Acts, Part One: Introduction and Chapters 1–12

Preface

For this piece of work, two Koreans, Youngmo Cho and Hyung Dae Park, met for the first time in their lives. They were partly writing this book, excited about exegeting the Acts of the Apostles in a language foreign to them, anxious somewhat due to the importance and difficulties of this work. They concentrated on this labor for more than seven years. In the meantime, they noticed that they were quite distinct in their studies; Cho wrote Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile These Concepts (Paternoster, 2005) as his doctoral work, but Park did Finding Herem? A Study of Luke-Acts in the Light of Herem (T. & T. Clark International, 2007). Further, Cho has been discipled in Pentecostal churches while Park in Presbyterian churches. Remarkably, as the duets agreed in unison, Cho is a kind and meticulous person like Barnabas, but Park is strict and hasty to some extent like Paul.

Nonetheless, the differences of these two writers made this composition more dynamic; Cho undertook composing the introduction and the sections from The Beginnings (ch. 1) to Peter’s Deliverance and Herod’s Death (ch. 12), and Park compiled the preface and the sections from Mission to Cyprus and Pisidian Antioch (ch. 13) to Paul’s Ministry in Malta and Rome (ch. 28); Park fused the horizons in the sense of the community whereas Cho did it in terms of the spiritual, supernatural, and persevering perspectives; Cho’s writing flows smoothly, yet Park’s prose may strike readers as more abrupt. Understanding these backgrounds could be helpful in benefiting from this book.

Cho and Park have many mentors, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, too many to be listed here altogether, otherwise the readers would confuse this short preface with an encyclopedia. Even so, there are people we as the writers would like to thank. Craig Keener and Michael Bird, the editors who had waited for our final manuscripts for almost a decade, having had to tolerate the writers’ few—well, several—reports of postponements, and Brian Palmer, an editorial administrative assistant for the publisher who was patient with receiving the manuscripts. At the same time, to Cho’s other half, Grace (Gyunhee), and their daughter and son, Naan and Hajune, and Park’s better half, Sarah (Kang Nye), and their five children (Ju Eun [Park’s proofreader], Jusung David, Juhee Joy, Ju Yun Samuella, and Juha Grace), we each express our heartfelt gratitude for their love and togetherness.

Our efforts should be melted away in the support, advice, endurance, comforts, and love of others; so Hallelujah, may the Lord only be glorified. Amen.

Abbreviations

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

AJPS Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies

ASB Austin Seminary Bulletin

ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

ATR Anglican Theological Review

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

BDAG Walter Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BETS Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society

Bib Biblica

BR Biblical Research

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BST Bible Speaks Today

BT Black Theology

CB Christian Bioethics

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DDD K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

CJ Concordia Journal

DNTB Dictionary of New Testament Background

DPL G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.

CTJ Calvin Theological Journal

CTM Currents in Theology and Mission

EBD Easton’s Bible Dictionary

ECNT Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

ED Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible

ESV English Standard Version

ExpTim Expository Times

GNB Good News Bible

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IBMR International Bulletin of Missionary Research

ICC International Critical Commentary

Int Interpretation

ISBE The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies

JP Journal for Preachers

JPT Journal of Pentecostal Theology

JPTSS JPT Supplement Series

JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup JSNT Supplement Series

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup JSOT Supplement Series

JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

KJV King James Version

LEH A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2nd ed.

L&N J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

LNTS Library of New Testament Studies

LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly

LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed., with revised supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.

LXX Septuagint

NAC New American Commentary

NASB New American Standard Bible

NBD3 J. D. Douglas, N. Hillyer and D. R. W. Wood, eds. New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1996.

