Introduction.

The Book of Acts is the second volume of a two part work of which the first volume is the Gospel of Luke. Both books are based on the same general plan. His claim is to ‘have traced all things accurately from the first’ (Luke 1.3) and to be concerned that his sources were both eyewitnesses and Christian leaders (Luke 1.2). This does indicate a determination to arrive at the facts, even if from a Christian point of view. He is not therefore to be looked on as someone who just writes on without taking the trouble to check his sources.

Contributing to our confidence in him is the fact that the writer has been shown to be historically accurate in his use of terms. He clearly knew his way about the Roman Empire. He knew that a proconsul was in charge of Cyprus at the time when Paul was there. The officials at Philippi are rightly called strategoi. At Thessalonika he correctly refers to the politarchs. At Malta the chief man is correctly referred to as the primus. While at Ephesus he rightly calls the controllers of religious affairs Asiarchs. He is always precise and correct in his use of such titles. He also reveals his knowledge of Roman law and medical practise, and his familiarity with geographical, political and territorial details in the areas of which he speaks. In the complicated world of that day this can only be looked on as evidence of his careful consideration of and treatment of the facts. We can conclude that he was not just a hearer of stories. He knew what he was talking about.

Luke’s aim was to get over Who Jesus is and what He had come to do, and how the message about him was spread abroad from Jerusalem to Rome, but that he wanted to do so on the basis of the facts he stated, and he therefore researched them carefully (see Luke 1.1-4). He was influenced by the fact that he believed in a God Who acts, but he also genuinely wanted only to speak the truth. We may accept that his facts were right, but we cannot doubt that his interpretation of them was Christian. A non-Christian Pharisee or Sadducee would each have interpreted the facts very differently, both from Luke and from each other, unless of course they had been converted while studying them. Indeed in chapters 3 & 4 we have a clear example of how different people knew the facts and interpreted them in different ways. In those chapters all admitted the facts, but they interpreted them in different ways because of their own background beliefs. And Paul certainly interpreted the facts differently after he was converted than he did prior to being converted.

Thus all we can ask of Luke is that he was careful about the facts, genuinely sought to obtain his information from eyewitnesses, and did not try to make everything fit in with his own presuppositions. And it is our view that he has demonstrated that he did accomplish all three.

The Spirit’s Work In Luke and Acts.

The first thing we must draw attention to about both his books (Luke and Acts) is that they each commence with a great emphasis on the new work of the Spirit which was taking place in the days of which they write, which was then mainly assumed as going on in the remainder of each book, with but an occasional reminder necessary to confirm it. And while the happenings at Pentecost in Acts 2 in one sense open up a new era, they are seen as by no means the beginning of the work of the Spirit. The emphasis is rather on a second surge of the Spirit, following on the one which was the mainspring of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

The beginning of Luke’s Gospel laid great emphasis on the work of the Spirit. John the Baptiser was described as "filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb" (Luke 1.15). The word for ‘filled’ is pimplemi which always refers to a special gift for a particular occasion or ministry. In other words John was prepared from birth to be the instrument of God's sovereign work. He would walk "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1.17). But he would do no miracles (John 10.41), the Spirit’s power is revealed in the success of his preaching. Notice in the prophecy of John's birth the contrast between strong drink and the Holy Spirit (Luke 1.15). Paul the Apostle also points out that the man who would be filled by the Spirit must avoid excess of wine (Ephesians 5.18).

The power within John as a result of the permanent fullness of the Spirit will be all the stimulation that he needs, and will enable him to "turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God" so as to prepare a people for the Lord's coming (Luke 1.14-17). As he grows the 'hand of the Lord' is 'with him' (Luke 1.66; compare Psalm 89.21, Acts 11.21). This would remind Luke's readers of Elijah (1 Kings 18.46) and Ezekiel (1.3 and often), although the preposition here is different signifying a more permanent and less emphatic experience.

It was not, however, only on John that the Spirit was depicted as coming. Luke seems at pains in his first chapters to stress the new activity of the Spirit. The coming age, the age of the Spirit, is seen as dawning. Elizabeth (Luke 1.41) and Zechariah (1.67), his mother and father, are also "filled (pimplemi) with Holy Spirit" and prophesy, while Simeon, an aged servant of God, is described as having Holy Spirit 'upon him' (Luke 2.25). Indeed the Spirit has revealed to Simeon that he will not die until he has seen the coming king (2.26), and when the baby Jesus is taken to the Temple in accordance with God's law, Simeon is 'inspired by the Spirit' to go there. It is stressed that he is righteous and devout, and looking for the consolation of Israel (2.25), as are Elizabeth and Zechariah (1.6) and a number of others in Jerusalem (1.38), including a godly prophetess (1.36-37).

Being "filled with the Holy Spirit" is a temporary experience for Elizabeth and Zechariah, enabling them to prophesy the once, while it is a permanent experience for John, the specially chosen instrument of God's purpose. The fact that he is filled with the Spirit from birth demonstrates that in him God had begun the new work of the Spirit by a Sovereign act. The phrase "filled (Gk. pimplemi) with Holy Spirit" is clearly synonymous with the phrase "the Spirit of the Lord came upon --" in the Old Testament (e.g. in Judges). There also it could be temporary or permanent, and was for those chosen out for special service, or for a special prophetic word.

This phrase is used in Acts in a similar way, thus identifying the experiences of Acts with those of the past. In this regard we must distinguish “being filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit” (2.4; 4.8; 4.31; 13.9), which is limited to certain people, is always for some only, for a specific purpose, and very often occurs in a particular circumstance, and is mainly with rare exceptions temporary, and “being filled (pleroo) (13.52) and therefore full (pleres) (6.3, 5; 7.55; 11.24) of the Holy Spirit” which is a more general and continuing experience and which produces general spiritual benefit, the latter being in mind in Ephesians 5.18.

When Jesus is to be born Mary is told, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, And the power of the Most High will overshadow you, Therefore the child who is to be born will be called holy, The Son of God.” (Luke 1.35). Thus it was through the Holy Spirit’s activity that Jesus came into the world.

