Interpreting the Book of Acts (Guides to New Testament Exegesis)

Walter L. Liefeld

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 1995
• Print ISBN: 9780801020155
• eBook ISBN: 9781441206497
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Tools to help students understand the purpose, structure, themes, and cultural background of the book of Acts.

---

1

---

The Purpose of Acts

---

It is common sense to say that the interpretation of a book is helped by a knowledge of why the book was written. Obscure passages in some literary works can be nudged towards clarity by a recollection of the overall purpose of the work. The relation of a given segment to the whole unfolds when seen within a purposeful framework.

Unfortunately, this information is not always available to us, especially in the case of ancient works. The task of determining the purpose of an ancient historical narrative is likely to be especially perplexing. Ancient historians had their own reasons for writing, sometimes openly acknowledged, sometimes obscure. What may appear to be an objective portrayal of people and events may actually forward the author’s view of things.

It is probable that more theories exist as to the purpose of Acts than for any other New Testament book. The reason for this is found mainly in its dominant narrative character. The Gospels are gospels; that is, they were written to proclaim the Savior. Yet other purposes have been proposed for each of the Gospels, including some that have been drawn from hypothetical reconstructions of the intended readership. Many of the Epistles have an expressed purpose, and yet even here various theories exist that probe below the surface. Romans, for example, has been seen as addressing the social situation in the Roman church, the personal goals of the Apostle Paul, and specific doctrinal concerns.

If questions exist regarding other kinds of biblical literature, how are we to interpret an especially difficult work like this narrative? The question of purpose exists not only with regard to the entire work, but also to its parts. To take a pair of examples from Acts, we can ask about the function of the story of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8 and of the brief narrative about the Ethiopian eunuch that follows it.

In the first case, is Luke introducing the alleged founder of Gnosticism or is he demonstrating the superiority of the Spirit’s power over magical forces? Is it a literary lollipop to reward the reader of a lengthy papyrus? Is he showing the necessary role of the Jerusalem apostles who come to bestow the Spirit? Is it an element so entwined with the chronicle of the arrival of the gospel in Samaria that its omission would be a historical fault?

The second incident, the conversion of the Ethiopian, ostensibly displays the first instance of the gospel penetrating beyond the indigenous peoples of Palestine. But it is followed by two long chapters on the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius. Is it necessary to have two stories about the gospel’s reception by non-Jews? Or is there a doctrinal reason for its inclusion? Perhaps the quotation from Isaiah 53:7–8 serves to demonstrate the function of the Old Testament in early Christian preaching. Or maybe being a eunuch made the man religiously unacceptable in Judaism and the conversion of such a person is intended to prepare the reader to accept Cornelius?

Any of the reasons proposed above, and perhaps others also, could be correct. The reader has the right and responsibility to exercise judgment as to the value of each story in Acts. But if we knew precisely why Luke wrote the narrative as a whole, the reason for including these two stories, for example, and the benefit that the reader may expect to derive from them would be more clear.

Determining the Purpose

Given such questions, what methodology can be used to determine the purpose of Acts as closely as possible?

1. Analyze the Introduction. An author may provide a reason at the outset for writing a narrative. The situation in the case of Acts is complicated by the fact that it is the second of two volumes and opens with a statement of continuity rather than of purpose. Given this situation, the bearing that the introduction to the first volume, Luke’s Gospel, has on Acts is extremely important.

It is not strange that Luke should plan a work in two parts. There was a practical limit to the length of a single papyrus. Josephus, writing around the time of Luke, also authored a two-volume work. At the outset of the second volume, Josephus clearly expressed his specific purpose in writing both of them. His objectives for each volume were distinct, but they shared a common goal.[1] This shows not only that an author could purposefully write a single work in two volumes, but that each could have a different, though related, purpose. In the absence of any word from Luke to the contrary, we may assume that the introduction to his first volume applies also to Acts.

What, then, can be determined solely from Luke 1:1–4 about the purpose of the two volume work, specifically as this applies to Acts? It is often observed that Luke claims conscientious use of the eyewitness information to which he had indirect access, and that he is meticulous in following some form of order in his writing. Whatever assessment one may make of Luke’s success in regard to historical accuracy, it would be futile to claim that he had no intention, as part of his overall purpose, of providing a historically respectable narrative. This in itself, however, does not explain what function(s) a historically based narrative was to fulfill; neither does it address how the functions of Luke and of Acts in this respect may differ from each other.

