The Narrow Path Ministries

In studying any book in the bible it is great to know the purpose that the book was written. It is helpful when the human author states his purpose for writing like John in his first epistle "I write these things so that..." But I haven't come across a purpose statement in the book of Acts. What do you think it is?

I think the key verse is Acts 1:8, my signature verse, because it gives us the purpose of the Holy Spirit coming upon them: to recieve power and become witnesses of Jesus in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7) and in all Judea and Samaria (Acts 8) and to the end of the earth (the latter part of Acts). It seems, therefore, that the purpose of Acts is to show what that looks like, i.e. to describe how the gospel was spread and churches were established in the world and to prescribe a spirit filled model for the church today.

I guess it is important to know who he was writing to too. I have heard other suggestions like Luke was writing a defense for Paul in Rome (because that is where the story ends), or he was writing for his master Theophilus to have a sequel to the gospel of Luke which was written that we may know for certain with certainty, the things which were accomplished among them. Was Theophilus one man or does it mean anyone who loves God?

I have a related question to ask about Acts. Has anyone here ever heard of the "Sonnini Manuscript" which purports to be the concluding chapter chapter of Acts?

Some information can be found on it here. I don't know of any critiques or refutations of this material, though, but I do want a balanced and fair appraisal.

Any thoughts?

Damon

Why does the book of acts end so abruptly? Chapter 28 of Acts does not seem like the end of the story of the acts of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in His witnesses to the ends of the earth. Maybe it's because the story is continue until Jesus comes back again!

I have a related question to ask about Acts. Has anyone here ever heard of the "Sonnini Manuscript" which purports to be the concluding chapter chapter of Acts?

Hmmm...I wonder if this might be one of Joseph Smiths early findings

Personally, I am extremely skeptical of any extra-biblical writings that claim to be "lost" portions of the Bible. I think we have the book God meant for us to have. I'm just simple that way.

I think the purpose of Acts is to establish how the gospel traveled from Jerusalem to Rome and to validate Paul as a legitimate Apostle. It is not a historical account of the early church because it does'nt attempt to provide enough historical details.

Acts is simply the pratices of the church, which many believe should continue in similar fashion today.The giving of the Holy Spirit and how conversions are done . A pattern was being shown to us over and over again of how we should be lead by the Spirit if we are truly sons of God. The subjects of repentance, faith and baptism are practiced out in real life as an example to us by the apostles as well as the laying on of hands. The Holy Spirit also brings in speaking of tongues( literally languages) along with a trail of miracles that can also happen to us if we walk this way with God. In short acts challages us just as it challanged those who participated in that time to live for God with fervor.

brentenlena wrote:Why does the book of acts end so abruptly? Chapter 28 of Acts does not seem like the end of the story of the acts of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in His witnesses to the ends of the earth. Maybe it's because the story is continue until Jesus comes back again!

The view I take is that the book is (alone with Luke) some kind of legal brief or defence, either for Paul's trial in Rome, or as an explanation to powerful aristocratic elements within Rome. This would account both for the abrupt ending, and for the emphasis upon trials and powerful Roman officials found within the book. A recent book arguing this is John Mauck's Paul on Trial. The Muratorian fragment makes the interesting comment that Paul took Luke along with him as a 'legal expert' (uris studiosum).

The view I take is that the book is (alone with Luke) some kind of legal brief or defence, either for Paul's trial in Rome, or as an explanation to powerful aristocratic elements within Rome. This would account both for the abrupt ending, and for the emphasis upon trials and powerful Roman officials found within the book. A recent book arguing this is John Mauck's Paul on Trial. The Muratorian fragment makes the interesting comment that Paul took Luke along with him as a 'legal expert' (uris studiosum).

I have also read Paul on Trial and found Mauck's arguments pretty solid for the most part. One thing he really brings out is how Luke nearly always portrays the Romans in a positive light. This is one of the best arguments for his thesis that Luke-Acts is a document written to defend Paul (either formally or informally).