Does the Acts of the Apostles end openly? Paul has arrived in Rome - not as planned, under adverse circumstances, but with the message of the kingdom of God and the gospel of Christ on his lips and in his heart. After the adventurous shipwreck off Malta, the dramatic rescue from the raging surf (Acts 27:14-44) and the friendly reception by Publius, the "first" on the island (Acts 28:1-10), the military command, which in Luke seems to have become a travelling party around the prisoner, goes on board an Alexandrian ship, on board an Alexandrian ship, which sails under the sign of the Dioscuri Castor and Pollux, the patron saints of sailors, to Syracuse, the capital of Sicily, and continues three days later to land in Puteoli (Pozzuoli) near Naples via Rhegion (Reggio di Calabria). Paul was able to enjoy the hospitality of fellow believers there for a week before travelling overland to Rome. As far as Forum Appii and Tres Tabernae, he is met by emissaries from the Roman church (Acts 28:11-15). He is under house arrest in the capital, but is able to make contacts (Acts 28:16). He invites leading representatives of the synagogue to talk to them about the kingdom of God and Jesus (Acts 28:17-25). The reaction is divided. In order to interpret it, Paul quotes the prophet Isaiah's command to harden (Acts 28:25-27) and positions himself as a messenger to the nations (Acts 28:28), according to Luke. The conclusion of Acts reads: "For two years he lived in a rented flat and received all who came to him, proclaiming to them the kingdom of God and teaching about Jesus Christ, freely and without restraint" (Acts 28:31-32).
Is this a round ending? Is it an open ending?
Unresolved problems - unredeemed hope
There are two explanations for the fact that Acts has a round ending. One is historically false but theologically harmless, the other is historically powerful but theologically fatal. Theologically harmless but historically false is the information that Luke was unable to report further events because he had already completed his work at this time, i.e. in the early 1960s. This information is not convincing because the Acts of the Apostles presupposes the Gospel of Luke (Acts 1:1-2), but this is based, among other things, on the Gospel of Mark, which was evidently written around 70 AD (Mark 13:14).
It is purely speculative to think that Luke wanted to follow up with a third volume, which would then have reported on the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. It is true that such a book would meet with keen interest, especially in Spain, where Paul wanted to go according to the letter to the Romans (Rom 15:24, 28) and according to the First Epistle of Clement possibly did go (1 Clem 5:7). But there is not a single hint in the Acts of the Apostles that things were to continue - unlike in the Gospel, which points to a possible continuation of the story with the promise of the Spirit, the missionary mandate and the blessing of the Risen One ascending into heaven (Lk 24:49-51).
However, there is a widespread explanation that is theologically highly problematic. According to this explanation, Paul theologically bid farewell to the Jews who did not believe in Jesus with the logion of hardening: they had definitely missed their chance, so that the mission to the Gentiles would now take their place. Luke wanted to show this. Since this interpretation typically does not amount to a mission of the Jews themselves, but rather to a substitution of Israel by the Church, the door to Christian anti-Judaism would have been thrown open, which would have had a devastating effect. In fact, Luke is often held responsible for such a point. Anti-Judaism would then be the dark side and thus the theological disavowal of the mission of Christ.
But this interpretation is not convincing either. For one thing, the mission to the nations is not Luke's second choice after the mission to the Jews had failed, but Jesus' original commission to proclaim the gospel in "Jerusalem and all Judea, in Samaria and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Secondly, there is no mention of a replacement of Israel by the Church in Luke's double work. Rather, the information is addressed to the Roman synagogue leadership: "Let it be known to you: This salvation of God has been sent to the nations, and they will hear" (Acts 28:28). Paul announces that he will not be impressed by the contradiction, even if he is unable to resolve it. The mission to the nations must live with the rejection of Jesus by the vast majority of Jews.
