Acta Apostolorum

ACTS 28: PAUL IN ROME

2007-03-05T11:52:00.002-06:00

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)

2007-03-05T11:51:00.001-06:00

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

2007-03-05T11:07:00.005-06:00

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

2007-03-05T11:07:00.004-06:00

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

2007-03-05T11:06:00.004-06:00

“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)

2007-03-05T11:06:00.003-06:00

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.

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.
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:

That he “teaches men everywhere against our people, our law, and this place” (meaning the temple).
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?

(v.3) Paul grew up in Jerusalem,
Was thoroughly trained in the law having studied under the renowned Pharisaic leader and rabbinic teacher, Gamaliel,
Was just as zealous for God as any of them,
(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.
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.
(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).

Ch. 20 - 21:16 Thru Greece again & On to Jerusalem

2007-03-05T10:41:00.005-06:00

What is generally called Paul’s “Third Missionary Journey” begins when he leaves Antioch in Acts 18:23. Chapters 20 to 21:15, the boundaries of this posting, constitute the last part of this long narrative unit. But since Paul spent over three years in Ephesus, and his itinerary from that point on was not planned at the outset of the “third” journey, we are justified in seeing it as a discreet unit. I will therefore call it “this trip” in what follows.

Paul departs on his second journey to Europe (20:1-6)

In the last chapter we saw how Paul barely escaped injury in the riot instigated by the artisans of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, because the success of the gospel in that city was cutting into the profits from visiting worshipers at the Temple of Artemis.

After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. 2 When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece (i.e., Corinth). 3 There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus from Berea, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus. 5 These went on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas, 6 but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days (Acts 20:1-6 ESV).

20:1-6 Luke’s account here is only a truncated itinerary with notes as to who was with Paul. This trip was originally planned (with guidance from the Holy Spirit, ἔθετο ... ἐν τῷ πνεύματι) as taking the following route: Macedonia, Achaia, Jerusalem, and Rome (Acts 19:21-22). There were three purposes Paul had in mind for this trip: (1) While in Ephesus, Paul had heard of problems at Corinth and had written a strong and painful letter to them (2Cor 7:8). He was worried about how they might respond, and Titus was to meet him in Troas to bring word of the church’s response to that letter (2Cor 2:12-13). (2) Secondly, for a long time he had been planning to have a group of Gentile delegates from the churches he had founded accompany him to Jerusalem for the Passover and deliver to the Jerusalem believers a generous gift of money to help them feed themselves and carry on their evangelistic work among the Jews of Palestine. This, Paul hoped, would help to cement a good relationship between the predominantly Jewish churches of Palestine with the Gentile-dominated ones in Syria (Antioch), Asia Minor and Greece, many of which he had founded. (3) And thirdly, Paul wished to show by his own example of worshiping in Jerusalem in all the traditional Jewish ways that his fight to keep Gentile converts from being required to become Jews in order to be saved did not mean that he was discouraging Jewish converts from continuing to follow OT forms of worship, including sacrifice. In other words, he wished this Passover pilgrimage to build unity in the young Church.

Now when I went to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me, 13 I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said good-by to them and went on to Macedonia. … 5 … when we came into Macedonia, this body of ours had no rest, but we were harassed at every turn—conflicts on the outside, fears within. 6 But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, 7 and not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. He told us about your longing for me, your deep sorrow, your ardent concern for me, so that my joy was greater than ever (2Cor. 2:12-13; 7:5-7).

Luke fails to give us some important background information, which we must retrieve from Paul's own letters, such as the historical note above. When Paul reached Troas, he did not find Titus there (2Cor 2:12). Purpose #1 seemed to be in jeopardy.

It has been speculated that Titus missed the last boat from Corinth to Troas before navigation ceased for the winter (W.L. Knox cited by Bruce, Acts [Greek] 369), and had been forced to travel by land northward through Greece to meet Paul in Philippi in Macedonia. There Paul found him and was heartened with the news that the Corinthian church had received his rebuke in the “painful” letter in a good spirit and had dealt with the abuses as he had asked them to. All was well in Corinth. Purpose #1 was now accomplished! Thanks be to God!

Purpose #2: The Collection for the Jerusalem Church. For some reason Luke is silent about the second purpose: the collection of funds from Paul’s churches as a gift to the Jerusalem saints. We know of this activity at this time from Paul’s own letters. And although Luke is quiet about it, the fact that he records the men who accompanied Paul — two from each of the regions where he had founded churches — makes it clear that Paul was in fact gathering local delegates and funds for this purpose.

Timothy and Erastus had been sent to Macedonia, the first stop, as advance men. Luke’s conciseness must not mislead us into thinking this was a lightning trip covering only a few months. "Those regions" — (so correctly NRSV, ESV; NIV’s “that area” obscures the plural in the Greek) — shows that more than just Philippi, Thessalonica and Beroea were included. And “many words of encouragement” (NIV; Greek λόγῳ πολλῷ) indicates what Johnson (Acts 354), Witherington (Acts), and others refer to as “many speeches”, probably one or two major addresses in each of a number of cities and regions.

“Just how long Paul stayed in Macedonia we do not know. Luke’s words seem to suggest a fairly prolonged period. It was probably during this time that the Gospel entered the province of Illyricum in the northwest corner of the Balkan peninsula (Ro 15:19; cf. also 2Ti 4:10, where Titus is mentioned as returning to Dalmatia, the southern district of the province of Illyricum). — [HH: Illyricum is shown in the upper left quarter of the map at the top of this posting, located where Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia are today.] — Perhaps Paul himself traveled across the Balkan peninsula on the Via Egnatia to the city of Dyrrhachium. It is probable that this ministry in Macedonia lasted for a year or more, from the summer of 56 through the latter part of 57” (NIV Comm.)

After a three-month visit to Corinth in Achaia (v. 2-3), Paul discovered a plot to kill him while sailing to Jerusalem. In Corinth he had influential friends in high governmental positions to protect him. At sea—especially on a ship bound directly for Syria, perhaps filled with Jewish pilgrims— he would be vulnerable to assassination. So he changed his plans and set out with seven men of his traveling party, members of which represented the churches on his route: Beroea, Thessalonica, Ephesus (Province of Asia) and Derbe.

Acts 20:3 in the Codex Bezae ("D") of Acts (the so-called "Western" text) indicates that Paul's change of plans was—like the original planned route (19:21-22)— the result of the leading of the Holy Spirit: “And when he had spent three months there, and a plot was laid against him by the Jews he wished to sail for Syria. But the Spirit said to him to return through Macedonia, therefore …" (The bolded blue parts of the above translation of Codex Bezae represent its additions to the Greek text on which all current versions of the New Testament are based.)

Many scholars believe that the differences between Codex Bezae and the other texts are not due to scribal additions or errors, but to Luke’s own revision of his earlier manuscript. They represent therefore authentic information from the author himself. You can read a complete English translation of Codex Bezae's Acts material online by clicking here.

Since part of the purpose for this trip was to collect funds to aid the poor and hungry saints in Jerusalem, these local representatives were helpful in taking charge of the contributions raised from each area (so L. T. Johnson, Acts 355). The lack of a Corinthian representative may indicate strained relations with that church, while Luke who joined the travelers in Philippi (the "they" of v. 5 becomes "we" in v. 6) may have represented that church.

5-6 Having been unable to get to Jerusalem for Passover, Paul remained at Philippi to celebrate it and the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. He sent his Gentile companions ahead to Troas and stayed on at Philippi, apparently with Silas and Timothy.

"The fact that the delegation travels together ahead of Paul and then makes rendezvous with him again suggests its real role as one of arranging the delivery of the collection to the Jerusalem Church (Rom 15:25-27)" (Johnson, Acts 355).

Then after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the missionaries—accompanied by Luke (note the “we” section of vv. 5-15)—went down to Neapolis, the port city of Philippi, and crossed the Aegean to Troas. It was evidently a difficult crossing because it took five days instead of two days as earlier (Acts 16:11).

Paul's enthusiasm at Troas leads to an accident (v. 7-12)

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9 Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10 Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” 11 Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12 The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted (Acts 20:7-12).

The unique blend of loyal Judaism and fervent messianic Christianity in Paul is exemplified in the rapid transition from longing to reach Jerusalem to celebrate the Pesach and the dating of the time spent in Philippi as "the days of Unleavened Bread" (v. 6) to the celebration in Troas of the Eucharist on the Lord's Day, the "first day of the week" (v. 7).

Although we cannot deny Luke the right to a sense of humor, it is unlikely that in a book as short as The Acts of the Apostles, which after all had a serious purpose, that he would include an episode like this just to get a laugh out of Theophilus. The mention of the torches in the crowded house suggests that Eutychus' falling asleep may have had more of a biochemical cause (lack of oxygen, warmth) than simply being literally "bored to death" by Paul's prolonged speech.

There is no hint that Paul took the incident as a rebuke for long-windedness. Nor were the people troubled by the meeting’s length. They were eager to learn and only had Paul with them a short time. It was an evening of great significance for the church at Troas: Paul had taught them, they had fellowshiped together in the Lord’s Supper, and they had witnessed a dramatic sign of God’s presence and power. No wonder Luke says that they “were greatly comforted.” (NIV Comm.)

When Luke makes the closing comment that they "were not a little comforted" (παρεκλήθησαν οὐ μετρίως), there is a pun in the Greek, since the verb "comfort" used here (παρακαλεω) is the verb regularly used of Paul's addresses to the believers (Acts 14:22; 15:32; 16:39-40)!

Why then does Luke include this story? Perhaps to show how spiritually hungry these new Christians were for the kind of teaching that Paul could give them. Hungry enough to stay up into the wee hours of the morning to hear him, after many of them had put in a complete day (even on the Lord's day) of backbreaking work. This is the kind of spiritual hunger that Paul alluded to in 2 Cor 2:12, where he says that God had given him an “open door” for the gospel in Troas on his previous visit to the city.

We sail to Miletus

We went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, where we were going to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going there on foot. 14 When he met us at Assos, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene. 15 The next day we set sail from there and arrived off Kios. The day after that we crossed over to Samos, and on the following day arrived at Miletus. 16 Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost (Acts 20:13-16).

When he had arrived in Corinth, Paul had doubtless hoped to sail to Jerusalem in time to celebrate Passover there. But the plot mentioned above forced him to change his travel plans and proceed north overland. He spent Passover/Unleavened Bread in Philippi, and resumed his travels down the western coast of Asia Minor on a schedule to reach Jerusalem in time to celebrate Pentecost (Hebrew hag ha-shavu'ot) 50 days later. When his ship stopped at Miletus to unload and reload cargo, Paul knew he didn’t have time to travel to Ephesus and back, lest his ship sail without him. Therefore he arranged for the leaders of the congregations (the "elders") to come to Miletus for a conference with him. Since Luke by hindsight (and Paul by foresight!) knew that this would be Paul's last face-to-face contact with that important church, he preserves for us here his synopsis of what Paul said to the elders.

Paul's moving farewell message to the elders of Ephesus (20:17-38)

This is another of Luke's edited speeches (or synopses). It is no insult to him as a historian or to the Holy Spirit who inspired this book to recognize that Luke's purpose was not to give a verbatim transcript. Having said that, the present text certainly has the rambling character of a real speech. In it Paul doubles back several times to say the same thing he has said before. It gives the impression of precisely the emotional intensity of the occasion: a man sensing he will never see these people again on earth for whom and with whom he has labored long in the bonds of the gospel (v. 25).

First of all, Paul explains where he is going next and why. He goes to Jerusalem (v. 22) and after that probably to Rome. He goes "compelled by the (Holy) Spirit" (v. 23 δεδεμένος … τῷ πνεύματι). The comment in the NIV Study Bible states the case well and concisely:

Paul did not go to Jerusalem against the direction of the Spirit, as some have suggested, but because of the guidance of the Spirit. People pleaded with him not to go (21:4,12), not because the Spirit prohibited his going but because the Spirit revealed the capture that awaited him there (21:11-12).

He is well aware, and lets his hearers know he is, that dangers await him (v. 23 "imprisonment and afflictions") and most likely at the end death (v. 24).

Knowing that this will be the last time he will see these believers and their churches, he wants to remind them of the tenor and purpose of his ministry among them and give them final warnings. He reminds them that he has not held back from them any truth or teaching that is spiritually and theologically helpful to them (vv. 20-21, 26-27). In the future they must give heed to all that he has taught them (v. 32 "the message of His [i.e., God's] grace") and beware of those future teachers (he calls them "savage wolves", v. 29) who will seek to undermine and distort this precious heritage of Christian truth (vv. 28-32). This warning will henceforth be heavy on Paul's mind, and it shows up frequently in his later letters, such as 1 and 2 Timothy.

In vv. 33-35 Paul reprises the final words of great spiritual leaders from the Old Testament, such as Samuel (1 Sam 12:1-5), by giving an account of his blameless behavior among the flock, challenging them to cite any dishonest behavior, whether dishonesty in speech (lying, distorting, flattering) or in monetary matters (embezzling funds intended for the poor, etc.). Paul rarely accepted money or goods to support himself, preferring to work at his trade and labor in the gospel free of charge. This too he reminds them.

The brothers at Tyre warn Paul not to go to Jerusalem

After we had torn ourselves away from them, we put out to sea and sailed straight to Cos. The next day we went to Rhodes and from there to Patara. 2 We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went on board and set sail. 3 After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we sailed on to Syria. We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo. 4 Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. 5 But when our time was up, we left and continued on our way. All the disciples and their wives and children accompanied us out of the city, and there on the beach we knelt to pray. 6 After saying good-by to each other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home. Acts 21:7 We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed with them for a day. 8 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. 10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.” (Acts 21:1-6)

The “we”s show that Luke is part of the traveling party here. Was Tyre a church that Paul and Barnabas had a role in founding or at least ministering to? Its location not far south of Antioch makes this quite possible. Regardless, it is clear how affectionately attached to Paul the believers there were. This fact also mirrors the affection felt for him by the Ephesian elders in Miletus (Acts 20:36-37), where he had to “tear himself away” from them (literally in the Greek) in order to depart (so Bruce, Acts 438; cf. also With. Acts 629).

One manifestation of their love was the earnest warnings members of the group gave to Paul not to go on to Jerusalem (v. 4). Luke says that these warnings were given “through the [Holy] Spirit” (διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος), but as Keener (Bible Background Comm., 385) observes, the Greek expression here is not Luke’s normal way of describing the Holy Spirit speaking through someone. Therefore Longenecker (Acts 516) and others favor what is called an “occasional” use of Greek διὰ “through”, meaning that on the occasion that the Spirit was warning of the dangers Paul would face on this trip that the Spirit had originally told him to take (Acts 19:21; 20:22), some members of the congregation warned him not to go. See also my remarks below on Agabus.

At Caesarea, Agabus prophesies

The stopover in Ptolemais (OT Acco) was motivated not only by travel logistics, but because there was a Christian community there as well (Acts 11:19).

8-9 In Caesarea Paul and his party stayed in the home of Philip “the evangelist”, one of “the Seven” who were chosen in Acts 6-7 to see to the distribution of food to the widows of the Greek-speaking believers, and who brought the gospel to Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). Although he has four unmarried daughters with the “gift of prophecy”, it is not they but a man named Agabus whose prophecy is mentioned in vv. 10-11. It has been suggested (by I. R. Reimer, Women in the Acts, 249) that Agabus had just come from Jerusalem (in Acts 11:27 Jerusalem is given as his home base) and could give prophetic insight into what awaited Paul there.

Here in Agabus’ prophecy we are confronted with a prediction made by a Christian “prophet” with all the trappings of OT prophecy, including acting it out (v. 11, compare Jer 19:1-13; Ezek 4:1-17). David Aune (Prophecy in early Christianity and the ancient Mediterranean world [1983]) comments:

“Symbolic actions performed by Christian prophets are very rare. Agabus appears to have been allowed an unusual degree of freedom in his activity; that is implied by his unusual action of taking Paul's girdle, or belt, and binding himself with it. After binding himself Agabus correlates his action with the impending fate of Paul by using the adverb houtōs, "thus," "in this manner," a linguistic feature which also characterized the symbolic prophetic actions in the OT” (p. 263).

And he further adds:

“[I]n form this oracle has little relationship to OT prophetic speech forms, which nearly always provide a reason (Begründung) for the threat in terms of an accusation. That form is clearly irrelevant here, where the fate of Paul cannot be construed as a divine threat”.

“The content of the oracle deserves some discussion. Agabus does not tell Paul to take a particular course of action, nor does he forbid him to journey to Jerusalem. His oracle is wholly predictive; it simply warns Paul of what will transpire if he follows a certain course of action: he will be arrested and turned over to the Romans. While the oracle in its present form is not syntactically conditional, it seems understood that the predicted fate could be avoided if Paul were to stay away from Jerusalem. At least that is how Luke undoubtedly understood the oracle, since Paul's companions in Acts 21:12-14 are depicted as actively attempting to dissuade Paul from proceeding on to Jerusalem” (p. 264).

In Jerusalem Paul is warmly welcomed by the Believers (21:15-16)

After this, we got ready and went up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where we were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples (Acts 21:15 ).

Luke often incidentally introduces us to someone who sounds fascinating, and we would wish to know more about him. Such a man is this Mnason. His name is Greek, and he is from Cyprus, both of which imply that he belongs to the Hellenist wing of the early Church. Yet he is called here “one of the earliest disciples”. Does this mean that he was a Jew and a disciple in the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry? Or does it mean one of those converted when Peter preached at Pentecost (Acts 2)? Most likely the latter. Luke as a historian is aware of the distance in time between the events he is now narrating and those of his second chapter. What happened then qualifies as the “earliest” period, even though Acts is the second of the two-volume work, the first of which was his gospel. Furthermore, the very fact that he has a home in Jerusalem large enough to house Paul’s entire traveling party shows that he was a wealthy Jew who, although he was born on Cyprus, had lived in Jerusalem most of his life—like Barnabas.

The large number of Gentile believers accompanying Paul might have made last-minute hospitality in a Jewish Christian’s Jerusalem home awkward. Paul and his friends must have known that Mnason held to their more tolerant views regarding uncircumcised believers in Jesus, and sent someone ahead to Mnason’s house to arrange for lodging. Either that, or Mnason might have been in Caesarea and accompanied the party to Jerusalem himself.

Many commentators have pointed out that the last stages of Paul's journey— when so many sincere Christians tried to dissuade him from going to Jerusalem, where death may await him, and where many of them believed that he was doing this contrary to the will of God — are crafted by Luke in such a way as to remind the readers of Jesus' last days going to Jerusalem to His death and resurrection, against the advice of all of his disciples. If so, then Luke is reminding us that Paul models for every Christian the "way of the cross" that true Christian discipleship entails. Jesus said "whoever wishes to follow me must take up his/her cross and follow me". Paul and Luke knew that this meant a willingness to suffer for the sake of the gospel, whatever form that suffering might take. It is a lesson for us today!

Ch. 19 Paul's Ministry in Ephesus

2007-03-05T10:41:00.004-06:00

1-17 Luke’s purpose in including the two episodes 18:24-28 and 19:1-17 was to inform his readers of the ongoing movement started by John the Baptist and its relationship to Christianity (Tannehill, Narrative Unity 2:233f).

2-3 A reader coming to the book of Acts from the reading of the Gospel of Luke, as Theophilus (Acts 1:1).would have done (Luke 1:3), would find many profound elements of continuity between the two narratives (Acts 1:2-3; 6:8; 7:59-60); but one element of continuity for which the Gospel would not have prepared him was the prominent place still being occupied by Saint John the Baptist, the Forerunner (ho prodromos) , here in the narrative of Acts.

Paul has apparently noticed something in the behavior of these “disciples” that indicated to him that no supernatural work of regeneration (being “born again”) had yet occurred in them. Perhaps he noticed none of the so-called “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23): love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control. What and whom one believed in was certainly paramount, but how one lived was the outward proof that faith was real. Whatever the reason, he asked them a key question (v. 2) and gets a disquieting answer. His question was not “have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” (King James Version) but “did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (all later English translations). This was the normal Christian experience, even in Paul’s day, in spite of the sensational displays of speaking in tongues that occurred in Jerusalem, Samaria and Caesarea.

Their answer “we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” sounds like an ignorance of the trinitarian nature of God. But while this is remotely possible, it is unlikely in view of John the Baptist’s own message about the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). For this reason, although the above translation of their reply is literally and technically correct, the sense intended is doubtless better reflected in the old ASV (not the NASV!) wording: “we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given”.

Paul cannot imagine a true Christian baptism except “into the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Mat 28:19). For this reason he asked them “then what baptism did you receive?” -- literally “into what (name) were you baptized”, referring to the Christian formula’s wording “into the name...” of the triune God. The Greek word for “name” is neuter gender, so that “into what (name)”, not “into whom”, is the correct way to refer to the name of the triune God in Mat 28:19. Note too that Matthew and Paul do not consider it three names but one.

Luke’s account is so brief, that one would like to know more about the content of belief of these disciples of John the Baptist. John himself certainly had saving faith in Jesus, and on at least one occasion referred to him as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36). But how much had these men understood of John’s words, if they heard them at all from his own lips? All we know is that they were baptized “in(to) John’s baptism”, which Paul correctly describes to them as merely showing repentance (i.e., determination to change one’s manner of living and thinking), not necessarily trust in the dying and rising Savior. Once they consented to Paul’s words, they were baptized as Christians and — with Paul laying his hands on them — visibly received the Holy Spirit, “speaking in foreign tongues and prophesying”. Certainly, most people in that day who believed and received the Spirit did not show these sensational signs. But they were necessary under the circumstances to confirm to Paul that this time the faith was real.

It is an interesting question, but one that makes proponents of infant baptism uncomfortable, whether Paul would have baptized these twelve men had they said that they had been baptized into the “name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”, but still had given no evidence knowing the gospel or of having been born again. I do not mention this in order to be critical of other Christian traditions: I merely wish to make the point that for Paul it was not previous liturgical experience that was important, but the reality of faith and a new life that evidences the inner power of the Spirit whose name and effect is Holy.

8-10 Because Luke is often vague in referring to the passage of time, we should take him quite seriously when he is precise. “Three months” of sabbath meetings is a long time in which Paul could explain the gospel of Jesus the Messiah to the Jewish community in Ephesus. Luke says his subject was “the kingdom of God”. No archeological remains of a Jewish synagogue at Ephesus have yet been identified. But a Jewish menorah carved into the marble facade of the Library of Celsus (to see a photo click here) there proves an influential Jewish presence in the city.

In order to know what Luke means by these words one has to look up their occurrence in his gospel (Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1,10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20, 28-29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20-21; 18:16-17, 24-25, 29; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51), as well as elsewhere in the Acts (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 28:23, 31). When Jesus (in Luke’s gospel, as in the others) taught about the “kingdom of God”, he clearly had in mind himself as God’s messianic King, the true “son of David”. So when Paul spoke to Jewish(!) hearers about this subject, he undoubtedly used the same approach. The “kingdom of God” was therefore much more than just God the Father’s rule over the entire creation spiritually and demanding social justice (a message often heard from liberal pulpits): it was rather God breaking into history with the incarnation of His Son, the true Messiah and King.

And once God had breached history in this way, there could be no neutrality towards Jesus, especially by His own people Israel. Because three months is ample time to make up one’s mind, the stubborn opposition of “some” of the hearers and their vociferous antagonism was enough to suggest to Paul that he adjourn his sessions to another location than the synagogue. The IVP Acts Comm. rightly observes:

“The Jews' reaction--becoming obstinate (literally, ‘being hardened’ or ‘hardening themselves’; compare Ex 8:15; 9:35; Ps 95:8; Acts 7:51) and refusing to believe …… shows the negative effects of rejecting the gospel over a period of time. We cannot remain neutral; we are either softened toward or hardened against an oft-repeated message.”

The city of Ephesus in Paul's day was both highly intellectual and highly superstitious, a combination that sometimes goes well together even today! For photos of the ruins of some of the buildings see this link. The “hall of Tyrannus” was a lecture hall for philosophy classes, named after one of the notable philosophers of Ephesus. It is symbolic of Paul’s courageous confrontation of both the Jewish objection (“Jews require a miraculous sign” [1 Cor 1:22]) and the pagan Greek one (“Greeks demand wisdom [i.e., philosophy]” [1 Cor 1:22]) that he taught first in the synagogue and then in a philosophy lecture hall! We should all be so confrontational and bold!

“The Western text has an interesting time reference, "from the fifth to the tenth hour" [i.e., from 11 AM to 4 PM] (Acts 19:9). The Mediterranean "siesta" occurred from the fifth hour (11:00 a.m.) onward, and we know from Acts 20:34 that Paul worked at his trade while in Ephesus. This gives us a picture of a tireless apostle and an eager audience. Each is willing to give up the normal time of rest in order to speak and hear of the kingdom” (IVP Acts Comm.).

Working himself to exhaustion for two years, Paul (sometimes through his converts, e.g., Epaphras [Col. 1:7]) spread the gospel through the entire Roman province of Asia (Col. 2:1; 4:13). This means the churches in Ephesus, Colosse, Hierapolis, Philadelphia, Thyatira, and Laodicea, among others.

“From his Corinthian correspondence we learn that Paul, while at Ephesus, had his difficulties, which arose chiefly from conditions at Corinth. But Luke does not mention them or refer to any further difficulties at Ephesus beyond his general reference to Jewish opposition (v. 9) and the Demetrius incident (vv. 23-41). Instead, he rounds off his summary of Paul’s Ephesian ministry by speaking of “extraordinary miracles” taking place directly through Paul” (NIV Comm.).

Paul wrote at this time to the believers in Corinth: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power” (1Corinthians 4:20 NIV). By “talk” he didn’t mean bold preaching, but the empty boasting that he heard was going on in the Corinthian assembly. The “power” that was the sure sign of the kingdom was not, to be sure, limited to the kind of miracles we now read about occurring in Ephesus, but apostolic miracles were certainly part of what he would have put in this category.