John begins his preparatory ministry with great success. People flock to him from Jerusalem, Judaea and Galilee and he calls them to change their ways in readiness for one who will come. He makes it clear that he is only the preparer of the way. He has come to call men to turn from sin, and, as a sign of a changed heart and mind, to be baptised (drenched) in water for the forgiveness of sins, but with the promise that the Greater One who is coming “will baptise (drench) you with Holy Spirit and with fire.” (Luke 3.16 compare Matthew 3.11). The thought here is of comparison with the lifegiving rain and the fires of purification and judgment, two Old Testament themes. This will produce the harvest of wheat to be gathered in, while the fire will burn up the useless chaff (Luke 3.17). But he stresses that he is preparing for the coming of Jesus Who will drench men in the Holy Spirit.

When Jesus goes down into the water to be baptised, as He comes out “the Holy Spirit comes down on him in a bodily shape like a dove” (Luke 3.22 compare Matthew 3.16; Mark 1.10). At the same time a voice from Heaven says, “You are My son, My beloved, in whom I am well pleased.” This immediately links Jesus with the kings of Israel who were crowned with the words, “You are my son --” (Psalm 2.7) with the promise of worldwide rule. Thus He is depicted as the king who is coming, upon whom will rest the Spirit of the Lord (Isaiah 11.2) resulting in wisdom and understanding. The final part of the sentence links with Isaiah 42.1, the promise of a coming Servant of God who will have God’s Spirit upon him and proclaim God’s justice to the nations of the world. (The final destiny of this Servant is found in Isaiah 53). So Jesus is both King and Servant and endued with the Spirit of God.

Jesus returns from the Jordan ‘full (pleres) of the Holy Spirit’ (Luke 4.1), something which will carry Him through His ministry, and it is by the Holy Spirit that He is led into the wilderness (Luke 4.1) to face up to the temptations of Satan and the significance of His ministry. He begins His ministry in the power of the Spirit (Luke 4.14) and immediately proclaims Himself to be the prophet on whom the Spirit of the Lord rests as promised in Isaiah 61.1-2 (Luke 4.18-20). “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because He has anointed me to proclaim the good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are bruised and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”. This idea of the anointing of the Spirit also appears in Acts 4.27; 10.38. Luke then brings out how exactly Jesus is carrying out this ministry of the great prophet. He teaches the people with authority (4.32), He releases the captives of the demons (4.33-36), He delivers those oppressed with diseases (4.38-40) and He proclaims the good news of the Kingly Rule of God (4.43 compare Matthew 11.4-6).

It is quite clear then that His ministry is to be in the power of the Holy Spirit. But then, having abundantly and quite clearly established the new work of the Spirit in a number of ways Luke ceases to mention Him. Having established the source of the power in Jesus’ ministry, He wants all attention now to be turned on Jesus. Thus he wants us to recognise that the Spirit’s work in the background is of a continuing nature while at the same time putting the focus on Jesus Himself. John’s Gospel in fact makes clear the continual nature of the Spirit’s work throughout (John 3.1-11; 4.1-26 based on the fact that God is Spirit; 6.63; 7.37-39). However, when Jesus rejoices over the fact that God has revealed His truths to the lowly, He does rejoice “in Spirit” (Luke 10.21), and we are probably justified in seeing here the idea of the joy-giving work of the Spirit (Ephesians 5.18-19). He also promises his disciples that when they are dragged before accusing judges the Holy Spirit will teach them what to say (Luke 12.12; compare Matthew 10.20). The Spirit is thus still there active, but kept in the background by Luke from chapter 5 onwards.

So it is probably fair to say that there is in Luke’s Gospel from chapter 5 onwards a studied absence of mention of the Holy Spirit, so much so that he translated the Aramaic as ‘the finger of God’ (Luke 11.20) where Matthew uses ‘the Spirit of God’ (Matthew 12.28) and while pointing to the coming pouring out of power from above during Jesus’ resurrection appearances seems specifically and deliberately to refrain from mentioning the Holy Spirit (Luke 24.49). It would seem to us that the reason for this is twofold. Firstly in order to concentrate the attention on Jesus, and secondly in order to allow for the greater impact on the reader of the second great work of the Spirit in Acts as a new climactic event (so much so that popular opinion often sees Acts as when the Spirit commenced His work).

Acts can overall be said to follow a similar pattern. Like Luke it commences by emphasising the drenching of the Holy Spirit connected with John the Baptiser’s ministry (1.5) and that the Holy Spirit spoke through Jesus’ ministry (1.2) and explains that the power from on high mentioned previously in the Gospel (Luke 24.49) will be because the Holy Spirit comes on them (1.8), and then goes on to speak of an epoch-making experience of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 followed by abundant reference to the Spirit over a number of chapters (44 times in the first thirteen chapters). This then becomes less in the middle chapters (12 times in chapters 14-21) and after that there is no further reference to the Holy Spirit until we get to one in chapter 28 where it is simply a reference to the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures. Furthermore the Spirit continues Jesus’ ministry in teaching the people with authority (1.8; 2.4; 4.8, 31-33; 5.32 etc), releasing the captives of evil spirits (8.7; 16.18; 19.12), delivering those oppressed with diseases (3.1-11; 6.5-8; 19.12) and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom (8.12; 14.22; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23). The prophetic ministry of Jesus is clearly being carried on. The Servant’s work continues (13.47).

We have seen what the reason for the silence was in Luke, but what could be the reason for it in the final part of Acts? It will in fact be at once apparent that mention of the Holy Spirit ceases when Paul is taken prisoner for the last time, so that the remaining chapters deal with his captivity. Yet it is in these very circumstances of appearing before kings and governors that we would expect mention of the Holy Spirit, for Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would speak through His disciples when called before judges (Luke 12.12). Thus we could argue that while Luke has made it clear that the Holy Spirit would be at work through Paul at this time (Luke 12.12 compare Acts 4.8), he is, like he did in his Gospel, deliberately not mentioning Him in context. Then when he is established in Rome the Holy Spirit is again mentioned.

This would seem to suggest that He wants us to concentrate on the work of the Holy Spirit as the carrying forward of the movement from Jerusalem to Rome. with a kind of hiatus once Paul has been arrested. The Holy Spirit does aid Peter in his defence in 4.8, but this may be seen as part of the forward surge and witness. On the other hand it may be that he wants us to see that Paul’s final journey to Rome, while being in God’s purposes (23.11), was not a matter of being borne along by the Holy Spirit but of being borne along by the hand of Rome, something which God would certainly finally turn to His own account, but of which Luke wanted to reveal his disapproval. For a while men had taken over control. And while in the end it was in God’s hands and results in the accomplishment of God’s final purpose to bring Paul from Jerusalem to Rome (23.11), where again the Holy Spirit is mentioned (28.25), his non-mention of the Holy Spirit surely expresses his disapproval of what Rome has done without actually saying so. For a time both the Jews and Rome had interfered in the purposes of God. Not that it prevented God’s work continuing. Witness was made to governors and kings, people were converted. There was still evidence of God’s power. But it comes under God’s disapproval.

