Interpreting Acts
Series: Book of Acts #1
Acts 1:1-2[1]
10-2-05
Intro
Today we begin a study of the Book of Acts. It is perhaps the most exciting book in the Bible. It is a book of action. In Acts the world is being turned upside down and right side up by the gospel of Jesus Christ preached with power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit. We enter this study with four goals in mind.
(1) As New Testament believers we want to know what we believe about the Holy Spirit and why we believe it. Could you explain from the Bible why it is important to be filled with the Spirit and how that can happen in a person’s life? We want to be equipped to do that during this study.
(2) We also want our faith strengthened concerning God’s willingness to work supernaturally through His people. “So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”[2] It is my prayer that while we study this book the Holy Spirit inspires us to believe God for great and mighty things. Amen? The same Holy Spirit Who worked in the early church is with us today with the same purposes in mind.
(3) We also want a clear vision of what God is doing in the earth and how we can be a part of it. Acts 1:8 “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” “God, use us. Let our lives make a difference for Your glory.”
(4) Finally, we want a fresh outpouring of God’s Spirit on our own lives. If you have not been filled with the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues I encourage you to pray during this series. Ask God to fill you with His Holy Spirit and expect Him to honor His promise to do so. What promise am I talking about? I’m talking about Luke 11:11-13 "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
Because of the importance of this study I want to lay a good foundation for interpreting the book of Acts. Philip asked the Ethiopian in Acts 8:30 “Do you understand what you are reading?” That question opened the door for a great transformation in that Ethiopian’s life. We need to read this book with understanding. We need to understand what Luke is seeking to communicate and how it applies to our lives in the now. There are three fundamental issues that must be addressed in our interpretation of Acts.[3]
I. The unity of Luke’s two volumes: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Most of the time people don’t make this connection because of the way these books are placed in the canon. Luke was placed with the three synoptic gospels and is separated from Acts by the Gospel of John. But we know by reading the preface of each book that Acts is a second volume to the Gospel of Luke. Read with me Acts 1:1-2 “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.” Now who is Acts addressed to? The man’s name is Theophilus. What former book is Luke referring to? Turn with me to Luke 1:1-4 and we will see. Luke 1:1-4 “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 eyewitnesses 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.” There is the addressee again, Theophilus. We don’t know exactly who this person was. Theophilus was a common name and there is no external history to tell us who this Theophilus was. But there is some internal evidence in these two volumes that gives us some insight on him. Luke addresses him as “kratiste”, most excellent or most noble, which was a term used to address people of high social standing in the Roman Empire. The term was sometimes used as a courtesy but Luke’s use of it here probably tells us that Theophilus was a person of wealth and social standing. From the content of Luke-Acts we conclude that he is probably believer with a background in the Jewish synagogue.[4]
In beginning our study of Acts we need to become familiar with the first few verses of the Gospel of Luke because that preface serves as a preface for both volumes (Luke and Acts).[5] There we have information about how Luke went about his enterprise and what his purpose was in writing these two volumes. Luke 1:3-4 says that Luke has written an orderly account of events so that Theophilus might know the certainty of the things he had been taught. In that stated purpose we have both history and theology—an orderly account of events but also an understanding of the significance of those events as well.
Why is it important to see Luke-Acts as a two-volume work? With that knowledge we can let Acts inform our understanding of Luke. But more important for our series, we can let the Gospel of Luke inform our understanding of the book of Acts. When we do that we get a richer understanding of the book of Acts.[6] It’s interesting to know that Luke and Acts are about the same length and that both are about the maximum length of an ancient papyrus roll used in that day. Each was a little less than the maximum length of 40 feet.[7]
What do we know about the author of these two volumes? It may surprise you to know that neither book specifically names Luke as the author. However, there is so much internal and external evidence pointing the Luke, the beloved physician that few scholars challenge his authorship. Let me share with you a few things we know about Luke.
