Acts Overview - The Book About the Spread of Early Christianity.

For an ad-free version of the podcast plus the opportunity to enjoy hours of exclusive content and two bonus episodes a month and also help keep the Bible Project Daily Podcast free  for listeners everywhere at;
patreon.com/JeremyMcCandless

Subscribe here to receive my new church history podcast every few weeks at.
Episode Title: The Death of Moses

Series Title: Acts - The Book of the Spread of Christianity

Introduction:

Welcome to our new podcast series, where work our way through the Book of Acts, a pivotal narrative in the New Testament that chronicles the early Church's growth and the spread of Christianity. Often considered one of the most important books in the New Testament, Acts bridges the life of Christ with the establishment of the Church through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Episode Title: Acts - The Book of the Spread of Christianity

Introduction:

Acts is a crucial book for understanding the early Church, detailing its growth from a small group of believers in Jerusalem to a vast community spanning the Roman Empire. 

Key Points:

1. The Historical Importance of Acts:
   • Acts offers invaluable insights into the early Church, complementing the letters of Paul and other New Testament writings.
   • Luke's narrative style captures pivotal moments and personalities, providing a comprehensive view of the Church's expansion.
2. The Title and Focus of Acts:
   • Traditionally called 'The Acts of the Apostles,' the book primarily highlights the actions of a few key figures, especially Peter and Paul.
   • The correct title could be "Acts of Apostolic Men," emphasizing typical exploits of important early Christian leaders.
3. Luke's Dual Purpose:
   • Acts is a continuation of Luke's Gospel, focusing on the transition from Jesus' life to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit through the Church.
   • The book is considered unfinished, reflecting the continuing story of Christianity's spread.
4. The Writer - Luke:
   • Luke, a physician and companion of Paul, is identified as the author through internal evidence and early Church tradition.
   • His medical background is evident in his precise use of medical terminology and interest in healing.
5. The Recipient - Theophilus:
   • Acts is addressed to Theophilus, likely a high-ranking Roman official and a Christian.
   • The name Theophilus means 'lover of God,' which might indicate a broader audience of God-fearing individuals.
6. The Message of Acts:
   • The primary theme is the continuing work of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, spreading from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.
   • Luke aims to show that Christianity is a universal faith, meant for all people, regardless of their background.
7. Structure of Acts:
   • The narrative is divided into sections based on geographical expansion and key figures, tracing the Church's growth from Jerusalem to Rome.
   • The book highlights the transition from Jewish roots to a broader Gentile mission.

Conclusion:

Acts is more than a historical account; it is a theological narrative demonstrating the unstoppable spread of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit. As we journey through this book, we will uncover the foundations of the early C

Transcript

ACTS THE BOOK OF THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY

 
Transcript:

INTRODUCTION

In one sense Acts is the most important book in the New Testament. It is probably true to say that if we did not possess Acts, we would have, apart from what we could deduce from the letters of Paul, no information whatever about the early Church.

It seems to me there are two ways of writing history. There is the way which attempts to trace the course of events from week to week and from day to day; and there is the way which, we open a series of windows and by looking through we catch vivid glimpses of the great moments and personalities of any period. 

The is the way Luke approaches his personal account of the life of the early church in his book of Acts.

We usually call this book ‘The Acts of the Apostles’. But the book neither gives nor claims to give an exhaustive account of the actual activitiess of the apostles. 

Apart from Paul only three apostles are mentioned in it. In Acts 12:2 we are told in one brief sentence that James, the brother of John, was executed by Herod. 

John appears in the narrative, but he never speaks, for himself anyway. 

It is only about Peter that this book gives any real information, and very soon, even him as initially a leading his passes from the scene. 

In the Greek there is no “The” before Acts; the correct title is therefore probably better described as “Acts of Apostolic Men”, and what the book really  aims to do is to give us a series of typical exploits of the important figures of the early Cristian church.

Acts is widely recognized as the continuation of Luke Gospel. 

It is regarded by most bible experts as a pivotal book that shows the transition between the life of Christ and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit through the establishment of the church which is presented as an ever-expanding community of really quite ordinary people.