NET New English Translation

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIV New Testament Version

NIVAC NIV Application Commentary

NKJV New King James Version

NLT New Jerusalem Bible

NovT Novum Testamentum

NPNF1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1

NPNF2 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

MT Modern Theology

OT Old Testament

PDBS Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies

PDSNTG Matthew S. DeMoss. Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

Presb Presbyterion

PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies

QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine

RevExp Review and Expositor

RQ Restoration Quarterly

RSR Religious Studies Review

RTR Reformed Theological Review

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

S&I Scripture and Interpretation

SM Svensk missionstidskrift

SP Sacra Pagina Series

Thayer Joseph Henry Thayer. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. Translated, revised, and enlarged. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970 [1962].

TJ Trinity Journal

TNIV Today’s New International Version

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

UBS4 United Bible Society Greek New Testament, 4th ed.

Wor Worship

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

WW Word and World

ANCIENT SOURCES

1QS Rule of the Community

1QSa Rule of the Congregation

1–2 Macc 1–2 Maccabees

2 Esd 2 Esdras

3–4 Macc 3–4 Maccabees

4Q381 Non-Canonical Psalms

Augustine

Conf. Confessionum libri XIII (Confessions)

Spir. et Litt. De spiritu et littera (The Spirit and the Letter)

CD Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document

Did. Didache

Dio Cassius

History Roman History

Epiphanius

Haer. Panarion Haereses

Eusebius

Hist. eccl. Historia Ecclesiastica

Herodotus

Hist. Histories

Hippolytus

Ref. Refutatio Omnium Haeresium

Irenaeus

Adv. Haer. Adversus Haereses

John Chrysostom

Hom. Act. Homiliae in Acta apostolorum

Josephus

Ant. Jewish Antiquities

J.W. Jewish War

Life The Life

Jub. Jubilees

Justin Martyr

1 Apol. First Apology

Mishnah (m.)

Ἁbot Ἁbot

Ber. Berakhot

Mak. Makkot

Naz. Nazir

Ovid

Metam. Metamorphoses

Philo

Cher. On the Cherubim

Legat. Legatio ad Gaium

Moses On the Life of Moses

Prob. Quod omnis probus liber sit

Plutarch

Pom. Pompey

Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon

Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles

Sir Sirach

Strabo

Geogr. Geographica (Geography)

Suetonius

Claud. Divus Claudius

Tacitus

Ann. The Annals

Tertullian

Marc. Adversus Marcionem

T. Levi Testament of Levi

Tob Tobit

Introduction

The book of Acts plays an essential role in the NT canon. Its location enables it to function like a literary land mine that can neutralize the forces attempting to relegate the supernatural works of God either to the apocalyptic archive or the distant eschatological future. Acts invites its readers to enter the realms of God’s supernatural activity in proclaiming the message of the Kingdom of God that Jesus had preached during his earthly ministry. It is a book filled with interactions between the divine and humankind in the daily life settings of the early church while fulfilling the mission of proclaiming the gospel to the ends of the world. Due to the presence of such experiences recorded in the book, the early sources referred to this book as the Acts of the Apostles.¹ The apostles were essentially God’s instruments that performed the act of proclamation with signs and miracles. The book evidently asserts that the God who was active during Jesus’ life on earth continues to be involved in human affairs even after Jesus’ ascension; the same God appears to be active in the history of humankind through the ministry of the apostles.

The open-ended conclusion of the book hints that God will continue to manifest Himself on earth until the eschatological consummation of His Kingdom on earth. Also, by recording and interpreting God’s work in human history as part of church history, the author conveys the images of the early church that can serve as the foundation of an ideal church.²

From a literary point of view, the author demonstrates his ability as an excellent historian and a literary artist with access to certain primary sources concerned with the subject at hand. As a historical piece,³ Acts helps the readers scrutinize the past and take a glimpse at God’s marvelous work. As a piece of literature with an open-ended conclusion, it provides the blueprint for the ideal church and inspiration to every generation that finds itself bereft of God’s empowering presence.

