ACTS 28: PAUL IN ROME

Visiting Rome was the Fulfillment of God’s Plan for him. After God had appeared to Saul on the Damascus Road and he was blinded by the light from heaven, Jesus appeared also to Ananias in Damascus and commanded him to visit Saul in Damascus and be his agent to restore Saul’s sight. When Ananias showed reluctance to go, because of Saul’s reputation, Jesus assured him with these words:

Acts 9:15-16 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and [before] kings and before the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

These words of prediction take on meaning after you have read the rest of Luke’s narrative in Acts. We have seen repeatedly how much suffering Paul underwent. And of the threefold target audience before whom he must bear witness, the first and third (Gentiles and people of Israel) are seen in all his ministry from chapter 9 to the end of the book, and the second (kings) is fulfilled in Paul’s witness to Herod Agrippa (ch 25-26) and anticipated in his upcoming trial in Rome before Caesar, which Luke sees no need to include in Acts.

So Paul’s visit to Rome is already entailed in the prediction to Ananias of his witness to “kings”. If Ananias told Paul of the words of his vision of Jesus, which we do not know, Paul might himself have had this visit to Rome as part of his life-program.

But the earliest we have some inkling of Paul’s plan to visit is while he was in Ephesus contemplating a third missionary trip through Macedonia and Greece. About this Luke wrote:

Acts 19:21 After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. “After I have been there,” he said, “I must visit Rome also.”

In the midst of his Greek travels, while he was in Corinth before setting out for Jerusalem, Paul wrote a letter to the churches in Rome. At the end of that letter he wrote these words:

Rom. 15:20-28 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. … 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you. 23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions [Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Israel], and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. …… 28 So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way.

That this visit was indeed God’s plan, and not just Paul’s ambition is shown by the words of Jesus to Paul in Jerusalem:

Acts 23:11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

And again when he was aboard the ship sailing for Rome and in danger of sinking:

Acts 27:24 [Jesus] said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you.’

While Luke thus makes it clear in several predictions he records that Paul must stand before Caesar, it was not part of his plan to describe that trial. Instead, his plan throughout not only Acts, but also his Gospel, of which Acts is merely the second part, was to show God’s faithfulness to his promises to send his salvation to his people and to the ends of the earth. This plan Luke summarized in Acts 1:7-8. Right before he ascended to heaven (ch. 1) he commissioned his believers and gave us our task while we wait for the full manifestation of the kingdom at his Second Coming. It is to be witnesses to him in Jerusalem, in Judea, Samaria and to the farthest parts of the Earth. Thinking in Roman terms, Paul probably thought of Spain as one of the farthest parts of the Roman World. But in Luke’s telling, the climax is the arrival of Paul in the center of the Roman World, the Eternal City, where people going to the farthest parts of the then known world would be available to witness to.

11-16 Arrival at Rome

Acts 28:11-16 After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island. It was an Alexandrian ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux. 12 We put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days. 13 From there we set sail and arrived at Rhegium. The next day the south wind came up, and on the following day we reached Puteoli. 14 There we found some brothers who invited us to spend a week with them. And so we came to Rome. 15 The brothers there had heard that we were coming, and they traveled as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet us. At the sight of these men Paul thanked God and was encouraged. 16 When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him.

Luke is brief in his covering of the last part of Paul’s route from Caesarea to Rome. The main point in this section is the hospitality of Christians in southern Italy and in Rome. He receives a warm welcome from the believers.

And once in Rome, Paul is not incarcerated in a prison cell, not even kept together with other prisoners, but is allowed to live in his own private, rented quarters under guard by a single Roman soldier who was chained to him. This accommodation was spacious and offered the chance to entertain large gatherings of Christian friends and persons interested in hearing Paul speak about Jesus and the Kingdom of God.

16 In the circumstances of Paul’s detention in Rome under “lightened custody”, probably because of the extreme weakness of the case against him in the official Roman transcripts (litterae dimissoriae) of the trials before Felix and Festus, he had unrestricted access to visitors. We also learn from Luke that he was in a large rental house or apartment with room to entertain large numbers of visitors. (For this all see Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 177-189).

17-22 First Meeting with Jewish Leaders

Acts 28:17-22 Three days later he called together the leaders of the Jews. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. 18 They examined me and wanted to release me, because I was not guilty of any crime deserving death. 19 But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—not that I had any charge to bring against my own people. 20 For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.” 21 They replied, “We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of the brothers who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.

Why does Paul seek as his first act upon arriving to speak specifically with Jewish leaders? In part it conforms to his regular pattern upon arriving in a new city: to visit the synagogue on the first Sabbath and to witness to “the Jew first”. Possibly this reflects what he means in Romans 1:16; 2:9-10.

But there may also be a practical reason that has to do with his upcoming trial before Nero. Had letters from the chief priests in Jerusalem reached these influential Roman Jews, giving their false accusations against him, the latter might use their wealth and influence in high places in Rome to turn the trial against Paul. It was vital that Paul make his defense first before them.

Although all English translations begin Paul’s words with the address “my brothers”, the Greek text begins with the word “I” (ego), signaling that Paul’s intention is a personal defense to these influential Jews, who “through their contacts in the imperial court and … their money, … could, if they desired, support the charges against him” (NIV Comm).

“The fact that Luke does not find it necessary to tell us [about Paul’s trial before Caesar] is a most important clue as to how we should read the conclusion of his work: the point is not the fate of Paul, but the fidelity of God. So when Paul arrives in Rome his first step is to invite the Jewish leaders to his presence. In his initial meeting with them, Paul makes clear not only his innocence of any charges worthy of death, but more importantly, his complete lack of animus against Judaism. He has not come as one bearing "a charge against my nation" (28:19). Indeed, his desire to speak at length with them has nothing to do with his own fate but with his message, which concerns "the hope of Israel" (28:20). Even after his repeated rejections by his fellow Jews which caused him to turn to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46-47;18:6), even after their seeking to kill him in Jerusalem by treachery (Acts 23:12-15), and cooptation of the Roman system (25:1-5), Paul still seeks out his own people. The reason is not his personal heroism but God 's fidelity to the promises. They have still another chance to respond.

17-20 Paul’s opening words to his Jewish visitors confidently report that the attempts by hostile Jews in Jerusalem to convict him of a crime under Roman law were completely unsuccessful because there was no substance to their charges. In saying this, he refers to the Jews with the Greek term laos which in contradistinction to the noun ethnos emphasized the holy character of Israel as the chosen people. The “customs of our ancestors” included not only OT law but also the traditions agreed upon by all branches of Judaism (remember my comments on Paul’s use of the terms “customs” and “controversies” in my posting "Ch. 25:23 - 26:32 Paul before Agrippa" comment on Acts 26:3). His preaching about the resurrection offended Sadducees, but violated no true Jewish custom. Sadducees did not exist outside of Palestine; so all of Paul’s Roman audience would be Pharisaic in nature.

So confident is he, that he claims (v. 19) he could have successfully brought counter-suit against the Jerusalem leaders on grounds of malicious prosecution.

What he may have had in mind was what Ferguson speaks of:
“As a safeguard against abuse of the system of delatio [‘denunciation, accusation’], the law provided for calumnia [‘false accusation, malicious charge’], by which a person bringing a false charge was subject to the same punishment he sought against the accused” (Ferguson, Backgrounds 65).

This principle of law is as old as the Code of Hammurabi, laws 1 and 2. Law 1 reads: “If a man accuses another man and charges him with homicide but cannot bring proof against him, his accuser shall be killed.”

This confident assertion of Paul’s was not mere unsupported bravado, but could be supported by the written evidence of the Roman trial transcripts and the litterae dimissoriae sent by Festus to Nero, copies of which may well have been in Paul’s possession as he spoke (so correctly Rapske, 184-185).

The “they” (v. 18) who had “examined” Paul were, of course, Felix and Festus. Agrippa was merely consulted by Festus in order to see if one so familiar with Jewish law could discern anything in the evidence against Paul that could be formulated into a believable charge of breach of Roman law. Here for the first time we hear that “the death penalty” was even an option. One cannot see under Roman law an offense worthy of the death penalty attributable to Paul. But under Jewish law, if he indeed had brought Gentiles into the Jerusalem temple, the Roman court would have recognized the legitimacy of the Jewish sentence of death.

