The contents of this book is naturally divided into two parts; in each of which the main topic is the establishment of the Church from a certain center:
I. The establishment of the Church from Jerusalem, Acts 1:1-26, Acts 2:1-47, Acts 3:1-26, Acts 4:1-37, Acts 5:1-42, Acts 6:1-15, Acts 7:1-60, Acts 8:1-40, Acts 9:1-43, Acts 10:1-48, Acts 11:1-30, Acts 12:1-25. In this part we first have the last discourse of Christ to his disciples, the ascension, the choice of an apostle in the place of Judas, the fulfilment of the promise in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the conversion of three thousand, Acts 1:1-26, Acts 2:1-47. Then follows the healing of the lame man by Peter and John; their faithful witnessing for Christ in the temple, for which they were taken captive by the priests, the captain of the temple and the Sadducees; their release, since the enemies feared the people; and their thanksgiving for deliverance, Acts 3:1-26, Acts 4:1-31. Next the condition of the Church is described: they had all things in common, and severe punishment was meted out to Ananias and Sapphira for their deception, Acts 4:32-37, Acts 5:1-11. On account of their words and works the apostles were again imprisoned, but delivered by the angel of the Lord; they were brought before the council of the Jews and dismissed after a warning, Acts 5:12-42. The murmuring of the Grecians leads to the appointment of seven deacons, one of which, viz. Stephen, wrought miracles among the people, and after witnessing for Christ before the council, became the first Christian martyr, Acts 6:1-15, Acts 7:1-60. This is followed by a description of the persecution of the Church and the resulting scattering of believers, of the work of Philip in Samaria, of Saul’s conversion, and of Peters healing of Eneas and raising of Tabitha, Acts 8:1-40, Acts 9:1-43. Then we have Peters vision of the descending vessel, his consequent preaching to the household of Cornelius, and the defense of his course before the brethren in Judea, Acts 10:1-48, Acts 11:1-18. The narrative of the establishment of the Church at Antioch, of James martyrdom, and of the imprisonment and miraculous deliverance of Peter concludes this section, Acts 11:19-30, Acts 12:1-25.
II. The Establishment of the Church from Antioch. Acts 13:1-52, Acts 14:1-28, Acts 15:1-41, Acts 16:1-40, Acts 17:1-34, Acts 18:1-28, Acts 19:1-41, Acts 20:1-38, Acts 21:1-40, Acts 22:1-30, Acts 23:1-35, Acts 24:1-27, Acts 25:1-27, Acts 26:1-32, Acts 27:1-44, Acts 28:1-31. From Antioch Barnabas and Saul set out on the first missionary journey, including visits to Cyprus, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, from where they returned to Antioch, Acts 13:1-52, Acts 14:1-28. Then an account is given of the council of Jerusalem and its decisions affecting the Gentiles, Acts 15:1-34. After his contention with Barnabas, Paul starts out on the second missionary journey with Silas, passing through the Cilician gates to Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Troas, whence he was directed by a vision to pass into Europe, where he visited Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth, preaching the gospel and establishing churches. From Corinth he again returned to Jerusalem and Antioch, Acts 15:35-41, Acts 16:1-40, Acts 17:1-34, Acts 18:1-22. Shortly after Paul began his third missionary journey, going through Asia Minor, staying at Ephesus for over two years, and passing into Corinth, from where he again returned to Jerusalem by way of Troas, Ephesus and Cesarea, Acts 18:23-28, Acts 19:1-41, Acts 20:1-38, Acts 21:1-16. At Jerusalem the Jews sought to kill him, his defense both on the steps of the castle and before the Sanhedrin merely inciting greater rage and leading to a positive determination to kill him, Acts 21:17-40, Acts 22:1-30, Acts 23:1-14. A conspiracy leads to Paul’s deportation to Cesarea, where he defends his course before Felix, Festus and Agrippa, and on account of the unfair treatment received at the hands of these governors, appeals to Caesar, Acts 23:15-35, Acts 24:1-27, Acts 25:1-27, Acts 26:1-32. From Cesarea he is sent to Rome, suffers shipwreck on the way, performs miracles of healing on the island Melita, and on reaching his destination preaches the gospel to the Jews and remains a prisoner at Rome for two years, Acts 27:1-44, Acts 28:1-31.