This may therefore suggest that we are called on to recognise the distinction between the forward movement of the Spirit throughout the world of that day, and the stark reality of Paul having to face his accusers and captors, prior to his arrival in Rome (where the Holy Spirit is again mentioned) which is seen as not on the whole of the Spirit. In these circumstances he needed no special guidance as to the direction of his ministry, nor to be driven forward, for it was not in his hands (the help of the Holy Spirit when before governors being assumed), for in the same way as Jesus was, in his final days he was led about by others, and on the whole he utilised no special powers (with the exception of Publius’ father (28.8) and his promise of safe arrival on land during the shipwreck (27.22)) apart from in his testimony. We may compare this part of his life with the last days of Jesus, when Satan was active (26.18) in doing all that he could to destroy him. But both Jesus and Paul triumphed in the end. God was in the experiences of both. We may also note that after the journey to Jerusalem in Luke his enemies were thwarted by the resurrection, after Paul’s journey to Rome they were thwarted by his being able to live in his own house and declare the Kingly Rule of God to both Jews and Gentiles.

So while revealing the work of the Holy Spirit must be seen as one of Luke’s main purposes it cannot be seen as the one central one, otherwise He would have been mentioned in these final chapters in places where mention of Him might be expected

The Language of Luke and Acts.

Interestingly the same general picture of a change between two part of each book also applies to the language of both books, but with the split being very different. Speaking generally, in Luke’s Gospel the first three chapters are suffused with Aramaic Greek, followed by the remainder in more general Greek. In Acts the first fifteen chapters can be said to give strong suggestions of Aramaic Greek while the remainder may again be said to be in more general Greek. To some extent this may well be seen as due to sources, whether written or oral, (for parts of Acts 1-15 would mainly tend to come from witnesses who used Aramaic Greek), and to the use of the Septuagint and other Greek texts for the benefit of his readers. This would then suggest the careful way in which Luke did not alter his sources overmuch, while considering his readers. But that could be said to be equally true of the whole of Luke’s Gospel, and yet that did not prevent Luke from putting it in more general Greek. It must be seen therefore as quite probable that Luke wanted chapters 1-3 to reflect the Old Testament prior to the commencement of Jesus’ ministry, while feeling more at home in general Greek, and wanted parts of Acts 1-15 to reflect the mainly Jewish Christian background of that section of Acts, changing to more general Greek in Acts 16 onwards once the Jew-Gentile Christian conflict was officially resolved. It suggests that he was no mean author.

Luke’s Aim In Producing Acts.

Apart from wanting to report on the doings of the early church, and the advance of the Spirit, we may ask, what were Luke’s purposes in writing Acts? While we must not reduce Luke’s purpose to only one specific aim, he was not so limited, there would certainly seem to be good grounds for seeing one main aim as being expressed in words of the risen Jesus in 1.8, “But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come on you: and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.” He wanted the world to know that Jesus’ words and God’s purposes were fulfilled. For there is no question but that the book of Acts does portray the witness about Jesus Christ being proclaimed in Jerusalem (1-7), moving to ‘Judaea and Samaria’ (8.1), with the ministry to Samaria then being overseen by Apostles (8.14-25), and finally going out into the Roman world, first through Peter with Cornelius (10-11), then with Paul’s missionary journeys (13-21), then before kings and governors (21-27) and finally with the presence of an Apostle in Rome, dwelling there and proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God (28.31). And this is confirmed by 23.11, ‘as you have borne witness concerning me at Jerusalem, so must you bear witness also at Rome’. Testimony is given at the centre of the Jewish world and the centre of the Gentile world with the movement from the one to the other.

We can compare here how in Luke the author laid great emphasis on the journey to Jerusalem. It was there that God would manifest His glory and provide the springboard for the future. In Acts the concentration is on movement from Jerusalem towards Rome, not in order to glorify Rome, but because Rome was the hub of the world, and while it must be recognised that the information given about the Samaritan ministry fits in badly with other aims, it does not with this one.

Furthermore the book makes clear that all this was due to the sovereign power of God. It is seen not to be a humanly planned scenario but almost forced on men by the power of God. Necessity forced the appointment of the Hellenistic Jews as deacons, one of whom began to preach to the Samaritans. Persecution drove the Christians out of Jerusalem, when they were settling down snugly to form their own Utopia. The angel of the Lord directed Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch. Paul was converted by the direct and unexpected appearance of Jesus to him. Two visions were responsible for Peter being called to meet Cornelius. The Holy Spirit called on the Antioch church to send out Barnabas and Paul. A vision of a man from Macedonia called Paul over to Macedonia. Circumstances beyond his control, then stated to be of God (23.11), sent Paul to proclaim the Gospel before kings and governors, and then finally in Rome. It was all of God.

Another parallel aim, although very similar, was equally certainly in order to portray that the proclamation of the new Kingly rule of God began with Jesus Christ, continued with the Apostolic ministry, with the first outreach being by the Jewish Christian Apostles to Jews, including the Jews of the Dispersion (Acts 2). Then under Jewish Christian Apostolic authority the witness is seen as expanding to Samaritans, and then finally to Gentiles, at which point the important decision was reached that those who united with the new Israel did not need to be circumcised or keep the ritual law. The proclamation of the Good News then expanded outwards among Gentiles until it was being successfully proclaimed by an Apostle in Rome on a continual basis.

Alongside this was emphasised the fact that to begin with in every city the ministry was to Jews first, which was a sensible procedure as it was in the synagogues that Jews could be found whose background had prepared them for the message, and there also God-fearers could be found, Gentiles who had been attracted by the monotheism and morality of the Jewish teachings but had not become proselytes. But eventually the Jews disqualified themselves by their behaviour, so that the Gospel became more freely available on equal terms to all. The old Israel having been given its opportunity the new Israel became separated from the old, founded on the Apostles (Ephesians 2.11-22) and in the end was freed from its grip. Thus is emphasised Paul’s injunction, ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’ (Romans 1.16).

