Introduction
Why do we have the book of
Acts? In the eyes of many, it is merely a collection of interesting
stories about the early history of the Assembly (or Church). Such an
answer (even if it were adequate) only tells us the contents
of the book and not its purpose. Again, there are
undeniably many incidents that the author (Luke) could have included
in his history, but he does not. For example, we are told virtually
nothing about the later activities of the twelve apostles, and even
Peter practically disappears after the middle of the book. Why?
Clearly, Luke is writing “with method” (Luke 1: 3), and Acts is not
just history, but history carefully chosen to demonstrate whatever
purpose he (under the Spirit’s guidance) is seeking to put across.
The question is, ‘Do we know what that purpose is?’
Some Peculiarities of the Book of Acts
Luke
distinctly tells us that the book of Acts is the sequel to his
Gospel (see Acts 1: 1), and it would be plainly unintelligent to
ignore that fact. Of course, the Gospel and the Acts are also two
volumes, not one (which they could have been), and that detail
should not be ignored either. In Acts 1: 1, the author refers back
to
“all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach”
(Acts 1: 1, my emphasis)—which implies that the Lord’s work and
teaching continued after His ascension (that being the closing event
of Luke’s gospel). In the one it was personal, in the other though
His people.
Now most Christians are of the view already alluded to, namely that
Acts gives us the early history of the Assembly. However, while this
is true, that does not prove it to be the purpose of the book. If
that were its object, then it seems odd that Luke does not prepare
the reader for it in his gospel. We know that the Lord spoke about
the Assembly prior to his death (see Matt. 16: 18; 18: 17), but the
word assembly is not found in Luke’s Gospel at all—despite
Luke being the companion of Paul, the man who had a unique ministry
in relation to the Assembly (see Col. 1: 24, 25).
Another peculiarity of the book of Acts is the way the Assembly is
introduced (or, rather, not introduced). Leaving aside
Acts 2: 47 (where it is doubtful whether
ekklhsia,
the Greek word for assembly, should be in the text), the
Assembly simply appears unheralded (and, initially, unnamed) in the
narrative (see Acts 2: 41; 4: 4; 5: 11; 8: 1 etc.). Of course, the
Assembly was formed when the Holy Spirit was sent from the ascended
Christ, but Luke does not exactly present the coming of the Holy
Spirit in that connection but links it simply with power and witness
to the resurrection (see Luke 24: 49; Acts 1: 8).
One more oddity is the strange way in which the history is closed,
almost as if unfinished (see Acts 28: 30, 31). Yet there is no
inspired follow-up, and it is clear that the conclusion is
designed to be as it is (as it must be if inspired). Some
have speculated that the seeming lack of a firm conclusion is to
leave room for others to continue the testimony afterwards, but this
does not account for the fact that Luke must have known some of the
later history (see Col. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 11 etc.). That none of this
was made use of suggests that the Spirit’s purpose with the history
recorded in Acts does in fact end with chapter 28.
Theophilus and Luke’s Gospel
To properly understand the book of Acts we need to ask ourselves
what the man for whom it was written would have made of it, and he
would come to it with his mind filled with what he had read in
Luke’s Gospel (he certainly was unfamiliar with the contents of
Ephesians and Colossians for they were not yet written). Now Matthew
is well-known for focusing on the presentation of the kingdom to
Israel but so, in his own way, does Luke (the word kingdom is
mentioned 54 times in Matthew, and 45 times in Luke). Theophilus was
a Gentile, but having read Luke’s Gospel he would have become
familiar with Jewish hopes and how the God of Israel
had “visited and wrought redemption for his people, and raised up a
horn of deliverance for us in the house of David his servant” (Luke
1: 68, 69). He would have also learnt how prophecy (see Is. 42: 6;
49: 6) predicted “a light for revelation of [the] Gentiles” (Luke 2:
32). It would also be apparent to him (even if not to the Jewish
leaders), that his day was a turning point in Israel’s history, for
as Luke 16 told him, “the law and the prophets [were] until John:
from that time the glad tidings of the kingdom of God are announced”
(v16). Jewish blindness as to the day of visitation meant that
instead of kingdom deliverance and glory, Jerusalem was besieged and
destroyed as the Lord foretold (see Luke 19: 41-44) in AD70—forty
years after the kingdom had been offered (40 being the number of
probation). Now many say that this rejection of the kingdom was
followed by God bringing in a new thing—Christ’s Assembly (see Matt.
16: 18). That is certainly what happened, but it is also far too
simplistic a summary. Why, for example, does Luke only report
Peter’s confession as “The Christ of God” (Luke 9: 20), and omit the
words “the Son of the living God” as recorded in Matt. 16: 16?