1. The great outstanding feature of this book is that it acquaints us with the establishment of Christian churches, and indicates their primary organization. According to it churches are founded at Jerusalem, Acts 2:41-47; Judea, Galilee and Samaria, Acts 9:31; Antioch, Acts 11:26; Asia Minor, Acts 14:23; Acts 16:5; Philippi, Acts 16:40; Thessalonica, Acts 17:10; Berea, Acts 17:14; Corinth, Acts 18:18, and Ephesus, Acts 20:17-38. From the sixth chapter we learn of the institution of the deacons office, and from Acts 14:23 and Acts 20:17-38 it is clear that elders, also called bishops, were already appointed.
2. The narrative which it contains centers about two persons, viz. Peter and Paul, the first establishing the Jewish, the second the Gentile churches. Consequently it contains several discourses of these apostles, as Peters sermon on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:14-36; and in the temple, Jn 3:12-26; his defenses before the Jewish council, Acts 4:8-12; Acts 5:29-32; his sermon in the house of Cornelius, Acts 10:34-43; and his defense before the brethren in Judea, Acts 11:4-18. And of Paul the book contains the sermons preached at Antioch, Acts 13:16-41; at Lystra, Acts 14:15-18; and at Athens, Acts 17:22-31; his address to the Ephesian elders, Jn 20:18-31; and his defenses before the Jews on the stairs of the castle, Acts 22:1-21; before the Sanhedrin Acts 23:1-6; and before Felix and Agrippa, Acts 24:10-21; Acts 26:2-29.
3. The many miracles recorded in this writing constitute one of its characteristic features. Besides the miracles that are not described and of which there were many “signs and wonders” by the apostles, Acts 2:43; Acts 5:12; Acts 5:15-16; by Stephen, Acts 6:8; by Philip, Acts 8:7; by Paul and Barnabas, Acts 14:3; and also by Paul alone, Acts 19:11-12; Acts 28:1-9 ;—the following miracles are specifically described: the gift of tongues, Acts 2:1-11; the lame man cured, Acts 3:1-11; the shaking of the prayer hall, Acts 4:31; the death of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5:1-11; the apostles delivered from prison, Acts 5:19; the translation of Philip, Acts 8:39-40; Eneas made whole, Acts 9:34; Dorcas restored to life, Acts 9:36-42; Pauls sight restored, Acts 9:17; the deliverance of Peter from prison, Acts 12:6-10; the death of Herod, Acts 12:20-23; Elymas, the sorcerer, struck blind, Acts 13:6-11; the lame man at Lystra cured, Acts 14:8-11; the damsel at Philippi delivered , Acts 16:16-18; the jail at Philippi shaken, Acts 16:25-26; Eutychus restored to life, Acts 20:9-12; Paul unhurt by the bite of a poisonous viper, Acts 28:1-6; the father of Publius and many others healed, Acts 28:8-9.
4. The style of this book is very similar to that of the third Gospel, though it contains less Hebraisms. Simcox says that “the Acts is of all the books included in the New Testament the nearest to contemporary, if not to classical literary usage,—the only one, except perhaps the Epistle to the Hebrews, where conformity to a standard of classical correctness is consciously aimed at.” The Writers of the New Testament, p. 16. The tone is most Hebraic in the first part of the book, especially in the sermons in chs. 2 and 13 and in the defense of Stephen ch. 7, in all of which the Old Testament element is very large ;—and it is most Hellenic in the last part of the book, as in the epistle of the church at Jerusalem, the letter of Lysias, the speech of Tertullus, and the defense of Paul before Agrippa. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the first part of the book deals primarily with Jewish, and last part especially with Gentile Christianity.
The Greek title of the book is πράξεις ἀποστόλων, Acts of Apostles. There is no entire uniformity in the MSS. in this respect. The Sinaiticus has simply πράξειςalthough it has the regular title at the close of the book. Codex D is peculiar in having πράξις ἀποστόλων, Way of acting of the Apostles. We do not regard the title as proceeding from the author, but from one of the transcribers; nor do we consider it a very happy choice. On the one hand the title, if translated, as is done in both the Authorized and the Revised Version, by “The Acts of the Apostles,” is too comprehensive, since there are but two apostles whose acts are recorded in this book, viz. Peter and Paul. On the other hand it is too restricted, because the book contains not only several acts, but also many words of these apostles; and also, since it records besides these acts and words of other persons, such as Stephen, Philip and Barnabas.
