Introduction to Acts

The book of Acts occupies a massively important place in the New Testament canon. No other New Testament writing narrates the crucial, foundational events in the earliest years of the new covenant church:

• The gift of the Spirit at Pentecost
• Disciples first called “Christians” in Antioch
• The conversion and call of Paul
• Paul’s missionary journeys
• The story of how the gospel came to the Gentiles, as well as the critical decision at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) regarding Gentile inclusion as uncircumcised.

In the introduction to his commentary on Acts, Steve Walton writes:

“Acts is an exciting book, for it tells the story of the growth of the earliest Christian movement from Jesus’s ascension to Paul’s arrival in Rome, a period of about thirty years of rapid development. During that period the earliest believers’ understanding of God and his purposes grew in directions that they did not anticipate: from its beginnings as a Jewish messianic renewal movement, ‘the Way’ (Acts 9:2; 19:23), within a generation the believing community included gentiles without requiring them to be circumcised or keep the whole torah …. Acts is fundamentally a book about God, for its author presents the key moments in the story first and foremost as God’s actions. Acts is not a story of human planning and strategy—rather the reverse, for regularly God does something new and the believing community is swept along by God’s purposes” (Acts 1–9:42, Word Biblical Commentary 37A [Zondervan, 2024], 79).

Authorship of Acts

Ancient Christian tradition is unanimous in ascribing authorship of Acts to Luke, Paul’s companion. Here are some of the witnesses from church history:

The Muratorian Fragment (traditionally dated to late 2nd cent.)”

“Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence—as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain” (Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity [Oxford, 2017], 179).

The testimony of Irenaeus (c. 180) is significant:

But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, “we came to Troas” (Acts 16:8); and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, “Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us” (Acts 16:9), “immediately,” he says, “we endeavored to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship’s course towards Samothracia” (Acts 16:10-11). And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: “for, sitting down,” he says, “we spoke unto the women who had assembled” (Acts 16:13); and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, “But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we stayed seven days” (Acts 20:6). And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul there (Acts 21), how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge (Acts 27:1), and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck (Acts 27:39-44), and the island upon which they escaped (Acts 28:1), and how they received kindness there (Acts 28:2), Paul healing the chief man of that island (Acts 28:7-8); and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli (Acts 28:13), and from that arrived at Rome (Acts 28:14); and for what period they sojourned at Rome (Acts 28:30). As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-laborer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: “Demas has forsaken me, … and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim 4:10-11). From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: “Luke, the beloved physician, greets you” (Col 4:14). (Against Heresies 3.14.1)

This is a remarkably early testimony. Roughly a century after Luke-Acts was written, Irenaeus explicitly identifies Luke as the author of Acts and appeals to the “we” passages as evidence that he accompanied Paul on many of his travels. Irenaeus gives no indication that this identification is speculative; he simply presents it as a known fact.

Luke is an unlikely name to have been fabricated. He is a relatively obscure figure in the Pauline letters, mentioned only three times (Phlm 24; Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11). If a second-century Christian were simply inventing an attribution in order to give these anonymous works greater credibility, “Luke” would not be a natural choice. It is therefore likely that Luke’s authorship of Acts was preserved as an early historical tradition, with the “we” passages subsequently providing strong internal corroboration of that tradition.

Not long after Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) briefly identifies Luke as the author of Acts. He quotes the beginning of Paul’s address to the Athenian philosophers in the Areopagus (Acts 17:22): “Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul said, ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious …’” (Stromata 5.12; ANF 2.464).

By the early fourth century Eusebius (c. 325) can simply report it as settled tradition:

“Luke, a native of Antioch and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself” (H.E. 3.4.6).

Date: Probably in the 70s

We cannot be certain, but there are reasons to think it was written after AD 70. Luke’s Gospel was probably written after the destruction of Jerusalem (hinted at in Lk 22:20-24), and Acts was written after Luke, so that pushes Acts into the 70s.