Title

Although the book has been called the Acts of the Apostles from a very early date, it does not introduce itself as the praxeis apostolōn. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue and Muratorian Fragments are the earlier sources that refer to this book as the Acts of the Apostles. Various theories exist regarding the entity that coined this term and its reasons—it may have been to indicate that Paul was not the sole true apostle of God as Marcion thought⁴ or that Peter and Paul are apostles of equal excellence.⁵ Most likely, the name Acts of the Apostles was brought into use to distinguish it from other Hellenistic works known as Acts that were similar in that they divinely portrayed prominent individuals such as Alexander the Great or Augustus, and at times, a group of people of kings or martyrs.⁶

Thus, it is possible that the post-apostolic church had to find a proper name for this book to distinguish it from other works known as Acts. The rise of the Marcion Canon may also have added greater urgency in calling this book the Acts of the Apostles. In standardizing his canon, Marcion elevated Paul to be the supreme entity, above all other apostles, as the one who had rescued the gospel of grace from the clutches of Judaism. In his canon, he decided to include only the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Luke; whether he included Acts is uncertain. Such an arbitrary decision by Marcion in standardizing the Scripture created a serious crisis in the post-apostolic church.⁷ To counter Marcion’s claim, the church fathers such as Tertullian may have emphasized apostolic authority by clarifying the authorship of each NT book. Tertullian called this book of Acts a commentary of Luke⁸ and Irenaeus called it the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.⁹ By the end of the third century, the name Acts of the Apostles had become part of the Acts manuscript and thus, gained a permanent place in the NT canon.

Modern biblical scholarship has almost universally reduced the title from the Acts of the Apostles to Acts. Occasionally, it is referred to as the Book of Acts. The reduction might have to do with the fact that there are only a few apostles active in Acts; the majority of the apostles remain inconspicuous throughout the book. Rather, the main entity whose presence and influence is pervasive is the Holy Spirit. For the author, the featured apostles are simply God’s instruments. Precisely for this reason, some dub the book Acts of the Holy Spirit.¹⁰ This name is justifiable because the work of the Holy Spirit is visible in every major event, transition, and decision in the stories of Acts. While the apostles and disciples in Acts are constantly prone to making mistakes, the Holy Spirit continuously redirects their motifs, decisions, and actions by means of his active presence. There are numerous instances in which the acts of the apostles had to be corrected by the acts of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is a book that can rightly be called the Acts of the Holy Spirit.

Date

The dating of Acts is linked with the dating of the Gospel of Luke and Mark. As a sequel to the former book (Acts 1:1), Acts follows Luke’s Gospel and therefore its dating determines the dating of Acts. Moreover, the abundance of Marcan material in Luke’s Gospel indicates that there was at least a basic version of Mark’s Gospel that Luke could refer to and derive information from. Thus, this leads to the logical deduction that the dating of Mark would partially determine the dating of Luke-Acts.¹¹ Within this context, three possible dates emerge: the early date from 62 to 70 CE, the intermediate date from 70 to 90 CE, and the later date from 90 CE to the middle of the second century. In general, the argument for the late date is not convincing—the second-century date for Acts has more questions than answers. As early as the second century, there is credible consensus among the early church fathers that Luke, one of Paul’s companions, is the author of Luke-Acts—this line of reasoning makes the hypothesis for the late date more unlikely.¹² Only a minority of scholars challenge this consensus¹³ whereas a large percentage of the scholars including Fitzmyer, Jervell, Witherington, and Dunn either support the early or the intermediary dates for the dating of Acts.¹⁴

In this context, another possible intermediary date range is considered to be between 70s and 80s CE.¹⁵ Arguments for this date come from the dating of the Gospel of Mark and Luke that are considered to have been written after 70 CE.¹⁶ Thus, (1) this date can support the claim that the writer is a companion of Paul who has ample time to complete the publication of the Gospel of Luke.¹⁷ Also, (2) a large percentage of NT scholars hold this view primarily because of the dating of the Gospel of Luke.¹⁸ In order to support this date, certain references in Luke are interpreted to suit the possible reference to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.¹⁹