The voice of the ancient Church is unanimous in ascribing this book to Luke, the author of the third Gospel. Irenaeus in quoting passages from it repeatedly uses the following formula: “Luke the disciple and follower of Paul says thus.” Clement of Alexandria, quoting Paul’s speech at Athens, introduces it by, “So Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates.” Eusebius says: “Luke has left us two inspired volumes, the Gospel and the Acts.” The external testimony for the Lukan authorship is as strong as we could wish for.
Now the question arises, whether the internal evidence agrees with thIsa. The book does not directly claim to have been written by Luke. Our Scriptural evidence for the authorship is of an inferential character. It seems to us that the Lukan authorship is supported by the following considerations:
1. The we-sections. These are the following sections, Acts 16:10-17; Acts 20:5-15; and Acts 27:1 to Acts 28:16, in which the pronoun of the first person plural is found, implying that the author was a companion of Paul in part of the apostles travels. Since Paul had several associates, different names have been suggested for the author of this book, as Timothy, Silas, Titus and Luke, who according to Col 4:14; Phm 1:24; and 2 Tim 4:11, was also one of the apostles companions and best friends. The first two persons named are excluded, however, by the way in which they are spoken of in Acts 16:19 and Acts 20:4-5. And so little can be said in favor of Titus that it is now quite generally agreed that Luke was the author of the we-sections. But if this is true, he is also the author of the book, for the style of the book is similar throughout; there are cross-references from the we-sections to the other parts of the book, as in Acts 21:8, where Philip is introduced as one of the seven, while we know only from ch. 6 who the seven were, and from Acts 8:40, how Philip came to be in Caesarea; and it is inconceivable that a later writer should have incorporated the we-sections in his work in such a skillful manner that the lines of demarcation cannot be discovered, and should at the same time leave the tell-tale pronoun of the first person undisturbed.
2. The medical language. Dr. Hobart has clearly pointed out this feature in both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Some make light of this argument, but Zahn says: “W. K. Hobart hat fur Jeden, dem flberhaupt etwas zu beweisen ist, bewiesen, dass der Verfasser des lucanischen Werks em mit der Kunstsprache der griechischen Medicin vertrauter Mann, em griechischer Arzt gewesen ist.” Einl. II p. 429. We find instances of this medical language in ἀclύv Acts 13:11;paralelumέnov;, Acts 8:7; Acts 9:33;puretoῖv kaὶ dusenterίa sunerxόmenon, Acts 25:8.
3. Assuming that Luke wrote the third Gospel, a comparison of Acts with that work also decidedly favors the Lukan authorship, for: (1) The style of these two books is similar, the only difference being that the second book is less Hebraistic than the first,—a difference that finds a ready explanation in the sources used and in the authors method of composition. (2) Both books are addressed to the same person, viz. Theophilus, who was, so it seems, a special friend of the author. (3) In the opening verse of Acts the author refers to a first book that he had written. Taking the points just mentioned in consideration, this can be no other than our third Gospel, though Baljon, following Scholten, denies thIsa. Geschiedenis v/d Boeken des N. V. p. 421.
4. The book contains clear evidence of having been written by a companion of Paul. This follows not only from the we-sections, but also from the fact that, as even unfriendly critics admit, the author shows himself well acquainted with the Pauline diction. We have reasons to think that he did not derive this acquaintance from a study of Pauls Epistles; and if this is true, the most rational explanation is that he was an associate of Paul and heard the great apostle speak on several occasions. Moreover the authors characterization of Paul is so detailed and individualized as to vouch for personal acquaintance.