The situation is similar in the debriefing of the sermon in the synagogue of Antioch Pisidia: "The word had to be proclaimed to you first, since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life: Behold, we turn to the nations. For thus the Lord has commanded us: 'I have appointed you to be the light of the nations for salvation to the ends of the earth' (Isaiah 42:6)" (Acts 13:46-47). Although this announcement is often interpreted as a turning away from the Jews and detachment from Israel, the course of the narrative shows that this is not the case. Rather, on the one hand, the "first" becomes clear, which expresses the election of Israel; on the other hand, the Jews, although they do not believe in Jesus, are announced an extension of God's salvation to the Gentiles. This universality, however, is the genuine horizon of Israel, a consequence of monotheism, as Luke preferably establishes in his Psalms.
In his defence speeches, which precede the transfer to Rome, there is no mention of an alleged end of Israel; rather, Paul refers to his adherence to the law before the governors Felix and Festus (Acts 24:10-21; 25:8); before King Agrippa and his sister's wife Berenice, he refers to the promises of the fathers, the blessing for all nations (Acts 26:6), which is affirmed by Jesus (Acts 26:7-23). Luke's focus is on opening up to the nations. The Jews, on the other hand, the vast majority of whom do not believe in Jesus as Christ, are therefore not written off theologically. Rather, their 'no' is a problem that is not solved in the book of Acts. It is based - not on jealousy, as the standardised translation would have it - but on zeal: for God (Acts 13:45). They do not bring their faith in God together with the confession of Christ.
According to Luke, however, it is not the case that the Jews who do not believe in Jesus have therefore proved themselves "unworthy" of salvation, as was previously stated in the standardised translation, but that they themselves think they are unworthy of him, as the revised standardised translation now makes clear. The verse offers no historically reliable information; it marks a Lucan attribution that is interpreted through the motif of hardening. This is why the dispute between Paul and the Roman synagogue leadership gets to the heart of the fundamental question of any theology of grace, which only God himself can answer: How does faith come about? How does God work salvation? How can the hope that is founded in one's own faith guarantee that others are not condemned, but also not appropriated, but understood?
There is a second problem that has not been solved. It is indicated by the reference to the imprisonment: in order to avoid extradition to the High Council, Paul appeals to the emperor in Rome in Caesarea Marittima - his Roman citizenship allows him to do so (Acts 25:8-10). So he arrives where he wanted to go anyway (Acts 19:21: "I must see Rome"). But his situation is precarious. He will have to answer for his actions; it is not clear how the trial will end. In research, it is often said that Luke was pursuing a political apologetic in order to emphasise the harmlessness of the gospel to the Romans and thereby reduce the pressure of Roman persecution. But Jesus, who puts up passive resistance to Pontius Pilate, and Paul, who repeatedly asserts his rights before Roman judges, prove the opposite. In Rome, too, there is no retreat from state authority, but also no support from it. Two years are mentioned; it remains to be seen how things will end and continue.
Consequently, there are two unresolved problems at the end of Acts. Both are serious: the relationship with the Jews, who do not believe in Jesus, and the relationship with the empire, in which all those who proclaim the gospel must expect persecution. Luke clearly emphasised the importance of both problems through the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. At the same time, however, he makes it clear that the missionary story will continue even if they are not solved.
The decisive challenge marked at the end of the Acts of the Apostles is not to suppress the unresolved problems, but to come to terms with them. The challenge can be overcome because both problems are underpinned by a hope that is real but not yet realised. The kingdom of God is near, but it is not yet complete; Luke is certain that history will not come to an end so soon, but that there will still be tension between "already" and "not yet" for some time to come. The promise of the Spirit is aimed at proclamation to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). As strategically and effectively as Peter and Paul in particular spread the gospel, this task is far from complete from Lucan's perspective. It is true that Paul has reached the centre of the empire. But the missionary perspective is the periphery. Even when faced with the unresolved problems with the Jews on the one hand and the Romans on the other, which had already become apparent long before his Roman sojourn, Paul would not abandon the preaching of the gospel. In his farewell address to the Ephesian presbyters in Miletus, he opened their eyes to the fact that death awaited him without the missionary work collapsing as a result (Acts 20:17-38).
This dynamic is expressed in the final verses of the Acts of the Apostles: the fact that the imprisoned Paul is able to work despite all the hardship points to God's ability to transcend human limitations - in a human way that is explained by faith. The fact that the hope of salvation has not yet been fully confirmed does not mean that there is none and that the promise of the gospel cannot already be linked to the happiness of faith. But it is so great that, on the one hand, it provokes the contradiction that leads to unresolved problems and, on the other hand, creates a way out in every crisis that leads to the future.
