How possible is it that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written for Paul’s defense?

Question

The abrupt stop of the historic information in the book of Acts leads to the conclusion that the history stops because that was when Luke wrote Acts and his Gospel. Note where the history stops:

There we found brothers and were invited to stay with them for seven days. And so we came to Rome. (Acts 28:14, ESV)

He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance. (Ac 28:30–31, ESV)

How possible is it that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written for Paul’s defense while in prison that time in Rome? The Gospel would explain Christ and much of Acts is Paul’s history.

This gives some scriptural support, "Luke alone is with me." (in 2 Tim. 4:11, ESV)

Answer 1

The view that Luke-Acts was written by Luke for Paul's trial is championed in this book entitled "Paul On Trial". Here is the Google Books description:

John W. Mauck Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001 - Religion - 236 pages 0 Reviews

JOHN W. MAUCK provides an exciting new way of understanding the Book of Acts. With great skill and powerful arguments, the author contends that Acts was written primarily to defend Paul for his forthcoming trial in Rome. After reading Mauck's volume, the read we will not only gain a fuller understanding of Acts, but also obtain rock-solid arguments for defending Christianity and understanding its Jewish roots.

What's Inside: A fresh study of Acts as a legal "brief"

Insights gained from understanding of Roman law

Numerous Charts that outline Luke's "argument"

Recorded speeches viewed as "witness testimony"

A section-by-section review of all of Acts

A powerful apologetic defending the claims of Christianity

Endorsements:

"The book is a terrific addition to any lawyer's library. It makes the Book of Acts come alive with new and useful insights." -- Samuel B. Casey, Executive Director, Christian Legal Society

"It makes a constructive, fresh, and fascinating contribution to the understanding of Acts." -- Dr. Donald Hagner, Author of Matthew in WBC, Fuller Theological Seminary

I have not read the book but have long been fascinated by the idea. It does make one wonder if there were ever a time when anyone in a legal service would read such a huge document that probably filled a shelf in its original form!

So the book presents the case for it being a brief and to the degree you are convinced by the author is an indicator of the strength of the argument.

Answer 2

You question contains an intriguing possibility about data that we do not know. What we do know is:

• Both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by Luke (from the Latin Lucas) a gentile physician and believer (Col 4:10-14).
• Early tradition makes Luke a native of Antioch in Syria. He was obviously well educated as the Greek that He employs in writing both his Gospel and Acts is more complex and uses a much larger vocabulary than most other NT authors.
• Luke's stated (explicit) purpose in writing these documents is set out in their respective prologues - to inform "Theophilus", an unknown person.
• The content of Luke's works is both narrative/historical and theological- he includes much about the work of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it has often been observed that the book of Acts would be better titled, "The Acts of the Holy Spirit".

Now to the question at hand. If Luke intended the book of Acts as a legal brief, then it possibly contained more material than is necessary. However, the last third of the book would be an excellent defence - but why include so much about the ship-wreck and the details of the journey (Acts 27)? Certainly, Acts 23-26 is an excellent legal defence. But that does not explain the Gospel of Luke.

Perhaps, Luke was asked to help prepare Paul's legal defence and included some of the material in Acts - this is quite possible and even probable but is based on what is unknown. If Theophilus were Paul's lawyer in Nero's court (which we do not know) that would strengthen the conclusion, but such a person would have a Latin name not such a conspicuously Greek name.

Answer 3

The article you mention in your comments explains that there are several theories as to who Theophilus was, none of which can be substantiated.

With regard to Luke and his purpose in writing his gospel account and Acts of the Apostles, the article concludes:

While each of these theories holds possibilities, it seems most likely that Theophilus was a high-ranking or influential Gentile for whom Luke wanted to provide a detailed, historical account of Christ and the spread of the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. Whether this Theophilus was a wealthy relative of Caesar, an influential government official, a wealthy benefactor who supported Paul or Paul’s Roman lawyer does not really matter. We cannot know for sure who Theophilus was, but we can know what Luke’s intentions for writing were. His stated reason for writing to Theophilus was “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3-4). Luke wrote an historical account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and detailed the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. His intention was to give Theophilus certainty that the “things he had been taught” were indeed true and trustworthy. Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Theophilus-Luke-Acts.html

To suggest that the "Gospel of Luke and Acts were written for Paul’s defense while in prison that time in Rome" is an interesting, but speculative, theory.

Answer 4

Composing the Gospel from several written sources was certainly not a quick effort. Although it is not critical to the Romans, it would not be necessary to do this for the defense of his friend and teacher Paul.

Luke states in the beginning of the Acts that he had already written the Gospel. So he wrote another long story after it. You would not write two books subsequently for the same use to defend Paul.

No Roman judge would read two long books. Something more focused and less time-consuming would have done better.

Theophilos is not necessarily a given name; it is an adjective in substantive use meaning «God-loving». There was no difference made using capital letters for names in that time; the minuscule Greek letters did not yet exist. Capitalisation is a later interpretation. It is more likely that Luke did not write for a particular person but to the God-loving reader, whoever it is.

From this, it is very unlikely that the purpose of the Gospel and the Acts is the defense of Paul.

Answer 5

The purpose of Luke's writings was clearly stated in Luke 1:

1 Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke was being objective here. Having spent much time personally traveling with Paul, Luke couldn't help but being influenced by Paul. Still, I do not think that there was any hidden agenda in Luke's writings. His stated agenda was being truthful and objective while defending his friend, Paul, at times.