The authorship of Luke has not found general acceptance among New Testament scholars. The main objections to it appear to be the following: (1) The book is said to show traces of dependence on the Antiquities of Josephus, a work that was written about A. D. 93 or 94. The reference to Theudas and Judas in Acts 5:36-37 is supposed to rest on a mistaken reading of Josephus, Ant. XX, V, 1, 2. (2) The standpoint of the author is claimed to be that of a second century writer, whose Christianity is marked by universality, and who aims at reconciling the opposing tendencies of his time. (3) The work is held by some to be historically so inaccurate, and to reveal such a wholesale acceptance of the miraculous, that it cannot have been written by a contemporary. There is supposedly a great conflict especially between Acts 15 and Galatians 2.
We cannot enter on a detailed examination of these objections; a few remarks anent them must suffice. It is by no means proven that the author read Josephus, nor that he wrote his work after the Jewish historian composed his Antiquities. Gamaliel, who makes ‘the statement regarding Theudas and Judas, may very well have derived his knowledge from a different source; and his supposed mistake (which may not be a mistake after all) does not affect the authorship, nor the trustworthiness of the book. That the standpoint of the author is more advanced than that of the Pauline Epistles (Baljon) is purely imaginary; it is in perfect harmony with the other New Testament writings. And the idea of a struggle between the Petrine and Pauline factions is now generally discarded. Historical inaccuracy does not necessarily imply that a book was written a considerable time after the events. Moreover in the book of Acts there is no such inaccuracy. On the contrary, Ramsay in his, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen has conclusively proved that this book is absolutely reliable and is a historical work of the highest order. It may be that some difficulties have not yet found an altogether satisfactory solution, but this does not militate against the authorship of Luke.
1. Readers and Purpose. It is not necessary to speak at length about the readers for whom this book was first of all intended, because like the Gospel of Luke it is addressed to Theophilus, and like it too it was undoubtedly destined for the same wider circle of readers, i. e. the Greeks.
But what was the purpose of the author in writing this book? This is a very much debated question. The book of Acts is really a continuation of the third gospel and was therefore, in all probability, also written to give Theophilus the certainty of the things narrated. We notice that in this second book, just as in the first, the author names many even of the less important actors in the events, and brings out on several occasions the relation of these events to secular history. Cf. Acts 12:1; Acts 18:2; Acts 23:26; Acts 25:1. Of what did Luke want to give Theophilus certainty? From the fact that he himself says that he wrote the first book to give his friend the certainty of the things that Jesus began to do and to teach, we infer that in the second book he intended to give him positive instruction regarding the things that Jesus continued to do and to teach through his apostles. It seems that he found his program in the words of the Saviour, Acts 1:8 : “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” In harmony with this program he describes the march of Christianity from Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish Theocracy, to Rome, the center of the world. With Paul in Rome, therefore, the authors task is finished.
Opposed to this view are those that regard the book as a tendency writing, in which history has been falsified with a definite purpose. As such we have:
(1) The theory of the Tubingen school, that the book was written to conciliate the Petrine and Pauline factions in the early Church, and therefore represents Peter as more liberal, and Paul as more Judaistic than is in harmony with their own writings. The supposed parallelism between Peter and Paul, according to some, ministers to the same purpose. This theory in the bald form in which it was broached by Baur, is now generally abandoned, and has been modified in various ways.
(2) The view defended by some later scholars, such as Overbeck and Straatman, that the book of Acts is really an apology for Christianity over against the Gentiles, especially the Romans. Hence the author gives the Romans due honor, and clearly brings out the advantages which Paul derived from his Roman citizenship. He desires to convey the impression that the doctrine taught by Paul, who was protected by the mighty arm of Rome, who was acquitted of false charges by Roman governors, and who with a good conscience appealed to Caesar himself, could not be regarded as dangerous to the state. Wrede considers this a subordinate purpose of the author.
The abiding merit of these theories is that they contemplate the book of Acts as an artistic whole. For the rest, however, they do not commend themselves to our serious consideration. The basis on which they rest is too uncertain; they are not borne out by the facts; they are inimical to the well established historicity of the book; and they come to us with the unreasonable demand, born of unbelief and aversion to the miraculous, to consider the author as a falsifier of history.