The openness of the ending signals that the story continues: beyond what has been told, in the reality of life, up to the time of the author and beyond. The conclusion in Rome sets an exclamation mark: that there will be no place where the gospel will not be heard, but that there will be no proclamation without the serious problems that will arise from the dissent with the Jewish majority and from the conflicts with political rulers. The double work looks back and forward. For those who are sceptical or curious, it makes it clear where the new religious, ethical, philosophical movement that calls itself "The Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) comes from and what it stands for, so that they can assess how it will develop in the future. For those who come to faith, it brings their own history to mind, so that they can both better understand the challenges of the present and have a better sense of direction for the future, in which they cannot copy what has gone before, but can absorb the impulses that were set in the beginning.
The relationship with the Jews
In the Infancy Gospel, Luke has already vividly illustrated that Jesus has Jewish roots and can only be understood from a living Judaism: Not that of the Sadducees and high priests, who are portrayed more as politicians, nor that of the Pharisees, who are accused of having too narrow an understanding of the law, but rather from the Judaism of pious priests like Zechariah, prophetic women like Mary, Elizabeth and Hannah, wise old men like Simeon and the poor like the shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem. Through his visits to the synagogue, his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his temple campaign and his interpretation of Scripture, Jesus shows time and again that he draws on the sources of biblical theology when he proclaims the kingdom of God, does not flee the path of suffering and lays down his life in the hope of the resurrection. In the early church, participation in the prayer life of the temple remains (Acts 2:46); even those who are called "Christians" for the first time because they programmatically carried out Gentile mission without circumcision from Antioch Syria (Acts 11:19-26) are by no means no longer Jews: neither in their eyes nor in the eyes of others.
The future option is not quite as clear in Luke, but it is also clear. Just as there are common roots that will not be uprooted, there is also a common hope that will not be destroyed. Jesus opens it up in an extremely critical prophecy. He recalls his many endeavours for "Jerusalem", whose "children" he has tried to gather, like a "mother hen takes her chicks under her wings" - an image reminiscent of wisdom (Luke 13:34). However, as they are unwilling, God leaves his "house", the temple, which is "abandoned" (Lk 13:35) to those who have made a "den of thieves" out of it (Lk 19:46: Jer 7:11). It is difficult not to think of the destruction of Jerusalem. However, in the end-time discourse that Luke has taken from the Gospel of Mark, Jesus makes it clear that neither the end of the world nor the end of Israel can be inferred from the end of the temple (Luke 21:7-36). This is also the case in the critical phase of the Galilean mission. There is an afterlife of judgement: "You will see me no more until the time comes when you will say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'" (Lk 13:35 - Ps 118:26). In Luke's Gospel, the view extends not only to Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (Lk 19:28-40), but also to the Parousia (Lk 21:25-28). Because Jesus speaks of the fact that people will definitely not see him again until that time has come (cf. Mt 23:37-39), the word speaks of a final encounter with the Messiah, who will be joyfully welcomed, even if it will be none other than Jesus. The Christology of Jesus, to which Luke bears witness, shines forth in this image of the future - in the confidence of faith in such a way that the enmity that threatens to destroy the relationship in the past and present is overcome.
In the final note in Romans, it is precisely the logion of hardening that spans this arc of hope. Paul notes how divided the Roman synagogue rulers are; therefore, according to Luke, he cites what Isaiah experienced as the basic mandate of his prophetic mission: "Go to this people and say: With your ears you have heard and have not understood; with your eyes you have seen and have not looked; for the heart of this people is hardened; their ears are hard of hearing; their eyes are closed, so that with their eyes they do not see and with their ears they do not hear and with their heart they do not understand and repent and I heal them" ((Lk 28:26-27: Isa 6:9-10LXX). According to Luke, Jesus also applied these words to his own mission: Through his parables, he triggers a crisis of understanding that cannot be resolved by the parables, but reveals the necessity of faith to understand (Lk 8:9-10). Paul illuminates the flipside. The prophet announces what is happening and will have happened: All that is to be said will have been said. But the proclamation will not have resulted in faith. The reason does not lie in the lack of quality of the word or the mediation, but in the hard-heartedness of the people, i.e. a closed-mindedness towards God, which can be particularly great when it refers to God. It is not brought about by the proclamation, but it is revealed. However, it is not the end of the story. For in the Bible, hardening cannot be equated with condemnation; it is always temporary. It is the dialectic of proclamation because it exposes the opposition to God's word, in this case the Christology that Luke is convinced of with Jesus according to his tradition. At the end of the quotation in the Acts of the Apostles is the healing. Even if it does not succeed in history, God's possibility is not over, as the parallel of the prophecy of judgement and salvation in Luke 13 proves.
