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,” 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.”

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.”

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

  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, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 219.

  3. ^

    John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 63.

  4. ^

    John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 24.

About The Author
James Rochford

James earned a Master’s degree in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, graduating magna cum laude. He is the founder of Evidence Unseen and the author of several books. James enjoys serving as a pastor at Dwell Community Church in Columbus, Ohio, where he lives with his wife and their two sons.

Difficulties
1:15-26 - Does this passage support papal succession? 1:16, 20 - Doesn’t this passage imply fatalism? 1:18 - How did Judas die? 1:26 - Should we cast lots? 2:1-4 - Does this passage support the Pentecostal doctrine of the second blessing? 2:16-21 - Does Peter misquote Joel 2:28-32? 2:25-28 - Why does Peter cite Psalm 16:10 to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus? 2:38 - Is baptism necessary for salvation? 2:44-45 - Were the early Christians the first communists (c.f. 4:32)? 3:21 - Does this passage imply universalism? 4:12 - Does this verse teach that people need to hear Jesus’ name to be saved? 4:19 - Submitting to government? 4:32 - Were the early Christians the first communists? 5:15 - How could Peter’s shadow heal people? 5:31 - Is repentance a gift to man?—or is it an act of man? 5:36-37 - Did Luke make a mistake in citing Theudas and Judas? 7:14 - Does Stephen misquote the OT text? 8:14-15 - Why did Peter and John need to come down to preach in Samaria? Also why was there a delay in them getting the Holy Spirit? 8:20-24 - Did Simon lose his salvation? 8:30-31 - Does this support the idea that we need an interpretive society to understand the Bible, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim? 13:41 - Why does Paul cite Habakkuk 1:5? 13:48 - Does this passage teach that only some are appointed for eternal life? 15:16-17 - Why does James cite Amos 9? 15:28-29 - Why does James add these requirements, if they are no longer under law? 16:3 - Why does Paul circumcise Timothy? 19:11-12 - Healing handkerchiefs? 21:4,11 - Was Paul contradicting the Spirit when he went to Jerusalem? 21:26 - Did Paul make a mistake in bringing a sacrifice to the Temple to appease Jewish believers? 23:2-5 - Was it wrong for Paul to revile the high priest? Also how did he not know who he was?