However, this 70–80 CE date range is not universally accepted. Some argue that Luke-Acts was written sometime during the 60s.²⁰ Those who support the early date generally claim that (1) there is no mention of Paul’s trial before Caesar and his subsequent death during Nero’s rule. Luke paid great attention to Paul’s pre-trial voyage to Rome and if Acts was written after Paul’s death, there is no reason why the book should have ended without mentioning it.²¹ (2) There is no mention of Nero’s persecution;²² rather, the ending of the book suggests the triumph of the gospel under Roman power instead of persecution under the Neronian oppression. (3) The Jerusalem church is presented as closely connected with the Temple; in this vein of reasoning, how could Luke have failed to mention the destruction of the Temple? This event that occurred in 70 CE is unlikely to have been forgotten or omitted by Luke²³ had it occurred before or during Luke’s writing of Acts. The suggested allusions to the destruction of the Temple in the Gospel of Luke are inconclusive in the context that they can be seen as Luke’s eschatological predictions. Moreover, Paul’s habit of visiting the synagogues in every city and the apostles’ ministry in and around the Jerusalem Temple suggest that the events of 70 CE had probably not taken place. (4) Finally, Luke does not cite any of Paul’s letters in his writings probably because these letters were not fully in circulation; they might have been limited to the churches they were sent to and Luke might have had no access to them. The apparent discrepancies between Acts and Pauline letters regarding Paul’s life and ministry may suggest that Acts was written before the Pauline letters were collected as a circular body of writings.²⁴

Thus, while the specific points outlined above suggest an earlier range, opinions regarding the exact date within the early range in which Acts was written differ. For example, Marshall agrees with Bruce and suggests a date towards 70 CE, indicating that Luke might have been writing Acts during the Jewish rebellion of 66 CE without knowing the eventual outcome of that rebellion.²⁵ Similarly, Bock maintains the view that Acts was written before 70 CE by pointing out that the matter boils down to a simple matter of logical reasoning and choice. The omission of events such as Paul’s death, the Neronian persecution, and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple can be attributed to Acts being written long enough after 70 CE that the events were no longer worth mentioning, or Acts being written before these events took place.²⁶ The former hypothesis presupposes a date that is considerably far away from 70 CE since the outlined events are significant ones especially from a Lucan perspective. However, as previously mentioned, since a date closer to the second century is rejected by many and lacks considerable logistical specificity with regards to the composition of Acts, it is therefore logically more probable that the decision boils down to Acts being written before 70 CE.

Origin and Destination

The origin of Acts remains unknown and suggestions from early church writings vary. Irenaeus and Eusebius suggest it to be Rome (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, 14; Hist. eccl. 2.22.6). Anti-Marcionite Prologues and Jerome (Preface to Commentary on Matthew) put it in Achaia. Caesarea, Corinth, and Ephesus are also possible candidates.²⁷ Some modern scholars, such as Fitzmyer, rule out the possibility of Palestine and Syria and also state that the place of origin is of little importance in the interpretation of Acts.²⁸ The unknown place of origin serves well the overall characteristic of Acts as a moving history of the early church from Jerusalem to the ends of the world. It can be eloquently said that the uncertainty of the origin reflects the uncertainty of the book’s destination.

Authorship and Recipients

Acts along with the Gospel of Luke names the recipient of the account, which is unique when compared to other NT narratives. In contrast, the book is mostly silent about the author; this may be because the author deemed it unnecessary to reveal his identity due to its unimportance, recognized his already well-known status within the social circle that encompassed the life of the early church, or decided to adhere to the literary tradition of anonymity in Christian literature.²⁹ Nonetheless, internal and external evidence provide some clues in identifying the author.³⁰

The content of Acts demonstrates that the author was greatly interested in the works of the Holy Spirit and the missional advancement of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. He also appears to be competent in the area of Jewish literature and early Christian tradition. The smooth transition of the leadership of the early church from Jesus to the apostles, from one stage of the Holy Spirit’s work to another, and from one location to another speak of the author as a sophisticated writer with great literary style and abundant knowledge of charismatic experiences. Yet, who this person might have been is still shrouded in mystery as internal and external references, besides naming a possible person by the name of Luke, provide little information about his life and background.

