Nov 24, 2013

Acts 1:1-1

For comments, questions, and interaction use the #ActionsofJesus @Calvary316 on Twitter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stained glass windows have always been a defining feature of the Christian church. The earliest evidence of stained glass windows being used in church construction dates back to 675 AD in St. Peter’s Monastery. Since then this beautiful architectural feature has dominated sacred spaces of worship for the majority of church history.

Though beautiful in their own right, stained glass windows had a purpose much larger than aesthetic. In addition to being a special way to light the church, these windows served as the primary method of teaching the written stories of the Bible to a largely illiterate world. This is why stained glass serves as a perfect illustration for the church.

A stained glass window begins as a collection of many unique, broken pieces of glass. On there own each individual piece possesses no useful or redeeming purpose; however, in the creative eye of the craftsman every piece is essential to the design.

You see when the craftsman finishes the process of assembling these pieces together he will have created a window that communicates a wonderful story while also uniquely radiating light in a beautiful and unique way.

In the same way the church is nothing more than a collection of many unique, broken individuals Jesus assembles together to (1) Communicate His story of redemption, and (2) Be a conduit by which He can shine His light into a dark and ailing world.

Though the purpose of each window will vary depending on the type and color of the glass the master chooses to assemble together, the process of creating any stained glass window begins with an essential first step.... drawing out a blueprint.

Every other subsequent step of the creative process (cutting and polishing the glass, soldering together each individual piece, welding the outer frame, adding a sealant to the finished structure) becomes frivolous without a solid blueprint.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts provides the blueprint Jesus set up for the church.

Keep in mind, the blueprint for the church is universal because the church has been designed to communicate only one message - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That said, this doesn’t mean every church refracts the light into the world in the same way. As with stained glass the style of the church (the way we shine the light into the world) is largely determined on the type of people Jesus chooses to assemble together.

Every church should communicate the same message and shine the same light even if it radiates a little different from church to church. But the only way any church will be successful in reaching the lost is if we follow the blueprint.

Studying the blueprint for the church as laid out in Acts is important for 2 reasons:

1. Historically, the church has rarely modeled the blueprint Jesus originally set up.

It’s only fair to point out that the contribution and impact the Christian church has had on the world is far-reaching and expansive (government, education, science, and medicine). Not to mention, the incredible philanthropic works done in the name of Christ are to numerous to be listed (ending slavery, caring for the disenfranchised, relief work, etc.).

And yet, church history presents many dark moments: inquisitions, crusades, salem witch trials, dissenters being burned at the stake, democide, slavery, persecution of gays, restriction of contraception, abortion bombings, sexual abuse by catholic priests, etc.

Comedian George Carlin, “I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.”

If you want to know what the church was designed to be look not at the way the church has operated throughout history, but instead go back to the blueprint.

2. Today, the church finds itself ineffective when it comes to reaching our world.

The church as an institution turns a lot of people off to the message of Christ.

Hartford Institute of Religion Research: 40% of Americans "say" they go to church weekly, but data suggests that less than 20% are actually attending. “In other words, more than 80% of Americans are finding more fulfilling things to do on weekends.”

Barna found that 3 of 5 adults who don't attend church are self-described Christians.

37% of unchurched Americans cite “painful experiences with the church or people within the church” as the reason they don’t attend.

A survey of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago revealed that 41% of Americans attend worship services once a year or less, and the “nevers” have increased from 15% in the 1970 to 29% in 2013.

In an article entitled “13 Issues for Churches in 2013” researcher Thom Rainer says that between 8,000-10,000 churches will likely close this year. To make matters worse between 2010-2012 more than 1/2 of churches in America added no new members.

Peter Brookshaw wrote an article,“10 Reasons Why People Don’t Go To Church.”

The perception of Christians is one of judgmentalism and negativity.
Church is boring.
The church is exclusive.
Christians are homophobic.
People don’t like organized religion.
Churches are full of hypocrites.
The church just wants your money.
Life is better without religion.
Christians live on another planet and wear brown sweaters.
People don’t have time.

William D. Hendricks in his book “Exit Interviews” writes, “Despite glowing reports of surging church attendance, more and more Christians in America are feeling disillusioned with the church and other formal, institutional expressions of Christianity.”

Pew Research Center spotlights the main reasons Americans don't attend church: 24% cite personal priorities (including 16% who say they are too busy). 24% cite practical difficulties (including work, health, or transportation). 37% don’t believe attending church is important.

Some explain this trend as being the result of the growing tide of secularism; and yet, can we honestly say the conditions we face are worse than that of Rome?

In spite of Jewish religious resentment, Roman paganism and persecution in the span of 300 years the church grew from zero members to including the numerical majority of the Roman world. By 260 AD Christians constituted 40% of the Roman Empire.

