The Pentecostal Commentary: Acts 1-12

By Billy Prewitt

• The distinctive Pentecostal pneumatology is sustained
• Key doctrines are identified and expounded
• Important cross references within Scripture are noted
• Historical connections in Church history are mentioned
• Erroneous teachings are scrutinized
• Comments are based on the King James Version
• The KJV text is printed in the body of the commentary

With a modern style of readability, this commentary series is appropriate for anyone seeking to grow and understand the truths of Scripture and is especially helpful to pastors as well as college and seminary students.

Author’s Foreward
As a Pentecostal student attending a Pentecostal Bible college, I went to the college bookstore to purchase my textbooks without knowing that the commentaries on my book list were written by non-Pentecostals. Even though my classes required commentaries from various publishers, none of the publishers were Pentecostal. I often wondered why a Pentecostal Bible school would use non-Pentecostal commentaries for class. What I did not know at the time was that there really was no such thing as a Pentecostal commentary written for and by Pentecostals. Since then, there have been a few Pentecostals who have written on individual books, but there are significant portions of even the New Testament that have had little or no Pentecostal voice. As a result, serious Pentecostal students have no other choice but to learn at the feet of non-Pentecostals.

I am not opposed to non-Pentecostal commentaries. Indeed, I have gained considerable insights from reading such, but there are two points of theology that I must consciously filter out every time I read them. The most important concern to a Pentecostal is that the pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit) presented by non-Pentecostals is very different than that of a Pentecostal. The second point is the emphasis on Calvinistic doctrines especially eternal security with which most Pentecostals do not agree. In addition, there are other theological differences and substantially different hermeneutical principals that can dramatically alter the interpretation of texts in non-Pentecostal ways.

In my studies, I have always desired to have a commentary that was thoroughly Pentecostal, but I never imagined that I would write one. From one Pentecostal to another, I hope you will find this series to be a breath of fresh Spirit anointed air.

Series Preface
While it is hoped that Bible students from other theological traditions will study and benefit from its contents, it is first and foremost Pentecostal. As such, this commentary does not include surveys of other viewpoints unless such inclusion is necessary for clarity of argument. In addition, with all due respect to our Charismatic brethren, it may be said that this series is not meant to be inclusive of Charismatic interpretations related to pneumatology.

The Pentecostal Commentary series intentionally excludes views of Scripture that do not hold to its inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, and also excludes modern liberal arguments of authorship, date, purpose, and so on. Traditional viewpoints on these subjects will be discussed without confusing the issue. In addition, 19th century criticism methods and concerns over source documents will not often be discussed. In other words, this series assumes that the Biblical text is as God wants it to be and that it was written by the person and at the time traditionally ascribed.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Billy Prewitt
• Release date: Dec 26, 2022
• ISBN: 9781005253394

Billy Prewitt

Billy M. Prewitt holds a PhD in Biblical Studies, a Master of Education in Educational Leadership, a Master of Arts in Theology, and a Bachelor of Arts in Sacred Music. His most recent accomplishments include authoring three Pentecostal Commentaries: Matthew, Galatians, and Acts 1-12. Additionally, along with his professional teaching experience in both the private and public sectors, he has served in the Church as a youth pastor, associate pastor, and currently serves as the pastor of Family Fellowship Church in Lake City, Florida.

Book preview

Introduction

Author

Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke. The writer of both was Luke the physician (Colossians 4:14) who was a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul. According to Robert Gundry,

He is the only one of Paul’s traveling companions mentioned in the epistles who could have written the we-sections of Acts. All the others are excluded by the impossibility of harmonizing their geographical movements according to the epistle with the geographical movements in the we-sections of Acts.¹

Luke was a Gentile, For he is not reckoned among them ‘of the circumcision’ by Paul² (see Colossians 4:10-11). We do not know where he originated, but it seems from the text that he joined Paul in Troas, at least temporarily, on the second missionary journey. M. G. Easton says, It is probable that he was a physician in Troas, and was there converted by Paul, to whom he attached himself.³ This is inferred by the distinct change in personal pronouns for portions of the account starting in Acts 16:10. These are often called the we passages even though we is not the only pronoun used.