In the Lucan version, which corresponds to the Septuagint, the logion of hardening is more focused on retrospection; it is intended to explain the rejection of Jesus. However, it does not indicate that Israel has forfeited its salvation, but that it is not given to it through faith in Christ, which responds to the mission. All options remain open to God to realise his universal will of salvation. Paul stands up for this with Isaiah and Jesus - according to Luke. Looking back on his imprisonment and a release that was considered in the meantime, he says: "When the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar, but not to accuse my people" (Acts 28:19). What applies to the political authorities is all the more important when it comes to God. During the two years of house arrest, Paul can receive "all" who wish, not only Gentiles but also Jews.
A comparison with the Paul of the epistles reveals strong similarities, but also clear differences. The "first to the Jews" is part of the theological matrix of the letter to the Romans because it corresponds to the continuity of God's saving action (Romans 1:16; 2:10), even through his judgement (Romans 2:9); it does not contradict the opening to the Gentile nations, but corresponds to it because, according to the claim, the Abrahamic blessing spreads to all nations in the mission (Romans 4).
Paul makes the eschatological future of Israel in God's salvation clearer when he explicitly speaks of the salvation of all Israel because God does not repent of his grace (Rom 11:26); but Luke also recognises this outlook, which alone is consistent if God's kingdom does not amount to the ultimate inferno, but to the furioso finale of completion. For every present time in history, Paul expects a rejection of Jesus Christ by most Jews because faith in him seems to contradict their yes to God (Romans 10:2; Acts 13:45). In his letter to the Romans, the apostle sees a dialectical connection between success among the Gentiles and failure among the Jews, both mediated in the renunciation of circumcision and in the new understanding of adherence to the law. Luke also saw the tension-filled intertwining, but did not reflect on it theologically, instead shaping it narratively. What Luke, unlike Paul, does not allow us to recognise is that there could be an inherent meaning in saying no to Jesus that is affirmed by Jesus himself because God does not regret his grace.
This limitation does not confuse the impression that Luke's concept of mission is free of structural anti-Judaism, but it does show a limit. By reverting to the Jesayan embroidery, which is a dialectical promise, it becomes clear that the contradiction of most Jews will not be resolved by the missionary work; but neither the mission to the nations nor the hope of salvation for Israel will be disavowed. Rather, both will coexist. Mission to the Jews in the wake of mission to the Gentiles is an absurdity anyway. God's kingdom is infinitely greater than the church. Hope remains.
The relationship with the empire
According to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul is a prisoner in Rome because he has been unjustly imprisoned and because the trial has been agonisingly drawn out until Paul decides to appeal to the emperor - which does not speed up the proceedings, but delays them further. The arrest is unjust because Paul is falsely accused of sacrilege when he enters the temple, so that he has to be taken into protective custody by the Roman colonel (Acts 21:27-22:29); the imprisonment is unjust because he is not given a fair trial, but his person becomes a pawn in the game of political interests between the governors and the high council (Acts 22:30-25:12). Through his courageous intervention, Paul saves the lives of both the crew and the prisoners who were to be killed in the sea storm (Acts 27:14-44). He is also able to gain the trust of the island prince on Malta (Acts 28:1-10) and enjoy the hospitality of his fellow believers in Pozzuoli (Acts 28:14). But he remained under the command of the Roman guard (Acts 28:16). The appeal to the emperor that he has lodged buys him time - and puts him in shackles (Acts 28:17). We are not told how the trial ended. Later tradition does not paint a clear picture of whether the imprisonment dragged on or whether he was released until he suffered martyrdom - traditionally under Nero (Acta Pauli 11).