Luke describes the events he was to narrate as “the things that have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1). One of the themes in Luke’s Gospel is that of fulfillment.[2] This includes fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (though with allusions rather than full quotations such as Matthew employs). After reading Isaiah 61:1–2 in the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus said that it was fulfilled in their hearing. But Luke also features the fulfillment of immediate intentions. Thus the shepherds leaving the baby Jesus comment that it was “just as it had been told them” (Luke 2:20). The disciples who went for the donkey in preparation for the Triumphal Entry found it “just as [Jesus] told them” (Luke 19:32), a different wording from the other Gospels. This, combined with the repeated “it is necessary” in Luke’s Gospel (as in 2:49; 4:43; 13:33), gives the reader the awareness that there is a determined accomplishment of what God wanted. The word, “accomplished,” in Luke’s prologue is not the same as “fulfilled,” but neither is it simply “done” or “occurred,” as one might expect. There is a dimension here beyond the merely historical. From the very beginning of his Gospel, Luke makes it clear that there is a destiny awaiting Jesus and his disciples. There is also a divine Power predicting and controlling this destiny. Certainly this destiny is still in effect during the period covered by Luke’s second volume. After all, the events continue what “Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). Therefore the Prologue suggests that Luke wrote in order to demonstrate God’s unfolding plan in the life of Christ and in the early church. To Luke, history has divine meaning.

If this is an implied purpose, derived from the wording of his Prologue and a theme in his narrative, the conclusion of Luke’s Prologue offers an explicit purpose: that Theophilus might “know the certainty” of the things he had been taught (Luke 1:4). This purpose would seem at first to accord more closely with the Gospel than with Acts. But Hebrews gives us a clue that it applies to Acts as well: “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will” (Hebrews 2:3b–4 NIV). The term “signs and wonders” occurs in Acts nine times (2:19, 22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; 15:12). It seems clear that Luke has included strong and repeated evidence that God’s salvation was indeed “confirmed” in Acts as well as through Jesus’ miracles recorded in his Gospel. In addition to this, the reception of the gospel by Gentiles,[3] as described in Acts, would also encourage Theophilus (presumably a Gentile) to have confidence in the truths he had learned.

2. Identify the Historical or Implied Reader. A conjectural, but potentially useful, way of addressing the question of purpose is to construct a portrait of the readership. This can be done in more than one way:

(a) We can try to locate the author in some geographical area, based on our knowledge of him and his background, and conjecture what group of people—what “community”—might be ready for such a work. If, for example, we suppose that Luke came from Antioch in Syria and that he maintained his contacts, we may entertain the possibility that he was writing for a community of Christians there.

(b) We can search for a “reader” within the text itself. Is there any address to a readership that may be determined inductively from the text? Does the text reveal any assumptions that the author seems to make about the readership?[4] These may be shared assumptions, those that writer and reader have in common, or they may be characteristic of the reader only. Such matters are more difficult to discern in a narrative than in an epistle.

In the case of Acts, its preface as well as that of the Gospel identifies the primary reader as Theophilus. But is there a broader readership represented by Theophilus? The name is Greek, which may indicate someone from a Hellenized Jewish family or it may indicate a Gentile. Theophilus has some knowledge of the gospel of Christ. Luke 1:4 indicates that Luke is writing so that this person (and the group he represents) may have “assurance” concerning the things that had been fulfilled or accomplished among them, things of which they had already heard. Can this, coupled with (among other things) the frequent mention of Jerusalem as Jesus’ city of destiny that characterizes Luke’s Gospel (Luke 9:31, 51; 13:22, 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28, 41) and the strong emphasis in Paul’s defense on his Pharisaic orthodoxy (Acts 22:3; 23:6; 26:4–5), suggest the reader’s identification with Judaism? On the other hand, Luke’s featuring of Gentiles, and especially God-fearers (for example his description of centurions in both books, Luke 7:4–9 and Acts 10:1–2, 22) may suggest a Gentile and God-fearing readership. If Luke introduces Cornelius, not simply because he is Gentile or serves as a symbol of all non-Jews, but because he is a symbol of those Gentiles who were already convinced of the ethical and theological beliefs of Judaism, then the two chapters devoted to his conversion may point to a readership who have either special interest in or actual connection with the God-fearers. Also, it is conceivable that (apart from theological reasons) the repeated mention of Paul visiting the synagogue in each town he visited—despite his repeated rejection by Jewish leaders—may be intended to appeal to God-fearing Gentiles who were more attracted to the content of synagogue worship than to its leadership.

Since purpose and implied reader are related, we may note another characteristic that affects both. There is an apparent paradox between Luke’s attempts to prove that Christianity is both rooted in Judaism and indeed expands rather than contradicts it and his emphasis on the Gentile mission. Does the purpose Luke had in mind for his book contain a paradox?