Utilizing the we passages, M. G. Easton tracks Luke’s association with Paul to, but not beyond Philippi (see Acts 17:1). He later joined Paul again in Acts 20:5.⁴ From this point, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Luke traveled with Paul until Paul’s second Roman imprisonment (2 Timothy 4:11).

Some have argued that Luke was Paul’s personal physician, but this is very unlikely for numerous reasons. First and foremost, there is a deliberate juxtaposition of the work of physicians and the healing ministry. Physician work is never glorified in the Bible but rather found lacking in the light of God’s power to perform miracles (see Luke 8:40-44 as an example). Second, no mention is ever made of Luke’s medical services. Third, the medical profession was not esteemed by men then as it is today. To assume that Paul needed or even wanted a personal physician is to force today’s notions into the past. Luke’s background as a physician, however, explain some of the descriptions in Acts. M. G. Easton states, There are many passages in Paul’s epistles, as well as in the writings of Luke, which show the extent and accuracy of his medical knowledge.⁵

Audience

Just as in the Gospel of Luke, Acts is addressed to Theophilus (see comments on Acts 1:1). That, along with the fact that Luke was himself a Gentile lends support that the general audience was heavily Gentile. As a result, the text often explains details of Jewish customs for which Jews would have needed no explanation. It also includes references to political leaders in the Roman government more than the writings of Matthew or Mark. Interestingly, liberal scholars at one time tried to use these references to argue against Luke as the author, but repeated discoveries have rendered those arguments invalid. One notable example was the argument against Luke’s record of Gallio in Acts 18. This argument was put to silence by the archaeological discovery of what is called the Delphi Inscription. True believers can put their faith in the Word of God without any proof, but it often takes proof to put much of this kind of nonsense to rest!

Date

It is very likely that Luke and Acts were both written during Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. It is absolutely certain that Acts was not completed before Paul’s second year there (see Acts 28:30). It is also very unlikely that it was published any time after this due to the way it ends with Paul still in prison. According to William Smith, this would make its publication about 63 AD.⁶

Acts covers a critical period in Church history that extends from the ascension of Jesus to the first imprisonment of Paul, or about 30 years. It details the advancement of the Gospel just as Jesus said it would be done in Acts 1:8 beginning with the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem and spreading as far as Rome. It also provides an essential historical link to the Epistles of Paul.

Occasion and Purpose

While we cannot be certain exactly who Theophilus was or even where he was, there is reason to believe that he was an official in Rome who was won to the Lord through the ministry of Paul.⁷ This man was apparently very interested to know as much as possible about the faith and likely even required substantial proofs (see Luke 1:4 and Acts 1:3). Luke intended to provide the evidence and the detailed accounts necessary.

The purpose of Acts is stated that it would continue where the Gospel of Luke left off and give the history of the operations of the apostles from the very beginning of the Church (see Acts 1:1-2). Luke certainly accomplished this intended purpose by providing a clear record especially regarding the ministries of Peter and Paul.

Structure

Acts is easily divided into two parts. Chapters 1-12 mostly focus on the ministry of the Apostle Peter, and chapters 13-28 focus on the ministry of the Apostle Paul. The following brief outline will provide an overview.

I. Acts 1-12

A. Peter in Jerusalem (Acts 1-5)

B. Stephen (Acts 6-7)

C. Philip in Samaria (Acts 8)

D. Saul’s Conversion (Acts 9)

E. Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10)

D. Peter in Jerusalem (Acts 11)

II. Acts 13-28

A. Paul’s First Missionary Journey (Acts 13-14)

B. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

C. Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (Acts 16-18)

D. Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (Acts 19-20)

E. Paul’s Return to Jerusalem (Acts 21-23)

F. Paul’s Imprisonment at Caesarea (Acts 24-26)

G. Paul’s Voyage, Shipwreck, and Imprisonment in Rome (Acts 27-28)

Theology

One of the most interesting and controversial subjects relating to Acts is the discussion of the theology of Luke. When speaking of Luke the man in relation to the Gospel of Luke, he is often referred to as an evangelist. When referencing Acts, he is referred to as an historian, but it may be better to understand him as a theologian in addition to those other designations.