The kind of miracles Luke describes here we are already familiar with in his account of the ministry of Simon Peter in Jerusalem: there even Peter’s shadow falling on a sick person conferred healing (Acts 5:15); here even articles of Paul’s clothing had the same effect. Luke knew very well that the success of the gospel did not depend upon a constant display of apostolic miracles. In his Acts narrative they occur only selectively and in strategic moments. Ephesus was a center of philosophy and learning; so Paul lectured in the lecture hall. It was also a city where there was a fascination with magic and the occult powers; so God worked miracles through him, even when he was unaware of the fact! In every way, Luke is telling us, the power of the gospel through Paul is showing itself superior to the power of the anti-gospel. It is like Moses and the pitifully inept Egyptian “magicians” of Exod 5-12, especially illustrated by the incident involving the seven sons of Sceva (v. 13-17), who attempted to co-opt Paul’s “technique” (magic formula!) for personal gain, or perhaps even to show “we non-believers can do the same things you can!” the attempt backfired in a remarkable way, so as to lead to even greater success of the gospel.

Furthermore, the power of God through Paul did not lead believers to a fascination or preoccupation with magic and miracles. Instead they burned their magic manuals! They broke with the occult in all its forms. The fact that the total sale price of the books of all those confessing and repenting is given (v. 19) suggests that they donated the proceeds to the church. We don’t know how that fund was used, but doubtless it was used for works of charity toward the poor and needy in the community.

Verses 21-22 are closely connected to verses 23-41. The former record Paul’s conclusion “in the [Holy] Spirit” that God wanted him to travel through northern and southern Greece, then on to Jerusalem, and finally to Rome itself. In other words, having given much thought and prayer to the matter, and seeing that his years in Ephesus had accomplished what God wanted to accomplish through him there, he was soberly reflecting on how to “finish his course” as a faithful missionary of the gospel. He then sent off Timothy and Erastus as “advance men” into northern Greece (Macedonia).

Verses 23-41 then give us the incident that sparked his actual departure from Ephesus: a riot instigated by one Demetrius and fueled by economic factors. Paul’s evangelization was having a negative effect on the proceeds to the city by “tourism”: the visit for worship to the temple of the goddess “Artemis” (whose Roman/Latin name was “Diana”). For a photo of a statue of this Artemis of the Ephesians, click here.

Ch. 18 From Corinth to Antioch to Ephesus

2007-03-01T13:17:00.001-06:00

Paul in Corinth (18:1-17)

Paul quickly moved on from Athens to the city of Corinth, more important at this time than Athens from both a commercial and political viewpoint. It was the capital of the new province of Achaia, created in 44 BC by Julius Caesar. Its location, on the narrow isthmus joining the Peloponnesus to the mainland of Greece, made it the ideal crossroads for East-West maritime travel, and hence a busy hub of international character. Merchants and sailors from all over the Mediterranean came here. And this meant that, if Paul could make converts among these travelers, they would take the gospel with them wherever they traveled. It was like blowing a dried dandelion and watching the seeds disperse with the wind!

“The points of convergence between Paul's Corinthian correspondence and the brief account in Acts 18 are more than sufficient to show that Luke knows what he is talking about, but the paucity of material probably means that he had not read that correspondence. Both sources mention Priscilla and Aquila, Paul's earning his Iiving by practicing a trade, the conversion and baptism of Crispus (Acts 18:18; 1 Cor. 1:14), Timothy's involvement in the ministry there (Acts 18:5; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10-11), and possibly the reference to Sosthenes (Acts 18:17; 1 Cor. 1:1)” (Witherington, History 269).

It is here that Luke first introduces us to the Jewish couple Aquila and Priscilla. They had lived in Rome, but had been forced to leave following the disturbances there associated with “one Chrestus”, probably the Roman historian Suetonius’ misunderstanding of the Greek title “Christus” of the Jewish Messiah.

2-3 Aquila and Priscilla were believers in Jesus and also shared Paul’s craft of tent-making. Therefore they made ideal partners, both in trade and in evangelism. We also hear from Paul himself that they eventually “risked their necks" for him (Rom. 16:4). Wayne Meeks has this to say in summary about them:

“Both have good Roman names, but in Rome that was quite common for Jews, Greek- as well as Latin-speaking, especially for women. We may summarize their known indicators of status as follows: Wealth: relatively high. They have been able to move from place to place, and in three cities to establish a sizable household; they have acted as patrons for Paul and for Christian congregations. Occupation: low, but not at the bottom. They are artisans, but independent, and by ancient standards they operate on a fairly large scale. Extraction: middling to low. They are eastern provincials and Jews besides, but assimilated to Greco-Roman culture. One thing more: the fact that Prisca's name is mentioned before her husband's once by Paul and two out of three times in Acts suggests that she has higher status than her husband” (First Urban Christians, 59).

“Their common trade is "tentmaking," or better "leatherworking." Most tents in that day were constructed of leather, but the meaning of sk[h]enopoios was extended (as was the case with the English "saddler") to refer to an artisan who produced a variety of leather articles. While Jewish rabbis were bivocational so that they would not have to charge for their teaching (m. 'Abot 2:2), other traveling teachers in the Hellenistic world received remuneration for their lectures. In Greco-Roman culture the manual labor of the artisan class was despised” (IVP Acts Commentary).

So there were social consequences to practicing his trade, as Witherington also notes:

“Paul's practicing of a trade was strategic in that it gave him a venue in the marketplace to reach people and it let him be independent from the entangling alliances involved in the patronage system, but it came with a cost, namely, that upper-class Romans would have seen him as a person of lesser status” (History 270).

As we have seen, Paul did not engage in his trade in every city he visited. If his converts could afford to support him, or if his converts in cities he had visited earlier (such as Philippi) sent funds to him, he availed himself of the chance to have more free time for evangelism. When such support was unavailable, he worked to support himself. This was not easy work. In his letters to the Corinthian church Paul later referred often to how he exhausted himself during this period (1Cor 4:12; 9:6; 15:10; 2Cor 11:27).

4 His first missionary target, as usual, was the local synagogue. The synagogue in Corinth, like those at cities he had visited earlier, was attended not only by Jews, but by interested Greeks.

5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, where Paul had left them, “Paul began to occupy himself totally with preaching the word” (so the New American Bible [Roman Catholic] correctly renders the Greek imperfect tense of συνείχετο as ingressive).

The coming of Silas and Timothy to Corinth altered the situation for Paul. They brought good news about the Christians at Thessalonica (cf. 1Th 3:6) and a gift of money from the congregation at Philippi (cf. 2Co 11:9; Phil 4:14-15). The news from Thessalonica was better than Paul dared expect, and it greatly comforted and encouraged him (cf. 1Th 3:7-10)—though it also told of a slanderous campaign started against him outside the congregation (1Th 2:3-6) and of some perplexity within it concerning the return of Christ (1Th 4:13-5:11). The money from Philippi was especially welcome at this time, for Paul was now able to devote himself “exclusively to preaching” (NIV Comm.).

Initial preaching in the synagogue resulted in fierce opposition, but the flash point was reached when Paul set up church next door to the synagogue in the home of Titius Justus, and the synagogue leader (archisynagogos), Crispus (the name [meaning ‘curly’] is Latin, but is used elsewhere by Jews [cf. TJ Yebhamoth 2. 3; 12. 2; Lightfoot, HHT in 1 Cor. 1:14]), became one of the converts! So important was Crispus to the little community, that he was one of very few that Paul himself baptized (1Cor 1:14). The Greek inscription of Theodotos, a ‘ruler of the synagogue’ (archisynagogos), found in Jerusalem verifies the accuracy and appropriateness of Luke’s term here.

Among the Corinthian Christians whose names are given to us in the New Testament

“Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14; Rom. 16:23 ) has a good Roman praenomen, … but in addition he has a house ample enough not only to put up Paul, but also to accommodate all the Christian groups in Corinth meeting together (Rom. 16:23). [For the Corinthian 'house churches' see this link] He is evidently a man of some wealth. The same is true of Crispus, whose office as archisynagogos shows that he not only has high prestige in the Jewish community but is also probably well to do. It is noteworthy that these two are singled out by Paul as people whom he personally baptized at the beginning of Christianity in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14 )” (Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 57).

The fact that both Gaius and Crispus have good Latin names suggests that their families may have been among the first Roman colonists in Corinth.

As a result of Paul’s ministry there were enough believers to require several “house churches”, and when it became necessary for them to meet all together only the very large home of a wealthy believer could hold them:

“Gaius is mentioned in Romans 16:23 as 'host to me and to the whole church'. The adjective 'whole' would be unnecessary if Corinthian Christians always met as a single group. There must have been subgroups: namely, house-churches on a smaller scale. An extra large house was necessary in order to accommodate the entire community. Gaius, in consequence, must have been wealthier than the average believer” (Murphy-O'Connor, Paul, 85).

From Paul’s pastoral concerns mentioned in 1 Corinthians, it is clear that the financial and social differences among the Corinthian believers sometimes created tensions, as when wealthy believers flaunted their wealth by the food they brought to the agape feasts, while poorer members had nothing to eat (1Cor 11:20-22).

9-11 Discouragement is the arch-enemy of Christian service, especially of missionary work, which often must be conducted where other Christians are few and opponents of the gospel many. Luke introduces the story of Paul’s vision of Jesus rather abruptly in vv. 9-10, without clear indication of why Paul especially needed it. It could have been because of the Jewish opposition just mentioned (v. 6). But it is also possible that he feared pagan harassment. The words of Jesus promise that “no one will lay a hand on you to harm you, for there are many in this city who are my people.” The wording of the last phrase could suggest that Paul did not yet know how many believers may have already resided in the city when he arrived. Certainly, Aquila and Priscilla were two such. If Luke is not giving his account in chronological order, this vision may have occurred before Paul met that couple. Luke may have introduced the story of the vision to lead into his story of Paul’s trial before Gallio.

11 Luke makes a point of giving us the duration of Paul’s stay in Corinth. A year and six months is a fairly long time, which Luke again stresses in v. 18, certainly longer than he had stayed in other cities along his route. Why does Luke give us this information? Perhaps because he wishes us to know that Corinth will become an important center for Pauline Christianity, and because he wants to contrast Paul’s reception there with those in Philippi and Thessalonica. Since the mention of the trial before Gallio gives us one of the few fixed chronological points in the life of Paul, this stay in Corinth can be dated from the fall of AD 50 to the spring of 52.

12-17 Paul dragged before Gallio. Although Paul’s lengthy stay shows that he was not promptly expelled, as he had been in Philippi and Thessalonica, this was not because he was unopposed. In these verses Luke records what was undoubtedly the principal event in the opposition.

“Gallio was the son of Marcus Annaeus Seneca, the distinguished Spanish rhetorician (50 B.C.-A.D. 40). He was born in Cordova at the beginning of the Christian Era and named Marcus Annaeus Novatus. On coming to Rome with his father during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41–54), he was adopted by the Roman rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, and thereafter bore the name of his adoptive father. He was renowned for his personal charm. An inscription at Delphi mentions Gallio as being proconsul of Achaia during the period of Claudius’s twenty-sixth acclamation as imperator—that is, during the first seven months of A.D. 52. Proconsuls entered office in the senatorial provinces on July 1, and therefore Gallio became proconsul of Achaia on July 1, 51, but only for a brief period of time” (NIV Comm.).

Luke stresses that the Jewish attack on Paul was “united” (Greek ὁμοθυμαδὸν). In v. 6 he indicated by the Greek verb ἀντιτασσομένων (“opposed”) an “organized front of resistance” (Johnson, Acts 323). By this time word of Paul’s earlier ministries and successes had reached the Jewish synagogues of Corinth and showed them the necessity of united and vigorous opposition. And the evidence of his early success in Corinth itself was obvious to them.

As Gallio’s presence in the city at this time suggested to them a way to utilize the Romans’ own system of public order to discourage Paul and his converts.

The nature of the charge brought against him (v. 13) was that he was promoting a religion not officially approved by Roman law. Judaism was officially recognized as a religio licita ("permitted [or authorized] religion"), but since the Jewish leaders avow that he is “persuading people to worship God in ways that are contrary to the law”, this means that he is not entitled to protection under the rubric of Judaism. What the Jewish leaders did not count on, however, was Gallio’s response: that Paul’s relationship to Judaism itself was thus a matter for debate within Judaism (“since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves; I do not wish to be a judge of these matters.” v. 15). Paul could in his own defense claim that the message of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah was indeed part of Judaism and thus protected as religio licita. Paul seems to have gone to considerable lengths in the months and years ahead to give evidence of his continuing adherence to Jewish customs: in Cenchrea near Corinth he shaved his head in connection with a vow (Acts 18:18; see also Acts 21:22-24). This not only contributed to his protection under Roman law as a promulgator of a religio licita (Judaism), but would help to deflect criticism from him once he returned to Jerusalem and was assailed by Jewish opponents there. but Paul’s adherence to the religion of his ancestors was not just a ploy to help protect himself while evangelizing: his letters show that he was thoroughly convinced that what he was preaching was the true religion of Abraham and Moses, fulfilled in the Messiah Jesus.

It is sometimes unfairly claimed that Luke’s book was designed to curry favor with the Roman government by whitewashing the Roman authorities, both in respect to the crucifixion of Jesus and the treatment of the Christian missionaries. But v. 17 shows how baseless such a claim is: Gallio is hardly shown in a flattering light here, as he watches indifferently the Jewish mob beat up the new Christian Sosthenes!

The Gallio episode is the last vignette Luke gives us of Paul’s first visit to Corinth. The comment in v. 18 that Paul stayed in Corinth “for a considerable time” (NRSV; lit. “many days” [ἡμέρας ἱκανὰς]) covers the entire time of the visit, not just the period after the Gallio incident. More incidents from that period could surely be reconstructed from the study of retrospective remarks in Paul’s two letters to the Corinthian believers, but that is not our purpose in this study. Luke has now finished his remarks about Paul’s first visit and the founding of the church there.

Paul returns via Ephesus to Antioch, and begins 3rd Trip into Asia Minor (18:18-23)

Eventually Paul left them to return to his “sending church” in Antioch. Luke refers to this destination simply as “Syria”. His companions as far as the first stop at Ephesus were his partners in evangelism, Priscilla and Aquila. By his brief mention in v. 18 that Paul had his hair cut “because he had a vow” (see Jewish law relating to vows see the Jewish Encyclopedia), Luke intends his readers to understand that Paul continued to live according to the religious customs of his native people wherever those customs did not contradict the new revelation of truth that had come with Jesus. The charges of Paul’s opponents that he had departed from the faith of Abraham and Moses and was guilty of leading Jews to apostatize from the ancestral faith are thus shown to be baseless. When a Jew took a nazirite vow (see Num 6), he began a period during which among other constraints on his behavior he did not cut his hair. At the end of the period of the vow he cut the hair and performed a sacrifice at the Jerusalem temple. Since Paul had to travel to Jerusalem to perform the sacrifice forming part of his obligation, he could (and perhaps normally would) have cut his hair there. The fact that instead he had it cut while still in Greece (Cenchreae was only 7 miles from Corinth) shows that this was part of what he wished the believers and Jewish opponents in Greece to witness: that he was still living like a faithful Jew, albeit a Messianic one.

Luke’s point is further strengthened by the fact that, upon arriving in Ephesus, Paul immediately visited the local synagogue and discussed with the Jews there the messiahship of Jesus (v. 19). That he was well received by the Jews in Ephesus is emphasized by their inviting him to stay on and continue his teaching (v. 20-21), and by Paul’s answer that he sincerely hoped to return to them and continue the discussion “if God wills” (v. 21). You recall that earlier in his Second Missionary Journey Paul and his team had set out westward from Iconium to enter the Roman province of Asia of which Ephesus was the chief city, but the Holy Spirit prevented them (Acts 16:6); so that they turned northward and ended up in Troas from where they crossed to Philippi (Acts 16:7-10). Paul apparently knew that eventually God would allow him to visit Ephesus, and now he was given a foretaste, which whetted his appetite for a return in his Third Journey.

Sometimes God leads us into unexpected opportunities to discuss the gospel with strangers. And often we cannot be sure that we will see them again. Paul sets us a good example here: be outgoing, gracious and kind, explain everything as well as you can in the limited time, and then express your desire to continue the discussion later, whether in person, by mail, by e-mail or by phone. Such casual acquaintances are not to be thrown away like a used donut wrapper at the airport counter. God has given you a new friend and a potential Christian brother or sister.

Luke’s narrative now becomes little more than an itinerary with very few details of what occurred at each stop. Landing at Caesarea (the port city of Jerusalem), he traveled first to Jerusalem “and greeted the church”. As we just remarked, greeting the Jerusalem church was only part of the reason for Paul’s visit to that city: he also made his sacrifice to conclude the period of his vow, and quite possibly arrived in time to celebrate the Passover.

“While the name ‘Jerusalem’ does not appear in the text, it is certainly implied by the expressions ‘went up’ and ‘went down,’ and also by the absolute use of the term ‘the church.’ At Jerusalem, then, he met with the mother church. In addition, he undoubtedly entered into a thirty-day program of purification for his Nazirite vow, after which he presented his shorn hair to God in thanksgiving and offered sacrifices” (NIV Comm.).

“Though the time is short, perhaps he is still intent on getting to Jerusalem by Passover. The sea lanes opened on March 10, and in A.D. 52 Passover was in early April (Bruce 1988:356). Or he is hurrying there to complete his vow” (IVP Acts Comm.).

Though Jerusalem was his spiritual goal in this trip, Antioch is his missionary goal, since it is there that his home base is. In Antioch he would report all that had been accomplished and prepare for his next trip. Luke gives the impression that he did not stay long in Antioch (ποιήσας χρόνον τινὰ), perhaps from the summer of AD 52 through the spring of 53.

When he did set out again, his first task was the “strengthening” (ἐπιστηρίζων) of the new converts to Christianity in the areas he had visited in the first and second missionary journeys (Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe). The verb translated “strengthen” is used in the OT of the physical support of a building by its pillars and of the financial and emotional support which one can provide to another. Luke has used this verb before (Acts 14:22; 15:32,41) to describe Paul’s activities, which he further describes as: “encouraging [new believers] to remain true to the faith, saying: ‘We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,’” (Acts 14:22). What Paul did to “strengthen” the disciples was to teach them that it was anticipated that they would experience persecution: that Jesus himself had predicted it. But that such persecution would only increase their reward in heaven (Matt 5:10-12,44; 10:23; 13:21; 15:22; 24:9; Luke 21:12; Jn 15:20). And he reinforced this teaching by his own example: they saw how much Paul suffered for the sake of the gospel and never lost hope. Is this not how we “strengthen” one another in the faith as well? It should be!

We should be guided by this stated objective in interpreting the geographical names used by Luke. “Phrygia” cannot therefore mean the region to the far north in Asia Minor which Paul had not previously visited nor planted churches there. Rather it means the area to the south, where ethnic Phrygians lived.

The Beginnings of the Church in Ephesus (18:24-28)

This paragraph sets the background for Paul’s arrival in Ephesus. It introduces to us a fascinating man. He is usually given the name “Apollos”, but textual variants in the Greek manuscripts give us his full name “Apollonius” (see the town named “Apollonia” mentioned in Acts 17:1). Doubtless, Apollos was an abbreviated form of this name. He is described as a Jew from Alexandria (v. 24). He combined natural gifts of eloquence with a profound understanding of the Old Testament, and he was enthusiastic in proclaiming such truth as he knew (vv. 24–25). The conspicuous gap in his knowledge concerned the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the consequent rite of Christian baptism. This was made good by the patient instruction of Priscilla and Aquila (v. 26). From Ephesus Apollos went on to Corinth, where he showed himself to be an expert at Christian apologetics in dealing with the Jews (vv. 27–28). At Corinth there sprang up factions in the names of Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ himself (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul seeks to show that this was not due to himself or Apollos, who were both working together under the hand of God (1 Cor. 3:4–6). All belonged to the Corinthians, including himself and Apollos (1 Cor. 3:21–23), and there could be no cause for party spirit (1 Cor. 4:6). The factions were probably due to the preference of some for the polished eloquence of Apollos. His desire to lessen the controversy may be the reason for his not returning to Corinth despite Paul’s request (1 Cor. 16:12). He is last mentioned in Tit. 3:13 as making some sort of journey.

Luke Johnson points out that the way in which Luke introduces Apollos, while in no way unflattering, clearly indicates that he is not an apostle. It is not in what is said about him, but what is not said about him that shows this. He is described as eloquent and knowledgeable in the scriptures, instructed in “the Way of the Lord” (the Western Text D adds “in his native land [i.e., Alexandria Egypt]”). Luke describes him as “fervent in spirit” (ζέων τῷ πνεύματι v. 25 ESV; “with ardent spirit” NAB, “with burning enthusiasm” NRSV, “with great fervor” NIV), but not “filled/full of the Holy Spirit”, as Peter, Stephen and Paul are described. The Western text variant says he was "instructed" in his native land, but — even if that variant is historically reliable— not necessarily converted in his native land. Acts 19 tells us that the believers Paul found in Ephesus after Apollos left only knew “the baptism of John (the Baptist)”, i.e., a baptism of repentance. If Apollos had been converted while on a Jewish pilgrimage to Jerusalem, perhaps by followers of the Baptist, then he too might have had only the message and theology of John the Baptist before Priscilla and Aquila taught him the full story.

If he had undergone the baptism of John, and he taught accurately about Jesus, it is possible that he knew more about the earthly ministry and teachings of Jesus—humanly speaking—than Paul did. But this did not make him a better guide to the new Christians, only a complementary one: God used him at that particular time to fill a need that neither Paul nor Priscilla nor Aquila were in a position to fill.

Just what then did Aquila and Priscilla explain to him about the “Way of God” “more accurately” (v. 26)? And what difference, if any, is there between the “Way of the Lord” (v. 25) and the “Way of God” (v. 26)? If we may assume for the moment that Apollos came to Ephesus, having only experienced the baptism and teaching of the Baptist, what he taught as “the way of the Lord” could have been the same themes that John the Baptist himself taught: “In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”” (Matthew 3:1-3; cf. also Lk 3:4). The "way of the Lord" that John the Baptist "prepared" by his preaching was repentance and reform of life.

What Aquila and Priscilla explained to Apollos more accurately was what v. 26 (in most modern translations) gives as “the way of God”. The Greek manuscripts of Acts show three possible readings in v. 26: “the way of the Lord”, “the way of God” and simply “the way”. Of these, the third has slightly better manuscript evidence. It is likely that an author like Luke would use the shorter form “the way” after the longer “the way of the Lord” as a kind of abbreviation, whereas the abrupt change from “way of the Lord” to “way of God” has no clear reason. Apollos taught the “way of the Lord” accurately, but he needed to be taught “the way” (i.e., that same way) more accurately. John the Baptist’s teaching was correct, but incomplete. It needed the full doctrines of Jesus' death for our sins, resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Since the time of Luther, Apollos has often been suggested as the possible author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which shows the same characteristics of Hellenistic Alexandrian Judaism as Luke describes in Apollos.. This is possible, if he used the allegorical exegesis of his native Alexandria, but it is by no means proved.

From Ephesus Apollos went on to Corinth, taking with him letters of recommendation to the Corinthian church from the Ephesian church. In Corinth he showed himself to be an expert at Christian apologetics in dealing with the Jews, showing from fulfilled prophecy that the Messiah promised in the Old Testament was Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 18:27–28).

At Corinth there sprang up factions in the names of Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ himself (1 Cor. 1:12). Paul seeks to show that this was not due to himself or Apollos, who were both working together under the hand of God (1 Cor. 3:4–6). The factions were probably due to the preference of some for the polished eloquence of Apollos. His desire to lessen the controversy may be the reason for his not returning to Corinth despite Paul’s request (1 Cor. 16:12). He is last mentioned in Tit. 3:13 as making some sort of journey.

Ch. 17: 2nd Missionary Journey (2)- Thessalonica, Berea, Athens

2007-02-28T14:40:00.001-06:00

Thessalonica (vv. 1-9)

1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,’” he said.

1 Thessalonica. The missionaries chose to stop in Philippi and minister there, because of a vision in the form of a “Macedonian man” calling for their assistance. Although Christ himself did not appear in the vision, it was clearly a vision sent by him. There is no mention of direct divine guidance regarding their next stop. Sometimes God gives us guidance in a way that goes beyond simple reasoning, but most of the time he expects us to plan wisely. Luke himself was no longer with them (notice “they [not ‘we’] came to Thessalonica”) and may not have known the factors that led them to bypass Amphipolis and Apollonia and not stop until they had reached Thessalonica, the present capital of Macedonia and its largest and most prosperous city. It may have had to do with which of the cities along their route enjoyed the status of Roman cities. Or it may have been because some of the converts in Philippi had friends or relatives in Thessalonica whom they thought would be equally receptive to the gospel. It may also have been which cities had significant Jewish population and synagogues where Paul and Silas could proclaim the “good news” of Jesus the Messiah “to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles”.

“In Philippi, Paul had time to reflect. His ministry there was the result of a providential call. Where was he to go next? Should he wait for a divine sign, or should he use his common sense? Not surprisingly, he opted for the latter. Given the limited time available (Paul expected that Christ would return shortly in glory) and the vastness of the world, it was clear to Paul that he could not afford to fritter away his energies by stopping at any town or village just because it happened to lie on his path, or by accepting any invitation that happened to be offered. He needed places that, in addition to absorbing his message, had the capacity to radiate it out. His focus had to be on places that multiplied his efforts. In practice this meant cities with a mobile population, where returning visitors could bring the gospel to places that he himself could not reach. Thus Paul trudged a further three or four days from Amphipolis to the nearest city that met this criterion: namely, Thessalonica (modern Salonika), capital of the Roman province of Macedonia” (Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Life).

“Paul's sojourn in Thessalonica brought home to him how lucky he had been in Philippi. There, at the very beginning, he had found a wealthy patron, Lydia, who provided him with accommodation, and facilitated his ministry by furnishing him with access to the middle class. Freedom to draw on their resources relieved him of the need to earn his living. He could give himself entirely to preaching the gospel. And there were people with the leisure to listen. Things were very different in Thessalonica. Paul twice reminds his converts there how long and hard he had to work: 'we worked night and day that we might not burden any of you' (1 Thess. 2:9); 'we did not eat anyone's bread without paying, but with labour and toil we worked night and day that we might not burden any of you' (2 Thess. 3:8). The normal artisan laboured only from sunrise to sunset. If Paul had to work at night, it was because he had difficulty in making ends meet. He could not afford the warm clothing that would make the winter chill of northern Greece bearable (2 Cor. 11:27). The further implication is that his converts, all of whom were pagans (1 Thess. 1:9), were not able to help him financially. They too belonged to the working class, and had to slave twelve hours a day seven days a week to make a living (1Thess. 4:11; 2Thess. 3:12). There is not the slightest hint of any wealthy patron at Thessalonica. There was no one to host the community, with the result that all were expected to make a contribution to the common meal” (Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Life).