3. Follow the Plot. A third means of determining the purpose of a narrative is to follow the story line carefully. This includes observation of (a) the shape of the plot with its rising and falling patterns, (b) the frequency and nature of references to people, especially conversations and declarations, (c) the significance of geographical locations, and (d) semantic patterns and word frequency. A few examples from the early chapters in Acts will demonstrate this.

In chapter one, Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question about the future not only instructs them as to their mission, but seems to provide the readers with a strategy or procedure (“Jerusalem . . . ends of the earth,” Acts 1:8) which they might then expect to be unfolded in Acts. It might be concluded that Acts was written to trace this programmatic mission. But in fact Acts closes long before the disciples reach the “ends of the earth,” and it closes with Paul in prison, at that.

Peter’s speech on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) explains the significance of the phenomena accompanying the coming of the Spirit. This significance, expressed in the words of Joel 2:28–32 [3:1–5 Heb. and LXX], relates to prophecy in the church, heavenly portents, and the universal availability of salvation. The speech goes on to affirm the divine plan in the crucifixion, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ. It concludes with a call to repentance (2:38–40). Luke’s inclusion of Peter’s speech allows him to introduce the theme of salvation that is so prominent in both the Gospel and Acts. Certainly the speech opens up some other themes that are important in Acts.

Chapters three and four attest to the significance and power of the name of the resurrected, ascended Christ (3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 12, 17, 18, 30) as it is mentioned by both the protagonists and the antagonists of the gospel. In one of these instances (4:12) the name is coupled with salvation, again affirming its importance in Luke’s theology, which features salvation. The name of Christ is a prominent theme throughout Acts and is not limited to chapters three and four: 2:21, 38; 5:28, 40, 41; 8:12, 16; 9:14, 15, 16, 21, 27, 28; 10:43, 48; 15:17, 26; 16:18; 19:5, 13, 17; 21:13; 22:16; 26:9. Does this make Christology significant in the purpose of Acts, or is its prominence what one would expect in a New Testament book?

Chapter five describes several miraculous events and concludes with a ringing statement about the proclamation of Christ in spite of persecution. This is important and expresses the purpose of the disciples’ mission, but is progress through persecution the purpose of the book as a whole? The episodes about the care of the Hellenistic Jewish widows and about the speech and martyrdom of Stephen in chapters six and seven are of great importance. The attention given the Hellenistic Jews is part of a series of transitions in Acts; Stephen’s speech and martyrdom are significant as part of the tension between the early church and the Jews.

Although in themselves chapters five through seven do not demonstrate the kind of pattern that suggests an overall purpose, the narration that immediately follows Stephen’s death does so. First, Luke mentions that Saul was there, a statement of obvious importance. Second, there was renewed persecution, following which “Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went” (8:4 NIV). Yet this picks up the theme of persecution and progress from 5:41–42 and recalls Jesus’ programmatic statement in Acts 1:8. We are therefore seeing a deliberate unfolding of the progress of the gospel mission that Jesus commissioned. The conversion and subsequent missionary travels of Paul certainly carry out this theme. Is all this sufficient to establish a purpose for the whole book?[5] Or must we conclude at this point that the story line cannot in itself constitute sufficient evidence for determining the purpose of the whole book?

4. Observe the Conclusion. Having looked at the introduction and the first chapters of the narrative, we ask whether the concluding chapters of Acts provide any indication about its purpose. Why does Luke devote so much space to Paul’s trials? Papyrus was not cheap and scrolls had their limits. Was it necessary to relate the trials in such detail? Is the parallel with the trial of Jesus at the end of each Gospel intended to say something collectively about the innocence of both Jesus and Paul, and is the lesson from the attitude of the Roman authorities in each case that justice was on the side of the accused? Is there a vindication of Paul?

The preceding question can be extended to the whole of Christianity. Is the trial sequence intended to justify Christianity in some way? Is it an apologetic for Christianity as a legitimate religion in the Roman Empire? Is it a justification of the Christian mission? Or, beyond that, is there some message about the early church and Judaism? Paul affirmed before Felix, “‘I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets’” (Acts 24:14 NIV) and before Festus, “‘I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar’” (Acts 25:8 NIV).

There is another significant interaction, often overlooked in the discussion of purpose, at the very end of Acts. It could be called a reprise of the trials. In Rome, Paul called together the leaders of the Jews. He repeats his protestations of innocence, “‘I...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Series Page
• Contents
• Editor’s Preface
• Preface
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. The Purpose of Acts
• 2. The Structure of Acts
• 3. Narrative as Theology
• 4. The Speeches in Acts
• 5. Major Themes in Acts
• 6. The Background of Acts
• 7. From Exegesis to Application
• Selected Bibliography
• Notes