Acts

What’s so special about the book of Acts? Put simply, without the book of Acts, large portions of the NT would be quite incomprehensible. This book is the linchpin that holds the NT together in a number of ways.

First, Acts explains how Jesus’ message began to reach all nations—not just the nation of Israel. Before Acts, we see that Jesus focused his attention on the nation of Israel (Mt. 10:6; 15:24). Christianity was largely a Jewish religion for Jewish people. But the book of Acts demonstrates that Jesus wanted to reach all people (Acts 1:8). This is the fulfillment of the Great Commission (Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8).

Second, Acts authenticates and explains the apostleship of Paul. Luke records Paul’s testimony three times (Acts 9:1-9; 22:3-21; 26:2-23). This must show that Luke “desired to establish Paul’s credentials as the apostle to the Gentiles,”^[1] and this explains the authority and integrity of the thirteen letters ascribed to Paul in the NT. Indeed, without Acts, we would wonder who Paul even was!

Third, Acts explains the churches mentioned throughout the rest of the NT. In the rest of the NT, we have letters to many different Greco-Roman cities (e.g. Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, etc.). Without Acts, we would wonder how the gospel spread to these predominantly Gentile regions.

Fourth, Acts gives a credible case for why Christianity should be considered a legal religion in Rome. The Jewish faith was considered a legal religion by the Roman Empire, but what about Christianity? Should Rome consider Christianity to be a legal religion (under the protective umbrella of Judaism), or should it be considered a separate religion altogether? Luke seeks to demonstrate that Christianity is not a separate religion from Judaism, but rather, the fulfillment of Judaism. This could be why this letter is addressed to Theophilus, who could possibly be a Roman magistrate. We agree with earlier commentators who held that Acts was something of a “trial document” that was written for “a Roman magistrate named Theophilus and perhaps meant eventually for the eyes of the emperor.”^[2]

Repeatedly, Acts records how Christianity is good for the Roman Empire, and it is being unfairly represented. The city officers apologize for imprisoning Paul and Silas (Acts 16:38-39), Gallio—the Roman official—sides with Paul and allows Christian preaching in Corinth (Acts 18:12-17), and King Agrippa II and Festus both agree that Paul had done nothing wrong (Acts 26:31-32). All of this supports the fact that the Roman Empire should be favorable to Christianity.

Fifth, Acts emphasizes the importance of prayer. Luke records examples of prayer in 20 out of the 28 chapters in this book. In total, he mentions prayer 31 times. This is quite an emphasis. Prayer was the engine that propelled the early church forward.

Sixth, Acts emphasizes the power and leadership of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit came to lead the early church just as Jesus had promised (Jn. 14:16-17, 26). In Acts, we come to understand why Jesus said it would be to their “advantage” that the Holy Spirit would come to lead them (Jn. 16:7). It is for this reason that many commentators call this book, “The Acts of the Holy Spirit,” rather than the “Acts of the Apostles.” John Polhill aptly comments, “That the mission of the church is under the direct control of God is perhaps the strongest single theme in the theology of Acts.”^[3]

Seventh, Acts is a large portion of our Bible. Put together, Luke and Acts comprise 27% of the NT.^[4] If we don’t know these two books well, then we are gutting over a quarter of our NT.

Authorship

The same author wrote both Luke and Acts. Just compare the opening lines of both books:

Comparison of Luke-Acts
Luke	Acts
¹ Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³ it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; ⁴ so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.	¹ The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, ² until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. ³ To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Because of the similarities between Luke and Acts, virtually all scholars believe that whoever wrote Luke, also wrote Acts.^[5] Indeed, this is the overwhelming consensus of NT scholarship today:

Hemer states that it is “widely agreed that the Third Gospel and Acts share common authorship.”^[6]

Longenecker writes that “hardly anyone today would dispute this basic observation.”^[7]

Marshall writes that “the vast majority of scholars [assume] common authorship of the Gospel and Acts.”^[8]

Polhill writes, “Scholars of all persuasions are in agreement that the third Gospel and the Book of Acts are by the same author.”^[9]

Luke is the best candidate for the authorship of these two books. For a long defense of Luke’s authorship see our earlier article, “Who Wrote the Four Gospels?” Both the external and internal evidence support that Luke was the author of these two books. In fact, Luke’s “authorship was unquestioned until 18^th century skepticism.”^[10]

Luke was a physician (Col. 4:14), and most likely a Gentile convert. Not only does he have a Gentile name, but he is also listed alongside other Gentiles. Luke was the only one with Paul at the end of his life (2 Tim. 4:11), and Paul mentions Luke to Philemon (Phile. 24). Beyond these passages, we don’t know much more about this person, and we would “perhaps do better simply to admit that we do not know very much about Luke’s background.”^[11]

Date

The majority of scholars “date Acts somewhere between AD 80 and 95.”^[12] Polhill^[13] dates Acts sometime between AD 70 to AD 80. Marshall^[14] dates the book sometime just before AD 70. However, we think that several strong lines of evidence date the book quite early—around AD 62. For a defense of this early date of Acts, see our earlier article, “Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels.”

