The Purpose Of Acts And The Mission Of God

By Stephen J. Strauss

[Stephen J. Strauss is Chairman and Professor of World Missions and Intercultural Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

The Book of Acts has long been a popular source for missionary sermons and missiological reflection. However, seldom do those who use Acts as a basis for the theory and practice of mission root their findings in the overarching purpose and message of Acts.[1] As a result, much of their work can seem to be expedient proof-texting. Theologians and missiologists who seek to build theory and practice on sound biblical theology should ensure that the missiological use of Acts is grounded in the purpose, message, and theology of the book.

Some scholars have contended that mission is not a central part of Luke’s purpose in Acts. Franklin, for example, flatly states that Luke’s “aim was not to encourage the Church in her missionary role.”[2] Instead, he says Luke wrote Acts to strengthen the faith of doubting believers in the light of the delay of the parousia and mainstream Jewish rejection of Jesus. “Against this background, Luke’s purpose was not to encourage a missionary outlook, for Christians were living in the last hour and the universal witness had already taken place. . . . The Church was in Rome; Paul had witnessed there; Jesus’ sway was therefore being universally proclaimed.”[3] To what extent was mission part of Luke’s purpose, and how should Acts be used to do mission? How does the purpose of Acts support the larger biblical theme of the mission of God?

Background: The Message Of Luke’s Gospel

Acts was written by the same author as the third Gospel, and it is also the second volume of a two-part work.[4] Luke-Acts “is the product of one author telling one story in two volumes.”[5] An accurate statement of the purpose of Acts should therefore seamlessly connect with the purpose of Luke’s Gospel. Furthermore, while Luke’s purpose was “to explain in a reliable way the story of Jesus and of his movement”[6] (Luke 1:1-4), he also intended to do more than write another history of Jesus. Seeking to do more than inform, Luke was using history to teach theology and to inspire confidence, conviction, and commitment.[7]

As a master storyteller, Luke carefully chose and arranged his stories to fit his larger message. What are the specific theological concerns of his Gospel? First, Luke demonstrated that Jesus is the promised Old Testament Davidic Messiah.[8] Second, as the Davidic Messiah, Jesus focused on the salvation promises of the Old Testament.[9] Third, Luke stressed his own brand of “universalism”—not salvation for all humankind, but salvation for all kinds of humans. Jesus did not come to offer salvation only to those whom the Jewish establishment considered worthy of it, but to offer it to those who might have been considered less favored by God, including Gentiles, Samaritans, women and children, social outcasts, and the poor.[10]

One further observation from Luke’s Gospel is his use of geography to advance his story and shape his theology. Luke depicted Jesus’ initial ministry in Luke 4:14-9:50 as centered in Galilee, where He was revealed as Israel’s promised Messiah-Savior. In a “travel narrative” in Luke 9:51-19:27 Luke portrayed Jesus moving toward Jerusalem (9:31, 51, 53; 13:33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28), and cultivating disciples who follow Him (9:23-26; 10:57-62; 12:1, 41-48; 13:23-28; 14:27-33; 16:1; 17:1, 22). Luke climaxed his Gospel with Jesus fulfilling His mission in Jerusalem (19:28-24:53; especially 24:47, 52).[11] Luke continued to use geographic markers as key signposts to his theme and plot in Acts.

Key Themes In Acts

Luke’s highly selective use of history to teach theology is as prominent in Acts as in his Gospel. Luke tantalizes his readers with narrative tidbits about which the reader would love to hear more and about which Luke undoubtedly possessed more information. But the tidbits are frequently not followed by a full-course meal. Instead Luke selectively developed only certain narratives to convey his theology. What are these themes that Luke stressed?

Geographic And Ethnic Expansion Of The Gospel

Even the casual reader cannot miss Luke’s emphasis on the expansion of the gospel geographically and ethnically. Acts 1:8 stands out as an initial outline of the book, and Luke continued to use geography to move his plot forward. Almost immediately one recognizes that Jerusalem, the destination of Jesus’ journey in Luke’s Gospel, has transitioned to a different role in the larger context of Luke’s two volumes. “The dramatic goal of volume one” has become “the starting-point of volume two” as the apostolic witnesses now radiate outward from Jerusalem.[12] Jerusalem is the “sacred center of the world,”[13] and has now become the pivotal center of the outworking of God’s salvific plan. Luke continued to pepper his narrative with geographic markers so that the reader cannot miss the fulfillment of the Acts 1:8 promise. The gospel went to Judea and Samaria in 8:1, and 8:1-11:18 continues to focus on events in these two provinces. The story of the gospel’s advance to Antioch, though almost certainly happening earlier chronologically, is not introduced until 11:19 to launch the gospel’s penetration to the “ends of the earth.” It also becomes clear that the Acts 1:8 “stages of witness are to be interpreted ethnically and theologically, as well as geographically.”[14] The gospel began among ethnic Jews in Jerusalem, extended to Samaritans and occasional God-fearing Gentiles in Judea and Samaria, and finally reached masses of Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire, with Antioch the key launching pad and model congregation for the Gentile mission. In the last quarter of Acts, Rome became another key geographic marker as the destination for Paul’s final recorded journey (19:1; 23:11; 28:14, 16) and as symbolic of the gospel extending to “the ends of the earth.”

As in Luke’s Gospel, geography in Acts “becomes a vehicle for conveying theological (or missiological) meaning. Luke employs it so as to disclose the relationship between the mission of Jesus and the mission of the church.”[15] In Luke Jesus journeyed to Jerusalem to complete His work of providing salvation. His followers took His message of salvation from Jerusalem, expanding ethnically and geographically to eventually reach nations in the farthest corners of the earth.

The Continuing Work Of Jesus The Lord

This dramatic expansion of the gospel is clearly the continuation of the work of Jesus Himself. In Acts Luke began by telling his readers that his gospel was “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (1:1); the clear implication is that volume two will be what Jesus continued to do and teach. Jesus is present in Acts in several ways.

First, the necessity of the Holy Spirit for the expansion of the gospel is a central theme in the opening verses of Acts (1:2, 5, 8), and the Spirit is the primary force that presses the gospel forward throughout the book (2:1-41; 4:8, 31; 5:9; 8:17, 29, 39; 9:17; 10:19, 44, 47; 11:12, 15: 13:2; 15:8; 20:22, 23; 21:4, 11). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus (16:7); the Spirit’s presence is continuing the work of Jesus.