V. 19 anticipates their question “Why then are you here awaiting trial?” The “objection” of the Jews took the form of requesting that Festus — as a “favor” — change the venue of trial from Caesarea to Jerusalem, where the Jews hoped to ambush and kill Paul. Because a change of venue of his trial from Caesarea to Jerusalem would have unjustly hindered his chance of a fair trial, even by Festus, Paul was “compelled” to appeal for trial in Rome. But, he reassures them, he is not here to lodge a countersuit against the Jerusalem leaders, although he could if he wished.

In verse 20 he completes the answer to “Why then are you here?” The answer “because of the hope of Israel” alludes to the Messianic Hope. There was no other “hope” known to Israel. It is significant that at this time, although Zealots and sicarii might trust in military conflict against the Roman occupying army, most of them tried to find a leader who had some claim to be the Messiah. This shows that beneath the this-wordly trust in arms, there was a tacit acknowledgment that only the Messiah sent from God could give them hope.

Behind all the camouflage of false charges against Paul he knows is only one real objection: that he fearlessly proclaims among Jews and Gentiles alike that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the leader rejected and condemned to death at Roman hands, was the risen and exalted Messiah and Son of God. But by merely alluding to this as “the hope of Israel” he hopes to arouse their curiosity and lead into a fruitful and lengthy discourse on the gospel.

In this opening address Paul also shows that his predominantly Gentile mission has not in any way blunted his passionate zeal to share the gospel with his own people, whom he still loves and has hopes for (see also Romans 9-11). He calls them “brothers” (17), refers to “(our) people” and the customs of “our fathers”.

23-28 Second Meeting with Jewish Leaders and Others

In the first meeting, with the smaller group of the most influential Jewish leaders, Paul had been assured that no letters concerning his case had been sent by the chief priests, and that the influential Jews of Rome would not intervene to jeopardize his case there. but they had told him that they had heard many bad things about "this sect", meaning the followers of Jesus. In the second much longer meeting, therefore, Paul sought to present the argument for the Messiahship of Jesus in the strongest terms possible, arguing from Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in Jesus.

Acts 28:23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement:

“The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 “‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.” For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’ 28 “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!”

The effort Paul expends in that second conference is extraordinary: from morning to evening he argues the case for Jesus. As we would expect, he bases his appeal on "the Law and the Prophets" (28:23). The response is mixed. Some of the Jewish leaders are positively inclined, some are disbelieving (28:24).

If you think that in verses 25-28 Paul is here finally turning from the Jews and declaring them hopeless, think again! If you think he is here rejecting his own Jewish identity, you are also wrong. The harsh warning he delivers here is a quote from Isaiah 6. It was God’s words to a Jewish prophet Isaiah at his commissioning to minister to a hard-hearted people, not to give up on them, but to warn them. Paul speaks here as a Jewish prophet would, with a compassionate heart. His warning is not intended to banish them from God’s mercy in Jesus, but to sternly warn them that they can do that for themselves. There is every reason to believe that Paul continued to witness to his fellow Jews for the rest of his life, as in fact Isaiah, to whom God had originally addressed these words, did. Isaiah had responded to this discouraging view of his hard-hearted Israelite audience by asking "How long [will this attitude persist]?" To which god had answered: until their cities are laid waste and they are carried away to distant lands. It is striking that pretty much the same fate awaited the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Not many years later the Romans would destroy Jerusalem and its temple and carry many Jews prisoner to other lands in dispersion.

Paul's firm expectation was that God would eventually lift the blindness from their eyes as a nation, even as Jesus had indicated in his tearful warnings to Jerusalem.

And so, in Luke’s vision, as in Paul’s also, as reflected in Romans 9-11, there is no final rejection of Israel, only a severe warning to her not to continue to harden her heart to the gospel of the Messiah. As Paul writes in Romans,

Rom. 11:25-25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob”.

Israel’s “hardening” or blindness is not total ("in part"), for there will always be some who believe throughout history. And this blindness is temporary, for once “the full number of the Gentiles has come in”, God will turn again to his ancient people and open their eyes as a nation, resulting in a blessing on the world that will be unprecedented. Luke does not need to refer to God's intention to some day lift the blindness of Israel here, since he has already done so by recording his his Gospel the words of Jesus to that effect:

Luke 13:34-35 [Jesus said:] “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’’”

Luke 19:41-44 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

Luke 21:24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Luke ends his account of God’s dealings with Israel through Jesus and the Apostles on this note of severe and stern warning, but also on a note of ultimate hope.

30-31 Final view of Paul

Acts 28:30 For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31 Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

“The final sight Luke gives us of Paul is, in this reading, entirely satisfactory. Absolutely nothing hinges on the success or failure of Paul's defense before Caesar, for Luke 's apologetic has not been concerned primarily with Paul's safety or even the legitimacy of the Christian religion within the empire. What Luke was defending he has successfully concluded: God 's fidelity to his people and to his own word. And that point concluded, the ending of Acts is truly an opening to the continuing life of the messianic people, as it continues to preach the kingdom and teach the things concerning Jesus both boldly and with out hindrance, knowing now that although increasingly Gentile in its growth, its roots are deep within the story of people to whom God 's prophets have unfailingly been sent” (Johnson, 476).

Ch. 27 - 28:16 (WH)

11 “In making this request, Paul affirms his Roman citizenship and Roman identity, for it is his status as a citizen that affords him the right to have his case heard in Rome. Thus, when his request is granted, Paul embarks for Rome not as a lowly marturos but as a Romaios. In doing so, he wins a change of venue not only for himself, but for the Church as well. Jesus did not step beyond the sacred circle of Israel, but Paul travels in other circles” (Earl Schwartz, 'The Trials of Jesus and Paul', Journal of Law and Religion, 9/2 (1992), 501-13).

Ch. 25:23 - 26:32 Paul before Agrippa

25:23-27 Festus’ invitation to Agrippa to question Paul.

22-23 The Scene

In this chapter Luke introduces us to another prominent figure in the history of the Jews in the First Century: Herod Agrippa II. About him F. F. Bruce gives the following helpful summary:

“After the death of his father, Herod Agrippa I, in A.D. 44 the younger Agrippa, then seventeen years old, was judged by Claudius and his advisers too immature to be appointed king of the Jews in his place, but he was given a less unmanageable district farther north to rule with the title of king, and at the present time his kingdom comprised the former tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, east and north of the Lake of Galilee, together with the cities of Tiberius and Tarichaeae west of the Lake, and Julias in Peraea, with their surrounding villages. His capital was Caesarea Philippi (now Banyas), which he renamed Neronias as a compliment to the Emperor Nero. In addition to his royal dignity, he enjoyed from AD 48 to 66 the privilege of appointing (and deposing) high priests of Israel” (Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free 364-65).

This hearing was held in the ἀκροατήριον audience hall (Lat. auditorium) of the procurator, of the palace in Caesarea with much pageantry (μετὰ πολλῆς φαντασίας) and ceremony.

“Luke describes Agrippa and Bernice as entering the audience chamber of Herod the great’s palace in Caesarea 'with great pomp,' accompanied by a procession of 'high ranking officers and the leading men of the city.' The Romans always knew how to process well. The sight of Agrippa’s royal robes, Bernice’s finery, and the military and civil dignitaries decked out in their official attire doubtless overwhelmed those unaccustomed to such displays” (NIV Comm.).

"With all the high–ranking officers and the leading men of the city present as well as the king and queen, this provided the new governor with what today would be considered a ‘photo opportunity’" (IVP-NBC).

Paul, then, has been brought to speak before King Agrippa and others so they might help Festus know what to write in his letter of report. Paul has especially been brought before Agrippa, so that after Paul has been examined by the entire body, Festus will be better prepared to make his report, called litterae dimissoriae sive apostoli (in Digest 49.6.1).

The contrast between the spectacular display of royal attire and Roman military on the one hand and Paul’s appearing in ordinary clothes and bound with a chain must have been striking. Luke undoubtedly wishes us to see the irony. Paul serves a much more glorious king, the risen Jesus.

