Having started exploring Acts again at church recently, I’m reminded of the many ironies in the book. The most noticeable irony being that the representation of those inside the church and those outside the church are not as we might expect.

Take for instance, early in Acts when the apostles miraculously heal a lame man. You’d think the religious leaders would be excited about this and share the news, right?

Not at all. Rather they firstly seem completely confused as to what is happening, asking the apostles “By what power or name did you do this?”

You’d think they’d have realised it was an act of God, but apparently not.

Instead these clueless religious leaders seek to solve the ‘problem’ by forming a committee (sigh… typical) sweeping the miracle under the carpet and manipulating the situation so that everything can just go back to normal.

The coast is clear again for them to get on with doing what they want to do, namely, rule religiously, despite massive failure to see the obvious.

So it’s interesting that on the flip side, Acts actually portrays Roman, non-religious leadership in a really positive manner compared to the way in which the Jewish religious leaders – or the Sanhedrin – are presented. The Sanhedrin are underhanded liars compared to the humanness of the non-religious Romans.

The Jews flog the apostles but there are Roman officials who refuse to flog the apostle, Paul, due to respect for his citizenship. The Jews are fasting until they can kill Paul. The Romans rescue him from his own people four times.

Even though those events come later in Acts, the writer, Luke sets up important groundwork earlier in the book. It allows for a clear, interesting – and concerning – contrast. The Jews are God’s special people but in Acts, it is the non-religious who outdo them on occasion.

This brings out an interesting point.

The historical narrative of Acts was written by a critical player in New Testament writing.

Luke wrote both Acts and his gospel to a man called Theophilus, who many believe was a Roman official. Did Luke write and intentionally present his intended audience in a more favourable light? Personally, I think we can confidently agree with Luke that these positive and negative representations are just as things were. For there are clear comparisons in Acts as noted earlier.

I like that the Bible does this. It has no issues with painting things as they are, even if it’s unexpected. In the end it makes the text more believable and helps to show that there is no A Team or B Team in Acts: only completely dependent believers who, with God’s assistance never give up the good fight in their efforts to change the course of human history as they share the gospel.

And they do change the world of their day as the Holy Spirit enables them. The gospel goes on a tour of Europe picking up many believers, before landing in Rome at the conclusion of Luke’s book.

Acts begins with a clear mandate for the apostles: be witnesses of Jesus and his message and take it to the ends of the earth.

This they do for sure. But the way in which it happens, the key players involved are not what they might have expected.

The same for us as we seek to do God’s will. Sometimes assistance comes from the most unexpected corners. Unexpected to us at least, but not to God

None of it is outside God’s control or plan and whilst we might think things are meandering, God knows it is not.

There are no A Teams or B Teams in Acts. And no plan Bs either.

Yours in the team with the plan,

Alison