(1) He was not an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry but he had access to those who were. He tells us that in Luke 1:2. (2) The high quality of Hellenistic Greek in both volumes tells us that Greek was his native language and that he was well educated. The consistency of the Greek affirms that both volumes were written by the same author. There is also evidence that Luke did not know Hebrew or Aramaic. (3) However, he is very familiar with the Septuagint and with the Jewish synagogues. He was probably a synagogue adherent before becoming a Christian. The evidence is slightly in favor of him being a Gentile—possibly a Syrian of Antioch. (4) One of the earliest and best manuscripts, P75, has “Eunggelion kata Loukan” at the end—The Gospel According to Luke. All the early fathers accepted Luke as the author. It is not the Luke in Romans 16:21 who was a kinsman of Paul. And it was not Lucius of Cyrene mentioned in Acts 13:1. But it is the Luke found in Philemon 24 where Paul refers to him as a fellow-laborer and in Col. 4:14 where Paul writes, “Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.” This lines up with all the “we” passages in Acts 20-28 which suggests that he traveled with Paul during that time.[8]
So keep the unity of Luke-Acts in mind as we do our study. There are themes that run through the Luke-Acts corpus there are interesting to follow—themes like concern for the poor, women, discipleship, prayer, etc. As your devotion for this week I have provided verses concerning the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of Luke that foreshadow and prepare us for the book of Acts. As we study Acts keep the Gospel of Luke in mind.
II. Another issue that must be addressed in interpreting the book of Acts is the theological value of Luke’s writings. As far as literary form is concerned both volumes are Hellenistic historical monographs.[9] In that genre Luke is writing actual history that he has thoroughly investigated or was himself a witness to the events. At several points he connects his events with the broader historical events in the Greco-Roman world. I won’t take time to point those out but they are fairly obvious. What we might need to realize is that neither the Gospel of Luke nor the book of Acts is a biography. They both have biographical data. But the book of Luke is not a biography of Jesus. It’s an account of events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles is not a biography of the apostles. In fact, very little is said about most of the apostles. The two most prominent characters are Peter and Paul. But Acts is not a biography of those men either. It is an account of events during the early formation of Christianity of which Peter and Paul played an important part. There is really very little basis for calling the second volume The Acts of the Apostles. The Acts of the Holy Spirit is a much more appropriate name for the Holy Spirit is really the one behind these great, world-changing events. When we read Acts we are reading an actual historical account which had been compiled by Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Here is the essential issue that we have to grasp if we are going to get much benefit from the book of Acts. Luke wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to give the significance of events not just confirm that they happened.[10] He has a theological purpose as well as a historical one. The Holy Spirit inspired him to use historical narrative as a vehicle for teaching truth. In historical narrative, truth is admittedly communicated in a more indirect way than in didactic passages like we find in the epistles. But truth is still being communicated. When I read the story of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and the consequence of that sin I should be learning to not commit adultery and murder—even though there may not be a place in that portion of Scripture that specifically says, “Do not commit adultery or murder because serious consequences will follow.” When I read the book of Jonah I am being taught a lot of things about God and about His judgments. The story indirectly teaches me those truths. When we read the book of Acts we should be asking ourselves what truths are being taught and how those truths apply to our lives.
Turn with me to 1 Corinthians 10. After talking about the historical events of Israel in the wilderness Paul writes in verse 6, “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.” He continues and then in verse 11 he writes, “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.” What is my point? My point is that Paul draws theological teaching from OT historical narrative. Turn to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” How many know what that word “all” means? It means all Scripture including historical narrative is God-breathed and is useful for what? It is all useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. So when we begin to read about how the Holy Spirit worked in the early church we are missing the boat if we just relegate that to the historical past and make no application to ourselves. When we accept all the book of Acts as God-breathed and useful for teaching, then we find ourselves moving toward a Spirit-empowerment theology.[11] Luke is inspired by the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts to give us theological as well as historical teaching.