What becomes clear, however, is Luke's critical view of the Roman Empire, which creates facts not only in the military and economic system, but also in the judicial system. Critical means: differentiated and committed - committed in the freedom to proclaim the gospel, which must not be restricted because God is the Lord of all earthly masters; differentiated in the judgement of Roman justice because earthly law must not be bent and the proclamation must be based on it being observed.
In the background of the Acts of the Apostles is the trial that Jesus is put on. It leads to a judicial murder. Jesus is accused of serious crimes by members of the high council before Pilate: he had "deceived" and "stirred up" the "people"; he wanted to prevent them from "paying tax to Caesar" and he claimed to be "king", a messianic rival to the Roman emperor (Luke 23:1-3, 5). The Gospel narrative shows that each of the accusations is false and that the crucial point from the evangelist's point of view, Jesus' Christology, is deliberately distorted. Luke tells us that Pilate has seen through this game. Three times he declares that he finds no guilt in Jesus (Luke 23:4, 13-16, 22). But in the end, he nevertheless condemns him to the cross because he bows to the massive pressure of the accusers, whom he wants to satisfy, at Jesus' expense - a clear breach of the law (Luke 23:20-25), similar to that committed by governor Felix (Acts 24:27) and Festus (Acts 25:1-12) against Paul, according to Luke.
For Paul, the Roman confrontation is only the last link in a chain of confrontations with Roman rulers. The first confrontation takes place in Philippi. The place is a Roman colony (Acts 16:12). A military command structure therefore prevailed there. Paul and his comrade-in-arms Silas are accused by the owners of a slave woman, who had to work for them as a fortune teller, before the city authorities after Paul has driven out the "spirit" that had spoken from the woman. The motives are purely economic: the exorcism leads to a loss of income. But the accusation is politically explosive: as "Jews", Paul and Silas are accused of spreading "customs" that Romans are not allowed to adopt (Acts 16:16-21). The mos maoirum are sacred, including pietas, piety, which is called into question by Christian enlightenment preaching. As the lords succeed in stirring up the people, the accused are tortured by the city commanders and thrown into prison (Acts 16:22-24). The next morning they want to get rid of them secretly (Acts 16:35-36) - obviously because they want to get rid of troublemakers, but also because they cannot fail to recognise the groundlessness of the accusation. However, they are confronted by Paul, who explains to the commanders' messengers: "They have had us publicly flogged without judgement, even though we are Roman citizens; they have put us in prison, and now they want to send us away secretly? No, let them come in person and lead us out" (Acts 16:37). This protest was successful: the city leaders apologised personally; there was a public rehabilitation (Acts 16:38-40).
The conflict in Thessalonica did not end so smoothly afterwards. Paul and Silas are accused by a mob incited by the Jews of being a political insurrectionist (Acts 17:7) who proclaims a king other than the emperor, namely Jesus. This accusation corresponds to that levelled against Jesus before Pilate according to the Gospel of Luke (Luke 23:2): The accusation is dangerous because it strikes at the heart of the Pax Romana that supposedly reigns. Because the two accused cannot be found, the accusers and the city prefects turn to Jason, who had harboured them, and other members of the community. Although nothing can be proven against them, they have to post bail, which is forfeited if the offence is repeated (Acts 17:9). It is therefore also in the interests of the church that Paul and Silas leave the city immediately.
A counter-story takes place in Corinth (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio is the governor and supreme judge there. Jews who compete with Paul accuse him: "Against the law, this man persuades people to worship God" (Acts 18:13). The governor judges this point as a purely religious matter: "If there were an injustice or a serious offence here, you Jews, it would be in order to hear you. But if there are disputes among you about doctrine and names and the law, you watch! I will not be judge of these things" (Acts 16:14-15).