Some (e.g., Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament [Baker Academic, 2022]) date it earlier, to AD 63. They reason: Luke’s “we” travelogue gives impression that Luke is journaling along with Paul. Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest awaiting trial before Caesar (AD 61-62) (A 28:30). If Luke knew what happened to Paul, he would have informed us. Thus, Acts was completed right at the same point where the narrative leaves off (AD 63 at the latest).

But I am not convinced of Bernier’s early date, for several reasons:

1. I believe Luke used Mark to compose GLuke, and we have dated Mark to c. 64-65, so GLuke must be after that. And Acts was clearly written after GLuke as 2nd volume.
2. Given the incredible literary accomplishment of researching and writing Luke-Acts, I cannot see the whole 2-vol work being completed in a compressed time frame. Even AD 66 would be incredibly quick (again, assuming Luke’s use of Mark to write the 1st volume).
3. Acts foreshadows Paul’s death (A 9:16; 20:22-5, 37-8; 21:4-6, 10-14; 22:22; 23:11) which suggests that it was written after Paul had already died as a martyr.
4. Luke seems to be aware that something happened, otherwise he would not have stated that Paul stayed in Rome “for two whole years” (A 28:30). That removes the argument that if Luke knew what happened to Paul, he would have informed us.
5. There are literary and theological reasons to end Acts with Paul in Rome without telling us about Paul’s release (and according to tradition, his subsequent re-arrest and martyrdom under Nero, c. 64-65).
6. Acts is not a biography of Paul but shows how Jesus’ programmatic statements (L 24:47; A 1:8) were fulfilled. Rome is “the end of the earth.” Luke doesn’t need to tell us what finally happened to Paul. He only needs to show us that the gospel was proclaimed to the end of the earth. That is why Acts ends with the wonderful picture of Paul preaching the gospel freely in Rome:

“He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” (ESV) (Acts 28:30-31).

Audience of Acts

Luke does not say precisely who his audience is. Acts is not a letter addressed to a specific congregation. However, at the outset of both volumes (GLuke and Acts), he addresses one “Theophilus,” and that gives us a clue to Luke’s intended audience.

That name Theophilus could mean either “one who loves God” or “one who is beloved by God”—or possibly it is intentionally ambivalent. Regardless, the name suggests that Luke is addressing his work to Christians.

Because of the theological meaning of the name, some have suggested that “Theophilus” was not a real person but a literary device to represent the ideal Christian reader. We should not go that far. It is very likely that “Theophilus” was a real person. The fact that Luke refers to him as “most excellent” (κράτιστε - Lk 1:3) suggests this, since the same honorific is used of Felix and Festus later in Acts (23:26; 24:3; 26:25). And since Felix and Festus were real persons, it seems likely that Theophilus was as well. He was clearly a man of social standing, and possibly a financial supporter of Luke and his work.

But the point is that, though a real person, Theophilus stands for the audience that Luke has in mind: Christians who love God and are in turn beloved of God. Luke is not writing to any particular sub-group, say Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians, or any particular congregation. He is writing to all Christians.

Position of Acts in the NT Canon

There are two main orders of the books of the NT by the end of the 4th century, but the position of Acts is the same:

Order 1	Order 2
Four Gospels	Four Gospels
Acts	Acts
Catholic Epistles	Pauline Epistles
Pauline Epistles	Catholic Epistles
Revelation	Revelation
Order 1: Cyril of Jerusalem; Athanasius’s Festal Letter (367); most MSS bundle Acts + Catholic
Order 2: Gregory Nazianzen; Council of Carthage (397); Rufinus

Both of these orders have the small drawback that they separate Luke’s two-volume work, with GJohn between GLuke and Acts.

But this drawback is set aside due to a much more important consideration. The Four Gospels must be kept together and be placed in first position. Acts, which opens with the ascension of Jesus, comes after the Gospels to serve as a bridge from the earthly ministry of Jesus to the teaching of the apostles in the Epistles. The Epistles make more sense once we already know what occurred at the beginnings of the Christian movement and how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to significant cities in Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome.

