Why is the first sentence of Luke not written in chronological order?

[Guido]

This is not a post to criticize the Bible, but issues similar had shaken my faith through my conceit of my own for a moment, my repentance shortly afterward following.

My question is this: Why does Luke, in the book of Acts, instead of so speaking: "first this, then that", so speak, "until" "after" in ways you must rearrange in your mind in order to understand it?

Thank you for your answers.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I'm missing your point, Guido. I see Acts beginning like any "volume 2" of an historical narrative.
v.1 he explains what volume 1 (Gospel of Luke) was about - the "beginning" of what Jesus did/taught
v.2-5 he summarizes the final chapter of Gospel to tie the books together
v.6-11 he expands the last couple sentences of Gospel in the ascension

It IS 100% chronological and 'this, then this, then this" in my reading. Could you share what is troubling you?

 

[Guido]

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Acts 1:1‭-‬3 KJV

These events are not in chronological order, so it requires one to rearrange them mentally in order to understand what happened in their proper order.

If there's something about reading a sentence I do not understand, which prevented me from comming to the same conclusion as you, can you please explain that to me?

Thank you.

 

[canadyjd]

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Acts 1:1‭-‬3 KJV

These events are not in chronological order, so it requires one to rearrange them mentally in order to understand what happened in their proper order.

If there's something about reading a sentence I do not understand, which prevented me from comming to the same conclusion as you, can you please explain that to me?

Thank you.

The first four verses of Acts, as well as Luke and Hebrews, are written in what scholars call “near classic Greek” The rest is Kone Greek.

Classic Greek is poetic, like “Homer” or the “Iliad”.

So, it simply may be the attempt to translate a poem into plain English.

peace to you

 

[Dr. Bob]

These are all chronological:

FIRST - The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up,
[this is the Gospel of Luke recording Jesus' words/actions]

SECOND - after that Jesus through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
[after his resurrection Jesus gave commands to apostles that He chose during pre-crucifixion ministry AND the holy Spirit of God reinforced these commands AFTER His ascension - to tarry, then go and share Gospel - Luke will go on in the next verses to explain the "after that"]

THIRD - to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
[clarifying who these "apostles" were, witnesses of His resurrection]

Not seeing any issue here; just formal explanation by the writer to introduce Book 2

 

[agedman]

Acts should be placed next to Luke so folks could see it as a sequel rather then a separate stand alone book.