There was a Jewish synagogue. On the strategic role that the “liberal” synagogues (i.e., those that were tolerant and open to the gospel) of the Diaspora played in Christian evangelism, see Henry Chadwick’s remark (The Church in Ancient Society):

“As the Christian mission in the Gentile world gathered momentum, the synagogues of the Jewish Dispersion often provided the springboard, partly because Greek synagogues possessed the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures, partly because Gentile ‘God-fearers’ gathered round the community for worship, though rarely becoming proselytes. In synagogues of the Dispersion the prophet Malachi's contrast between the rejected sacrifices of Jerusalem and those of the Dispersion being accepted (1.10–110) could be applied to the situation after AD 70 (Justin, Dialogue 117). Christians took the prophecy to justify the Gentile mission. Probably there were instances where a local church originated in the conversion en bloc of a synagogue with some liberal inclination. At Rome, where there were at least nine or ten synagogues, that is likely to have been the case. Converted Jews brought with them their Septuagint Bible but also traditions of exegesis.”

2 As his custom was. By this time Paul had an established, tried-and-true routine in his evangelism. Here we see how he proceeded with fellow Jews. The synagogues offered him, as a visiting rabbi, the opportunity to actually teach the scripture lesson planned for that Sabbath. And usually it was not difficult for him to find a bridge in the Scripture lesson for that Sabbath to the subject of the messianic hope of Israel.

Since we do not know what week in the year this occurred in or the exact sequence of lessons, we can only guess that it might have been a passage allowing him to “explain and prove that the Messiah had to suffer [i.e., die] and rise from the dead." I should caution you, that the Greek verb translated by NRSV, RSV, ESV and NIV as “proving” does not have quite so strong a meaning. The old King James Version rendered it “alleging”, and the New American Bible (Roman Catholic) and the NET read “demonstrating”. The verb really means something like “proposing” or “claiming”.

Although many Jews in Paul’s day may have understood from the Old Testament that the Messiah had to die, most did not. For them the coming of the Messiah meant a great victory of God. And how could the death of God’s Messiah be a victory? Yet if they could not be made to see that this was God’s intention, they could not possibly believe the heart of Paul’s message, that “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah”.

Paul and Silas had to explain all of this very patiently. And because they were very thorough, it took them three Sabbaths. Of course, their missionary activity was not limited to the Sabbath days. We can easily imagine that from Sabbath to Sabbath they were also busy making contacts and leading individual Jews to faith.

4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

The result of these long labors was converts—new believers in Jesus—persons who followed Paul’s close arguments from the Old Testament and were persuaded. This suggests that, while there was certainly an emotional component to the conversions and a sense of the need for forgiveness (one cannot imagine Paul not including sin and guilt in his messages!), it was the rational conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus that was prominent. Luke, not having been there himself, doesn’t give us a head-count. But his language suggests that there were more “God-fearing Greeks” than full-fledged Jews among the "persuaded".

Also significant among the converts were women of high standing in the city who were the wives of the principal citizens. Although Paul relied solely upon the power of God to make his audiences receptive to the gospel, he understood very well the strategic value of converts who had civic stature and political influence. This could be helpful to his incipient communities of believers, allowing them protection under the law and the ability to spread the Good News without hindrance. That these were women rather than men was due to the disinclination of Gentile men to undergo circumcision in order to be come Jews. Their wives, on the other hand, were attracted to the Jewish faith and were present to hear Paul’s message of Jesus.

5 But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd [actually, ‘the Assembly’, δῆμος]. 6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials [politarchs, πολιτάρχας], shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” 8 When they heard this, the crowd [i.e., the Assembly’, δῆμος] and the city officials [πολιτάρχας] were thrown into turmoil. 9 Then they made Jason and the others post bond and let them go.

Reason for the Jewish opponents suborning people to start a riot was their plan to bring charges against Paul and Silas:

“Their plan was to bring Paul and Silas before ‘the crowd’ and ‘the city officials’ on a charge of disturbing the Pax Romana by preaching a religio illicita [i.e., a religion not officially approved by the governing authorities] and by advocating another king in opposition to Caesar” (NIV Commentary).

6-9 Since Paul was no coward, it is likely that the new believers insisted they be allowed to hide him and Silas from the mob (see v. 10). But the new believers then paid the price for their new faith by being themselves dragged into court, charged and forced to post bond before being released (v. 9).

“What is happening to Jason is clear enough: he is giving security for the good behaviour of his guests, and hence hastens to dispatch Paul and Silas out of the way to Beroea, where the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Thessalonica was not valid” (Sherwyn-White, Roman Society & Roman Law in the NT, 95-96).

"But the underlying idea of the retreat of Paul is more than a running away from trouble. Paul exploits the fact that there was no inter-city jurisdiction or authority except that of the Roman governor. If the proconsul or legate is not apprised of a political affair, a trouble-maker can continue his career indefinitely by moving from city to city. The cities kept control over their inhabitants in the last resort through their property. The property-lacking vagrant was very difficult to handle. Hence the significance of the action taken at Thessalonica against Paul's guarantor [Jason]" (Sherwyn-White, 97).

We have already mentioned how Paul's itinerary, other than the miraculous call to Macedonia, was dictated by careful planning, but also by unforeseen circumstances. Murphy-O'Connor suggests factors leading to the next leg of his trip:

Paul's first instinct was simply to continue west along the Via Egnatia, just as he had done after similar trouble in Philippi. A little reflection, however, brought it home to Paul that such a course would make it very easy for the authorities to find him. Thus there may be a historical reminiscence behind Luke's assertion (Acts 17:10) that Paul got off the Via Egnatia just after it crossed the River Axios and went south-west to Beroea (modern Veroia). It soon became clear, however, that there was no real security as long as Paul stayed in Macedonia. He had come to the attention of the authorities in both Philippi and Thessalonica. Opposition was only going to spread and harden. This put paid to any plans that Paul might have had to carry his gospel west along the Via Egnatia. What mattered now was to get out of Macedonia as quickly as possible. A boat going south along the coast to the adjoining Roman province of Achaia was the best solution. An abrupt move to a different jurisdiction wiped the slate clean.

Beroea [Berea] (vv. 10-15)

As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were more receptive than the Thessalonian ones, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

The new believers in Thessalonica now secretly sent Paul and Silas off to their next stop on the way south to Athens, namely Berea.

The missionaries’ strategy in Berea was the same as in Thessalonica, commenting on Scripture in the weekly Sabbath services of the Jewish synagogue. But the Berean synagogue differed in two important respects from that of Thessalonica: (1) the full-fledged Jews there were more receptive and eagerly tested Paul’s claims against the Scripture passages that he referred to in the Old Testament, not just on the Sabbath, but “every day”. (2) The number of full-fledged Jews who believed was large, and among the politically well-placed individuals were not just the wives, but their husbands as well.

When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up. 14 The brothers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea. 15 The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.

Trouble came because Berea was not far enough from Thessalonica. Paul’s Jewish opponents there, frustrated that he had escaped the clutches of the authorities there, followed him to Berea.

Athens (vv. 16-34)

16-21 Paul observes the situation and attracts the attention of philosophical types by his popular preaching.

On the first few days of a visit to Athens the average ancient visitor would have marveled at the beauty of the architecture: including the Parthenon. Athens in Roman times was no longer the center of intellectual and cultural life in the Mediterranean world. It had long been surpassed by its chief rivals in the East Mediterranean: Ephesus in Asia Minor and Alexandria in Egypt with their huge and impressive libraries, and Tarsus with its university—and of course, by Rome itself. Still, the proud Athenians fancied themselves the elite of the philosophical world. Witherington summarizes the situation well:

[O]utsiders perceived Athens as trading on the glories of its past, and being a place full of intellectually arrogant people and those who liked to bandy about the popular ideas and topics of the day. Luke was not alone in this opinion (cf. Acts 17:21; Thucydides, History 3.38.5; Demosthenes, Philippic 1.10). In truth, both Alexandria and Tarsus, not to mention Rome, may have been more academically high-powered places than Athens in Paul's day.

But Paul was no ordinary visitor to Athens, nor was what Paul admired in life human intellect or artistry — his chief interest was faith in and worship of the True God, the God of his ancestors. So he spent his Sabbaths in the local synagogue, presenting the credentials of Jesus as Messiah to his fellow Jews and the Gentile inquirers there (v. 17).

When he wasn’t in the synagogue, but in the streets and marketplaces during the weekdays, what caught his attention was not the graceful lines of the Parthenon’s pillars or its brilliant colors reflected in the bright Mediterranean sun, but the presence everywhere—on every street corner—of statues of the Greek gods and goddesses. And Paul knew that these were not there just to be admired for their craftsmanship, but in order to receive worship, worship that only One Being deserved, the One God who made heaven and earth. He was therefore deeply troubled by what he saw. And this led him to action: he began to speak to anyone who would listen to him and to tell of the true God and His Son, Jesus.

The Greek market (agora, v. 17) was not only a place for the exchange of goods, but also of ideas. It was therefore a hangout for philosophical types, of which Luke mentions two schools of thought, the Epicureans and the Stoics (v. 18). Typical of such marketplace intellectuals were curiosity about anything that seemed novel (especially if it came from other lands [v. 18], such as Egypt which was thought to be the home of recondite wisdom), and a certain degree of snobbery manifested here in the dismissive label they first give to Paul: “seed-picker” (σπερμολόγος, translated as “babbler”). In other words, in contrast to the Philippian and Thessalonican populations who were disinclined to any foreign (i.e., “non-Roman”) religious customs or ideas, the Athenian philosophers welcomed such things.

Paul was not reluctant to take the initiative in presenting his gospel, but he was particularly eager not to miss opportunities when others actually invited him to present his message. This is what happened, when these Epicureans and Stoics invited him to present his ideas to the Council of the Areopagus and to answer their questions. Since the role of that Council was to ensure public order by reviewing any new religious idea being propagated in the city, Paul was not, in truth, being honored by this invitation: rather it was more of an examination of the potentially dangerous "new divinities" he was preaching. As Luke tells us, his listeners confused "Jesus and the resurrection" with two new deities! Just how risky it was to face a charge of preaching new and unauthorized deities in Athens can be seen from the fact that the famous philosopher Socrates was condemned to death on such a charge. Yet, in spite of being "on trial" as he undoubtedly was, Paul eagerly seized the opportunity to present the gospel, just as he later did before Felix and Festus in Caesarea (Acts 24-25).

22-34 Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus (“Mars Hill”)

Paul did not believe in watering down his message in order to avoid offending his hearers, but he did believe it tailoring it so that the only potentially offensive parts were those that were the core of the gospel itself. What we see him presenting in these verses is a very sophisticated (in the best sense of that word!) introduction to the gospel. One gets the impression that at the end of what Luke gives us here Paul was just at the entrance to the gospel proper.

22-23 He began with a sincere compliment: the many idols showed that the Athenians were seeking to know and please the gods. To that end, statues and altars to every conceivable god or goddess were erected, so as not to overlook or offend any, whether Greek, Roman, Egyptian or Phoenician. In this practice the Athenians were not alone in the ancient world. Other civilizations, such as the ancient Hittites, imported into their national worship any foreign god or goddess that seemed to have power or influence, and whose goodwill might be of benefit to the State.

In order to cover any that the Athenians had unknowingly omitted, they even had an altar with the inscription “to an unknown god”. This provided Paul with an opening. For he will satisfy their curiosity by telling about such a God who is unknown to them, but who wishes to be known by them. And in so doing he will also rebut the charge that he was introducing new divinities, since He whom he was proclaiming had been worshiped by the Athenians all the time, although without knowing His name!

It may seem to us today somehow appropriate to seize upon this ancient Greek label for God, since to the intellectual non-Christian "God" (if He exists at all) is inherently unknowable. Paul would have challenged such an assumption, as he makes clear in the opening chapter of his letter to the Romans (1:18-32): the natural creation itself declares the glory of God's wisdom and power, as Psalm 19:1-6 so jubilantly celebrates, as the law of God equally shows His moral glory (Romans 2:12-16; Psalm 19:7-14). But he would agree—and he makes a point of it here—that unless this Creator had taken the initiative to reveal Himself ultimately in the person of His Son, Jesus the Messiah, He would forever have remained "the unknown God" to the world of paganism (whether ancient or modern!).

24-25 This “unknown God’ is not given a name by Paul. He does not call him Zeus or Jupiter or even the Hebrew Yahweh. It is enough that he is the Creator and “Lord of heaven and earth”.

And although the inscribed altar showed a readiness of the Athenians to offer such a deity a temple and sacrifices, Paul assures them that such a Creator needs no temple, since the world He created is His temple. And because He made everything and provides his human creatures with life and breath and all things needful, he does not need their sacrifices.

These two statements are routine for the Old Testament conception of God: Solomon acknowledged that God did not need the new temple he built for him on Mt. Zion (1 Kings 8:27), and the psalmist emphasized that God owned “the cattle on a thousand hills” and did not need Jewish offerings either (Psa 50:8-12). For the average pagan these two ideas were strange indeed: a god with no need for a temple or sacrifices? Still, these hearers were not just run-of-the-mill Greek peasants: they were rationalist philosophers. So some of this might have already made sense, which is why Paul felt free to speak about it. The first idea was also known to Zeno, the founder of the Stoics. And the second idea was also held by the Epicureans.

In his letters to his converts Paul goes further to explain that the temple of God is the individual body of the believer (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19), and the sacrifices we offer Him are those same bodies, yielded daily in obedience (Romans 12:1-2).

26-29 This unknown God created all the existing races and language groups from a single ancestor (Paul doesn’t name him as Adam, although that was who he had in mind). He stressed the unity of humanity in order to help his hearers to understand how One Creator God not only sustains all nations with food and shelter, but holds them all responsible to His ethical commands and His offer of salvation. In other words, this God doesn’t need them to build Him a temple or offer Him sacrifices, but He does require their faith and obedience to His will.

In vv. 27-29 Paul quotes some of their native philosophers and poets. But not because he regards their own pagan thinkers as the definitive source of knowledge of God: merely that those thinkers too had held some of these truths. Paul seeks common ground in order to communicate. As the NIV Commentary says:

“In support of this teaching about humankind, Paul quotes two maxims from Greek poets. The first (“For in him we live and move and have our being”) comes from the Cretan poet Epimenides (c. 600 B.C.); the second (“for we are his offspring”), from the Cilician poet Aratus (c. 315–240 B.C.). By such maxims, Paul is not suggesting that God is to be thought of in terms of the Zeus of Greek polytheism or Stoic pantheism. He is rather arguing that the poets his hearers recognized as authorities have to some extent corroborated his message. In his search for a measure of common ground with his hearers, he is, so to speak, disinfecting and rebaptizing the poets’ words for his own purposes. But despite its form, Paul’s address was thoroughly biblical and Christian in its content.”

30-31 In these verses Paul comes to the point: this is where he begins his transition to the gospel of Jesus the world’s Savior and Judge:

“God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he demands that all people everywhere repent 31 because he has established a day on which he will ‘judge the world with justice’ through a man he has appointed, and he has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.”

Three issues in particular now were unavoidable insults to Paul’s hearers: Firstly, to have their illustrious history with its poets and philosophers called “times of ignorance” (Muhammad referred to the entire history of the world prior to the revelation of the Quran as the jahaliya [period of ignorance]). Paul had cited with approval two of their thinkers on individual small points, but the whole fabric of pagan thinking: the frantic search for as many gods and goddesses as possible in order to appease the forces of nature and history by sacrifice — this was sheer “ignorance” of the truth that comes from the One God, who demands righteous living, and who forgives sins on the basis of His own Son’s loving sacrificial death and triumphant resurrection.

Secondly, to suggest that this God would hold the entire world accountable ("judgment") for their obedience to His laws and his message of salvation was also an affront to the perceived dignity of humanity in Greek philosophical thought.

Thirdly, the hearers would have been offended to be asked to believe that a dead person could come back to life in his body! For the Greeks, the afterlife was only in spirit: there would never be a time even in the remotest future in which a person’s dead body would come back to life. When you read Paul’s words to the believers in the Greek city of Corinth (1 Cor 15), you will see what a difficult time Christians had in such Greek cities, explaining to their friends that they believed in a bodily resurrection. Yet as Paul stated in 1 Cor 15:12-19, the final resurrection of believers is implied in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And if the final resurrection is denied, it is only logical to deny Jesus’ bodily resurrection. And if this is denied, there is nothing left as a historical basis for our belief that he is the Son of God and able to save us from our sins.

32-34 The reaction of Paul’s hearers was largely negative. This was predictable. As the IVP Acts Commentary observes:

“Epicureans, atomic materialists, viewed reality as an endless chance combining and dispersion of atoms. They would find the concept of bodily resurrection laughable (Epicurus Epistle to Menoeceus 123-32). The Stoics, materialist pantheists, identified the divine as the principle of reason pervading all and, in the form of fate, governing all. Because of either their cyclic eschatology (belief that there were periodic conflagrations of the universe after which history simply repeated itself) or their later adoption of the Platonic concept of the soul's immortality, they could not conceive of resurrection (Chrysippus Fragment 625; Bahnsen 1980:11).”

I don’t think Paul really expected that there would be a large number of his hearers at the Areopagus who would be able to believe his message at first hearing. So the small number who did is not to be thought evidence that he made a mistake in saying what he did. The fact of the matter is that there were converts, even if but a few that are named. Paul reached out for common ground, but when that common ground ran out, he boldly proclaimed the simple truths of Scripture. And so should all of us!

Ch. 15:36 - 16:40 The 2nd Missionary Journey, Pt. 1

2007-02-23T09:05:00.001-06:00

Although the journey to be described in the next chapters is customarily called the “Second Missionary Journey”, Acts 15:36 makes it clear that Paul’s original intention was not further outreach geographically, but rather a revisiting of the churches he and Barnabas had founded on their previous trip.

Summarizing the accomplishments of this journey, the IVP Acts Commentary writes:

“The mission … now takes several new directions. Strategically, there is the Lord's direct guidance throughout the journey (Acts 16:1-10; 18:9-10). Geographically, the gospel invades Europe (Acts 16:10-18:22). Politically, Christianity faces its opponents' challenge concerning its status in the empire (Acts 16:20-21; 17:6-7; 18:13). At the same time earlier themes continue: contextualized witness, persecution, power encounter and divine protection.”

Acts 15:37-41 Paul and Barnabas Disagree on Mark as a Traveling Companion and go their separate ways.

Luke includes this material in order to show how sincere and devout believers could disagree on minor matters involving strategy and yet be independently guided by the Holy Spirit into fruitful areas of service to further the spread of the gospel and the growth of the Church.

NIV Commentary on Acts (also IVP Acts) believes that Mark and Barnabas had both been more sympathetic to the Judaizing party at Antioch than Paul was (Gal 2:11-14), and this may have been at the root of this parting of the ways. But surely this is too speculative a view. Luke says nothing about such a reason, even though he clearly sides with Paul on Mark’s earlier “desertion”, and assigns the cause of the separation to Paul’s lingering distrust of Mark’s personal reliability on a dangerous and arduous mission. Witherington (Acts 472) also rightly notes that the very fact that Paul asked Barnabas to go with him shows that he had no qualms about working together with him despite any lingering differences related to the incident mentioned in Gal 2:11-14.

41 The mission in the Province of Cilicia was “strengthening the churches” that Paul had founded in the three years between his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion and Barnabas’ fetching him from Cilicia to minister in Antioch. the “strengthening” probably included general biblical and ethical instruction, but in particular making sure that the poisonous teaching of the Judaizers was eradicated, together with delivering the letter from the Jerusalem authorities (see Acts 15:23).

16:1-5 First Stop: Derbe and Lystra.

Barnabas had wanted Mark to travel with them as a third associate. Instead Paul takes Silas (Latin Silvanus) to replace Barnabas as the number two missionary. On the excellent qualifications of Silas as a missionary partner the NIV Acts Commentary notes:

“Paul’s selection of Silas (or “Silvanus,” as he is referred to more formally by his Latinized name in 2Co 1:19; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Pe 5:12) to accompany him on his return visit to the churches was wise. He had evidently come to appreciate Silas in their contacts at Jerusalem and Syrian Antioch and concluded that he would make a congenial colleague. More than that, Silas was a leader in the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 15:22) and was explicitly identified in the Jerusalem letter as one who could speak with authority on the attitude of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:27). He was also, it seems, a Roman citizen who could claim, if need be, the privileges of such citizenship along with Paul (Acts 16:37). This was not true of Barnabas. Likewise, Silas was a prophet (Acts 15:32), who appears to have been fluent in Greek (Acts 15:22, 32) and a helpful amanuensis (1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Pe 5:12).“

Paul also seizes the opportunity in Lystra to bring a third member of the team on board: young Timothy (Acts 16:1-3). Being the son of a mixed marriage (mother [Eunice] Jewish, father Greek), Timothy had not been circumcised. But since according to Jewish law, Jewishness was passed by the mother, not the father, he was in the eyes of Jewish law a true Jew by birth (see Witherington, Acts 474f., who disagrees with a study by S. Cohen showing that this law only came into effect in the 2nd Cent. AD). It was, therefore, appropriate for Paul to have him circumcised in order not to offend the Jews in those regions, who expected him to be circumcised since only his father was non-Jewish (v. 3). (See also Witherington, Acts 435.) It has also been suggested that this illustrates a strategy that Paul claimed he used in his evangelism:

“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (1Corinthians 9:19-22 NIV).

In 2Tim 1:5 Paul refers to the faith of Timothy's grandmother Lois and mother Eunice, which must mean that both of these women had been converted to Christianity during one of the earlier missionary journeys, unless of course the "faith" that dwelt in the grandmother was valid pre-Christian Judaism.

6-8 These verses give us the route that the missionaries took from Iconium to Troas (see the map at the head of this posting). From Iconium they traveled directly westward to Antioch in Pisidia. At this point Luke tells us that they were “prevented by the Holy Spirit from preaching the message in the province of Asia” (v. 6). How this was accomplished Luke does not say. Wenham (Paul and Jesus, 78) and D. Aune (Prophecy in Early Christianity, 266) think a Christian prophet confronted them with the prohibition. Certainly such prophets opposed Paul’s journey to Jerusalem later in Acts (20:22-24; 21:10-13), and in fact his traveling companion Silas was himself a prophet (Acts 15:32). But judging from the vision Paul received in Troas and from his own statements in his letters about his frequent visions, this was most probably the form in which the Spirit’s message came. In his own letters Paul never mentions visions of any other figure than the exalted Christ. It is, however, somewhat interesting to reflect that ancient armies of the Hittites and Babylonians employed omens and oracles (i.e., divination) to ascertain what routes their gods wished them to take as they marched against enemies. Here Paul, Silas and Timothy can be seen as “soldiers of Christ”, waging spiritual warfare against “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph 6:10-13), and they too are guided by God at every turn.

Luke does not tell us why the Holy Spirit prevented them from proceeding further directly westward into the Roman Province of Asia, whose principal city was Ephesus, later a major Christian center. Perhaps the missionaries themselves were not told why. God either had other Christian missionaries operating in those fields so that Paul was not needed yet, or the area was not yet ready for the gospel.

So, turning directly northward, they passed through Mysia heading for Bithynia, where later there were Christian churches to which Peter wrote his first epistle (1 Pet 1:1-2). But again the Holy Spirit put up a roadblock. Unless they were prepared at this point to double back and retrace their steps south and east to Syria, only one other direction and route lay open to them: westward, skirting the northern edge of Mysia, to Troas on the Aegean Sea cost, the famous city of King Priam described in Homer’s Iliad.

9 In the night while at Troas Paul received a vision (not a dream), in which a Macedonian man implored him to “Come over to Macedonia and help us”. It is ironic that the figure in the vision was a man, yet the first converts in Macedonian Philippi were women (Acts 16:13-15)! It is also of interest that Luke does not report him as asking for the gospel, but for “help” in general (βοήθησον ἡμῖν). In his letter to Corinth Paul seems to equate the OT word “help” with salvation in Christ: “For he says, 'In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you.' I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.” (2Corinthians 6:2 NIV).

But supernatural and mystical revelations were not the only factors dictating Paul’s routes. Sometimes it was political developments. When Paul’s party arrived in Philippi, they found themselves poised on the threshold of the Via Egnatia, the main East-West trunk road leading westwards to Rome itself. Paul later told the Roman Christians that he has “often intended to visit” them, and this may have been one of those times. But a dramatic turn of events in the capital city made this impossible: in A.D. 49 Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome because of disturbances having to do with someone named “Chrestos”, which most scholars think reflects a misunderstanding of the title “Christ” (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word "Messiah"). If Rome was now off-limits to Jews and especially to Christian Jews, it was clearly not the time for a visit. (See R. Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity, 330.) As Barnett concludes:

“Thus the die was cast for Paul to remain in the Aegean region. For the next eight years (50-57) Paul devoted his energies to preaching and church building in Philippi and Thessalonica on the Via Egnatia, in Corinth, the capital of Achaia , and in Ephesus, the leading city of Roman Asia. Moreover, he had missionary designs on Alexandria Troas (2 Cor 2:12-13). To be sure, Paul preached in Beroea and in Athens, as well as in other places not mentioned in the records; yet he appears to have had a decided preference for establishing centers of Christianity in Roman cities.”

16:11-40 First Stop: Philippi.

11-15 Preaching in the Jewish Place of Prayer. The conversion of Lydia.