The connection between GLuke and Acts, while slightly obscured by having GJohn intervene, is never lost, for all one needs to do is pay attention as one reads the introduction to Acts: “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).

The canonical ordering of the books is not inspired. The fact that we have two main traditional orders proves that. (And some church fathers and manuscripts attest still other arrangements; for example, Jerome places Acts after the Pauline Epistles and before the Catholic Epistles.) However, both of the main orders provide us with a significant church tradition for how to understand the book of Acts in relation to the rest of the NT. Whether it is followed by the Pauline Epistles or the Catholic Epistles is not important. The point is that the church has historically taken Acts as a bridge from the Four Gospels to the Epistles.

Order 2, which places Acts immediately before the Pauline Epistles, has a nice feature that many Bible students and preachers appreciate: since the majority of Acts is focused on Paul’s conversion and call and his church planting work among the Gentiles, it is possible to correlate most of Paul’s letters with the narrative in Acts. I say “most” rather than “all,” because there are divergent scholarly opinions about how to correlate Galatians with Acts, and the Pastoral Epistles are generally believed to have been written after Acts 28.

Outline of the Book of Acts

Taken from Dennis E. Johnson, Let’s Study Acts (Banner of Truth, 2003). I like Dr. Johnson’s outline for two reasons:

1. It is based on the programmatic statement in Acts 1:8, showing the geographic and ethnic spread of the word of the Lord: Jerusalem → Judea and Samaria → to the End of the Earth.
2. It highlights the sermons interspersed throughout the narrative; Luke gives us detailed examples of the apostolic preaching, teaching, and defense of the faith in various settings (synagogues, Jewish leaders, civil authorities, pagans, philosophers, etc.).

A. THE LORD’S WORD IN JERUSALEM (chs. 1–7)

1. The Baptism of the Spirit (chs. 1–2)
   • Sermon — Peter at Pentecost (2:14-36)
2. Healing, Preaching and Persecution (3:1–4:31)
   • Sermon — Peter in Solomon’s Colonnade (3:12-26)
   • Sermon — Peter’s defense before the Sanhedrin (4:8-12)
3. Common Life in Church (4:32–5:11)
4. Healings, Preaching, and Persecution (5:12-42)
5. Stephen, God’s witness, killed (6:1–7:60)
   • Sermon — Stephen’s defense (7:12-53)

B. THE LORD’S WORD DISPERSED TO JUDEA AND SAMARIA (chs. 8–12)

1. Samaritans and an Ethiopian receive the Word: Philip (8:4-40)
2. The Apostle to the Nations called: Saul (9:1-31)
3. A First Convert from the Nations: Cornelius (9:32–11:18)
   • Sermon — Peter to Cornelius and his friends (10:34-43)
4. The First Church among the Nations: Antioch (11:19-30)
5. Herod Agrippa I: The Word’s power conquers the world’s power (ch. 12)

C. THE LORD’S WORD TO THE END OF THE EARTH, PART 1: ASIA AND GREECE (chs. 13–20)

1. The First Mission to the Nations (ch. 13–14)
   • Sermons — Paul at Pisidian Antioch (13:16-41)
   • Sermon — Paul at Lystra (14:15-17)
2. The Reception of the Nations into the Church (15:1-35)
3. The Second Mission to the Nations (15:36–18:22)—“we” section starts at 16:10
   • Sermon — Paul at Athens (17:22-31)
4. The Third Mission to the Nations (18:23–20:38)
   • Sermon — Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders (20:17-35)