Second, Luke also demonstrated Jesus’ continued presence by emphasizing the power and worthiness of His name, which brings forgiveness and healing (2:38; 3:8, 16; 4:7, 10, 12; 5:40-41; 8:12-16; 10:43, 48; 19:5, 13, 17; 21:13). Third, Jesus Himself was personally present, speaking directly to Paul (9:4; 18:9-10), as healer of Aeneas (9:34), and, most dramatically, visibly at the death of Stephen (7:55). Luke repeated the story of Jesus’ appearance to Paul three times to underscore the significance that Jesus had called Paul to Himself and to a ministry among the nations. The centrality of the Spirit, Jesus’ name, and Jesus’ presence throughout Acts reveals that what took place was an extension of Jesus’ own ministry.

Luke emphasized that Jesus, who was continuing the work recorded in his Gospel, is not just a man of history; He is Lord of all (10:36). Throughout Acts Luke repeatedly called Him “Lord” (1:21; 2:21, 34; 4:33; 8:16; 11:16-17; 15:11; 16:31: 19:5, 13, 17; 20:21, 24, 35; 21:13; 22:19). This emphasis on Jesus’ lordship is seen in several ways. First, Peter climaxed his initial sermon (2:36) by proclaiming that the coming of the Holy Spirit and Jesus’ resurrection demonstrated that Jesus is Lord and Christ. Second, Peter began his sermon in Cornelius’s home by announcing that the Jesus of history is “Lord of all” (10:36). Third, Paul learned on the Damascus Road that the “Lord” who had appeared to him was actually Jesus (9:5; 22:8; 26:15). Fourth, Luke focused on Jesus’ lordship by closing his book with the reminder that Jesus is Lord (28:31). Fifth, Luke also presented Jesus as divine healer (e.g., 9:34) and the exalted, heavenly Lord (7:56; 9:5). “By Acts 10, there is little doubt that Jesus as the Messiah-Servant is actually more than a regal messianic figure. He is Lord of all as he uniquely exercises many divine prerogatives with God, functioning as mediator of His Salvation in His presence at His right hand. Lord is the supreme Christological concept for Luke.”[16] The expansion of the gospel in Acts is the ongoing work of Jesus the Lord.

The Gentile Mission As The Fulfillment Of The Plan Of God

Luke did more than root the spread of the gospel in the present work of Jesus the Lord. At the center of his theology is the truth that mission to the Gentiles is the outworking of God’s ancient plan. “Even the casual reading of Luke-Acts must notice the extent to which the author employs fulfillment terminology throughout this narrative and focuses on how the divine plan of salvation is being realized.”[17] Acts 1:8 is not merely an outline of Acts; more specifically it “is a prediction of the way the divine plan will be fulfilled through the witness of the apostles.”[18] The expansion of the gospel geographically and ethnically did not come because of human initiative. God Himself both ordained the spread of the gospel to Gentiles and repeatedly intervened to initiate fresh expansion beyond geographic and ethnic boundaries as a fulfillment of what He had promised.

Luke used δεῖ (“it is necessary”) in his Gospel to show that Jesus’ mission was truly ordained of God. Then in Acts he used δεῖ to indicate that the apostolic mission was “under the impulse of divine necessity” (1:16; 3:21; 4:12; 19:21; 23:11; 27:24).[19] Bock sees the accomplishment of the divine plan in Acts as even stronger than fulfillment; God was at work in the same way He worked in the past. “Certain things ‘must’ take place. . . . God’s activity is reactivated in ways that mirror and enhance His acts of old. Such mirroring allows the events to be seen as part of God’s plan and shows He is active in the events, which recall the great days of old and which show God designing the movement of history along parallel lines.”[20]

Luke demonstrates that the Gentile mission is “reactivated” in two ways.

First, the Gentile mission was predicted in the Old Testament. One of Luke’s central themes in Acts is that the Old Testament predicted the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles. “Luke shows that the new centrifugal phenomenon of mission to the nations, to the ends of the earth, was not some unheard of innovation but simply (in the words of Jesus) ‘what is written’ (Lk 24:46-47) and (in the words of Paul) ‘nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen’ (Acts 26:22).”[21]

Luke demonstrated the Old Testament roots of the Gentile mission most directly in four addresses given by three of his most significant characters. (a) In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter quoted Joel 2:29 and 32 that “the Spirit will be poured out on all people” and “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21). Though Peter almost certainly did not have the Gentiles in mind when he first proclaimed those words, and while his listeners did not understand them in that way, Luke probably expected his readers to see the future Gentile mission embedded in those prophecies.[22]

(b) To the crowd that gathered after the healing of the lame man, Peter quoted Genesis 12:3: through Abraham’s offspring “all the peoples on the earth will be blessed” (Acts 3:25). As at the Day of Pentecost, neither Peter nor his initial listeners would have grasped the full significance of those words, but Luke certainly intended his readers to see that “Gentiles are included in the promises of God that were made to the fathers and that have been fulfilled in Jesus.”[23]

(c) At the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:47) Paul cited Isaiah 49:6 “to demonstrate the legitimacy and necessity of an intentional Gentile mission. Paul appealed to this prophetic text to justify his claim that Christ’s messengers have been commissioned by the Lord to preach to Gentiles.”[24] Paul was quoting a text that refers to the Servant in Isaiah, and he was applying it to himself and the apostles. Since Jesus had come to fulfill the commission of the Isaianic Servant, Paul clearly understood that the apostles had taken up the role of Jesus in bringing salvation to the Gentiles. From Isaiah Paul saw that the Gentile mission was planned by God in ages past and that the church was obligated to fulfill it.[25]

(d) At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) James reflected on the meaning of Amos 9:12 in light of God’s supernatural intervention in the Cornelius incident and during Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey. James knew this passage so well he apparently recited it by memory, but recent events had given him fresh insight on its meaning: God always intended that the Gentiles as Gentiles would seek the Lord through David’s restored tent. “From Amos 9 it is established that Gentiles are included in the eschatological people of God as Gentiles without having to become Jews.”[26] Luke used James’s insight to underscore that God had long planned that the gospel be extended to Gentiles as Gentiles.[27] 