It is the only unfinished book in the Bible and one of the most realistic pieces of narrative writing in not just the New Testament but of all early 1st century literature. 

Luke has been called by some, the greatest of all historians, ancient or modern. 

This book is what those of you  who like your superhero movies would describe as an origin story and Acts therefore is a very important book for our understanding of the beginnings and growth of the early church

The book is also important also for our understanding of the writings of the New Testament as a whole.

Paul's earlier letters all belong and were written during the period of time Acts predicts. Present-day readers will be able to understand all the remaining letters of the New Testament by all the different writers much better when they are familiar with Acts.  

The Writer of The Book.

Although the book itself never says so, from the earliest times Luke has been held to be its writer. About Luke we really know very little; there are only three references to him in the New Testament, Colossians 4:14, Philemon 1:24, 2 Timothy 4:11. From these we can say two things for sure. 

First, Luke was a doctor.

Second, he was one of Paul's most valued helpers and most loyal friends, for he was a companion of his in his last imprisonment. 

We can deduce the fact that he was a Gentile because Colossians 4 concluded with a list of people and mentions greetings from those who are of the circumcision, that is, from Jews; Colossians then begins a new list and we naturally conclude that the new list is of Gentiles and Lukes name is mentioned in the subsequent list. 

That means, we have the very interesting fact that Luke is the only Gentile writer/author in the New Testament.

We could also have guessed that Luke was a doctor because of his instinctive use of medical words. In Luke 4:35, in telling of the man who had the spirit of an unclean devil, he says, "when the devil had thrown him down" and uses the correct medical word for convulsions.

In Luke 9:38 when he draws the picture of the man who asked Jesus, "I beg you to look upon my son" he employs the conventional word for “look upon”, with the phrase normally used for a doctor paying a visit to a patient. 

The most interesting example is in the saying about the camel and the needle's eye. All three synoptic writers give us that saying ( Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). For needle both Mark and Matthew use the Greek term, raphis, the ordinary word for a tailor's or a household needle. Luke alone uses belone, the technical word for a surgeon's needle. Luke it seems was a doctor, and a doctor's words came most naturally to his pen.

His interest in sickness, as well as his use of medical language supports the notion that the author was a physician. Although Luke was a doctor by profession 

Luke is also considered a skilled historian. Even secular historians acknowledge him as a reliable writer, whose record is a valuable source of information on a period that changed the course of world history. 

He carefully dated the beginning of his story according to well-known events in secular history. Parts of Acts are Luke's own eye-witness accounts, indicated by his frequent use of 'we' and 'us' in some of the narrative passages. 

We know that on two of Paul's missionary journeys Luke spent some time travelling with and he even accompanied Paul on the journey to Rome that concludes the book. 

Finally, it is also worth mentioning the church tradition has also always ascribed the book to Luke.   

Luke abruptly ends the book at the point where Paul is awaiting trial in Rome. Therefore, Acts was most likely completed prior to Paul’s trial. 

Furthermore, Acts talks nothing of the persecution of Christians under Nero in 64 AD, or Paul’s death in 68 AD, or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So, since Paul came to Rome, about 59 AD and had been there for two years when Acts closes, the book can confidently be dated as being written in 61 AD. 

The Recipient of The Book

Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts to a man called Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). We can only guess who Theophilus was. Luke 1:3 calls him "most excellent Theophilus." The phrase literally means "your excellency," and therefore indicates a man high up in the service of the Roman government. There are three possibilities as to who he was.

There is a possibly that Theophilus is not a real name at all. In those days it might well be dangerous to be a Christian. The name Theophilus is made up of two Greek words, theos which means God and philein which means to love. It may mean that by the use of this phraseology Luke was writing to ‘a lover of God’, whose real name he did not mention for safety's sake.

If Theophilus was a real person, he must have been a high government official. Perhaps Luke wrote to show him to demonstrate that Christianity was a good and indeed beautiful way to live a life thing, and that Christians were good people. Some have speculated that perhaps his writing was an attempt to persuade a government official not to persecute the Christians.

