January 10, 2010

Acts 1:1-5

So many books, so little time. You may or may not agree with that statement. I didn't for the first thirty years of my life. Reading was a chore; now it borders on an obsession. Thanks to technology, I'm never without a good book. I've got ten in my pocket right now, including the entire Bible and John Calvin's commentary on the book of Acts, volumes one and two. And best of all, I've got enough space left on my phone to store dozens more.   The problem is deciding which ones. Because life is limited, and the number of books isn't, I've got to be selective. I faced the same problem when I trying to decide which book of the Bible I wanted to preach this year. I had already decided that jumping around from book to book and passage to passage each Sunday isn't the best way to learn; starting at the beginning and working your way through one book is. But which one? There are sixty-six of them in here, and they're all good. They have to be; God inspired each and every one of them. 

Some of them were easy to eliminate; I'll be honest. Leviticus was never in the running. And neither was Lamentations. Revelation is way over my head so I quickly crossed that off the list. I was tempted to tackle Romans, but I don't think I'm ready for parts of that book either. I seriously considered James, in part because it is so practical.   Then there was Ecclesiastes and Paul's pastoral epistles. But in the end none of those felt right. Then, one day I was reading something from Acts and it hit me; this is it. This is what I'm supposed to do. I should have let God make the selection from the beginning. I don't know why I didn't. Yes I do. I'm human. It's our nature to get ahead of God. Thankfully, he is full of grace and forgiveness; like the psalmist says, "he knows how we are formed", he knows how we are--independent, impulsive, insistent when it comes to having things our way--and he takes that into account. Then, he gently reminds us who's in charge. I know life works better when he's at the controls, but that doesn't stop me from trying to take over every chance I get.

I say all of that to say this: if you're sick of Acts six months from now, don't tell me; take it up with God because He's the one who pointed me in this direction; why He pointed me in this direction is another story; I really can't say; I have a clue, but that's about it. I'm trusting Him to reveal His reasons as we go along; typically, that's how God works anyway, one small step at a time. I don't particularly care to operate on a need to know basis, but I understand why God works that way: it requires us to trust Him. Every Monday morning I sit down and look at the following Sunday's text. And my initial reaction to it is almost always the same. "What on earth am I going to say"? That's a terrible feeling, trust me. It's been that way for eleven years and I have every reason to believe that it will always be that way. But not once, in all that time, has God ever let me down. By Sunday, the words are always there. This week was especially challenging for two reasons. First, when I'm on vacation like I was last week, I completely shut my brain down. And it takes a while to get it cranked back up. Second, we're beginning a journey this morning that will carry us well into 2011. And like every long journey the first step is always the hardest. I wasn't sure how or where to begin. After a few false starts, that still small voice suggested that I begin this book the way I begin every book, with the author. I simply can't overemphasize how important that is, especially when it comes to Christian books. When I was a new, naive Christian I thought if a book was in the 'Christianity' section at Barnes and Nobles, it must be legitimate. The fact is there's a lot of heresy on those shelves. I've seen a book there by somebody who used to pastor a church in our fair town. Among other things he denies the Virgin Birth, hell, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. If want to throw money away, let me suggest that you flush it down the toilet, don't spend it on his books(unless you plan to flush them down the toilet). If that's your intention, then I wholeheartedly commend his work to you. And before you buy a so-called Christian book, check out the author; there's a chance you already know more about Jesus than he does.

So who wrote Acts? Why did he write it? How did he write it? And is he credible? Those are the questions I hope to answer this morning, if I don't run out of time. If I do, I'll answer the ones I don't get to next Sunday. First, the question concerning authorship. You'll notice it's the first book in the New Testament without a name attached to it. There's Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; then there's Acts. The author's name doesn't appear at the top or in the opening verses, as is the case with the other books. Take Romans, the next book in the New Testament. It begins, "Paul, a servant of Christ....to all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints." Too bad Acts doesn't begin that way, with the author's name in the introduction. Fortunately, however, we know who the recipient of Acts was, someone named Theophilus. Unfortunately, his name is about the only thing we do know; everything else about him is an educated guess. "In my former book, Theophilus...." We could still figure out who wrote Acts without those those five words, but they make the mystery much easier to solve. Fortunately, the name Theophilus isn't as common as the name John. If fact, it only appears one other place in the Scriptures. Turn to Luke for a second. Let's read the introduction to his gospel. Actually, I'll read, you just listen. "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." So, whoever wrote this gospel also wrote the book of Acts. And based on early evidence, there is little doubt among modern scholars that it was, indeed, Luke. 

Most of you have never heard of the men I'm about to mention; they were Church leaders in the second and third centuries: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria. Those theological heavyweights all confirm that Luke is responsible for the gospel, and therefore, Acts. In fact, those two books belong together; Acts is the sequel to Luke. Most people think that volume one is about Jesus and that volume two is about the Church. But it's clear from Acts 1:1 that that isn't the case. Listen. "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach.....until the day he was taken up to heaven." Luke's gospel is about everything that Jesus did up to the time he ascended. Acts is about everything Jesus did after his ascension. John Stott put it this way. "Jesus ministry on earth, exercised personally and publicly, was followed by his ministry from heaven, exercised through his Holy Spirit by the apostles. Moreover, the watershed between the two was the ascension. Not only did it conclude Luke's first book and introduce his second, but it terminated Jesus' earthly ministry and inaugurated his heavenly ministry." When you look at it like that, and I think that's the right way to look at it, the traditional title of Acts isn't necessarily the best title for it. Since the second century it's been referred to as the Acts of the Apostles. But many people have argued that that title is too 'man-centered'; that it overlooks the role that divine power played in everything that happened. To correct that mistake, others have gone to the opposite extreme, suggesting that a better title for this book would be the "Acts of the Holy Spirit". "But that," says John Stott, "overlooks the apostles as the chief characters through whom the Spirit worked". Here's what he suggests; "The Continuing Words and Deeds of Jesus by his Spirit through his Apostles." It's wordy to be sure, but it's accurate and it's in line with Luke's introduction: the other book was about what Jesus began to do and teach; this one is about what Jesus continued to do and teach. 