D. THE LORD’S WORD TO THE END OF THE EARTH, PART 2: ROME (chs. 21–28)

1. Paul Attacked and Arrested in Jerusalem (21:1–23:11)
   • Sermon — Paul’s defense to the Jerusalem crowd (22:1-21)
2. Paul Tried before Felix in Caesarea (23:12–24:27)
3. Paul Tried before Festus and Herod Agrippa II (ch. 25–26)
   • Sermon — Paul’s defense to Agrippa (26:1-23)
4. Paul appeals to Caesar (25:11)
5. Paul’s Voyage to Rome (27:1–28:10)
6. Paul Preaches the Word of the Lord in Rome (28:11-31)
   • Sermon — Paul to the Jewish Leaders at Rome (28:23-28)

Genre: Redemptive-Historical Narrative

At first glance, Luke-Acts appears to belong to the genre of ordinary historiography like Josephus. Luke did his own research in order to write “an orderly account” of the historical origins of Christianity (Luke 1:1-3; 2:1-2; 3:1-2). He produced a hefty two-book work (“the first book,” Acts 1:1) that explains to 2nd-generation Christians “how we got here.” Luke narrates how Christianity arose from its Jewish roots to become a world-wide religion composed of both Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus.

But on deeper reflection, Luke-Acts is more than mere historiography. Luke is narrating for us the mighty works of the triune God—the Father, his Messiah, and especially in Acts, the out-poured Spirit sent by the crucified and exalted Messiah. Acts is not merely a narrative of things that have occurred at the human level. It is redemptive-historical narrative continuing the same sort of literature as we see in Exodus, Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings.

This has major hermeneutical implications. Not everything that is narrated in Acts is normative for us today. There certainly are normative implications for the church—e.g., Acts 2:42: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (ESV). But there are also unique, unrepeatable events that had to do with the foundation of the church—e.g., the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), the miraculous healings performed by the apostles. Some events are a mix of both unique and normative.

Luke is not writing primarily to show us the normative (although principles can be gleaned) but to show us the mighty works of God at the beginning of the new covenant church and the calling of the Gentiles. Acts is not a manual for missions and church planting but a record of the amazing things the triune God did in the early days of the church to display the glory of Christ and powerful way his gospel came to the nations.

The Overarching Theme of Luke-Acts: Salvation

Luke’s ultimate purpose is to present the gospel within the unfolding plan of God in history. Luke calls it “the salvation of God” (Lk 2:30; 3:6; Acts 28:28). He sees God’s salvation unfolding in two broad stages: First, the Old Testament period of promise. Second, the New Testament period of fulfillment, which includes the ministry of Jesus (Vol 1: GLuke) and the witness of the Spirit-empowered church (Vol 2: Acts).

Luke’s “orderly account” is not only historical but redemptive-historical: He wants to show how the promises to Israel find their fulfillment in Christ and continue through the proclamation of the gospel “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Luke presents the story of Jesus as part of God’s great plan of salvation stretching from Israel’s history into the mission of the church.

The Gospel of Luke: The story of salvation in the person and work of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises in Israel.

1. Birth Narrative (Luke 1–2): Starts the story of Jesus in Israel’s salvation-history, drawing on Old Testament patterns, hymns, and promises.
2. Road to Emmaus (Luke 24): Concludes the story of Jesus by showing the risen Christ interpreting the Scriptures as pointing to his suffering and glory, then commissioning the mission outward.

Acts: The story of salvation moving outward from Jerusalem, through Judea and Samaria, and ultimately to the Gentiles (Acts 1:8 as programmatic).

Luke-Acts (vols 1–2) show the Gospel as salvation-history fulfilled in Christ and how the inclusion of the Gentiles is a key part of that story.

Programmatic statements

1. Luke 1–2: Salvation is promised from the beginning.
   1. Zechariah’s Benedictus: God will “raise up a horn of salvation” (1:69).
   2. Simeon holding baby Jesus in arms: “My eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples” (2:30-32).
2. OT Promises (L 1:54-5, 70-3; A 3:18, 24; 10:43; 13:27, 32-3; 28:23) fulfilled in the Christ-event (his sufferings and resurrection, ascension, gift of Spirit) (L 24:27, 44)
3. Ascension of Christ and sending of Spirit to empower the church’s mission (A 1:8; 2:33): Salvation will go from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth until Christ’s second coming (A 1:11; 3:20-21).