There is a more romantic theory based on the facts that Luke was a doctor and that doctors in the ancient days were often slaves. It has been conjectured that Luke was the salve doctor of Theophilus, that Theophilus had been gravely ill, that by Luke's skill and devotion he was brought back to health, and that in gratitude he gave Luke his freedom. 

Then, it may be, Luke wished to show how grateful he was for this gift; and since the most precious thing he had was the story of Jesus, he wrote it down and sent it to his benefactor.

All that appears a bit fanciful to me but what we can say it that Luke Luke wrote acts for and sent it to someone called Theophilus, a Gentile government official who was also most likely a Christian. In writing to a public official is seems likely he did not intend it to be entirely a personal letter but was a formal essay intended for publication.  

Message  

The subject is the continuing work of Jesus Christ. The message is that Jesus continues to work by the Holy Spirit through men and women, initially focusing on the work of Peter and Paul, then from the Jews in Jerusalem and in the later chapter even through the Gentiles in Rome, and beyond.  

When someone writes a book they does so for a reason, and maybe for more than one.

One of his reasons was likely commend Christianity to the Roman government. Again and again, he goes out of his way to show how courteous Roman magistrates were to Paul. 

In Acts 13:12 Sergius Paulus, the governor of Cyprus is seen to becomes a Christian. 

In Acts 18:12 Gallio is absolutely impartial in his dealing with Christians in Corinth. 

In Acts 16:35 the magistrates at Philippi discover their mistake and apologize publicly to Paul.

In Acts 19:31 the Asiarchs in Ephesus are shown to be concerned that no harm should come to Paul. Luke was pointing out that in the years before he wrote Roman officials had often been well-disposed and always fair to Christians and Christianity. Luke takes pains to show that the Christians were good and loyal citizens. and had always been regarded as such. 

In Acts 18:14 Gallio declares that there is no question of wickedness or villainy.

In Acts 19:37 the secretary of Ephesus gives the Christians a good testimonial.

In Acts 23:29 Claudius Lysias is careful to say that he has nothing against Paul.

In Acts 25:25 Festus declares that Paul has done nothing worthy of death, and in the same chapter Festus and Agrippa agree that Paul might well have been released had he not appealed to Caesar.

Luke was writing in the days when Christians were in general disliked, mistrusted  and persecuted; and he told his story in such a way as to show that the Roman system had always been perfectly fair to Christianity and that they had never regarded the Christians as evil men in the past.

In fact, the very interesting suggestion has been made that Acts is nothing other than the brief prepared for Paul's defence when he stood his trial before the Roman Emperor.

One of Luke's other aims was to show that Christianity was for all men of every country. This was one of the things the Jews found it hard to grasp. They had the idea that they were God's chosen people, and that God had no use for any other nation. Luke sets out to prove otherwise. 

He shows Philip preaching to the Samaritans; he shows Stephen making Christianity universal and being killed for it; he shows Peter accepting Cornelius into the Church; he shows the Christians preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch; he shows Paul travelling far and wide winning men of all kinds for Christ; and in Acts 15:1-41 he shows the Church making the great decision to accept the Gentiles on equal terms with the Jews.

But these were merely secondary aims. Luke's chief purpose is set out in the words of the Risen Christ in Luke 1:8, "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria and to the end of the earth."

The book therefore shows the expansion of Christianity, to show how that which began in a little corner of Palestine had in not much more than thirty years reached Rome.

Structure  

There are two major ways to view the structure of Acts. One is geographical and the other is biographical. But either way the narrative is played out across 11 sections.  

     I.        1:1-2:47 Birth of the church.  

   II.        3:1-5:42 Rapid growth and great popularity.

 III.        6:1-8:3 Changes in Jerusalem .

 IV.        8:4-9:31 Throughout Palestine and beyond.

  V.        9:32-12:25 Jerusalem and the Gentiles.

 VI.        13:1-14:28 Into Asia Minor.

VII.        15:1-35 Early problems in the church.

VIII.        15:36-18:22 The message goes Into Europe .

 IX.        18:23-21:16 Back to Asia Minor and Europe.

  X.        21:17-23:35 Jerusalem finally rejects the gospel.

 XI.        24:1-28:31 Paul says farewells to the East; goes to Rome.

Purpose  

With one of the purposes of Acts being to record the spread of the work initiated by Jesus, which He continued by the power of the Holy Spirit through the men from Jerusalem to Rome and beyond. There was a need for an accurate and authoritative account of the activities of the leading figures, such as Peter and Paul and even John and James. 

