CHAPTERS
- Introduction
- A Revolution by Vatican II?
- What is Inspiration ?
- A Revolution by Pius XII?
- Using Genre to defend Inerrancy
- How to Interpret Scripture
- The l964 Instruction of the Biblical Commission
- Which are the Inspired Books?
- The Pentateuch
- Genesis
- Exodus
- Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
- Joshua, Judges and Ruth
- Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah
- Pre-exilic Prophets
- Exilic and Post-exilic Prophets
- The Psalms
- The Wisdom Literature
- Daniel
- The Two Books of Maccabees
- Judith, Esther, and Tobit
- The Gospels
- The Acts of the Apostles
- St. Paul's Epistles
- The Catholic Epistles
- Study Questions
- Selected Answers
Books/Resources by Fr. Most
- EWTN Scripture Q & A
- Basic Scripture
- Bible Commentaries
- Our Lady in Doctrine And Devotion
- Outline of Christology
- An Introduction to Christian Philosophy
- The Living God
- The Holy Spirit and The Church
- Catholic Apologetics Notes
Apologetic Resources
- Ask Father
- Biblical Catholicism
- Theology/Philosophy
- Scripture Resources
- Scott Hahns Lectures
- Apologetics Links
Other Services
- Catholic Chaplaincy
- St. Anthony Communications
|
Chapter 22 The Acts of the Apostles
It is clear that Acts has the same author as the Gospel of Luke. But when
was the work written? Current estimates are apt to run between 80 and 90
A.D. The reasons: It is clear that Acts follows on the Gospel, which so
many think, without valid reason, belongs to that decade. Second, it is
commonly thought that Luke did not know Paul.
The chief reasons are the following:
- It is said that Acts 15:1-35 clashes with Gal 2:1-10. In Galatians Paul
tells of the meeting with the Apostles, and says he compared notes with
them and they "added nothing to me." But in Acts 15:29 the letter of the
Council tells gentile converts to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to
idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity."
Now of the four items from the letter, one repeats the basic commandment
against loose sex. Paul of course speaks against loose sex too. The other
three items are taken from the old law, and are just a sop, a concession to
the feelings of Jews. But Paul in Galatians refers to basic doctrine. The 3
items in Acts 15:29 are not basic doctrine at all, they are, as we said, a
sop to the feelings of the Jews. Paul did preach the three points where
they applied, as we see from Acts 16:4. Further, the letter of the Council
was addressed only to gentiles in Syria and Cilicia - that did not include
Galatia. If the Vatican today sends a letter to the bishops of one region,
it does not affect bishops of a different region.
- It is said that Acts does not mention Paul's Epistles. True, but the
purpose of Acts was to show how the Church finally reached Rome, the center
of the world. Acts does show Paul presenting the most basic doctrines of
the Epistles, namely, justification by faith, the divinity and resurrection
of Christ, and baptism and repentance. In Acts 15:9 Peter says that God
"cleansed their hearts by faith." In 16:30 the jailer at Philippi asks Paul
what to do and Paul replies: "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be
saved". [Here as often saved, means entry into the Church]. At Miletus in
Acts 20:21 Paul says he has been "testifying to both Jews and Greeks of
repentance to God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. In Acts 13:39 at
Antioch in Pisidia Paul says, speaking in a synagogue: "Everyone who
believes in Him is made just." In Acts 17:3 Paul explains and proves, "that
it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead" and so to
atone for sins.
In Acts Paul also does preach that Jesus is the Son of God: Acts 9:20 shows
Paul preaching this right after his conversion. A Greek concordance under
the word Kyrios, Lord, shows numerous other times Paul called Him Lord, the
title Paul also uses for Jesus in his Epistles.
In both Acts and the Epistles Paul does speaks of the need of baptism: cf.
1 Cor 1:14-17; Romans 6:3-8; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12)
- It is said that only in Acts does Paul preach the need of repentance. But
Paul does preach repentance elsewhere, e.g., Romans 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9-10; 1
Cor 5:3-5. The objection is like the foolish idea that Jesus Himself did
not require repentance for forgiveness.
- In Acts 21:20-26 at the suggestion of James, Paul goes through the
Nazarite ceremony in Jerusalem. Some say this was hypocrisy. But it was
not, Paul was just following his own principle of 1 Cor 9:20-22 in which he
expresses his standing policy of being all things to all men: "To the Jews
I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law, I became
as one under the law." There was nothing wrong in the rite itself. It would
have been wrong if Paul meant thereby to earn salvation. 5)In 2 Cor 11:23-
29 Paul speaks at length of his sufferings in preaching Christ. In Acts he
is pictured going through the sufferings mentioned in 2 Corinthians:
persecutions from Jews: 14:2 17:1-10; stoning at Lystra (14:19); scourging
at Philippi: 16:22-23.
Neither in Acts nor in the Epistles does Paul think the end is close at
hand: we will see the critical passage of 1 Ths 4:15 & 17 later.
So we can believe the testimony of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3. 1. 1)
that "Luke the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by
him [Paul]," and of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke which says: "Luke
of Antioch in Syria, a physician, having become a disciple of the Apostles,
and later followed Paul until his martyrdom... after the Gospels had been
written - by Matthew in Judea, by Mark in Italy - moved by the Holy Spirit,
wrote this Gospel in Achaia... with great care, for gentile believers.
Sometimes appeal is made to the "we" passages to show that at those points,
chiefly in the 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys and on the trip to Rome,
Luke traveled with Paul. This is likely, but not conclusive, for there is a
problem of literary genre. Some travel accounts of the times used a similar
alternation of first and third person forms.
About the speeches recorded in Acts, since Luke was an educated Greek, we
would expect him to follow the policy of the classic Greek historians. We
know what that was, thanks to Thucydides, who tells us (1. 22) that he
would try to get the actual text if possible, but would not try to keep the
same words. If he could get only the content, he would put it in his own
words. If he could get none of these, he would write a speech suitable for
the occasion. Luke did travel much with Paul, and so could have gotten at
least the content of the speeches easily. Further, Paul, like other
traveling speakers, would use much repetition, with some variation in
wording. He had a typical approach to the Jews, and another for gentiles.
Peter's speech on Pentecost was of such great moment that we would expect
it would be easy to get the content of it. The speech of Stephen would also
be likely to be remembered. On the other hand, the speech of Gamaliel in
the Sanhedrin (5:34-39) might have been harder to get, and this fact could
account for some of the historical problems about the false Messiahs.
In all, many have noted that Luke's introductions to both his Gospel and to
Acts show the intent to write careful history, in the pattern of the pagan
Greek historians.
Why does Acts break off with Paul in house arrest in Rome? Probably, as we
said, the intention was to show how the Gospel reached the center of the
world, Rome. When that was done, no more was needed. It is also possible
Luke intended to write still another volume, and somehow never did so.
|