neither extreme. Although Luke's medical background cannot be proved by his vocabulary, yet some residue of medical interest and terminology does seem to be discernible in his writing. 'Instinctively Luke uses medical words', wrote William Barclay, and proceeded to give examples in both the Gospel (e.g. Luke 4:35; 9:38; 18:25) and the Acts (3:7; 8:7; 9:33; 13:11; 14:8 and 28:8-9).

Another reason for crediting Luke's claim to be writing history is that he was a travelling companion of Paul's. It is well known that several times in the Acts narrative Luke changes from the third person plural (they) to the first person plural (we), and that by these 'we-sections' he unobtrusively draws attention to his presence, in each case in the company of Paul. The first took them from Troas to Philippi, where the gospel was planted in European soil (16:10-17); the second from Philippi to Jerusalem after the conclusion of the last missionary journey (20:5-15 and 21:1-18); and the third from Jerusalem to Rome by sea (27:1 - 28:16). During these periods Luke will have had ample opportunity to hear and absorb Paul's teaching, and to write a personal travelogue of his experiences from which he could later draw.

In addition to being a doctor and friend of Paul's, Luke had a third qualification for writing history, namely his residence in Palestine. it happened like this. Luke arrived in Jerusalem with Paul (21:17) and left with him on their voyage to Rome (27:1). In between was a period of more than two years, during which Paul was held a prisoner in Caesarea 924:27, while Luke was a free man. How did he use his time? It would be reasonable to guess that he travelled the length and breadth of Palestine, gathering material for his Gospel and for the early Jerusalem-based chapters of the Acts. He will have familiarized himself as a gentile with Jewish history, customs and festivals, and he will have visited the places made sacred by the ministry of Jesus and the birth of the Christian community. Harnack was impressed by his personal knowledge of Nazareth (its hill and synagogue), Capernaum (and the centurion who built its synagogue), Jerusalem (with its nearby Mount of Olives and villages, and its 'Synagogue of the Freedmen'), the temple (its courts, gates and porticoes), Emmaus (sixty stadia distant), Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea and other towns.

Since, for Luke's understanding of the early history, people were even more important than places, he will surely also have interviewed many witnesses. Some of them will have known Jesus, including perhaps the now elderly Virgin Mary herself, since Luke's birth and infancy narrative, including the intimacies of the Annunciation, is told from her viewpoint and must go back ultimately to her. Others will have been associated with the beginnings of the Jerusalem church like John Mark and his mother, Philip, the apostles Peter and John, and James the Lord's brother; they will have been able to give Luke firsthand information about the Ascension, the Day of Pentecost, the early preaching of the gospel, the opposition of the Sanhedrin, the martyrdom of Stephen, the conversion of Cornelius, the execution of the apostle James and the imprisonment and release of Peter. So it is not surprising that the first half of Acts has a 'very noticeable Semitic colouring'.

We have good reasons, then, to have confidence in Luke's claim to be writing history, and professional historians and archaeologists have been among the most doughty defenders of his reliability. Sir William Ramsay, for example, who had at first been an admiring student of the radical F.C.Baur, was later led by his own researches to change his mind. He tells us in his *St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen* (1895) that he began his investigation 'without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion' which he later reached, but 'on the contrary...with a mind unfavourable to it'. Yet he was able to give reasons 'for placing the author of Acts among the historians of the first rank'.

Nearly seventy years later A.N.Sherwin-White, who was Reader in ancient history at Oxford University and described himself as 'a professional Graeco-Roman historian, strongly affirmed the accuracy of Luke's background knowledge. He wrote about the Acts:

The historical framework is exact. In terms of time and place the details are precise and correct. One walks the streets and marketplaces, the theatres and assemblies of the first-century - Ephesus or Thessalonica, Corinth or Philippi, with the author of Acts. The great men of the cities, the magistrates, the mob and the mob-leader are all there... It is similar with the narrative of Paul's judicial experiences before the tribunals of Gallio, Felix and Festus. As documents these narratives belong to the same historical series as the record of provincial and imperial trials in epigraphical and literary sources of the first and early second centuries AD.

Here is his conclusion: 'For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurb. Roman historians have long taken it for granted

b) Luke the diplomat
The writing of history cannot have been Luke's only purpose, for the history he gives us is selective and incomplete. He tells us about Peter, John, James the Lord's brother and Paul, but nothing about the other apostles, except that James the son of Zebedee was beheaded. He describes the spread of the gospel north and west of Jerusalem, but writes nothing about its progress east and south, except for the conversion of the Ethiopian. He portrays the Palestinian church in the early post-Pentecost period, but then follows instead the expansion of the Gentile mission under the leadership of Paul. So Luke is more than a historian. He is, in fact, a sensitive Christian 'diplomat' in relation to both church and state.