From Luke’s perspective, Peter, Paul, and James’s use of Scripture confirmed that God had planned the Gentile mission, and that it “was part of the Old Testament expectation” (cf. Luke 24:47).[28]

From the “restored Israel” of the early chapters of Acts through the first successful mission forays in the Gentile world, all these momentous developments within Israel have the blessing and sanction of sacred Scripture. For in Scripture God long ago declared that it would happen in just this way. Scripture in Acts then gives legitimacy to the Gentile mission and therefore to the Gentile churches that are its fruit.[29]

Second, the Gentile mission was advanced through divine intervention. Luke repeatedly noted that the initiative for the Gentile mission came from God Himself. The most prominent stories that drive this point home are of Cornelius (mentioned twice) and of Paul’s conversion and call (stated three times). Throughout the Cornelius story Luke emphasized that “it was God himself who introduced Gentiles into the church and miraculously showed his approval (cf. 10:3, 11-16, 19-20, 22, 30-33, 44-46; 11:5-10, 13, 15-18).”[30] In each of the accounts of Paul’s conversion Luke was careful to mention that Paul’s coming to Christ included a specific divine commission for him to go to the non-Jewish nations with the gospel (9:15; 22:15, 21; 26:16-17). Other instances in which God Himself (including the mention of the Holy Spirit)[31] intervened through a direct epiphany (voice or vision) or an angelic visitation to move the Gentile mission forward include God’s directions to Philip (8:26; 29), the call to the Antioch church to send Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (13:1-2), Paul’s vision of the Macedonian man (16:9-10), and God’s reassurances to Paul (18:9-10; 23:11; 27:23-24). God also intervened miraculously through an earthquake (16:26) and two angelic liberations (5:19; 12:7) to rescue apostles from prison.

The Gentile mission was God’s plan. Scripture foresaw it, Jesus intended it, the Spirit prompted it, and God repeatedly intervened to propel it forward and protect it. Acts continued the theme of fulfillment found in Luke’s Gospel: “All this development takes place, not by human plan or design, but in spite of it. Jesus’ followers are led most unwillingly, a step at a time, to make the transition from a small Jewish sect to a predominantly Gentile church.”[32]

The Gentile Mission Was Carried Out By Faithful Israel

God’s endorsement of the Gentile mission as His work emerges through yet another of Luke’s central themes. Throughout Acts Luke notes that the Jewish Jesus movement and the Gentile mission it initiated were not the work of renegade Jews who had abandoned the faith of their fathers. Rather those who followed Jesus were faithful Jews who had embraced Israel’s Old Testament messianic hope, and God was using the faithful among His people to fulfill His plan. Luke demonstrated that the Jewish believers were pious, law-abiding Jews (2:46; 3:1; 5:12; 10:9-16; 11:2; 15:1-5; 16:3; 21:20; 24:14-18; 26:22-23).[33] The central figure of the Jerusalem Council, where the issue of the Gentile mission reached a climactic decision, was James, whose Jewish credentials were beyond dispute with Luke’s readers. This demonstrates that the Gentile mission was a legitimate part of the true Jewish understanding of the Old Testament.

To underline the authentic Jewishness of the Jesus movement, Luke noted that thousands of Jews recognized the good news as the fulfillment of their ancient hope (2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; 9:42; 12:24; 13:43; 14:1; 17:10-12; 19:20; 21:20). Rather than being utterly rejected by Israel, “the missionary proclamation has divided Israel into two groups: the repentant and the unrepentant.”[34] “It is those Jews who are faithful to the law, the real Jews, the most Jewish Jews, that become believers.”[35] Furthermore, “it is the combination of acceptance and rejection by Jews, or more precisely, it is the division within Judaism, between the repentant and the unrepentant, which opens the way for the Gentile mission. . . . Israel has not rejected the gospel, but has become divided over the issue.”[36] So rather than speaking of the rejection of Israel as being the cause of the Gentile mission, “it is best to speak of the cause of the Gentile mission in Luke-Acts as the plan of God revealed in the Old Testament (to a large extent, Isaiah), with an occasion for the Gentile mission at specific locations being provided by Jewish rejection of the gospel.”[37]

The Gentile mission does not mean salvation blessings have been transferred from Israel and given exclusively to the Gentiles. Luke wrote of “how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed” (Acts 21:20). Faithful Israel has believed, and so Luke wrote to show “how the gospel went forth from a restored Israel. . . . A faithful remnant within Israel is gathered into the messianic community of faith, while those who reject the message are cut off from the people of God.”[38] Luke’s emphasis on the Gentile mission does not mean he was “Gentile-centric.” Rather, he was end-of-the-earth, faithful-Israel-included, mission-centric.

The last thought Luke left with his readers is that a righteous remnant of Jews in Rome were faithful to the gospel message, and that even rejection by the majority of the Jews was anticipated in the Old Testament (28:24, 26-28). “Scripture discloses a history of God’s people in which many of them have resisted and disobeyed divine visitation. Far from disqualifying the Christian claim that Israel’s hopes come to full flower in Jesus of Nazareth and the mission inaugurated by him, this present rejection of the gospel by many Jews simply continues an age-old pattern in Israel.”[39]

This is why Luke placed so much focus on Paul in the second half of Acts. Paul played the prominent role in opening the gospel to masses of Gentiles. So it was crucial that Luke demonstrate that Paul was a righteous Jew thrust forward on mission by God and was not some rebel seeking to overthrow Judaism. Paul was a Pharisee who studied under Gamaliel and was faithful to the Law (22:3; 23:1, 3, 5-6; 24:14; 26:4-5). He circumcised Timothy (16:3), submitted to a Nazarite oath and purification (18:18; 21:23, 6), advocated Jewish customs (16:21), built his message on Israel’s history (13:16-41), brought gifts to Israel (24:17-21), prayed in the temple (22:17), and apologized for offending the high priest (23:5). Paul repeatedly presented himself as faithful to Israel’s Old Testament hope, especially as expressed in the resurrection (23:6; 24:15, 21; 26:6-8, 22-23; 28:2). In fact his speeches demonstrate that precisely because he was a good Jew he was seeking to fulfill the Old Testament vision of reaching the nations.[40] God further certified Paul as His man by repeatedly intervening on his behalf, speaking to him and directing him into the Gentile mission, and rescuing him from peril (9:25, 29-30; 14:20; 16:25-34; 18:12-17; 19:30-41; 21:30-32; 23:12-35; 27:23-44). By demonstrating that Paul was a righteous Jew validated by God, Luke proved that the Gentile mission spearheaded by Paul was itself approved by God. Paul’s central role in Acts was not because Paul himself was important; it was because his work and its fruit were important.[41] But more than the Pauline mission itself, Luke also demonstrated that the churches that resulted from this mission to the Gentiles were at the center of God’s program for this era.

