Any time you come to study a book, you absolutely need to understand it’s context for the purposes of interpretation and application. So before I delve into a detailed introduction of this book, we need to take an initial flyover.

What’s the Point of the Book of Acts?

For the Book of Acts, some aspects of the context are clear and available. For example, we know the author (Luke), we know a fair amount about the audience (Theophilus), and we’ve even pegged down the date to a roughly 3-year time-span (AD 61-63).

Still, what is most controversial about this book is its purpose. Why was Luke writing to Theophilus?

• Was it merely a history of the early church? If so, then why does Luke write with such precision in some places and leave major gaps in others?
• Was Luke trying to show that this new Apostle and former Christian-hater Paul was in fact a true believer whose theology was in line with that of Jesus? Possibly, but why would a Roman official (even if he were a believer) care so much about this issue as to require such a lengthy investment from Luke?
• Was Luke attempting to evangelize his Roman-official buddy, Theophilus? That might be closer to the truth, but again, why did Luke write at such length and with such precision about facts, when Theophilus would have been more concerned with Nero’s coming decision in Paul’s case than any facts presented by this doctor? There’s got to be something more.

Truth be told, we cannot know for certain of Luke’s intentions. And praise God that He preserved the book for us, no matter it’s original purpose! Still it’s an important issue to discuss and consider. In my research, one book titled Paul on Trial by John W. Mauck presented the clearest and most logical argument I’ve come across thus far for why Luke wrote the books of Luke and Acts.

Paul on Trial by John W. Mauck

I’d like to introduce the author first before discussing his book. John W. Mauck is a Presbyterian layman and attorney who graduated from Yale and then the University of Chicago and now practices law in Chicago. His 226-page book was published by Thomas Nelson in 2001.

Mauck’s thesis simply put is this: the two books of Luke and Acts are an “evangelistic legal brief.” More precisely, he believes that as Paul was awaiting trial in Rome, Theophilus—an unbelieving Roman official—had been tasked with gathering information on Paul for that trial. Paul’s professional physician-friend, Luke, goes to great lengths to research and catalog as much information as possible in Paul’s defense. In this legal brief, Luke had several overarching purposes, including these:

1. To explain Jesus and Christianity to a man and government who knew very little about them, thereby evangelizing both Theophilus and anyone else who would read the legal brief
2. To show that Paul’s religion is merely an updated form of Judaism (not a new religion, and therefore not an illegal religion)
3. To show that Paul and the Christian community never incited violence or riots throughout the Empire, but were in fact the victims of these events
4. To name explicitly events, documents, and witnesses that would help verify every legal claim Luke makes on Paul’s behalf

I find this theory not only plausible but likely, and for several reasons. First, Mauck’s research into the legal system of first-century Rome suggests that they were far more careful and systematic than we’re inclined to think. As fastidious record-keepers, they would have pursued documentation and eye-witness accounts of events, much as we do today. Second, that Luke would invest time, energy, and finances into such a massive document simply as a Gospel tract for a friend doesn’t seem logical. Third, Acts does not seem to be a good history of the church, an explanation of Christian doctrine, or a “how-to” for the church.

Instead, Acts is a mixture of all these concepts. Acts provides detailed information about who, what, and where that would allow Paul’s prosecutors to check their own facts. Luke’s investment in this massive undertaking makes sense, if the life of Paul and the legality of Christianity were at stake. Acts serves as  a selective history of only those events that would either provide background information or be topics of discussion at Paul’s trial. Acts explains Christian doctrine only to the extent of how the Apostles’ sermons and behaviors show how they interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures according to the teachings of Christ. Finally, Acts provides all readers with precedents (but not commands) set by the Twelve Apostles and the Early Church in how they worshiped and grew.

The Context of Acts

The Author

From the New Testament, we know that Luke was a faithful (2Tim 4:11) Gentile (Col 4:11) physician (Col 4:14) and friend of Paul’s. He was with Paul during Paul’s first imprisonment, and Luke obviously also maintained contact during Paul’s second imprisonment. The evidence shows that they had ministered alongside each other for quite a while. In fact, Acts contains three “we” sections (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16), suggesting that Luke himself was also an active missionary and leader.