The term Christ of God does not
necessarily take us beyond Jewish hopes of a national deliverer and
His kingdom on earth, but
Son of the living God
is wide enough in scope to encompass a divine conqueror of death,
ascended into heaven, and later to be livingly connected to His
Assembly on earth (even though Matthew gives no hint of the Assembly
as anything other than a Jewish entity—hence “nations” in Matt. 18:
17—and omits the ascension altogether from his gospel). Seeing as
Luke (rather than Matthew) relates the events of Pentecost, is it
not inexplicable that he does not provide Peter’s full confession?
Again, why does only Luke record the Lord’s prayer from the cross,
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:
34)? Primarily, this prayer has reference to the Roman soldiers, but
it is indefinite enough to also include the Jews who “by [the] hand
of lawless [men]” (Acts 2: 23), crucified and slew the Lord. Even to
such, forgiveness was available, for they “did it in ignorance”
(Acts 3: 17)—but how would this forgiveness be offered? In the
parable of the husbandmen, the murder of the son invites a ruthless
response from the lord of the vineyard: “He will come and destroy
those husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others” (Luke 20:
16). That, clearly, is what happened to Israel in consequence of
their rejection of Christ—but it is not the whole story.
The same parable is found in Matt. 21: 33-46 and Mark 12: 1-12, but
Luke also relates another parable that is unique to his Gospel. This
is the parable of the barren fig-tree (see Luke 13: 6-9), the
context of which is an inability to discern the time of visitation
(see Luke 12: 56), the existence of an adverse party (see v58), and
the danger of not repenting (see Luke 13: 1-5). The fig-tree having
been planted in a vineyard (comp. Is. 5: 2) is a clear picture of
the favourable position into which Israel had been placed—yet the
owner complained that “[these] three years I come seeking fruit on
this fig-tree and find none: cut it down; why does it also render
the ground useless?” (Luke 13: 7). This has similarity to an actual
incident in the Lord’s life in which He sought fruit on a fig-tree
and not having found any, exercised immediate judgement (see Matt.
21: 18-20). However, in the parable, judgment is not instant, but
deferred, because the vinedresser pleads, “Sir, let it alone for
this year also, until I shall dig about it and put dung, and if it
shall bear fruit—but if not, after that thou shalt cut it down”
(Luke 13: 8, 9). It is this period of delay which is described in
the book of Acts.
The Disciple’s Question
Now if the promised kingdom is such an important a feature in Luke’s
Gospel, we would hardly expect the subject to be dropped like a
stone when he comes to write his sequel (although this is precisely
what many seem to believe). What did the Lord Jesus speak to His
disciples about during the forty days after His resurrection? “The
things which concern the kingdom of God” (Acts 1: 3,
my emphasis)! If we turn back
for a moment into the Gospel, we should not be surprised at this,
for the disciples “had hoped that he was [the one] who is
about to redeem Israel” (Luke 24: 21). To say that in Acts 1 the
Lord spoke about the kingdom in order to close off these hopes until
long into the distant future contradicts the teaching of the parable
of the fig-tree. It also ignores how the Lord dealt with the
disciple’s question in Acts 1: 6. They ask, “Lord, is it at this
time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?”, to which He
responds by leaving the matter open when He could so easily have
said ‘No’. It is also not without significance that the book of Acts
closes with Paul “preaching the kingdom of God” (Acts
28: 31). The Lord speaking of the kingdom of God (see Acts 1: 3) and
Paul preaching the kingdom of God are thus the bookends of the
volume! Would Theophilus take this preaching by Paul to be unrelated
to the preaching of the twelve in Luke 9: 2, seeing as in the
original Greek the wording is virtually identical? It is stretching
credulity to say so. Now of course some things had
changed (not least the death and resurrection of the King), and it
follows that the glad tidings of the grace of God (see Acts 20: 24),
touching more particularly on eternal matters, was now preached.
However, it is also clear, even right up until the end of Acts, that
the public kingdom—the universal reign of Christ in power on
earth—is not left out of the message (see Acts 17: 7; 19: 8; 20: 25;
28: 20-31). Acts is not so unconnected to the OT as some think it
is, but transitional. The Assembly is formed, but
Israel as a nation is not yet publicly set aside, and if “repentance
and remission of sins” are now preached “to all the nations
beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24: 47), Israel and the public kingdom
remain prominent. That this is so is obvious from Peter’s first
preaching, where he invokes Joel 2, the context of which is clearly
“the last days” (Acts 2: 17) and declares that “all the prophets
from Samuel and those in succession after [him], as many as have
spoken, have announced also these days” (Acts 3: 24)—Samuel having
denounced Israel’s sin in rejecting Jehovah as their king (see 1
Sam. 10: 19). Peter’s message to the nation was, “Repent therefore
and be converted, for the blotting out of your sins, so that times
of refreshing may come from [the] presence of the Lord, and he may
send Jesus Christ, who was foreordained for you” (Acts 3: 19, 20).