The Bearer of Salvation

1. GLuke:
   • The angel calls Jesus “a Savior” (2:11).
   • Jesus declares: “The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (19:10).
2. Acts:
   • Peter: “There is salvation in no one else… no other name” (4:12).
   • Paul: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (16:31).

The Content of Salvation

1. GLuke:
   • Forgiveness of sins: central in Jesus’ ministry (5:20--24; 7:48--50; 24:47).
   • Healing and deliverance are also portrayed as “salvation” (8:36; 17:19; 18:42).
2. Acts:
   • Forgiveness is the core content of apostolic preaching (2:38; 10:43; 13:38).
   • Healing continues as a sign of salvation (3:1--10; 9:34).

The Recipients of Salvation

1. GLuke:
   • In GLuke the primary focus is on salvation coming to Israel – but groundwork for Gentile inclusion is laid
   • Shepherds (2:8-14)
   • “A light for revelation to the Gentiles” (2:32).
   • The widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian (4:25-27).
   • The sending of the 70/72 (10:1)
   • Samaritans (10:33; 17:16)
   • Tax collectors, e.g., Zacchaeus—“Today salvation has come to this house” (19:9).
   • Post-resurrection commission to preach gospel to nations (24:47).
2. Acts:
   • Acts focuses explicitly on the Gospel going to the Gentiles and their receptivity to it (in contrast with the general hostility of the Jews).
   • Salvation begins in Jerusalem (Acts 2), spreads to Samaritans (Acts 8), Gentiles (Acts 10; 13-18), and ultimately the city of Rome (Acts 28).
   • Acts 1:8; 13:47 echo Isa 49:6: “That my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
   • Acts 15:11: “We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Summary

1. In GLuke, salvation is embodied in Jesus: his birth, ministry of healing and forgiveness, saving death-and-resurrection, and commission—“that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk 24:46-47).
2. In Acts, salvation is proclaimed by the Spirit-empowered church: forgiveness of sins, healing, and Gentile inclusion in God’s people.
3. Salvation is the work of the ascended Christ effectually calling (by his Spirit working through the word, that is, the apostolic proclamation of Christ crucified and risen) the elect from both Jews and Gentiles and forming them into the eschatological Spirit-filled people of God in fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham.

Historical Reliability of Acts

Acts has long been a major battleground in debates over Luke’s reliability as a historian.

Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (IVP, 1990) pp. 371–82

I. Luke’s Political Knowledge

A. Archaeological confirmation

1. Sir William Ramsay’s research helped restore Luke’s reputation as a serious historian.
2. Acts displays detailed knowledge of political arrangements that differed from province to province.
3. This is significant because provincial governments and official titles changed frequently during the period.

B. Accurate official titles and institutions

1. Cyprus: Luke correctly identifies its governor as a “proconsul.”
2. Philippi: Correctly described as a Roman colony; magistrates are called strategoi.
3. Thessalonica: Luke uses the unusual title “politarchs,” which has been confirmed by inscriptions.
4. Malta: The island’s leading official is correctly called the protos, or “chief man.”
5. Ephesus: Luke correctly mentions the “Asiarchs” (A 19:31).
   • He knows the authority of the city secretary or chief clerk.
   • He correctly identifies the proconsular courts as the proper avenue of appeal.

C. Roman citizenship and law

1. Luke shows detailed knowledge of the rights and privileges of Roman citizens.
2. Paul’s reluctance to invoke citizenship is historically plausible:
   • Provincial citizens might also possess Roman citizenship.
   • Travelers could have difficulty proving citizenship without access to their hometown’s official records.
   • Claiming the privilege was therefore not always advantageous.
3. Paul’s appeal to Caesar is intelligible as protection from Jewish hostility.
4. Luke’s descriptions of Roman legal procedure contain no evident anachronisms.

