was paul still alive while luke wrote acts? and why the focus on paul and his ministry rather then say peter the first pope or any of the other apostles? I’m guessing since Luke was a companion of Paul he wrote about him more.
I heard a preacher once, who said that the book of Acts ends like it does because, in fact, it never ends; It simply continues in the triumphs of Christ’s church. Maybe it is still being written in the annuls of heaven? Maybe you and I get a mention? :knight2:
Not sure whether Paul was still alive when Acts was written…but the footnotes in my Bible explain the abrupt ending of Acts this way:
Jesus told the Apostles to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Paul arriving in Rome and preaching there meant that mission was accomplished; preaching in the capital of the Roman Empire meant that the Gospel had been preached to the ends of the earth.
This is the explanation given in the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture:
Thus Acts ends on a triumphal note. The final two words in Greek are literally “boldness” and “unhindered.” Although a prisoner, Paul continues to proclaim the gospel with complete assurance and without hindrance. Even if the messenger is chained, the message is not (see 2 Tim 2:9). Here lies the reason why Luke does not tell us what happened to Paul at the end of the two full years. Though Luke knows what happened to Paul, his narrative is not primarily about Paul but about the spread of the good news of Jesus Christ.
Luke ends his two-volume work on a high note: Paul is proclaiming the kingdom and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ “with complete assurance and without hindrance.” This open-ended conclusion implies a challenge to us, his readers. The examples of Peter, John, Stephen, Philip, Barnabas and Paul summon us too to be daring witnesses to Jesus. It is now up to us to continue the proclamation of the gospel boldly and without hindrance, no matter what obstacles we may encounter.