Of the many man-made rules relating to Biblical interpretation, it is generally assumed that it is necessary to isolate the various books or at least group them by author to discover the independent strain of theological thought. For instance, Paul is unique in his presentation of the body of Christ. No other writer in the New Testament can be said to develop this theme.

Some interpreters compare and contrast the various pictures of theology that are presented through this process of isolation insisting that each author and book must be taken separately.⁸ For instance, there are some classic contrasts drawn from the varying ways that Paul and James speak of justification. Also, Luke, John, and Paul are contrasted in their pneumatology. All of this, however, misses a very important interpretive point that Pentecostals have long held.⁹ The Holy Ghost is the theologian behind each and every book in the Bible. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This interpretive principle places one Holy Ghost inspired writer against another, but the Holy Ghost is not divided. He may speak of justification by faith through the writings of Paul and justification by works through James, but these two are ultimately harmonious rather than in opposition one to the other. The same must be said regarding the supposedly variant pneumatology of Luke, Paul, and John.

It has been argued that John’s theology knew only of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence and not of his empowering. This, of course, ignores the role that John played in Acts particularly Acts 8:14-15. The absence of any specific mention of the baptism with the Holy Spirit (other than from John the Baptist) or speaking in tongues by John in his writings does not mean that he had a different view than Luke or Paul.

With that being said, Luke’s presentation of the Holy Spirit does provide a different look than that of Paul and John. It is difficult, however, to imagine, as has been proposed, that Luke and Paul wrote independently of each other’s knowledge. These men were constant companions for nearly a decade, and they were not in the habit of keeping secrets like this. Not only that, John had personally interviewed Paul concerning his beliefs (see Galatians 2) and there were no differences noted at that time. Luke likely owed the bulk of his knowledge of Christianity to Paul, so it is inconceivable to suggest that these three were somehow disagreed. This is based on a logical argument; however, the Scripture itself proves this point beyond any question.

Luke presents the Holy Spirit in terms of the empowering baptism which is evidenced by tongues. Neither Paul nor John mentions this connection clearly. Both of these men, however, were key operators in Acts demonstrating that they understood and agreed with Luke’s conclusions on the matter. John administered the baptism with the Holy Spirit to the Samaritan believers in Acts 8:14-17 and Paul did the same with the believers in Ephesus in Acts 19:1-7. To be certain, both John and Paul assisted in forming Luke’s pneumatology. In opposition to those who argued in favor of isolation, it would be impossible to have an independent understanding of the pneumatology of either Luke, John, or Paul without having a comprehensive pneumatology to serve as a foundation.

Luke’s presentation of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential in understanding Paul’s teachings on the gifts of the Spirit. This is one of the points at which Pentecostals and Charismatics differ significantly. Charismatics generally accept any of the spiritual gifts mentioned by Paul as evidence for the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals do not accept this view and hold to tongues only as the evidence. This is what is found in Acts. There is no other gift of the Spirit that is mentioned in connection with evidence for the infilling of the Spirit in Acts or anywhere else in the New Testament. In the view of Pentecostals, Luke’s presentation of speaking in tongues as evidence for the baptism with the Spirit is prerequisite for Paul’s presentation of the gifts. In other words, if a person does not speak in tongues as evidence of the empowering baptism with the Spirit, then that person will not operate in any of the gifts at all.

Interestingly, Luke exclusively mentions tongues in the context of evidence. He never mentions nor explains tongues as a gift even once in Acts. Each of the occurrences which include tongues should properly be viewed as tongues of evidence. This includes the outpouring on the day of Pentecost because there was not an interpretation given. The crowd understood without an interpreter which the gift of tongues requires (1 Corinthians 14:28). Commentators often refer to the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, but this was not a demonstration of the gift of tongues. The gift of tongues is only properly demonstrated when it is supernaturally interpreted for the benefit of the Church.

Luke also excludes tongues as a language of prayer from his writings. As a result, his focus on tongues as evidence is clear. One must turn to Paul’s writings to understand tongues for personal edification (1 Corinthians 14:4). We must understand, however, that 1 Corinthians was written with the historical backdrop and theological understanding that is presented in Acts even though Acts had not yet been written. Paul was writing to a church that had experienced the baptism with the Holy Ghost and evidenced such by speaking in tongues; therefore, he did not explain to them what they had already experienced. Paul makes no mention of evidence for the baptism with the Holy Ghost, but this does not mean he had a different understanding than that of Luke.