“The pretense that Festus needs still an other hearing so that he could have something definite to write in a letter accompanying Paul to Rome is transparent (Acts 25:26). He surely had enough of the ‘facts’ (such as they were) by this time. But we are to understand in his deference and referral to Agrippa a very clever political maneuver. Agrippa II and his sister Bernice were, after all, the perfect powers to consult and co-opt. On one side they represented the Jews. On the other side, they were ardent clients of the Roman state, and familiar with Caesar's family” (Johnson, Acts 427f).

“Paul is therefore placed before a first century ‘show trial’ that is part entertainment for the guests, part a subtle political maneuver. Indeed, Agrippa and Bernice are made to play for Festus exactly the role taken by Herod in the trial of Jesus (Luke 23:6-12). For the Jewish king, there is the reward of political flattery and deference: the Romans recognize his importance! For the procurator, there is a sharing of responsibility: that's what friends are for (see Luke 23:12)!” (Johnson 428).

The scene and the portrayal of the key characters is thoroughly authentic. Festus acts precisely as a moderately educated upwardly mobile Roman provincial governor would. Unlike both Paul and Agrippa, he is thoroughly pagan, but diplomatic, polite, sensitive to the beliefs of those he attempts to govern, and politically savvy. His language is politically correct: referring to the emperor Nero in v. 25 as “the revered (or august) one” (Greek τὸν Σεβαστὸν, = Roman Augustus), and in v. 26 as “the lord” (τῷ κυρίῳ), implying the emperor’s divine status claimed by Nero and his successors (not “my lord” as in ESV; NIV’s “His Majesty” comes a little closer to the idea). There is a good deal of posturing and play-acting going on, but Luke does not overdraw it so as to make fun of these prominent people.

24-25 Festus explains his previous actions regarding Paul

26-27 Festus explains “why we are here today”.

He needs something to write to Nero, in particular he needs specific charges against Paul. In a Jewish trial the defendant was not obligated to say anything in his own defense, lest he inadvertently incriminate himself: the burden of proof was always on the accusers, who had to produce two or more witnesses whose testimony agreed fully. But in a Roman trial the accused could be required to speak. Paul understood that, as did Agrippa.

26:1-23 Paul’s speech before Agrippa

1-3 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” So Paul motioned with his hand and began his defense: 2 “King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, 3 and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.

1-3 Opening words of Paul to Agrippa. Polite and confident. Paul had every reason to expect a fair hearing from Agrippa, who even better than Felix had knowledge of the Jewish religious reasons for the charges against him. With all the hypersensitivity today toward ethnic slurs, a reader today would wonder why Paul (who is himself a Jew), speaking to Agrippa (likewise a Jew) calls his accusers “the Jews” (v. 2-3). But there is no denigration implied by this usage. And in the first instance (v. 2) the Greek lacks the definite article, so that it should be translated not “accusations of the Jews (as a group)”, but “accusations lodged by Jews”, meaning accusations of actions violating specifically Jewish religious laws, not Roman civil ones. Paul wants a fair and informed decision, not a rash and emotional one.

In v. 3 Paul acknowledges Agrippa’s familiarity with Jewish customs (ἐθοι) and controversies (ζητήματα). Both are important: the customs (matters all Jews agreed upon), since Paul was accused of violating Jewish purity laws, and the controversies (matters which distinguished the various sects within Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, etc), since Paul has claimed — and will do so again — that it is the Sadducean denial of the doctrine of resurrection that lies at the base of the charges against him and the rejection of the fundamental fact of Paul’s gospel: the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Though he stands in the presence of a whole hall-full of dignitaries, Jewish and Roman, it is to the Jewish King Agrippa, that Paul specifically directs his remarks and his arguments. Several times he addresses Agrippa directly with rhetorical questions (vv. 7-8, 13, 19, 26-27).

4 “The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. 5 They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. 7 This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me. 8 Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead? 9 “I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. 11 Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.

As he explained previously in his defense against the Jewish prosecutor Tertullus, Paul’s argues the improbability of the charges against him in the light of his well-known previous behavior, not just in the past two years of his life but from childhood. Though born in Tarsus, Paul had spent his childhood and young adulthood in Jerusalem, where he had studied under Gamaliel, one of the most highly-regarded rabbis of his day. Paul's life from his youth up was well known to the Jewish populace, and in fact that in defense of orthodox Judaism he had led the persecution of the believers in Jesus (verses 9 and following).

And against the charge that he has made a complete turnabout he insists that it is the very doctrine which forms the center of Pharisaism, as opposed to Sadducee beliefs—namely the resurrection of the dead—that led him to faith in the resurrected Jesus! It is Paul, not his opponents, who is the true Pharisee! His challenging question in v. 8 “Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?” was directed to a mixed audience of Jewish Sadducees, Pharisees and pagan Romans. All but the Pharisees would definitely reject the idea. Pagan Greeks and Romans acknowledged that the soul survived after death, but thought ridiculous the idea that a dead and decayed body could be restored to life.

It should be observed that the Sadducees rejected resurrection not because they believed God was powerless to raise dead people, but because they believed that there was no evidence in the Pentateuch that he ever did so or intended to do so in the future. To the Sadducees, the rest of our Old Testament was not inspired Scripture on the same level as the books of Moses.

9-11 Paul describes his earlier opposition to the Christians, which he even characterizes as an “obsession” (v. 11 NIV, περισσῶς ἐμμαινόμενος, cf. μαίνομαι “be driven to insanity by a god”). As this former obsession drove Paul to go to foreign cities to suppress Christianity, so his new obsession (cf. what Festus says in v. 24 εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει) drives him all over the Greco-Roman world to spread the Christian gospel. Paul is arguing that, despite the apparent complete reversal of his life course, there is in fact a deep, underlying continuity. The continuity is the desire to follow the God of Israel, who has now shown himself fully in the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, whom he raised from the dead. Paul in not insane: he is wholly committed to the faith of his fathers.

“On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ 19 “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. 21 That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. 22 But I have had God’s help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23 that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

In vv. 12-18 Paul reaches the climax of his story: the light from heaven and the voice of the resurrected and ascended Jesus appointing him as a “servant and witness” to “what you have seen of me and what I will show you”. Paul went to Damascus “with the authority and commission of the chief priests” (some of whom were sitting there hearing Paul now), but now he has gone throughout Syria, Asia Minor and Greece, and hopes to go to Rome with the authority and commission of the ascended Jesus. To those sitting in that hall to examine him—Jewish accusers and Roman custodians—he reports Jesus’ promise: “I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles” (v. 17). Of course, that had been being fulfilled ever since the Damascus Road appearance, but it was also ironically being fulfilled at the very moment Paul was speaking (see v. 22).

The “them” to whom Jesus said he was sending Paul included both his own people (the Jews) and the Gentiles (v. 23), and it included everyone sitting in that hall. The words are very strong: to “open their (blind) eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God”. Paul’s “defense” has turned into an extremely powerful presentation of the gospel, entailing an indictment of his entire audience.

26:24-29 Paul’s interchange with Festus and Agrippa

At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” 25 “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.” 28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” 29 Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

It may have been the bold assertion that God raised Jesus from the dead or the obvious inclusion of the Romans in the audience among those to be turned from blindness and darkness to the light (whether or not these pagans understood who Satan was!) that caused Festus to interrupt Paul in mid-speech and to exclaim that he must be insane.

Paul’s reply (v. 25) is courteous—addressing the Roman as “most excellent Festus”—but firm: “I am not insane … what I am saying is both true and reasonable”. It is true because there are hundreds of eyewitnesses to substantiate the occurrence, and it is reasonable because it conforms to Old Testament and Pharisaic expectation that God would raise the righteous dead in the End Times, and with Jesus as the beginning the End Times are prefigured, if not inaugurated.

Paul then turns to Agrippa to offer to Festus substantiation: “the king is familiar with these things [both the testimony of Judean eyewitnesses to the empty tomb, and the OT predictions of resurrection and the Pharisaic doctrines]”, and none of this [reports of Jesus’ resurrection] has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner”.