Truth: Christianity peacefully dominated every other competing ideology.

According to Acts 17, in less than 30 years, detractors of Christianity as far away as Thessalonica (a coastal town in Greece) referred to Christians as those “who have turned the world upside down.”

Q: Is the problem with church attendance the moral decline of our culture or is it the reality the church has diverged away from the blueprint provide in Acts?

Example: Thom Rainer's research found that "82% of the unchurched are likely to attend church if invited by a trusted friend or relative," while "only 2% of church-going people invite someone to church in a given year."

A.W. Tozer had this sad indictment of today’s church, “If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95% of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference. If the Holy spirit had been withdrawn from the New Testament church, 95% of what they did would stop, and everybody would know the difference.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts is essential to the New Testament.

Imagine what it would be like if the book of Acts wasn’t in the Bible! I mean how confusing would the New Testament be if following John you opened to Romans? Without explanation the location shifts from Jerusalem to Rome. The principle player goes from the disciples to a renegade named Paul. God shifts His attention from the Jewish nation onto the Gentile Church. For centuries people traveled to the Temple to encounter God, now people as the Temple are traveling across the globe bringing God to the world.

Aside from this, the book of Acts provides us with a historical background for many of the churches which are dealt with in the Epistles. Reality: Acts is the pivot point for the entire Bible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology for our study through Acts:

Set the Scene

Describe the setting and atmosphere.
Develop character profiles of the people involved.
Discuss the political backdrop and religious climate.
Track the geographical movements of Christianity.

Unpack the Text

Consider the original language and Scriptural context.
Examine historical influences and cultural ramifications.
Address any questions and controversies.

Uncover the Meaning

What is the personal application?
What are the social implications?
What is God saying to our church?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to understand the book you need to answer two questions right from the beginning: (1). Who wrote Acts, and (2). To whom was Acts written?

(1). Who wrote Acts?

Acts 1:1, “The former account I made, O Theophilus....”

A: Though we have no autograph provided in Acts to let us know who penned the book, we do have two solid Biblical clues that seem to establish Luke as the author.

The author wrote a “former account” to Theophilus.

Luke 1:1-4, “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”

The “former account” mentioned by the author appears to be the “Gospel of Luke.” This fact provides substantive evidence that Luke (who is undoubtedly the author of the Gospel) also wrote Acts. Note: There are 40 Greek words unique only to Luke and Acts indicating the same individual wrote both accounts.

In the first century books were written on papyrus scrolls which would max out at 35 feet in length (anything longer would make the manuscript too bulky to carry). With this in mind some have suggested the “Gospel of Luke” and the “Book of Acts” might have actually been one book presented in two separate volumes.

The author was a member of Paul’s entourage.

In Acts 16 the personal pronoun “they” used up to this point in the narrative transition to “we” indicating the author joined the Apostle Paul in his travels. Acts 16:8-11, “So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace....”

Though the New Testament present little information about Luke, what we do know seems to reinforce the notion he joined Paul in Acts 16 making him our author.

1. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul.

Philemon 24, “Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow laborers.”

Early church fathers said Luke was from the Hellenistic city of Antioch (located in present day Syria). This is significant because the church in Antioch would serve as the home base for the Apostle Paul. Luke would not only travel with the Apostle Paul on at least one half of his missionary journeys, but 2 Timothy 4:11 indicates Luke remained with Paul in Rome as his personal assistant until his ultimate martyrdom.

2. Luke was an educated physician.

In Colossians 4:14, Paul describes Luke as “the beloved physician.” This means Luke was educated, intelligent, and proficient in Greek an essential characteristic for anyone who claimed authorship.

It has been pointed out that the form of Greek we find in Luke and Acts is the highest quality in style of anything else in the New Testament. Structurally, Acts reads like a novel found in the Greek tradition, whereas Mark presented a kind of crude quality to the Greek grammar. The formal Greek indicates the intended audience for Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts would have been more cultured. (More on that to come.)

3. Luke was a Gentile convert.

Based upon both accounts it’s evident Luke was a follower of Jesus. His Greek name “Loukas” or “light-giving” indicates he was a gentile. This is important because (in addition to the type of Greek presented in Acts) the style of how the subject matter is presented seems more consistent with the way a Greek would write as opposed to a Jew.

Example: In Acts, the author will use the generic word “God” 160 times and the Roman term “Lord” 110 times, but he will only use the Jewish titled “Christ” 31 times. Side Note: Since Luke and Acts account for over 25% of the entire New Testament, a Gentile wrote more Scripture in volume than anyone else.

Non-Biblical Evidence for Luke’s authorship:

The earliest manuscript of Acts (200 AD) ascribes the work to Luke.