The Author of the Gospel of Luke

Three references in the NT (Col 4:14; Phlm 24; and 2 Tim 4:11) mention a person by the name of Luke. He was a physician by profession (Col 4:14) who also happened to be Paul’s close friend. As will be seen below, he traveled with Paul in some of the most difficult times in his life and also gives the impression that he might have attended to Paul’s illness; Paul affectionately calls him beloved physician (Col 4:14). In addition to the possible apostolic tradition about the NT canon, Luke’s proximity with Paul, his unique profession, and timely presence in some of Paul’s missionary journeys may have provided the evidence for the post-apostolic church tradition to believe that this Luke was the author of Luke-Acts.³¹ According to Irenaeus, Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by him.³² The Muratorian fragment around the same time with Irenaeus says: The Acts of the Apostles, however, were written by Luke in one book addressed to the most excellent Theophilus. These two records are the earliest sources that link the person by the name of Luke mentioned in the NT with the author of Luke-Acts.³³ This tradition has been mostly upheld by the NT historians. There is hardly any serious disagreement today among scholars in accepting the fact that the Gospel of Luke and Acts are written by the same author.³⁴

The prologues to both of these volumes also support the argument that the author is the same person. The prologue of Acts begins with the address to the same intended reader of the Gospel of Luke—Theophilus: In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach (Acts 1:1). The former book can be none other than the Gospel of Luke in which the author states the purpose of writing an orderly account of what Jesus began to do and teach so that the most excellent Theophilus would be certain of the things he had heard of (Luke 1:1–4). Having given an orderly account of what had happened until the ascension of Christ in his first volume, it is now reasonable for the author to provide his reader with his second volume regarding the aftermath of the ascension. Also, these two volumes share remarkable parallelism in style and subjects, such as the role of the Spirit, God’s interventions in human history, explanations of cultural and geographical references, Jerusalem’s place in God’s economy of salvation, and much more.³⁵ Fitzmyer properly says that the vocabulary and use of the same expressions, the style and similar mode of composition, and the themes, theology, and whole thought-world are so similar from one volume to the other that they must have come from the same author.³⁶

Such a fascinating similarity is also evident in the intricate connection in how the Gospel of Luke ends and Acts begins. In introducing the second volume, the author picks up the thematic subject he had left at the ending of his first volume and begins to record how God is working through the apostles and disciples after the ascension of Jesus Christ. This leaves little doubt of the fact that the author of the third Gospel is also the author of Acts. Marshall is thus right when he argues that the separation of Luke-Acts into two separate books was unfortunate.³⁷

Paul’s Companion

Even though some doubt whether the author of Luke-Acts was Paul’s companion,³⁸ most scholars and the post-apostolic church tradition accept the author to be Paul’s companion. Among many possible companions of Paul, some have suggested Lucius mentioned in Acts 13:1 to be the companion of Paul who wrote Acts.³⁹ Lucius was among the founding members and one of the prominent leaders of the Antioch church. He was with Paul in Corinth from where Paul possibly wrote Romans and introduced him in the greeting list to Rome as a fellow Jewish coworker (Rom 16:21)—the name Luke does not appear in this list. When Paul sent a letter to Corinth with Titus, there is an unnamed person traveling with Titus whom Paul recommends as a well-known brother to many churches (2 Cor 8:16–18). It is possible that this well-known brother could be Lucius. Since Luke is absent from the greeting list to the Romans from Corinth, some may think that Luke was not with Paul during that particular missionary journey in which the we sections appear in Acts. Therefore, Lucius could be the person who was with Titus when he visited Corinth with Paul’s letter and later joined Paul to be part of the we sections in Acts.