Who wrote it? Luke. That's one question down, a hundred to go. Before I address the next one, concerning Luke's credibility, I want to make a comment or two about his inspiration. And by that I don't mean the Holy Spirit, though ultimately he is the author of all sixty-six books of the Bible. I'm talking about Theophilus. From a human point of view, we have him to thank for 1/4 of the entire New Testament.   Now Paul wrote far more books than Luke, fourteen out of the twenty eight, but some of them were short. Philemon, for example, is only one page long. But if you're counting words, Luke is the biggest contributor to the New Testament. And Theophilus was his inspiration. His name literally means, "lover of God", which has led some scholars to suggest that Acts wasn't written to a particular individual at all, but to all Christians in general. Ambrose, another theologian that's been dead for nearly two thousand years wrote that "Luke's gospel was written to Theophilus, that is, to him who loves God. If you love God, it was written to you", he said. And he's right. The fact that we are reading it now proves that. But originally, most scholars believe that the Theophilus to whom Luke wrote was an actual person, and very possibly a high ranking Roman official because of the title attached to his name; he's not just Theophilus, he's "most excellent Theophilus". Very often, people with big titles have big money. It's been suggested that Theophilus financed the writing of Luke's two books. Then, like now, it took a lot of time and energy to write a book. Luke didn't just knock these two volumes out one weekend. It's clear from the introduction to his gospel that he invested a great deal in them. "I have carefully investigated everything, from the beginning", he says. Luke thoroughly researched everything he wrote about. That took a lot of time and, no doubt, it also took a lot of money. In those days it wasn't unusual at all for a wealthy benefactor to pay an author's bills while he concentrated on his writing. In return, the writer would acknowledge that person in his work, or dedicate the whole thing to them. That could very well be the case here. 

Whether Luke was on Theophilus' payroll or not, we don't know. But he was Luke's inspiration and motivation. Some scholars think Theophilus was a recent convert to the faith; others think he was what we would call a "seeker" today; someone who is considering Christianity, but has yet to commit because they have questions. Theophilus definitely had something; if not questions, then doubts. Either way, I think we need to pause for a moment to appreciate his predicament. When it came to religion, Rome was very accommodating. You could have one god, or a hundred; it didn't really matter. But Lord was a title reserved for one man, Caesar. And every Roman was supposed to pledge his highest allegiance to the nation. As a Christian, that would present a problem for Theophilus. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar can't be. And if his ultimate allegiance was to Christ's kingdom it couldn't be to Rome. Potentially, Theophilus had a lot to lose if was a Christian, or was about to become one. Best case scenario, he would lose his job. Worst case, he would lose his life. In all likelihood, people who say that following Christ is easy, aren't following Christ at all. Faith comes with a price, sometimes it's friends, sometimes it's family; Jesus said, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three." Sometimes following Christ will mean a loss of employment or it might mean that your standing in the community will suffer. Any serious Christian will tell you, "It's more than worth it". Paul had a comfy, uncomplicated life before Christ. But after Christ, he wrote, "Compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, that stuff didn't mean anything. I consider it all rubbish, that I may gain Christ." There was, however, a big difference between Paul and Theophilus: Paul was willing to sacrifice everything, including his life, because he believed everything he preached 100%. He knew that Jesus rose from the grave. He knew that Jesus was going to return. So what if he ended up dead; he knew that "to live is Christ, and that to die is gain." Theophilus wasn't quite ready to die, because he wasn't so sure. And it was his doubts that inspired Luke to write 1/4 of the New Testament. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us", he wrote. "Therefore, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Do you know the certainty of the things you have been taught? Are you sure about that? If you really do, it will be reflected in your actions. For example: doubters don't talk about Jesus outside of church. They talk about church outside of church, because they believe in it. It's kind of hard to deny this pulpit; listen, I can pound on it. It's hard to deny those pews that you're sitting on. But a baby conceived by a Holy Spirit, born to a virgin? Two fish and five loaves; I'm supposed to believe that five thousand people dined on that, and there were leftovers? Three days dead and after that alive again? Seriously? One minute Jesus is commissioning disciples, and the next he's sitting at the right hand of God in heaven. Wait, that's not all. Two men all decked out in white appear while the disciples are staring at the sky and say, "What are you guys doing? Jesus isn't gone for good; he'll be back." I don't see any sign of him, do you?

As Christians we're expected to believe some incredible things. There's no question about it. But believe them we must. Without that certainty, we'll never risk anything for Christ. Without that certainty, we'll never take a bold stand for him in this world. Without that certainty, the cares of this world will totally overwhelm us. Thank God for Theophilus. Most people hide their doubts and keep their questions to themselves; he admitted his and went looking for answers. And because he did, we have another biography of Jesus and a reliable record of the early Church, the only record I might add. Without Luke, we'd still have Matthew, Mark, and John. But with Acts, we'd have no idea how Jesus took twelve men and turn the world upside down in less than thirty years. Most of us have a little Theophilus in us; by the end of Acts I hope we will all know the certainty of what we've been taught. Amen.