This in fact paralleled the ministry of Jesus which was first for the Jews (Matthew 10.5-6; 15.24), but then after the incident of the Syrophoenician woman (Matthew 15.21-28; Mark 7.24-30) began to also include on its periphery Gentiles, although strangely enough this is stressed in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke.

A third subsidiary aim would appear to have been in order to vindicate the Apostleship of Paul, that is to say, to demonstrate that Peter and Paul operated on equal terms and that Paul was approved by the Apostolate, for the first part of Acts largely centres on Peter, with Paul then taking over the centre stage with the approval of the Apostles, and parallels being drawn in order to demonstrate that Peter and Paul performed the same ministry. But Acts cannot be described as a life of Peter and Paul, for Peter drops from view after the Jerusalem Council. For while Peter first goes as an Apostle to Judaea, Samaria and the Gentiles, it is Paul who goes extensively among the Gentiles and as an Apostle to Rome.

Examples of parallels demonstrating their equal effectiveness begin with the healing of a man lame from birth (3.2; 14.8), and of another sick man (9.33ff. (long time palsied); 28.8 (a fever and bloody flux); they heal many men at once, both directly (5.16; 28.9) and through different mediums (5.15 (by shadow) compare 19.12 (by handkerchiefs), besides doing signs and wonders generally (2.43 5.12; compare 14.3; 15.12; 19.11); both have encounters with sorcerers (8.18; 13.6); both bring a dead person to life (9. 36-42; 20.9-12); both perform a miracle revealing God’s judgment (5.1-10 (died); 13.6-11 (blinded)); both, by the laying-on of hands, confer the gift of the Holy Spirit (8.14-17; 19.1-7), both bring about speaking in tongues (10.44-46 (while speaking); 19.6 (by laying on of hands); both have a vision which coincides with one experienced by another man (10.1-22; 9. 3-16) ; both are miraculously delivered from prison (5.17-23; 12.3-11 (by angels secretly); compare 16.23-34 (by an earthquake); both are scourged (5.40; 16.23) both decline to be honoured/worshipped in fairly similar words (10.25f; 14.11-18).

On the whole, however, most of the above are what might be expected from men gifted and chosen as they were, and we should note that he has not, for example, introduced in the case of Peter, as compared with Paul, a stoning (14.19), or threats against life (9.23-29; 14.5), or an exorcism (16.16-18), or in the case of Paul, as compared with Peter, that the Holy Spirit aided his defence against rulers (contrast 4.8) even though He would have. Thus he selects from the facts but does not invent them in order to achieve his purpose.

Similarly, in respect of Paul, we should note that many of the items enumerated in 2 Corinthians 11.23-27; 12.12 are omitted. This last may be explained, at least in part, by the supposition that he had no definite knowledge about them. It would seem that he has, in fact, confined himself to matters genuinely preserved by tradition of which he was made aware by witnesses, and has not invented events or spoken by general hearsay, merely making a selection of what he did receive and putting them into reasonable shape. But it also suggests that he was not interested in writing a complete life of Paul. He was more interested in the advance of the Gospel and the revelation of the power of God, first through Peter and then through Paul.

A fourth subsidiary aim was clearly in order to demonstrate that, while the unbelieving Jews were antagonistic to the church, and sought to bring it into disrepute, which explained why there were so many seemingly questionable incidents, although that this did not apply to all, the Roman authorities continually looked with favour on the church, rejected accusations against it and made its decisions in its favour.

For example, in the third Gospel we have already found Pilate declaring that he found no fault in Jesus, a judgment confirmed by Herod, who in the other Gospels is not mentioned at all in connection with the examination of Jesus. Pilate then declares three times that he will release Jesus, and is prevailed on to pass adverse sentence only by the insistence of the Jews (Luke 23 1-25). In Acts, which has even been regarded by some as an apology for Christianity intended to be laid before Gentiles in Paul’s defence, or as a general defence of Christianity before the authorities, the first converts of Peter and Paul are Roman officers (10.1;13.7), while it is the civil authorities who continually and definitely declare Paul not to be a political criminal in spite of the insistence of the Jews (18.14f: 19.37; 23.29; 25.18ff; 26.31ff) ; it is also by them that he is protected, in more than one instance, from conspiracies (18. 12-17; 19.31; 21.31-36; 23.10, 22-33; 25 2-4), and it is made quite clear that he was welcome in Rome and was allowed to preach from his own home without being forbidden. The strong and continual emphasis on these latter instances certainly confirms that one aim of Acts is to clear Christianity of any charge of subversion made against it, and to demonstrate that it was a religio licita, an officially approved religion. But it can only be seen as one aim among many. For the large amount of material that does not contribute to this aim prevents us from seeing it as its main purpose.

A fifth aim, emphasised by the extent to which he introduces the teaching of others, was clearly to bring home the message of these preachers to his readers. People wanted to know what Jesus had taught, and what the Apostles had taught. So, from his wide knowledge of this, Luke wanted to pass on to them what he knew and what he had learned. He was aware that the church were more interested in the words of Jesus and the Apostles than in what he thought, and humble enough to provide what they wanted (see Speeches in Acts below).

A sixth subsidiary aim, although an extremely important one underlying the whole purpose of Acts so that it might even be seen as a main purpose, was in order to illustrate how people of all kinds personally came to Christ and found salvation through His name, and how testimony to Christ, with full details of what that testimony was, was given before men of all traditions and status. This was indeed at the heart of all that was happening.

The Sources of Acts.

It is clear that Luke must have gathered the information in the first part of Acts from people who were present at what happened. He had good connections with such people including among others both Mark and Philip the deacon who had both been involved with the church from the beginning, and many others as he travelled around. He knew most of the companions of Paul at one time or another, and as his set purpose was to write an accurate history, he would have taken the opportunities presented by his travels to discover and confirm all his facts (Luke 1.3).

Especially significant in Acts are the passages where the writer uses ‘we’, which on any reasonable interpretation suggests that the author was actually present at those times. These are found in 16.10-18; 20.5-16; 21.1-18; 27.1-28.16. Additional to these might be passages where ‘we’ would not have been expected because of the content of the passage.

