Acts 1:1

On the opening words of the ‘ Acts. ' ‘The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach' (Acts 1:1).

There is a well-known Latin Fragment on the Canon, first published by Muratori, discovered in the library of St. Ambrose at Milan, in an ancient MS. which purported to contain the works of Chrysostom. The fragment in question claims to have been written by a contemporary of Pius, bishop of Rome, and must have been originally written not later than A.D. 160-170. In this most ancient work the Book of the Acts of the Apostles is mentioned as containing a record by St. Luke of those acts of the apostles which fell under his own notice. The writer of this most ancient fragment shows that this limitation must have been laid down by St. Luke, for he specially records how the martyrdom of Peter and the journey of Paul to Spain are both omitted in the history. [1]

[1] ‘Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scriptasunt Lucas optime. Theophile comprehendit quia sub praesentia ejus singula gerebantur sicut et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis' (Canon of Muratori, Routh. Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. i.).

This view, however, of the Acts by the writer of the fragment in question, on examination seems too narrow and purposeless. The universal and reverent reception or this book in all the churches from the earliest time points to some definite purpose and object for which the history was written, which purpose and object was recognised by the Church from the beginning. The position this book occupied from the very early days of Christianity in the teaching of the Church, leads us to conclude that it must tell the story of some peculiar and critical period in the Church's history, that it must relate some all-important and vital developments of Christian practice and government, developments sanctioned at least, if not originated by men who had received the commission of founding and organizing the Christian community from the hands of the Master Himself. It occupies a position of authority in the early Church second only to that filled by the Gospels. These especially relate the story of the commission of the Twelve from Christ. The ‘Acts' is the sequel to the Gospels, and records how the Twelve carried out the great commission themselves, and handed it down to other chosen men of many lands and of many races. The ‘Acts' is no mere memoirs of events to which St. Luke happened to be the wit-ness, no mere history of the acts of a Peter or a Paul, except in so much as these distinguished apostolic leaders were the chosen instruments of Christian development and progress.

The first words of the Acts give us the key to the understanding of the object and purpose for which this book was written; for it is surely no arbitrary interpretation which sees in the opening words of St. Luke's second treatise ‘of all that Jesus began to do and teach,' a deep and far-stretching meaning. The writer of these Acts commences his memoirs of the early Christian Church by sharply distinguishing between the work of Jesus among men when He was in the form of a man upon earth, and the work of the same Jesus from His glory throne in heaven after He has been taken up.

St. Luke dismisses the first part of his work by a reference to his former treatise, known among men as the Gospel of St. Luke; which treatise related exclusively to our Lord's ministry when on earth, and implies that in those memoirs which he was about to publish known subsequently among men as ‘The Acts of the Apostles' the continuation of the Lord's ministry was to be related. In the mind of the writer of these opening words of the ‘Acts,' a most close and intimate connection existed between the work and ministry of Jesus on earth and the work and ministry of Jesus in heaven. The Gospel completes the story of the first period the work of Jesus on earth; the Acts commences the story of the second period the work of Jesus in heaven.

These opening words with which St. Luke commences the ‘Acts' throw light upon the whole book. They at once remove the first impression which leads men to view the Acts of the Apostles as detached memoirs, or a recital deeply interesting containing inspired utterances, but on the whole as disconnected, without any set defined purpose. But this first verse we are now considering, when fairly examined, throws a new light over the history. The former treatise (St. Luke's Gospel) relates all that Jesus began to do and to teach till He was taken up. What St. Luke was about to do in his second treatise was simply to take up the thread of his first, and to relate the continuation of the gospel story, to show how the now risen and ascended Lord still worked among men, how, though unseen, He still guided the footsteps of His chosen servants.

Acts 1:1. Theophilus. Clearly a proper name. The Gospel of St. Luke is also addressed to him. There he is addressed as ‘most excellent' a title of honour applied to high officials, as to Felix (Acts 23:26), and to Festus (Acts 26:25). He was, no doubt, a convert to Christianity of high rank. Nothing, however, is known respecting his story (see note on St. Luke 1:3).

Of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach. Not, as Wordsworth well says, that St. Luke narrated them all (see St. John 21:25), but those things requisite and sufficient for the object in view. Began to do. See introductory note.