2. Time and Place. As to the time, when the book was composed little can be said with certainty. It must have been written after A. D. 63, since the author knows that Paul staid in Rome two years. But how long after that date was it written? Among conservative scholars, such as Alford, Salmon, Barde e. a. the opinion is generally held that Luke wrote his second book before the death of Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem, because no mention whatever is made of either one of these important facts. Zahn and Weiss naturally date it about A. D. 80, since they regard this date as the terminus ad quem for the composition of the third gospel. Many of the later rationalistic critics too are of the opinion that the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, some even placing it as late as A. D. 110 (Baljon) and 120 (Davidson). Their reasons for doing this are: (1) the supposed dependence of Luke on Josephus; (2) the assumption, based on Lk 21:20; Acts 8:26 ff. that Jerusalem was already destroyed; and (3) the supposed fact that the state of affairs in the book points to a time, when the state had begun to persecute Christians on political grounds. None of these reasons are conclusive, and we see no reasons to place the book later than A. D. 63.
The place of composition was in all probability Rome.
3. Method. The problem of the sources used by Luke in the composition of this book has given rise to several theories, that we cannot discuss here. And it is not necessary that we should do this, because, as Zahn maintains, none of these repeated attempts has attained any measure of probability; and Headlam says: “The statement of them is really a sufficient condemnation.” Hastings D. B. Art. Acts of the Apostles. For a good discussion of the various theories of Van Manen, Sorof, Spitta and Clemen cf. Knowlings Introduction to Acts in the Expositors Greek Testament. With Blass we believe that, if Luke is the author, the question of sources for the greater part of the book need not be raised. The writer may have learnt the early history of the Jerusalem church from Barnabas at Antioch and from several others who found refuge in that city after the persecution; from Philip, whose guest he was for several days, Acts 21:8-15, and with whom he must have had frequent intercourse during Pauls later stay at Caesarea; and from Mnason, an old disciple, Acts 21:16. And regarding the missionary journeys of Paul he, in all probability, received full information from the apostle himself, and could partly draw on his own memory or memorandum. It is quite possible that the author had written records of the speeches of Peter and Paul, but he certainly did not reproduce them literally but colored them in part with his own style.
The book of Acts is a part of the inspired Word of God. We have in it the fruit of apostolic inspiration, in so far as we find here speeches of some of the apostles and of Stephen, who was filled with the Holy Ghost, when he defended his course before the Jewish council, Acts 6:5; Acts 6:10. And in the composition of his book Luke was guided by the Holy Spirit, so that the whole work must be regarded as a product of graphical inspiration. This follows from the fact that this book is a necessary complement of the Gospels, which are, as we have seen, inspired records. It is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke, that is quoted as Scripture in 1 Tim 5:18 (cf. Lk 10:7). If the Gospel is inspired, then,. assuredly, the work that continues its narrative is also written by inspiration. Moreover we find that the Church fathers from the earliest time appeal to this book as of divine authority,—as an inspired work.
The place of Acts in the canon of Holy Scripture has never been disputed by the early Church, except by such heretical sects as the Marcionites, the Ebionites and the Manichaeans, and then only on dogmatical grounds. Traces of acquaintance with it are found in the apostolic fathers, as also in Justin and Tatian. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian frequently quote from this book. It is named in the Muratorian canon, and is also contained in the Syriac and old Latin Versions. These testimonies are quite sufficient to show that it was generally accepted.
As an integral part of Scripture it is inseparably connected with the Gospels, and reveals to us, how the Gospel was embodied in the life and institution of the Church. We here see that the sowing of the precious seed that was entrusted to the apostles resulted in the planting and extension of the Church from three great racial centers of the world, from Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish Theocracy, from Antioch, the center of Greek culture, and from Rome, the capital of the world. The Gospels contain a revelation of what Jesus began to do and to teach; the book of Acts shows us what he continued to do and to teach through the ministry of men. There is an evident advance in the teaching of the apostles; they have learnt to understand much that was once a mystery to them. In the Gospels we find that they are forbidden to tell anyone that Jesus is the Messiah; here we read repeatedly that they preach Christ and the resurrection. They now exhibit Christ in his true character as the Prince of Life and as the King of Glory. And the effect of their teaching was such as to bear striking evidence to the regenerating power of Him, who by the resurrection from the dead was powerfully declared to be the Son of God.