So overall there is no really good reason to doubt that Luke was able to obtain accurate information from eyewitnesses for most of what he wrote, and was of course able to call on Paul for other information unobtainable elsewhere. Thus there are no real grounds for questioning the historical accuracy of the narrative.

Why Is There So Little Indication In Acts Of The Controversies So Prominent In Paul’s Letters?

The reason that there is so little reference to controversies which early on affected the Christian church is to be found in the purpose of the book. It was intended to reveal the forward movement of the Gospel against all opposition, rather than to look at the controversies of the church arising from the original Jewishness of the church (although some indication of them is certainly given), for the latter would only have sidetracked the reader from the main aim. The point is being made that the church triumphed as one and that therefore the controversies were of little importance. What mattered was the continual advance and establishment of the Gospel.

Why Did Luke End The Book Where He Did?

The most obvious solution to this question is that the point at which he ended was about the time at which Luke ended his writings. For if the book was written after the stoning of James the Lord’s brother in Jerusalem had become generally known, or after persecution of Christians by Nero, or after Paul himself had been executed, or after the fall of Jerusalem, it is hard to understand why these were not mentioned.

He had after all mentioned the martyrdom of James the Apostle (12.2), why not that of James the Lord’s brother? Nero’s act was despised by the people of Rome who suspected him of duplicity, and might therefore have obtained sympathy for Christians, and would probably not be counted against them, while Paul’s martyrdom could have been a genuine comfort and strength to Christians in the face of their difficulties, and reference to the destruction of Jerusalem would have had a great impact in releasing Christianity from its original Jewish ties, as it certainly did for the Jerusalem church that fled to Pella. Furthermore it must have been quite apparent that anyone interested would know about the Neronic persecution and could soon check and discover what had happened to Paul, so that there was no point in pretending that they had not happened. Indeed such a book, ending like it does, might well have raised questions and been seen as possibly resulting in an interest in the carrying out of such investigations.

But it is always dangerous to suggest that an author must include certain things, just because it seems sensible to us. Possibly rather we need to review our ideas of what the book is aiming at. One possible explanation, apart from that which sees this as determining the date of the writing of the book, is that the writer had a particular aim in view, and that that aim might have been to demonstrate how the work of the early church had resulted in the establishment of fruitful authoritative Apostolic ministry in Rome, which would have been seen by many in the early church as the ultimate of blessing and triumph, and that he did not want anything to draw attention away from that. He might have thought that any further information would have detracted from that message. That may have been the punch line at which he had been aiming.

He might well have intended comparison with the way that Luke’s Gospel had ended with the final work of Christ, resulting from the activity of His enemies, which had resulted in His resurrection triumph which all knew was a huge blessing. A parallel may therefore have been intended between Jesus’ glorification in Heaven to the right hand of God as King, and Paul’s exaltation on earth by God to his own house in Rome as a servant of Christ, from which to declare the Kingly Rule of God in Rome. The Messiah was enthroned in heaven, God’s throne was as it were established on earth in Rome through His representative. And no one could suggest that Paul had come to Rome with evil intent, for it was not by his own choice that he had come. Thus anything that followed might have been seen as irrelevant or indeed as being a hindrance to the emphasising of this message. Perhaps he wanted it to be established that despite everything that man could do, God ruled in Rome.

Of course there was a church in Rome long before Paul arrived, for he wrote to them, and we do not know how it was established, but the point being made here may have been the establishing of Apostolic authority, in other words Messiah’s authority, in Rome under God.

Furthermore, to record Paul’s death might also have been seen as unsuitable for a different reason. Luke’s Gospel ended with an emphasis on the death of Jesus, followed by His resurrection. It may well be that he felt that to end Acts with the martyrdom of Paul, as though his death could be paralleled with that of Jesus, might wrongly have suggested an equation between the two, which would not have been seen as acceptable, as Jesus’ death was unique. Comparison might have been seen as odious, as detracting from the message of the cross.

Why Does Luke Not Draw Attention To The Atoning Significance of the Cross?

Much has been made of Luke’s failure to draw attention to the atoning significance of the cross. However, this is not a strictly accurate assessment, for there are certainly occasions when he does so. He cites the words of Jesus, ‘this is my body which is given for you’ and about the new covenant in His blood (Luke 22:19-20). He cites the words of Isaiah 53.12, ‘he was reckoned among the transgressors’ as referred by Jesus to Himself, and the atoning significance of this idea in the context of Isaiah could hardly be overlooked (Luke 22.37). He informs us that Jesus pointed out that ‘the Messiah should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all the nations’ (Luke 24.46-47), which connects the two ideas. And in Acts 20:28 the church of God has been ‘purchased with His own blood’. So Luke tends to let his sources speak for him. At the same time he might not have seen the presentation of the doctrine of the atonement as his main purpose, except generally in his emphasis on the cross. Once Theophilus and his other readers had been attracted to the resurrected Christ and His church, then would be the time to stress the doctrine of the atonement.

But Acts certainly proclaims that it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus that men find life (2.23-24, 33, 38). Compare also 13.29-30 with 37-39 where His death and resurrection are the means of men’s justification apart from the Law. This was preaching which offered eternal life (13.46). For salvation is by the grace of God not through circumcision and legalism (15.10-11). And in many places these connections are simply assumed.

Could The Paul Of The Letters Have Behaved in The Way That Paul Does In Acts?

It is often argued that the Paul of the letters could never have done some of the things spoken of in Acts. Paul, it is said, was so firm in his belief concerning the freedom of the Christian from the Law, even for the Jewish Christian, that he could never 1). have agreed to the circumcision of Timothy (16.3) or 2). have agreed to subject himself to a vow in the Temple (21.20-26).

However, with regard to this it must be remembered that Paul had already passionately stated that he was willing, in order to convert Jews, to become as a Jew to them (1 Corinthians 9.20). And his reason for circumcising Timothy, who was half Jewish by birth through his mother, was said to be in order to make him more effective in witnessing to the Jews in the area (16.3). It was therefore a very different thing from circumcising the Gentile Titus at a time when it was being required by the Judaisers as necessary for him in order to be a Christian, a thing Paul adamantly refused to allow because it would have surrendered his case. In view of Paul’s statement about his willingness to become as a Jew for the sake of winning Jews it is impossible to argue that he would not have behaved in this way, and have allowed Timothy to do the same. Indeed for such a reason, if it had not been for the arguments of the Judaisers, he may well have been willing to circumcise Titus as well. His refusal was because Titus had become a test case, and therefore his being circumcised would have yielded the case to the Judaisers and prevented the full truth of the Gospel from being apparent.

