Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The New Testament begins in a manner that introduces the importance of Jesus as the messiah. This is significant because this is the first deviation in Christian belief that differentiates the faith from older religions such as Judaism (Johnson 2010). Although both religions share the Old Testament and refer to it as the word of God, the Jewish people failed to recognize Jesus Christ as the Lord’s son, initiating this major divide. As a consequence, this biblical except is of utmost importance because it explains the validity of Jesus Christ’s holiness and that it is inaccurate to deny Him (Gamble 1995).

Many textbooks aim to connect Luke’s second Gospel to his first because it continues the important story of Jesus’ life after he was sent from the heavens in human form to guide us (Tyson 2006). Since Luke is the author of both Gospels, he draws connections between the two texts in order to emphasize His glory. Ultimately, it appeals that Luke is telling a single story, so it is helpful to analyze this except in both the context of the order of the New Testament and from reading Luke’s Gospels in order, which could help us gain a greater understanding of the context of Luke’s words. It is essential to emphasize therefore, that there are many connections between Luke‘s Gospels and several of the Acts. It is therefore to conduct an exegetical analysis to determine whether a deeper meaning of the connections between these texts can be revealed.

The Identity of the Author and of Theophilius

Luke’s account in the New Testament is of primary importance because he alone provides information that helps the followers of Christ come to an understanding of the events that led up to the ascension (Esler 1989). In this biblical except, Luke addresses his words to Theophilius, to which the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Luke are addressed. This is one of the major connections between these two texts, and the similarities continue to be revealed as analysis continues to take place. Many biblical scholars believe that these two accounts were written by the same author and that the two pieces were originally meant to be unified into a single work. Interestingly, both of these texts were written in a form of Greek known as Koine Greek, which strengthens the evidence for this belief. In fact, the name Theophilius itself means “friend of God” in this particular dialect. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the author is referring to a specific person, hiding their name due to the political turmoil that had been occurring during the time in which it was written, or whether these excerpts were addressed to God loving followers of Jesus as a whole, in an effort to educate them about His glorious life.

An additional explanation of the name Theophilius is that this was an honorary title utilized by many Jewish and Roman individuals that was meant to demonstrate their academic worth. Since this term was common during the time period in which both Luke and the author of the Acts was alive, it could have referred to any number of people. Therefore, Theophilius could have been an individual who was important to Luke or the author of the Acts, or simply be a well-known learned individual who they believed would be able to spread the good faith. However, it is important to emphasize that many different individuals have theories as to who Theophilius was, and this varies according to cultural and religious beliefs.

The Coptic Church, for example, claims that Theophilius was a person rather than an individual with a formal title. They identify him as a Jewish individual living within the walls of Alexandria. However, there is not much evidence available that could either confirm or deny this claim. Others, including biblical scholars, believe that Theophilius was a Roman official, because the author of Luke and the Acts refer to him as “most excellent” (Luke 1:3). Typically, this is used when referring to political individuals with power. Individuals who believe that Luke’s Gospel was targeted to Jewish readers in order to introduce them to the glory of Jesus believe that Theophilius was the Jewish priest, Theophilius ben Ananus. This is supported by the fact that many biblical excerpts refer to the life of Jesus as a Jew. It appears that the author hoped that drawing the connections between His life and theirs would make them accept Him as their Lord and savior. Yet another theory suggests that Theophilius was Paul’s lawyer during the period of time in which he was on trial in Rome (Maier 1981).

Analysis by Phrase

The author of the act begins by stating “In the first account, O Theophilius, I treated all that Jesus began to do and also to teach”. This demonstrates that Luke is purposely linking this writing to his Gospel. Although many biblical scholars believe that the Gospels and the Acts were made to be one piece read at once, it appears that Luke’s need to refer back to the first Gospel indicates that it was written in pieces and that he wanted to remind the recipient of his work of the information that had preceded it. Furthermore, the way that the author phrases this information indicates that Theophilius, the recipient, is someone who believes in and would care about the word of the Lord, which would include a belief in Jesus as well. This supports the idea that the individual receiving these words were someone who supported the faith and wished to remain in close contact with the followers of Christ but needed to remain anonymous for political reasons.

Furthermore, it appears that the author had been closely considering the teachings of Jesus for some time, acting as an early historical scholar. He therefore felt compelled to compile his learnings and share them with Theophilius, perhaps so that he could continue to spread this knowledge to others. He connects these teachings with evidence of His godliness, stating that “To them he had also presented himself living after suffering many proofs, appearing to them through forty days and speaking things concerning God’s kingdom”. The author of this except demonstrates that his belief in Jesus stems from his ability to perform miracles. Jesus had suffered beatings and misfortunes that a normal man would not be able to bear, and this pain would simply kill a normal individual so that his suffering could end. However, Jesus refused to succumb to this earthly torture and survived for the good of others, so that they may be able to see the miracles of God and become believers. Ultimately, Jesus allowed himself to endure pain so that others would be able to end their own suffering.

