Luke-Acts: From Bethleham to the World

Last year when I was putting together my preaching calendar for 2024, I wanted to do a series that would take us through the Summer months. As most of you know, I generally do not do super long series…4 or 5 weeks is about as long as I can study and write about one topic or book before wanting to move to something else. I am going to break with tradition though, for our series on Luke-Acts. Throughout June, July, and August we will be planting ourselves in these 2 wonderful N.T. books. Most weeks I will be covering a bit of Luke and a bit of Acts…so, a little bit of both…we will not be hitting every chapter and verse, as that would take more than a year if we tried to go verse by verse and chapter by chapter. That said, we will be going through much of Luke and up to Acts chapter 15, which is known as the Jerusalem council.

Similar to our ongoing series on Romans (which we will pick back up once Summer is over), the thought of preaching on Luke and Acts is somewhat intimidating. There are entire semester long courses on the book of Luke and the book of Acts (separately)…then, if you take those, you can take another semester long course on Luke-Acts…which teaches how the books fit together…because they do, for a variety of reasons. I got the idea for this series during while I was taking the Luke-Acts class. My professor for that class (Dr. Joseph Lear) actually wrote his PhD dissertation on Luke-Acts, then published it as a book…so he was a good guy to learn from. I reached out to him and asked if I can use portions of his book for this series…of course He was glad to oblige. Perhaps you are wondering how Luke and Acts are connected…as the book of John separates them…Mathew, Mark, Luke…John, Acts. If you are wondering about this or have this question…this series is really for you. But, even if you know why they are connected, I promise that you will be greatly enriched by this series…and you might even learn a thing or two as we go forward.

PRAY!

In your handouts, I’ve included a rough outline for the book of Luke and the book of Acts. They outlines have the major division points . For example, the book of Luke can be broken up into 4 sections, while the book of Acts has 7 sections. In the full outlines, between each roman numeral there are several letters that go into more detail. I have those available if you would like....just let me know and I’ll print them off for you. I didn’t want our handouts to be super long-that’s why I didn’t include the full things.

Book of Luke, Chapters 1-24

I. Preparation for the Ministry of Jesus (1:1–4:13)

A. Formal prologue (1:1–4)

II. Jesus’s Ministry in Galilee (4:14–9:50)

III. Jesus’s Ministry in Judea and Perea (9:51–19:44)

IV. Climax of Jesus’s Ministry in Jerusalem (19:45–24:53)

Book of Acts, Chapters 1-28

I. Empowerment for the Church (1:1–2:47)

A. Waiting for power (1:1–26)

B. The source of power (2:1–13)

C. Pentecostal witness to the dispersion (2:14–47)

II. Early Days of the Church (3:1–12:25)

III. Paul’s First Missionary Journey (13:1–14:28)

IV. The Jerusalem Council (15:1–35)

V. Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (15:36–18:22)

VI. Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (18:23–21:16)

VII. Paul en Route to and in Rome (21:17–28:31)

This morning is largely an introduction to the rest of the series. I will be posing some questions, in order to get your mind thinking (in the right direction), then I will answer the questions.

Who is Luke?

What makes Luke and Acts Similar?

Why did Luke Write his Books?

How did Luke write his books?

When did Luke write the books?

We will be looking at Luke chapter 1, verses 1-4 and Acts chapter 1, verses 1-3…both of which serve as the introduction to their respective books (although, Acts doesn’t really have a traditional opening). After reading, we will begin by looking at the reasons why these 2 books are often paired together.

Luke 1:1–4 “Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. So it also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed.”

Compared to the other books in the Bible, including the O.T., Luke’s introduction stands very unique. Now let’s look at Acts

Acts 1:1–3 “I wrote the first narrative, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up, after he had given instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After he had suffered, he also presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”

Who is Luke?

The books of Luke and Acts are widely believed to have been written by one individual, whose name is…Luke (or at least, that is the English translation of his name). Luke is an interesting character, his writings make up 36% of the N.T., so outside of Paul, Luke has contributed the most to what we know about Jesus and the early church. Luke was a very educated man…he was also a physician. Luke is often referred to as Luke the Evangelist. According to Luke’s own words, he himself was not a follower of Jesus during his earthly ministry…in verse 2, Luke says that the story or narrative he is writing about was handed down to him from the original eyewitnesses. This is just one of the things that makes the gospel of Luke stand out. Of the 4 gospel writers, Matthew and John were apart of the 12 original disciples, while Mark was a close companion of Peter. Luke is the only one who did not have any direct ties to the original 12 disciples. Another interesting fact about Luke is that he was probably a Gentile. We do not know this for sure, but most reputable scholars and teachers contend that, because of the unique manner in which Luke wrote and the type of language he used…Luke was more than likely a Gentile. As a result, the Gospel of Luke has often been refereed to as “The Gospel for Gentiles.” Some of the evidence that Luke is a Gentile comes from Col. chapter 4, where Paul is naming a bunch of Jewish individuals…in these passages, Paul lists a number of Jews, then he lists Luke separately. (that reference is in your handout)

Col. 4:7-14

What makes Luke & Acts similar?