This is rather an example to us of how, while we must never do anything to compromise the truth, we must always be ready not to allow secondary matters to hinder the presentation of the Gospel.

With regard to the Vow in the Temple (21.20-26), the first question is as to whether it was a Nazirite vow? 21.20-26 does not in fact say that it was a full Nazirite vow, and thus we have no right to assume so. The truth is that our knowledge of the system of vows in Judaism at that time is strictly limited. And in view of the complications of religious ritual and religious vows in the religion of Israel, about which we are not given full information, it is absolutely impossible without further evidence for us to know all the different types of vow that a Jew could make. (Compare Leviticus 27). Thus we cannot suggest that this vow did not follow the correct requirements, because we cannot know whether it did or not, and the only question needing to be dealt with is therefore whether Paul would ever under any circumstances take any kind of vow and pay the costs of the offerings for others who took such a vow?

When we consider that he was personally being pressed to do so by James, the Lord’s brother, who had sided with him in his contest with the Judaisers, and was willing to do anything reasonable to further the Gospel, there would seem no credible reason why he would not have done so. For his reason for doing so was to be because it had falsely been said that he forbade any Jewish Christian to continue to fulfil the Law or circumcise their children. As he had not forbidden it, and indeed would favour it where, as in the case of James, it helped him to make a good witness before Jews, such as in Jerusalem, there was no reason for him to refuse. What he had taught was that it was allowable not to do so, and he may well have been glad to put such a misunderstanding right if it was causing offence. And if he thought at the same time that it would help his brethren in the Jewish church to survive in difficult times, it gives us even more reason for suggesting that he would be very willing to do so. After all he was probably simply being asked to go through a ritual that he had been through before in his youth. If it would help to uphold the Jewish church in the Jerusalem community he may well even have felt obliged to do it, and at the same time have recognised that he could get some religious benefit from such a dedication, as it would not be compromising his firmly stated beliefs which had been upheld by the Council. We must remember that Jesus had always fulfilled the Jewish Law. And it would give Paul an opportunity of upholding the other four vow-makers, and of witnessing to Jews in the Temple. And even if he was not very happy about it, he was in a very difficult position, for he knew that he partly owed it to James that his arguments against the need to circumcise Gentiles had won the day. His gratitude may thus have helped to sway his decision. His position had after all been made quite clear to and by the Council, who had openly confirmed it, so that he would not be compromising on essentials. And as God used it to get him to Rome, and so that he was able to witness to kings and governors in the meantime, we could well argue that it was in fact God’s intention for him as well (23.11).

Some have also argued that it would have been questionable, morally, if he would really have held his peace about his Christianity and would have described himself, especially before a court of justice, simply as a Pharisee (23.6, compare 24.21; 26.5-8; 28.20), asserting that he was accused only on account of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. But Paul may well have seen Christianity, with its firm belief in the resurrection of the dead which was central to Pharisaism, as the true fulfilment of the Pharisaism that had once gripped him, and thus have seen himself as a true Pharisee who had come to a position which was the fulfilment of Pharisaism. For the final aim of Pharisees was by all means to be faithful to God’s covenant, and that was certainly Paul’s aim. It was in the detail that he disagreed with the Pharisees. He was certainly far nearer to the Pharisees than the Sadducees. It really is impossible for us to know the nature of Paul’s thinking on the matter. Many a Pharisee probably became a Christian and continued to see himself as a Pharisee, simply considering that he had found a better way to be a covenant fulfiller and receive eternal life, the general aim of Pharisaism.

In all this then we see a man of great tact who, while he was firm for the truth when it was being questioned, was also willing to compromise where that truth was not at stake in order to woo men to following Christ.

The Speeches in Acts.

The question of whether the speeches in Acts genuinely reflect what was said at the time has been hotly debated. Clearly most of the speeches are mainly a precis of actual speeches which would no doubt have been a lot longer. And this can hardly be doubted. So we are not really asking whether we have here the exact words, but whether we have the correct sense and phraseology. Certainly reputable writers did seek to ensure that, when they wrote down what men had ‘said’, their words gave the true meaning of their utterances, as Thucydides strongly affirms. He says, ‘of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said’, even of speeches which he could not fully recall, and stresses that their content either came from his having heard them himself or from reliable sources. On the other hand he also spoke of making plain ‘those subjective elements which cannot easily be displayed in an impartial narrative, but are indispensable to a proper understanding of events’. Polybius was actually critical of this and insisted that what should be recorded was what was actually said. So it is wrong to assume that it was normal just to invent speeches, although no doubt some writers did, as some do today.

Thus we would expect a reliable author like Luke to ensure from his sources, where he had not heard the speech himself, what was actually said, and to ensure that those sources would be people who had listened carefully with the intention of remembering, and were people who were used to remembering such things. And they would be helped by the fact that the Biblical quotations used would be familiar to them. Furthermore, as they had no New Testament to consult for an understanding of their faith, and were used to memorising, they would be the more particular to remember words that came from a reliable source. Nor were they likely to forget them. For many of the listeners would treasure up the words that they had heard with a view to passing them on, with the result that as they continually passed them on to one audience after another they would take on a specific never to be forgotten form which would also become a treasured memory to others. Having nowhere else to turn for material they would preach what they had heard preached, and would be careful to remember it accurately so that they did not alter the inspired words of the original preacher. Indeed if they did alter the words there would be others who had also heard the original speech who would remind them accordingly. For, as Papias tells us, emphasising the importance laid on this by the early church, all would be eager to know what were the actual words of the Apostles. They did care about truth.

Analyses of the speeches have both recognised their different kinds, and to some extent their common approach, with differences depending on the context. And this common approach would seem to be, not that of the writer, but of the early preachers themselves, for parallels to aspects of Acts speeches can be found both in the Gospels and in Pauline letters. Indeed it is now largely accepted that we actually know the main basis for most evangelistic speeches at that time, following a pattern which begins with a brief reference to past prophecy in order to indicate that the time promised by the prophets was at hand, followed by an explanation of the life and activities of Jesus, followed by a description of His death and resurrection duly explained, and all accompanied by explanatory texts from the Old Testament Scriptures, followed by the description of His exaltation, with an application to the need of the hearers at the end calling on them to repent and receive forgiveness. Where speeches differ from this it is mainly because of their special purpose or because of the particular audience that is in mind. We know therefore that Peter would have spoken as he is said to have done in Acts. Luke must therefore be acquitted from the charge of manufacturing speeches, although clearly he did have a hand in the selection of what part of the content he would use.