13 Unlike Thessalonica and Berea, other Macedonian cities Paul would visit, Philippi’s Jewish population was too small to merit a synagogue. According to later Jewish law (perhaps already effective at this time) a community had to have a minyan, a group of ten adult men, in order to be able to form a synagogue (m. Sanhedrin 1:6; Pirqe Abot 3:8). If the community was smaller than that, they could have a “place of prayer”, usually (like synagogues themselves [see Sanders, Judaism 224]) near to a body of water:

“The reference in Aristeas to washing hands in the sea may explain the fact that several Diaspora synagogues were near water. According to Acts 16:13, Paul and his companions went to the riverside near Philippi, expecting to find a synagogue there. It is quite likely that, before the synagogue service, many Diaspora Jews walked down to the shore and washed their hands, and probably their feet as well.”

Witherington (Acts 490) suggests a less convincing purpose for the need for nearby fresh water: the women, who constituted almost the entire group, had to perform ritual ablutions in running water after their monthly period in order to be considered clean and able to attend Jewish worship. this could not be done in their homes, even if they had plumbing. The problem with this explanation is that a woman bathed on the morning after 7 days of menstruation and remained unclean until the evening.

13 From the Jewish custom of standing to pray but sitting to teach we can gather that Paul “sat down” in order to teach the women gathered there from the (OT) Scriptures, and as was his custom let the Scripture passages assigned to the week lead into a presentation of the good news of Jesus the Messiah.

14 Since full conversion to Judaism only posed a serious problem for men, for whom it entailed adult circumcision, but not for women, one wonders why Lydia, a wealthy woman born in Thyatira on the western coast of Asia Minor, was at this time only a “God-worshiper” (σεβομένη τὸν θεόν, see above on Acts 10:1), poised on the threshold of entering Judaism. Could it have been the Jewish dietary laws which would have interfered with eating together with her clients in the purple dye trade? Thyatira was not only a center of the purple dye and dyed garment trade, but being situated on a major border between provinces was ideally locateed to foster inter-province trade. Since Lydia had a spacious home in Philippi, it has been guessed (not more than a guess!) that she: “was probably the overseas agent of a Thyatiran manufacturer; she may have been arranging the sale of dyed woollen goods which were known simply by the name of the dye (IVP New Bible Dictionary, sub “Thyatira”). Her work didn’t require travel, but it did require entertaining, at which she was obviously very good. She became the host of the new Christian study and worship group. this is a good example of how the Lord is able to use skills that we may have before we become converted to serve Him in our new lives as believers. Lydia’s was hospitality, for which she became an example.

Lydia is the first of three persons Luke singles out among the converts at Philippi. Each has a different background and different reason to be open to the message. Lydia does not appear to have any desperately felt need for God: she was wealthy, had a respectable job, friends and a large beautiful home. We know of no scandalous sin of which she was guilty. Yet something in her hungered for God. Otherwise she would not have stood poised to enter Judaism as a “God-fearer”. Some of us may have been that way: no huge guilt that we felt, but with an indefinable inner hunger to know the Creator in the way that only a believer in Jesus can.

But whatever her conscious need, Luke emphasizes that it was because “the Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul” (NRSV).

15 If Lydia was widowed, her “household” could have included her children; otherwise it was her household servants who joined her in putting faith in Jesus and undergoing baptism. While she only stood at the door of Judaism rather than entering it fully, she did not hesitate by baptism to enter the door of faith in Jesus fully and publicly.

The first step in conversion is an open heart and sincere faith. The second is public profession of faith by baptism. The third is an earnest desire to serve Christ by serving his people. This she did by offering her house as a meeting place.

16-18 If the first example Luke gives is Lydia, a wealthy person from the uppermost ranks of wealth and social standing, the second is near the bottom: a slave girl who had a “spirit of divination”. The phrase “had (i.e., possessed) a spirit” may give the impression that this woman was in control of the spirit. But in fact the very opposite was the case: the spirit had her, as is always the case with occult powers. What the woman had was not some natural talent that she controlled and that made her more useful to society and happy with herself. Rather — somewhat like today’s addictions — she had begun by yielding to a power that she did not fully understand, thinking it might bring her success and fortune, and then found herself unable to free herself. Luke makes it clear also that her owners (v. 19) would not have wished her to free herself of this curse, since they were making a very large profit (ἐργασίαν πολλὴν) from renting out her services, much as a prostitute is “run” by her pimp! The poor woman desperately needed a Savior, such as only Jesus is.

To a modern reader reading what the woman was doing in v. 17 almost seems to have been a service for Paul and Silas, like an advertising campaign. For she was announcing in an approximate way the truth of what they were doing. Yet it was in part the very ambiguity of her announcement that troubled Paul (With. Acts 495). The “Most High God” (ὁ θεος ὁ ὑψίστος, Hebrew ‏אֵל עֶלְיוֹן‎ el elyon) in Judaism denoted the One True God, not just the “god” who happened to be the head of a pantheon of deities, such as was Zeus of the Greeks or Jupiter of the Romans. And “a way of salvation” in pagan parlance meant nothing more than what today’s “miracle” cures from a lingering disease or the latest self-help book might offer. Furthermore, Paul understood that this “spirit of divination” was nothing more than a demon, not a spirit from God. And just as during his earthly ministry Jesus refused to allow demons speaking within their “host” humans to testify to his identity as the son of God (see Mark 1:23-25; Luke 4:33-35), so also Paul was greatly annoyed by the “testimony” of this demon. In fact, Luke (who was with him at the time; see the use of “we”) tells us he put up with it for “many days” (v. 18) before taking action.

I dare say that most of us have never witnessed an exorcism and only know of such from either the accounts of Jesus in the gospels or through one of the kitchy movies of modern times such as Exorcist 1, 2 or 3. But because we have never witnessed one does not mean that those recorded in the Bible were unreal or fictitious. Paul was not in the business of hawking supernatural powers: we only read of his displaying such powers when the situation was truly drastic. He could not keep this woman from pestering him, and he undoubtedly saw that she herself was in the tragic grip of this demon and longed herself to find this “way of salvation”. So finally he acted and by doing so put himself, Silas and Luke at risk (as we shall see).

19-22 The first consequence was that the woman’s owners found themselves without a way to make money from her services, and made a “citizen’s arrest” of Paul and Silas, dragging them before the authorities. The charge, however, was not theft of property but advocating customs not lawful to Roman citizens (which the citizens of Philippi were). Although Luke was with them on the first occasion (see the “we” in v. 16), he was apparently not with Paul and Silas “many days” later (v. 18) at the time of the exorcism and was therefore not present at the arraignment, the beating or the imprisonment. If, as a number of scholars believe, Philippi was actually Luke’s hometown (Witherington, Acts 490), he may have been either at his home or treating a hometown patient at the time Paul and Silas were arrested.

We are not told what these unlawful “customs” (ἔθη) were. The IVP Acts Comm. notes:

“At the same time there is actually a kernel of truth in their words. In the Roman Republic a cult of Apollo centered on healing and prophecy, and under Augustus a magnificent temple to Apollo was erected on the Palatine. ‘Apollo Palatinus was in some sort the equal of Jupiter Optimus Maximus’ (Rose and Robertson 1970:82). Preaching the way of salvation in the Lord Jesus, in whose name the ‘spirit Python,’ inspired by Apollo, was cast out, might certainly be viewed as advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice.”

It is interesting that the missionaries are assailed as “Jews”, which is ironic: if this had transpired in Judea, it would have brought protest from the Pharisees, since it was performed on the Sabbath (Acts 16:16) and violated the Sabbath laws!

“The crowd” (v. 22) may have been those standing around at the time fo the exorcism, who were either brought along to the magistrates as witnesses or simply followed out of fascination. As is typical of crowds observing something sensational, they shift their attitudes very quickly and a lust for violence leads them to “pile on” to the victims, in this case Paul and Silas. Added to this was the anti-Semitism so widespread in Greco-Roman society. All of this (i.e., a charge of disturbing the peace) may have prompted the lictors to use the rods they carried to beat the two prisoners, which was legal enough, provided the prisoners were not Roman citizens. The Roman citizen of Paul and Silas is not revealed until later (v. 37), perhaps because the loud shouting of the crowd prevented the magistrates from hearing the prisoners’ claims.

“Since prisons functioned in ancient times more as places of detention for those awaiting trial than as places of punishment, the praetors' consignment of Paul and Silas to the jailer for safekeeping is not part of the summary justice … but precedes handing them over for trial before the proconsul (Sherwin-White 1963:82). Security seems to have been of the utmost concern, for these pagan minds must have wondered, If they can cast out a soothsaying spirit, what will prevent them from using their magical powers to escape incarceration?” (IVP Acts Comm.).

25-34 God rescues his servants by an earthquake and saves a terrified jailer and his family. Earthquakes are common enough in the region of the Aegean Sea. The miraculous aspect was the timing: Paul and Silas were only in jail overnight. It was not necessary to liberate them from the jail to prevent them from long-term custody. At the formal trial the following day there would have been occasion to reveal their roman citizenship and to clarify the misunderstanding about the exorcism. Paul might even have relished to opportunity to bear a public witness at the trial to the magistrates! Yet God had other plans for him. there was a jailer — probably a retired military man — who needed to hear and be convinced by the gospel. That the earthquake opened the prison doors and broke open the stocks in which their feet were helf was also not miraculous: earthquakes do such things ordinarily.

If the prisoners had escaped, the jailer would have been punished, even though the earthquake was clearly beyond his control. It was for this reason that, thinking the prisoners had escaped, he was about to take his own life rather than face disgrace and punishment of himself and his family.

But the fact that Paul and Silas and the other prisoners (“we are all here”) did not use the open doors to flee custody was remarkable. The jailer had probably heard them singing hymns before the earthquake (v. 25), and now their remarkable composure and unselfish behavior after the prison doors were sprung open (more concerned with the jailer’s attempted suicide than with their own wounds and discomforts: “Do yourself no harm!” v. 28) was in many respects even more miraculous than the earthquake.

Trembling from both the recent scare and the deep impression that the prisoners’ faith and concern for him had left on him, the jailer asked the question: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” As we noted above, “saved” and “salvation” were terms that meant different things to different groups in Greco-Roman society and in different social contexts. We have to ask ourselves: What was the danger that the jailer thought himself in? Now that the prisoners had not fled, he faced no threat of punishment from his superiors: he needed no “salvation” from that. But the behavior of these men during and after the earthquake showed that they were remarkable, to say the least: men whose integrity and therefore message could not be doubted. Furthermore, as we noted above, although earthquakes themselves were not unusual in that region, the timing of this one — immediately after these men had been beaten and imprisoned — certainly looked like God (or “a god”) was angry about their treatment. So it is quite likely that the jailer feared implication in the injustice done to these ambassadors of the “god” Jesus whom they were preaching (see the demons' words through the slave girl: “These men are slaves of the Most High God”, v. 17). He needed to be “saved’ not just from the anger of this “god”, but even more from his own complicity in their imprisonment.

This would be a minimal meaning of the jailer’s question. But we should not exclude the possibility that he had comprehended much more of the meaning of the gospel from the hymns he heard the prisoners singing in the hours leading up to the midnight earthquake. Perhaps he had heard in their singing and audible praying something about Jesus’ death, resurrection and offer of forgiveness of sins. If so, then by being “saved” he could very well have meant most of what we as Christians understand by that term. He wanted what Paul and Silas obviously had: not just forgiveness for this one misdeed, but full pardon for a lifetime of sin, and a peace of mind that allowed such joy and confidence and concern for others in the midst of injustice and suffering.

The answer given was short and direct: “Believe in/on the Lord Jesus”. The very brevity of the reply suggests that indeed Paul and Silas knew that the jailer had heard from them the basic facts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and his offer of forgiveness. What was now needed was not more information, but a personal decision to trust Jesus as Savior and obey him as Lord.

A retired military man such as the jailer would have known what it meant to acknowledge Jesus as “lord” (κύριος kyrios), a term he would have used to address his military superiors (see the words of the Roman centurion to Jesus in Luke 7:7-9).

The promise “and your household” merely means that the same condition needed to be met by them; hence, “They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house” (v. 32). The tender ministrations of the jailer and his family (v. 33-34) to the bleeding and dirty prisoners demonstrated already the radical transformation that faith in the Lord Jesus would continue to work in them in days to come.

35-40 Confronting the Magistrates.

When Paul and Silas last stood before the magistrates, a noisy crowd may have drowned out their objections. Now they will have their vindication. It isn’t clear why the magistrates now ordered their release without trial. The NIV Commentary suggests:

“They had probably only wanted to teach them a lesson about the peril of disturbing the peace in a Roman colony and felt that a public flogging and a night in the city’s jail would be sufficient to do that. So they ordered the jailer to release Paul and Silas.”

Witherington (Acts 499) reaches a similar conclusion.

But whatever the reason, Paul will have nothing short of an admission of wrong-doing by these magistrates. His and Silas’ rights as Roman citizens have been violated not once, but twice:

“The Lex Valeria (509 B.C.) and the Lex Porcia (248 B.C.), reaffirmed in the Lex Julia (23 B.C.), shielded Roman citizens from humiliating punishments in public, such as beating with rods (Cicero Against Verres 2.5.161-70; On Behalf of Rabirius Charged with High Treason 12; Bruce 1990:366). Further, a Roman citizen was always entitled to a trial before punishment was administered. Paul demands that the magistrates come and publicly escort them from prison. This will be a public admission that the magistrates were wrong and that Christians pose no threat to Roman law.” (IVP Acts Comm.).

For these two men to make such a claim falsely was not likely, since persons falsely claiming Roman citizenship could be executed by beheading (Witherington, Acts 499 n. 127). In Rome itself wearing the toga was a sign of Roman citizenship (Cowell, 72), but Paul was a manual laborer and furthermore would never have worn a garment that set him apart from the simple people whom he was called to evangelize. Witherington (Acts 501) suggests that a citizen could demonstrate his status by carrying “a testatio, a certified private copy of evidence of his birth and citizenship inscribed on the waxed surface of a wooden diptych, in a stereotypical five-part form”.

Faced with exposure of having been guilty of a flagrant violation of the law they were sworn to uphold, the magistrate gladly came in person to the prison and escorted Paul and Silas out. Paul may have used this ploy in order to force the magistrates to be especially favorably inclined toward his group of new believers.

Ch. 15:1-35 The Jerusalem Council

2007-02-22T09:15:00.001-06:00

As a result of the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas and the continuing growth of churches like that at Antioch in Syria, the number of Gentile adherents to the faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior was fast approaching (if not already exceeding) the number of Jewish ones. This posed certain serious problems, which must have been apparent not only to the Jerusalem leaders (James and Peter) but also to Paul and his colleagues.

Since observant Jews had opportunities every day to see the moral laxity of Gentiles, especially in matters of sex, not to even mention their indifference to specifically Jewish concerns about a God-pleasing kosher diet and ritual purity, there would be quite an obstacle to such Jews becoming Christians if they saw what a large number of Gentile adherents the new faith had. As F. F. Bruce (Paul: Apostle of the Heart 174) observes:

“It was all very well for Barnabas and Paul to forge ahead with Gentile evangelization, but meanwhile the Jerusalem leaders had to discharge their own responsibility to commend the gospel to their fellow-Jews. The discharge of this responsibility would not be rendered any easier by reports that large numbers of Gentiles were entering the new fellowship on what must have seemed to be very easy terms.”

It is even possible that the direct evangelizing of Gentiles, such as Peter’s visit to the home of Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10), had seriously eroded the general Jewish goodwill toward the new Jesus movement and made possible Herod Agrippa’s execution of James son of Zebedee and attempted execution of Peter (Acts 12).

Add to this the fact that after the death of Agrippa, and the re-institution of Roman procuratorial government in Judea, there was an outbreak of Jewish acts of terrorism by Zealots against the Roman authorities that was countered by the capture and crucifying of the leaders. This made Jews in Palestine all the more suspicious of any of their number who were too friendly to Romans or even Gentiles.

So direct Gentile evangelism was proving very costly to the Jerusalem believers in terms of persecution and hindering conversions. They had every right to be concerned that it be carried out in a responsible way so as not to alienate potential converts among their fellow Jews. This was the occasion for the Jerusalem conference recorded in Acts 15.

From the perspective of 21st Century Christianity, after 2000 years of a Gentile (and mostly Euro-American) Church, it seems strange to us to see some among the earliest Christians insisting that Gentiles must be circumcised and observe all of the law of Moses, not just its ethical or moral commands but its ritual ones as well. Yet we must put ourselves in the situation of that day to properly understand. At that time what we call “Christianity” was a small branch of Judaism with a recently emerging strong impetus to evangelize Gentiles. The biblical anticipation of this outreach to Gentiles, according to many of the earliest Christians, was the Old Testament prophetic picture of Restored Israel (the Jesus people) in the “last days” welcoming a huge influx of Gentiles. As the IVP Acts Commentary puts it:

“Such a ‘proselyte model’ of Gentile conversion [i.e., requiring circumcision and obedience to the whole Torah] was natural to Jews steeped in the Old Testament, which promises that in the last days Gentiles, through the witness of a restored Israel, will flow to Jerusalem and be incorporated into the one people of God (Is 2:2-3; 25:6-8; 56:6-7; 60:2-22; Zech 8:23).”

Similarly the NIV Comm.:

“[They did not] oppose reaching Gentiles through the ministry of the church. But they felt that the outreach to Gentiles should … follow a proselyte model, not … be apart from the law. After all, in the last days, all nations were to flow to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem (cf. Isa 2:2-3; 25:6-8; 56:7; 60:3-22; Zec 8:21-23), not depart from it.”

Of the passages just cited, the following has special interest, because of how it describes the conditions for Gentile entry into the Restored People of God:

“And foreigners [i.e., Gentiles] who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”” (Isaiah 56:6-7 NIV)

This certainly looks like the conditions demanded by the opponents of Paul and Barnabas. Keeping the Sabbath without desecrating it is clearly a Jewish rite, and “holding fast to [God’s] covenant” with Abraham and Moses would certainly involve circumcision.

So with this background we can understand why there would be Jewish adherents to the earliest Jesus Movement who would be troubled by the admission of uncircumcised Gentiles into the community. As for the reason Paul and Barnabas (and eventually Peter and James) decided against such a restriction on Gentile entrance into the Church, one needs to read Paul’s lengthy arguments in Galatians. I would recommend that you read that short book as a background to the study of Acts 15.

1 Luke probably knew the names of the “certain individuals” (NRSV, Greek τινες) who caused the furor in Antioch, but he will not dignify them by naming them. In this he follows Paul’s own example. For even when Paul heatedly denounces opponents in his letters, he usually does not name them. These unnamed men may or may not have been those who later argued the extreme case against Paul in Jerusalem (Gal 2:4), but they almost certainly are the men who proceeded further north from Antioch to “infect” Paul’s new congregations in Galatia (Gal 1:6-7; 3:1) and come under Paul’s curse in Galatians 1:8-9. Paul’s strong language about these “false brothers” probably reflects how fiery was the conflict with them in Antioch, which in classic Greek understatement Luke describes as “no small dissension and debate” (στάσεως καὶ ζητήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης Acts 15:2 NRSV, ESV following KJV, ASV; NIV somewhat obscures Luke’s euphemistic language by paraphrasing the phrase as “sharp dispute and debate”).

2 “Debate” (ζήτησις) was common enough within the churches, as it was among the Jewish rabbis. One could argue without producing a breach in fellowship. Paul had several such arguments with Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2:11-13; Acts 15:36-39). But when the situation reached the stage of “dissension” (στάσις), a breach of fellowship has occurred (a dangerous situation) and the only solution is conflict resolution in the form of a council of the apostles in Jerusalem.

“The behavior of Paul and Barnabas teaches us that it is right to contend for the truth of the gospel in spite of the debate that may ensue. No local church or denomination should settle for politically expedient peace at the expense of doctrinal purity. At the same time, Antioch's decision to appeal to Jerusalem shows us that doctrinal purity maintained in an atmosphere of contentiousness--at the expense of peace--is an equally wrong situation” (IVP Acts Comm.)

When the issue of dispute does not affect the very essence of the gospel, it can and should be handled by conflict resolution. In a sense, this is what Paul often did with his churches in matters such as the speaking in tongues (1Cor 12-14) and the eating of food previously offered to idols (1 Cor 8).

But sometimes — rarely — a doctrinal dispute goes to what both sides regard as the core identity of what is meant by “Christian”. When that happens, conflict resolution will not bring about reconciliation and agreement. Such was the case in the Protestant Reformation (see e.g., Luther). When this is the situation, there is no other course of action open but for the contending parties to become independent bodies.

Paul clearly regarded the teaching of the unnamed men pushing circumcision as a threat to the very essence of the Gospel. The ruling of Peter and James in Acts 15 did not necessarily bring about unity between all the contending parties: but it affirmed the position of Paul’s party as being the Jerusalem church's position as well. But more on that later.

3 As the delegation from the Antioch churches proceeded south through Phoenicia and Samaria on its 250-mile trip to Jerusalem, Luke tells us that Paul and Barnabas excited their hearers with news of “the conversion of the Gentiles” (τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν). The definite article “the conversion” could, of course, have been used merely merely in order to refer to the particular events Luke has just described in Acts 13-14, a kind of missionary report. But since the churches of Phoenicia and Samaria were not the “sending churches” of Paul and Barnabas, and thus were not the proper recipients of such a missionary report, and any such report would also have had to include news of Jews in those cities who had believed in Jesus, another possibility needs to be considered, one which also might explain why Luke says that the news “brought great joy” (ἐποίουν χαρὰν μεγάλην). It is just possible that what Paul and Barnabas were trying to indicate was that what had happened to them in Cyprus and Asia Minor was the first stage of the great turning to God among the Gentiles which was prophesied in Isaiah and other end time prophecies. In other words, this was a sign of the fast-approaching End of All Things, when the Messiah Jesus would return to establish his earthly reign. This response of great joy, then, was much more than “the appropriate response to news that persons of any cultural group have come to salvation” (IVP Commentary). Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and Ethiopians would be “cultural groups”. “Gentiles” is not a "cultural" term, but a religious or theological one, for that huge portion of earth’s population which had not been included among God’s chosen people (Israel), but who in the Last Days would experience a massive turning to God through the working of His Spirit.

Witherington (Acts 452) is right in noting that Luke does not say that the missionaries stressed a Law-free conversion of the Gentiles or that the joy shown was an anticipation of a favorable verdict for Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem. Thus we cannot agree with the NIV Commentary, which says of these verses: “The Phoenician and Samaritan Christians, being themselves converts of the Hellenists’ mission after Stephen’s martyrdom (cf. Acts 8:4-25; 11:19), probably took a broader view than that which prevailed at Jerusalem and rejoiced at the news."

4 The delegation from Antioch was warmly received by the Jerusalem leaders (apostles and elders) and church body.

5 Luke’s “but” (or “on the other hand” δέ), introduces the opposing point of view held by Christians who had been part of the Jewish school of thought described by the word “Pharisees”. Although the word "Pharisees" takes on unavoidably negative overtones in the New Testament, due to Jesus’ criticism of the group in the gospels, there is no necessary negative connotation to the word here. In fact, one should also probably avoid using the translation “sect” for the Greek term αἵρεσις Luke employs here to describe the Pharisees. That term (αἵρεσις) is used by the ancient Jewish historian Josephus to describe the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and the other groups within normative Judaism, which he likes to call “philosophies”. They represented alternative, sometimes heatedly competing, ways of interpreting the Law and its application to daily life. They were schools of thought, or parties, but hardly “sects” (although this English term is sometimes used of them). The English word “sect” too often describes a group with views so aberrant from the norm that it has no proper place within the greater group of Christianity (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc.). this was not true of groups like the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.

6 According to NIV Comm.:

“While Luke says only that the apostles and elders met to consider these questions, his mention of ‘the whole assembly’ in v. 12 and ‘the whole church’ in v. 22 shows that other members of the congregation were also present.“

But the “whole assembly” (v. 12) can simply refer to the group comprised by the apostles and elders. And “ with the consent of the whole church” (v. 22) comes at the very end of the closed door deliberations, so that the “whole church” could have heard the recommendations of the smaller deliberative body and concurred with their ruling.

7 The mention of “much (i.e., lengthy) discussion” shows that such an important issue required that every aspect be explored and every point of view heard. Only then does a prominent figure like Peter weigh in with his own experience (i.e., Cornelius, Acts 10-11) and its relevance to the issue.

The choosing of Peter (“made a choice among you”) as the instrument for opening the door of the kingdom to the Gentiles as a group is indeed shown by Acts 10-11, but was foreshadowed much earlier, when Jesus promised the “keys of the kingdom” to Simon Peter (Mat 16:19), which many scholars understand to mean his privilege to open the access to salvation by faith first to Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), then to Samaritans (Acts 8), and finally to Roman Gentiles (Acts 10-11).

8-9 The crucial evidence that God requires no circumcision or keeping of Jewish ritual law was the bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius’ group the moment they believed. This argument of Peter’s is the same as that of Paul in his letter to the Galatians (Gal 3:2, 5). And Paul later bolsters it by adding the example of Abraham, who was still uncircumcised when God called him out of Mesopotamia and gave him the promises (Rom 4:11).

10-11 Peter’s conclusion/application comes in the form of a question or challenge to those present who advocated requiring full observance of OT law by the new Gentile converts: “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?“ What is meant by “trying to test God”? This expression is used in the Greek translation of the OT texts describing the rebellions of Israel against God and Moses during the desert wanderings. It refers to something very much like what a little child does when its mother says “Don’t touch this newly baked cake”, and as soon as Mother is out of the room, it reaches out to touch it -- just to see if Mother will enforce her rule. See also Acts 5:7-11, where it describes the actions of Ananias and Sapphira. For Paul’s use of the expression see 1Cor 10:9. In other words, Peter was warning that God’s punitive wrath might come upon the Jerusalem Church, if they opposed His clear intention of welcoming Gentiles on the basis of simple faith in Jesus the Messiah, without taking upon themselves all of the obligations of OT law.

Peter goes on the make a statement regarding Jewish experience under the Law which would be contradicted by not only the rabbis of his time but by most of the “establishment” New Testament scholars today! The latter claim that Jews in Paul’s day did not consider law-keeping to be the means of entering God’s covenant family, but merely the way one expressed one’s gratitude to God as a secure member of that family. They also say that bearing the “yoke of the law” was not a burden, but a delight (see quotes from IVP Acts Comm.: “Taking on the yoke of the law and carrying it was a positive image in Judaism (m. Berakot 2:2; m. 'Abot 3:5)”).