Agrippa’s hasty reply (v. 28) to Paul’s question if he “believed the prophets”, that is, that they predicted Jesus as the Messiah (v. 27), needs to be reflected upon: “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” First of all, Paul had not used the term “Christian” in his appeal, nor did most Jewish believers at this time. The term was used by outsiders of believers in Jesus, and mainly in Antioch and other gentile centers. Agrippa can only be using the term here as mild disdain. Secondly, he may have known of Paul’s many “serious talks” with Felix in the vain attempt to bring him to faith. He may also allude to the lengthy training that young Jews underwent in order to become well-informed Pharisees or Sadducees. Thirdly, his answer reflects ignorance of how people become believers in Jesus: they are not “persuaded” by human logic, but convicted of the truth by the Holy Spirit, who may or may not use a Christian’s words of testimony.

26:29 Paul ignores the third point about “persuading”, but picks up on the first two when he says “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you [Agrippa] but all who are listening to me today [Festus, Jewish leaders, Roman military] may become what I am, except for these chains”, i.e., Paul would love for them to become believers and forthright witnesses.

26:30-32 Festus & Agrippa discuss their conclusions regarding Paul

The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. 31 They left the room, and while talking with one another, they said, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment.” 32 Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.

Agrippa is the center of attention, and protocol dictated that he should rise first to signal to all others in the room that they should rise and leave. Agrippa then discussed with Festus, and perhaps with others as well (“while talking with one another”), his impressions of Paul’s testimony. He could only conclude that there was no basis for any charge deserving of either imprisonment or death. He felt it unfortunate that Paul’s appeal to Caesar now prevented him from immediate release. But to Paul that circumstance was part of God’s plan, which would have desirable consequences.

Theologically, one has to ask what Luke is trying to say regarding Israel's condition at this point in his narrative? Has the end been reached? Johnson (Acts 407) says “no”:

“The string has not run out entirely. There will be more debate and defense in the presence of the Jewish leaders. In Rome Paul will even find some partial acceptance by the local leaders (Acts 28:24). But the official Jewish leadership represented by the chief priest and council shows itself to be what it had been from the beginning: closed to the message of the prophet whom God had raised up, envious of the success found by this message among those outside, and moved to murderous rage against its most prominent preachers.”

Johnson furthermore adds:

“The message is clear. If the Christians are to argue what they regard as their legitimate claims to represent the authentic Israel, it will not be possible within the context of direct confrontation with the Jewish leadership. which has shown itself not only unwilling to hear those claims but unwilling to let those making them continue to live. Any debate or defense can take place only within the protection offered by the Roman order . The tragic dimensions of this are clear, if we observe that the identity Paul claims only as an expedient (his Roman citizenship) secures him safety and a hearing based on a recognition of that right, whereas the identity Paul claims to be his own with all sincerity for his entire life (his Jewish heritage) is utterly rejected, and he is given no fair hearing by the leaders of his own people.”

Ch. 25:1-22 Paul before Festus

Reading passages such as this always reminds me of the atmosphere of the book of Esther in the Old Testament. In that book there is no mention of God or of His hand in controlling the course of events. The net effect is an atmosphere of secularity and a scene showing the interplay of base motives in godless people aligned against the people of God. Eventually, the people of God are preserved by the revenge of one ungodly person (the Persian King Ahasuerus) against another one (his minister Haman). In Acts 25 we see the political maneuvering, lying and threatening of all parties except Paul. We may be tempted to ask “Where is God in all this?” But, as in the book of Esther, Luke wishes us to see how God uses the conflicts between the unbelievers (the Roman Festus and Paul's antagonists among the Jewish elite) to frustrate Satan’s plan to stop God’s messenger Paul from fulfilling his calling.

1 The brief periods of transition in leadership are always filled with potential for success or failure. Roman provincial governors depended heavily upon the urban elites of the major cities of their provinces for collaboration, and the system worked through reciprocal exchange of “favors” (cf. v. 3 αἰτούμενοι χάριν, = Latin Vulgate postulantes gratiam). Upon his arrival in Palestine Porcius Festus wasted no time (“three days”) in traveling to Jerusalem to confer with the “power elite” there, which consisted of the High Priest and his relatives (οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς “the chief priests”, note the plural!), and the influential members of the Sanhedrin (“the principal men of the Jews” = the “elders”).

2 “The above tells us some significant things about our narrative. (1) It is not surprising that v. 2 tells us that Festus met with high priests (plural) and "the first of Judea" (i.e., members of the ruling elite). He was seeking as wide a base of support as possible, and his interest was not just in those who were actually in power but also in those who wielded power whether officially or behind the scenes. (2) In view of what Josephus tells us about the way [the current High Priest] Ishmael and the elites dealt with their rivals, it is totally believable that they might be party to an ambush of Paul. (3) That Festus wanted stable alliances with all the local elite is also shown by his consulting of Agrippa and Bernice. This consultation and Paul's appearance before them are quite believable since the Jewish elites were not all united, but rather were factionalized. The regiving of Paul's defense speech is also believable since Agrippa had not personally had the matter presented to him.” (Witherington, Acts 719).

3 While the Judaean leadership was complicit with the forty assassins in the previous attempt on Paul’s life, here they seem to be the actual instigators. “… we learn only that their hostility to Paul has not waned in the least despite a two-year period of imprisonment . At the first opportunity, they seek from the new governor a reversal of venue, to get Paul back in their own control. More than that, they have abandoned any pretense of legal process: they actively seek to kill Paul by way of ambush (25:3). Yet, when they are brought to Caesarea and 'surround' Paul , their 'many and weighty charges' come to nothing, for they bring no proof for any of them (25:7)” (Luke Timothy Johnson, Acts 422f).

“Felix's term of office was notorious not only for its corruption, but also for its failure to deal with the social unrest caused by the brigands and revolutionaries. Now in this setting, if we are to believe Josephus, the Jewish priesthood and Sanhedrin wanted a strong Roman hand, since they themselves were against the brigands. In fact, so angry were the Jewish leaders at Felix's failure in this respect, that after his removal, they went to Rome with formal complaints against him. In contrast, Festus is given generally good marks for his handling of the brigandage issue” (Johnson, 423).

Under Festus’ administration the Jewish leaders were still against the Jewish terrorist/freedom-fighters (sicarii) and in favor of maintaining good relations with the Roman government. the atmosphere eventually changed during the following decade under the corrupt administration of the next two Roman governors. By the end of their reigns the leaders had shifted their position and actively collaborated with the sicarii (Jewish terrorist/freedom-fighters).

“The leaders had swung to the anti-Roman side. There are several explanations for this, and all of them probably contain some truth. First of all, the effects of Jewish terrorism by the Sicarii had finally begun to be felt. Josephus asserts that the prefect Felix ordered the Sicarii's assassination of the high priest Jonathan. This is implausible, but the very suggestion may indicate the hatred that the Jewish priestly aristocracy had come to feel toward Rome. The prospect of falling victim to attack by the Sicarii may have discouraged the leaders from continuing to compromise with Rome in acts of repression from which they had nothing to gain. Florus's last move was just the latest example.

In addition, it is obvious that the Jewish aristocracy could expect nothing more from Rome. A succession of high priests had not been able to bring about any improvement in the Jews' material situation or legal status: the struggle against the "provocations" of prefects and procurators was unending. In the incident at Caesarea on the Sea that led to the war, the leaders had been stripped before being humiliated by Florus. Threatened by the Sicarii, humiliated by the Romans, these Jewish leaders had nothing to lose by throwing themselves into the revolt that had just broken out” (Maurice Sartre, The Middle East under Rome 120).

It is always useful to compare the author’s narration of a sequence of events or exchange of words with how one of the participants later recalls it. So compare 25:1-12 with 25:14-21 (Festus’ own retelling of the events to Agrippa). Among the differences that Festus mentions are: (1) that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem initially “asked for a sentence against” Paul; (2) that Festus educated them on Roman legal customs; (3) the “serious charges” which Paul’s accusers “could not prove” are revealed to be not what Festus was expecting (v. 18-19) but points of disagreement about religion and about a man named Jesus [Luke did not mention that Paul’s rebuttal (v. 8) contained arguments about Jesus, but it is probable that it did]; (4) Festus does not mention in v. 21 that he in fact had to confer with his council (v. 12) before complying with Paul’s request.