The pattern for such speeches was not new. We can trace it backwards to the Gospels. John preached ‘a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 1.4; Luke 3.3), declaring, “Repent, for the Kingly Rule of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3.2 compare 4.17), and proclaiming the coming judgment and promising the coming of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3.11-12). When Jesus sent His disciples out to preach, no doubt having given them full instructions on what they were to say, He told them, ‘Preach, saying, “The Kingly Rule of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 10.7; ). Luke says they were to preach, “The Kingly Rule of God is come near to you” (Luke 10.9 compare 9.2). And in all cases they were to intimate that judgment awaited those who rejected their message (Matthew 10.14-15; Luke 9.5; 10.11-13). This is amplified in Mark 1.15 where the preaching of the good news of God was, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingly Rule of God is at hand. Repent you and believe the good news”. So we already have a pattern of preaching with the central points emphasised. Clearly Jesus would also have filled this out with references to the Scriptures and instructions on how to amplify this message. The Apostles did not just go out repeating one sentence like parrots.

So the pattern He has given His disciples, and which they had preached on time and again, was:

• 1) Reference to the fulfilment of the time promised by the prophets.
• 2) The proclamation of the kingly rule of God as at hand or as having drawn near.
• 3) The call to repent and believe.
• 4) The promise of the forgiveness of sins,
• 5) The warning of imminent judgment to come.

Added by John the Baptiser were the call to be baptised and await the reception of the Holy Spirit. And we may see it as certain that the disciples would also make reference to Jesus and His life and teaching which were the basis of the Kingly Rule of God.

When Jesus was preparing His disciples for their ministry after His resurrection He ‘opened their minds to understand the Scriptures’, that is, to ‘all things which were written in Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning Him’, and informed them, ‘Thus it is written that the Messiah should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all the nations’ (Luke 24.46-47).

In Matthew His commission was, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth, go you therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28.18-19).

We could now see the overall pattern of preaching taught them by Jesus as expanding to be as follows;

• 1) Reference to the fulfilment of the time promised by the prophets.
• 2) The proclamation of the kingly rule of God as at hand or as having drawn near.
• 3) Reference to His suffering and rising again as declared in the Scriptures.
• 4) The declaration that Jesus has openly been made Lord and Messiah.
• 5) The call to repent and believe.
• 6) The promise of the forgiveness of sins.
• 7) The call to be baptised in anticipation of the coming of the Holy Spirit on them.
• 5) The warning of imminent judgment to come.

Thus we should not be surprised to find that this was the pattern which Peter emphasised in his first preaching after the resurrection in Acts 2-4. It was in fact what he had been taught by Jesus Himself. In Acts 2-4 we have four speeches by Peter. The first (2.14-36, 38-39) was delivered by Peter to the crowds assembled on the Day of Pentecost, the second (3.12-26) was to the people after the healing of a lame man, the third and fourth (4.8-12; 5.29-32) were to the Sanhedrin after the arrest of the apostles, and all in general follow this pattern. The speech of Peter to Cornelius in 10.34-43 is similar to the earlier speeches, but it has some special features and suggests even more an Aramaic original.

These first speeches of Peter cover substantially the same ground as we have described above. The phraseology and order of presentation may vary slightly, but there is no essential difference between them. They supplement one another, and taken together afford a comprehensive view of Peter’s approach which seems to have become the standard for early preaching on the basis of what Jesus had taught them. It was based on training given by Jesus when they went out preaching the Kingly Rule of God, but extended to take account of the crucifixion and resurrection, and the exaltation of Jesus. Peter was no longer a novice when it came to preaching, and now the Holy Spirit had come with power.

Consider the basis of the speeches in Acts:

• Firstly that the time is fulfilled, that is, that the age of fulfilment spoken of by the prophets has come, and that the Messianic age has dawned. "This is that which was spoken by the prophet" (Acts 2.16). " The things which God foreshowed by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Messiah should suffer, He thus fulfilled" (3.18). "All the prophets from Samuel and those who followed after, as many as have spoken, told of these days" (3.24).

  And this tied in with Jewish teaching for it was a central feature of Rabbinic exegesis of the Old Testament that what the prophets predicted had reference to the "days of the Messiah." In other words they predicted the time of expectation when God, after long centuries of waiting, would visit His people with blessing and judgment, and bring to a climax His dealings with them.

• Secondly, that this has taken place through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, of which a brief account is given, with proof from the Scriptures that all took place through "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (2.23).

  This could include, 1) His Davidic descent. "David, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, He would set one on his throne, foreseeing the resurrection of the Messiah ---," who is therefore proclaimed, by implication, to have been born "of the seed of David" (2.30-31; citing Psalm 131.11 compare Psalm 16.10. See Romans 1.3).

  2) His life and ministry. "Jesus of Nazareth, a man divinely accredited to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by Him among you" (Acts 2.22). "Moses said, The Lord your God will raise up a prophet --- like me; him you must hear in all things that he may say to you" (Acts 3.22; regarded as fulfilled in the preaching and teaching of Jesus).

  3) His death. "Him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you, by the hands of lawless men, did crucify and slay" (2.23). "His servant Jesus, Whom you caused to be arrested, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. And you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of Life" (3.13-14). "Jesus Christ of Nazareth Whom you crucified" (4.10).

  4) His resurrection. "Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. For David says with reference to Him, --- ‘You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor give Your Holy One to see corruption’ " (2.24, 27-28). "Whom God raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses" (3.15). "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead" (4.10).