Apparently, Peter would respectfully differ! His entire argument depended for its acceptance by all those present (including the Pharisee Christians!) that bearing the yoke of the Law was neither easy nor a delight, but a burden that neither his hearers nor their ancestors could carry. Contrast Jesus’ own promise to those who would become his disciples: “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mat 11:28-30).

12 Peter’s cogent argument reduced the noisy chamber to absolute silence: no one could object. Now it was the turn of Barnabas and Paul to report all that God had accomplished through them on their recent mission. In making this report they not only offer an argument in support of Peter’s conclusion, but fulfill a command of Jesus recorded by Luke himself (Luke 8:39; 9:10). Since Barnabas’ name comes first, it is likely that, because he had closer connections in the Jerusalem church and was widely respected there, he was chosen to speak first.

13-21 As the recognized leader of the Jerusalem Church, it is James (Hebrew Jacob), the brother of Jesus, who has the final word. Since James was extremely strict in his personal observance of OT law, doubtless the opponents of Paul and Barnabas hoped for support from him. He summarizes the most important arguments and expresses what was fast becoming the consensus view, which supported Peter, Paul and Barnabas.

James provides us here with a good example: be as ascetic and self-denying as you want in your private life. But do not become a Pharisee in judging others in the church whose private lives seem to you less rigorous and self-denying.

14 See New Documents 1:94, where it is rightly observed that Luke’s use of the name-form “Simeon” instead of "Peter" in James’ speech (Acts 15:14) shows that the latter was using Aramaic. It also accords with the theory that this part of ch. 15 derives from a Jerusalem source rather than being a free composition of Luke’s.

James refers to Peter’s experience with Cornelius and the former’s observation that the spontaneous giving of the Spirit to these Gentiles showed God’s acceptance of them as Gentiles. But he adds that this accords with OT prophecy (v. 15-18, quoting Amos 9:11-12 [see footnote "b" in the translation] in the Greek LXX).

One can be too fine in reconstructing the particulars of James’ interpretation of the Amos passage and its application to his times. Perhaps a more general understanding can be agreed upon by all interpreters today: the prophets predict that in the “last days”, meaning just “in the future” as this phrase often means in the Hebrew OT, God will bring many Gentiles into his fold. James sees in this passage that God wishes to facilitate that entry, not make it more difficult. Hence, he concludes that this council also not make it more difficult (v. 19).

20 Still, there have to be minimal standards. And James suggests here what they should be. The three selected make up a strange-looking group. As usually interpreted, the first — abstaining from eating meats purchased in the public market which had first been presented in pagan temples — was to guard against even the suggestion that Christians believed in more than one God. The second — abstaining from (usually translated “sexual immorality” or “fornication”) — was to keep monogamy and marital fidelity (sacred since Genesis 2!) unsullied and protected. But the third seems to be involving Jewish kosher practices, seemingly at odds with James’ own verdict just given!

You should not, however, regard these three prescriptions as conditions for salvation, as though anyone who once or twice might engage in such a practice would lose his status as a saved person. Paul’s own advice to the church at Corinth about some members who eat meat previously offered in pagan temples (Rom 14-15; 1 Cor 8) shows what was also James’ intention here. It was the Church’s strong recommendation that these three practices be avoided. A Gentile must regard his Jewish fellow-believer as what Paul called the “weaker” fellow believer (1Cor 8:7-8), who has more scruples against eating non-kosher food. You should not invite such a man to your house and serve him meat from an animal which was not properly drained of its blood when slaughtered. This would be an offense against that person’s sincere scruples. Many Christians today voluntarily abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages when sharing a meal with fellow Christians who are tee-totalers out of conscience.

22-35 The final action of the Jerusalem Council was to draft a resolution and a ruling to be sent back to the inquiring church at Antioch, and to be relayed to any of the Gentile-dominated churches of Cyprus and Asia Minor affected by the previous missionary journey. To assure the church at Antioch that what they heard was not just Paul and Barnabas’ version of the proceedings (v. 27), highly respected members of the Jerusalem church were sent with them (v. 25-27). Verse 24 deliberately repudiates the earlier group from Jerusalem who had caused such anxiety in Antioch.

31-35 As is his custom, Luke closes this section with a description of the beneficial effects of the whole incident and its judicious resolution upon the Church as a whole, and in this case, upon the local church at Antioch where the disturbance began. the results are: joy, encouragement, stability, and the effective propagation of the gospel message.

But not all was settled. About later years Henry Chadwick (The Church in Ancient Society) notes sadly:

The first-century aspiration to keep Jewish and uncircumcised Gentile believers within one single community was difficult to maintain. The epistle to the Ephesians already presupposes that the problems were severe. In the middle years of the second century Justin Martyr (Dialogue 46–48) knew of Jewish Christian communities who believed Jesus to be Messiah and observed the prescriptions of the Torah, perhaps also the traditions of the elders, and did not expect Gentile Christians to be circumcised or to observe the sabbath and food laws. He also knew of other Jewish groups whose only point of difference from the synagogue was belief in Jesus the Messiah. Justin was sad that Jewish and Gentile believers had ceased to be able to worship together, and that the numerous Gentile Christians were in many cases failing to grant full recognition to their Jewish brethren.

Acts 14: The Successes in Galatia

2007-02-21T09:13:00.001-06:00

(Click on the image above to enlarge it.)

(Map courtesy of website http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/maps.stm)(For another good map and JB Phillips' paraphrase of Acts 14 click here.)

1 From Pisidian Antioch Paul and Barnabas proceeded eastward to the city of Iconium, where they continued to proclaim the good news (gospel) about Jesus the Messiah. And again they began where they believed the soil to be the most fertile and ready, the local synagogue.

From the definite article “the synagogue” it would appear that there was only one gathering place for Jewish worship in Iconium (modern Turkish Konya). Obviously ESV’s and NIV’s “Jewish” is unnecessary, since the Greek text has only “the synagogue”, and what would a synagogue be if not Jewish?

The town, the Latin form of whose name is Iconium, existed long before the ancient Phrygians settled it. It is known already from texts written towards the end of the Hittite empire (c. 1220 BC), where it appears as Ikuwaniya.

“With Augustus’ reorganization of provinces in 25 B.C., Iconium became part of Galatia. But while Rome chose Antioch of Pisidia and Lystra as bastions of its authority in the area, Iconium remained largely Greek in temper and somewhat resistant to Roman influence” (NIV Commentary)

2 Luke tells us that "the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers." The expression “the unbelieving Jews” indicates that some at least from the synagogue had believed the gospel message spoken by Paul and Barnabas, as indeed v. 1 says. The initial wave of opposition took the form of slander, injected in the minds of the non-Jews in the city in order to poison their minds and keep them from believing the message.

Luke’s source does not provide him with the specifics as to what the slander was. It had to be something that would be inflammatory to non-Jews, not just to Jews. The best refutation of slander is not words alone but upright, noble and courageous behavior. And it is this which Luke focuses on in the rest of the chapter. The contrast between the behavior of the missionaries and that of the mobs is stark.

3 Luke, like Paul, tends to use “God” for the Father and “Lord” for Jesus. Therefore, Luke characterizes the missionaries’ message as “the message of his (Jesus’) grace”, meaning His gracious gift of salvation through His death and resurrection. It should be understood that “grace” as opposed to “law” will be an issue in these churches in the coming years, as evidenced by Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Confirmation of the message boldly preached came in the form of miracles. Luke’s source again does not specify what these miracles were. “Later when writing his Galatian converts …, Paul appeals to these mighty works performed by the Spirit as evidence that the Gospel as he preached it and as they received it was fully approved by God (cf. Gal 3:4-5)” (NIV Comm.). The IVP Acts Commentary observes:

These miracles at Iconium place the work of Paul and Barnabas in continuity with the mission of Jesus and "the Twelve" and bear witness to unbelieving Jews that the salvation blessings Israel experienced in the past and hoped for at the end of the age are now not only theirs but also the Gentiles' (Acts 2:22; 5:12; 15:12; Ex 7:3; Ps 135:9; Acts 2:12/Joel 2:30; Gal 3:4-5).

But although both Luke and Paul claim that the miracles show the truth of the message, Jews were on good ground to question this assumption, because of warning passages in the Torah, such as Deut. 13:1 -5 (LXX σημεῖον ἢ τέρας). Deceivers also will perform miracles to lure Israel away from fidelity to God.

5 The plot is not just by unbelieving Jews, but by Gentiles (pagans) as well. The gospel always divides people. If your goal is complete unity of thinking on religious matters, you will not want the gospel to be preached. It doesn’t say “You’re okay; I’m okay. Whatever you believe is okay”! It presumes the possibility of validating one of two competing religious claims. It believes that one claim can be right and another wrong.

The mention of stoning shows, however, that there is strong Jewish influence, since stoning as a form of execution is uniquely Israelite/Jewish.

6 Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor! there is a time to stand still bravely, and a time to pick up and run for your life.

Only in Acts 14:4, 6, 14 does Luke depart from his usual restriction of the term “apostles” to refer to the Twelve. He does not even use it of Paul, much less of Barnabas. On the use of “apostles” for Paul and Barnabas, see NIV Comm: “ While Barnabas was neither one of the Twelve nor a claimant to any special revelation, he was probably one of the 120 (cf. Acts 1:15) and may have been a witness of Jesus’ resurrection. Yet as with most titles of the NT, Luke, like Paul himself (cf. 2Co 8:23; Gal 1:19; Phil 2:25), not only used “apostle” in the restricted sense of a small group of highly honored believers who had a special function within the church but also in the broader sense of messengers of the Gospel.” See also With. Acts 419f.

8-10 Lystra also was an old city, mentioned in the same Hittite document (c. 1220 BC) that mentioned Ikuwaniya-Iconium. It has not yet been identified archeologically, although several candidates have been suggested. “That Paul began the ministry at Lystra by preaching to a crowd may imply that no synagogue was available for him to preach in. “ (NIV Comm.).

Paul apparently possessed the gift of healing (1Cor 12:9,28,30), for he was able to bring about miraculous healings on several recorded occasions. But note that healing was not his primary mission in Lystra and Derbe: instead he was there to preach the gospel of Jesus. It was only as he saw in the audience a man who was believing the message (v. 9 “saw that he had faith to be healed”), but who was also a cripple, that he was led by the Spirit to call down God’s healing power upon the man. The physical healing in this case was just God’s way of showing what had already happened to him inside: he had been “made whole” in spirit by faith in Jesus.

11 Paul’s action was spontaneous, prompted by the Spirit (although Luke doesn’t try to state the obvious here), not following a prearranged plan. He could not have foreseen the crowd’s reaction. As it was, this was definitely not what he or Barnabas wanted. The polytheistic pagan mindset being what it was, such miraculous healing powers suggested that the two missionaries were gods in disguise! The specific pair of deities suspected, Zeus and Hermes, were both worshiped in this region, as archeological finds have demonstrated. Bible-readers need to know some Greek mythology in order to fully appreciate this story. Zeus (= Latin Jupiter) was the head of the Greek pantheon and an august figure, while Hermes (= Latin Mercury) was the messenger of the gods and therefore their “chief speaker”. Luke’s albeit abbreviated description of the sacrificial rites is completely true to what we know about pagan Anatolian worship. (If you think modern enlightenment has eliminated the worship of Zeus and his friends, see this recent article.) F. F. Bruce comments on extra-biblical evidence for the worship of Zeus and Hermes in the region of Lystra:

Sometimes minor details in the New Testament narrative have been illuminated and confirmed by archaeological research. For example, when Paul and Barnabas, in the course of their first missionary tour, visited Lystra in Asia Minor, and healed a lame man, the populace jumped to the conclusion that the gods had come down to them in the likeness of men, 'and they called Barnabas Zeus, and Paul Hermes, because he was the chief speaker' (Acts xiv. 12). Now Zeus and Hermes (whom the Romans called Jupiter and Mercury) were traditionally connected with that region; in the eighth book of his Metamorphoses (lines 626 ff.) the [Roman] poet Ovid tells a well known story of how they came to those parts incognito and received hospitality from an aged couple, Philemon and Baucis, who were well rewarded for their kindness, while their inhospitable neighbours were overwhelmed by a deluge.

But more precise evidence of the joint worship of these two deities in the vicinity of Lystra was found in 1910, when Sir William Calder discovered an inscription of c. AD 250 at Sedasa near Lystra, recording the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes along with a sundial by men with Lycaonian names,' and again in 1926, when the same scholar, along with Professor W. H. Buckler, discovered a stone altar near Lystra dedicated to the 'Hearer of Prayer' (presumably Zeus) and Hermes.'

A good parallel to the phrase 'the chief speaker' (Gk., ho hegoumenos tou logou; literally, 'the leader of the speaking') is found in The Egyptian Mysteries of Iamblichus, where Hermes is described as 'the god who is the leader of the speeches' (Gk., theos ho ton logon hegemon). In their way, these 'undesigned coincidences' are as telling as the more direct confirmations of biblical statements.

Very little is known specifically about the ancient non-Greek language of Lycaonia in Roman times, but it was probably a descendant of the Luvian language known to have been spoken in that region in Hittite times. About Luvian we know quite a bit. Obviously, neither Paul nor Barnabas would have understood what was said in this language, which explains their delayed reaction, not understanding what was happening until they saw the sacrifice (v. 14). Tearing their clothes was a typically Jewish sign of mourning a death or a response to the hearing blasphemy or witnessing a sacrilegious act. But it was also a universally recognized sign of mourning or horror that even pagans in Paul's time would have understood.

Pelikan (Acts 163) calls attention to how the wild claim of the Lystrans that the gods can come down in the likeness of humans was

“the liturgical counterpart to a pagan confession of faith that was at one and the same time woefully misguided in its polytheism and idolatry (cf. Acts 19:28) and yet in some curious and twisted sense ‘not far from the kingdom of God’ (Mark 12:34) as an anticipation of the orthodox Christian doctrine that was to be confessed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed: ''And became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, became human".

He adds that:

“this reference to the divine as appearing ‘in the likeness of men’ did bear at least a superficial resemblance to the Pauline language about God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3) and about the incarnation of the preexistent Christ as being ‘born in the likeness of men and being found in human form’ (Phil. 2:7- 8). … [Yet] the early Christian apologists, above all Origen in Contra Celsum, were at great pains to differentiate the Christian doctrine of the incarnation from such pagan myths of the Olympian deities roaming the earth in search of plunder and sex.”

15-17 Paul’s abbreviated “sermon” to restrain the sacrifice required no knowledge either of Jewish scripture nor of Greek philosophy to understand. But it was true to the spirit of the Bible and to what was right in Greek philosophy. Pelikan observes that:

“his discourse at Athens [Acts 17:16-34] was primarily an exercise in the rhetoric of convincing intellectually; which may also account for ‘the more secular style of this speech,’ This discourse at Lystra came much closer to the rhetoric of persuading existentially (Acts 9:1-4; 24:1-2) when it spoke about God as (reversing the original [biological] order) (1) ‘satisfying your hearts with . .. gladness ‘, (2) ‘filling you with food’ (NRSV), and (3) giving ‘you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons.’”

This was something all ancients believed about their gods, but Paul attributes it to one God, not many—and He the totality of what can be called “god”.

Paul starts where his hearers were: not with the cross but with the idea that one God was the Creator of everyone (v. 15).

16-17 By v. 16-17 Paul does not mean that in past generations Gentiles did not need His salvation. Rather he means that in past generations the focus of his self-revelation was Israel, and the pagan nations only knew Him through the provisions of their needs through nature (rain, sunshine, fertile earth). But now this God has reached out directly to the Gentiles.

18 The speech is cut short before he can develop how God has reached out "now"—by Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection. But then his primary purpose was to restrain them from honoring them as gods with sacrifice, and this he has achieved.

19-20 This was a close shave for Paul. We see here just how fierce and passionate was the opposition to Paul and Barnabas from the non-believing Jews of Antioch and Iconium. They pursued the two of them all the way to Lystra and stirred up violence there too. After stoning Paul and supposing him dead, they dragged his body outside the city. Why did they do this? Perhaps because a person executed for sins against the gods would defile the city if his body were allowed to remain in the limits of the city.

“Some months later, when Paul wrote the believers in Galatia (again, we assume a “South Galatian” destination for the letter), he closed by saying, “Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal 6:17). Some of the marks may well have been scars caused by the stoning at Lystra. And when still later he wrote the Corinthians of his being stoned (2Co 11:25), it was Lystra he had in mind (cf. also 2Ti 3:11)” (NIV Comm.).

Young Timothy may have been among those who gathered around the apparently dead Paul (see 2Ti 3:10-11)” (cf. NIV Study Bible note).

That Paul got up and walked right back into the city of those who had stoned him not only shows unbelievable courage, but also concern that the few converts in the city should know that he had survived by God’s grace, and that their prayers for his protection had been answered.

20-21 Little is said about Derbe, but that is no measure of the importance of that visit. As the NIV commentary so rightly observes:

“Luke’s account of the ministry at Derbe is brief. All he says is that the apostles “preached the good news” there and “won a large number of disciples.” Luke spends more time talking about the larger and more influential churches in Antioch and Iconium, though the congregations in the smaller and more rural towns seem to have contributed more young men as candidates for the missionary endeavor (e.g., Timothy from Lystra [Acts 16:1-3; 20:4]; Gaius from Derbe (Acts 20.4) —a pattern not altogether different from today, where the larger churches often capture the headlines and the smaller congregations provide much of the personnel.”

22-23 are all about follow-up, the most important and underrated part of evangelism.

The IVP commentary on Acts notes:

Afterward, instead of moving straight east to Tarsus, a straight shot of 150 miles, Paul and Barnabas decide to retrace their steps. As will become Paul's practice …, the apostle will maintain contact with the churches he has planted, providing ongoing counsel and encouragement. Though Paul focused on church planting (1 Cor 3:6), the goal of his labors was to "present everyone perfect in Christ" to the Lord at his coming (Col 1:28; Rom 15:16; 1 Thess 2:17-20). So today, an evangelist or church planter who does not make provision for discipleship is like a farmer who harvests well only to see the crop spoil because it is not properly stored.

Paul and Barnabas not only followed up the converts with encouragement and good teaching, but they showed by their own courage that those who believed their message would have to have the same kind of courage. Equally important was providing the young believers with a stable and effective organizational structure: ordaining elders for each local congregation. Again, the IVP Acts notes:

The swiftness of these appointments has bothered some church-planting strategists (compare 1 Tim 5:22). But if the core of the membership came from the synagogue, they had sufficient biblical and theological background to permit rapid spiritual maturation. Further, "perhaps Paul and Barnabas were more conscious of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the believing communities" than we are today (Bruce 1988:280).

24-28 The return trip to Antioch is now described: retracing their steps through Antioch of Pisidia and Perge, then by ship back to Antioch in Syria. The returning missionaries then discharged their obligation to the congregation that had sent them forth and followed them with prayers by reporting all that had happened, giving them reasons to thank and praise God and the names of the converts for whom they could pray.

All in all this was an excellent start for the gospel.

Acts 13: Missions to Cyprus and Pisidia

2007-02-20T09:10:00.006-06:00

As David Aune (Prophecy in Early Christianity, 265) notes: “At the beginning of Acts 13 a list of prophets and teachers at Antioch is given that includes five names: Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul (i.e. Paul). While it has been argued on the basis of syntax that the first three are prophets and the last two teachers, the terms "prophet" and "teacher" are probably interchangeable here, so that all five may be considered prophets in Luke' s view.”

1 It is often supposed that Simeon’s nickname “Niger” (Latin “black”) indicates he was a Negro. But color words in names can refer not just to skin color, but to hair color as well (cf. Rufus the redhead). Still, since blonds were less common in ancient Syria and Palestine than brunets, a nickname “black-haired” might be less probable than dark-skinned. In any event, it is unlikely that Luke was trying to denote Negro descent in this oblique way, since he could have done it much more directly. The group is not only geographically, but socially diverse. Manaen is the Greek form of Hebrew Menahem (‏מְנַחֵם‎), showing he was Jewish, but he was also a “member of the court of Herod the ruler” (NRSV). None of this diversity of social station or of ethnic origin hindered these men from worshiping and fellowshiping together, and serving the Antiochean community of believers.

2 Their activity including fasting might suggest that they were in the process of seeking God’s guidance for some new outreach effort, since prayer and fasting often indicate an earnest seeking after the will of God. If so, then the answer came to them, as recorded here in v. 2. The rather general expression “the work to which I have called them” indicates that these two men may have already had some indication of that work, but needed the rest of the church’s leadership to receive confirming guidance from God. Rainer Riesner, Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (1998) pp. 264f, advanced a plausible theory that Paul (and probably Barnabas) devised their missionary itinerary on the basis of passages from Isaiah 66:19 that indicated where the Messianic gospel would penetrate, carried by the “saved” (‎ פליטים= LXX σεσῳσμένους, translated "survivors" ESV) remnant of Israel. The earliest believers in the Messiah Jesus would, according to Paul and Barnabas’ interpretation, be those “saved” Israelites who were to carry the good news to the nations: “Tarshish, Put, and Lud—which draw the bow—to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory”. If this theory is correct, it shows how alert and attentive Bible study combined with prayer and fasting can lead to a powerful and effective witnessing strategy, a lesson that today’s church can afford to learn.

No mention is made of an angelic visitor, which may mean that the words of the Holy Spirit recorded here came through one the prophets mentioned in v. 1.

4 Being “sent out” (Hebrew ‏שׁליח‎) on a mission usually means that the sender authorizes the trip and guarantees the means to accomplish it. Here the sender is not the church in Antioch, but the Holy Spirit himself. Ultimately, the missionaries know that the sender is also Jesus (Matt 28:18-20). Recall the mission to procure a bride for Isaac recorded in Genesis 24. The servant there feels the weight of his responsibility to his master, Abraham, who sent him, but knows that the resources of his master stand behind and support him, and his master’s God can be counted on for guidance.

5 Salamis was on the extreme eastern end of the island of Cyprus. There were many Jewish communities on Cyprus in those days, and the starting point of local evangelization for Paul and Barnabas was always the local synagogue. There they could count on not only Jews predisposed to the message of a Jewish Messiah and Savior, but also Gentiles who were attracted to Judaism and its teachings and practice.

Up to this point Luke has not told us that John Mark was with them. He is there as an “assistant” (Greek ὑπηρέτης), which probably meant both attending to their physical needs (procuring food, etc) and doing some counseling of whatever converts were made. It may have been this involvement with “follow-up” work with converts that (humanly speaking) lead Mark eventually to return home and write up his gospel.

6 The phrase “had gone through the whole island” may indicate that they visited all the intervening towns between Salamis and Paphos, teaching and preaching in all the synagogues, or it may only indicate a travel route.

Paphos was the seat of the Roman governor (proconsul, Greek ἀνθύπατος, head of the government in a senatorial province) of the island. This man, Sergius Paulus, was a famous Roman. Luke calls him “an intelligent man” (συνετός), which in biblical parlance usually means more than having a high I.Q. It involves being reasonable and open to learning something new, as well as having the good judgment to pursue life on the basis of established facts and firm convictions. The same Greek adjective is used in the LXX to describe Joseph (Gen 41:33,39), Oholiab who constructed the Tabernacle (Ex 31:6), the youth David (1Sam. 16:18), and David’s uncle Jonathan who was his counselor (1Chr 27:32).

The expression “the word of God”, both here and in other parts of Acts, refers not to the Scripture, but to the gospel message. The proconsul heard of the missionaries’ activities in the province and wanted to know what it was that they were preaching. It might have been something treasonous. But we are also given the impression that he was interested also for personal reasons.

Apparently, the Jewish “false prophet”, who bore both the name Bar Jesus (“son of Yeshua/Joshua”) and Elymas, was present while the two missionaries had their interview with the proconsul, and interjected his own remarks, trying to “turn the proconsul away fromt he faith”. In so doing he was standing in the way of the Holy Spirit’s work, and Paul recognized that the Holy Spirit was leading him to invoke god’s own judgmental power. Therefore in v. 9 Luke explicitly says “Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said”. It was the Spirit who prompted as well as empowered him. Paul will be called upon to repeat this behavior again in Philippi (Acts 16) with different consequences.

The miracle is not described exactly like an exorcism, but it shares many features with such. Paul looked intently at the man, he then calls him by the name of the evil influence (similar to demon): “you son of the Devil”, etc. The “hand of the Lord” refers to the direct and immediate power of God. The expression is used in Exodus of the miraculous judgments upon the pharaoh of Egypt. The blindness was temporary (“for a while”), but immediate. And there was no other way to interpret it but as the fulfillment of Paul’s words.

12 The reaction of the proconsul was belief and astonishment. But the cause of the astonishment was not apparently the miracle, but “the teaching of the Lord”, perhaps referring to the gospel Paul and Barnabas told to him about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

13-52 On to Asia Minor.

From the westernmost tip of Cyprus the missionaries sailed to Perge on the southern coast of Asia Minor, in the Roman province of Pamphylia. At this point John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. Later we learn that Paul considered this desertion, while Barnabas took a less judgmental attitude toward it. Various theories have been proposed for why Mark left, from cowardice and disillusionment that the mission didn’t stay in Cyprus as he thought it would, to a desire to minister in his homeland and perhaps begin work on a gospel to be used for converts.

From coastal Perge the two proceeded inland into the mountains to Antioch of Pisidia. Some scholars think Paul had received an attack of persistent malaria or some similar illness that needed the higher altitudes of Pisidia. Later when Paul wrote to these Galatian believers, he says that it was because of some infirmity that he first preached the gospel to them (Gal 4:13-14).

Here (vv. 15-43) we have the first virtually complete record of one of Paul’s “evangelistic” homilies in a Jewish synagogue of the Diaspora. Even though it is written by Luke and not Paul himself, and Luke is using a source (since he was not yet with Paul), it may be considered a fairly accurate representation of the type of sermon Paul used to Jewish audiences on his travels.