When it was clear to Paul that Festus could not resist the temptation to yield to the request of the authorities in Jerusalem to send him there for what could have been either a trumped up trial or (more likely) a simple assassination, he used his legal right as a Roman citizen to appeal to the court of the emperor.

“In making this request [in v. 11], Paul affirms his Roman citizenship and Roman identity, for it is his status as a citizen that affords him the right to have his case heard in Rome. Thus, when his request is granted, Paul embarks for Rome not as a lowly marturos but as a Romaios. In doing so, he wins a change of venue not only for himself, but for the Church as well. Jesus did not step beyond the sacred circle of Israel, but Paul travels in other circles” (Earl Schwartz, 'The Trials of Jesus and Paul', Journal of Law and Religion, 9/2 (1992), 501-13).

22 Festus did not summon or invite Agrippa and his sister Bernice to Caesarea in order to advise him about Paul: rather Luke tells us that they came to Caesarea to give him an official welcome (v. 13). It was merely serendipitous that Agrippa (II), who knew Jewish law and had Roman-authorized jurisdiction and control over the Jerusalem temple, where the original disturbance had broken out against Paul, was now available to advise Festus. But Festus already was in possession of more than enough information about the case to formulate the documents and reports to Nero which wold accompany Paul to Rome. All of this posturing and pretending to need more information was part of the political drama which was the daily fare of Roman provincial administrators like Festus. To Paul it would have appeared not just ridiculous, but positively fraught with danger for himself, and even more for the community of believers in Judea and for the gospel.

At the beginning of our commentary on this chapter I asked “Where is God in all this?” The answer was that God was working behind the scenes. But is there nothing else in this chapter that can speak to our hearts and lives and prepare us to be good witnesses to Christ?

Yes, I believe it is in the behavior of Paul throughout this corrupt and dangerous business. First of all, he is quiet, respectful and law-abiding. He does not shout or interrupt: he waits for his turn to speak at the instruction of the Roman governor. He does not revile his accusers. Secondly, he speaks truthfully. For a faithful servant of Christ, the truth is always on your side. It needs no embellishment. Unlike the ambitious and deceitful Festus, Paul did not need to recast events in his own favor. He told the simple truth. Thirdly, he showed courage in the face of a possible death sentence, but he also used his legal rights to do whatever was possible to thwart an illegal execution. We are reminded of his words in his letter to the Philippian church: he was willing to die for the gospel (yes, even eager to “depart and be with Christ, which is far better”), yet wanting to remain and minister the gospel for as long as God permitted him. As citizens we too have legal rights: rights to free speech, including religious speech. It is important for us therefore to use these rights whenever possible and to resist the arguments of those who in the name of "sensitivity" wish to keep Christians from using the public arena to proclaim the gospel.

Yes, there is much in this little chapter for the Holy Spirit to use to encourage and embolden us to be (like Paul) faithful, courageous and truthful in our witness to the gospel of Christ.

Acts 23:12 - 24:27 Paul in Caesarea before Felix

“There is irony in the Holy Spirit’s message through Agabus in Acts 21:10-11, ‘the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles’. It was in fact the Gentiles who saved Paul from two violent incidents and went on to thwart those Jews who wanted to kill him. “ (IVP-NBC).

After securing permission and addressing the crowd from the steps leading to the Fortress of Antonia (Acts 21:40-22:22), Paul's words only intensified the violent reaction of his opponents in the crowd. Not knowing yet that Paul was a Roman citizen, the commander had him brought inside the Fortress and was about to have him flogged to secure more information about why he so inflamed the Jews (22:24), when Paul informed him that he was a Roman citizen and could not legally be flogged. The commander could not have understood Paul's explanations in the address, since that address was in Aramaic (Acts 22:2).

The following day in order to discover the root of this riot, the commander had Paul stand before the Sanhedrin in order for charges to be brought. This “trial” ended in a stalemate, since the Pharisees in the audience sided with Paul who claimed the whole matter was due to his believe in the doctrine of resurrection.

Returned to the Roman fortress, Paul was discouraged, since he saw no way he was going to be released and allowed to continue his missionary work. That night Jesus appeared to him and assured him that he would be able to stand as a witness to Jesus in Rome, as Paul had previously felt was his divine calling.
Meanwhile, over night the Jewish opponents of Paul were plotting a further step.

Acts 23:12-15 The next morning the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. 13 More than forty men were involved in this plot. 14 They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. 15 Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here.”

23:12-15 The words “in the morning” remind the reader that this dangerous situation is under the control of the Lord Jesus (ὁ κύριος), who the previous night promised Paul that he must (δεῖ) survive in order to testify to Christ in Rome (v. 11) (cf. Rapske in Witness to the Gospel 254).

Some authorities translate verse 12 as ‘The Judeans [not 'the Jews'] came together in a mob’ Acts 23:12”. But if, as the NIV Commentary suspects, these fanatical Jews were from Asia/Ephesus, they were not “Judeans” but simply “Jews”. Nevertheless, it is clear that Luke does not mean that all Jews were complicit in this plot to kill Paul, but only a group of more than forty together with certain members of the national leadership.

The group of “more than forty men” were not themselves priests or Sanhedrin members, but rather probably members of the group of Jews from Asia [i.e., the region around Ephesus] who had failed to kill Paul in the temple precincts (Acts 21:27-29). But they made common cause with high priests and elders in order to lure Paul out of the safety of Roman custody in the Fortress of Antonia. The fanaticism of this group of forty-plus is indicated by their vow, which however did not mean they starved to death when they failed: when Paul’s enemies eventually had to break their oath of fasting when they were unable to kill him, Jewish law would simply require them to bring atonement offerings to the temple; thus their oath here does not mean they would literally starve. (cf. IVP-BBC-NT).

Still, we may ask: “Why was a vow necessary?” In conspiracies which require coordinated activity it was always important to ensure that each member did his part and did not back out at the last minute. Therefore group vows provided a deterrent: whoever backed out would suffer the curse that each member swore down upon himself if he failed to follow through. See 1 Enoch 6:4-5 (a fictional elaboration of Genesis 6:1-3) for an example: a vow taken by all the fallen angels to cohabit with human women and beget offspring.

“Now when humans had grown numerous on the earth, there were born to them beautiful daughters. And the angels, the sons of heaven, noticed them and lusted after them, saying to one another: 'Come, let us choose wives from among the humans and have children with them.' And Semyaza, their leader, said to them: 'I'm afraid you will not in fact agree to do this deed, and I alone will have to pay the penalty for such a great sin.' But they all answered: 'Let us all take an oath, and bind ourselves by shared curses not to abandon this plan but to carry it out.' Then they all took an oath and bound themselves to it by shared curses. And they were in all two hundred” (1 Enoch 6:1-6, English wording slightly modernized from the online text).

Although the devotees probably counted on God’s help, the vow of the 40 would have been useless without the cooperation of the men of the Sanhedrin who would lure Paul to Jerusalem under the pretext of needing further information and inquiry.

It would appear that, although Paul was in Roman custody in order to preserve the peace, the investigation as to the nature of his offense which had so enraged the mob (διαγινώσκειν ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ) could belong to the jurisdiction of the local Jewish court. The transfer of Paul’s case to the Roman procurator Felix in Caesarea was only resorted to, when it became clear that a lynch mob would thwart the judicial process in Jerusalem.

12-15 One wonders if Luke was not reminded, as he wrote this, of the verses from Psa 2:1-3 quoted by Peter at Pentecost (Ac 4:25). The same dynamic which was at work in the trial and death of Jesus as is evident here with Paul. In Psa 2:4 God’s response to human conspiracies against his rule is to laugh at their feeble efforts, as he doubtless also did at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:5-9), and then he frustrated the plan.

23:16-22 But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul. 17 Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.” 18 So he took him to the commander. The centurion said, “Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you.”
19 The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, “What is it you want to tell me?” 20 He said: “The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. 21 Don’t give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request.” 22 The commander dismissed the young man and cautioned him, “Don’t tell anyone that you have reported this to me.”

