WHY WAS THE BOOK OF ACTS WRITTEN?

To many Christians, there is an obvious answer to this question. The book was written because the Holy Spirit directed Luke to write it. Or we might point to the obvious fact that if Acts were not in the NT, we would be completely in the dark as to how the death and resurrection of Christ somehow led to the establishment of all the churches mentioned in the Epistles. As Neil puts it: “in his two-volume work he builds a bridge between the two.” But naturally, such simple explanations concerning the purpose behind Acts are not enough for biblical scholars, as I will demonstrate below.

Pinning down the exact reason behind Luke's writing the book is complicated by a number of factors. First, there is the question as to the way in which Luke's Gospel and Acts are bound together as a two-part composition. Then, in the opening verses of Luke we are introduced to the recipient of the book, Theophilus, of whom we know nothing – not even whether that was his real name or a pseudonym (meaning “God lover”). Related to that problem is the fact that his designation as “Most Excellent” may indicate that he was some sort of Roman official or perhaps it was “simply a piece of politeness.” (Marshall) And if we jump to the end of the book, we are treated to the strange conclusion in which the fate of its major character, Paul, is just left up in the air. Finally, there is the overarching question as to whether there even has to be one purpose behind the book or if there could equally well be a number of themes which Luke had in mind.

Raymond Brown notes that Bock lists eleven proposals for the purpose behind Luke-Acts. We will not discuss each of these ideas since some have been fairly well discredited by now. For example, Pervo treats it as an ancient historical novel written to entertain and edify its readers. Other more likely possibilities (and some of them are related to one another) are discussed below with their variations.

I will begin with five proposals cited by Brevard Childs:

1. Describing how Christianity spread geographically.

2. Transitioning from Judaism to Gentile Christianity.

These first two reasons are basically the same as the general, and obvious, reason mentioned above and fall into the general category of an historical document. G.E. Ladd is one who subscribes to this as the primary motive for Luke's writing: “It therefore should not be surprising that many good critical scholars believe that Luke has given us a trustworthy picture of the life and thought of the Jerusalem church.”

“Behind Theophilus we may imagine a group of interested readers of some culture and position who are beginning to take an interest in the strange happenings which took place in Palestine and the Near East from A.D. 27 onward.” (Trenchard)

3. A defense for the legitimacy of Christianity within the Empire.

“His concern is with offering a legitimization of the new proclamation...His purpose is directed to securing the faith of Christian believers, both for the present time and beyond.” (Childs)

The test case as to whether the Roman government would include Christianity as one of the acceptable forms of religion allowed within the Empire was going to be the trial of Paul. Therefore Luke may have been writing to influential Roman citizens and officials in order to convince them to support the view of the new religion's legitimacy. (Bruce) In favor of that view is the fact that whenever Roman officials are mentioned (from Pilate to the account of Gallio in Acts 18 to the centurion on board the ship in Acts 27 to the relative freedom Paul was allowed while awaiting his trial in Rome), it is generally in a fairly favorable light.

R.E. Brown objects that Roman officials would hardly have taken the time to read the whole of Luke-Acts. However, a slight variation on this theme first espoused by Streeter takes care of Brown's objection. i.e. that Theophilus was actually the lawyer assigned to defend Paul in his trial before the emperor, and Luke-Acts was prepared by Luke to provide him the background information he needed to prepare his defense. W. Neil does not wholly subscribe to this view but admits that it would certainly explain why Acts ends where it does, on an unresolved note.

On the other hand, Neil states categorically that “Luke is not primarily defending the faith, he is proclaiming it.”

4. Transition from Jesus' earthly ministry to that of the Spirit.

Many popular writers lean toward this general understanding. For example Lloyd Ogilve calls it a biography of the Holy Spirit, and John Stott titles his commentary on Acts The Spirit, The Church, and the World.

5. The fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to the the Jews accompanied by the establishment of the Universal Church including the Gentiles as well.

This last reason is also one personally espoused by Childs, and it is expressed differently by various scholars.

“In it we see the working out of one aim; God's purpose to bring salvation in all of its fulness to all.” (J.B. Green)

The promise and fulfillment theme “is no small factor in the motivation of Luke as he gathered up the tradition about Jesus and the movement that began with him.” (Fitzmyer)

“Promise/fulfillment is a pattern characterizing the relation not only between the Old Testament and Luke but also between Luke and Acts.” (Craddock)

“Christianity had by the time of the writing of Luke-Acts expanded from a small Jewish sect to a major religious movement embracing Jews and Gentiles alike. Luke explains this phenomenon as the response to Jesus as the promised Messiah and the offer of His saving work to all people.” (Inch)

6. A series of biographies beginning with Jesus and ending with Paul.

Talbert came up with this idea based on supposed parallels in secular Greek and Roman writings. Critics point out that there really are no such similar documents. Another more or less biographical rationale for Acts is mentioned by Toussaint: a legitimization of Paul's apostleship by comparing it to that of Peter.

7. There were actually difference purposes behind the writing of Luke's Gospel and that of Acts. The critic Dibelius proposed that the Gospel was written for a Christian audience while Acts was written for private reading by educated pagans. Neil's insightful response to this was, “Surely he is writing both for the Church and for the world, and above all for the Church in the world.”

R.E. Brown appears to agree somewhat with Neil on this point: “the Lucan writings could help the Christian readers/hearers in their own self-understanding; Christians needed to know that there was nothing subversive in their origins, nothing that should cause them to be in conflict with Roman government...In addition, Gentiles addressed by Luke-Acts could thus be assured that their acceptance of Jesus was no accident or aberration but part of God's plan reaching back to creation...”

These opinions are echoed by Fitzmyer who says that the main purpose behind Acts was “to build up that [Christian] community and to win over Gentiles to it.” 

8. There was an eschatological reason for Luke's writing. 

Ellis states that “in the events produced by the Spirit in Jesus' pre- and post-resurrection missions the kingdom itself is being manifested...Nevertheless, the kingdom also remains in the future, and its coming is associated with the parousia, the glorious appearance of Jesus at the close of the age. Luke is quite interested in distinguishing these two stages in the manifestation of the reign of God.”

Toussaint concludes that Luke wrote his book for an eschatological purpose “to show how it is God's intention for His millennial kingdom to include a population of believers taken from Jews and Gentiles during this Age.” It is doubtful that even a majority of his fellow dispensationalists would agree in deriving this rather specific theme from the text of Luke-Acts.

9. There are multiple reasons for the writing that were all important to Luke.

Several scholars conclude after considering all of the options that no one overarching theme is sufficient to account for all of the material contained in Luke-Acts.

    “It is history written by a theologian and a preacher.” (Neil)

    A.R. Cross concludes that the genre of Acts includes biography, theology and history.

    “Acts [is] a historical monograph with a proclamation.” (Fitzmyer)

    Ellis: “To be a concerned theologian does not necessarily make Luke a less concerned historian.”

The amazing achievement of Luke-Acts in introducing all of these themes within one large book speaks to both Luke's genius and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.