The liturgy as Luke describes it is simple: first the readings from the law and the prophets (according to a lectionary or schedule for weekly readings), then a brief homily, perhaps prepared in advance by a local member or extemporaneously by a visiting rabbi. If the schedule of readings were known to the visitor, he might have prepared notes of his own on the passage before coming. The Holy Spirit guides us, even if we have prepared in advance -- perhaps even better if we have prepared! I suspect that Paul knew he would be invited and that he had composed his thoughts in advance.

The term used in v. 15 for the homily, λόγος παρακλήσεως “word of exhortation”, is probably the technical term. Today “exhortation” is not a very common word in evangelical churches: it was much more so in our parents’ time. It basically refers to words urging specific actions of Christian behavior: prayer, hospitality, generous giving to those in need, honesty, etc. These “applications” would have been drawn from the passage itself that had been read. Unfortunately, Luke does not tell us what the readings were for that Sabbath. It is possible that one might reason back from the early part of Paul’s recorded sermon to what passages from the law and the prophets might have been his text. Since in the Jewish canon what we call the “historical books” are part of the “Former Prophets”, and since Paul’s brief historical summary stops with David, I would guess that the lesson from the “prophets” for that Sabbath had to do with God’s covenant with David in 2 Sam 7. And it is this historical event that Paul uses as his “springboard” to present Jesus (v. 23-25).

His actual “exhortation” proper begins in v. 26, where he highlights the plea by addressing his audience directly “my brothers, descendants of Abraham’s family, and others (Gentiles) who fear God”. The “message of salvation” (v. 26) that has been sent specifically to this audience concerns a “Savior” (v. 23) for Israel. How he is a Savior is only now explained (v. 27-39): the death and resurrection of Jesus which leads to forgiveness and liberation from sins, which the law of Moses could never do. And this salvation is clearly tied in to David (“the sure mercies of David”, vv. 34-37) in a way that suggests again that the reading from the “Former Prophets” for that Sabbath was 2 Samuel 7.

40-41 Whether or not the typical Jewish synagogue homily was structured this way or not, Paul concludes with a warning against failing to heed the exhortation drawn from the weekly reading of scripture.

42-43 The homily was so well received, that the hearers gathered around Paul and Barnabas and urged them to speak again the following week.

44 Where God begins a work inevitably Satan stirs up opposition. Luke does not specifically attribute it to Satan: that is not his style. But it is clear that opposition to God’s work always comes one way or another from him. And we saw how Paul himself called Bar Jesus a “son of the Devil” at Paphos.

The motive Luke gives us for the Jewish opposition was not misinterpretation of the scripture but jealousy at the attraction of large crowds from the city (vv. 44-45). Their strategy was to interrupt Paul’s homily in the synagogue, so that he could not continue. Paul’s parting words to them of turning to the Gentiles does not mean that from this point on he would not enter synagogues to teach and preach, but that in this particular town and on this visit he was leaving them. This provoked great joy among the Gentile hearers, who were flattered by this attention.

Not content with driving the missionaries out of the synagogue, the opponents used political influence through certain prominent Gentile women who had become hangers-on at the synagogue to expel Paul and Barnabas from the region.

Acts 11:19 - 12:24 The Church at Antioch and the Mission to Gentiles

2007-02-18T23:08:00.001-06:00

11:19-30 The Church in Antioch.

As earlier in Acts, so here also the dispersed persecuted believers served as missionaries to previously unreached groups of people. It is as though one blew on the white cottony head of a dandelion and saw the component seeds dispersed to produce new plants. So the dispersed believers became seeds. As Jesus once said, “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.” (John 12:24 NIV). The word in Greek for this dispersal is related to the noun from which we get the term “Diaspora”. Just as in centuries past the Jews themselves were dispersed by invading Assyrians and Babylonians, and thus founded important centers of Jewish settlement and culture in places like Egypt, North Africa, and Asia Minor, so now Jewish believers in Jesus re-enact that scenario, founding their gospel-centers (“churches”) throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.

They traveled to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. We already learned in ch. 9 that some had fled to Damascus. Doubtless other regions received their shares of refugee Jesus-believers. But Luke is interested in the above-mentioned region, because he is already making a transition from the Jerusalem Church to the Pauline churches of Asia Minor and Greece, and Antioch will be his base of support: his “sending church”. And of course, Cyprus play a major role in his first missionary journey (Acts 13:4-12).

Luke notes that some of these dispersed believers (those from Cyprus and Cyrene [North Africa]) began to speak not only to Jews, but also to Greeks (Luke uses the term “Hellenists” here to denote a non-Jewish group, therefore not as he used the word in Acts 6:1, where it refers to Greek-speaking Jews).

Stott (Acts, 200) correctly points out that the word “also” shows that Jewish evangelism was not being abandoned in favor of Gentile evangelism. Even in the much later missionary work of Paul, whenever he entered a new Gentile city, he began his ministry in the existing synagogue(s) and only afterwards concentrated on Gentiles (Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1-2, 10). This customary practice was part of what he meant by affirming that the gospel was intended “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Rom 1:16; 2:9-10). Jesus’ words to the Phoenician pagan woman also agree: “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs” (see Mark 7:25-29).

21 This unusual (Semitic-sounding) expression “the hand of the Lord” is found again in Acts only in Acts 13:11, where it expresses God’s judgment on one who sought to stop the advance of the gospel in Cyprus. But Luke uses it in the same way as here in popular speculation about the powerful future of John the Baptist: “Everyone who heard this wondered about it, asking, “What then is this child going to be?” For the Lord’s hand was with him” (Luke 1:66 NIV).

The expression is an OT one (‏יַד־יְהוָה‎, Greek χεὶρ κυρίου, occurring 24 times there (in the LXX Ex 9:3; Num 11:23; Judg 2:15; Ruth 1:13; 1Sam 5:3,6,9; 7:13; 12:15; 1Kings 18:46; 2Kings 3:15; 2Chr 30:12; Ezra 7:6; Job 12:9; Is 41:20; 59:1; 66:14; Ezek 1:3; 3:14,22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1). In the OT references the “hand of the LORD” is against his enemies and upon (not "with") those he empowers for good. Always, it signals direct divine intervention, often in the form of a miracle.

21 When Luke describes these pagan Greeks as believing and turning to the Lord, he uses an expression that Paul uses as a paradigm of Gentile conversion in 1 Thess 1:9-10: “you turned to God from idols (ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων) to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.” In the NT this verb "turn" is not, however, always used for good turning: it is also used of turning from God or his gospel to evil and damnation (Gal 4:9; James 5:19; 2Peter 2:22). What its two uses have in common is that a significant change takes place in a person’s spiritual orientation, either a good or a bad change.

Since manuscripts in the “Western” textual tradition in Acts introduce v. 28 with the words “when we were gathered together”, some have concluded that Luke was present and owed his own conversion to this activity in Antioch, which one church tradition claims was his home city.

The Greek behind “News of this reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem” [NIV] involves an expression (εἰς τὰ ὦτα) that is OT (LXX) language (Gen 20:8; 23:13,16; 50:4; Ex 10:2; 11:2; 17:14; 24:7; Is 5:9; 36:11; 49:20; Jer 33:15) and appears in the NT inevitably in the mouth of a Hebrew- or Aramaic-speaker (Luke 1:44; 9:44; Acts 11:22; James 5:4). It is not Luke’s own way of expressing himself, and may represent the language of his Jerusalem source. Furthermore, combination with the same passive verb Ἠκούσθη “it was heard” as in Acts 11:22 occurs in Isa 5:9, where an oracle (a direct utterance of God) is described. This suggests that the Jerusalem church did not “hear of” the events in Antioch by human messengers, but by a revelation to a Christian prophet there, perhaps Agabus whose base of operations was Jerusalem (Acts 11:28; 21:10).

Ch. 12

In this chapter we see Luke’s realistic attitude as a historian, not just recording the sensational successes of the earliest Church, but also its setbacks. Although the believers were aware that it was God who was their true Leader and Guarantor of their ultimate victory, like all groups they highly regarded their human leaders and to a great degree depended upon them. To lose one's leaders is always an enormous setback.

The material presented in ch. 12 is not ordered strictly chronologically with reference to the surrounding chapters, but topically. Acts 12:1-19 describes two attacks upon the Christian leadership, and 12:20-25 God’s judgment upon Herod Agrippa not only for his murder of James and attempted murder of Peter, but because of his blasphemous acceptance of divine honors. He stands as an example of Paul’s statement: “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows” (Galatians 6:7 NIV).

1 Luke’s rather vague “about that time” (kat’ ekeinon de ton kairon) shows that he has less precise information about the incidents recorded in this chapter. Perhaps he is using a secondary source.

The “King Herod” referred to here is a grandson of the man who figures in the birth stories of Jesus. After a period in which the Roman Emperor experimented with Roman governors over Judea, he returned to the earlier policy of using client rulers from the family of Herod the Great. This man’s full name was Herod Agrippa, the first by that name. Since he was descended from Herod the Great’s first wife, Mariamne, Agrippa had Jewish lineage and was much more popular in Palestine than his grandfather. He also had good connections in Rome, where he was a close friend of the emperor, Caligula.

3 But despite his popularity on those grounds Agrippa needed to constantly build his support by measures which “pleased” the Jewish population. One of these was “violent” opposition to the Jesus movement in Jerusalem. Politicians often find it useful to attack Christians, since we are committed to non-violence and non-retaliation. It would not have pleased the people if Agrippa had launched a bloodbath against all of the Jesus people, since many of them were family members of other influential people in Jerusalem. The best policy was to intimidate the leadership of the group. His first target was James (Hebrew Jacob), the son of Zebedee, brother of John. This is not the James who was Jesus brother and later assumed the Jerusalem leadership (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9,12; James 1:1; Jude 1:1). The phrase “killed with the sword” does not refer to a sword fight, but to beheading. James was executed in the same manner as John the Baptist. In Matthew 20:20-23 Jesus had predicted a violent death for this man and his brother John (“you will indeed drink from my cup [of suffering and death]”. We do not know, however, why he was a particular target of choice for Agrippa.

3-5

Acts 10:1 - 11:18 St. Peter and Cornelius

2007-02-16T08:34:00.001-06:00

2 As a man who “feared God with all his household” (NRSV) Cornelius was the head of a family who saw to it that the norms of his faith were observed by all members of his family: wife, children and household slaves. We see this pattern reflected in several other places in Acts: in Acts 16 the Philippian jailer is told that the gospel message of Paul, if believed will bring salvation to his whole household. This does not mean a kind of magic by which one person’s faith can be used as a “Get-out-of-Jail card” to ensure salvation to his or her whole family. Rather Paul has in mind that the jailer will instruct all members of his household in the new faith in Jesus. Only then, when each member has personally trusted Christ, will salvation extend to his entire house. In the case of Cornelius the faith whose norms he enforced were those of Judaism.

Cornelius' alms were given to “the people”, i.e., to Jews living in the vicinity of Caesarea. Cornelius prayed at the set times for Jewish prayer, four times a day. He therefore prayed “regularly”, as the NIV correctly renders διὰ παντός, which other modern translations incorrectly render with either “constantly”, “continually” or “always”.

3 There is some similarity here with the verbal exchange between the exalted Jesus and Saul/Paul on the Damascus Road. The appearance is a “vision” (ὁράμα), which as noted in our comments on ch. 9 does not imply any element of unreality. Pelikan (Acts 128) aptly remarks: “These visions seem to have been self-authenticating …, for Peter's ‘doubts’ (Acts 10:17) pertained to the meaning of the vision, not to its genuineness.” Secondly, the angel addressed him by name, although not twice, as was the case, when Jesus addressed Saul/Paul.

4 Interestingly, a basis for the visit by the angel is laid in the prior acts of piety of Cornelius. His prayers and alms-giving have “ascended as a memorial sacrifice (i.e., the Hebrew ‏אַזְכָּרָה‎, LXX τὸ μνημόσυνον) before God”. (For this sacrifice see Lev 2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:8; 24:7; Num 5:26.) As has been so often observed, these acts of piety did not in themselves save Cornelius: they only provided him with an opportunity to hear a gospel which—once believed—would save him. But it is even interesting that his good works instead of God’s sovereign grace are cited here as the reason for being given the opportunity to hear the Good News! It was clearly just the opposite with Saul/Paul! It was his evil works which came to the attention of Jesus ("Why do you persecute me?"), and in spite of them served as a basis for his extending to Saul/Paul the chance to believe and a call to apostolic mission among the Gentiles. As in so many aspects of biblical theology, the tension between “grace alone” (sola gratia) and human endeavor must be maintained, lest Scripture (sola scriptura!) be violated in one or another of its statements.

Like Saul, Cornelius addresses the angel as “Lord” (Greek kyrie). But in this case we are dealing with someone who grew up in paganism and to whom any apparition might be divine. He even venerates Peter, when they meet.

5-6 Nothing is given to Cornelius “on a silver platter”: a task is given to him, and a human agent, a believer in Jesus, must convey to him that which he must believe in order to be saved. This is the way God works today as well. You and I are indispensable: we are the necessary agents to bring to our loved ones and friends the Good News of Jesus.

7 Here we see what was meant in v. 2 about the “household” of Cornelius. He had domestic slaves and military subordinates who shared his “devoutness” in Judaism, perhaps through his wholesome influence upon them. Godliness can be “catching”!

9 Luke shows literary craft in interweaving the two scenes of the traveling embassy from Cornelius and Peter’s prayer on the rooftop.

We mustn’t be misled by our modern American image of a rooftop with a pitch. The roofs of Palestine in ancient times were flat and Jewish ones had to be provided with parapets (Hebr. ‏מַעֲקֶה‎, Greek στεφάνη) to guard persons on the roof from accidental falls (Deut 22:8). In the evening it was cooler and more comfortable on the roof than in the interior of the house. This would not be so, of course, at noon and especially not in summer. But we may assume that, if this event took place in summer, residents who used the roof for private times of prayer would have awnings either of cloth or leafy branches to provide shade. The fact that it was a seaside house guarantees a refreshing breeze from off the Mediterranean. And since it was the home of a tanner, who in his workshop used urine and animal feces as tanning agents, the roof provided an escape from the stench!

10 It was noon and time for the mid-day repast. Peter would have felt hunger (v. 10), which prepared him for the vision he received.

11-16 The vision itself and the voice that accompanied it are described in vv. 11-16. What appeared to be a sheet containing all sorts of animals forbidden as food by the law of Moses was lowered from heaven to Peter. Unlike Cornelius, Peter saw no angelic form; he merely heard a voice from the sky. The fact that he replied to the speaker as “Lord” means something different here than in the case of Cornelius. As a well-taught Jew and a strict monotheist, he could only regard the voice from heaven as God's. Yet, since he may have shared Luke’s and Paul’s custom of reserving the term “Lord” (Greek kyrios) for Jesus, we may (with Pelikan, Acts 128) assume that as one who had heard Jesus speak on many occasions, he immediately recognized the voice as his.

The voice said: “Rise, Peter. Kill and eat” (‏קוּם, כֵּיפָא , שְׁחַט וֶאֱכֹל‎ ἀναστάς, Πέτρε, θῦσον καὶ φάγε Acts 10:13). A modern paraphrase might be: “Here you go, Peter. Dig in!” But Peter had observed kosher since childhood. For such persons there is a natural aversion, almost the disgust that an American city-dweller would have at being asked to eat rattlesnake. Therefore, as he did on occasion while Jesus was with him on earth (see Matt 16:21-23), Peter objected: “Certainly not, Lord!” Did he view this as a test of his faithfulness to the law of God? Perhaps. In any event, he may have recalled how long before the crucifixion and resurrection Jesus had taught (Mark 7:18-23) that it was not what was consumed as food that defiled a person, but the evil desires and plans that proceeded from within them. But this was a lesson in parallels: the “profane” or “unclean” food represented the “unclean” Gentile, into whose home Peter was about to be invited, and whom he must not refuse, since God had declared him “clean” (καθαρίζω means "declare clean" in v. 15, not "make clean", see BDAG καθαρίζω mng. 3a). The parallel could not have been more apt, since the whole purpose for the Old Testament dietary laws was not to ensure robust health through healthy eating for the Israelites, but to ensure that they could not invite a Canaanite to lunch. It was to guard them from the baleful influences of pagan worship in the Promised Land. But now the time had come to break down that barrier, so that the Good News of Jesus could be promulgated through the Gentile world. The demolition of the dietary laws was the necessary first step, as Paul would have to remind Peter later on, when he relapsed into a hypocritical observance of those laws (Galatians 2:11-14).

The threefold repetition of the exchange (Acts 10:16) was intended to remind Peter of his threefold denial of his Master in the courtyard of the High Priest, and also the threefold profession of his love for the resurrected Jesus on the shore of the Lake of Galilee (John 21). It may also allude to the three men who appeared at the gate (Acts 10:19; 11:11), asking for him.

10:17-18 The threefold repetition also convinced Peter that this was related to something urgent that he was expected to do, not just enoy a BLT for lunch! But what could it possibly be? The answer was knocking at the door downstairs.

10:19-23 Now it was the Holy Spirit who spoke to Peter: “Go with these men, for I have sent them”. The rest of the information would have to be secured from the awaiting messengers of Cornelius (vv. 21-22). In Peter’s rehearsal of the story in Acts 11:12 he claims that at this point the Spirit told him to accompany the messengers and “not make a distinction between them and us”.

10:23 Peter set out with Jewish believers from Joppa (Acts 11: 12 tells us there were six of them).

10:24 Realizing the vital importance of what God was going to communicate to him by Simon Peter, Cornelius had gathered quite a crowd of his relatives and intimate friends. This too shows how deeply felt was his commitment to the God of Israel.

10:25-26 Thinking that Peter might be in fact another angel, Cornelius fell at his feet and started to worship him. But Peter, as Paul would later do also in Acts 14:11-18, emphatically rejected any attempt to venerate him, and insisted that he was only a mortal messenger of God.

10:28-29 Peter’s words of introduction acknowledged what Cornelius himself as a “God-fearer” would know from his Jewish mentors, namely, that no truly observant Jew could safely enter the home of a Gentile without risking defilement, which would make it necessary for him to undergo ritual immersion and offer sacrifices for his purification before he could again enter the Jerusalem temple to pray or offer sacrifice.

This was not because any physical contact with a Gentile defiled a Jew. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for Jews to walk through the Court of the Genitles on their way to the Court of the Israelites for Temple worship.

No, the danger was in actually entering the home of a Gentile as a guest, where it could not be assured that a rug sat upon had not been sat on earlier by a menstruating woman, or that a plate offered with meat on it had not been stored in the same cabinet with cups that had contained milk or other dairy products. And the host might have bought his meat at a market which obtained meat butchered in a non-kosher manner, without draining the blood thoroughly. All of this put the observant Jew at risk. And since for him prayer and worship in the temple were extremely important, to deny him this by defiling him was a serious matter. But Peter would take that risk now, because his Lord had commanded him to and had assured him that what God now pronounced “clean” was in truth clean.

There was no way that temple officials could ever know if a Jewish worshiper was entering the temple defiled. Rather what was believed was that God would not accept the prayer or sacrifice of a worshiper who offered it in the temple in an unclean state. For an example of God's rejecting someone's sacrifice on moral grounds see Gen 4:3-7. But with the assurances of Jesus (Mark 7:18-23) and the Holy Spirit, Peter could now be assured that his prayers would not be rejected on this account. On the contrary, they might well be rejected, if he disobeyed a direct order from God!

10:30-33 In these verses Cornelius rehearsed to Peter what we readers already know had happened.

10:34-35 Peter now confesses to the assembly what he has learned from all this. God now relates to Jew and Gentile on the same basis. There is no partiality: all have sinned; all must be forgiven and saved by faith in Jesus whose death paid for our sins. Peter’s conclusion is exactly the same as was reached by the Apostle Paul, as expressed in Romans 3:21-25. Again, as stated above in v. 4, the fearing God and doing what is right do not save anyone, but they bring that person to the “attention” of God (“as a memorial”) and bring him or her into contact with an agent bearing the gospel that saves.

10:36-43 Peter first assumed the audience’s knowledge of Jewish law: that it was unlawful for him to enter their home. Now he assumes that they have heard much about the ministry of Jesus and what happened to him. Nonetheless, Peter repeats it just to be sure. It is a synopsis of what Jesus did and what God did through him. Mention of the “anointing” of Jesus with the Holy Spirit in v. 38 may be Peter’s way of explaining that Jesus was the Messiah, which in Aramaic means “the Anointed One”, and is so translated into Greek as “Christ”. Peter affirmed that God was with Jesus, and that God raised him from the dead, and that God appointed him as “judge of the living and the dead” (v. 42). At first glance it may seem to you that the issue of the deity of Jesus is not specifically raised by Peter. But it most certainly was. For in the mind of every variety of Jew in those days the rendering of the Final Judgment was a task that God could never delegate to another. It was an unmistakable "marker" of Deity that He—and He only—would be the Judge in the Last Day. On this issue see the discussion in the short paperback book by Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1998). Cornelius and his close friends, if they knew Judaism at all, would know what this statement implied about Jesus: he was God and was worthy of worship and obedience. In v. 43 the offer of complete forgiveness “through his name” (rendering unnecessary sacrifice in the temple) is made.

10:44-46 It is here that the Holy Spirit gives dramatic testimony to what Peter could otherwise not know: that the message had been met with sincere faith in the minds and hearts of his hearers. God made it clear to him by bestowing upon these Gentiles the same gift that had been displayed among the first Jewish believers in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. They were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in languages unknown to them. Recognizing that this was what had happened at Pentecost and again before his very eyes in the city of the Samaritans (Acts 8), Peter ordered that they all receive Christian baptism. What this implies is that in the earliest Church baptism could not be received without some clear evidence of an internal transformation through faith, which Jesus meant when he said: "For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5 ). Baptism as a rite had no special efficacy: it was merely the external sign of acceptance into the community of believers.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

Peter Reports in Jerusalem What Has Happened by God’s Command (Acts 11:1-18)

11:1 The apostles and the brothers in Judea “heard” that the Gentiles had accepted the word of God. This is a remarkable statement. First of all, to say that they “heard” makes it deliberately vague how they received this news. Who reported it? Luke does not say. Secondly, “the Gentiles” seems far too global to be based upon this one incident that Luke has just narrated in chapter 10. One household, and that of a “God-fearer” has accepted the gospel. One would expect the text to say “some Gentiles” (τινες), not “the Gentiles” (τα εθνη). And finally, to our ears it seems strange that “the word of God” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) should have the specialized meaning “the gospel of Jesus”. Yet in Acts that seems more or less to be the way that phrase is used: Acts 4:31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 46; 17:13; 18:11. In his gospel Luke seems to use “the word of God” for Scripture (Luke 3:2; 5:1; 8:11, 21; 11:28; 22:61), and “the word of the Lord” for utterances of Jesus (Luke 22:61), whereas in Acts he uses only the former phrase and uses it apparently exclusively for the gospel. St. Paul, on the other hand, uses the two variants interchangeably, in spite of the fact that in general he uses “Lord” for Jesus and “God” for the other members of the Trinity. Yet he too uses both of these expressions freely for the gospel he preaches (1Cor 14:36; 1Th 1:8; 2:13; 4:15), not just for the Scriptures.

11:2-3 The Jewish believers in Jerusalem had a “bone to pick” with Peter. It was not just that he had accidentally became defiled by entering the house of a Gentile; rather it was that he did so deliberately with full knowledge that he was violating the Jewish laws of purity. Had the issue been merely the former, a ritual ablution followed by days of quarantine would have rectified the situation. Ironically, in the Gentile “pagan” religions of the time a worshiper could become defiled (although not through contact with a Jew!), and would need to bathe and undergo a quarantine (see Ferguson, Backgrounds 187-188). So Cornelius would have been aware of what becoming defiled would cost Peter.

But as I said, the issue between the Judean believers and Peter was of a different order. Peter’s deliberate act indicated that he no longer respected the laws which God had given through Moses to keep the holy people separate from the surrounding pagan world. But, you may think, Cornelius was certainly not a pagan. He was a moral man who had ceased to offer sacrifice to the “gods”. All that differentiated him from the Jewish believers in Judea was circumcision and the keeping of the dietary laws (kosher). Yet a principle was at stake, and this principle needed to be addressed and settled, if the Church was to continue to fulfill the commission the resurrected Jesus gave to his servants in Acts 1:8.

As earlier in Acts Peter had taken a firm stand before the Sanhedrin, saying “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), so the issue is framed here: God Himself in the vision commanded Peter to go with these Gentiles “without hesitation”, and the vision of the unclean animals had very obvious overtones, recalling the earlier teachings of Jesus about what really defiles: food going in or evil thoughts going out (Mat 15:16-20). The purity laws, much of which were later elaborations on the law of Moses, were in contradiction to what Jesus taught and what God Himself commanded in the vision. Peter had no choice at all!

Luke ends this pericope with a summary statement (v. 18):

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life".

The stage is now set for the story of the Gentile missions in Antioch (ch. 11:19-30), which inexorably leads to that church's sending Paul and Barnabbas on the First Missionary Journey(chs. 13-14).

Acts 10 - Cornelius the Centurion (Part One)

2007-02-16T08:30:00.002-06:00

There were three possible categories of persons in Jesus day as expressed by their formal relationship to Judaism.

(1) On one end of the spectrum were full-fledged Jews, either born into the faith or converted (i.e., proselytes) and (in the case of the men) circumcised. (2) On the other end of the spectrum were “pure” Gentile pagans who had no attachment at all to Judaism. And (3) there was a intermediate status: people (but usually men—women were not deterred from full conversion by the prospect of circumcision) who were strongly attracted to the teachings of Judaism and its vision of one God who demanded righteous living and was Himself not as morally disreputable as were most of the Greek, Roman and Oriental “gods”, but who were reluctant to undergo circumcision and to submit themselves to such rigorous restrictions on living as the dietary laws (kosher) and the Sabbath laws.