16-22 But the God's power to frustrate opposition to his plans is often done through human means, and here it is simply that Paul’s nephew learned of the plot and reported it to the tribune, Claudius Lysias. Paul’s nephew refers to the alliance of the forty-plus and the Sanhedrin simply as “the Jews” (v. 20-21), meaning those ones who were involved in the mob attempt to kill Paul in the temple and from whom Claudius Lysias had barely rescued him.

17 “Paul' s status has gradually been elevated as the story has progressed. He ‘summons’ the centurion and sends him on an errand!” (Johnson, Acts 404).

“The seriousness with which the commander took the warning about the plot shows that he knew that [the current High Priest] Ananias was the kind of man who could support such action and realized that Jewish feeling against Paul was strong enough to nurture it.” (NIV Comm).

23:23-24 Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide mounts for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.”

23:23-25 Tribune Claudius Lysias believed the report and took steps to send Paul under guard to Caesarea, to the court of the Roman procurator Antonius Felix. The Roman tribune’s plan was to act swiftly and secretly in order to avoid his detachment from being itself ambushed by the conspirators. Just how seriously he regarded the threat is indicated by Luke’s numbers:

“[he] commit[ed] almost half the garrison at the Fortress of Antonia to escort Paul, with most of them due to return in a day or two” (NIV Comm.).

One should keep in mind in evaluating this seemingly excessive number of troops in the escort, that the goal was not just to be able to win in combat with the forty-plus armed assassins, but rather to discourage them from even attempting to attack the convoy.

23:25-30 He wrote a letter as follows:
26 Claudius Lysias, To His Excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings.
27 This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. 28 I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. 29 I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment. 30 When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him.

Claudius Lysias also drafted a letter-report to Felix, detailing the circumstances. The form of the letter and its tone are precisely what one would expect in correspondence between a military tribune and his commander. The greeting "His Excellency" befits Felix's office, although he was by birth a slave who had been freed by his master.

His reference to Paul as “this man” (τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον) shows that the letter would be read to the procurator with Paul standing in his presence.

23:29 It is curious that according to Lysias the Sanhedrin did not accuse Paul of violating the sanctuary (μηδὲν δὲ ἄξιον θανάτου ἢ δεσμῶν), since that was clearly recognized by the Roman provincial governors as sufficient cause for the Jews to execute the offender themselves on the spot, and did not even require consulting the Roman authorities first. This part of the letter certainly strengthened Paul’s case not only before Felix and Festus, but also eventually in Rome, where the letter would have formed part of the trial documents. The private prosecutor Tertullus eventually alludes to this "desecration" in his allegations before Felix (24:6), but by then he can neither rely on an explicit mention in the letter of Claudius Lysias, nor does he produce eye-witnesses.

23:30 Lysias also ordered the Jewish plaintiffs (κατηγόροις) to appear before Felix to present their charges.

23:31-35 So the soldiers, carrying out their orders, took Paul with them during the night and brought him as far as Antipatris. 32 The next day they let the cavalry go on with him, while they returned to the barracks. 33 When the cavalry arrived in Caesarea, they delivered the letter to the governor and handed Paul over to him. 34 The governor read the letter and asked what province he was from. Learning that he was from Cilicia, 35 he said, “I will hear your case when your accusers get here.” Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.

23:34 “Had Paul been from one of the client kingdoms in Syria or Asia Minor, Felix would probably have wanted to consult the ruler of the kingdom. But on learning that Paul was from the Roman province of Cilicia, he felt competent as a provincial governor to hear the case himself” (NIV Comm.).

“Cilicia was an imperial province, the capital of which was Tarsus. But during Paul’s period (not, however, Luke’s period), Cilicia was governed as part of Syria. The Syrian legate had too much territory to concern himself with a relatively minor case, so Felix assumes jurisdiction he might otherwise have deferred.” (IVP-BBC-NT). It is unclear if Paul’s case would have had a more favorable hearing in a Syrian court.

24:1-4 Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor. 2 When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: “We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. 3 Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. 4 But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly.

24:1 The delegation from Jerusalem included the High Priest Ananus (Hebrew Hananiyah), some members of the Sanhedrin, and “a lawyer named Tertullus” (NIV). Tertullus is called a “lawyer” (NIV), “attorney” (NRSV), and “spokesman” (RSV, ESV). He served on the Sanhedrin’s behalf as a “private prosecutor”, bringing the charges and arguing for the prosecution.

“According to the normal working of things [in the Roman imperial system], the judicial process was initiated by the drawing up of charges and penalties and the formal act of accusation (delatio) by an interested party. The Roman system had no public prosecutor …. Apart from manifest offenders, enforcement of the law depended on private initiative, hence the place for … a private prosecutor” (Ferguson, Backgrounds 65).

2-4 Tertullus begins his case against Paul in the accepted form of flattering the judge. No one in that day (even the judge) would take its details seriously.

24:5-9 “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect 6 and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. 8 By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him.” 9 The Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.

The charge presented could not have been better chosen in order to arouse Felix’s attention, since it was precisely rebellions and riots in Judea that had most troubled him during his tenure there, and he had been swift and ruthless in suppressing them. The question was, however, if the charges could be verified. Luke’s readers know of the riots that broke out in Ephesus (Roman Asia) and of Asian Jews who had followed Paul to Jerusalem.

24:10-16 When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense. 11 You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13 And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

10 “Invited to respond, Paul also began with a complimentary statement—but a briefer and truer one. Felix had been in contact with the Jewish nation in Palestine for over a decade, first in Samaria and then as governor over the entire province of Judea. Therefore Paul was pleased to make his defense before one who was in a position to know the situation as it was and to understand his words in their context” (NIV Comm).

11 In vv. 11-12 Paul states the facts of the case as he knows them: “You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city.” He is confident, because verification of certain key facts was possible through Lysias’ accompanying letter, as well as through Felix's network of local informants.

12-13 Crucial here is the circumstance that there is no eyewitness present in the court who can give testimony that Paul was guilty of any of the charges. All that the prosecution can offer is allegations and perhaps oaths. And in a Roman provincial court witness testimony always trumped allegations, oaths and arguments of probability. “For example, Herod’s son Antipater, after much proof of his guilt, offered only oaths in favor of his innocence, so the Syrian legate Varus had him executed” (IVP-BBC-NT).

14-16 In what he modestly (and sarcastically?) calls an admission Paul unveils the real motive for this malicious prosecution: it springs from an internal religious conflict within Judaism which is no proper subject for a Roman court. With this statement Paul traps his opponents, even pointing out that they themselves call the followers of Jesus a “sect” (αἵρεσις), which means that the Jesus movement—like Pharisaism and Sadducaism—was a legitimate wing of Judaism, which was a religion that enjoyed legal protection under Roman law (religio licita). He further explains that his religious group holds to all the sacred writings of Judaism and observes its worship forms.

24:17-21 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. 18 I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this. There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance. 19 But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me. 20 Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin— 21 unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: ‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.’”

17-18 Paul’s affirms that the purpose of his visit to Jerusalem was to bring “gifts for the poor (alms)” and “offerings”. “Gifts” refers to the gifts brought from the Diaspora churches of Asia Minor and Greece for the Jerusalem believers and the “offerings” were those presented at the temple at the suggestion of James in order to pay the expenses of the men who had taken vows. The relevance to his defense is that such actions on his part made very improbable a charge that he deliberately defiled the temple by bringing a Gentile into the sacred area.

19 “Paul mentioned that the Jews from the province of Asia should have been the ones bringing charges. This line of argument was a potential bombshell, for there were two immediate implications. First, there was strong feeling against the practice of accusing someone without appearing in court to prosecute …. Secondly, any infractions or accusations that primarily concerned the province of Asia (as it would now appear Tertullus had meant by ‘all over the world’ in v 5 above) would place the affair out[side] of Felix’s jurisdiction” (IVP-NBC).

24:22-23 Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. “When Lysias the commander comes,” he said, “I will decide your case.” 23 He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs.

22-23 Prior to his elevation to the position of governor of the province, Felix had served in a lower position in the region of Samaria. So he had been around long enough to be well acquainted with the incipient Jesus movement within Palestinian Judaism and to have his own network of reliable local informants. He knew, therefore, that Ananias and his friends really had no case against Paul that would stand in a Roman court.