The Prominence Of The Holy Spirit

One often hears Luke’s second volume called “The Acts of the Holy Spirit” because of the prominence of the Spirit throughout the book. Luke talked more about the Spirit in his Gospel than the other Synoptics did, and he foreshadowed the centrality of the Spirit at the end of his Gospel as he bridged his key themes into Acts (Luke 24:49). The presence of the Spirit in Acts is foremost the evidence that salvation through the Messiah had dawned in Jesus (Acts 2:16-21, 33; 5:32). The absence of the Spirit among a group in Acts was evidence that they had not yet entered the fullness of salvation in the Jewish Messiah (8:14-16; 19:2-6). Correspondingly the extension of the gift of the Spirit to previously marginalized or excluded groups is an equally clear sign that they had been fully accepted by God (8:14-17; 10:44-47; 11:15-18). The Spirit’s central role, then, is to further confirm, not only that Jesus is the promised Messiah in whom is found salvation (Acts 2:14-36), but also that God Himself has ordained the mission to extend this salvation beyond the boundaries of Judaism. That the Spirit’s power and direction are necessary for bold proclamation (1:4-5, 8; 2:4-36; 4:8, 31) and for fresh outreach to groups previously marginalized or excluded (8:17, 29; 10:19; 11:12; 15:8) shows that God—not any human agent—is behind each of these audacious efforts.[42]

The Message And Purpose Of Acts

How do these themes come together in Acts into a unified purpose and message? Some have seen these themes coalescing to present a legal defense of the Christian faith to Roman officials. Stott, for example, stresses that Luke wrote a “political apologetic. He produced evidence to show that Christianity was harmless (because some Roman officials had embraced it themselves), innocent (because Roman judges could find no basis for prosecution) and lawful (because it was the true fulfillment of Judaism).”[43]

This argument captures much of the force of Luke’s apologetic, particularly his justification of Paul (who was on trial before the Romans) as “the ideal Jew” and recognition that his ministry was the “full flowering of Judaism.”[44] Nevertheless it seems unlikely that Luke’s purpose was primarily to make a legal case for Christianity as a movement. As noted, Luke-Acts is a two-volume work, and the whole of Luke-Acts contains much material that would have been tedious and irrelevant to a Roman jurist considering Christianity’s legal status.[45] Furthermore, though Luke did generally depict the Romans in a favorable light and as positive toward Christianity, he also unabashedly recounted Felix’s and Festus’s pro-Jewish stand, Felix’s corruption, and Pilate as Jesus’ murderer, material that would not have been favorable with Roman government officials.

While Luke’s purpose may not have been strictly legal, one of his central concerns was the legitimacy of the Gentile mission. “Luke the historian is wrestling, from the first page to the last, with the problem of the mission to the Gentiles without the law.”[46] How can assemblies whose members were not primarily ethnic Jews, and who were generally not following the Mosaic law, and whose message was rejected by the large majority of Jews, claim to be enjoying salvation promises given to ethnic Israel in the Old Testament? How can they claim the same theological roots and salvation history? Does this mean that the Gentile-dominated congregations were illegitimate, or that God’s ancient promises to Israel had failed?[47]

Luke answered these questions by showing that the Gentile mission was the true extension of Israel’s Old Testament messianic hope. It was “in no way an illegitimate offshoot of renegade Christians but deeply rooted in God’s ancient covenant.”[48] The Gentile mission was authorized by Jesus (whom Luke had demonstrated to be Israel’s promised Messiah-Savior in his Gospel), predicted in the Old Testament, propelled forward by the direct intervention of God Himself, carried out by faithful Israelites (most prominently by Paul), and is characterized by the presence of God’s promised Holy Spirit. The message of Acts might be summarized as follows: the Old Testament promises of universal salvation that have come through Messiah-Jesus (seen in Luke’s Gospel) are being realized within the churches planted in the Gentile (mostly Pauline) mission. The Gentile mission is the true extension of Israel’s messianic hope and is at the center of God’s plan for this era.

Was this message addressed to believers, to strengthen their faith and clarify their identity? Or was it addressed to unbelievers, to convince them of the legitimacy of following Christ? That is, was Luke’s purpose primarily evangelistic or apologetic? It seems overly restrictive to insist that Luke intended only one of these responses. Luke was clearly writing to those with some familiarity with the Old Testament, and the prologue of his Gospel indicates that his readers had some exposure to the story of Jesus. Therefore Luke-Acts cannot have been intended as an initial evangelistic tract. But its argument would certainly have made an impact on the many God-fearers who frequented the synagogues and who were familiar with the Old Testament and its promises, especially those who had been impacted by the story of Jesus. This message may have also made an impression on Jews who were not yet Jesus’ followers, and whose specific objection to the new movement was its inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles. To say that Acts had no evangelistic purpose seems incorrect.

At the same time to say that Acts was written primarily for evangelism seems to overstate the evidence. The book provides powerful apologetic assurance to those already following Jesus, rooting their faith in Israel’s ancient past and God’s recent intervention. One can imagine Theophilus as a former God-fearing frequenter of the synagogue, now a follower of Jesus, but facing accusations about his new faith, and needing reassurance about the legitimacy of the new movement. How could this movement be of God when (a) its Messiah was crucified, (b) it represented only a fraction of ethnic Israel, (c) it was opposed by Israel’s leaders, (d) it included (and was increasingly dominated by) uncircumcised Gentiles, (e) it incited trouble, and (f) its leaders were punished? How could this movement claim to be connected with the salvation history of the Old Testament? To these questions Luke responded, “God’s activity and the testimony of the Old Testament show that Gentiles were always to be included.”[49] In fact not only is the Gentile mission not an aberration; it is an “authentic goal towards which God’s ancient dealings with Israel were driving. . . . With such a message of reassurance, Luke summons his fellow-Christians to worship God with whole-hearted joy, to follow Jesus with unwavering loyalty, and to carry on with zeal, through the power of the Spirit, the charge to be his witnesses to the end of the earth.”[50]

The fact remains that one cannot be sure if Theophilus was a God-fearer who was contemplating faith in Christ or a follower of Christ who faced questions about his faith’s relationship to the Old Testament promises to Israel. The message and theology of Luke’s two volumes would have spoken equally well to those who had made a commitment to Christ, but whose commitment needed bolstering, and to informed sympathizers on the “fringe” who were considering making a full commitment to Jesus. Perhaps it is best to say that Luke was writing to insiders, and that the purpose of Acts encompasses both possible audiences.[51]

The purpose of Acts, then, is to convince both informed seekers and believers that the Gentile mission is the true extension of Israel’s messianic hope. Luke sought to cultivate both acceptance (among informed seekers) and assurance (among questioning believers) that the Gentile mission and churches composed largely of Gentiles were at the center of God’s plan for this era.