The triad of judgement scenes is stylised. The interests of Luke can be seen in it: When it comes to justice and law, no obstacles must be placed in the way of the proclamation of the gospel, because God's kingdom and Jesus' messiahship are out of competition with the Roman empire and emperor. Jesus taught us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to render unto God the things that are God's (Luke 20:20-28). The point is not a peaceful separation. Rather, everything is to be given to God; within this there is a small but important area that is to be given to Caesar. No emperor is God; God is Lord even over the emperor. In the name of God, political rule must be based on law and justice. But the law is still being bent. This must be protested against in the name of God. One must not bow to violence; but no one may be forced to martyrdom.
Paul's trial in Jerusalem, Caesarea and Rome brings the problem to a head. The colonel of the Roman temple guard plays a good role; he gives Paul the opportunity to explain himself as he is accused of desecrating the temple; he protects him from the angry crowd by taking him into custody (Acts 21:27 - 22:29); he gives the high council the opportunity to present his case (Acts 22:30 - 23:11), he transfers Paul to Caesarea to protect him from an attack in Jerusalem (Acts 23:12-35).
Things become difficult as soon as the governors take control. Before Felix, envoys from the high council accused Paul of stirring up trouble because he had tried to desecrate the temple, which the Romans were protecting (Acts 24:4-9). Felix does give Paul the opportunity to defend himself (Acts 24:10-21) and, after postponing the trial to hear the Jerusalem colonel Lysias (Acts 24:22-23), seeks further talks with him because he is clear about his innocence (Acts 24:24-25). But because he does not receive a bribe and wants to be on good terms with the Jewish authorities, he does not release him until his dismissal (60 AD) (Acts 24:26-27). Luke makes it clear: Felix has failed.
Things are only a little better with his successor, Festus. Although he gives Paul the opportunity to explain himself (Acts 25:1-11) and allows his appeal to the emperor (Acts 25:12), he should have firmly rejected the accusation, so that Paul would not have had the need to appeal, which was permitted under the legal conditions of the time because the governor can only act as the emperor's representative in capital matters and usually, as here, conducts extraordinary proceedings (extra ordinem), which a Roman citizen does not have to accept.
According to Luke, however, Festus described to Agrippa and Berenice how correctly he had proceeded in the causa, because he had called a hearing at which there had been no substantiated accusation because only internal Jewish religious issues had been raised (Acts 25:13-21). However, he fails to mention that he - an opportunist - had given Jesus the alternative of extradition to Jerusalem (Acts 25:9), so that appealing to the emperor was the last resort that Paul could have chosen (Acts 25:10). It is therefore a poisoned consensus when he declares together with Agrippa and Berenice: "This man does nothing worthy of death or imprisonment" (Acts 26:31), and it is a fatal declaration of innocence when Agrippa says to Festus: "This man could be released if he had not appealed to the emperor" (Acts 26:32). Luke guides all those who read his book through the story in such a way that, on close reading, they can recognise the tactical relationship to the law that the Roman governors in Judea display. The criticism is as subtle as it is clear. It is in line with Paul's ambivalent experiences on his missionary journey.
It's not much different in Rome. The shadow of injustice also lies over pre-trial detention. It is light, as Felix had already ordered for Caesarea (Acts 24:23). A soldier on guard duty is ordered to keep an eye on the delinquent (custodia militaris), in contrast to incarceration (custodia publica). Imprisonment is light (custodia libera), which Paul probably owed to his citizenship. He cannot proselytise unhindered. But he can receive people in his home who are interested in the kingdom of God and in Jesus.
Luke characterises Paul in such a way that he is not the least bit intimidated when he has to deal with high-ranking politicians. He claims his wealth; he uses the defence as an opportunity to preach. However, he does not demonise politics, but clarifies where and how it is abused, also with the help of the law, which is bent. According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus himself prophesied that this would happen and promised eternal life to the steadfast (Luke 21:12-19). St Paul, formerly a persecutor, is a prime example.