The Historical Reliability of Acts

Sir William Ramsay (1851-1939) lectured in classical art and archaeology at Oxford University. When he began an archaeological research project in Asia Minor, he needed to create his own maps of this massive area. He consulted the book of Acts, but he considered it a second century book without much historical value. But after his long and extensive archaeological study, Ramsay found that Acts turned out to be reliable time and time again. He writes,

I began with a mind unfavorable to [Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory[15] had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with the fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations.^[16]

Ramsay’s skepticism of Acts began to weaken when he read that Paul “fled [from Iconium] to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe” (Acts 14:6). Ramsay originally thought that this was an error, because Iconium was in Lycaonia at the time. According to Ramsay, this would be as bad as saying that someone fled from London to England.[17] Yet, he went on to discover that Iconium was not in the district of Lycaonia in the first-century. Instead, it was outside of these geographical boundaries at that time. This got Ramsay’s attention.

Eventually, after 30 years of research, Ramsay ended up becoming a follower of Christ. Later in life, he wrote, “Luke’s historicity is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness… Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”^[18]

Colin J. Hemer was originally an expert and lecturer in the Classics, but he turned his attention to NT scholarship studying under the distinguished NT scholar F.F. Bruce. Hemer became a full-time research scholar at Tyndale House and a lecturer at the University of Manchester. In his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (1987), Hemer documents roughly 180 “undesigned coincidences”^[19] that align with secular history, culture, geography, etc. To take a small sample, Luke knew:

Annas still had prestige in Jerusalem, even after Caiaphas took over for him (c.f. Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6).

details about the military guard (Acts 12:4).

the name of the correct proconsul at Paphos (Acts 13:7).

the resting places for a voyage from Philippi to Thessalonica (Acts 17:1; Amphipolis and Apollonia).

geography and navigational details about the voyage to Rome (Acts 27-28).

river-ports (Acts 13:13), coasting ports (Acts 14:25), and sea ports (Acts 16:11-12) for Paul’s travels (c.f. Acts 21:1; 27:6; 28:13).

Iconium was considered a city in Phrygia, rather than Lycaonia (Acts 14:6).

the native language spoken in Lystra—unusual in a major cosmopolitan city (Acts 14:11).

the common worship in Lystra (Acts 14:12).

the river Gangites flowed close to the walls of Philippi (Acts 16:13).

Thyatira was a center of fabric dyeing, which has been confirmed by a number of inscriptions (Acts 16:14).

the magistrates were called “politarchs” (Acts 17:6).

there was an agora in Athens, where philosophical debate was popular (Acts 17:17).

it was common Athenian slang to call someone a “babbler” (Acts 17:18).

the altars to “unknown gods”—also mentioned by Pausanias and Diogenes Laertius (Acts 17:23).

Epimenides, showing that Paul was familiar with current Athenian religion. Epimenides was a part of Diogenes’ story about “unknown gods” (Acts 17:28).

Athenians were hostile to the concept of resurrection (Acts 17:32).

Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome, placing it in the proper time frame (Acts 18:2).

the name of the proconsul of Corinth (Acts 18:12).

the local philosopher in Ephesus named Tyrranus (Acts 19:9).

the goddess Artemis, who shrines have been uncovered in Ephesus (Acts 19:24).

the expression “The great goddess Artemis.” This was a phrase in Ephesus at the time that he was writing (Acts 19:27).

the historic Ephesian theatre (Acts 19:29).

the correct title for the chief magistrate in Ephesus (Acts 19:35).

there were two “proconsuls” in Ephesus—instead of one (Acts 19:38).

typical ethnic names at the time (Acts 20:4-5).

the exact sequence of places in their travel (Acts 20:14-15).

eyewitness comments in portions of the voyage (Acts 21:3).

the high priest Ananias, and he placed him in the correct time period (Acts 23:2).

the governor Felix, and he placed him in the correct time period (Acts 23:24).

common Roman court procedure (Acts 24:5; 19; 25:18).

the successor of Felix, Porcius Festus (Acts 24:27).

king Agrippa II, whose kingdom had been recently been extended (in 56 C.E.). Luke placed his visit in the exact timeframe (Acts 25:13).

a poorly sheltered roadstead on the way to Rome (Acts 27:8).

intricate details of ancient sailing, particularly in this region (Acts 27).

the names of the stopping places along the Appian Way on the way to Rome (Acts 28:15).

