The ACTS of Jesus
“all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up”
I returned this past Sunday to preaching from the book of Acts. It was only my third message since beginning the series through Acts. I had taken a two-week hiatus because I preached an evangelistic message on May 3 for our baptism service. Mothers Day followed (My thoughts on this day deserve a separate blog). I was glad, however, to return to where I left off on April 26th. My plan was to pick it up from Acts 1:4, but I spent about the first two hours reviewing my previous two messages so that I could create a sense of continuity. I didn’t get past verse one however because I couldn’t believe I previously missed what Luke is saying in the first two verses. This is what I mean.
We might become mislead if we began by considering the tile: The Acts of the Apostles. The Greek manuscripts title it simply as “Acts.” Later manuscripts add “of the Apostles.” That is somewhat of an accurate title because the apostles are certainly the ones taking the lead in preaching and proclaiming the gospel, but has it ever bothered you that we are not told about the ministry of every single apostle? Why is it that we know very little of the entire twelve beyond this point if this book is really about the Acts of the Apostles? The twelve Apostles are foundational to the church, but we know more about the Apostle Paul in contrast to the twelve. The Apostle Paul dominates half the book beginning in chapter 13.
"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach”
It would be unbiblical to create a divide between Jesus and his apostles. God forbid that we do so. It’s a matter of perspective. Luke seems to divides Jesus’ work in two parts and if the work of Jesus is divided into two parts then we must ask where is it that we find the dividing point? The ascension of Jesus serves as the dividing line (until the day when he was taken up).
We often speak of Jesus in terms of pre and post-resurrection i.e. Jesus before the resurrection and Jesus after the resurrection. Luke makes a distinction here between the pre-ascension and the post-ascension Jesus for he writes,
“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up”
So did Jesus “began”, but didn’t finish?
The Gospel according to Luke is about what Jesus "began to do and teach" up until he returned to the Father, but if you don’t catch what Luke means then you just might come away thinking that Jesus left things unfinished. You might think of Jesus much in the same way that secular and unbelieving historians think of him. You see these guys all the time on the History and Discovery channels giving their commentary and opinions every time there is some program about the Life of Jesus. Jesus is portrayed as a revolutionary or a good teacher who taught good morals and tried to better this world, but whose life was tragically cut short by a corrupt government and religious institution. He began, but didn’t finish. Yes, Luke is a historian, but this is not how he portrays Jesus. So don’t take Luke’s words this way,
“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up” because his life was tragically cut short
Jesus began, but his followers continued?
Now, you may say that Jesus began, but his apostles continued the teaching. Throughout history there have certainly been leaders of causes whose lives have been cut short because of an assassin or some tragedy. The leader dies and so does the cause or movement they began, but there are those instances in which the followers are able to continue the work and vision of the leader.
You may say, “Yes, this is true of Jesus! His disciples carried the mantle so to speak.” There is certainly an aspect in which this is true, but in another sense it is not. Jesus’ followers did not pick up where Jesus left off in the same sense that Martin Luther King’s followers picked up where Dr. King left off in advocating civil rights. This, again, is the mistake that secular historians make when they speak of Jesus. They perceive him as someone who brought a body of teaching that was revolutionary and that being a follower is mainly about adopting that body of moral teaching. They convey the idea that we no longer have Jesus the person, but we have his teachings. This is nonsense. This is not the manner in which Luke is presents Jesus. No, no, no! Luke means to say that in his first book he deals with “all that Jesus began to do and teach until the ascension,” but the book of Acts is about all that Jesus continues to do and teach after his ascension into heaven.
I returned this past Sunday to preaching from the book of Acts. It was only my third message since beginning the series through Acts. I had taken a two-week hiatus because I preached an evangelistic message on May 3 for our baptism service. Mothers Day followed (My thoughts on this day deserve a separate blog). I was glad, however, to return to where I left off on April 26th. My plan was to pick it up from Acts 1:4, but I spent about the first two hours reviewing my previous two messages so that I could create a sense of continuity. I didn’t get past verse one however because I couldn’t believe I previously missed what Luke is saying in the first two verses. This is what I mean.
We might become mislead if we began by considering the tile: The Acts of the Apostles. The Greek manuscripts title it simply as “Acts.” Later manuscripts add “of the Apostles.” That is somewhat of an accurate title because the apostles are certainly the ones taking the lead in preaching and proclaiming the gospel, but has it ever bothered you that we are not told about the ministry of every single apostle? Why is it that we know very little of the entire twelve beyond this point if this book is really about the Acts of the Apostles? The twelve Apostles are foundational to the church, but we know more about the Apostle Paul in contrast to the twelve. The Apostle Paul dominates half the book beginning in chapter 13.
"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach”
It would be unbiblical to create a divide between Jesus and his apostles. God forbid that we do so. It’s a matter of perspective. Luke seems to divides Jesus’ work in two parts and if the work of Jesus is divided into two parts then we must ask where is it that we find the dividing point? The ascension of Jesus serves as the dividing line (until the day when he was taken up).
We often speak of Jesus in terms of pre and post-resurrection i.e. Jesus before the resurrection and Jesus after the resurrection. Luke makes a distinction here between the pre-ascension and the post-ascension Jesus for he writes,
“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up”
So did Jesus “began”, but didn’t finish?
The Gospel according to Luke is about what Jesus "began to do and teach" up until he returned to the Father, but if you don’t catch what Luke means then you just might come away thinking that Jesus left things unfinished. You might think of Jesus much in the same way that secular and unbelieving historians think of him. You see these guys all the time on the History and Discovery channels giving their commentary and opinions every time there is some program about the Life of Jesus. Jesus is portrayed as a revolutionary or a good teacher who taught good morals and tried to better this world, but whose life was tragically cut short by a corrupt government and religious institution. He began, but didn’t finish. Yes, Luke is a historian, but this is not how he portrays Jesus. So don’t take Luke’s words this way,
“In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up” because his life was tragically cut short
Jesus began, but his followers continued?
Now, you may say that Jesus began, but his apostles continued the teaching. Throughout history there have certainly been leaders of causes whose lives have been cut short because of an assassin or some tragedy. The leader dies and so does the cause or movement they began, but there are those instances in which the followers are able to continue the work and vision of the leader.
You may say, “Yes, this is true of Jesus! His disciples carried the mantle so to speak.” There is certainly an aspect in which this is true, but in another sense it is not. Jesus’ followers did not pick up where Jesus left off in the same sense that Martin Luther King’s followers picked up where Dr. King left off in advocating civil rights. This, again, is the mistake that secular historians make when they speak of Jesus. They perceive him as someone who brought a body of teaching that was revolutionary and that being a follower is mainly about adopting that body of moral teaching. They convey the idea that we no longer have Jesus the person, but we have his teachings. This is nonsense. This is not the manner in which Luke is presents Jesus. No, no, no! Luke means to say that in his first book he deals with “all that Jesus began to do and teach until the ascension,” but the book of Acts is about all that Jesus continues to do and teach after his ascension into heaven.
Comments
I just recently published a book about the prayers of the Apostle Paul, and thought you may be interested in checking it out. You can preview and even order the book at www.Amazon.com. Just type in Praying The Prayers of the Apostle Paul.
Thanks and God Bless,
casparkman@gmail.com