Since Jesus’ main role on Earth was to bring the word of God to ungodly people and to delight them with miracles and salvation, he continued “speaking things concerning God’s kingdom” until his earthly death. He knew that if he did so, even after his earthly body was gone, he message would continue to permeate the sinners and bring good will to his people. Jesus refused to die immediately, because he knew that he would need to inspire his followers to continue spreading his message after His death. Demonstrating the importance of this message through his will to survive despite the immense pain that His earthly body was experiencing, he was able to accomplish this.

The last phrase of the excerpt summarizes Jesus’ desire for all of his followers to become baptized. It states “You heard from me, for John, on the one hand, baptized with water, but for many days, on the other, you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit”. Therefore, before Jesus’ death, he primarily concerned himself with providing his followers with the instructions necessary to be saved. According to 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” Ultimately, the Lord wants to demonstrate that we all have the ability to become saved provided that we follow the path of righteousness. Receiving baptism represents the first step towards this process, and Jesus is reminding his followers of the importance of this first step on the path. While there is certainly more sacraments that must be achieved in order to live a godly life, it is essential to ensure that all take this first step and are provided with the guidance that they need to achieve the others.

Connection between the Acts and the Gospel

According to Darrel L. Bock in “Acts”, “five elements connect Acts as the Gospel” (Bock 2007). As mentioned previously, the first phrase of this excerpt refers directly to a previous account written by the author. Second, the name Theophilius is a recurring mention in both the Acts and the Gospel. This referring theme means that both passages are either addressed to the same or a similar individual. However, while the author claim’s that the author intended the Gospel and the Acts to be a continuing story, evidence for this is not completely clear. While they are certainly related, there is no evidence proving that the author had ever intended to continue. Rather, the stories can be addressed to different individuals with the title Theophilius. While there are many possibilities concerning this mystery, there are also many unknowns, which prevents knowledge of this situation from being completely conclusive until more historical data can be uncovered.

Of utmost important, the author of “Acts” believes that the link between the Acts and the Gospel is confirmed in Acts 1:4-5, “which makes the connection to John the Baptist, the figure with whom Luke’s Gospel begins”. This demonstrates that the two passages are certainly connected, but is difficult to determine why this is the case. It is possible that the author was trying to continue to spread the knowledge of the faith, but was unsure how to do this in a manner that would reach the greatest amount of followers. Therefore, he paused for a time before recognizing additional observations of his that would be useful in spreading the word of the Lord. The author also claims that a fifth connection between the two passages were noted in Acts 1:2 because it is a direct reference to the instruction provided in Luke 24:47, 49, which informed followers that they should await the Spirit and bear witness.

Ultimately, this evidence shows that the two passages are connected in theme, and that they either may share the same author or have two unique authors that share similar ideas. While one of these authors are almost certainly Luke the Evangelist, many biblical scholars believe that the individual who wrote the Gospel is not the same as the individual who wrote the acts. Nonetheless, it is clear that the individual who wrote the Acts contained much of the same knowledge that Luke did, in addition to a certain familiarity with Theophilius (Talbert 2002). An unpopular belief, but one that I hold to be plausible is that that the writer of the Acts was the Theophilius that was referred to in the Gospel. When Theophilius is referred to in the Acts, the author could be referring to yet another individual.

Ultimately, it is difficult to be certain about the authorship of this passage in addition to the true identity of Theophilius. Many existing theories are plausible given the amount of evidence that are available for each. In order to continue our understanding of the Acts, it would therefore be necessary to integrate biblical knowledge with historical research in an attempt to uncover deeper textual meanings. It is beneficial to examine small phrases in each of these passages because by breaking them down and comparing them to our current knowledge understanding of the Bible, we are able to extrapolate new theories and ideas that will enhance our understanding of the Lord’s work.

Bibliography

Bock, D.L. Acts. Baker Academic, 2007.

Esler, P.F. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan   Theology. Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Gamble, H.Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. Yale University Press, 1995.

Johnson L.T. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. Yale University Press, 2010.

Maier, Paul L. The Flames of Rome. Grand Rapids: MI, Kregel Publications, 1981.

Talbert, C.H. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Smyth &Helwys, 2002.

Tyson, J.B.Marcion and Luke-Acts: A defining struggle. University of South Carolina Press, 2006.