First, Luke develops a political apologetic, because he deeply concerned about the attitude of the Roman authorities towards Christianity. He therefore goes out of his way to defend Christianity against criticism. The authorities, he argues, have nothing to fear from Christians, for they are neither seditious nor subversive, but on the contrary legally innocent and morally harmless. More positively, they exercise a wholesome influence on society.

Perhaps this is why both Luke's volumes are addressed to Theophilus. Although the adjective *theophiles*, meaning either 'loved by God' or 'loving God' (BAGD), could symbolize every Christian reader, it is more likely to be the name of a specific person. And although the adjective *kratistos* (Most excellent, Luke 1:3) could be just 'a polite form of address with no official connotation', or the honorary form of address used to persons who hold a higher official or social position than the speaker (BAGD), the latter seems more likely because it occurs later in relation to the procurators Felix (23:26; 24:3) and Festus (26:25). A modern equivalent might be 'Your Excellency' (NEB). Some scholars have gone on to suggest that Theophilus was a specific Roman official who had heard anti-Christian slanders, while B.H.Streeter thought the word was 'a prudent pseudonym', in fact (he guessed) 'the secret name by which Flavius Clemens was known in the Roman Church'.

In any case Luke repeatedly makes three points of political apologetic. First, Roman officials were consistently friendly to Christianity, and some had even become Christians, like the centurion at the cross, the centurion Cornelius, and Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus. Secondly, the Roman authorities could find no fault in either Jesus or his apostles. Jesus had been accused of sedition, but neither Herod nor Pilot could discover any basis for the accusation. As for Paul, in Philippi the magistrates apologized to him, in Corinth the proconsul Gallio refused to adjudicate, and in Ephesus the town clerk declared Paul and his friends to be innocent. Then Felix, Festus and Agrippa all failed to convict him of any offence - three acquittals corresponding to the three times Luke says Pilate had declared Jesus innocent (Luke 23:4, 14, 22).

In the third place, the Roman authorities conceded that Christianity was a *religio licita* (a lawful and licensed religion) because it was not a new religion (which would need to be approved by the state) but rather the purest form of Judaism (which had enjoyed religious freedom under the Romans since the second century BC). The coming of Christ was the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, and the Christian community enjoyed direct continuity with the Old Testament people of God.

This then was Luke's political apologetic. He produced evidence to show that Christianity was harmless (because some Roman officials had embraced it themselves), innocent (because Roman judges could find no basis for prosecution) and lawful (because it was the true fulfilment of Judaism). Christians should always be able on similar grounds to claim the protection of the state. I am reminded of a statement made in 1972 by the Baptist believers of Piryatin to Mr. N.V. Podgorny, Chairman of the Praesidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and Mr. L.I.Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Communist Party. Quoting articles of the USSR constitution and the Universal juridical interpretations, the Evangelical Christian Baptists of Piryatin claimed the right to freedom of conscience and confession, and declared that they did not break the law 'because there was nothing harmful, nothing opposed to the government, nothing fanatical in our activity, but only that which is spiritually useful and healthy, just, honest, peaceful in accordance with the teaching of Jesus Christ'.

The second example of Luke's 'diplomacy' is that he was a peacemaker in the church. He wanted to demonstrate by his narrative that the early church was a united church, that the peril of division between Jewish and Gentile Christians, was providentially avoided, and that the apostles Peter, James and Paul were in fundamental agreement about the gospel.

It was Matthias Schneckenburger in his *Uber den Zweck der Apostelgechichte* (1841) who made 'the first elaborate investigation into the purpose of Acts'. He believed that Luke was defending Paul against Jewish-Christian criticism of his mission to the Gentiles by emphasizing his Jewish practices and his good relations with the Jerusalem church. He was also at pains to demonstrate their 'parallel miracles, visions, sufferings and speeches', in order 'to make Paul equal to Peter'.