Utilizing the history as a means of communication, Luke beautifully announces and maintains the distinctive doctrine that Pentecostals have unanimously embraced as their own. In so doing, his theological contribution in Acts provides the critical link in pneumatology between the ascension of Christ and Paul’s epistles.

Hermeneutics

Acts is a very important book to Pentecostals because it provides the theological basis for the critical doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Since the early years of the Twentieth Century, Pentecostals have held to this belief. In spite of adversity from the surrounding Christian community, Pentecostals have heralded this doctrine literally to the ends of the earth. Even though the doctrine is based entirely on the Scriptural record as recorded in Acts, most non-Pentecostals invalidate the doctrine based on man-made hermeneutical principles (methods of interpretation) which they often ignore on other issues themselves. The hermeneutical principle states that doctrine cannot be taken from narrative texts. In spite of this hermeneutic, the Baptists baptize by immersion while the Presbyterians try to argue infant baptism from the account of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16:33. All of us celebrate the virgin birth, but there is not one mention of it in the New Testament outside of narrative texts. Ultimately, the Scriptural narratives provide the basis for all doctrine including those that are further explained in didactic passages. Pentecostals have universally dismissed all of this contention by maintaining the validity of their doctrine and unashamedly taking their doctrine from Acts.

Are Pentecostals wrong to rely on Acts for their distinctive doctrine? The prevailing thought among scholarly interpretation is that Pentecostals are wrong. This is certainly a convenient assertion for those who would like to discredit the Pentecostal message. If they can effectively prove the method of interpretation to be faulty, then it would follow that the doctrine based on that method would be faulty as well. They base this argument on hermeneutical principles that have been passed down through the history of the Church. It is hardly ever mentioned that history has proven many of these principles to be in substantial error. In other words, the Church has been held captive by man-imposed methods of interpretation. Generally speaking, those who have opposed the methods have been initially labeled as heretics or at the least sectarian troublemakers. Let us turn to a few historical examples.

For nearly a thousand years, the Church (Roman Catholic) taught that the only valid interpretation of Scripture came from the pope. This, of course, led to gross error including the doctrines of purgatory, penance, transubstantiation, invocation of saints, indulgences, etc. The Catholics still cling to these doctrines today even though their errors were exposed in the 1500s by the various reformers.

The English, by virtue of their reformation history, began to have a different view of interpretation during the reign of Henry VIII. He was advised, regarding his desire to divorce, to allow the university scholars to decide rather than the pope. In terms of reformation, this was a new way of thinking because it placed the university professor as the esteemed interpreter of Scripture. Indeed, this hermeneutic of the scholarly professor prevails to the present day. McClintock and Strong argue that only those who have a well-grounded knowledge of the language should interpret (i.e. linguistic scholars). They further contend that the interpreter must also have knowledge of archaeology, geography, etc. In addition, he must conform to the CONSENSUS of the universal Church (emphasis in original). To add icing to the cake, they argue that it will sometimes become necessary to modify our conclusions as to particular passages in consequence of the discoveries and deductions of MODERN SCIENCE. They include the possible need to alter interpretations of both creation and the flood as examples.¹⁰ All of this, however, we completely and vehemently refuse!

The assertions in the previous paragraph were proven wrong by William Tyndale in 1525. It was his belief that the common man who drives a plow could interpret the Scriptures correctly. This, in spite of scholarly arguments, became the prevailing force behind the Puritan movement which changed English speaking Christianity forever. It is not needful to undermine the value of study in the process of interpretation, but the man-made rules which require extra-biblical studies is not valid. The Bible was not written to scholars only. It was written to mankind as a whole, and the common man is not excluded.

In the 1800s, John Nelson Darby was another bold interpreter who dared to defy established hermeneutical principles. He is ultimately responsible for overturning the allegorical method of interpretation which dates all the way back to Jewish scholars before Christ’s ministry. Interestingly, the New Testament writers did not use the allegorical method. It is one of the characteristic and instructive features of the New Testament writers that they absolutely refrain from the allegorical method of interpretation current in those times.¹¹ Unfortunately, after the apostles died, the early leaders of the Church, such as Augustine, adopted this erroneous method.