The main thing that makes Luke and Acts similar is their author…but in fact, the similarities go much deeper. In fact, many believe that originally, the book of Luke and Acts were 2 volumes of one book…volume 1 being Luke, which talks about the earthly ministry of Jesus, while the 2nd one was about everything that happened after Jesus’ ascension back to heaven. Evidence for this comes from Luke’s own words…remember, Acts begins with Luke saying:

Acts 1:1 “I wrote the first narrative, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach”

I think it is safe to assume here that Luke is referring to his gospel letter. So, that is one piece of evidence…the second comes from how Luke ends and Acts picks up after the short 3 verse introduction. I’ll read it straight through, without stopping and I won’t include the short introduction in the beginning of Acts.

(Luke 24:50-53) “Then he led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. And while he was blessing them, he left them and was carried up into heaven. After worshiping him, they returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they were continually in the temple praising God.” (Acts 1:4-5) “While he was with them, he commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the Father’s promise. “Which,” he said, “you have heard me speak about; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days.””

Clearly it seems that Luke is simply continuing his thoughts…He ends his first volume (the book of Luke) with Jesus leaving the earth, and begins acts with a slight flashback to Jesus’ final instructions to the disciples.

We aren’t sure when Luke sat down to write his books, but we believe it happened sometime between 50 AD and 64 AD. It’s also believed that He wrote them at the same time.

Why did Luke Write these books?

One of the cool things, in my opinion, about the books of Luke and Acts are why they were written. Writing back then was not as simple as taking a pen or pencil and a piece of paper and scribbling down your thoughts; especially if you wanted to write more than a short note or two. It would require the person to purchase papyrus and lots of ink…both of which were very expensive in that day. Papyrus was first used around 3000 BC, the Egyptians were the first ones to use it. It was the first substance that was smooth enough and flexible enough to accept ink without blurring or smudging. To be honest, it was one of the most important discoveries ever made up to the time of the printing press. In fact, papyrus was used for thousands of years, way longer than any other material in the history of written documents.

Anyway…that’s probably more than you wanted to know about papyrus. Much like the apostle Paul, Luke is clear as to why he took the time and effort to write his gospel account as well as Acts. Let’s look at Luke’s words again real quick:

Luke 1:3–4 “So it also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed.”

Acts 1:1–2 “I wrote the first narrative, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up, after he had given instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.”

It is clear that Luke is writing to a person named Theophilus…Luke mentions his name at the beginning of both books. There are some books in the N.T. where we have little to no idea who wrote them or the specific purpose behind their authorship…the book of Hebrews is a good example of this. People speculate about its author, but we really have no idea. The author of Hebrews does not mention a specific purpose behind the letter…as far as what compelled him to write in the first place. Unlike Hebrews, Paul is pretty clear why he chose to write to the various churches…normally because there were some bad things going on within the church…in the case of Philippians, Paul wrote to thank them for sending some support.

Luke wrote both of his books…or both volumes of 1 book to Theophilus. As I mentioned before, Luke wrote down these accounts so that Theophilus can be encouraged and strengthened in his faith. Luke refers to Theophilus as “ most honorable Theophilus;” This is a unique title that we only see Luke say one time and only in regard to this man. The title of “most honorable” was often given to high ranking Roman officials. There has been some speculation as to the reason that Luke decided to write this man, as opposed to anyone else. There are a couple of different ideas.

Theophilus commissioned Luke and sponsored the books because he wanted to learn more about these people called “Christians.” Meaning, Theophilus asked Luke to write down the stories and offered to finance Luke’s work.

Luke decided to write Theophilus on his own, to try and show this high ranking official that Christ followers are not out to topple the Roman government or cause problems. In other words, Luke wanted the Romans to know that Christians were not interested in creating strife with Cesar.

The third is similar to the 2nd one, except, Luke wrote Theophilus because he was one of the officials in charge of Paul’s imprisonment. He was trying to prove to the Romans that Paul was a good citizen and was not trying to subvert Cesar.