The Audience

Both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written to Theophilus, whose name means “friend of God” or “Lover of God”. This name does not necessarily mean that Theophilus was a believer in the One True God—not to mention in God’s Son—and one must be careful about jumping to faulty conclusions based on coincidental evidence. As mentioned above, discovering Theophilus’ identity is key to understanding why Luke might have written these two books. What we know for certain is that he was a Gentile leader of some sort, most likely in the Roman government, as implied by the title “most excellent” (Luke 1). He might have been a believer who was seeking from Luke more understanding about Christianity or assurance of his faith, or he might have been an unbeliever who was either actively seeking the Truth about Jesus or personally disinterested in Jesus yet tasked with collecting information about Him, the Church, the Apostles, and especially Paul.

The Timing

Luke probably wrote these two books between A.D. 61-63, towards the end of Paul’s two-year Roman imprisonment. Other scholars buffer this estimate with up to two years on either end, but the events mentioned and the events not mentioned in the book help tighten us find a range at least in the early 60s. The book itself covers a thirty-year period of the early Church, from just prior to Jesus’ ascension to the time of Paul’s second imprisonment, roughly A.D. 35-63. It is also important to note that Acts is found in all of the earliest manuscripts and therefore not contested regarding its authenticity and inspiration.

The Title

It’s generally agreed that “The Acts of the Apostles” is a poor title for the book, though there’s no cause for alarm here. The title was added at some point during the 2nd century and is therefore not part of the inspired Word. It’s a poor title, for rather than covering the Acts of the Apostles, the book really only covers portions of the ministries of two Apostles, Peter in home missions (Acts 1-12) and Paul in foreign missions (Acts 13-28). Besides this, it’s really more about what the Holy Spirit does through these two men (among others) to influence the spread of the Church. Most agree that a better title would be “The Acts of the Holy Spirit” or “The Acts of Jesus through the Holy Spirit.”

The Purpose of Acts

While a book’s purpose is certainly part of its context, we need to dig a bit deeper here to understand it more fully. Luke does state his purpose for writing (Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2) as providing Theophilus with “an orderly account” of Jesus and His Church, yet this statement is a bit too vague for us today. Many overarching purposes have been suggested, and here I’ll name six.

1. Some suggest that Luke wrote an “Edited History”, recording only those things with which he was personally familiar. It’s clear to any reader that he skipped many important events, for example the actual teachings of Jesus about Himself during His final 40 days, and the rise of Jesus’ brother, James, to leadership in Jerusalem.
2. Some suggest that Luke wrote a “Theological Defense”, showing that Paul’s theology was in fact in line with mainstream Christianity. He wanted to prove that faithful Jews could believe Christianity and remain godly Jews, while also showing how Gentiles themselves could be part of this essentially-Jewish religion.
3. Others say that Luke wrote a “Defense of the Universality of Christianity.” They suggest that Luke wanted to mainly explain how Gentiles could become Christian while not becoming Jews themselves.
4. We’ve already looked a bit at the theory that Luke was writing an “Evangelistic Treatise”. Proponents of this theory (like F.F. Bruce) say that Luke’s main goal was to evangelize Theophilus.
5. Still others suggest that Luke wrote these two books as a “Personal Encouragement” to Theophilus. In this view, Theophilus was a believer in Jesus whom Luke wanted to convince to identify publicly as a Christian, despite his position in the Roman government. Specifically, Luke wanted to show that Theophilus would not break any Roman law by publicly affirming his faith.
6. Finally, we come to Mauck’s “Evangelistic Legal Brief” theory to which I hold. This theory states that Luke wrote these books to a Roman official who had been charged with gathering facts for Paul’s trial. His ultimate goals for compiling this legal brief were to acquit Paul and convert the reader (Mauck, 213).

The “Evangelistic Legal Brief” theory helps answer some of the problems present in these other five theories.

