Background-- Acts

A Study of the Acts of the Apostles & Paul’s Missionary Journeys

Background (Luke): The book of Acts was probably written by Luke the Physician (Col. 4:14).  Both Acts and Luke. are largely attributed to being written around 70 A.D.  This is acceptable because Luke refers to the Gospel of Mark in the introduction to his own account (Luke 1: 1,2)  Paul mentions in three of his imprisonment letters that Luke is with him and due to the fact that both Luke and Acts are written in outstanding Greek and have many thorough descriptions of illnesses as well as the mere fact that the Author uses references to “we” often in late Acts (starting around Acts 16: 10), indicating that he was with Paul in his imprisonments, makes it hard to argue against the fact that Luke was indeed the author of both Acts and Luke despite the fact the Author never names himself in the writings. [ESV Study: 2073]

            “Luke

The evangelist, was a Gentile. The date and circumstances of his conversion are unknown. According to his own statement (Luk_1:2), he was not an “eye-witness and minister of the word from the beginning.” It is probable that he was a physician in Troas, and was there converted by Paul, to whom he attached himself. He accompanied him to Philippi, but did not there share his imprisonment, nor did he accompany him further after his release in his missionary journey at this time (Act_17:1). On Paul's third visit to Philippi (Act_20:5, Act_20:6) we again meet with Luke, who probably had spent all the intervening time in that city, a period of seven or eight years. From this time Luke was Paul's constant companion during his journey to Jerusalem (Acts 20:6-21:18). He again disappears from view during Paul's imprisonment at Jerusalem and Caesarea, and only reappears when Paul sets out for Rome (Act_27:1), whither he accompanies him (Act_28:2, Act_28:12-16), and where he remains with him till the close of his first imprisonment (Phm_1:24; Col_4:14). The last notice of the “beloved physician” is in 2Ti_4:11.

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.”

                   [Easton’s Bible Dictionary: Luke]

{Other than these few hints, not much is known about Luke but from what we can tell Luke was a cool cat}

Background (who, when, where, why, under whom): 

Who:  As previously mentioned, Acts was the second of two books written, most likely, by Luke.  Luke starts both of his letters addressing them to a man named Theophilus (literally translated “lover of God”), who was probably a roman citizen (note: Luke addresses Theophilus as “most excellent” which may hint that this person was of a high rank in rome [Luke 1:3]; this might even hint that Luke and Acts were written as a defense to Paul’s trial in Rome which is alluded to at the end of Acts with Theophilis, possibly, being the judge).  Another interesting alternative to this widely accepted viewpoint the Greek translation of Theophilis’s name may mean that Luke was writing to a body of believer’s as opposed to a singular person.  Due to the fact that little is known about Theophilis other than what has been mentioned previously, neither standpoint can be denied or accepted but the first is far more likely.

When: Acts was the second account of Luke’s summary of the time period between Christ’s birth up until the date of documentation.  Evidence’s in the accounts reference the Gospel of Mark in the first chapter of Luke.  Some scholars use this to say that the book was written around 70 A.D.  It seems though, most likely that the book was written in 62 A.D. due to the fact that the book ends rather abrupt during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome.  It would seem that had Luke of known that Paul had been released then he wouldn’t have failed to have mentioned it.

Where: Due to the books abrupt ending in Rome along with other hints given to us in some of Paul’s imprisonment letters, we can logically conclude that the majority of the book was written during Paul’s second imprisonment in Rome (see Col. 4:14 & 2 Tim. 4:11).

Why: Luke, the beloved physician, most likely wrote these accounts to give a logical, detailed account (timeline) of the birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection (namely. Recorded in his Gospel) as well as to give an account of Christ’s ascension and the works of the saints after Christ’s ascension (namely, recorded in Acts).  He might have also written the book to challenge the faith of his readers.

Under Whom: The emperor of Rome during the time of Acts was a cat named Nero:

          “Nero

Occurs only in the superscription (which is probably spurious, and is altogether  in the R.V.) to the Second Epistle to Timothy. He became emperor of Rome when he was about seventeen years of age (A.D. 54), and soon began to exhibit the character of a cruel tyrant and heathen debaucher. In May A.D. 64, a terrible conflagration broke out in Rome, which raged for six days and seven nights, and totally destroyed a great part of the city. The guilt of this fire was attached to him at the time, and the general verdict of history accuses him of the crime. “Hence, to suppress the rumour,” says Tacitus (Annals, xv. 44), “he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who are hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius; but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only throughout Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow, from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly, first three were seized, who confessed they were Christians. Next, on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city as of hating the human race. And in their deaths they were also made the subjects of sport; for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and, when day declined, burned to serve for nocturnal lights. Nero offered his own gardens for that spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the habit of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot; whence a feeling of compassion arose toward the sufferers, though guilty and deserving to be made examples of by capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but victims to the ferocity of one man.” Another Roman historian, Suetonius (Nero, xvi.), says of him: “He likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who hold a new and impious superstition” (Forbes's Footsteps of St. Paul, p. 60).

Nero was the emperor before whom Paul was brought on his first imprisonment at Rome, and the apostle is supposed to have suffered martyrdom during this persecution. He is repeatedly alluded to in Scripture (Act_25:11; Phi_1:12, Phi_1:13; Phi_4:22). He died A.D. 68.”

[Easton’s Bible Dictionary]

He was not a very nice guy.  He burned Christians and used them as lights in his chariot races.  And you thought you fall under persecution. 

It should be noted that had Luke of written Acts after Nero intensified his persecution in 64 A.D. then Luke probably would have mentioned it in the book, further backing the idea that Luke wrote Acts in or around 62 A.D.