The Contribution Of Acts To The Theology And Practice Of Mission

If this is the purpose of Acts, what contribution does the book make toward the theology and practice of mission?

A Motive For Mission: The Centrality Of The Gentile Mission In The Plan Of God

Christopher Wright has maintained that the message of the entire Bible is centered around the mission of God. Luke affirms this in Acts. The focal point toward which salvation history has been aiming is the church’s mission to carry the gospel to the nations throughout the earth. The spread of the good news to the Gentiles is the culmination of the work of Jesus (chronicled in Luke’s Gospel) and the central purpose of the people of God for this era of history. Because God’s promises to bring salvation through the Messiah are now climaxing in mission to the nations, God’s people, to be at the center of God’s plan and purposes, must engage themselves wholeheartedly in that mission. Luke sought to impress his readers with their role in God’s story and to encourage them to be engaged in that role. By locating the mission to the Gentiles at the zenith of the current era of salvation history Luke spoke of the significance of this mission to individuals and congregations who were spreading the gospel among the nations. “A person on mission is ‘making history.’ “[52]

Specifically the primary direction of God’s people-on-mission must now be centrifugal: carrying the good news of Jesus’ salvation to the nations.[53] The Old Testament pattern of mission had been primarily centripetal, attracting the nations to “come and see” the goodness of the God of Israel as He blessed His people in the land. Perhaps Luke’s most significant theological insight is that this pattern has been reversed. The direction in Acts is away from Jerusalem, and God’s people play their part in God’s mission by going to the nations. The message of Luke-Acts motivates them to do that.

Does this mean that Luke expected his readers to apply Acts 1:8 directly to themselves and to be “witnesses” to the nations? Luke seems to have restricted his use of the term “witness” to those who had witnessed the resurrected Christ, including the Twelve, Paul, and Stephen (significant qualifications for replacing Judas are stated in Acts 1:22; cf. 22:14-15; 26:16; and 22:20).[54] Therefore Bolt seems correct in concluding that it is “inappropriate to assume that the role of the original witnesses is extended to the reader.”[55] But while Luke seems to have used the word “witness” in the technical sense of “those who have seen the resurrected Christ,” the activity of proclaiming the same message declared by the witnesses was carried on by many who were “non-witnesses,” including Philip (8:5-8), the refugees from the persecution following Stephen’s martyrdom (11:19-20), Barnabas (13:1, 4-5), Silas (16:31), Aquila and Priscilla (18:26), Apollos (18:28), and, by implication, those discipled by Paul at the school of Tyrannus (19:10). Luke clearly wanted his readers to be “witness-like,” to enter into his narrative and engage in the mission of God launched by the original witnesses. “For readers of Luke-Acts, the authoritative witness of the apostles should be the inspired basis and guide for witness in their own time and place.”[56]

Acts 1:8, then, is not a direct commission to Luke’s readers, but a sweeping vision of what God would do through the original witnesses of the resurrected Christ. And by explicitly and succinctly proclaiming what God was about to do, and by telling the story of how others carried on the work of the witnesses, Luke invited his readers to join in that mission. While not technically “witnesses,” they are to carry on the work and message of the witnesses. In this sense they carry on what Jesus “began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).

The end of Acts reinforces this vision. Luke concluded the book with Paul still alive and proclaiming the gospel “with all openness, unhindered” (28:31). “The open-ended conclusion of the book seeks to draw the readers in to identify with the powerful advance of the gospel of salvation and to include them in the continuing task of spreading this word.”[57] Acts 28:30-31 reads like one of Luke’s “progress reports” that mark the structure of Acts and move the narrative forward to the next stage of witness.[58] This literary device at the end of the book further suggests to the reader that the job is not complete and the next stage of witness is theirs. Franklin believes that Luke was saying, in essence, “The gospel has arrived in Rome; the job is done.”[59] However, Luke was saying, “The gospel is in Rome; you—the reader—must now carry on the work.”

The purpose of Acts dictates a motive for contemporary mission. To be at the center of God’s plan for human history every believer and every congregation must be engaged in mission. Those so engaged are making history in a way that will impact eternity.

A Priority For Mission: Diverse Congregations Always Pressing Out To The Ends Of The Earth

Included in this motive for mission is also the priority of mission, that is, a mission to the nations pushing out to the ends of the earth. God’s plan is the extension of the gospel until it has been proclaimed in every geographic location and among every ethnic group on earth. While the gospel had arrived in Rome by the end of Acts, Luke and his readers were well aware that many parts of the world had yet to be impacted by God’s promise in Acts 1:8. The implication at the end of Acts seems clear: churches and individuals who wish to be in the center of God’s plan for history must constantly engage with those who have yet to hear the good news about the Lord Jesus.

The purpose and message of Acts therefore remind contemporary churches and mission agencies that they must never lose sight of the peoples who have yet to hear the gospel. The ultimate purpose of all ministry should be to press the message of Jesus the Savior to those who geographically, sociologically, and religiously are still at the ends of the earth. None of these extensions are easy. Geographically, it means going to remote locations. Sociologically, it means reaching out to people who may be geographically close but ethnically and culturally very different. Religiously, it means extending the gospel to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others whose worldviews are ancient, different, and resistant to change. The book of Acts reminds Christians today that, though difficult, extension must be their priority direction for mission.

