It is accepted by most Bible scholars that Luke is the author of the Book of Acts. We see that the Book of Acts was written to Theophilus, as was the Gospel of Luke. For one to challenge the authenticity of the Book of Acts would also require one to logically and sequentially challenge the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke as they are written by the same author. Likewise, if any student of the Bible chooses to “marginalize” the Book of Acts, then, by sequential logic, you would also be required to marginalize the Gospel of Luke. You cannot have it both ways. Either Acts is the Word of God, or, it is not.
When reading the Book of Acts, one can see that many central figures of Bible history are mentioned in Acts. Not only are Patriarchs of the Christian faith mentioned in Acts, but also Roman political figures and some degree of discussion of the Roman legal system all of which makes Acts rich in historical context.
The Book of Acts gives us the best and most comprehensive history of the beginning of the Christian Church as well as serving as a historical analysis of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Acts gives cohesion and interconnectivity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Here springs much disagreement concerning how much theology, if any at all, can be drawn from the Book of Acts.
To say that one cannot draw theology from the Book of Acts is about the most non-scholarly statement any serious student of the Bible could ever make. In Acts, you have the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and the birth of the Christian Church. So, to say that one cannot draw theology from the Book of Acts is the anti-thesis of Biblical scholarship. If you don’t draw theology from the Book of Acts and thus treat the church history contained in its pages as merely “historical and transitional”, then where do you get a theological reference for the beginning of the church? Perhaps, one could “make it up.”
To say that we cannot draw and formulate theology from the Book of Acts would be similar to saying that we cannot draw theology from the Book of Genesis. This leads to the point in the discussion about why some have difficulty with the Book of Acts. The reason there is such resistance to drawing and formulating theology from the Book of Acts is because in Acts, we see Christians (including the founding fathers of the faith) all getting Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Notice I said “ALL.” Everyone. In fact, as we shall see, if you were a Christian and not Baptized in the Holy Spirit, you were considered outside of the norm.
First, we see the disciples of Jesus who had been waiting in the Upper Room being filled with the Holy Spirit as described in Acts chapter 2. Notice that they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and that they all spoke in tongues. Some of those nearby heard languages known to them. It is at this point of interpretation that denominations have been born and various schools of Christian thought have sprung from. This one event, this one moment in time, this one story in these few verses of scripture generate some of the greatest debate in all of scripture.
Without getting into a specific debate about tongues, suffice to say that it is a most torturous interpretation of these scriptures to suggest that “tongues” must be a known language. Just a simple exercise in word definition works at this point. That is, we read in the Bible where the early Christians spoke in “unknown tongues.” Therefore, if these same Christians (or Christians today), and the tongues they speak in, are to be described as a “known language” that God supernaturally gives that particular Christian the ability to speak for the moment at hand, for the purpose of ministering the Gospel, then you really cannot call it an “unknown tongue” could you, for if God gives you the ability to “know” and speak a language that you haven’t spoken before, then it would not be “unknown.” Furthermore, to suggest that only “known” languages of the day were spoken at Acts 2:4 is a shallow and less-than-scholarly interpretation as we know that you cannot deduce that “heavenly or angelic” languages were not also being spoken. Let’s look at an analogy. If I see a car and drive a car, let’s say a very expensive and luxurious car, perhaps a Lamborghini Reventon, and upon seeing, driving and experiencing such a car, I then afterwards have a discussion and describe the car to you. And, in the course of describing the car and my experience of driving it, I simply say to you “Oh, yes, it was a car, it had four wheels, two doors, an engine, a manual transmission and it made a distinct sound.” End. To hear such a description of such a car, and my experience driving it, would be extremely inadequate and under-representative of the actual type of car it really is. Likewise, to simplistically describe the event of Acts 2:4 where we see the forefathers of the Christian faith receiving the promise spoken by Jesus, as merely “a group of Christians speaking in French, German, Greek, Spanish, Persian and Italian” is hardly an accurate description of what was really going on.
And, Acts 2:4 is not the only time and place this happens. It is the anti-thesis of scholarship to not read further on in the Books of Acts and take note of the fact that there is more than one Acts 2:4 type of experience mentioned in Acts. In other words, Acts 2:4 is not the only place where we see Christians being Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.
In Acts 10:44-48, some 10 years after the events of Acts 2:4, we see believers again being Baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Seeing that this is occurring some 10 years after the initial event of Christians being Baptized in the Holy Spirit, one could hardly deduce that such an experience could be theologically confined to “getting the church started.” I mean, it’s now 10 years later.
Then, let’s go on and take a look at Acts 19:1-6 where we see again Christians receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues after being asked the question “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” This event is said to have occurred some 20–25 years after Acts 2:4. So, at this point, to try and confine the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as simply a “kick start” to get the church going, is hardly a scholarly approach to Bible interpretation. At this point, the gospel message has gone throughout most of the known world and multitudes of churches have been established and multitudes have accepted Christ as Savior. Acts chapter 19 is hardly the “starting point” of the Christian church. The Christian Church is “well on its way” at this point.
In conclusion, we must see Acts as the foundational description of the early church. There is not a more accurate description, historically or spiritually, of what was going on than is described in the Book of Acts. This is the record of the early church. Acts establishes spiritual principles, doctrine, theology and a significant part of the frame of reference for Christianity.