The “freedom" (literally, "relaxation”, Greek ἄνεσις) granted to Paul in custody was probably a lenient form of military custody (cf. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 156ff.). This was in the massive palace built by Herod the Great which had become the headquarters of the Roman procurators. Located on a promontory jutting out into the Mediterranean, it was served by pleasant breezes. And Paul’s relaxed custody made it a comfortable place to spend two years. But being the restless evangelist that he was, Paul was uncomfortable not being able to travel to evangelize, plant churches, and strengthen those he had already planted. Paul's "comfort" was in serving Jesus and the gospel, not in lolling about in a palace. Many scholars believe that it was during these two years in Caesarean "imprisonment" that he wrote the "prison epistles" to Philippi, Ephesus and Colosse. If so, one can see the discomfort that Paul felt in Caesarea, wanting to get out and get on with his plans to travel to Rome and evangelize there. In Philippians 1 there is mention of how certain insincere fellow Christians (rivals of Paul's?) on the outside tried to frustrate him by showing off their own evangelistic efforts. But Paul found ways to evangelize right there in Herod's palace!

24:24-26 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 As Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.

25 Paul’s holding area was the same palace in which Felix and his young Jewish wife Drusilla lived. this gave many occasions for “quiet serious talks”, since Felix was an intelligent man and, like most Roman officials, mildly interested in philosophy and ethical ideas. Paul’s serious discussions with Felix and his wife Drusilla about morality (“righteousness, self-control”) and God’s judgment “were apparently sufficiently on target to unsettle Felix, for he had not been practicing justice, and the very presence of Drusilla, whom he had lusted after while she was still the teenage bride of Azizus the king of Emesa, and the message about future judgment for bad behavior while on earth would probably have been disturbing and not very familiar to Felix, unless he had heard of it through his Jewish wife. The message of Paul terrified Felix, but apparently not enough to lead him to repent” (Witherington, Acts 715).

It is worthwhile noting with respect to the fashionable doubting of the genuineness of Luke’s records of Paul’s speeches in Acts, that the points which he discussed with Felix and Drusilla are precisely those that comprised his message to the Thessalonians: (1) faith in Jesus (“you turned to God from idols” 1 Thessalonians 1:9), (2) holy living (“to serve the living and true God” 1:9), and (3) expectation of the Second Coming of Jesus to judge (“and to wait for his Son from heaven who saves us from the coming wrath” 1:10). Luke’s “Paul” is clearly the real Paul. Felix’s dual-mindedness toward Paul—curious enough to want to hear him, yet unwilling to change his sinful life—reminds us of Herod Antipas and John the Baptist. His further meetings (v. 26) were simply in order to give Paul a chance to offer him a bribe. Paul probably knew that, but seized the opportunities to witness anyway.

“The Lex Repetundarum (or Lex Julia de repetundis) prohibited anyone holding a position such as Felix's from either soliciting or accepting a bribe either to free or take someone into custody. This law, however, was not infrequently violated by provincial governors, and for an example in Judea we can point to one of Felix's successors, Albinus (A.D. 61-65), whom Josephus tells us explicitly accepted money for these very purposes (War 2.14.1)” (Witherington, Acts 716).

“It may be in order to ask in passing what Luke might have been doing during this two-year span, other than perhaps attending to Paul. Longenecker 's suggestion that he used this time to investigate "everything closely from the beginning" commends itself. Here in Israel he would have access both to traditions about the time of Jesus and also to what happened in the Jerusalem church between about A.D. 35 and 57, the time about which Paul could inform him very little. Perhaps also ‘he had begun to sketch out during this time the structure and scope of his two-volume work we know as Luke-Acts’” (Witherington, Acts 717).

Ch. 21:17 - 23:11 Paul in Jerusalem (WH)

Our guest columnist today is Wini Hoffner, who composed this fine exposition of Acts 21:17-23:11. The editor has taken the liberty of adding links to some Scripture citations and outside web sources for some of her comments.

Introduction

In the previous posting we followed Paul on his way to Jerusalem. The previous Hattatar posting pointed out that Paul had two reasons for going to Jerusalem.

1. The first, to bring a gift from the Gentile churches to “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (as Paul put it in Romans 15:26), a gift he had been collecting for a long time. This gift would not only help feed the poor, Paul hoped that it would also help cement a good relationship between the Jewish churches of Palestine and the Gentile ones of Syria, Asia Minor and Greece.
2. Secondly, Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem for one of the great feasts in order to demonstrate by worshiping in Jerusalem in all the traditional Jewish ways that his fight to keep Gentile converts from being required to become Jews in oder to be saved did not mean that he was discouraging Jewish converts from continuing to follow Old Testament forms of worship, including sacrifice. In other words, he hoped that this visit would bring unity to the young church.

In writing to the Romans about this trip and the gift he was taking he expressed some fears and asked them to pray for him saying:

Rom. 15:30-31 I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me.Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there,

In Acts 21:17 ff we see how this prayer was answered.

This is quite a meeting as it consists of leaders from both segments of the young church. There is James, the recognized leader of the Jerusalem church along with all the elders. As there were now “many thousands of Jews who have believed” (v.20) there would have been a considerable number of elders appointed to oversee this growing community. And then there is Paul, the leader and in fact founder of the Gentile church, along with delegates from each area where Paul had ministered.

Paul and his companions are warmly greeted and the gift they bring may partly account for this warm reception. For some reason Luke does not mention the gift here but refers to it later in 24:17. We know however from Paul's prayer request of the Romans that this gift was extremely important to him.

James has told Paul about the thousands of new Jewish converts and has described them as being staunch upholders of the law. Rumor had it that Paul had been teaching Jewish converts that they should not continue to observe Jewish cultural practices. Undoubtedly then, the presence of Paul was going to raise big concerns among these Jewish believers who were “zealous for the law”. What to do?

James offers a suggestion: Paul should accompany four men who had taken a Nazirite vow and and pay their expenses for the sacrifices required to conclude their vow. He also suggests that Paul purify himself. The purification rite as prescribed by law required seven days, at the end of which sacrifices were offered in the temple. In v. 26 Paul goes to the temple to announce the date when they will be ready to make their sacrifices. Perhaps Paul decided to undergo this purification rite because his long sojourn among the Gentiles had rendered him “unclean” in the eyes of the “zealous”. So he not only pays for the four men's sacrifice (a considerable expense) but he undergoes the rite himself. Paying the expenses of the offerings of people who were too poor to pay them themselves was also considered an act of great religious piety. James hoped that by such participation, everyone would know there is no truth in these reports (v. 24) about Paul.

Just as Paul had nearly completed this sincere gesture, some Jews outside the Christian community from the province of Asia caused trouble.

21:27-36 The city was full of pilgrims from all over the Diaspora, in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. Some Jews from the province of Asia, probably from Ephesus, who may even have been part of the riot at Ephesus began to stir up the crowd of worshipers. They brought two false accusations against him:

1. That he “teaches men everywhere against our people, our law, and this place” (meaning the temple).
2. That he has brought a Gentile into the temple area. They saw Paul at the temple where he is ironically going through the very Jewish rite of purification so that he would not defile the temple, but they accuse him of defiling the temple by bringing a Gentile into it. They had seen him in the city with an Ephesian named Trophimus and assumed he had brought him beyond the partition into the inner courts of the temple.

Josephus describes the wall of partition that divides the outer court of the Gentiles from the inner Court of Israel as being

“a stone balustrade, four and a half feet high and of exquisite workmanship; in this at regular intervals stood slabs giving warning, some in Greek, and others in Latin,...”
(as quoted in The Sacred Bridge, p. 378

that foreigners were prohibited from entering on pain of death. Two remnants from this warning, have been found — one in 1871 and one in 1935. This was the only “crime” for which the Romans allowed the Jews to carry out execution. So you see that Paul was truly in danger of being killed in the riot that follows.