Acts also reminds individuals and churches that the full goal of gospel extension should be diverse congregations that themselves reflect the nations. Through the later chapters of Acts the mission of God was chiefly being fulfilled through and within congregations that were ethnically diverse. Whereas the early church was entirely Jewish and centered in Jerusalem, by the book’s end ethnically mixed congregations dominated by Gentiles had proliferated throughout the Roman world. The multiethnic congregation at Antioch had become the paradigm of a church at the center of God’s purposes,[60] and the gospel was being preached in Rome itself, the center of the Gentile world. Luke’s implication is that anyone who wishes to be a part of God’s mission must engage with and extend these congregations.

A Tool For Mission: Contextualization Without Compromise

Acts was not written simply to motivate the people of God to join in the mission of God and have them focus on mission. Acts was also written to give them a tool for mission “that they might use the story which [Luke] tells to further the Christian cause and make converts to Christianity.”[61] Luke’s readers could join in with God’s mission by proclaiming the message Luke had written. He “especially equips them to present the Gospel to the Hellenistic world in a way that will make it understandable, that is, already ‘translated’ “[62] in a way that would be compelling to them. Luke’s evidences that the Gentile mission was clearly the work of God would be familiar and persuasive to many in the Greco-Roman world.[63] Luke therefore gave his readers a contextualized evangelistic tool—perfectly shaped for the people of his time and place—which they could use to further advance the mission of God.

Luke’s contextualized presentation of the gospel for his day serves as a model for contextualization of the gospel in diverse contexts today. Luke chronicled the extension of the gospel geographically and ethnically. This mission to the nations was carried out by faithful Jews, and all who responded shared equally in the salvation promises of Israel’s ancient covenant. But at the heart of Luke’s message is that those who respond do not become Jews ethnically or theologically. The gospel takes root within their culture, and Gentiles are included among the people of God while maintaining their cultural and ethnic distinctions.

The entire flow of Luke’s narrative (especially the centrality of the church at Antioch and the Jerusalem Council) underlines this message that people of all ethnicities may become followers of Jesus while remaining authentically a part of their native culture. “The message of God can no longer be limited to any one cultural expression of faith. God willed that his revelation be conveyed to the world through a particular people/culture. Now it has become clear that the gospel can be preached to any people without calling on them to abandon their culture.”[64]

Acts is equally clear that the only way to receive these blessings is through faith in the Lord Jesus. Both to monotheistic Jews, who worshiped the one, true Creator God, but apart from Jesus, and among Gentile pluralists, who welcomed many paths and many gods, Acts clearly asserts that Jesus is the only way to receive the Old Testament promises of salvation and forgiveness. The larger message of Luke-Acts is that it is through Jesus and Him alone that the Old Testament promise of salvation is available. Yet there is diversity in the manner in which Jesus came to the many ethnic groups within Acts. The gospel did not need to remain ethnically or culturally Jewish to remain authentically of God. In this way Acts serves as both a foundation and a model for Jesus-centered, culturally connected contextualizations of the gospel today. Acts is contextualization without compromise. Much as Luke answered Theolphilus’s questions about how a Gentile could be a legitimate heir of the Old Testament promise of salvation, so contemporary believers must speak the gospel in ways that answer questions people of any culture may ask about how to find the legitimate way to God and to become part of the people of God.

A Means For Mission: The Power Of God’s Holy Spirit

Acts is frequently used to illustrate the importance of appropriating the power of the Holy Spirit for mission. Luke portrays the Holy Spirit as the fundamental sine qua non for successful mission. But Acts is less about how to appropriate the Spirit’s power and more an assurance that the Holy Spirit will intervene and propel mission forward, and that the new mixed communities of Jews and Gentiles are the authentic people of God. God gives the Spirit to both Jews and Gentiles who come to Him through Jesus. Throughout the book the only “means” used for appropriating the Spirit’s power are prayer and dependent waiting on God. Mission must be done in the power of the Spirit, and believers must dependently trust Him to do His work in His time and His way.

Conclusion

Acts was written to demonstrate that the mission to the Gentile nations was God-ordained and central to God’s plan for human history. For any follower of Jesus, this message has clear and profound implications. If they wish to be in the center of God’s work, they need to center their lives around mission to the nations. Acts motivates believers and congregations to find those who are without the gospel, and it demonstrates how to share it with them in a clear and compelling way. Acts provides both motivation and model for today’s people of God to be a part of the mission of God.