Like the other examples above, history has proven Darby to be correct and the allegorical method to be wrong. The exclamation point came in 1948, when against all odds and in direct fulfillment of numerous Scriptures, Israel was reborn as an independent nation in her ancient homeland. The prophecies which spoke of this were literal! Recent history refuses to allow them to be interpreted allegorically. Regardless, the majority of professing Christian believers still cling to the allegorical method. It is the only way that they can hold to their amillennial eschatology (the belief that there will not be a literal millennial reign of Christ on earth) and their antisemitic views. Thanks to Darby’s courageous interpretations, however, we now understand the future of the Church in terms of the rapture and many other eschatological doctrines lost to the knowledge of men during the reign of Roman Catholicism.

The Reformation challenged the interpretation of the pope, Tyndale challenged the monopoly of both scholars and the clergy, and Darby challenged allegory. It is not unprecedented that Pentecostals have almost universally challenged the common hermeneutical principle of genre. John Walvoord explains, The literary character of the Scripture interpreted should be taken into consideration.¹² The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains, A piece of poetry and a chapter of history will not be interpreted according to the same principles or rules.¹³ To put this clearly, most Bible scholars will only admit what they consider didactic literature as the basis for forming doctrine. The rule for narrative is a rule of exclusion. Acts, for the most part, is considered narrative rather than didactic, so according to the general consensus of scholars, it cannot be used in forming doctrine. It is the wrong literary genre. They argue that narrative must be interpreted; therefore, subjectivity plays a significant role in that interpretation bringing with it the high likelihood of error. To challenge the conclusion from this assertion, there have been plenty of erroneous interpretations by those who have prescribed to the accepted hermeneutical principles. As examples, many scholars subscribe to the Calvinistic doctrines of eternal security, determinism (Calvinistic predestination), limited atonement, etc. Calvin himself often negated the Scriptures, but he did so within the guidelines of these principles.¹⁴

Another example of erroneous interpretation that scholars generally accept as valid is the Cessationist view of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10,

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Lacking any evidence from Scripture to support their bias, they force perfection in this passage to mean the completion of the Canon of Scripture. In other words, tongues would cease when the Scriptures were complete. It is simply not true! There is evidence well beyond the end of the First Century that men were still speaking in tongues. Also, one must ask, has knowledge passed away also? In true form, those that oppose Pentecostal interpretations due to hermeneutics often are willing to violate hermeneutical principles to prove their biased views. This is a case in point because their argument violates the hermeneutical principle of context. The context requires perfection to mean Heaven. Paul said it would be a time when the things now hidden would be seen face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12). Did this happen in the First Century? From this short list of examples, we must come to the conclusion that man-made hermeneutical principles do not eliminate error in interpretation.

It is true to a certain extent that the literary genre should be taken into account when interpreting Scripture. Pentecostals generally agree with this; however, the conflict occurs when interpreters set aside certain genres as inappropriate for establishing doctrine. Most interpreters set aside poetry, narrative, parables, etc., and say that these cannot be used for doctrine. Their assertion is, however, in complete opposition to 2 Timothy 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (see also Mark 4:2).

Not only is it contradictory to Scripture to disallow Acts in the formation of doctrine, it is against common practice. It was mentioned at the beginning of this section that there is a great inconsistency in the assertion to disallow narrative texts as the basis for doctrine. There is no way to form a doctrine of baptism by immersion except to appeal to narrative texts. The same can be said for the virgin birth and even the ascension of Christ. Where in a didactic passage is that expounded? Justification by faith is found in the didactic teachings of the Apostle Paul, but he bases his doctrine on the narratives of Genesis. The priesthood of Christ is taught in Hebrews, but that is based on the poetic Psalm 110. Indeed, nearly every doctrine of the Church finds its basis in a narrative passage. Those who would establish and enforce a man-made rule ought to be consistent in maintaining that rule.

Taking our understanding from Scripture that all scripture...is profitable for doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16), Pentecostals have unhesitatingly understood Acts as didactic historical narrative. In other words, it is history presented in narrative form, but there is a clear motive in that history that is didactic (pertains to teaching). Acts, therefore, is reasonably used by Pentecostals in establishing doctrine!