• Thirdly, by virtue of the resurrection, Jesus has been exalted at the right hand of God, as Lord and Messiah and head of the new Israel (receiving all authority in heaven and earth). "Being exalted at the right hand of God --- God has made Him Lord and Messiah" (2.33, 36 compare Psalm 110.1). "The God of our fathers --- has glorified His Servant Jesus" (3.13). "He is the Stone which was rejected by you builders, which was made the head of the corner" (4.11, citing Psalm 118.22). We can compare with this, "Him did God exalt with His right hand, as Prince and Saviour" (5.31). In the words of Jesus in Matthew 28.19, all authority had been given to Him in heaven and on earth.
• Fourthly, the Holy Spirit in His people is the proof of Christ’s present power and glory. "Being exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which you see and hear" (Acts 2.33). This is referred to earlier by citing Joel 2.28-32 in Acts 2.17-21. See also, "We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit which God has given to those who obey Him" (5.32). The promised baptism (drenching) with the Holy Spirit had come.
• Fifthly, the Messianic Age will shortly reach its consummation in the return of Christ, a consummation awaited from the beginning. "That He may send the Messiah appointed beforehand for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the times of the restoration of all things, of which God spoke through the mouth of His prophets which have been since the world began" (3.21). This is in fact the only reference in Acts 2-4 which speaks of the second coming of Christ, but in Acts 10 it is seen as part of the apostolic preaching, "This is He who is ordained by God as Judge of living and dead" (10.42). This is the only explicit reference to Christ as Judge in these speeches (compare John 5.22, 27), but as we have seen it was certainly an assumption of the Apostolic ministry during the lifetime of Jesus.
• Sixthly and finally, the preaching regularly closes with an appeal for repentance, an offer of forgiveness and of the Holy Spirit, and the promise of" salvation," that is, of "eternal life, the life of the age to come," to those who become Christ’s and one with His people. "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord your God may call to Him" (Acts 2.38-39, referring to 2,21 (Joel 2. 32), Isaiah 57.19). "Repent therefore and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out ---You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ To you first, God, having raised up His Servant, sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you away from your sins " (Acts 3.19, 25-26, having in mind Genesis 12.3). "In none other is there salvation, for nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which you must be saved" (Acts 4.12).

  We can compare with this, " Him did God exalt at His right hand as Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins" (Acts 5.31); "To Him bear all the prophets witness, that through His name everyone who believes in Him will receive remission of sins" (Acts 10.43).

This then is what the author of Acts meant by "preaching the Kingly Rule of God." It is very significant that it follows the lines of the summary of the preaching of Jesus as given in Mark 1.14-15 : "Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Good News of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the Kingly Rule of God has drawn near. Repent and believe the Gospel", the lines of the preaching of John the Baptiser to whom Peter had been a disciple, and the lines Jesus Himself laid out in His resurrection appearances, which together covered everything that Peter said.

The first clause in Mark’s description, "The time is fulfilled," is expanded in the reference to prophecy and its fulfilment in accordance with what Jesus had no doubt taught them while He was alive, and had certainly taught them after His resurrection. The second clause, "The Kingly Rule of God has drawn near," is expanded in the account of the ministry and death of Jesus, and His resurrection and exaltation as Lord and Messiah to receive all authority in heaven and earth, having suffered as the Messiah. The third clause, "Repent and believe the Gospel," reappears in the appeal for repentance and the offer of forgiveness with which Peter’s sermons close. Even if we had not known what Peter preached we could have pieced it together from the Gospels.

Parallels Between Luke and Acts.

There are some interesting parallels between Luke and Acts. In Luke the first part is in Aramaic Greek and the second part is in general Greek. The same applies in Acts. In Luke Jesus goes forth proclaiming the kingly rule of God, healing, casting out evil spirits, as do His disciples. The same picture is presented of both Peter and Paul and others in Acts. And that this is a continuation comes out in that Jesus is the Servant of God, ‘His chosen’, in Luke (Luke 2.32; 3.22; 9.35 RV/RSV; 22.37; 23.35), while the early church (as well as Jesus) is the Servant of God in Acts (Acts 13.47). In Luke Jesus is transfigured before His three main disciples (Luke 9.29), in Acts He is appears in glorious light to Paul (Acts 9.3; 22.6; 26.13 with 1 Corinthians 15.8). In Luke Jesus is ‘compelled’ to take His journey to Jerusalem (Acts 9.51-53;13.22; 17.11), in Acts Paul is compelled to take his journey to Rome (Acts 21.32-27). Luke finishes with Christ enthroned triumphantly in heaven (Luke 24.51). Acts finishes with Paul firmly established in Rome proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God (Acts 28.30-31). In Luke there is early concentration on the work of the Spirit, followed by silence, the same applies to a lesser extent in Acts, although in Luke the reason is probably in order to draw attention Jesus, whereas in Acts it is to draw attention to Paul being constrained. In Luke Jesus passes his final days before His exaltation under restraint. In Acts Paul is held under restraint before his being established in Rome.

The parallels are far from exact, but they may well be deliberate. This is, however, no stereotyped representation. Rather it illustrates on the whole that we are called to follow in His steps.

Summary ofActs.

The summary divides naturally into six sections each of which ends with its own summary. These are as follows:

(a) 1.1-6.7. This section relates the commencement of the witness of the church after the resurrection, beginning at Jerusalem. It includes the coming of the Spirit in chapter 2 followed by the preaching of Peter both then and when called to account by the Jews because of their activities and follows it up with the appointment of the first ‘deacons’ who were to ‘serve’ (diakoneo) tables. It ends with the summary, "The word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem; and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith."

(b) Acts 6.8-9.31 This section deals with the spread of Christianity through Judaea and the martyrdom of Stephen, followed by the preaching among the Samaritans. It ends with the summary, "So the Church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, it was multiplied."

(c) Acts 9.32-12.24. This section includes the conversion of Paul, the extension of the Church to Antioch, and the reception of Cornelius, the Gentile, into the Church by Peter. Its summary is, "The word of God grew and multiplied."

(d) Acts 12.25-16.5 This section covers the extension of the Church throughout the main cities of Asia Minor and the preaching tour of South Galatia. It ends with, "So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily."

(e) Acts 16.6-19.20 This section relates the extension of the Church to Europe and the work of Paul in great Gentile cities like Corinth and Ephesus. Its summary runs, "So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily."

(f) Acts 19.21-28.31 This section tells the story from the original arrest of Paul in Jerusalem to the arrival of Paul in Rome and his imprisonment there. It ends with the picture of Paul "preaching the kingly rule of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered."

Note the pattern and emphases in the endings, the word of God, the fear of the Lord and encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the word of God, the faith, the word of the Lord, the Kingly Rule of God and teaching about Jesus Christ. ‘The word’ alternates with equivalents of the word. And along with it is the emphasis on continual increase as God’s purposes go forward.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?