We see a parallel throughout these chapters between the sufferings of Christ and this ordeal of his apostle, Paul. We saw in the last chapter the parallels between Jesus' and Paul's journeys up to Jerusalem. Now we see the similarities in their trials. “Both were rejected by their people, arrested without cause, ... unjustly accused, and willfully misrepresented by false witnesses.” They were both brought before a Roman official who doesn't know what to make of them or what to do with them. They both “were slapped in the face in court ... [and both] “heard the terrifying noise of a frenzied mob shouting 'Away with him!'” (Stott, p. 336).

In Paul's case before us, these two false accusations against Paul (that he teaches against our people, our law, and the temple and that he has defiled the temple) are enough to bring people running from all directions to seize Paul and try to kill him. The Romans then arrive to put down the mob violence and take Paul into custody.

The Roman garrison was housed in the Fortress of Antonia up a flight of stairs in the northwest corner of the temple area. The garrison's purpose was to keep order in the city and they would have been on close watch during the time of an important feast when thousands of pilgrims were in the city. The commander of the garrison (who is identified later in Acts as one Claudius Lysias) comes with a contingent of soldiers to break up the riot. He arrests Paul as the apparent cause of all the trouble even though he can't get at the real truth because of the uproar.

The arrest of Paul protects him from the crowd, and Paul asks to speak to Claudius Lysias personally.

(vv. 37-40) Lysias is confused about who Paul is, thinking him to be an Egyptian Jew who had been active in terrorist activities. Paul corrects him, giving his true identity, and then asks for permission to speak to the crowd.

21:40-22:21

Paul is using this defense to convince this Jewish mob that he is not anti -Jewish.

Question: What are the many ways in which Paul demonstrates his Jewish credentials to this crowd?

1. (v.3) Paul grew up in Jerusalem,
2. Was thoroughly trained in the law having studied under the renowned Pharisaic leader and rabbinic teacher, Gamaliel,
3. Was just as zealous for God as any of them,
4. (v.4) had persecuted the followers of the Way. The Jewish council (the Sanhedrin) was well aware of this as they had given him the extradition order he carried with him to Damascus to seize Jews who had converted and bring them back to Jerusalem to be punished.
5. After Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, his God-appointed mentor, Ananias, was himself a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living in Damascus.(vv.12-14) It was he who restored Paul's sight, told him that the God of our Fathers had chosen him to hear his voice, to see his Righteous One, and to be his witness.
6. (vv.17-21) After returning to Jerusalem he has a vision from the Lord which took place in the very temple which he is supposed to have now defiled.

In this speech Paul has shown: (1) that he has always been and still is a loyal Jew and (2) that His conversion and mission to the Gentiles are not the result of some some misguided thinking on his part but came to him by divine revelation from heaven, through the guidance of his loyal Jewish mentor, Ananias, and finally in the temple itself.

At mention of the Gentiles (v.21), however, the crowd comes to life again, goes into a frenzy and demands his death.

Acts 22:22-23 [They say] “Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!” ... they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air,

vv. 23-24 Claudius Lysias again rescues him from the crowd, but wanting to find out why the people were shouting at him like this he directs that Paul be flogged and questioned. Flogging with a Roman lash was a brutal beating. Some people died from it, but the purpose was not to kill, but to extract the truth from the man whipped.

Acts 22:25 As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?”

And we read in v. 29 that “The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.”

22:30 The next day, still trying to discover the basis of the accusations against Paul, the commander brings him before the Sanhedrin...just as Jesus before him, was brought to a hearing before the Sanhedrin.

Paul addresses the court saying: (23:1) “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.”

For some reason this infuriates Ananias, the high priest, and he orders that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul angrily responds to the slap saying:

Acts 23:3 “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”

Some who were standing near Paul rebuked him for speaking with such disrespect to the high priest. Paul's response is filled with irony.

Acts 23:5 “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.' (quoting Ex. 22:28)

Ananias is depicted by Josephus as being very corrupt, even to the point of stealing the tithes belonging to the poorer priests. And often the Jews themselves plead with the Romans to get rid of him. Paul's reply is a stinging reproach of the high priest. The way he uses Ex. 22:28 is a reflection of his rabbinic upbringing. Paul has in mind the way the rabbinic scholars of his day interpreted Ex. 22:28 to mean “don't speak evil of your rulers when those rulers behave in a manner that befits your people.” In other words, don't speak evil of your rulers when they are worthy of your respect.” Ananias' behavior certainly did not make him a leader worthy of respect. He never behaved in a manner that befitted his people. Paul's rabbinic-styled use of Scripture helps the Pahrisees to identify him as one of their own and sets up the exchange that follows.

Acts 23:6-8 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.” When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)

Why does Paul raise this conflict between the Pharisees and Sadducees? Was it merely a ploy to get them fighting each other instead of him?

No. It is part of his defense against the charges brought against him.

We know that the actual charges brought against him were that he was encouraging Jews not to continue to follow the law and that he had defiled the temple. But Paul understood that his real offense to these people was that he believed in Jesus. And while the Pharisees claimed to believe in the hope of the resurrection, Paul knows that that hope has been fulfilled in Jesus, whom they reject. Jesus is the hope of Israel. So in fact, Paul is more of a Pharisee than these Pharisees before whom he stands. Paul believes in the resurrection and stands as witness to that resurrection which is the one and only authentic hope of Israel.

23:9 At this point a great uproar breaks out between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and:

Acts 23:10 The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.

Once again Lysias gets Paul out of there and brings him for protection to the barracks.

Acts 23:11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

Paul knew that trouble lay ahead for him in Jerusalem. And what a violent two days he has experienced! It must have been a great comfort for him the following night to have the Lord come and stand by his side and say “Take courage.” Nighttime is the loneliest time. It's the time when all our fears are magnified. Paul had been fearless, courageous, and bold during the day, but don't you imagine that after those two violent days when night fell Paul must have been discouraged, spent, ready to doubt? He had been convinced that he should go to Rome. Now it looked as if he would never get there. But throughout his ordeal Paul had honored the Lord whom he served in speech and behavior. And now the Lord comes to him definitely, personally, and says, “Take courage.”

The Lord lets him know too, that he will leave Jerusalem safely (albeit not for two years) and that there is still work to be done...he will go to Rome. As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

Application: Paul had asked the believers in Rome to pray “that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea” and God answered that prayer. Even though Paul suffered, God did rescue him. And through the events of those violent two days God used Paul and God was pleased with Paul. As you have testified about me in Jerusalem,

Is God putting you through something that you had hoped to be delivered from, maybe are still praying to be delivered from?

God did not abandon Paul. He hasn't abandoned you either. He wants to use you for his purposes through your crisis. It may be hard. It may be frightening. But if you ask God to make his purposes your purposes, he will give you insight, courage, a testimony, and your suffering will not be wasted. It will count for him.




21:17 Keener’s comment “This gracious reception would necessarily include hospitality for the whole delegation—including offering lodging in Jewish Christian homes to uncircumcised Gentile Christians (although Paul himself might have stayed with his nephew’s family- Acts 23:16). This line thus has more significance than would normally strike the modern reader” may assume too much, since Luke already tells us that the delegation stayed in Mnason’s house, and he was already sympathetic to uncircumcised Gentile converts. But certainly Luke wants us to see that the visit started well.





23:1-5 Ananias strikes Paul for claiming to have lived in good conscience as a Jew. His reason for rebuking the High Priest, seemingly a breach of the law (Ex 22:28 [MT LXX 27]), is based upon an early (perhaps Pharisaic?) interpretation of Ex 22:28 (cf. Rainey/Notley, Sacred Bridge 378).

“Why does Scripture specify ‘among your people’ [ÔKV;mAoVb = LXX touv laouv sou]? [Isn't this phrase superfluous? We should understand this addition to imply, only] when they [the rulers] behave in a manner that befits ‘your people’." Mek. on Ex 22:28 Mishpatim 19 [ed. H. Saul Horwitz and Israel Abraham Rabin, Mechilta D'Rabbi Ishmael. Jerusalem 1970. p. 318); cf. S. Safrai and Z. Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages 1998:34-37.

“Paul's excuse [Acts 23:1-5] was not that he did not know the high priest, but that Ananias had not behaved in a manner that ‘befits your people’." The Apostle's rabbinic-styled use of Scripture anticipates his self-identification with the Pharisees [v. 6], who were included in the Sanhedrin” (Sacred Bridge 378).