All three are within the realm of possibility, however, I personally subscribe to the 1st one…I think Luke was asked to write and was sponsored by Theophilus. So, that is why Luke decided to write his gospel account and the book of Acts.

So, we’ve covered:

Who is Luke?

What makes Luke and Acts Similar?

Why did Luke Write his Books?

Lastly, we are going to answer the question:

How Did Luke Write his Books?

As we talked about before, Luke was not a disciple of Jesus. Luke did not travel with any of the disciples…so, how did Luke compile all of the information he put into the Gospel of Luke? Also, how did Luke know about the birth of the Church, after Jesus ascended back to heaven, after His resurrection? In other words, how can we trust that what Luke wrote down is true and accurate? To be honest this is not a question that most Christians ever ask themselves; We are taught to not ask questions like that…we are told that asking such questions is merely a lack of faith on our part. How many of us know that there is a difference between an unintelligent blind faith and an intelligent faith, based upon the totality of evidence. I am a firm believer that God desires introspective, intelligent, and curious believers. God desires those who know why they believe, rather than those who just go along with what their family or friends have done. It’s important to remember: even though we may fully accept the Bible, non-Christians, and even newer believers do not accept what Luke says, simply because it’s in the Bible…our faith in the reliability of the Bible is built over time, as we come to trust the Lord and experience His unconditional love, our faith is built to the point where we believe.

Now, going back to the question of How Luke found out all of these details, let’s let Luke’s own words tell us.

Luke 1:1–4 “Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. So it also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed.”

Notice here what Luke tells Theophilus: that many people had attempted to “compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us.” What are the events that have been fulfilled? Clearly, Luke is talking about the fact that Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and ascension had fulfilled the O.T. narrative about the Messiah. In other words, Luke is saying that many have tried to write and explain how Jesus was the Messiah that was promised in the O.T. Luke goes on to say, that despite those efforts, Luke did his own careful research....taking the time and effort to find out everything about Christ; from the O.T. prophises, to His birth, his earthly ministry, His miracles and teachings, to His death, resurrection, and finally, Jesus saying that He had to go, so the Holy Spirit could come. Because Luke did all of this research, he didn’t want to rely on what other people wrote. Luke wanted to make sure Jesus’ story was told correctly and in a more “orderly sequence.”

So, to answer the question: how can we trust what Luke writes…because Luke took the time to investigate, talk to eye-witnesses, in order to get the story correct…and he did all of it so that this Roman Official could have an accurate, orderly account. That is how Luke wrote his gospel account, as well as portions of the book of Acts.

Let’s go ahead and wrap up today by answering our last question:

When did Luke write the books?

We’ve spend most of our time this morning focused on Luke’s gospel account, and the first few chapters of Acts…or, the events that Luke had to research in order to write about…meaning, Luke was not there to witness it himself. Something interesting happens though once we get to Acts chapter 16…so, a little more than half-way through the book of Acts. The author begins to use the word “we,” and “us,” instead of “they.” I’ll give you an example:

Acts 16:8–15 (CSB) Passing by Mysia they went down to Troas. During the night Paul had a vision in which a Macedonian man was standing and pleading with him, “Cross over to Macedonia and help us!” After he had seen the vision, we immediately made efforts to set out for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, the next day to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi, a Roman colony and a leading city of the district of Macedonia. We stayed in that city for several days. On the Sabbath day we went outside the city gate by the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and spoke to the women gathered there. A God-fearing woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, was listening. The Lord opened her heart to respond to what Paul was saying. After she and her household were baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

Prior to Acts chapter 16, meaning, throughout Luke’s entire gospel account and up to chapter 16 in Acts, Luke writes in such a fashion that makes it clear that he was not there…that he was writing about things that he only heard of or was told about. It sounds like, when Paul and his companions went to Troas, Luke ended up joining them…but that is just speculation. What we do know, is that Luke shifts his language and begins to use the words “We and Us,” meaning, Luke was now a first-hand witness. Luke was experiencing the events as they happened.

I bring all of that up because it at least gives us some clue as to when Luke could have written these books. We know that it was not before the events in Acts chapter 16…it had to be later than that. The truth is, we do not know exactly when Luke joined up with Paul or when he wrote the gospel account or the book of Acts…although most believe he wrote them at the same time, in order to give Theophilus the full narrative at once. Some of the theories out there say that Luke wrote during Paul’s time on house arrest, at the very end of Acts, right before Paul’s death. Furthermore, if we look at the final couple of verses in Acts, many believe that Luke had intended to write more, but didn’t get the chance or that those documents are lost.