1. While the “edited-history” theory does help to give credence to this new religion, Christianity, two points seem illogical. We know that Luke didn’t write about the events he knew personally, because we have Luke 1-2. We have the full ministry of Jesus. We have Pentecost. Because Luke researched and wrote what he felt to be important, we really need to understand why he left out the things he left out, while including entire sermon scripts and mundane details of witnesses and places. Also, Luke must have a much larger reason in mind for all his research and documentation than merely proving a point to a friend. That this friend had a part in prosecuting Christianity in Rome makes much more sense.
2. While the “theological defense” shows that Paul is a true Jew teaching in accordance with Judaism, we have to question why this obviously Gentile audience would care about such things. They would care, either if they were believers themselves (which doesn’t seem to be the case) or if they had to determine whether Christianity and Paul’s ministry were in fact Jewish (and therefore legal) or not.
3. If the “defense of the universality Christianity” were Luke’s main goal, then the message would be one for the Church, not a Roman official, especially if that official weren’t a seeker himself. If, however, this is one major proof that Christianity is actually a fulfilled Judaism (i.e. Judaism with its Messiah realized) and therefore legal, then absolutely.
4. The plausibility of the “evangelistic treatise” theory is evident by all that Luke records, yet it’s also incomplete. If evangelism were Luke’s only goal, why would he include all the pro-Roman, non-theological, legally charged discussion? Mauck writes the simple answer: “Lawyers can be evangelists, and evangelists can write legal briefs.” (Mauck, 216)
5. The “personal encouragement” theory is the weakest of all, in my opinion, because we have no evidence that Theophilus was a believer. Besides this, it seems that no matter how convincing Luke’s research might be, a Roman official reading it would not likely let the words of an acquaintance of friend sway him over the conclusions of his own emperor. Nero would decide Paul’s fate soon enough. It seems Luke had a much broader purpose in mind than to merely encourage his friend.

For all these reasons, I do agree with Mauck and believe that Luke’s purpose in writing Luke-Acts is combination of most of these theories. Luke wrote these books to a Roman official who had been charged with gathering facts for Paul’s trial. His ultimate goals for this legal brief were to acquit Paul and convert the reader.

Acts as a Bridge

No matter Luke’s original purpose in writing the book 2000 years ago, we know that Acts is in fact a work of the Holy Spirit. It has been preserved for us and we can learn much from it. Acts serves as an active bridge between the Gospels of Jesus to the Epistles of the New Testament. It also serves as the historical context for many of those epistles. In fact, each of Paul’s letters can be traced to a specific time period of Acts:

• 1-2 Thessalonians (1st or 2nd Journey)
• Galatians (2nd or 3rd Journey)
• 1-2 Corinthians, Romans (3rd Journey)
• Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (1st Imprisonment)
• 1 Timothy, Titus (after 1st Imprisonment)
• 2 Timothy (2nd Imprisonment)

The Keys of Acts

Key words in the Book of Acts include “witness” (used over 30 times). This word is not merely used in the spiritual sense, but the legal as well. Overall it carries the idea of someone willing to tell what he knows, even to the point of death and is, in fact, where we get our word “martyr”. Another key word, of course, is “Holy Spirit”, whose indwelling presence and work fill every page.

Key themes in the Book of Acts include the following:

• Characteristics of Christian fellowship (Acts 2:42). It’s important to note that Luke provides precedents throughout this book, not guidelines or commands.
• Precedents for missionary work
• The Gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e. Acts 10:43) from Peter, Stephen, Philip, Paul, etc.
• The power of the Holy Spirit.

While many opinions exist regarding key verses, two stand out, both Acts 1:8 and Acts 5:42. From the words of Jesus in Acts 1:8, we find a fairly clear outline for the entire book.

A Very Basic Outline for the Book of Acts

Introduction (1)
I. Witnessing in Jerusalem (2-7)
II. Witnessing in Samaria and further afield (8-13:3)
III. Witnessing to the ends of the Earth (13:4-21:18)
A. First missionary journey (13:4-14:21)
B. Jerusalem Council (14:22-15:35)
C. Second missionary journey (15:36-18:22)
D. Third missionary journey (18:23-21:17)
IV. Paul faces the authorities (21:19-28:31)

Conclusion

The Book of Acts is an exciting book! It’s filled with the work of the Holy Spirit, the spread of the Church, and the adventures of the Apostles including their shipwrecks and stonings, imprisonments and snake bites. We see the planting of new Churches in areas where Christ Jesus had never been named. We witness such beautiful Gospel presentations as in the sermon to the Gentiles who serve literally “the unknown god”!

I sincerely hope that you look forward to studying through this amazing book, either on your own or with your local body of believers. I want to encourage you not to approach it merely as something you’ve likely read before. Come to it instead with an open heart. Study it as a missionary or pastor or husband or wife who will teach it to someone who has never studied it before. Anticipate all that the Spirit will teach you through your study of this amazing book.

©2018 E.T.