This essentially is the millennial kingdom re-offered (conditional
on national repentance), in which both Israel and the earth would be
rejuvenated. Was Peter mocking the Jews with an offer that was not
real and imminent? No—the opportunity was there, and the nation was
being ministered to (see Luke 13: 8) with a view to bearing the
fruit they ought to have borne when the kingdom had been first
offered to them (see Luke 3: 8). Yes, this could not take place
without a new heart (see Ezek. 36: 26), but the point here is not
Israel’s inability but God’s grace.
The Day of Pentecost
Many speak of the events of Acts 2 as the ‘birthday’ of the
Assembly, when what the Lord had foretold in Matthew 16: 18 (“I will
build my assembly”) would come into reality. This is true as far as
it goes, but it also feeds the misconception that all that
characterised the Assembly as described later in the epistles (for
example, Jew and Gentile as “joint heirs”—Eph. 3: 6) was in place
from Pentecost. The same superficial evaluation regards the words
“And when the day of Pentecost was now accomplishing” (Acts 2: 1) as
of no significance apart from providing the date when the Assembly
began. No! What happened in Acts 2 is intrinsically
connected with the “feasts of Jehovah” (Lev. 23: 2). Pentecost is
the Greek term for the Hebrew Feast of Weeks, so–called because of
its unusual timing: “And ye shall count from the morning after the
sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the
wave–offering, seven weeks; they shall be complete; even unto the
morning after the seventh sabbath shall ye count fifty days” (Lev.
23: 15, 16). Now “the morning after the sabbath” referred to is the
Feast of First-fruits (see v11), which pictures the resurrection of
Christ (see 1 Cor. 15: 20, 23). The Lord was raised on the morning
after the Sabbath and thus at day 50 there have been eight
mornings after the Sabbath. The number eight signifies a new
beginning (thus, for example, circumcision was on the eighth day,
the cleansing of the leper was completed on the eighth day and
David, the new king, was the eighth son of Jesse—see Gen. 17: 12;
Lev. 14: 10, 23; 1 Sam. 17: 12, 14). Pentecost is therefore a
new beginning. That new beginning was offered by Peter to
the Jews (see Acts 2: 38–40; 3: 19–21). Why? Because though they had
crucified Christ, God had raised Him from the dead, and in grace He
was providing them with another opportunity to subject themselves to
the King. Those that submitted themselves were added to the Assembly
but initially this would
have been understood only as a remnant, a called-out company
within Judaism. What was known as the “way” (Acts 9: 2 etc.)
was a path of separation from an evil generation in Israel not yet
out of Judaism itself (there is no conflict with John 10: 16, which
was written down much later, and assumes Israel’s condition as set).
Again, readers may be surprised to learn that Gentiles would not be
added to the Assembly for many years after Pentecost (some of the
dates in Acts are known—see Acts 11: 28; 12: 23 etc.).
Certainly, Peter’s words on the day of Pentecost (“and to all who
[are] afar off”—Acts 2: 39) are wide enough in scope to allow the
entrance of the Gentiles into the Assembly at a later point but
there is no suggestion in them of Jew and Gentile equal in one body,
having the same access to the Father, and united to the Head in
heaven (see Eph. 2: 18; 4: 4; Col. 1: 18). Peter’s preaching does
not go beyond Gentiles being blessed in accord with numerous OT
prophecies (see Deut. 32: 43; Ps. 72: 11; Is. 2: 2; 11: 10; 24: 14,
15; 49: 6; Jer. 3: 17; Ezek. 38: 23; Mic. 4: 1, 2; Zeph. 3: 9
etc.)—that is, associated with and subservient to the Jew in
the kingdom (see Is. 60: 3; Zech. 8: 23; 14: 16).This has
nothing to do with what is taught in Paul’s epistles of Jew and
Gentile assimilated into one new man (see Eph. 2: 15). Why? Because
that was “hidden throughout the ages” (Eph. 3: 9)—meaning that it
was not revealed in OT
prophecy. The “two wave-loaves” (Lev.
23: 17) of the Feast of Pentecost—Jew and Gentile as associated
together but remaining distinct–is quite in keeping
with what is presented in the book of Acts.
Jews and Gentiles
One impetus to the entrance of the Gentiles was the behaviour of the
Jews. In Acts 7, Stephen’s testimony by the Holy Spirit to the Man
in the glory was rejected. Significantly, his martyrdom took place
in Jerusalem—the centre of Judaism—and was, in effect, a fulfilment
of the parable of Luke 19 in which an embassy was sent after the
“high-born man” saying, “We will not that this [man] should reign
over us” (see vs. 12, 14). After this, things change. In chapter 8,
Philip evangelised the Samaritans (a group that falsely claimed
Israel’s place) and preached to the Ethiopian eunuch (a Jewish
proselyte or convert). In Chapter 9 the future apostle of the
Gentiles was converted, in chapter 10 Peter opened the door to the
household of Cornelius as representative Gentiles, and in chapter
11, widespread evangelisation of Gentiles begins after the
scattering that followed Stephen’s martyrdom (see vs. 19-21).
