The end of the book of Acts poses a significant problem for the reader. Or it poses no problem at all. G. W. Trompf began an essay on the end of Acts by arguing, “The present conclusion to the book of Acts calls for an explanation … A modern reader would like to learn how long Paul dwelt in Rome, whether he lived there for a considerable period, was tried, imprisoned or acquitted, whether he died there of‘natural causes’ or was put to death, or whether he subsequently journeyed to other parts of the Mediterranean world.” In a dissertation on the end of Acts written four years earlier, however, C. B. Puskas, Jr. maintained, “A majority of scholars regard the problem of an abrupt ending as a superficial one since Acts 28 can be seen as a deliberate and complete conclusion from a literary and theological standpoint.” In a footnote to these words Puskas concludes, “It seems to us that the continued appearance of the abrupt ending question in contemporary commentaries is more a result of the self-imposed obligation of modern commentators to discuss the historical preoccupations of earlier commentators, than it is a result of the inherent importance of the question itself.”

This chapter maintains that both Trompf and Puskas are correct: The end of Acts is abrupt, but the abruptness of the ending was intentional and purposeful.