Excursus on “Proselytes”: Luke’s use of the phrase “Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:5) to describe the makeup of the synagogue in Corinth has been seen by D.R. de Lacey (“Epistles to the Corinthians” II.b. IVP-NBD) as signalling “Jews and proselytes”, not just Jews and “God-fearers” (which I consider equally possible). Another author describes the typical reaction to Paul’s synagogue preaching in the Diaspora as a division between “Israelites by birth” who rejected the message and “Gentiles (i.e., the proselytes and God-fearers)” receiving it joyfully (“Dispersion” IV., IVP-NBD). If these scholars are right, this is further evidence that circumcised Gentiles (i.e., the first generation “converts”)—at least in Gentile lands— were not completely integrated into Jewishness, but continued to be identified as “proselytes”. In OT times the proselyte (Hebr. ger) severed ties with his/her former family and completely identified with Israel, often being assigned to a new tribal genealogy (cf. Ruth’s statement to Naomi: “But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16 NIV).

This third group is variously labeled in the written sources. Usually they are called “God-fearers” or “God-worshipers”. Although Luke uses several variants of this terminology, it is certain that he used all variants to refer to this single category of persons.

But before we explore the role of these “God-fearers” in Acts we must briefly touch on the origin of the term. In the pagan world “fear” was the dominant attitude in relation to the world of the gods. People had no particular reason to “love” the gods, any more than one “loved” manifestations of fickle power in nature: floods, earthquakes, thunderstorms or the like. One feared these things and did what one could to protect oneself from their destructive power. Nevertheless, in the OT there is a use of the term "fear of God" with reference to non-Israelites, which seems to indicate what we might call common decency and the observance of law and order. Abraham wrongly fears that in King Abimelech's city "there is no fear of God" and that he might be killed in order to take his wife from him (Gen 20:9-11).

In Old Testament Israelite religion one was supposed to “love” the God of Israel (Deut 6:5; 11:1; 13:3; 30:6; Josh 22:5; 23:11; Psa 31:23; 116:1), but this did not exclude what is called “the fear of the LORD” (2Chr 19:7,9; Job 28:28; Psa 19:9; 34:11; 111:10; Prov 1:7,29; 2:5; 8:13; 9:10; 10:27; 14:26-27), which the wisdom writer calls “the beginning (better translated: the best part) of wisdom”. All pious Israelites were supposed to seek or have the “fear of the LORD”. But in a few passages like 2 Chron 5:6 (in the Greek translation, the LXX) there is a distinction between (pious) Israelites and “those who fear (the LORD)” (πᾶσα συναγωγὴ Ισραηλ καὶ οἱ φοβούμενοι). This second group are in all likelihood Gentiles who attached themselves to the pious community of Israel without becoming circumcised full-fledged Jews, Luke’s “God-fearers”.

Since both Luke and Paul tend to use “God” (θεός) to denote God the Father (and rarely also for the Trinity), while reserving the term “the Lord” for Jesus, he understandably wishes to avoid the use of "Lord" in this expression, and alters 2 Chronicles 5's “Lord-fearers” to “God-fearers” in order to designate this group of Gentiles, who fear the God of the Jews. Luke uses two variant expressions to denote this class: “God-fearers” and “God-worshipers”. The former is limited to the first half of Acts, where the mission of the Church is primarily to the Jews, and the latter expression to the second half, where his focus is almost exclusively on the mission to the Gentiles. “God-fearers” is a Jewish term, while “God-worshipers” is the Gentile equivalent for this group.

The Gospel writers have already noted interest in Jesus by Gentiles, whether in the second or third of the above categories. There was the case of the “Canaanite woman” in Mark 7:22-28, whom Jesus at first rebuffed, saying that his mission was to the Israelites, not Gentile “dogs”. But her wise reply that even the dogs can eat the scraps falling from the family dinner table elicited the admiration of Jesus and prompted his mercy to her.

In John 12:20-33 some “Greeks” who had come to Jerusalem “to worship” in the temple, and therefore belonged to group three (the “God-fearers”), wishing to speak with Jesus, approached Philip, seeking his help in securing an interview. When Jesus was told, his reply seems on the surface to be beside the point. But in fact it is quite relevant. He immediately spoke to those standing around of the necessity of his being “glorified” first and only after this “drawing all people (even Gentiles) to myself” (v. 23). By being “glorified” Jesus clearly meant dying for our sins, being raised and exalted to heaven (see vv. 24-25). In this way Jesus indicated a future extension of his ministry to the Gentile world after his death and resurrection.

It is that extension which Luke has already indicated in his story of Saul/Paul’s conversion in ch. 9, and now will approach in chs. 10-11 through the “bridge” of Peter’s encounter with the Roman centurion Cornelius.

Although the event narrated in chs. 10 and 11 actually occurred as described and was by no means made up by Luke in order to make a theological point, it is clear that he in fact chose to include it at this point in his book in order to show how the Church’s leadership became committed to a mission to the Gentiles, undeterred by Jewish scruples. For this reason the section does not end with the initial description of the events in ch. 10, but with Peter’s report about it in ch. 11 and the conclusion based upon it that the Risen Lord Jesus intended his servants to set aside their scruples (Peter’s vision of a non-kosher meal!) in order to vigorously pursue a mission to both Jews and Gentiles (see Peter’s statement to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:7-11).

As is the case throughout the Book of Acts, Luke portrays all significant initiatives and new directions in the Church’s activity not to enterprising and creative individuals, but to direct Divine intervention. And when it is God’s purpose to bring two individuals together who might otherwise never do so, God is shown dealing with both parties separately. Remember Saul and Ananias in ch. 9? So in Acts 10 God appears separately to both Simon Peter and to Cornelius.

1-8 We already know who Peter was, so Luke first introduces to his readers the new character, a Roman centurion named Cornelius.

Roman personal names normally had two or three components (e.g., Gaius Julius Caesar). We are given here only one component of Cornelius’ name. In all likelihood he was either a freedman (Latin libertinus, Greek ἀπελεύθερος) or—more likely— the son or grandson of one, i.e., of a man who owed his freedom to the Roman general P. Cornelius Sulla, who in 82 BC freed 10,000 slaves who thereupon took his name (P. Cornelius libertus Cornelii). Freedmen were to be found in almost all occupations, and many amassed considerable fortunes. The “wealth of freedmen” became a proverbial expression. Although freedmen were excluded from higher public offices, this restriction did not apply to their children. And their grandchildren enjoyed complete equality with other freeborn Romans. For more on the status of “freedmen” see O. Seyffert, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (Cleveland OH: Meridian Books, 1963) 240-242, Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization. Volume II: The Empire, 167-173, Der kleine Pauly s.v. libertini, and Ferguson, Backgrounds, 58f.

How high a military rank was a centurion? The term centurio itself in Latin means a commander of 100 (centum) men. It was a responsible position, the highest of the non-commissioned officers, who had to be taken from among the Roman nobility. Cornelius as a freedman was certainly not nobility, but was a skilled, loyal and experienced soldier. Centurions appear several times in the New Testament (Matt 8:5, 8, 13; 27:54; Mark 15:39, 44-45; Luke 7:2, 6; 23:47; Acts 10:1,22; 21:32; 22:25-26; 23:17, 23; 24:23; 27:1, 6,11, 31, 43), almost always in a commendable light.

Roman soldiers, although not drawn from the upper, educated classes, were in many ways less “provincial” than the latter, when it came to awareness of and open-mindedness toward the customs of other cultures and nations. In their foreign duty assignments these men were in daily contact with other cultures and followed them with curiosity. Often Roman soldiers came to venerate the deities of the countries in which they served. The Egyptian goddess Isis was a favorite of troops on overseas assignments in the Mediterranean.

Cornelius is introduced to us as a devout (ευσεβης) “God-fearer” (the Jewish term for the third category discussed above). To the extent that modern Americans even use such a term as “devout” (which comes from the word "devoted"), we tend to think of it as relating to the emotions (i.e., warm-hearted, passionate). But the Greek term ευσεβης and its Aramaic and Hebrew equivalents (‏צַדִּיק‎ "righteous" in Prov. 12:12; Isaiah 24:16; 26:7) — like the kindred term εὐλαβὴς = ‏חָסִיד‎ — are terms referring to behavior: “Observant” is probably a better translation. Luke makes this clear by describing Corneliuis' behavior: he prayed according to the Jewish regimen of daily prayers and he gave generously the alms required by Jewish law. The third branch of Jewish piety, fasting, is not mentioned, but probably also characterized Cornelius. You can see that all he lacked was circumcision in order to be a full Jew (i.e., a proselyte).

In our next posting we will discuss the actual narrative of Acts 10-11:18.

Acts 9 - Conversion of Paul & Missions of Peter

2007-02-16T08:29:00.002-06:00

Masaccio 1401-1428?

Saint Paul

from The Pisa Polyptych

1426

51x30cm

Museo Nazionale, Pisa

Saul's Birth and Upbringing

As Stephen was not the only one of the earliest Jerusalem Christians to suffer martyrdom, so Saul of Tarsus was not the only opponent of the Jesus movement active in harassment, even to the point of taking lives. Yet Luke singles out Stephen and Saul largely because the rest of his book will focus on Paul’s missionary activities, and his presence at Stephen’s murder will set the stage for his conversion.

Saul, who is introduced in Acts 7:58; 8:1 as “a young man” is the man whose subsequent life and career as a missionary of the gospel will resume in Acts 9 and occupy the rest of this book from chapter 13 on. In a speech recorded in ch. 22 of this book this same man tells us a little about his early life leading up to Stephen’s murder and continuing until his conversion, which is recorded in ch. 9.

3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city (Jerusalem). Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5 as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished” (Acts 22:3-5 NIV) .

The city called Tarsus in Cilicia was a very old city. The oldest mention we have of the city is from ancient Hittite texts from the time of Moses (Tarsa). Its area in those days belonged to an ancient kingdom called Kizzuwatna or Kummanni. From that region the famous Hittite king Hattusili III took his wife, Queen Puduhepa. This region, known in Roman times as Cilicia, as you can see from maps, is in the extreme southeastern part of what today is the Republic of Turkey. A detailed map of sites in the region shows it, as do historical maps reflecting Armenian control in the 11th century AD.

On the north and west it is surrounded by the high Taurus mountain range, which although it does not actually isolate Cilicia from the Turkish heartland to the N and NW, tends to make its most accessible neighbor the coastal area of ancient Syria across the gulf of Alexandretta to the east. In fact, historically Cilicia has been most often tied geo-politically to Syria on the east, rather than to inland Asia Minor to the north. Cilicia (and Tarsus) in Paul's day was heavily colonized by Jews.

We know Paul in the NT by two names: Saul and Paul. Since he was descended from the ancient Israelite tribe of Benjamin, the name Saul was a natural choice, since one of its most illustrious members was King Saul, the predecessor of David. Some have suggested that he took the name Paul on his conversion. But it is more likely that as a Jew born in Greek-speaking Asia Minor he was given both a Jewish name Saul and a Gentile (Graeco-roman) one Paulus. For strategic evangelistic purposes he ceased to use the Jewish name “Saul” once he began his Gentile mission. Some think this was because he wanted to appear more Roman as befitted his Roman citizenship, which he used often to the advantage of the Gospel. Others point out that in Greek the word σαῦλος saulos was used of the “wanton style of walking of prostitutes” (Leary cited by With. Acts 310 (n. 24)!

Saul’s parents may have moved to Jerusalem when he was still young, since Luke reports him as saying “I was brought up (ἀνατεθραμμένος) in this city [Jerusalem]” (Acts 22:3-5), and this claim would have had no point if local residents in his audience knew he had not lived there as a boy. Furthermore, according to Acts 23:16 he had a sister living there (cf. Witherington, Acts 669).

His claim in (Acts 23:6) to be “a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” indicates that his parents associated with Pharisees after their move to Jerusalem. It is very natural that they would have affiliated with some party, the Pharisees being a natural choice. Parties like Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, were meaningless outside of Palestine, and it is very likely that Saul’s family in Cilicia had no affiliation of that kind. In Phil 3:5 Paul says his parents were “Hebrews”, since he styled himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων). So it was natural that during his Jerusalem days when he wished to have rabbinical training, he chose a Pharisee teacher in Gamaliel.

Young Saul was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). His dual commitment to the “Written Torah”, the Old Testament laws as well as to the “Oral Torah” (torah she be-al pi), the rabbinical traditions, formed the basis for his eventual opposition to the believers in Jesus.

Saul may not have represented a very broad spectrum of Judaean Jews in his vigorous persecution of the believers in Jesus. We must be careful not to read any more into Luke’s account than he specifically claims. We know that over 5,000 Jews responded favorably at Pentecost, that later many priests believed, and that through the healings even more Jerusalemites joined the disciples.

Luke introduced Paul in the Book of Acts at the execution of Stephen. Now Stephen may not have said what the false witnesses claimed, but together with all the apostles, he placed Jesus (1) superior to the law and (2) superior to the Temple. Stephen claimed (3) that the fathers of the Jewish nation had always been rebellious.

Stephen's sermon was the last straw which touched off Paul's persecution of the church. What Stephen claimed about the temple and the law were not in themselves blasphemy. Everything hinged on whether or not Jesus was in fact the Messiah. For Jews in Paul’s day expected that the Messiah would make major changes, which might affect both temple worship and the way the law was applied.

Did Saul-Paul know Jesus? Had he heard him preach in Jerusalem? We cannot say for sure, and Paul never mentions it, but it is very likely that a boy who grew up in Jerusalem must have seen one of the public gatherings in which Jesus taught.

Did Saul-Paul know Jesus? Had he heard him preach in Jerusalem? We cannot say for sure, and Paul never mentions it, unless his statement “even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more” (2 Cor 5:16) refers to that. But it is very likely that a boy who grew up in Jerusalem must have seen one of the public gatherings in which Jesus taught.

What did the Pharisee Saul think of Jesus? Although many Pharisees criticized Jesus' teaching and actions, a few (Nicodemus) liked him. Jesus himself always made it clear that his being “superior to” the law only freed him from the current rabbinic interpretations of that law, not from that law itself! And similarly, it was in order to protect the sanctity of the Jerusalem temple that Jesus drove out the money-changers. His criticism of the Pharisees ““thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mark 7:13 NIV)” must have rankled many of the Pharisees, probably including Saul.

What did Saul think of the claim that Jesus was the Me ssiah, the “Christ”? Clearly he would not have persecuted the Christians, if he had believed Jesus was the Messiah. He may or may not have thought that Jesus' claim to be the Messiah was blasphemy and therefore worthy of death. But he certainly thought that claim was false and that his disciples by perpetuating the idea that he had risen from the dead and sitting on a throne in heaven were indeed doing something blasphemous. This was more than the relatively minor differences between Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots and Dead Sea covenanters. This was either a monstrous perversion of monotheism and unworthy to be called Jewish, or it was true! Saul was unwilling to entertain the thought that it might be true.

Critics have questioned how someone who studied under Gamaliel I, one of the most tolerant and lenient of the Pharisaic rabbis of his day, and whom we have seen in Acts 6 advised a tolerant, wait-and-see attitude toward the earliest Jesus-believers in Jerusalem, could have been such a violent persecutor of the same people.

Finally, we need to reflect on whether or not it is appropriate to speak of a “conversion” here, and if so what this means when the person “converted” already expected the Messiah, but just didn’t recognize Him.

In Christian art of the Middle Ages and later the theme of the humbling of Saul the persecutor was a popular one (cf. Bruce Corley, "Interpreting Paul's Conversion — Then and Now" in Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul's Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry, edited by Richard N. Longenecker, 1-17. Eerdmans, 1997). Paul the persecutor was depicted either as a ravenous wolf attacking a lamb, or as an arrogant soldier on horseback (see Corley, p. 7). See paintings on this subject by clicking on these links to Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Tintoretto, Parmigianino, Dujardin, Schenk, and Xanto Avelli.

Saul's conversion (1-30)

This brings us to Acts ch. 9 and the first of three tellings of the story of Paul's confrontation by the Exalted Jesus on the Road to Damascus. Luke records Paul himself as telling the story in ch. 22 and 26, each with minor variations from the account here.

The place that it happened, near to Damascus, 135 miles from Jerusalem, is not mentioned directly in Paul’s own incidental allusian to his conversion (Gal. 1:15), but is inferred from his mention two verses later in Gal 1:17 of a “return” to Damascus.

3 In his speech in Acts 22:6 Paul says it happened “about noon”. The great light from heaven blinded him (Acts 9:8; 22:11) and he fell to the ground, stunned. Before Agrippa in Acts 26:13 Paul said it was “brighter than the sun”. Lightning storms breaking around one on the road are often thought to indicate divine displeasure. This is as early as the Hittite king Mursili II in Moses’ day, and as late as Martin Luther’s experience in a lightning storm which led him to pray to St. Anne and vow to enter a monastery.

A. F. Segal (in Charlesworth [ed.], The Messiah 336) points out that Luke in Acts distinguishes the appearance of the risen Jesus to Paul on the Damascus Road (Acts 9) from the resurrection appearances to the Eleven: the former being a “vision” (Gk. optasia), the latter physical appearances. Paul himself makes no such distinction when in 1 Cor 15 he concludes the chronological listing of those who saw the risen Lord by mentioning himself as “one born out of due time”. If by “vision” one means something unreal or imaginary, Paul would not call it a “vision”. But by the word “vision” Luke and Paul do not mean something imaginary, but simply a supernatural ability to see a reality others do not and cannot see.

4 Prostrate on the ground and blind, he heard a voice: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” The twofold repetition of his name indicated urgency and reproachment. Before Agrippa, Paul added that the voice said: “It hurts you to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14). Witherington (p. 311, following Wilson Paul), claims that this proverb is Greek in origin, not Jewish or Aramaic, and that Luke or Paul insert it before Agrippa or Festus, because they would have recognized and understood it. He furthermore claims that “Jesus surely did not use [it] when he spoke to Saul originally”. Yet Jesus grew up on Galilee among farmers and in his parables used all sorts of agricultural and farming images. It is incredible that one should exclude the possiblity that he would use such a colorful and vivid way of conveying to Saul the painful futility of his struggling against God!

When Jesus spoke to Saul from heaven he did so in Aramaic (Acts 26:14), and Saul/Paul used Aramaic to address the crowds in Jerusalem (Acts 21:40; 22:2). It was not, as Conybeare thought (Life & Epistles of Paul, 24-25), that God somehow punished the Jews by making Greek and Latin the exclusive vehicles of Christian ministry! Jesus spoke this way to Saul, just as he did through the “tongues” at Pentecost to the foreign visitors, not because they could not understand Greek, for they all could do so, but in order to personalize the message, to show that it was directed at them as individuals. Aramaic was the language Paul's mother spoke to him as a child.

But it was the word “me”, coming from heaven, that must have alarmed Paul to the roots of his being. Who was this speaking? Terrified, he knew the answer before it came! Who else could it possibly be, but the One that Stephen in his final minutes said he saw “standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56)?

5 The voice had asked a question: “Why…?” An answer was expected! Paul had never had a problem justifying his hounding of the Jesus-people before. It was so easy, even something to explain with pride. But now! How to answer a Voice from Heaven? Trembling, in the same Aramaic tongue he asks the question whose answer he fears that he knows: man att mar “Who are you, Lord?” The word “Lord” (Aramaic mar, which Luke renders with Greek κύριε) can, of course, just mean “sir”, but when addressed to the voice from heaven, it had to carry a deeper meaning. And who was Saul “persecuting” but those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, killed, risen from the dead and exalted to heaven? This voice said “me”!

The dreaded answer came: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting”! Paul had thought he was persecuting apostates, but now he knows that it was Jesus himself that he was persecuting, and that Jesus is what he had claimed to be: the exalted Messiah in heaven. Paul’s teacher Gamaliel had warned the Sanhedrin not to harm Jesus’ disciples lest they turn out to be “fighting against God” (Acts 5:38-39). Now Paul heard from the very voice of God in heaven: “It is painful for you to kick against the goads!” (Acts 26:14). God had been goading Saul like a stubborn ox to get him to believe, and like a stubborn ox he had been kicking against God’s goading and bringing only pain upon himself. He had indeed been fighting against God, as Gamaliel had warned he might be! What was the punishment for fighting against God?

But now came the ray of hope for forgiveness: “But arise and go into the city [of Damascus], and it will be told you what you must do.” Before Agrippa Paul says that Jesus added:

“But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. 17 I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn 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” (Acts 26:16-18).

The shorter version of ch. 9 is undoubtedly what the voice actually said: the longer version to Agrippa is based on what God said about Saul to Ananias in Acts 9:15-16, and was Paul’s bridge from the story proper to his defense against the Jews charging him in Agrippa’s court. The introduction of this “what you are to do” is what makes this incident more than a conversion: it is also a call, and that to a Gentile mission. This is certainly how Paul himself describes it:

“But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.”

(Gal 1:15-17 RSV)

7 Why do you think Luke records v. 7? And why does Paul mention it again with minor variations in his speech to the Jerusalem crowd in Acts 22:9? Not just because Jesus’ message was a private one for Saul—which of course is true—but because some of them probably told their friends back in Jerusalem that they didn’t see or hear what Saul claimed he did, casting doubt on the miracle and on the geniuneness of Saul’s experience. Bammel (BA-PS, 361 w. n. 17) suspects that Paul’s companions went on with the plan to extradite the Messianic Jews from the Damascus synagogues, giving little credence to his alleged experience.

8-9 Blinded, Saul had to be led by the hand into Damascus, and remained in the house of a Jew named Judas in the street called Straight, alone and shut into his own dark world for three days to contemplate what he had done and what judgment might now await him! Penitent and praying (v. 11), and having seen a vision of a man named Ananias restoring his sight to him, but still not knowing that Christ’s shed blood could offer him lasting forgiveness, Saul fasted for three days. At this point Paul didn’t know the Christian teaching of Jesus’ atoning death. He could not be certain that temple sacrifices would be enough to purge this sin of his against God’s Messiah. The law of Moses made clear that there were some sins so serious that sacrifice could not atone for them. And Jesus himself had taught that the “sin against the Holy Spirit” was not forgiveable. Was Paul in a hopeless situation?

10 Paul spent the next three days locked into his dark world of blindness, pondering what punishment my lie ahead for him. It must have been like being in a tomb. But "resurrection" came on the third day! For a believer named Ananias, whose name Hananiyah means “the grace of Yahweh”, was about to help Saul to receive the “grace” of Jesus. There were Christians who fled to Damascus from Jerusalem following the persecution by Saul and others, but this Ananias was probably not one of them, for the text tells us that he had only “heard” of this persecution and Saul’s role in it. He must have been a long-term resident of Damascus. How he came to be a Christian we do not know.

10-18 Initially Ananias was afraid to go to this man Saul and identify himself as one sent by Jesus. But believing what Jesus said to him in the vision, Ananias went to Saul, and even called him “brother Saul” (not “brother Jew, but brother Christian!), because he would be God’s chosen instrument (v. 15) to carry the name of Jesus “before Gentiles, kings, and the people of Israel, and to suffer for the sake of that name.” Faith in the words of Jesus enabled Ananias to see Paul as what he would become: not the enemy who had come in order to drag him to Jerusalem for trial and possible death, but a brother and a powerful witness for Jesus who would suffer much in his service.

11-12 The phenomenon of simultaneous divine messages to two parties who are to be brought together is repeated in the case of Peter and Cornelius in chs. 10-11. No mention is made of the Ethioian eunuch being warned to expect Philip, but that he was prepared by God for it is quite clear.

13 The Jerusalem believers are called “saints” (ἁγιοι). Although Paul uses this term for all believers, Luke tends to confine its use (Acts 9:32, 41; 26:10) to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem (Witherington, 318).

15 The sequence of Paul’s testimony (before Gentiles, kings, people of Israel) is like Acts 1:8 a kind of chronological outline of the rest of this book: first the Gentile missions, then arrest and testimony before Festus and Agrippa, then testimony to Jews. This is also in descending order of priority in his life.

17 Jesus had told Ananias that he would restore Saul’s sight, but here we see that Ananias understood this to also involve the filling with the Holy Spirit, something which could only happen to a believer.

18-19 His sight restored, Saul received baptism immediately as a new believer in Jesus the Messiah and immediately broke his fast, since sadness and penitence were no longer appropriate for one who was forgiven and a new creature in the Messiah. In his later years Paul recalled his own experience and used it as a metaphor for the experience of all who come to faith:

“For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

(Rom 5:10 NIV)

20-22 Immediately also he received instruction from fellow believers (v. 19b) and began to confess publicly his faith that Jesus is the Messiah (v. 22) and Son of God (v. 20) (Rom 10:9-10). NIV in v. 22 has the Greek tense correct: “Jesus is (still, not “was” [NRSV, ESV]) the Messiah”. With his thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, all tht Paul needed was to be convinced by the vision that Jesus was indeed raised and exalted to heaven: all else fell into place. There was no quibbling about minor points. He was no active arguing in the synagogues of Damascus and proving that Jesus was the Messiah.

23-25 This had predictable results. Others among the Jews equally zealous and prone to Phinehas-type violent punishment of apostates now turned their eyes on Saul.

Paul's First visit to Jerusalem as a Believer (26-31)

26-27 In Galatians Paul tells us that there was also an interim visit to a region he calls “Arabia”. But Luke does not think it appropriate to go into that here. Leaving Damascus, Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, and to tell the apostles that Jesus had commissioned him to evangelize the Gentiles. But the disciples in Jerusalem feared that he was feigning conversion, and that this was a trap. Good old Barnabas was the only one who believed Saul and introduced him to the others.

28-30 Once received into the group, Paul began to preach with the same power and effectiveness in Jerusalem that he had in Damascus, which led to the same reaction from the opponents. In Gal. 1 he tells us that he stayed there for only two weeks, at the end of which he was warned by a vision of Jesus to leave the city. Again he had to be spirited away, this time to Tarsus, where he had lived as a small child.

Peter in Lydda (31-35)

As spectacular and spiritually earth-shaking as is the account of Paul’s “conversion”, there is more to see in ch. 9. Luke focuses entirely on Peter and Paul from this point on, and we therefore do not know what the other apostles were doing. Undoubtedly, they too were evangelizing and founding communities of believers in Judea, Samaria, Galilee and neighboring lands.

But we see Peter continuing what he and John did in Samaria in ch. 8: visiting newly founded communities of believers and making sure that they had received the Holy Spirit and were being well instructed in the faith. In this chapter and in the following two we see Peter making such a “pastoral” trip, starting to the west of Jerusalem along the Mediterranean coast (at Lydda), then heading northward to Joppa, and ending up in Caesarea (ch. 11).