However, despite this blessing, there is still no indication that
the distinction between the Jews and the nations had been removed.
That this is so, can be seen from Acts 15: 15-18, where James
appeals to Amos 9: 11, 12 to show the blessing of the nations, not
as proselytes to Judaism, but as Gentiles in association
with Israel. However, association is not identity and
has nothing to do with what the apostle Paul later
publicly taught about the one body, “wherein there is not Greek and
Jew” (Col. 3: 11).
Throughout Acts, the believing Jews and Gentiles retained their
national identities, and even Paul readily complied with Jewish
practice (see Acts 16: 3; 18: 18, 21; 20: 23-26; 21: 26). His public
ministry at the time was accordingly restricted, “saying nothing
else than those things which both the prophets and Moses have said
should happen” (Acts 26: 22)—and this clearly excluded the mystery
of Jew and Gentile equal in one body “which in other generations has
not been made known” (Eph. 3: 5).
Apart from a single mention in Acts 15: 7-12, Peter does not feature
in the narrative of Acts beyond chapter 12. From here on, Paul is
the focus of Luke’s account, and although he is the apostle of the
uncircumcision (as Peter was of the circumcision—see Gal. 2: 7, 8)
he continues to evangelise the Jews, typically seeking out the
synagogue in each city he visited (see Acts 13: 14; 17: 1, 10, 17;
18: 4, 19). In Acts 13, Paul’s testimony in the synagogue of Antioch
of Pisidia was rejected, and in response he told the Jews that “It
was necessary that the word of God should be first spoken to you;
but, since ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of
eternal life, lo, we turn to the nations” (v46), basing his action
on Is. 49: 6. However, this turning away from Israel is not general,
because shortly afterwards Paul preached in the synagogue of Iconium
(see Acts 14: 1). Later, Paul’s testimony in the synagogue at
Corinth is also rejected and he told the Jews there “Your blood be
upon your own head: I [am] pure; from henceforth I will go to
the nations” (Acts 18: 6). Again, however, this is local not
general, for he later reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue in
Ephesus (see v19). From this point on (see v21), Paul is determined
to go up to Jerusalem to keep the feast of Pentecost (see Acts 20:
16), but ironically the offered new beginning of Pentecost is
passing away for Israel, and this is reflected in the fact that
Agabus prophesied that Paul would be bound in Jerusalem and
delivered over to the power of Rome (see Acts 21: 11).
In Rome, Paul called together the leaders of the dispersion and
testified “of the kingdom of God … persuading them concerning Jesus,
both from the law of Moses and the prophets” (Acts 28: 23). His
appeal was only partially successful, and this led him to quote Is.
6: 9, 10 to them: “Well
spoke the Holy Spirit through Esaias the prophet to our fathers,
saying, Go to this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear and
not understand, and seeing ye shall see and not perceive.
For the heart of this people has become fat, and they hear
heavily with their ears, and they have closed their eyes; lest they
should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand
with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Be it known to you therefore, that this salvation of God has
been sent to the nations; they also will hear [it]” (vs.
25-28). The passage Paul quotes is also referred to in the Gospel
narratives, but only here is it directly addressed to
the Jews. This is very significant. In Matt. 13: 14-15, Mark 4: 12
and Luke 8: 10 the prophecy is only quoted to the disciples, while
John 12: 40 is simply a comment by the writer (see also Rom. 11: 8).
In Acts 28: 26, 27 however, Paul addressed the Jews themselves
in exact fulfilment of Is. 6: 9: “thou shalt say
unto this people” (my emphasis). The apostle followed this up by
repeating that the salvation of God would be sent to the Gentiles
and that “they also will hear it” (Acts 28: 28). Acts 28:
25-28 therefore represents the historical closing of the door upon
the nation, although individual Jews would still be able to come in
search of blessing (as they did—see v30).
Conclusion
The synoptic Gospels describe the offer of the kingdom to Israel and
its rejection. The book of Acts, as the last historical book in the
Bible, traces how, in grace, following the murder of the King, the
kingdom was re-offered to Israel, both at Jerusalem, the centre of
Judaism, and at Rome, the centre of the dispersion. Of course, the
book of Acts necessarily also speaks extensively about the Assembly
since God knew from the outset the stony and intransigent heart of
His earthly people, and that the nation would be set aside. However,
this is secondary to the real purpose of the book, which is to close
up the prophecies concerning Israel until long into the future. In
summary, the disciple’s question of Acts 1: 6 receives its final
answer in Acts 28: 25-27.