Acts 1

Former Treatise and the Promise of the Father (1:1-5)

1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

1:1a From the outset, the author, Luke, connects Acts with his former treatise, the Gospel of Luke. Acts should therefore be understood as a sequel to the Gospel of Luke.

The name Theophilus has been an interesting mystery since the early centuries of the Church. There have been so many theories that McClintock and Strong argue it is easier to determine what to reject than what to accept.¹ In this discussion, the only objectionable theory that will be discussed is the most notable.

Beginning with Origen, a name that often arises in ecclesiastical literature, the idea that Theophilus was a figurative term rather than a literal man has been passed down through the centuries. Like any other theory that disagrees with the Bible, this one is to be discarded as myth, but there is something to learn from it. Origen is famous for numerous reasons. He was an able scholar. Unfortunately, his scholarship was not pure in the Gospel faith. He ultimately contrived a compromised version of Christianity which attempted to blend the teachings of the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato with those of the New Testament. (This is strikingly similar to the blend of psychology and Christianity that many are embracing today.) It is abominable to consider the ramifications that this has had on the history of the Church since that time. Martin Luther tried to filter Greek philosophy out of the Church during the Reformation of the 1500s, but in times of decay, its ugly face has been repeatedly intrusive.

Understanding the compromised stance of Origen helps us to understand how wrong he was in promulgating what is now known as the allegorical method of interpretation. Because of his bias for allegorizations, we should not be surprised that he would think in such a way as to deny Theophilus a personal existence. Even though Origen only hinted at this conclusion, the idea stuck as most bad ideas do. In our modern day, people like Origen teach that Abraham and Moses did not exist either. The theory that Theophilus did not exist is to be discarded out of hand along with all liberal teaching that denies the facts of Scripture. The idea of Theophilus being an imaginary person...is at variance with the simplicity of the New Testament writers and especially the evangelists.²

The meaning of the name Theophilus was a factor in Origen’s thoughts because the name literally means either friend of God,³ beloved of God,⁴ or lover of God.⁵ This, however, does not provide a justified basis to assume that the man never existed.

Of the man Theophilus, we know almost nothing at all. His name is a compound word derived from the Greek words theos (G2316), meaning god whether the true God or a pagan god, and philos (G5384), meaning friend.⁶ Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible supposes that Theophilus would be the Christian, not the Roman, name of the person addressed.⁷ In order for that to be true, then his name would have needed to be changed because he would not have started off with a Christian name. McClintock and Strong state,

All that can be conjectured with any degree of safety concerning him comes to this, that he was a Gentile of rank and consideration, who came under the influence of Luke, or (not improbably) under that of Paul, at Rome, and was converted to the Christian faith.⁸

Putting this altogether presents a beautiful story even if there is a bit of speculation in it. Assuming that there was not a name change, then there was originally a heathen man of rank named Theophilus in connection with the pagan gods of Rome. After associating with Luke and probably Paul, the same man who had been named after the Roman gods was converted to the true faith bringing his name with him. Similar stories are observed in the New Testament with Apollos and Olympas (Acts 18:24 and Romans 16:15). No matter how sincerely you were devoted to the devil at your birth by your own parents, God is willing to save you and give you a new life in Him! That is the power of the Gospel!

Luke addresses Theophilus simply by his name here, but in the Gospel of Luke, he is addressed as most excellent Theophilus (Luke 1:3). It has been proposed that this indicates some time had passed between the writings and that Luke was on a more familiar basis with Theophilus by the time he wrote Acts.⁹ This certainly would agree with McClintock and Strong’s argument that Theophilus was in Rome during Paul’s first imprisonment at which time both the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written.

1:1b The former treatise was Luke’s declaration of all that Jesus began both to do and teach. It is important to understand that the New Testament writers used the word all in a general sense rather than a technical sense. John’s Gospel relates that in a technical sense Jesus’ works could never have been completely recorded (John 21:25). We should probably understand the word all as meaning all that the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write. It was a complete account.

It is very important to notice that the text does not say did and taught. That would have put Jesus’ ministry