ACTS
The NT canon consists of 4 basic parts. It begins with the Gospels, which deal with the life of Jesus, and it ends with an Apocalypse (the book of Revelation), which deals with the end times. In between the “beginning” and the “end” is a bunch of letters: these deal with the real-life implications of Jesus’ life and teaching; and there is also the Book of Acts. Let’s spend some time discussing the social-historical background of Acts.
According to 2nd–century (AD) tradition, the author of Acts is Luke—the same guy who wrote the Gospel by the same name—Paul’s travel companion. In terms of content, style and vocabulary it seems pretty clear that one guy wrote both texts. As well, originally Luke and Acts occupied the same scroll; hence, they circulated together. Similar to Luke, then, Acts is anonymous, but was likely written by a Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly even a Gentile one. Scholars typically offer a date between AD 80–95 for the final edition of Acts. It was probably written to Hellenistic or Gentile believers located in Greece or Syria. If Luke and Acts were meant to be taken together (e.g., Acts 1:1), then Question: Should Luke and Acts be studied independently or together? Can you understand Acts rightly without ever having read Luke?
So what kind of writing is Acts? Scholars categorize it as a Hellenistic Historiography. Other early examples of this genre of writing include 1-2 Maccabees, & Josephus’s writings, Jewish Wars and Jewish Antiquities. Here are some characteristics of this type of literature. They are chronological, depicting a general history of an event(s) or a movement. They include eyewitness testimony (both written and oral), non-eyewitness sources, Greek rhetoric, and creative editing of sources (e.g., expansion, omission). They contain different literary forms: a preface (e.g., Acts 1:1-5), episodes (e.g., Acts 27), speeches (e.g., those of Peter, Stephen, Paul, and James), and editorial comments (e.g., summary statements). The function of Hellenistic historiographies is to define, separate and legitimate. Hence for Acts, the book was written to help define first-century Christianity against other groups, help separate first-century Christianity from Judaism, and help legitimate first-century Christianity in the Roman Empire. OK, enough about the background—let’s get to the text itself.
I think there are 4 sections to the Acts narrative: the Introduction to and Preparation for the Mission (1:1-26), the Mission in Jerusalem (2:1-8:3), the Mission in Samaria and Judea (8:4-12:25), and the Mission to the Gentiles (13:1-28:31). Let’s begin with the first section.
The “intro of the intro” is the Prologue (1:1-8). Luke begins Acts with a “shout-out” to his Gospel (Acts 1:1). Like his Gospel, Acts is written for Theophilus. Luke tells him that his 1st volume was about what Jesus began to do and teach; the present (2nd) volume is the continuation of Jesus’ earthly ministry—what he accomplished through his followers, chiefly, the apostles. According to Luke, the disciples were convinced of Jesus’ resurrection b/c of his post-crucifixion/burial appearances (Acts 1:3). His resurrection wasn’t something they simply had to “take on faith” or theory—there was a living body of evidence: Jesus! After his resurrection Jesus continued to teach them about the kingdom of God, and told them of their newfound mission—whose success was entirely dependent upon them receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). Question: Why do you think proof of the resurrection and the post-resurrection teaching of Jesus weren’t enough for the disciples to fulfil their mission?
The clever author that he was, Luke gives the reader a mini-outline of the whole book of Acts in a single verse, Acts 1:8: Jesus’ followers receive the Spirit (chap. 2), they are witnesses in Jerusalem (chaps. 2-8), they become witnesses in Judea and Samaria (chaps. 8-12), and they become witnesses to the Gentiles (chaps. 13-28).
After his 40-day “conference” with his followers, Jesus ascends to heaven—something Luke previously alluded to (Luke 24:51). According to Luke, Jesus’ last words before he left the earth were about his 2nd Coming (which scholars call the “Parousia”—Greek for “presence” or “coming”). So, the disciples’ ministry will begin where Jesus’ earthly ministry ends. They only start their ministry in earnest after the Lord leaves. Obviously, then, Jesus didn’t think he needed to stick around on earth to make sure the job got done!
The first order of business for the disciples is choosing a replacement for Judas. I’ve heard some preachers say that they made a mistake: they should never have undertaken this without the Holy Spirit b/c Paul was to be the “replacement” for Judas. But is that true? Lots could be said but let me just say 2 things. First, Jesus’ command was to not go anywhere, i.e., leave Jerusalem (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4) not to not do anything. Second, Paul himself recognizes that, while possessing the same divine authority as the other apostles, he’s still different from them (1 Cor 15:8). It’s clear that the group felt a need to replace Judas not b/c they were “down a man” but in order to keep their number at 12—to maintain the typological connection with the 12 tribes of Israel. In their quotation of Ps 69:25 and Ps 109:8 in Acts 1:20, they assume a typological connection between David (the author of these 2 psalms) and Jesus; “typological” meaning, there is a special prophetic relationship/connection between David and Jesus the “Son of David” (Matt 1:1); not just in general terms (e.g., both were kings of Israel), but even down to specific events in David’s life (though not every event) that come to their greatest prophetic significance in the life of Jesus. Question: Can you think of specific parallels between David and Jesus?
Something else of note here is the criteria for Judas’s replacement: his replacement must be an eyewitness of Jesus and his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). In other words, whoever becomes the “12th man”—an Apostle—must have heard, seen, and interacted with Jesus during his 3-year earthly ministry, and he must have seen Jesus after his resurrection. I’ve heard a number of TV evangelists today claim a similar level of apostleship, but, funny, they don’t look that old—if you know what I mean!!