However, as seen above, the post-apostolic tradition is clearly in favor of Luke, who also wrote Acts, being the companion of Paul. Starting from Acts 16:10 (16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1—28:16), the narrative shifts from third person to first person plural and thus, the author displays himself as the eyewitness of Paul’s life and ministry. Luke is fond of his role as an eyewitness for his project as seen from the prologue in the third Gospel. In his description of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, Luke highly values the role of an eyewitness. Thus, despite his demonstrated anonymity, he uses the first person plural to demonstrate that he was an eyewitness of what had happened to Paul. The author was with Paul during a very critical time in Jerusalem; he witnessed the whole saga of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and the subsequent voyage to Rome. Second Timothy 4:11 indicates that Luke was with Paul and thus, gives the impression that the companion who was with Paul in the we sections is Luke who had stayed by Paul’s side during those difficult years in prison to take care of Paul’s failing health.

Those who question the author of Acts to be Paul’s companion do so on the ground that there exist apparent differences between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the letter bearing his name.⁴⁰ This skepticism arises from apparent historical discrepancies in narrating Paul’s biography in terms of his attitude toward the law and Judaism. Such a view claims that in the we sections the author may have used someone else’s travel diary without editing the first person plural. If the author had been an actual companion of Paul, such contradictions with regards to the thought patterns between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Pauline letters could not exist. However, this view is regarded as unsubstantiated and weak due to the clear stylistic, grammatical, and linguistic correspondence between the we sections and the other passages in Luke-Acts.⁴¹

Moreover, these differences do not pose any serious challenge to the claim that the author was Paul’s companion when taking into consideration the differing perspectives in looking at Paul’s life. Just as the four Gospels look at Jesus from four different angles respectively, Acts provides a different perspective by which one can understand Paul’s sporadic and incidental autobiographical statements. Hence, minor differences are bound to take place since the same event is reported from two different angles. Although the author of Acts might not have been Paul’s preaching companion, he was physically present as his personal physician and possibly as a historian who chronicled the events in Paul’s life in his own style and purpose. As Jervell argues, without Acts, the polemical letters of Paul such as Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians could only provide a blatantly biased view of Paul.⁴² Luke enables a balanced presentation of Paul’s biography by presenting Paul’s life from a different perspective.

Finally, as seen above, from the early church tradition, no other person has been put forth as a viable substitute for Luke. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue is one of the earliest sources claiming Luke to be a companion of Paul. The Muratorian Fragment is more forthcoming in claiming that Luke, Paul’s companion, is the author of Acts. These second-century sources are considered to be the earliest sources that provide some background information about Luke and what he did.⁴³ Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; 313.3; 3.14.1.), Justin Martyr (Dialogue), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 5), Tertullian (Marc. 4), and Origen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25) support the argument that Luke was Paul’s companion who wrote Luke-Acts.

Jewish or Gentile Christian?

Traditionally, there has been nearly unanimous consensus in biblical scholarship of Luke being the sole Gentile writer in the Bible. Fitzmyer is probably one of the strongest supporters of this view while others consider Luke to have been at least a God-fearing Gentile before conversion.⁴⁴ The often cited internal evidence for Luke being a Gentile Christian comes from apparently two lists of names in Col 4:10–14.⁴⁵ The first list from vv. 10–11 includes people identified as belonging to the group of circumcision; they were Jews with names like Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus called Justus. Even though the term group of circumcision was used by Paul to describe Christian converts who practiced the Mosaic law of circumcision, here he is most likely talking about Jewish Christians working with Paul. Luke, however, is not mentioned in this group. He is listed in the second group from vv. 12–14, in which there are two other Gentile companions with the names of Epaphras and Demas. Most probably, this was the same Demas who later deserted Paul (2 Tim 4:10). The individuals in the first list had been a great source of comfort to Paul, and if Luke had been a Jew, it is likely that Paul would have listed him there. Luke was a beloved physician to Paul—surely an important entity both personally and spiritually. Therefore, for Paul to have mentioned him later and put him in the second list with the Gentiles that even included Demas, it can be deduced that Luke was a Gentile.