Notes

1. A good example is Robert L. Gallagher and Paul Hertig, eds., Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004). The essays in this book generally reflect solid missiological principles from Acts, including principles for holistic ministry, dismantling social barriers, dealing with demonic spiritual powers, crossing racial and class barriers, urban mission strategy, contextualization, and cross-cultural evangelism. However, most of these essays draw little or no connection to the overarching purpose and message of Acts.
2. Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 141.
3. Ibid., 144, 146.
4. While few dispute that Luke and Acts have the same author, some have suggested that they are two separate, somewhat disconnected works. I. Howard Marshall responds convincingly that they should be viewed as a single, two-part work because (a) the two prologues seem to link the purpose and subject matter, (b) some material in the Gospel seems to be adapted based on anticipation of the second volume, and (c) the overlap between the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts suggests a continued purpose and message (“Acts and the ‘Former Treatise,’ “in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, ed. B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 176-77).
5. Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), xi. Robert Maddox suggests, “What we are looking for is ‘the purpose of Luke-Acts’ rather than separate purposes for two separate works” (“The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in Studies of the New Testament and Its World, ed. John Riches [Edinburgh: Clark, 1982], 6).
6. David Wenham, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts: Israel’s Story in the Context of the Roman Empire,” in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew, Joel B. Green, and Anthony Thiselton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 84.
7. The NET Bible’s translation note on ἐπιγνῷς (“know for certain”) in Luke 1:4 says that “the issue of the context is psychological confidence. . . . So in English this is better translated as ‘know for certain’ than ‘know certainty’ or ‘know the truth,’ which sounds too cognitive. . . . The meaning ‘have assurance concerning’ is also possible here’ “(NET Bible [Dallas: Biblical Studies, 1997], 1788).
8. Commenting on the paradigmatic account of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4:18-30), Wenham says, “The point both of the synagogue setting and of Jesus’ preaching is to emphasize that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel in Scripture and in particular of the prophetic hope for God’s salvation to Israel” (“The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 89).
9. Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), 94. Salvation is emphasized in the infancy narratives (Luke 1:47, 69, 71, 77; 2:11, 30) and is associated with the kingdom in 13:23-30 and 18:25-26. John Stott adds, “In particular, then, Luke was a theologian of salvation,” a central motif in his theology. Luke taught that salvation had been prepared by God, bestowed by Christ, and offered to all peoples (The Spirit, the Church, and the World: The Message of Acts [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990], 30-31). “‘Salvation,’ as well as its attendant ideas of repentance and forgiveness of sins, are central to Luke’s two-volume work. . . . Luke frames his entire body of writing with the idea of the salvation that has dawned in Christ” (David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991], 104-5). See also I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 117-25.
10. Gentiles: 2:10, 31-32; 3:6; 4:16-30; 7:10; 10:10-15; 13:24; 14:23; 21:24; 24:47; Samaritans: 9:51-56; 10:25-27; 17:11-19; women and children: 1-2; 7:2, 44-50; 9:46-48; 18:15-19; social outcasts, including tax collectors and “sinners”: 3:12-13; 5:8-16, 27-32; 7:29, 36-50; 15; 18:9-14; 19:1-10; and the poor: 1:53; 4:18; 6:20; 7:22, 14; 16:14-31; 18:24; 21:1-4. Franklin suggests that Luke’s emphasis on Gentiles and Samaritans was “not meant . . . to focus attention upon the later universality of the gospel” (Christ the Lord, 141). But the exact opposite seems to be true: Luke clearly emphasized the universality of the gospel, and there is no reason not to see this as preparatory for the message of Acts. Several stories in Luke’s Gospel bring together these three themes (the Messiah, salvation promises, and salvation for all), but none more so than Luke’s account of the Great Commission (Luke 24:46-49). Bosch notes that this passage summarizes “Luke’s entire understanding of the Christian mission: it is the fulfillment of scriptural promises; it only becomes possible after the death and resurrection of the Messiah of Israel; its central thrust is the message of repentance and forgiveness; it is intended for ‘all nations’; it is to begin ‘from Jerusalem’; it is to be executed by ‘witnesses’; and it will be accomplished in the power of the Holy Spirit” (Transforming Mission, 91).
11. Jesus’ death “is a Passover-Exodus event, bringing salvation. This must occur in Jerusalem” (ibid., 90).
12. Maddox, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 11. In the Gospel of Luke “all is oriented toward Jerusalem, and in Acts all goes forth from Jerusalem—to the end of the earth” (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1998], 56).
13. Bosch, Transforming Mission, 93.
14. Andreas Kostenberger and Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 130.
15. Bosch, Transforming Mission, 88-89.
16. Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 265.
17. David Peterson, “The Motif of Fulfillment and the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, 83.
18. Ibid., 9. See also Nils Alstrup Dahl, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” in Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), 89. Bosch says that “Luke’s pneumatology excludes the possibility of a missionary command; it implies, rather, a promise that the disciples will get involved in mission” (Transforming Mission, 114).
19. John T. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 173.
20. Darrell Bock, “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts: Christology and Mission,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1990, ed. David J. Lull (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 495.
21. Ibid., 521.
22. James Meek, The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts: Text, Hermeneutic, and Purpose (New York: Clark, 2008), 113.
23. Ibid., 128 (see also 134). In this sermon Peter also implied that Jesus is the Isaianic Servant (Acts 3:13, 26). Luke’s readers would recognize that Jesus, as the Servant, would be a “light to the Gentiles” (Isa. 49:6), further suggesting that, as an extension of Jesus’ ministry, the apostles’ ministry was anticipated in the Old Testament.
24. Meek, The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts, 54.
25. Ibid., 54-55; cf. Kostenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 147-48.
26. Kostenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 150.
27. Meek, The Gentile Mission in Old Testament Citations in Acts, 94; Jervell also makes this point (Luke and the People of God, 53).
28. Thomas Moore, “Luke’s Use of Isaiah for the Gentile Mission and Jewish Rejection Theme in the Third Gospel” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995), 231. Moore further notes that “the widening of salvation to provide for the incorporation of Gentiles within the people of God” is particularly an Isaianic expectation (ibid., 233).
29. John T. Carroll, “The Uses of Scripture in Acts,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1990, ed. David J. Lull (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 526.
30. Kostenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 143.
31. Luke’s strong emphasis on the Holy Spirit also shows that the expansion of the gospel was God’s work coming at God’s initiative.
32. Albert C. Winn, “Elusive Mystery: The Purpose of Acts,” Interpretation 13 (April 1959): 154. See also Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts, 188; and Jervell, Luke and the People of God, 22.
33. Jervell, Luke and the People of God, 38.
34. Ibid., 42.
35. Ibid., 46; cf. 15. See also Bock, Acts, 24.
36. Bosch, Transforming Mission, 96.
37. Moore, “Luke’s Use of Isaiah,” 232.
38. Mark Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 346. Moore says that Jews who were following Jesus were “reconstitution but not replacement” of Israel (“Luke’s Use of Isaiah,” 234). And Wenham states that the role Jerusalem played in the narrative emphasized the continuity of the Christian movement with “Jewish piety and the Old Testament” (“The Purpose of Luke–Acts,” 93).
39. Carroll, “The Use of Scripture in Acts,” 528.
40. Wright points out that Luke’s emphasis on faithful Jews carrying out the Gentile mission brings “the whole Old Testament story of Israel to its climax and destination, as the purpose for which God created Israel in the first place—the blessing of all nations—now becomes reality through the mission of the church” (The Mission of God, 514).
