Acts 1:1-29
Prayer Requests
Authorship of Acts
Who wrote Acts? Who was Luke? What is it about?Evidence for Lukan Authorship
The books of Luke and Acts are one work, often referred to as Luke-Acts.
They are technically anonymous, but there are several indications within the books that support traditional Lukan authorship.
- The author was not an apostle (Acts 1:2)
- The language of the books align with what we know about Luke (well educated, polished Greek, and political prowess).
- Luke uses "we" often when he is with Paul. We would expect Paul to also mention Luke. He does: (Col 4:14, 2 Tim 2:11, Phil 1:24).
- Aristarchus, Tychicus, Timothy, and Mark are all mentioned in the 3rd person by the author, so it can't be them.
- Ireneaus (Turkey) and Tertullian (Africa) both passed this down (~160AD).
- The earliest dated manuscript we have has the inscription "According to Luke"
Dating of Acts
The dating of Acts is particularly important in it's canonicty, and interesting as well.
One of the most helpful indicators for dating Acts in this time frame actually comes from what the text does not say. Scan the chapter headings in your Bible and you'll quickly see how much content Luke devoted to events surrounding both Jerusalem and the Apostle Paul.
The fact that Acts makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem (which happened in A.D. 70) or the death of Paul (somewhere between 62 and 67) leads us to conclude that these events hadn't happened yet.
Imagine reading an account of John F. Kennedy that covered his family, his upbringing, and his election but made no mention of the Cuban missile crisis or his assassination in Dallas, TX. You would quickly conclude that the book was written before these things occurred. Similarly, the fact that Luke does not include information on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple or the death of Paul shows us that prior to both of these events.- source reasonabletheology.org
Objections to Historical Authorship
There are some objections by critics to Lukan authorship we should be aware of.
Important: In the investigation of ancient literature, it's important to understand that the closer to one another accounts are, the LESS reliable those accounts are considered to be. Example: A police report.
#1 - The portait of Paul in Acts seems different that the one in his letters
Response: Historians believe a more similar painting of Paul in Acts to his letters would support someone "passing himself off" as knowing Paul. The fact that Luke had his own opinion of Paul, and didn't paint an identical picture makes the authorship more reliable.
#2 - The "we" sections of Acts could be a literary device or subterfuge
Response: If someone were trying to, again, pass themselves off as something they were not, we would expect to see them make themselves more central to the letter. The fact that the author doesn't implies the author's motives were accurate historical record and not personal gain.
#3 - The author of Acts doesn't seem to know about Paul's letters
Response: This, once again, is more of an argument FOR Lukan authorship than against. Luke's account of Paul in Acts is certainly compatible with Paul's letters, and is clearly not derived from them. Again, in literary investigation, when we see things that are identical, it is cause for concern, not the other way around. This point supports both Lukan, and early authorship, because the author would have been someone who knew Paul and traveled some with him, but would have written before Paul's letters were collected and recognized as canon.
Descriptive OR Prescriptive
- Descriptive: The passage is describing what happened.
- Prescriptive: The passage is teaching us that should happen.
Whole movements have been formed based on seeing this as prescriptive and that this is the way believers are prescribed to meet. But what seems clear throughout Scripture is that this is a beautiful description of how the early church was able to meet and not a prescription for how every future church is to meet.
These movements are also not inherently bad. Most are born out of the spiritual discipline of simplicty. No big church, no big building, no big budget, no big stress. Not a bad thing. It's just important to realize that only meeting in homes, exactly the way Acts describes it, is not a scriptural mandate. Luke is describing how it happened.
Do you think Acts is going to be generally more descriptive, or prescriptive?Just because Acts is generally more descriptive doesn't mean there are not prescriptive parts to it. There are speeches from Peter and Paul that lay out salvation, etc.
No verse yet... Who is Luke writing to? What is his first narrative? In verse 2, Luke says "the apostles he had chosen." What does this seem to imply? In modern days, we would want a LOT more detail on verse 3. Why do you think Luke is so succint? No verse yet... What does Jesus tell them to do? Has there ever been a time where you have felt like God is telling you to wait? How does that feel? Do you think it would be easier to wait if you knew how long you'd be waiting? Why? What strikes you about verse 6? How does Jesus respond in verse 7?Verse 8 is what Acts is all about. It's the key point of this section we're reading.
- They will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on them.
- With that power they will be witnesses where they are and where they will go.
The layout of Acts shows this expansion of the story through these witnesses:
- Acts 1-7 is in Jerusalem
- Acts 8-10 is Judea and Samaria
- Acts 11-28 is to the ends of the earth
Often in modern Christianity, we miss the "practice" aspect of our faith. It's all spirit and no flesh. In Jesus's time and with His disciples, SO much of what they did was practice. He Mr. Miyagi'd them all the time with practices.
How can we "practice" waiting on the Lord in hope, instead of anxiety? What tools do we have? Should we expect to do it perfectly every time? What should we do when we fail?