One other significant hermeneutical issue will arise as we study the book of Acts.
III. We must understand Luke’s writings in context.[12] A principle of sound biblical theology is that you seek to understand what the Holy Spirit is communicating through that particular author before you force him into the mold of some other author.[13] One of the key mistakes that theologians make in interpreting Acts is to put Paul’s uses of terms on Luke before understanding the way Luke uses those terms. For example, Paul uses baptism in the Spirit primarily to communicate soteriological truth about the Holy Spirit. In other words his focus is salvation and being joined to the Body of Christ. In contrast, Luke has a special interest in Holy Spirit empowerment of service. He may use terminology similar to Paul’s but be focused upon a different aspect of the Holy Spirit’s work.[14] When we are seeking to understand terms in the book of Acts we should first look at the immediate context in which Luke is using that term—then at where he may have used the term somewhere else in Acts—then go to the Gospel of Luke and only after all that is it legitimate to look to Paul’s writing for insight on what Luke may be meaning to say. Paul is a theologian, John is a theologian, Peter is a theologian; but never forget that Luke is a theologian in his own right as well. In fact, it may surprise you to know that Luke wrote over 25% of the New Testament when he wrote Luke-Acts[15] which is more than Paul or any other NT writer.[16]
Conclusion
We enter this study with three fundamental assumptions:
(1) The book of Luke and the book of Acts form two volumes of one historical narrative written by Luke, the beloved physician who was a companion of Paul in Acts 20-28 where we will encounter the “we” passages. In interpreting Acts we can draw from the teaching in the Gospel of Luke to aid our understanding.
(2) Luke uses Hellenistic historical narrative but his primary purpose in writing was theological and designed to give the significance of the events recorded. Although narrative is a more indirect way to convey truth than didactic teaching, it is nevertheless profitable for teaching in righteousness and godliness. Paul makes this abundantly clear in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 where he writes, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
(3) Luke wrote more of the New Testament than any other writer including Paul. Sound biblical theology demands that we understand his statements and terminology in the context in which they were written and not force Paul’s use of terms upon Luke.
Ultimately we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand what God is saying in the book of Acts. Spiritual truth must be spiritually discerned.[17] Therefore, we want to pray and ask God to speak to us through this series. Ask Him to establish us in truth so that we can live accordingly. Ask Him to pour out His Spirit upon us and empower us to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Amen? Let us pray.
Richard Tow
Grace Chapel Foursquare Church
Springfield, MO
www.gracechapelchurch.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] All Scripture quotes are from New International Version unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Romans 10:17 NKJV
[3] Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984) p. 2. In this brief teaching I only have time to touch upon hermeneutical issues that Stronstad deals with much more extensively.
[4] Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998) pp. 13, 63-64
[5] Witherington p. 22
[6] Ibid p. 24
[7] Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke Volume 3 in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997)p. 8
[8] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament edited by Moises Silva (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003) pp 4-7. Also see Witherington’s commentary on Acts and Green’s commentary on Luke.
[9] Witherington (pp 2-24) gives an outstanding analysis of this.
[10] Both Green (pp 21-25) and Witherington (p. 69) emphasize this.
[11] It is not my desire to promote a denomination over others or a segment of the Church over others. What each of us need is the enabling/empowerment of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the Great Commission.
[12] William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1993) p. 199.
[13] Scot McKnight, Introducing New Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989) p 98 under “Fundamental Rules for Word Study” McKnight writes “The exegete must initially pursue the meaning intended by the author for his original audience.” On page 99 he writes, “However, the meaning of terms can change—from situation to situation, from person to person.”
[14] Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, pp 9-12.
[15] Roger Stronstad, class notes p. 2 taken June 9-13, 2003 in “The Charismatic Theology of Luke-Acts” at The Assemblies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, Missouri.
[16] Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003)p. 13.
[17] 1 Corinthians 2:14