In addition to Paul’s listing of Luke in the Gentile group, those who support the Gentile view of Luke also argue about his Greek name, command of the Greek language, profession as a physician, and extensive knowledge of the LXX.⁴⁶ Luke demonstrates great knowledge of the OT; he seems to have acquired this knowledge primarily from the Septuagint. To be sure, 90 percent of Luke’s vocabulary is found in the LXX.⁴⁷ Furthermore, Luke’s knowledge of the Greek language, his understanding of the geography of the Mediterranean world outside of Palestine, and his interpretation of Jewish terms may suggest that he was probably not a native of Palestine and possibly not a Jew. Compared to Matthew and John, Luke demonstrates less familiarity with the Palestinian geography and culture.⁴⁸ Consequently, Luke must have been a Gentile who had converted to Christianity and thereby the only Gentile writer in the Bible.

However, the assertion that Luke was a Gentile Christian has been challenged. One such objection comes from Jervell who rejects the traditional position and claims that Luke was a Jewish writer who wrote for a Jewish audience.⁴⁹ Jervell has supporters for his claim,⁵⁰ but few agree with his assertion that Luke intended to write for a Jewish audience. There is enough textual evidence that demonstrates how Theophilus was neither a native of Palestine nor a Jew, as will be seen further on. However, sound arguments have been made in support of the claim that Luke is a Jew.

Those who see Luke as a Jew claim that there is no exegetical evidence in Col 4:10–14 that warrants a Gentile origin. Foremost, Paul’s list itself does not state a clear standard in separating the two groups;⁵¹ thus, this list cannot play a conclusive role in deciding whether Luke was a Jew or a Gentile. Rather, if the phrase party of circumcision is understood to be the party of Judaizers who insisted on the circumcision of Christians, then, it can be claimed that Paul spares Luke as a genuine Jewish Christian compared to the others who had succumbed to the Judaizers’ bait.

Other possible arguments suggesting a Jewish Luke are:

1. Romans 3:1–2 states that the oracles of God or the revelation of God is given to the Jews. God entrusted the Jews with the biblical revelation. If God has chosen the Jews to be his oral messenger on earth, it is highly unlikely that a Gentile would have been allowed to write nearly half of the NT.

2. In the we sections (Acts 21:17–29 in particular), Luke is possibly with Paul in Jerusalem (and the Jerusalem Temple), but persecution arose because Trophimus the Ephesian was with Paul instead of Luke. A logical deduction from this incident is that Luke was a Jew.

3. Luke’s extensive knowledge of the Temple and Leviticus priesthood lends credence to the claim that Luke was a Jew.

4. Luke’s intimate acquaintance with Mary (Luke 2:19, 51) is also evidence that Luke has a Jewish background. Thus, some of these arguments pose credible challenge to the NT scholarship to reconsider Luke’s origins.

Consensus has begun to emerge in NT scholarship that the important matter is not Luke’s ethnic identity but his religious status: a God-fearer who later converted to Christianity with extensive knowledge of diaspora Judaism and LXX.⁵² Essentially, Luke’s ethnic identity itself does not affect the interpretation of the book.