D. Knowledge of the wider Roman world

1. Acts’ description of urban and social life during Paul’s missions fits the known Graeco-Roman setting.
2. The vivid shipwreck narrative in Acts 27 may use ideas familiar in pagan culture, such as survival indicating innocence.
3. Such literary or religious associations do not negate its historicity; the narrative’s vividness points toward eyewitness testimony.

Luke’s political vocabulary, legal knowledge, and command of local conditions provide substantial positive evidence for the general reliability of Acts.

II. The Relationship with Paul’s Epistles

A. Paul’s visits to Jerusalem

1. Apparent problem:
   • Acts appears to record three early visits: Acts 9, 11, and 15.
   • Galatians mentions only two visits during the corresponding period, if Galatians is dated after the Jerusalem Council.
   • Some scholars treat the visits in Acts 11 and 15 as two versions of the same event.
2. Guthrie’s response:
   • The argument assumes Paul intended to list every Jerusalem visit.
   • Paul may mention only those visits involving direct consultation with the apostles.
   • That purpose could naturally exclude the famine-relief visit of Acts 11.
   • It is unlikely that Luke would confuse two events of such importance, especially if he possessed firsthand information.

B. Paul and the Jewish law

1. Apparent problem in Acts:
   • Paul circumcises Timothy (A 16:3).
   • He participates in a Jewish vow and its associated purification practices (A 21:22-26).
   • This can seem inconsistent with Paul’s opposition to circumcision and bondage to the law in his letters.
2. Guthrie’s resolution:
   • Paul distinguishes voluntary accommodation (1 Cor 9:19-23) from making Jewish observance necessary for salvation (“forcing”—Gal 2:3, 14; 6:12).
   • His principle of considering the effect of one’s conduct upon others makes participation in a Jewish ceremony understandable.
   • Paul opposes circumcision as a requirement for Gentile Christians, not necessarily as a continuing Jewish practice.
   • Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, could be circumcised to regularize his Jewish status.
   • Titus, a Gentile, could not be circumcised without implying that circumcision was necessary for Christianity.
   • Acts and the letters therefore express different applications of the same underlying principle rather than contradictory views.

C. Paul and the Jerusalem Council’s decrees

1. Acts 15 lists four requirements for Gentile converts:
   • Abstention from idolatrous pollution
   • Sexual immorality
   • Meat from strangled animals
   • Blood
2. A textual variant omits the prohibition regarding strangled animals and interprets the list morally, but Guthrie regards the ordinary text as more coherent.
3. The difficulty: Would Paul have accepted Jewish dietary restrictions for Gentile believers?
4. A second difficulty: Galatians 2 does not mention the decrees and says that nothing was imposed upon Paul except remembrance of the poor.
5. Guthrie’s response:
   • In Galatians, Paul is defending his own apostolic position, not describing every instruction given to Gentile churches.
   • The decrees were specifically addressed to Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
   • Acts 16 says Paul communicated them to the South Galatian churches, indicating that he accepted their usefulness.
   • Paul had no obligation to cite the decrees in Galatians when direct theological argument better served his purpose.
   • If Galatians was written before the Council, the decrees did not yet exist.
6. Peter’s withdrawal from Gentile fellowship at Antioch does not contradict the Council:
   • Paul describes Peter’s action as inconsistent with principles Peter already accepted.
   • The Council did not make subsequent inconsistency impossible.
   • The precise chronology of the Antioch incident may also lessen the apparent tension.

D. Luke’s portrait of Paul

Guthrie examines three contrasts emphasized by Ernst Haenchen.