The Muratorian Canon (the oldest list of New Testament books dating around 170 AD) says, “Moreover the Acts of the Apostles are included in one book. For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence."

Early fathers Origen, Clement, and Jerome accepted Luke’s authorship.

Eusebius believed Luke wrote Acts and from this concluded further that Luke may have also translated Hebrews (written in Hebrew by the Apostle Paul) into Greek since it was so similar to Acts in both style and vocabulary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2). To Whom was Acts written?

Acts 1:1a, “The former account I (Luke) made, O Theophilus....”

A: Four theories concerning the identity of Theophilus.

1. Theophilus was a man Luke was evangelizing.

2. Theophilus was a symbolic way of addressing all of Christianity.

“Theophilus” is a Greek compound word meaning “Friend or Lover of God.”

3. Theophilus was Luke’s slave master.

Because wealthy families owned personal doctors and Luke was a physician, some believe he was actually a slave of Theophilus. It could be that as a Christian man Theophilus sent Luke (his primary care doctor) to care for the Apostle Paul who dealt with severe medical ailments.

4. Theophilus was the Roman official overseeing Paul’s trial.

In the introduction to his Gospel, Luke used a title common when addressing people who held high office in Roman courts.... “most excellent Theophilus.” Note: Roman officials always are presented in a positive light in Luke and Acts.

It seems likely that since Acts ends with Paul awaiting trial before Caesar Nero the combination of these two books were actually meant to be an official defense brief presented on Paul’s behalf to give the Roman official background on the case. (This seems consistent with what we’ve already mentioned concerning these two books.)

There is some evidence to support this theory scripturally.

In Acts 21:17, Luke arrived in Jerusalem with Paul; however, following Paul’s arrest and his appeal to stand trial in Rome, Luke leaves Paul (Acts 27:1) for an unspecified reason before rejoining him as he’s awaiting trial under house arrest in Rome (Colossians 4:14).

It seems likely that during these two years Luke would have had plenty of time to research and write both his Gospel and Acts as Paul’s defense brief. Since Rome allowed people the freedom to worship their own gods, Christianity enjoyed legal status because it was viewed as a sect of Judaism. However, once the movement jumped from Jewish to Gentile communities only to then spread rapidly across the empire, Christianity would need to be formally evaluated and sanctioned by Rome to remain legal. Understand: Paul’s trial before Nero was more about determining the legalities of Christianity than it was about his role in its dissemination.

As a defense brief, this explains a few things about Luke’s writing:

1. It explains why the Gospel of Luke presented the story of Jesus and the formation of the Christian faith while Acts proceeds to explain how Christianity, which began in Jerusalem, spread quickly throughout the Roman world.

Note: The expansion of Christianity is rather remarkable and would be hard to explain in natural terms aside from the account provided in Acts. One scholar said, “Humanly speaking, Christianity had nothing going for it. It had no money, no proven leaders, no technological tools for propagating the gospel. It faced enormous obstacles. It was utterly new. It taught truths that were incredible to the unregenerate world. And it was subjected to the most intense hatreds and persecutions.”

This might also explain why Acts spends more than half the narrative focusing specifically on the role of the Apostle Paul instead of providing a full history of the church during the 30 years it covers.

Note: The church movement in Galilee and Samaria are only mentioned once in Acts 9:31 which is strange when you consider how these areas dominated the Gospel account of Jesus’ ministry.

As a defense brief Luke set out to demonstrate to Theophilus:

Politically, Christianity was not a threat to Roman governance.

Socially, Christianity would not foster unrest within the empire.

Legally, Christianity was the true fulfillment of Judaism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The principle implication of Luke writing the book of Acts to be presented as a defense for Christianity: Acts should be viewed as verifiable history.

Though there is no evidence that Luke was present during the ministry of Jesus, he states at the beginning of his gospel that he set out “to write an orderly account” to Theophilus using the reports of only “eyewitnesses.”

In regards to Acts, Luke continues the same methodology meticulously including only the most verifiable events as provided through eyewitness testimonies. Since Luke is writing a historical account of events for use in a court of law, it was of the upmost importance his account had to be thorough, verifiable, factual, and able to stand up against a cross examination. As a result we’ve been left with one of the most dependable histories of a specific time period ever recorded.

Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with the greatest of all historians (Thucydides). The Acts of the Apostles is not a shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record.” He continues by saying “it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed this truth."

In the early 1900s British archeologist and renown atheist Sir William Ramsay set out to disprove the historical authenticity of Christianity by directly targeting the claims made in the book of Acts. However, after uncovering some of the greatest archeological finds concerning Hellenistic and Roman culture based on Acts accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy.... he should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."