41. Luke’s strong emphasis on Paul is central to understanding the purpose of Acts, but this does not mean that Luke’s purpose is primarily to defend Paul, as some have maintained. Much of the material in Luke-Acts, especially Luke’s Gospel, would have had little relevance to a Roman court, arguing against the suggestion that Acts is a defense brief for Paul’s trial (F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954], 20-21). Jervell’s thesis that Acts is centered around rehabilitating Paul for a primarily Jewish-Christian audience is instructive, but it is overly centered around the person of Paul and is focused too much on a strictly Jewish-Christian readership (Luke and the People of God, 17). Any view “that Luke’s primary purpose was to define the memory of Paul falls far short of doing justice to the scope and dynamics of the whole work” (Maddox, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 182). Paul was important to Luke, but Luke was not simply defending his hero. He was more concerned with defending the Gentile mission and the result of his ministry, that is, churches that were composed of both Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles. See also Bock, “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts,” 510; and Maddox, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 70.
42. Hertig and Gallagher believe that “the overarching purpose of Acts is to explain the initiative of the Holy Spirit in the spread of the gospel throughout the Gentile world,” and that subthemes “such as the unity of the flourishing movement within diversity” flow from this main theme (Mission in Acts, 8). However, the role of the Holy Spirit seems to be less the simple fact that He initiated the gospel and more what His initiation of the gospel demonstrates, namely, that the promised age of the Spirit had arrived in Jesus and that the expansion of the gospel, especially the Gentile mission, was initiated by God.
43. Stott, The Spirit, the Church, and the World, 27. Richard N. Longenecker agrees that one of the main purposes of Acts is “to demonstrate that Christianity is not a political threat to the empire, as its Jewish opponents asserted, but rather that it is the culmination of Israel’s hope and the true daughter of Jewish religion—and, therefore, should be treated by Roman authorities as a religio licita along with Judaism” (“Acts,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 218).
44. Bruce, “Paul’s Apologetic,” 391.
45. Winn, “Elusive Mystery: The Purpose of Acts,” 147-48. Maddox notes that “no Roman official would be interested in the ‘theological and ecclesiastical rubbish’ “that much of Luke-Acts would seem to be (“The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 20). Peterson argues against both a strictly Roman or Jewish audience, noting that Jews would have “bristled at the degradation of the figure of ‘Jews’ on every page” and Gentiles would have gotten “lost incessantly in the reminiscences of the LXX” (“The Motif of Fulfilment and the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 38).
46. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 100. See also I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 22.
47. Luke Timothy Johnson. The Acts of the Apostles, Sacred Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1992), 8.
48. Bosch, Transforming Mission, 92; cf. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 8-9.
49. Bock, “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke-Acts,” 510. See also Jon A. Weatherly, “The Writer’s versus the Reader’s Purpose: Interpreting Acts Theologically,” Stone-Campbell Journal 5 (spring 2002): 104; Fitzmeyer, The Acts of the Apostles, 59-60; Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts, 1-3; and Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 23.
50. Maddox, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 187. Maddox suggests that Luke wrote Acts because of renewed attacks against Christians following the Council of Jamnia (dated in the last two decades of the first century), and because of Jewish rejection of Christianity. However, “Luke does not write to record how salvation blessings were transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles, but rather how the gospel went forth from a restored Israel” (Strauss, TheDavidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 346). In addition, Maddox’s argument that Luke has no evangelistic purpose seems overly restrictive (ThePurpose of Luke-Acts, 181, 183). Possibly Acts had a focus on Christian identity (Maddox’s emphasis) as part of convincing informed seekers to make a commitment to Christ.
51. Dahl affirms the possibility that Luke had both informed seekers and believers in mind as his audience. “The ‘God-fearers’—and others—may have been impressed by the argument that Judaism and not Christianity (as represented by Paul) was the ancient and authentic form of biblical religion. If Luke-Acts, as a published literary work, was ever intended for a general reading public, we should certainly seek the prospective readers among the God-fearers rather than among Roman officials” (“The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 97). Squires agrees: “Whilst the primary audience for which Luke writes is the Christian community, his apologetic methods also serve to invite others to accept Christian beliefs and adopt Christian practices” (ThePlan of God in Luke-Acts, 194). See also Wenham, “The Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 96-98. William J. Larkin, Jr. argues strongly that the purpose of Acts is primarily evangelistic, that Theolophilus is “the object of evangelism, not catechisis” (“Mission in Luke,” in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, ed. William J. Larkin Jr. and Joel F. Williams [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1998], 154). Larkin maintains that, because Luke-Acts primarily contains historical accounts and mission preaching, and not doctrinal instruction, Luke-Acts must be a document intended either to evangelize the reader or to give the reader a document by which he can evangelize others (ibid., 154, 169). While Luke-Acts is certainly appropriate as an evangelistic tract to persuade still-skeptical insiders and as an evangelistic tool for believers, its narrative nature in no way precludes it from also serving to bolster the faith and commitment of believers. Clearly catechetical instruction need not be limited to “discourse.” The wider pattern of Scripture demonstrates that both narrative and discourse are used to bring individuals into the people of God as well as strengthen and assure them as the people of God.
52. William J. Larkin Jr., “Mission in Acts,” in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, 185.
53. Kostenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 136.
54. Bosch notes that the term “witness” is used more widely than the Twelve, but he does not consider that his two examples of “second-generation witnesses”—Paul and Stephen—were also firsthand witnesses of the resurrected Christ (Transforming Mission, 116).
55. Peter G. Bolt, “Mission and Witness,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 211.
56. Peterson, “The Motif of Fulfillment and the Purpose of Luke-Acts,” 82.
57. Kostenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 157.
58. Ibid., 156. See Luke’s “progress reports” in 2:47; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:30-31.
59. Franklin assumes that Luke’s demonstration of Jesus’ lordship and his anticipation of Jesus’ soon return means that there is no reason for continued outreach. Franklin says that with the arrival of the gospel in Rome, that outreach has been completed. He also objects to the Gentile mission as central to the purpose of Acts because he imagines that this suggests that the mission to the nations replaces the mission to Israel (Christ the Lord, 144) and that this might devalue the lordship of Christ as a central theme in Luke’s Gospel. However, far from making mission unnecessary, Luke’s emphasis on Jesus’ lordship is a motivation for mission. Because Jesus is Lord, the gospel must go to the nations. In addition, the mission to the Gentiles does not replace the mission to Israel; it is carried out byfaithful Israel.
60. Stephen J. Strauss, “The Significance of Acts 11:26 for the Church at Antioch and Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 168 (July–September 2011): 298.
61. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts, 194; see also Peterson, “The Motif of Fulfillment,” 103; and Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 219.
62. Squires, The Plan of God in Luke-Acts, 192.
63. Peterson, for example, points out that “in the Hellenistic age it was common for a people to try to trace its origins back to the remotest antiquity. . . . So it is likely that Luke emphasized the OT roots of Christianity and the fulfillment of Scripture in the events that he records for more than religious reasons. His approach would have given Greek-speaking Christians the chance to appeal to an argument from antiquity” (“The Motif of Fulfillment,” 32).
64. Harold Dollar, St. Luke’s Missiology (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 1996), 89.