God witnessed through them with,

“Both with signs and wonders, with various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will” 

(Heb.2:4).

Thus, the church is seen as directly connected to the work of the risen and ascended Christ and authenticated by that. Luke's entire story emphasized the triumph of the Christian gospel and the life-giving blessings it brought for all people, regardless of race.   

Another of the purposes of Acts is to defend Paul.

Paul’s authority is vindicated by demonstrating that he did everything Peter did. His experiences and his missionary labours, and especially his arrest and imprisonment, must be seen in the right light. Luke asks and then answers questions like, was Paul an apostate from the law? Was he an impostor who deserved all the opposition and persecution, which he was receiving? Was he an insurrectionist, or an instrument in the hand of God?  

Luke's Sources

Luke was an historian, and the sources from which an historian draws his information is all important. Where then did Luke get his facts? In this connection Acts falls into two parts.

There are the first fifteen chapters, of whose events Luke had no personal knowledge. He very likely had access to two sources.

     I.        There were the records of the local churches. They may never have been set down in writing, but the churches had their stories. In this section we can distinguish three records. 

   II.        There is the record of the Jerusalem church which we find in Acts 1:1-26; Acts 2:1-47; Acts 3:1-26; Acts 4:1-37; Acts 5:1-42 and in Acts 15:1-41; Acts 16:1-40. 

 III.        There is the record of the church at Caesarea which covers Acts 8:26-40, Acts 9:31-43 and Acts 10:1-48.

There is the record of the church at Antioch which includes Acts 11:19-30, Acts 12:25, Acts 13:1-52 and Acts 14:1-28.

Very likely there were cycles of stories which were the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, the Acts of Philip and the Acts of Stephen were orally recorded and passed down before been placed permanently on parchment. 

Beyond a doubt Luke's friendship with Paul would bring him into touch with all the great men of all the churches and all their stories would be at his disposal.

The second half of Luke’s account from Acts 16:1-28:31, much of this section Luke had personal knowledge of. 

When we read Acts carefully, we notice a strange thing. Most of the time Luke's narrative is in the third person plural; but in certain passages it changes over to the first-person plural, and "they" becomes "we". 

The "we" passages are as follows-- Acts 16:10-17; Acts 20:5-16; Acts 21:1-18; Acts 27:1-44; Acts 28:1-16. On all these occasions Luke must have been present. He must have kept a travel diary and in these passages, we have eye-witness accounts. 

As for the times when he was not present, he may well have spent many hours with him in prison with Paul and many were the stories Paul must have told him. There can have been no great figure from early church history that Luke did not know and in every case, he must have got his story from someone who was there.

When we read Acts we may be quite sure that no historian ever had better sources or used his sources more accurately.

Summary:  

Luke wrote to Theophilus to inform him of the continuing work of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit through ordinary men, from early apostles, from the Jews in Jerusalem to the Gentiles in Rome. 

Therefore, his thesis is that God wants believers to bear witness of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit beginning where they currently are situated and from there to the ends of the earth.

This work will reach its pinnacle with the triumphant return of the risen Christ to his heavenly Father (Luke 24:50-53).  

The book finishes by showing how, in only thirty years, how Christianity grew from a handful of believers in Jerusalem to a vast community that brought new life and hope to Asia Minor, eastern Europe, and even to Rome itself (Acts 28:31).  

It ends with the picture of Paul "preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered."

One of the most puzzling questions about the book of Acts is, why does it finish where it does? It finishes with Paul in prison awaiting judgment.  We would so much have liked to know what happened to him and yet the end is wrapped in mystery. 

But Luke stopped there because his purpose was accomplished; he had shown how Christianity began in Jerusalem and swept across the world until it reached Rome. A great New Testament scholar has said that the title of Acts might be, "How they brought the Good News from Jerusalem to Rome and finishes at the point when that goal is achieved.