Closed and open book transactions
The Acts of the Apostles is not a fragment. It has a beautiful ending that is dialectically open. Ancient histories, related to the Acts of the Apostles, do not end openly, but round off the narrative. Some important works have only survived in fragments, so that no conclusions can be drawn, including the Histories of Thucydides, the History of Judaism by Eupolemos, the History of Science by Eudemos of Rhodes, the historical works of Diodorus Siculus, Alexander Polyhistor, Quintus Fabius Pictor, Aufidius Bassus, Fabius Rusticus and Clufius Rufus, the Annales of Tacitus, the Roman histories of Polybius, Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cassius Dio and Appianus. Other works provide a clearer picture. Herodotus ends his description of the Persian Wars with the decision of the people under Cyrus to "prefer to inhabit a meagre land than to be another's servant sowing on a fertile plain" (Histories IX 122.4) - a worthy monument to the Persian free spirit. Xenophon, continuing Thucydides, concludes his account with the second battle of Mantineia, which leads to a stalemate after the many Peloponnesian battles, and notes: "As far as I am concerned, my notes shall go as far as this. What comes afterwards will perhaps occupy someone else' (Hellenica VIII 5,27). He ends his Anabasis with a recapitulation of the names and facts of the march of the ten thousand (Anabasis VII 8,25-26). Strabo, a contemporary of Luke, concludes his geography with a description of Caesar's distribution of territory over the entire globe (IX 3,25). Herodian, considerably younger, concludes with a perfectly formed final remark that includes a summary reflection on the narrative, a kind of moral of the story (Historia Romana VIII 8,7).
The Roman writers are no different from the Greeks. Caesar concludes De bello Gallico with a detailed report on the successful conclusion of the campaign - combined with the expectation of a grateful acknowledgement from Rome (De bello Gallico 7.90); his secretary Aulus Hirtius ends the addendum with a eulogy to the peace-loving and law-abiding Caesar (De bello Gallico 8.55). Caesar ends his book De bello civili with an overview of his successes and the announcement of the follow-up book on the Alexandrian War (De bello civili 3,112). At the end of the Catiline conspiracy, Gaius Sallustius Crispus describes how heroic the downfall was, on the part of both the loser and the victors (De coniuratione Catilinae 61), and concludes his account of the Jugurthine Wars with the triumphal procession of Marius, which, however, leaves a bland aftertaste because the internal Roman dispute between the patricians was disastrous (De bello Iugurthino 114). At the end of his Roman History, Velleius Paterculus offers a prayer of thanks to Jupiter (Historia Romana II 131). Florus concludes with a homage to the god-like Augustus (Epitoma de Tito Livio 2.33).
Biographies typically end with the death of the protagonist, as in Suetonius (De vita Caesarum) and also in Curtius Rufus' extensive work on Alexander the Great (Historiae Alexandri Magni 10,10) or in Philo's polemic against the anti-Semite Flaccus (Adversus Flaccum 191). Plutarch's parallel biographies lead to a comparison that correlates political significance with moral character.
Flavius Josephus likes it similarly organised. His Jewish War ends with the statement: "Here we are at the end of the history which we promised to write down with all diligence for those who wished to know in what manner the war between the Romans and the Jews was conducted. The judgement as to how the matter has been presented is left to the readers; as to the truth, however, I do not hesitate to assert firmly that I have focused on it alone throughout the whole of Scripture" (De bello Judaico 7, 454 [11,5]). He ends the Antiquitates with bibliographical notes: "Herewith I conclude my Antiquities, which consist of twenty books and sixty thousand lines" - before announcing further projects (Antiquitates 20, 11,2). Joseph and Aseneth ends with a summary note that Joseph ruled Egypt like a king after the death of Pharaoh and later looked after his son like a father when he came of age and ascended the Egyptian throne. (JosAs 29:11). The Apocalypse of Moses leads to a heavenly hallelujah (Acts 43:4), the life of Adam and Eve ends in deep mourning of the sons over the death of their mother (VitAd 51:3). The 3rd Book of Maccabees lets the joy over a letter of protection from Ptolemy Philopator lead to a doxology (3 Macc ,23), the 4th Book of Maccabees contrasts the cruel martyrdoms with the heavenly reward of the Maccabean heroes and their mother, before a doxology concludes the book (4 Macc 18,20-24). The early Jewish biographies of the prophets regularly end with a note of their death and have a subscpritio that refers to further sources (VitProph).
