Bible Commentaries
Acts

When we come to the Book of Acts we are looking at the second volume of an original work that was made up of Luke and Acts Somewhere in the early Second Century, the four canonical gospels were gathered together into a single collection and were circulated independently as the fourfold gospel. The second book was then given the name "The Acts of the Apostles" and was circulated separately.^(F1)

By long-standing tradition and abundant historical witness, the author of Acts, and what came to be the Gospel of Luke, is none other than Luke himself.^(F2) We know that Luke was a Gentile (cf. Colossians 4:10, compared to 12-14).^(F3) We also know he was a physician (Colossians 4:14) and an educated person, as his superb writing clearly illustrates. He was in fact the only Gentile writer in the New Testament. Luke, who was probably from Antioch, began to work closely with the apostle Paul. This close connection is illustrated by the so-called "We Sections" of Acts (cf. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5 – 21:18; 27:1 – 28:16). In these sections the narrative is in first person plural form indicating that Luke was present and was an eyewitness.^(F4)

Luke addresses both of his works to one Theophilus, who seemed to be either a Gentile convert to Christianity or one who was greatly interested in the faith. The title "most excellent" (Luke 1:3) seems to indicate that he was a person of distinction. Later in Acts, this title is accorded to the Roman governors of Judea (Acts 23:26; 26:25).^(F5)

The clear purpose of both books was to present an accurate account of the things that had transpired concerning the life and ministry of Jesus before he was taken up to heaven (Luke) and his work afterward (Acts). It is evident that Luke had conducted a careful examination of these events (Luke 1:3) so that he could write an orderly account for Theophilus.^{sic], gathering material for his Gospel and for the early Jerusalem-based chapters of the Acts…[He] will surely also have interviewed many eyewitnesses. 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…So it is not surprising that the first half of the Acts has a 'very noticeable Semitic coloring.'" NOTE: Almost all Bible writers commonly refer to the Holy Land in the First Century as "Palestine." It should be noted that the land was never called "Palestine" until after AD 135. It was at that point that the Romans in derision renamed the land after the ancient Philistines. They did so to remove all biblical references. We know in the New Testament that the land was called "Israel" in the First Century (Matthew 2:21).">(F6)}

In Acts, Luke's purpose is not just to write an account detailing the expansion of the Christian church. "In other words, Luke is telling a story, not writing a 'history.' His story is that of the main outlines of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome via Samaria, Antioch, Asia, and Europe."^(F7) We notice that he does not tell of the church's expansion in Galilee, Egypt, in North Africa, Mesopotamia and other places. His purpose is to show how Christianity reached Rome, the capital of the known world. The Bible specialists Kenneth Barker and John Kohlenberger III say, "The gospel had reached its culmination when it reached Rome, the capital of the Gentile world. And with that victory accomplished, Luke felt free to lay down his pen."^(F8)

We do not know where Theophilus lived, so we do not know to which city Acts was originally directed. There has been a great deal of discussion as to when Luke/Acts was written, and from what place it was written. Some feel that Luke had access to Mark's gospel. It is interesting that both Mark and Luke were closely connected to Paul in Rome, during his imprisonment and his last days (Colossians 4:10,14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24). It is certainly not unthinkable that it was written from Rome, and likely before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. We see nothing about this terrible event in either book. While a number of commentators choose this date and dates afterward, it seems more likely that both Luke and Acts were written before the persecution of Nero began in the summer of AD 64.^(F9) Mark also seems to have been written around this turbulent time.

Some have called this book the Acts of the Holy Spirit. While this is not a complete title, we can know from it that the history of Acts did not end with the 28th chapter, but rather, it continues on today in the present work of the church.