Here we go then! A whole new book of the bible to get our teeth sunk into.

Having spent much time in the Psalms, there is a real change of feel and style as we jump into the Acts of the Apostles. Personally, I find it to be much more familiar ground as a text written in a narrative form and in a manner similar to the gospel accounts. It is also placed in a period of history about which we have more confidence so exploration of Acts is potentially more fruitful then the questions raised around the Psalms.

There is so much to think about, so I will try and offer a few different points for this opening reflection and then we’ll settle into the rhythm of posts centred largely on each week’s readings.

But, as ever, we need the historical and literary context and so, we turn once more to your friends and mine – the biblical scholars.

Whilst theologians focus on the content of biblical texts and ideas, biblical scholars focus on how the bible has been written and put together. So, it is wise to look to them as we start thinking about Acts, in order to ground ourselves in a particular place in time.

Who wrote the book of Acts? And when?

Tradition holds that the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author as Luke’s gospel – that is Luke, a physician mentioned in Colossians 4:14

Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you.

Tradition can be a funny thing. As far as is known, this attribution to ‘Luke’ was first made by an early church father called Irenaeus. He was deeply influential and, as such, deeply trusted. Research suggests that, essentially, once Irenaeus said it was Luke who wrote the gospel and Acts, people didn’t challenge that position. It is not until around the 18th century that this idea is properly reconsidered, with the rise of biblical scholarship and biblical criticism (analysis of biblical manuscripts and their copies). In light of these more recent arguments, and those that have followed, the initial claim of Luke’s authorship feel less certain.

Both books address one ‘Theophilus’. That word is used in the text as a kind of name or title, and can be translated as ‘Friend/Lover of God’. This could have been an actual individual, but a more common understanding is that this is speaking to any ‘God-loving’ reader of that text.

The presence of that title in both texts, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that the same author wrote both. The scholarly belief is that 5 or 6 of Paul’s letters are actually not authentically written by Paul, but are instead works of Pseudepigraphy, meaning that other’s wrote them and attributed them to Paul. These letters contain elements of Paul’s style and language to make these appear to be more like his writing. This was a common practice in the ancient world.

So, if the author of Acts wanted to appear to have the same author as the gospel of Luke, for whatever reason, to address the same recipient, even 10-20 years later, would create that effect.

The Luke-Acts tradition also suggests that we can be directed towards these texts being written by a doctor due to particular medical language being used and more detailed descriptions of illnesses. Perhaps as we read through Acts you might notice some of this, but more likely is that you’ve read both Luke and Acts previously and not noticed any use of specific use of language.

The argument for this view are quite widely contested, and it’s not too tricky to see why when you highlight some of the examples used to make the case;

“Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked him about her.” Luke 4:38

“When Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever;” Matthew 8:14

 “Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told him about her at once” Mark 1:30

Aside from the escalation from a ‘fever’ to a ‘high fever’, there’s no real indication that one author had a particularly keen knowledge of illness and medicine.

It is also worth keeping an eye out for contradictions and differences between Acts and Paul’s letters. Luke is believed to have been a companion of Paul, so one would think their accounts would be the same or very similar. There are, throughout Acts, various points of notable difference both historically and theologically, from Paul’s own accounts.

One example is that Paul’s letters, especially Galatians, shows tension between himself and the apostles based in Jerusalem. In Galatians 2, Paul openly opposes Peter and confronts him. The picture we find in Acts, however, is far more harmonious and unified.

This may have been so that the book of Acts could serve a purpose of highlighting the importance of unity in the growth of the early church.

All that to say that, as is so often the case with the bible, we can’t be sure of the author, and therefore the date of writing. The current consensus in biblical scholarship is that the book of Acts is simply anonymous (no name is given within the book) and probably was written about 90-110 CE, that being roughly 30-40 years after the deaths of Peter and Paul.

Acts 1

As we began the book of Acts this week, I wondered what chapter might be the most fertile for reflection. Trouble is, there is so much packed into the early chapters, that it is very tough to choose! Acts 1 alone is overflowing with theological concepts that each require their own focus. For now, at least, we can cover them only briefly, but do go digging into some of these things for yourself.

 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He replied, “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”Acts 1:6-8

When we think about the expectations of the Jewish people about a Messiah, one of the things that comes up is one who will bring about political and spiritual renewal. This included the hope of liberation from foreign oppression (e.g., Roman rule) and the reestablishment of Israel as a sovereign nation under God's rule. This is rooted in ancient prophesies, such as Ezekiel 37:21-22, which foresees the unification and restoration of Israel under a Davidic king.

It appears that, even after the life of Jesus’ teaching, his disciples still weren’t clear on whether this was happening or not. Much of the disappointment in the disciples in the wake of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion was that this hoped for restoration of the kingdom was not, it seemed, about to come to fruition. Even here, in Acts, Jesus doesn’t respond directly to the question, but does offer us something more interesting.

By speaking of the coming of the Holy Spirit and the role of the witness of the disciples, Jesus can be understood to be saying that the restoration of the kingdom comes about by the power of the Holy Spirit and the work of the spirit in the disciples. They are the ones by whom their great desire and anticipation is fulfilled.

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)  Acts 1:18-19

If you have a good memory, you might remember that one of our gospels has an account of the death of Judas that differs from this one;

"When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." Matthew 27:3-5

 So what happened?

Well, all we can be confident in is that Judas did die. The tradition, even in the early Christian community, appears divided as to the details, and to some extent the nature of how this unfolded. Matthew’s Judas was remorseful and kills himself in what appears to be an act of shame or guilt. Acts, alternatively, depicts a freak accident and a gory end.

Many, especially those for whom a contradiction in the bible poses a distinct challenge to their view of scripture, have tried to reconcile these accounts together – perhaps he hung himself and then fell and burst open? These accounts, from this perspective, merely have different points of emphasis.

If you just read them next to each other, however, it seems clear that these cannot be the same event. In Matthew, Judas returns the money, but in Acts he spends it. Also, if one were to fall from a position of hanging, you would fall feet first, not ‘headlong’.

23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place[f] in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was added to the eleven apostles. Acts 1:23-26

I’ve always felt slightly weird about the casting of lots in the gospel accounts. It reads like some act of gambling or chance. In part, this view is shaped by an example just before this in the gospel accounts, as the Roman soldiers cast lots for Jesus’ clothes whilst he is on the cross.

In the context of Jesus' crucifixion, casting lots was a method used by the Roman soldiers to randomly determine who would get Jesus' garments. This practice was akin to drawing straws or throwing dice and was a common way to make decisions impartially.

It was, however, also a more serious method of trying to understand God in different situations:

Priestly Duties: Casting lots was used to assign duties among priests (1 Chronicles 24:5, 31).

Land Allocation: The Israelites used lots to divide the Promised Land among the twelve tribes (Joshua 18:10).

Seeking Divine Will: Lots were cast to determine God's will in various situations (Proverbs 16:33).

It might just be that this is one of those worldview differences when it’s really tricky to understand an ancient practice deeply without having been there.

What is noteworthy, though, is that the incident in Acts 1:26 is the last recorded use of casting lots in the New Testament. After the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2), the early church relied more on the guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than casting lots.

This gives us a more relatable point of comparison of the use of casting lots. It was a means of consulting God, similar, it seems, to us praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As you can see, there is a lot to delve into in Acts – I didn’t even get to explore the craziness of the Ascension! There’ll be plenty of time to enjoy the depths of Acts’ theology as we read through it together over these coming weeks.