The biblical history books are no different: the First Book of Maccabees ends with the announcement of a sequel, after recounting how Johanan (Hyrcanus) foiled an attack (1 Macc 16:23-24). The second book of Maccabees, which is not this sequel, has an epilogue: "Nicanor has perished; from that time on the city was ruled by the Hebrews. Thus I finish my word" - which is followed by a short adverb (2 Macc 15:37-39). The Book of Esther concludes with an editorial note on who delivered it at Purim (Ezr 10:31), the Book of Judith with the news of the heroine's death (Jdt 16:21-25), the Book of Tobit with the news of the death of the hero who had heard of the end of Nebuchadnezzar (Tob 14:12-15), the Book of Nehemiah with an account of the governor in the form of a prayer (Neh 14:23-31). Finally, the Second Book of Chronicles sees the fulfilment of what Jeremiah prophesied in the deliverance from the Babylonian exile (2 Chr 36:22-23). The list can be extended.
The pagan, Jewish and Old Testament endings fit in perfectly with the cultures' view of history and humanity. Pagan history has episodes, phases and epochs that are best presented in retrospect and opened up to the reading public, the elite of society, through ethical judgements. Readers should learn lessons from history. Histora magistra vitae, says Cicero (De oratore II 36); for there are characteristic patterns and typical experiences which, in a mythical world view, are explained by the recurrence of the same. Heroes are at the centre: Men who risk their lives, fighters who are eager for victories, villains who are overtaken by just punishment. Plutarch's anthropology is Hellenistically civilised; it remains a gallery of strong men who can have great weaknesses.
Biblical and early Jewish historiography, on the other hand, moves in the space of God's historically powerful action, which achieves effects through blessing and curse. It attempts to trace his fingerprints when it describes what was in order to understand what is and to shape what is to come. The matrix is God's faithfulness to his promise. It remains valid even if Israel becomes unfaithful. It creates the future where it seems blocked. It visualises the past through the writing of history, because God creates a memory of his deeds (Ps 111:4-5). Within this horizon, not only are victories celebrated and defeats mourned, but gains from losses are also recognised: New beginnings in break-ups, turnarounds in endings, glimpses of light in deep darkness. People do not need to hide their weaknesses, but can reveal them - trusting that they will not be humiliated by God. Not only men, but also women play key roles, beyond the rampant patriarchalism: Ruth, Judith and Esther set exclamation marks.
The Acts of the Apostles stands in this line of a theology of hope - and starts anew. It does not describe an end, but a beginning: the worldwide mission that realises that there is one God for all. This development is characterised by the resurrection of Jesus. He is none other than the man from Nazareth who was executed on Golgotha; it is now he in the power of God, exalted to the right hand of the Father (Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55-56); it is he who will come again to complete God's kingdom.
The open ending of the book of Acts is a silent confession of Jesus' resurrection. As long as time lasts, the gospel will continue to be proclaimed to the nations. The majority of Jews will continue to refuse to believe in Christ. It will also remain the case that no theocracy will be established in the name of Jesus, but rather a church that is categorically different from the empire and therefore develops the ability to criticise. The mission to the nations, the tension with the vast majority of Jews, the conflicts with political authority are mutually related because the proclamation is public and universal from Jewish roots. It is at home in the church, but infinitely greater than it.
Those who believe in Jesus Christ are supported by the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in their task of bearing witness, because in reading they can be certain of the "reliability of the catechesis" in which they - like Theophilus - have been instructed (Luke 1:1-4). They should not develop any resentment towards the Jews who do not believe in Jesus, but rather, like him, suffer with the persecuting Jews, as the chapel Dominus flevit states on the basis of a Lucan episode (Lk 19:41-44); their role model is Stephen, who prays for his executioners, including Saul (Acts 7:60); their role model can also be Paul, who does not bring charges against his people (Acts 28:19). Last but not least, believers should look to Jesus for reconciliation in the messianic consummation (Luke 13:34); Peter spoke of the full restoration of Israel (Acts 3:21), Paul preaches about justification by faith (Acts 13:38-39) and places his defence under the sign of the hope of resurrection
(Acts 23:6; 24:21).
For Luke, it is crucial that the path continues, the decisive first stages of which he has described in Jesus' mission and his post-Easter discipleship. The path continues because it is paved by God himself. That is why the end of his book is not closed, but open. The future is open.