Theophilus as the Reader

Luke’s introduction of a reader for his narratives distinguishes him from other Gospel narrators who do not designate a reader. In most cases, having a named recipient by an unnamed narrator would add significant advantage in interpreting the narratives. However, in the case of Luke-Acts, most interpreters confine Theophilus to the prologues and proceed to read the narratives as if the existence of the identified recipient has no considerable difference in determining the meaning or role of the text; this is reflected in the fact that Acts ultimately became an authoritative source that circulated the church’s wide social circle by the second century.⁵³ Some may regard Theophilus as a symbolic figure representing the God-fearing community, while most scholars think that the title most excellent speaks of an actual historical figure with social and political status.⁵⁴ Since there is little known about the literary custom during Luke’s time, such as addressing an imaginary recipient,⁵⁵ it may be possible that Theophilus was indeed a real historical figure. However, regardless of the obscure identity of Theophilus, the text addressed to him has a considerable amount of information that can aid in constructing a possible character to represent him and by implication, an audience that Luke wished to appeal to.

First, Theophilus appears to be an educated individual with substantial knowledge of the Greek language, history, culture, and geographical makeup of the Mediterranean world. Luke could address his reader in polished Greek with ease and even expect him to have historical and geographical knowledge of certain parts of the world while still providing him with additional information about the Palestinian terrain and Hebraic/Aramaic terminologies.⁵⁶

Second, Luke’s use of the honorific most excellent indicates that Theophilus belonged to the Greek or Roman aristocracy with respectable social status. However, it would be faulty to consider Theophilus as socially representative of Luke’s audience. While an audience of respectable social status could have been part of the audience that Luke wished to appeal to, it would be an exaggerated claim to contend that Luke solely intended his work to be read by people of high status—especially when taking into consideration Luke’s tendency to preach the gospel to the marginalized that is manifest in his Gospel. Nonetheless, the intellectuality that pervades Acts implies a wide audience close to the median rank.⁵⁷

Third, it appears that Theophilus does have some knowledge of Hellenistic Judaism and the LXX so that Luke could freely quote from the OT to demonstrate the fulfillment of various prophecies. He appears to be able to understand OT quotations and certain religious activities within the context of Jewish synagogues.⁵⁸ This seems to imply that Theophilus was familiar with Hellenistic Jewish communities and their religious teachings and practices either by association or personal observance.

Fourth, it is reasonable to infer that Theophilus may have been a Gentile Christian.⁵⁹ For a man of his status, Theophilus would have probably been alone in his circle to have accepted the new religion, much like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. As Luke capitalizes on Theophilus’s status to present the gospel to a wider audience that includes people of high social standing, he implies the necessity for these people to gain a clear and absolute understanding of the gospel and the history of the church so that faith is placed on the foundation of God’s word and the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, Theophilus not only serves as a vantage point for those of higher social status but also as a catalyst that stimulates the importance of the gospel for a wider audience comprised of all kinds of people belonging to different social statuses—considering the impact that aristocrats of high status could have on the society.⁶⁰ Many in the Mediterranean world could have identified with him and thus, Luke may have utilized him in order to reach out to others.

Purpose

In the prologue of his Gospel, Luke ambitiously lays out his purpose of writing an orderly and truthful account of Jesus and his church so that the most excellent Theophilus may know the certainty of the things he has been taught (Luke 1:4). Luke, in the prologue of his second volume, wants to strengthen Theophilus’s faith by giving him the historical records of the work of the Holy Spirit after the ascension of Jesus Christ.⁶¹ In the Gospel, Luke demonstrates how the Kingdom of God has become a reality in human history (17:20–21); it has become an experiential actuality in the person of Jesus Christ. In Acts, Luke expands his earlier purpose of a cognitive understanding of the gospel to an achievement of the empirical truth of Jesus’ witnesses empowered by the Holy Spirit (1:8). The knowledge that Theophilus had about Jesus from the Gospel of Luke culminates in the ascension, marking an eschatological shift in the overall plan of God. The ascension ushered in a new age in which Theophilus was to wait for the physical return of the same Jesus who was taken up in the clouds (1:10–11). However, waiting for the return of Jesus is not supposed to be a period of absentia in which Jesus is no longer accessible. Rather, the eschatological shift at the ascension has also brought a shift in the interaction between the divine and human