In the first chapter of this book we reviewed the Tübingen suggestion that Luke–Acts was an irenic and apologetic work, an interpretation derived particularly from Luke's second volume. The classic Tübingen formulation held that Acts was written to mediate the differences between Jewish Christians (Petrine) and gentile Christians (Pauline). Furthermore, Luke's record of the encounters between Christians and the authorities of the state was intended to prove the harmlessness of Christianity before a questioning Roman government.

Though the Tübingen interpretation, as we have seen, had serious limitations, the balance which the Tübingen scholars attempted to strike is a worthy goal for any contemporary researcher. They built their interpretation on two basic elements that form the nucleus of the last chapters of Acts: Luke has presented Paul as both a Pharisee and a Roman. As a diaspora Pharisee, Paul was an effective bridge between the Jerusalem church and the gentile mission churches. As a Roman citizen, Paul was the perfect spokesman to defend Christian political loyalty in a Roman court.

Paul's political apologia, however, takes a rather odd turn. Paul's appeal to his Pharisaism and to his Roman citizenship – to the resurrection and to Caesar – results in a rather muddled, if not unconvincing, political apologetic. If Luke's intention was to persuade a magistrate that Christianity is politically benign, he has again been less than effective an advocate. If, however, he was trying to present Rome in a positive light to the Christian reader, he has succeeded.