Pilate was procurator (26-36 C.E.).

Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee (4 B.C.E.-39 C.E.).

Philip, his brother, was tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis (4 B.C.E.-34 C.E.).

Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White also strongly affirmed the historical reliability of Acts. At the end of his Sarum Lectures, he wrote, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming… Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”^[20] Indeed, many notable classicists and historians affirm the historicity of Acts:[21]

F.F. Bruce was a lecturer of classics before turning to NT scholarship.

E.M. Blaiklock was a classics professor in New Zealand.

A.N. Sherwin-White was a historian of Greco-Roman history at Oxford University.

Colin J. Hemer was a classicist who turned to NT scholarship at Tyndale House and the University of Manchester.

Irina Levinskaya was a Russian historian.

We will explore the historical confirmation of these details in greater detail in our commentary below.

Consulted Commentaries

Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007).

This is an excellent technical commentary on the book of Acts. It seems that Bock leaves no questions unanswered, and he offers encyclopedic information about the historical background of Acts. This is a must-read commentary for the serious student of the book of Acts. Very well done!

Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

This is not a commentary on Acts. Rather, it is the best historical defense of the Book of Acts in print. Sadly, Hemer died in 1987 before he could finish the final three chapters of his book. We only wonder what Hemer would’ve done for NT scholarship if he had lived longer.

Ajith Fernando, Acts: NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998).

Fernando is not only a scholar but also a practitioner. These rare qualities shine through his commentary. His sections entitled “Bridging Context” were deeply insightful, and worth the price of the commentary. This is by far the best pastoral commentary on Acts.

John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992).

Polhill offers enough details and historical background to make it a good commentary without getting too bogged down in the details. We also appreciated his interpretive insights. Overall, this was a quite good commentary.

F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988).

Bruce was a classicist who turned his considerable talents toward NT scholarship. Even though this commentary is getting old, it is still filled with sound scholarship on Acts. At the same time, we find Bruce’s historical scholarship to be far better than his theological commentary.

Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

We read the older (1981) version of Longenecker’s commentary. It was quite good, but we would suggest reading the updated version (2005) which is updated with more modern research. The new version is found in the Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary.

I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).

In his earlier book Luke: Historian and Theologian (1970), Marshall was one of the better scholars to defend the historicity of Acts against the works of Dibelius, Conzelmann, and Haenchen. In this commentary, Marshall regularly interacts with critical scholarship, defending the historicity of Acts. Marshall’s commentary is short and to the point. However, he lacks both insightful pastoral insight and technical rigor. If you are looking for a pastoral commentary, read Fernando. And if you are looking for a technical commentary, read Bock or Bruce.

[1] Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 140.

^[2] Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, volume 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 219.

^[3] John B. Polhill, Acts, volume 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 63.

^[4] John B. Polhill, Acts, volume 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 24.

^[5] Two exceptions would be:

(1) A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), 393-408.

(2) A. W. Argyle, “The Greek of Luke and Acts,” NTS 20 (1973-74): 441-45.

[6] Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 22.

^[7] Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, volume 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 238.

^[8] See footnote. I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, volume 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 19.

^[9] John B. Polhill, Acts, volume 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 23.

[10] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 293.

[11] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 296.

^[12] Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, volume 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 236.

^[13] John B. Polhill, Acts, volume 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 30.

^[14] I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, volume 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 51.

[15] The “Tübingen theory” held that Acts dated to the second century AD, and it was a redaction of earlier sources.

[16] William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 8. Cited in Edwin M. Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1972), 95.

[17] William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, reprinted in 1979), 40.

[18] William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, reprinted in 1979), 222. For a more modern treatment of this, see A.W. Mosley’s article titled, “Historical Reporting in the Ancient World.”

[19] Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 101.

[20] A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures, 1960-1961 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1963), 189.

[21] See Ajith Fernando, Acts: NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 26.

Acts New Testament

Authorship

Date

The Historical Reliability of Acts

Consulted Commentaries

Acts

New Testament