1. Paul the wonder-worker
   • Acts presents Paul healing through extraordinary means, raising Eutychus, and surviving a snakebite.
   • Paul’s letters do not make miracles the foundation of his apostolic authority.
   • Nevertheless, Paul acknowledges performing apostolic signs in 2 Corinthians 12:12.
   • Acts itself does not claim that miracles constitute the basis of Paul’s apostleship.
2. Paul the powerful speaker
   • Acts portrays Paul addressing Jews, Gentiles, rulers, and philosophers.
   • Paul’s letters acknowledge his lack of rhetorical impressiveness.
   • Yet Acts never gives Paul the explicit title “eloquent” that it gives Apollos.
   • Paul’s speeches in Acts frequently fail to persuade and instead provoke resistance; thus Acts does not simply portray him as an irresistible orator.
3. Paul’s apostolic equality
   • Paul’s letters strongly defend his equality with the Jerusalem apostles.
   • Acts does not narrate this struggle in the same terms.
   • Guthrie argues that Acts simply assumes Paul’s apostolic commission.
   • Luke’s purpose is to trace the gospel’s geographical expansion and Paul’s continuation of the mission begun by Peter, not to recount every internal dispute over apostolic standing.

E. The primitive church setting

1. None of the alleged conflicts requires the conclusion that Luke is unreliable.
2. Acts reflects primitive conditions within the early church.
3. Parallels with Qumran may illuminate its Jewish background, although Guthrie stresses that the differences between the Christian community and Qumran are greater than the similarities.
4. These Jewish and early-Christian features support Luke’s knowledge of the period he describes.

III. The speeches in Acts

A. The central question

1. Peter, Stephen, and Paul are the principal speakers.
2. F. F. Bruce classifies the speeches as:
   • Evangelistic
   • Deliberative
   • Apologetic
   • Hortatory
3. The speeches vary according to audience, occasion, and purpose.
4. The major issue is whether they preserve the substance of actual speeches or are literary inventions by Luke (Martin Dibelius).

B. Ancient historiographical practice

1. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

   “It was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one’s memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.” (1.22.1)

2. The Jewish tradition of historical writing must also be considered rather than treating Greek historiography as Luke’s only possible model.
3. Martin Hengel’s comparison of Acts with Greek historical practice leads him to judge Luke favorably.

C. Luke’s practice in his Gospel

1. The Gospel supplies evidence of Luke’s normal treatment of sources.
2. Comparison with the other Synoptic Gospels shows that Luke generally reproduces inherited material carefully.
3. Even when Luke makes minor changes, there is no clear evidence that he freely invents discourse material.
4. Guthrie therefore considers it reasonable to presume continuity between Luke’s method in the Gospel and in Acts.

D. The primitive theology of the speeches

1. C. H. Dodd argued that the early speeches preserve the primitive Christian kerygma.
2. Their pre-Pauline theological character is readily explained if Luke incorporated early traditions.
3. Critics reply that portions of their theology reflect a later period:
4. Guthrie answers that if Luke wrote Acts—and especially if Acts predates Paul’s death—the theology cannot represent a highly developed late stage.
5. The primitive character of much of the material therefore remains evidence for genuine early tradition.

E. Historical substance versus exact wording

1. Historical reliability does not require that Acts preserve the ipsissima verba, the speakers’ exact words.
2. Guthrie’s preferred position is:
   • The content is substantially historical.
   • Luke has expressed or arranged that content in his own language.
3. The speeches are closely fitted to their historical settings and audiences.
4. They do not all “sound alike” in substance:
   • Different kinds of speeches suit different occasions.
   • The Areopagus speech is especially adapted to a pagan philosophical audience.
5. Shared Lukan style is therefore not proof that Luke invented their content.

F. How the speeches may have been preserved

1. Some critics deny that speeches could have survived accurately for twenty or thirty years.
2. Guthrie replies:
   • Written transcripts may have existed.
   • Reliable memories or early traditions could have preserved their substance.
   • Luke may have intentionally selected representative examples of different forms of missionary preaching.
3. If the speeches were wholly Luke’s inventions, their usefulness as genuine samples of apostolic preaching would be greatly diminished.
4. Their integration into the narrative creates the impression that they belong to the events recorded.