F.C.Baur went much further. He saw Acts as having a precise 'tendentious' purpose. On the rather flimsy foundation of the Corinthian faction ('I follow Paul... I follow Peter... ', 1 Cor.1:12) he constructed an elaborate theory that the early church was torn apart by conflict between original Jewish Christianity represented by Peter and later Gentile Christianity represented by Paul. He regarded Acts as a second-century attempt by a 'Paulinist' (a follower and champion of Paul) to minimize and even deny, the supposed hostility between the two leading apostles and so to reconcile Jewish and Gentile Christians to one another. He portrayed Paul as a faithful Jew, who kept the law and believed the prophets, and Peter as the evangelist through whom the first Gentiles were converted. The two apostles are thus seen in harmony, not at loggerheads, with each other. In fact, Luke attempted to reconcile the 'two opposing parties by making Paul appear as Petrine as possible, and, correspondingly, Peter appear as Pauline as possible...'

It is generally agreed that F.C.Baur and his successors in the Tubingen School carried their theory too far. There is really no evidence that in the early church there were two Christianities (Jewish and Gentile) headed by two apostles (Peter and Paul) in irreconcilable opposition to each other. Baur was probably influenced by Hegel's dialectical understanding of history in terms of a recurring conflict between thesis and antithesis. There certainly was tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and because of the activity of the Judaizers a serious split did seem possible until the issue was settled by the Council of Jerusalem. Luke does not hide this. Certainly too, in Antioch, Paul publicly opposed Peter to his face (Gal.2:11), because of his withdrawal from the fellowship with Gentile believers. But this confrontation was exceptional and temporary; Paul wrote about it to the Galatians in the past tense. Peter recovered from his momentary lapse. The reconciliation between the two leading apostles was real, not fictitious, and the thrust of Acts, Galatians 1 and 2, and 1 Corinthians 15:11 is on the agreement of the apostles about the gospel.

Luke did not invent this apostolic harmony, as Baur argued: he rather observed it and recorded it. It is evident that he gives prominence in his story to Peter (chapters 1-12) and to Paul (chapters 13-28). It seems very probable as well that he deliberately presents them as exercising parallel rather than divergent ministries. The similarities are remarkable. Thus, both Peter and Paul were filled with the Holy Spirit (4:8 and 9:17; 13:9); both preached the word of God with boldness (4:13, 31 and 9:27, 29); both bore witness before Jewish audiences to Jesus crucified, risen and reigning, in fulfilment of Scripture, as the way to salvation (e.g. 2:22 ff.; and 13:16 ff); both received visions which gave vital direction to the church's developing mission (10:9 ff; 16:9); both were imprisoned for their testimony to Jesus and then miraculously set free (12:7 ff; and 16:25 ff); both healed a congenital cripple, Peter in Jerusalem and Paul in Lystra (3:2 ff; and 14:8 ff); both healed other sick people (9:41; and 28:8); both exorcized evil spirits (5:16: and 16:18); both possessed such extraordinary powers that people were healed by Peter's shadow and by Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons (5:15; and 19:12); both raised the dead, Tabitha in Joppa by Peter and Eutychus in Troas by Paul (9:36 ff; and 20:7 ff); both called down God's judgment on a sorcerer/false teacher, Peter on Simon Magus in Samaria and Paul on Elymas in Paphos (8:20 ff; and 13:6 ff); and both refused the worship of their fellow human beings, Peter that of Cornelius and Paul that of the Lystrans (10:25,26 and 14:11 ff).

It is true that these parallels are scattered through Acts and are not put in direct juxtaposition to each other. Yet there they are. They can hardly be accidental. Luke surely includes them in his narrative in order to show by his portraiture of Peter and Paul that they were both apostles of Christ, with the same commission, gospel and authentication. It is in this way that he may be called a 'peacemaker', who demonstrated the unity of the apostolic church.

c) Luke the theologian-evangelist

The value of 'redaction-criticism' is that it portrays the authors of the Gospels and the Acts not in unimaginative 'scissors and paste' editors, but as the theologians in their own right, who conscientiously selected, arranged and presented their material in order to serve their particular pastoral purpose. It was in the 1950s that redaction-criticism began to be applied to Acts, first by Martin Dibelius (1951), next by Hans Conzelmann (1954) and then by Ernst Haenchen (1956) in his commentary. Unfortunately these German scholars believed that Luke pursued his theology concerns at the expense of his historical reliability. Professor Howard Marshall, however, who has built on their work (while at the same time subjecting it to a rigorous critique), especially in his fine study *Luke: Historian and Theologian* (1970), urges that we must not set Luke the historian and Luke the theologian in opposition to each other, for he was both, and in fact each emphasis requires the other.

Luke is *both* historian *and* theologian, and ... the best term to describe him is 'evangelist', a term which, we believe, includes both of the others... As a theologian Luke was concerned that his message about Jesus and the early church should be based on reliable history ... He used his history in the service of theology.

