Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Acts – What Is the Book of Acts
Tradition says it is the Acts of the Apostles. Yet, most are ignored. It is mainly Peter then Paul, with Paul not one of the original twelve. Why the silence? Why doesn’t inspiration inform of us what Matthew and Matthias did? And then there are non-apostles such as Stephen and Philip who are given much credibility for the spread of Christianity. In fact, the record shows, those who had been scattered (i.e., not the apostles, v.1) went about preaching the word (8:4).
More directly, when we look at an act of two of the apostles in healing a lame man, we see that their emphasis is not on them, but on the Lord who gave them the power and authority (3:6,12-16; 4:10). I doubt very seriously if Luke or the apostles would have said this book is about “The Acts of the Apostles.”
We know that Acts progresses from Jerusalem to Rome; and closes very anti-climatically. Why? Why not wait just a few more years and have it end with Paul’s martyrdom? That would be dramatic, wouldn’t it? Yes, but the personal stories of great individuals while part of the story are not the main story.
Should the book be titled, “The Acts of the Holy Spirit?” There is much about the Holy Spirit working, but then again, the emphasis is about what the Holy Spirit does, not the Holy Spirit Himself. And although the first couple of chapters deal extensively with the Holy Spirit, we need to ask, what is the point? In the very first sermon after receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and preaching on the Spirit being poured out, Peter shows the real importance of such activity. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear (2:33). The Holy Spirit is the not main point, but rather an indication of the main point – He has been sent and received because Jesus is resurrected and enthroned.
Was Luke writing a political apology that the Christians should be considered different and distinct from the Jews, or possibly the exact opposite, that they should not be persecuted as a separate sect? Was there a heretical doctrine creeping in such as Gnosticism that needed to be addressed? Was keeping the church pure from worldliness as Gentiles were added the main emphasis? While there are hints of various underlining purposes, they are not the main picture.
Haenchen makes Acts “a response to the political problem between Christianity and Rome.” While F.C. Bauer saw Acts as “a second century irenicon designed to patch up the split between the followers of Peter and Paul.” Conzelmann find “disappointment in the delay of he parousia” as the main setting. Still another theory has Talbert arguing that Acts is a “defense against Gnosticism.” (Summaries for all these are found in (Willimon, William, H. Acts, Interpretation, pp.9-10).
When we read Acts, it is important to understand its overall purpose:
“What are we reading when we read Acts? The question is crucial, because if we do not know the form of writing we do not know its function. Misinterpretation results. How could one interpret Revelation, for example, if one did not know that it is an apocalypse?” (Willimon, William, H. Acts, Interpretation, p.5).
Acts is a “part 2” to Luke. It is history, but more than just “a history of the church.” Charles Talbert calls this type of history a “cultic biography” where Luke and Acts form a
“…narration of the life of the founder of a religious community is followed by stories of his successors and disciples…to tell the story of Christ and his new community in such a way that the values of the founder and his immediate successors might be emulated today. The writer of Acts wants to do more than to write a chronicle of the past. Rather, the past become the platform from which to preach to the present.” (Willimon, William, H. Acts, Interpretation, p.5).
I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment, and yet we will still need to go deeper because it does not address the essential question of why what was included leads the community to imitate their leader. In other words, how did Luke intend to get this message across? That will determine what facts he includes. Therefore I suggest to you that the theme of Acts, is not the acts of the apostles, nor the acts of the Holy Spirit, but rather “The Acts of the King and His Kingdom.”
We shall see this is true by seeing how Luke began and constructed the book of Acts. Jesus, not the apostles, nor the Holy Spirit, is the central character. Luke begins by writing, The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus BEGAN to do and teach (1:1). The book of Luke was just the beginning. The ascension in Luke both marked the end of the beginning, and the beginning of the end. In the book of Acts, Jesus will continue to do and teach.
In contrasting a book, sometimes simply seeing how often a word is used tells us it part of the main message. For example, the word kingdom is found 55 times in Matthew, a very Jewish oriented book. Mark only has it 20 times and John just five. Surprising to me, Luke has the word kingdom almost as much as Matthew – 45 times. But since it is only found 8 times in Acts, how could the kingdom be the theme? First, we need to recognize that the word “kingdom” is not prevalent outside of the gospels. Only one other book after the first four has the word kingdom used more than the book of Acts, and that is Revelation, where it only appears nine times. This is where we look at not how often a word occurs, but when and where it does.
The book begins with Jesus’ last days before “the last days,” and what does Jesus teach His apostles? Speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God (1:3). Why would Luke tell us this, if the kingdom of God is not central to the message of Acts?
The book ends enigmatically with Paul in prison, but the theme is still the same. Paul is testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus (28:23) and preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ (28:31).
What do we find in between? While there is not a vast repetition of the word kingdom, there is the theme using that word and others.
Obviously, there is question by the apostles, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (1:5). More cryptic are the “outline” of Acts (1:8) which might lend us to remember the prophecies about the kingdom of God spreading among all nations (Dan.7:13-14); and the replacement of Judas bringing back the important religious number of twelve. Why is it important to Luke to record the successful mission to the nations and kingdoms of the world? Why is it essential to replace Judas with Matthias when Matthias will never be heard of again? Remember, what details are recorded and left out must have a purpose.
What else do we find about the King and His kingdom? Let’s backtrack a little bit and then go immediately forward. Remember the “outline” of Acts (1:8)? Let’s see how the concept of king and kingdom fits in. In the first very first speech or sermon, Peter emphasizes the kingship of Jesus (Acts 2) to the audience in Jerusalem. As the message widens its appeal, we see the Samaritans being taught, and what is the emphasis? Preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (8:12).
The outline includes more than Jews and Samaritans. When we have the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius converted, we not only have a Gentile in Cornelius, but someone from the “remotest part of the earth” (1:8) – Ethiopia. While the messages retained for us by Luke do not appear to have a king-kingdom theme, there is another similar theme. Both are officers in earthly kingdoms. Throughout Acts there are contrasts between kings (Herod, Agrippa, Caesar) and kingdoms: 3:17; 7; 12:1-5; 12:18-23; etc.
But Acts is not just about the king. Dispersed throughout the book are the acts of the citizens of the kingdom. Why are they able to have all things in common (2:44); overcome racial prejudices (6); die with forgiveness (7); and so forth? Because they are imitating their king! It is the message of the gospel, and its effects. God’s message produces God’s results. But those results, and that message, are sometimes mangled by people. We see it inside the church (5-6,15) and outside (8,22).
What I find interesting about the book of Acts is that even though it is a history of the first churches, very little is said about what went on in the assemblies. Yes we have Acts 20:7, but that is not much. And yes again doctrinal purity is sought for in Acts 15 against the Judaizers. Such a de-emphasis does not mean such details are unimportant or unnecessary (i.e., 1 Corinthians), but I wonder if we would emphasize internal activities ourselves over what is divinely emphasized in Acts? What is highlighted is what happens outside the assembly – reaching in to one another, and reaching out to the lost. Is that an emphasis in our church? Or would we emphasize when and where the church building was first erected and then enlarged?
If you were Theophilus, and Paul’s personal friend sent you a historical letter documenting the first 30 plus years of the church, what would you want it to say? But just as important, why would you choose what you did? The answer to that question tells you something about yourself, and the times you live in. But it also tells you how important you think preaching God’s message is. Could other churches today survive and thrive over what we would include in a history of our church? Is the book of Acts a history of our church?
Tradition says it is the Acts of the Apostles. But the book itself says it is the Acts of the King and the Kingdom on behalf of its king.
Comments