Acts 28:30–31 “Paul stayed two whole years in his own rented house. And he welcomed all who visited him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance.”

Some say that Luke would not have ended his writings without some sort of more formal conclusion, others say that verses 30 and 31 are the conclusion. It’s possible that Luke meant to write more, but if we look at the final verses in Luke’s gospel account, it ends in a similar fashion.

Luke 24:50–53 “Then he led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. And while he was blessing them, he left them and was carried up into heaven. After worshiping him, they returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they were continually in the temple praising God.”

Luke doesn’t have a formal ending in Luke, so it is very probable he ended Acts without one. Anyway, most put the time of Luke’s writing somewhere between 75-90 AD…so, about 50 years after Christ was crucified and rose from the dead.

OK, so this morning we answered a bunch of questions:

Who is Luke?

What makes Luke and Acts Similar?

Why did Luke Write his Books?

How did Luke write his books?

When did Luke write the books?

We went through the introductions to both of Luke’s books…which, to be fair, are not necessarily theological in nature, they are more fact based. Obviously, as we dig into these two books, we will get into the unique way in which the author presents the story of our savior and the story of how the early church grew. Not surprisingly, the two longest books in the N.T. are Luke and Acts. If all a person had from the bible were the books of Luke and Acts, that person could read them and walk away with a proper understanding of Christ, and how God has called believers to be in community with one another, guided by the Holy Spirit.

What can we take away from these rather short, but very important introductions? What did Luke intend to convey to Theophilus by taking the time to investigate and write down all of these things? Luke did not do it because he enjoyed writing…although he may have…but there was a larger purpose behind it…and this is where I think the meaning is found, both for Luke’s intended audience…the roman official and for us today.

Luke 1:4 “so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed.”

Luke was writing Theophilus so that he can know, for sure, that the things he had been taught are, indeed, true and accurate. Luke wanted Theophilus to be certain…not to waiver in his belief and faith. I would suggest that if Luke were writing to you or I, he would say the same thing....so we can know the certainty of the things about which you have been taught and instructed. As I mentioned before, God wants intelligent followers…and I do not mean intelligent like in your IQ, or how smart you are. Rather, an intelligent Christian is one who knows why they believe what they believe. A person does not have to go to a seminary to know these things. I submit to you that it is easy to just blindly accept something as true…that takes no work on our end. It’s like this, if I asked one of you to come up here and I put a blindfold on you. I then told you that we would go outside and cross the street, with you blindfolded…that I would guide you, with only my voice, as to when it was safe to walk. Most of us would be unwilling to do that, why? Because as much as you may trust me, you are unwilling to offer up that amount of trust when it comes to your wellbeing. Even if I was doing my best to get you to the other side safely, perhaps I could make a mistake and misjudge something.

So, even though we wouldn’t do that, we all have a tendency to do that when it comes to our relationship with Christ. We put our blindfolds on whenever we listen to a preacher or teacher, trusting that they will lead us across the street safely. Worse than that, there are some preachers and teachers that require people to put on blindfolds and just accept what they say without question or objection…because they know best, and you just have to trust them. If you want to follow their teaching, a blindfold is mandatory…as any criticism is viewed as insubordination, regardless of the manner and spirit in which its done. I’m not suggesting that we can not put trust in a competent leader, of course we are called to do so, but, just like how Luke wanted Theophilus to know what was real and what was not real, we too must use the common sense God gave us to be certain of what we have been instructed.

I’ll close with a quick story from my own life. Quite a number of years ago, while I was in the process of getting my credentials to be a pastor…Sam was around 12 or so, Laura and I began attending a church right up the street from where we lived in Plainfield, Illinois. It was a nice church, the people were very friendly…the pastor seemed very genuine and authentic. We met with him a number of times, just to make sure that the church was a good fit for us. They were heavily involved in missions. In fact, they had a very well organised missions outreach to Haiti. Members of the church would go to Haiti a couple of times a year to help build up a particular village and make sure the people had clean water to drink. The pastor’s focus was heavily on Jesus earthly ministry. Just like any other church, it wasn’t perfect. The pastor had come out of the Assemblies of God and started his own non-denominational church. That was concerning to me, but after speaking with him on why he did this, I understood. The prior church he worked at was a Church straight out of Corinthians…very charismatic, but way out of order and they lacked the most important thing a church must have, which is love.