Again, Luke was 'both a reliable historian and a good theologian... We believe that the validity of his theology stands or falls with the reliability of the history on which it is based... Luke's concern is with the saving significance of the history rather than the history itself as bare facts'.

In particular, then, Luke was a theologian of salvation. Salvation, wrote Howard Marshall, 'is the central motif of Lucan theology', both in the Gospel (in which we see it accomplished) and in the Acts (in which we see it proclaimed). Michael Green had drawn attention to this in his *The Meaning of Salvation*. 'It is hard to overestimate the importance of salvation in the writings of Luke...', he wrote. 'It is astonishing... that in view of the frequency with which Luke uses salvation terminology, more attention has not been paid to it'.

Luke's theology of salvation is already adumbrated in the 'Song of Simeon' or *Nunc Dimittus* which he records in his Gospel. (Luke 2:29-32). Three fundamental truths stand out.

First, *salvation has been prepared by God*. In speaking to God, Simeon referred to 'your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people' (Luke 2:30-31). Far from being an afterthought, it had been planned and promised for centuries. The same emphasis recurs throughout the Acts. In the sermons of Peter and Paul, not to mention Stephen's defence, Jesus' death, resurrection, reign and Spirit-gift are all seen as the culmination of centuries of prophetic promise.

Secondly *salvation is bestowed by Christ*. When Simeon spoke to God of 'Your salvation', which he had seen with his own eyes, he was referring to the baby Jesus whom he held in his arms and who had been 'born a Saviour' (Luke 2:11). Jesus himself later made the unequivocal statement that he had come 'to seek and to save what was lost' (Luke 19:10), and he illustrated it by his three famous parables of human lostness (Luke 15:1-32). Then after his death and resurrection his apostles declared that forgiveness of sins was available to all who would repent and believe in Jesus (Acts 2:38, 39; 13:38,39). Indeed salvation was to be found in no-one else (Acts 4:12). For God had exalted Jesus to his right hand 'as Prince and Saviour that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins...' (Acts 5:31).

Thirdly, *salvation is offered to all peoples*. As Simeon put it, it has been prepared 'in the presence of all peoples' (literally), to be both a light to the nations and the glory of Israel (Luke 2:31-32). Without doubt it is this truth on which Luke lays his major emphasis. In Luke 3:6, in reference to John the Baptist, he continues his quotation from Isaiah 40 beyond where Matthew and Mark stop, in order to include the statement 'all flesh will see God's salvation'. In Acts 2:17 he records Peter's quotation of God's promise through Joes: I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh.' These two words *pasa sarx*, 'all flesh' or 'all mankind', stand as a signpost near the beginning of each of Luke's two volumes, in both cases embedded in an Old Testament prophecy, to point to Luke's principal message. Jesus is the Saviour of the world; nobody is beyond the embrace of his love. In his Gospel, Luke shows Jesus; compassion for those sections of the community whom others despised, namely women and children, the poor, the sick, the sinful and the outcast, Samaritans and Gentiles, while in the Acts Luke explains how Paul came to turn to the Gentiles, and describes the gospel's triumphal progress from Jerusalem the capital of Jewry to Rome the capital of the world.

The prominence given to the universal offer of the gospel comes with particular appropriateness from the pen of Luke. For he is the only Gentile contributor to the New Testament. Well educated and widely travelled, he is the only Gospel-writer who calls the Sea of Galilee a 'lake', because he is able to compare it with the Great Sea, the Mediterranean. He has the broad horizons of the Graeco-Roman world, its history as well as its geography. Se he sets his story of Jesus and of the early church against the background of contemporary secular events. And he uses the word *oikoumene*, 'the inhabited earth', more often (eight times) than all the other New Testament writers together.

But Luke the theologian of salvation is essentially the evangelist. For he proclaims the gospel of salvation from God in Christ for all people. hence his inclusion in the Acts of so many sermons and addresses, especially by Peter and Paul. He not only shows them preaching to their original hearers, but also enables them to preach to us who, centuries later, listen to them. For as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost, the promise of salvation is for us too, and for every generation, indeed 'for all whom the Lord our God will call' (Acts 2:39).

These studies are part of the ministries of the John Stott web site at
http://www.JohnStott.org Interested readers should refer to
John Stott's original work for a complete citation
(The Message of Acts - ISBN 0-85110-962-4 - published by Inter-Varsity Press)