Eventually, the pastor asked Laura and I to be small group leaders....which is great, of course, we would love to. So, we are then invited to the first small group leaders meeting. We are sitting there, all of us talking about how the groups would be structured and so on. One guy then asks if it was OK to have alcohol at the small groups. I’ll be honest, I thought he was joking,…it sounded like something I would say, except I would be completely joking. Except, this guy wasn’t joking, and no one at the meeting, including the pastor took it as a joke. Nor did any of them take it as an outlandish, inappropriate question. It was like…oh, great question, let’s kick this around a bit and come up with an answer…no different than if the guy asked if it was OK to start small group at 5 instead of 6. Now, being who I was back then…much less, let’s say, calm and in control of my temper, I said, wait, are you serious? Turns out, he was. The pastor then speaks up and says: that it probably isn’t the best idea to have alcohol at small groups. I think the room then wanted to move on from the conversation at that point…but I wasn’t quite ready to change topics. Admittedly, I should have probably just tabled my feelings and then spoke to the pastor in private. If it were today, that is exactly what I would do…but, as I said, I still had lots of growing to do.

I made it clear that whether or not a person chooses to drink alcohol is not at all my issue. I’ve known some believers who choose to drink that are faithful and dedicated. I don’t agree with them, but I do not believe it is a salvation issue at all…that said, there is a time and place for everything. So, my issue is not the drinking of alcohol, rather it was the flippant manner in which alcohol was even considered as though it might be appropriate at a church function…even though it is at a person’s house. Everyone looked at me like I was just steeped in legalism…that I couldn’t enjoy my “freedom” as a Christian. At this point, someone then brought up the coup-de-graw…the straw that broke the camel’s back for Laura and I. Turns out, during the yearly missions banquet, where they seek to raise money for Haiti, the church offers an open bar to all who attend. In other words, in order to draw a large crowd, in order to raise the most money, they have free and unlimited amounts of alcohol. I just couldn’t believe it, for real. It was like I was in the twilight zone. My heart was deeply, deeply grieved…to the point where I began crying. It was probably the only time in my life where I felt true righteous indignation. I told this room full of people that their decision to include alcohol within a ministry setting…especially one wherein money was being raised was akin the to money-changers in the temple…that they had crossed a line, where their personal conviction has now turned into a direct stumbling block to a lost and dying world…one in which alcohol is the most widely used drug…a drug that causes untold destruction upon families and upon entire nations. If a person who has struggled with alcohol addiction can not attend a missions banquet, then something is wrong. Not only that, but I asked what they would do if someone got pulled over for drunk driving on their way home, or worse, killed someone.

What does this story have to do with our topic today…you see, this pastor had convinced an entire church that alcohol consumption was not only ok, as a personal conviction, but it was ok even in ministry settings. Everyone in that church had a big blindfold on, just going along, simply because the pastor said it was OK. Laura and I left the church after that meeting…we didn’t go back. The pastor and I had a pretty frank discussion. He just believed that I was overly legalistic…he compared alcohol to the biblical example of meat…how only the people stuck in legalism still wouldn’t eat meat, but God had given them freedom to do so. Of course, I explained why that is not the case, but it was pearls to swine…a wasted explanation. Well, a few weeks ago, I looked up the church online to see if they are still around. They are, and it’s the same pastor there...

Unfortunately, but unsurprising, it is now an openly affirming church. By affirming, I mean they completely accept and affirm a same-sex lifestyle, including gay marriage. On their website they have a page dedicated to explaining their stances. In a section that asks: do you believe that those with same-sex attraction should live celibate…the answer is “no,” then goes on to say:

For this reason we believe and teach that how each of us thinks about our sexuality should be set within our understanding of ourselves as image-bearers of God and as people on a journey toward wholeness in Christ.

Notice the very, very important thing it says about how we should measure our sexuality: we would say, we measure our sexuality based upon God’s word, but it says: based upon our understanding of ourselves, as image bearers of God. It is true that we are image-bearers of God, but we do not gain understanding of what that looks like from any place, other than the totality of God’s word.

As I looked at the church photos, I noticed that many of the same people are there. Those who I know did not accept an affirming message are now OK with it…why? Because they’ve had their blindfolds on. They weren’t certain of what they had been taught. They were convinced that having compassion for someone and loving them is equal to affirming their behavior. They’ve been convinced that God does not set a standard of behavior in scripture that we must adhere to.

It’s my prayer today that each of us do not walk out our faith with a blindfold on…that we must all be certain. That we do not blindly accept teaching or doctrine just because we like the way it sounds or because it fits snugly within our worldview. I could challenge each of you…when you read God’s word, don’t be afraid to ask tough questions…God can handle tough questions.

Let’s Pray.