We are not told how these Jews living in Lydda (OT Lod) came to be believers in Jesus. None of Jesus’ own earthly ministry extended to the southern coastal plain. But it is likely that they heard of His resurrection in the preaching of the apostles during one of the pilgrimage festivals in Jerusalem which they would have attended as good Jews.

33-35 As earlier in Jerusalem, Peter exercised the gift of healing. You recall that there even his shadow falling on a sick person brought healing. Here his healing a particular man, named Aeneas, who had been paralyzed for 8 years, resulted in “all those who lived in Lydda and Sharon” seeing him whole and becoming convinced that Jesus was the exalted Messiah who gave Peter this power. As in Jerusalem and in the Samaritan village, it is the miracles attending the preaching of the apostles that are singled out by Luke as determinative in producing new converts. Certainly, not all who came to believe required seeing such miracles: the Ethiopian eunuch certainly did not need it. But Luke’s point is that there was an outpouring of such supernatural power in those days.

And at Joppa (36-43)

Continuing northwards up the coast, Peter’s travels brought him to Joppa. One of Luke’s special interests is the role of women in the new community.

While in Lydda, Peter received an embassy of believers from Joppa to the north. The believers there were mourning the recent death of a woman named Tabitha. Some translations give the false impression that she had a double name: Tabitha and Dorcas. But the text merely says that the Aramaic name Tabitha means what the Greek word dorkas means which is “gazelle”. Jewish girls were often named for animals: Moses’ wife Zipporah’s name means “sparrow”, and the names Leah and Rachel mean “cow” and “ewe” respectively. She was known in the community for her charitable acts. From v. 39 we learn that she made garments for the poor believers, and especially for the widows. But there is more. In v. 36 she is called a “discliple”, which means that as what in Hebrew is called a talmidah, she became a student of the Scripture, something no woman ordinarily was allowed to do in rabbinic circles. But then she became ill and died (v. 37). And after the belivers had washed the body and laid it respectfully in an upper room, they sent for Peter. Luke doesn’t tell us whether they asked him to raise Tabitha from the dead or just to preside at her burial service. But Peter folllowed a pattern he had himself witnessed in the miracles of Jesus: he sent everyone out of the room so he could be alone with the body. First he prayed—we are given no words of his prayer and then he addressed the body: “Tabitha, get up!” There is a striking similarity between this incident and the similar miracle of Jesus restoring to life a little girl.

Mark 5:35-43 While Jesus was still speaking, some men came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher any more?” Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. When they came to the home of the synagogue ruler, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” 40 But they laughed at him. After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41 He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means, “Little girl, … get up!”). 42 Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. 43 He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Jesus put the crowd outside the room, but allowed the parents and his own disciples to stay in the room where her body lay. Jesus’ words to her were ‏טַלְיְתָא קוּמִי‎ “Talitha, get up!” (Mark 5:41). Talitha is the Aramaic word for “little girl”. As Jesus then called the family in to see her, so does Peter here. The succession of miracles has gone from healing the sick to raising the dead. And again, as with the healing of Aeneas in Lydda, the news of the miracle brought further conversions.

Peter is also being prepared to relax some of the stricter laws of Judaism: here he lived with a tanner named Simon. Now Jewish law considered tanners unclean, since the tanning agent they continually used was urine. And the odor of their houses was so bad that Jewish law permitted tanners’ wives special latitude in getting divorces! In chapters 10 and 11 Peter will have to become even more relaxed in welcoming a Gentile into the community of believers.

What lessons are we to draw today from this chapter? From the story of Paul we learn that no unbeliever is immune to the grace of God. think of a person whom you know who seems to you most unlikely to ever become a believer. Is he or she really beyond God’s reach? What might God be able to accomplish through that person, if he or she were born again. Will you pray for that person today and ask God to work a miracle?

In Peter’s ministry in Lydda nad Joppa we see evidence that the kingdom of God comes in power through the gospel, and that lives touched by the gospel can never be “dead” or “crippled”. That goes for your life and mine, as well as for those we pray for and seek to reach with the gospel. In what ways do you see your own life as “crippled” today in its effectiveness as a model and witness to Jesus? Will you ask God to allow you to shake off that which hinders you from living like someone raised from the dead?

This is the Advent Season, the days we count off until the First Coming of our Savior and days in which we anticipate his Second Coming. In both we see God breaking in to the worldly routines, the days that all seem like one another, life going on without reference to God or to redemption. Jesus interrupts a world living oblivious to its Creator and Redeemer. Will you let Him make of you in this season a person mindful above all of realities outside of the This-Wordly? You can do so in several ways. You can set aside extra time beyond the usual quiet times, in which to focus on the meaning of Incarnation and Second Coming. And you can let your mind focus on these subjects even while working at other tasks during the day. God gave Israel special seasons (called “festivals”) during the year and Sabbaths on a weekly basis, as times for special re-focusing on Him. Christians also have them. But the major ones have been secularized. Let’s “de-secularize” them this year!

Acts 8 - Philip in Samaria and with the Ethiopian Eunuch

2007-02-16T08:27:00.001-06:00

1-3 The Burial of Stephen and the Persecution of Christians

1 The murder of Stephen set off a period of open persecution of the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. What had proceeded cautiously before out of fear of a public sympathy for the Christians now came out in the open. The fact that it was limited to Jerusalem is indicated that those fleeing only needed to go as far as surrounding countryside. The fact that the apostles did not flee does not in my view mean that the persecution was directed only against Hellenists. Luke says it was against “the church in Jerusalem”.

2 This did not prevent a decent and reverent burial of Stephen.

3 Apparently Saul (Paul) took an active role in this persecution, although the mention of only him may be due to Luke’s special interest in him. The details of his activity are given in Acts 9:1-2; 22:4-5 and elsewhere.

4-40 “Philip on the Fringes of Judaism” (Witherington, 279)

The coupling of the Samaritan mission with the Ethiopian eunuch may be only chronological and in part to allow a geographical flow to the story: Samaria, vicinity of Gaza, then to Peter in Lydda and Joppa. Witherington thinks that it may be in order to bring together two groups on the fringes of Judaism: Samaritans and eunuch proselytes (or “God-fearers”?). Samaritans were totally excluded from the Jerusalem temple; eunuchs had to content themselves with worshiping in the Court of the Gentiles. This chapter does not, therefore, record the beginning of an evangelization of the Gentiles (so correctly With. 280).

Luke gathered this information while he and Paul stayed with Philip in Caesarea (Acts 21:8-10—the "we" in v. 8 shows Luke was with Paul at this time)..

5-8 The Ministry and Message of Philip in Samaria.

Some have detected in both Stephen’s OT quotes in ch. 7 and Philip’s allusions to the same, as well as in the narrative style of ch. 8, that both men, though we call them “Hellenists” with regard to their preferred language, were actually of Samaritan background. This is only a theory at this point. But if it were so, perhaps Philip merely was “going home” for his first act of evangelization.

According to the text Philip announced publicly the arrival of the Messiah, which (together with the story of Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4:25-29) shows that the Samaritans knew the concept and like the Jews were awaiting him. But while the official Jewish messianic concept involved a second David (the "son of David" who would rule, according to the promise in 2 Sam 7, and therefore Philip spoke to them of the "kingdom of God"), the Samaritan concept was of a second and therefore "returning" Moses, a great prophet (see again the words of the Samaritan woman in John 4:25-29).

Philip's spoken arguments were supported by miraculous “signs”, just as the earlier recorded preaching of Peter was. Although he was a Greek-speaker (“Hellenist” is a misleading term, as it suggests a difference in theology for which there is no real evidence), Philip is therefore not portrayed as in any way differing from the apostles in his message or method.

The “signs” included both healings and exorcisms. We are not told if according to Samaritan messianic traditions the Messiah’s advent was to be accompanied by such “signs”, but it would make sense if it were. For The Samaritans called the Messiah the Taheb “the returning one”, probably alluding to their belief that he would be Moses returning (cf. Deut. 18:9-22). Moses himself was authenticated to his people by "signs" God gave him to perform. And repeatedly during his career, both when confronting the pharaoh and in convincing a rebellious people in the Desert Wanderings, Moses produced miraculous "signs". John 4 records Jesus ministering to Samaritans who believed in him not only because of the testimony of a woman whose past life was miraculously known to Jesus, but because they themselves heard and watched him.

8-11 Prior to Philip’s arrival a man named Simon dominated the religious interest and veneration of the Samaritans. No specific examples are given here of his feats that impressed the Samaritans, but we are told that his popularity was nation-wide (τὸ ἔθνος) and that by virtue of his magic he claimed to be “someone great” (or “a certain Great One”) or “the Power of God, the one called Great””. Spencer (Portrait of Philip) claims that “Power” was the Samaritan circumlocution for the divine name Yahweh. If that is what was meant here, Simon claimed to be the One God, manifest in human form. But this is at present very uncertain.

13 What is clear is that Simon made no attempt to dispute Phillip’s message, but on the contrary was himself baptized as a believer. Is it intentional that Luke does not say that he “believed”? And is Luke hinting at this when later in the chapter he records that the Ethiopian eunuch asks what hinders him from being baptized? In fact, Simon assiduously associated himself with Philip like a true disciple (NIV “followed Philip everywhere”, cf. the use of the verb in Acts 1:14; 2:42,46; 6:4; 8:13), observing his every word and action. In Acts 10:7 the verb describes the behavior of the personal attendants of Cornelius. Simon waited on Philip as a servant does his master. How remarkable that he blended in with other true disciples, perhaps earning a reputation as the most devoted, while his heart was still not right with God!

14-25 Peter and John Confirm the Samaritan Church.

V. 14 shows the official nature of Peter and John’s visit. They were “sent” by the church in Jerusalem: it was an official action. Why? Any religious development in Samaria would have been suspect to pious Jews and Jewish Christians. Samaritans had a reputation, whether just or not, for heterodoxy. It was not that the Jerusalem church doubted Philip’s orthodoxy, but that they wished to have another set of eyes to examine the geniuneness of the conversions, and if they proved genuine to put the ofificial stamp of approval of the Jerusalem body on this branch of the Jesus movement, so that no future doubts would cloud their testimony. Eventually the Church Father Justin Martyr came out of the Samaritan church. Incidentally, this also shows that a “church” still existed in Jerusalem—not just the apostles—during the persecution.

The form in which the news reached Jerusalem is interesting: not “there are new believers who are Samaritans”, but “Samaria has received the word of God”. When they arrived, they found that the believers had been baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah, but they wanted a sign that the process was genuine, and they had nothing like what had happened in Jerusalem to give that proof. So they prayed that if these were really believers, God would demonstrate that fact by having the spirit “fall upon them” in the same way that He had on the new church at Pentecost (the same Greek verb “fell upon” in Acts 11:15 describes what had happened in Jerusalem at Pentecost). This was also what happened, when later the door of faith was opened to Gentiles in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:44; 11:15). The verb used here is not used in the OT to describe miraculous endument by the Spirit of God, but it has a similar force. The NT verb is used elsewhere of violent attacks by either humans or by psychological forces (fear, terror, etc.). It is clear that what happened in Samaria was not simply the reception of the Spirit, but being possessed by Him who used the possessed believers to speak and work through, just as in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. The human actions of the apostles which brought this divine response were: prayer and the laying on of the apostles’ hands. The statement in v. 15 that this had not happened prior to the prayer and laying on of hands by Peter and John (and Philip?) is intended to show that Peter was here using the “keys” Jesus promised him (Mat 16:19) to open the door of faith to Jews (Pentecost), Samaritans (here) and Gentiles (Cornelius). On all three occasions the Spirit displayed in power that the conversion and entrance into the kingdom of God was genuine and approved by God.

That the “giving of the Spirit” means here the display of miraculous powers (perhaps “tongues”) is clear in that Simon could “see” that it had happened and furthermore that it was a phenomenon that he would think would impress people if he could do it (v. 18-19).

20-24 Peter’s words of reproof did not carry a lethal punishment such as they did to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:3-5, 9-10. They were, however, very strong. Simon’s heart was “not right (lit. straight) in God’s eyes” (v. 21). The expression "straight of heart" (usually rendered "upright in heart") is quite common in the book of Psalms to describe persons who make no pretense but sincerely believe and follow God (LXX in 2Kings 10:15; Psa 7:11; 10:2; 18:9; 31:11; 35:11; 36:14; 63:11; 72:1; 77:37; 93:15; 96:11; 110:1; 124:4). It is used only here in the NT, which assures us that this was not Luke’s invention, but faithfully records the words of Peter who could have expected to speak with the Semitic idioms of the OT. Not only was his heart not right in God’s sight, but he would face hell itself if he did not repent (v. 20 “may your silver go to Hell with you”, see J.B. Phillips translation here).

26-40 The Ethiopian eunuch.

The eunuch acts as a foil to Simon. Simon was not rich or powerful, but would do anything to become so. The eunuch already had as high a position as his blood lineage would allow him and was quite possibly (as a physical eunuch) physically “disadvantaged”. As head of the Ethiopian treasury he had access to funds and the levers of political power. Yet none of this really mattered to him: what mattered was his relationship to the true God.

He was returning home from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship in the Court of the Gentiles, which was a far into the temple as he would be allowed. While sitting in his coach (“chariot” is not the best rendering of a horse-drawn vehicle with a comfortable seat for a long overland journey!), he was reading aloud to himself from the prophet Isaiah. Luke tells us that the passage he happened to be reading was from Isaiah 53. Providentially, since it is precisely that chapter of Isaiah which the early Christians saw as the most sensational prophecy fulfilled in Jesus’ death. Urged by the spirit to run alongside the coach, Philip calls to the man asking him if he understands what he is reading. The replay shows elegant Greek (it uses the optative mode δυναίμην Acts 8:31, which was no longer current in colloquial Greek), which reveals how educated this man was. Invited to join him in the coach and guide him, Philip climbs up and gives him the story of Jesus and the gospel. The eunuch eagerly receives the gospel, believes and requests baptism. If there were no other Christians yet in Ethiopia, it would have been impossible for him to be baptized later, since Christian baptism cannot be self-administered. The eunuch therefore became the “firstfruits” of Africa, the first Christian in Ethiopia, and went home to spread the good news.

Philip, meanwhile, continued his circuit through Azotus (OT Ashdod) and ending up in Lydda and Caesarea. Years later he acted as host to Paul in Caesarea, and told Luke, Paul’s companion this whole story (Acts 21:8-10).

Joy is the result of both the mission in Samaria and the witness to the Ethiopian.

Acts 7 - Speech and Death of Stephen

2007-02-16T08:26:00.001-06:00

It may seem strange, since in this episode the spotlight is on Stephen, and the reference at the end of the story to a Pharisee named Saul holding the coats of those who stoned Stephen appears to be a mere aside. But Hengel (Between Jesus and Paul, 2) rightly stresses that Luke’s goal is to show how the gospel gets from Jesus to Paul, so that the earlier chapters involving Peter, John, James, Stephen and Philip are mostly a bridge. When we are reading chs. 1-8 we are intended to think of how all this will lead to Paul’s work.

But we must not consider this bridge unimportant in its own right. Without the foundations laid in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Antioch, there could not have been a Gentile mission into Asia Minor and Greece. There may have been other work done by other apostles during this period that was equally significant as the of Paul, but we know nothing of it. So from Luke’s vantage point we are to see Paul as the culmination of the Acts 1:8 commission.

The witnesses who testified in ch. 6 that Stephen claimed Jesus would destroy the temple and change the customs of Moses are explicitly called false witnesses (μάρτυρας ψευδεῖς Acts 6:13). Stephen's speech in this chapter is not really a defense against those trumped-up charges, but a presentation of his own understanding of God's dealings with Israel in the OT period and an indictment of those opposing Jesus, showing that those who now oppose Jesus the Messiah are in direct continuity with those who opposed Moses and the prophets who followed him.

Stephen’s speech has been claimed to present a good example of Greco-Roman rhetoric designed for a defense before a hostile audience (Dupont followed by Witherington, Acts 260ff.). According to this view, the speaker begins with a long narration (Latin narratio) intended to establish agreement, sympathy and rapport with his hostile audience (Latin insinuatio), in which none of his principal counter arguments need be prepared for or even mentioned (v. 2-35), followed by his argument (vv. 36-50) and peroration (vv. 51-53). But I find the above divisions of Stephen’s speech unsatisfactory, and feel I can detect much more logic to the movement of the speech, if I assume that neither Stephen nor Luke is using insinuatio. I am also unconvinced that his “argument” is confined to verses 36-50. Rather he is allowing each of the three main characters (Abraham, Joseph and Moses) to address the objections of the Sanhedrin to Jesus’ Messiahship and the apostles’ gospel (represented also by Stephen). Jewish law required two or more witnesses to establish a testimony (Deut 17:6; 19:15). Stephen had three.

Stephen’s opponents wish to preserve the heritage of their past. So his speech is a review of that past.

Luke’s source for the content of the speech was probably Saul/Paul, who was present and who — undoubtedly after his conversion, if not before — realized how critical this speech was for the emergence of the Jesus movement after the Resurrection (Witherington, Acts 265).

It may be of interest therefore to know that some contemporary scholars, such as Martin Hengel, believe the substance, but not the details, of the accusation against Stephen, and furthermore indicate that this was in fact the teaching of Jesus and was then continued by the Christian St. Paul, with Stephen and the Jerusalem “Hellenists” as the link between Jesus and Paul. This view is opposed by Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ, 208-209 with note 110), who maintains that Paul’s teachings were based upon revelations given to him (Gal 1:11-12; Rom 15:14-21) and did not need to appeal to teachings during the earthly ministry of Jesus. Furthermore, Hurtado maintains that Paul was not critical of the law of Moses per se but only as it was made a prerequisite of salvation for Gentiles by the Judaizers, and that Paul’s view of the Jerusalem temple was likewise completely positive (cf. 1Cor 9:13-14; 2Thes 2:4) and not to be implied as negative by virtue of Paul’s metaphor of Christians as the “temple of God” (1Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; Eph 2:21).

If any theme is discernible in Stephen’s final speech, it is not so much a criticism of temple or law, but the repeated tendency of God’s people Israel to reject His prophets, including Moses himself (cf. Hurtado, p. 238)!

Although it is true that Stephen's speech appears to have been interrupted (v. 54), he had clearly reached his conclusion with his indictment of these rebels against God (vv. 51-53). So we may safely say that he planned his presentation around three key OT figures: Abraham, Joseph and Moses. As we reflect on what he says about these three, ask yourself what objections the audience had to Jesus as the Messiah and what advice each of the three OT characters can give to Stephen's hearers that would overcome their objection and lead them to accept him, whether or not this seems to rebut the false charges against Stephen. Or, if you prefer, ask yourself how these three men might bear witness against Stephen’s opponents.

Example #1: God & Abraham (vv. 2-8).

The first thing we learn about Abraham is that God appeared to him outside the Holy Land, and called him to leave his homeland and relatives and go to a “land that I will show you”. Without knowing any of the details, he left his homeland and traveled to Canaan (v. 4). Once he arrived, God gave him not even a foot's length of land (v. 5) to call his own, even though he promised him that his descendants would possess ("inherit") it. And this promise was made long before he even had a child and when there was little chance of having one. The idea of a place to put his foot in the land is present in God's promise to Abraham in Gen. 13:14-17 (NRSV):

The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Raise your eyes now, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; 15 for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. 17 Rise up, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.”

Abraham was to walk through a land that he would not be given a single foot of while he was alive! Perhaps Stephen’s point here is that, although obviously the land was important as a promise, it was not so crucial that Abraham could not walk with God in full fellowship and obedience without seeing the fulfillment of the promises.

Abraham pleased God, not by law-keeping or temple worship, but by obeying His call and believing His promises.

6-7 A further test of Abraham's faith was the promise that after his descendants would live as slaves in Egypt for 400 years, far from the land that was promised (vv. 6-7), they would return to worship “in this place”. There is no mention in Gen 15 of the descendants returning to worship in Canaan, but Stephen infers it from the initial demands God made upon the pharaoh in Ex 3:18; (Ex 5:3,8,17; 8:8,25-29; 10:25) and from the events at Sinai involving the building of the Tabernacle. In Stephen's picture the purpose of the return to Canaan was in order to worship God in the land he was going to give them. The impression given, that the Israelites entered the Promised Land in order to worship there is part of Stephen’s theme, for in vv. 45-47, dealing with the post-Joshua period the focus is entirely on the Tabernacle and the Temple.

And finally, the sign of the covenant, circumcision was given to Abraham before he had a son and practiced by him long before there was law or temple (v. 8) of even a covenant people to be set apart by this sign. Stephen’s later calling his audience “uncircumcised in heart" meant they were outside the covenant with Abraham (so Witherington, Acts 266f). But this expression was often used by the OT prophets as well (Jer 9:26; Ezek 44:7,9). Equally significant is what Stephen does not say about Abraham: Paul’s use of “believed the LORD [LXX ‘God’], and he counted it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6) to show justification by faith is not yet apparently a part of the the Jerusalem evangelists’ repertoire of proof texts.

4-5 Jaroslav Pelikan (Acts [Brazos] 104) calls attention to an irony here. Just as Abraham lived in the Promised Land with a divine title to it but without present control of it, so also Stephen’s hearers were now living in the same land, still with the divine title to it, but with the Romans in control of it.

These are the things Stephen tells his audience about Abraham. Now how would Abraham (through Stephen’s voice) speak to the objections of the Sanhedrin about Jesus’ Messiahship and the apostles’ gospel?

Clearly Abraham's role in salvation history is as a model of faith, even if at this point Stephen does not make the point Paul does, that he “believed the LORD [LXX 'God'], and he counted it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). Verses 2-8 are full of references to things God promised him which he never saw. Stephen clearly implies here too that the main objection to Jesus—that he was not a typical royal figure, that he gave no hope of a military liberation of Judea from the Romans—was a prime example of an objection that would never have mattered to Abraham. Repeatedly he believed God without visible sign of the truthfulness of the promise. Stephen's hearers were examples of the failure of the faith which justified Abraham.

Example #2: Joseph (vv. 9-16)

The second key figure in Stephen’s survey is Joseph.

Luke (or Stephen before him) uses a literary device to frame this pericope: In v. 9 the brother sold Joseph into slavery in Egypt, thus setting off a series of events that would lead the whole family there and a people into 400 years of slavery, whereas Abraham’s buying a field for burial (v. 16) gave to Jacob and Joseph a way to express their faith in God’s promise to Abraham that after 400 years he would bring them back into the land.

Stephen doesn't mention Joseph's dream, which sparked the “jealousy” of his brothers and led to their selling him into slavery to the Midianites (v. 9), but his hearers could be counted upon to recall that fact. Stephen doesn't magnify Joseph's own efforts in Egypt, but instead credits all that happens after this to God being with Joseph (v. 9-10). God continues to do all the arranging and moving of the chess pieces: with the famine, the moving of the family to Egypt, their deaths there and the return of their bones for burial in the Promised Land.

In vv. 12-13 Stephen emphasizes the distinct phases in which Joseph progressively reveals himself to his brothers: “the first time” (v. 12), and “the second time” (v. 13). It is a theme that recurs with Moses, who was rejected the first time, but accepted on his return. This may be his way of hinting that, although his Jewish countrymen listening failed to recognize Jesus the Messiah the first time, they can still allow him now to reveal himself to them. And all of this happens outside of the Holy Land and without either law or temple. It is merely God’s sovereign and inscrutable plan and the steadfast faith of the character who by God’s plan goes through suffering in order to bring blessing.

Stephen's lesson from Abraham was that his opponents lacked that man's God-pleasing ability to believe promises for which he never in his lifetime saw tangible evidence. What lesson did Stephen want them to draw from Joseph? His brothers and even his father and mother were offended by the promise of God to Joseph in his dream that he would become their ruler. And in rejecting him in this role they risked losing him as their Savior from the famine. Similarly, Stephen's opponents refuse to believe that Jesus is God's Messiah and Son, and instead killed him, saying, “we will not have this man to rule over us!”

Joseph is important for several reasons: (1) he was rejected by his brothers, next Moses would be, then the OT prophets, and finally as Jesus would eventually be, (2) God was with Joseph even in his sufferings (e.g., in the mistreatment by Potiphar and in prison) and rescued him and elevated him in Egypt through the wisdom that God gave him. The Genesis account also stresses Joseph’s self-control and moral rectitude, but Stephen is more interested in emphasizing his grace (‘favor’) and wisdom (v. 10), which of course is also expressed in Genesis in his ability to interpret the dreams of his fellow prisoners and of the pharaoh, and in the plan to save Egypt from the effects of the coming famine. Noticeable is the fact that Joseph and Moses did not try to make themselves rulers over God’s people, as those who rejected them thought they were, but were responding to a Divine call. There may even be a hint in Acts 7:4 (cf. Gen 11:32; 12:4) that Abraham’s father refused to let Abraham answer God’s call, so that only after he died could Abraham leave Haran for Canaan.

In sum, Joseph may well have said to the Sanhedrin what he said to his wicked brothers: “ You meant it for evil (e.g., killing Jesus and now his servant Stephen). But God meant it for good: so save many people” (Gen 50:20). Through the crucifixion of Jesus a world of lost sinners will be saved, and through Stephen’s death the seeds have been planted for the conversion of Paul.

Example #3: Moses (vv. 17-43)

The section on Moses is introduced appropriately by the statement that the promise to Abraham was about to be fulfilled. What promise was this? God promised him (1) that his descendants would become more numerous than the stars (Gen 15:5), and he promised him (2) that they would spend 400 years in Egypt and then return (Gen 15:13). The first is recorded as fulfilled in v. 18 (cf. Exod 1:7 for Stephen's source), and the second will be fulfilled through Moses.

18-19 The historical identity of this “new king” (‏מֶלֶךְ־חָדָשׁ‎ Exod 1:8) of Egypt who “did not know Joseph” may be of great interest to historians trying to date the exodus (if they believe it to be historical), but to both Moses who wrote Exodus 1:8, and to Stephen who quotes it here (in the Greek version: βασιλεὺς ἕτερος "another king"), his identity is unimportant. What is significant is that he had no commitment to Joseph as his predecessors did and that he consequently subjected the Israelites to slavery and “dealt treacherously” with them (κατασοφισάμενος v. 19 NIV). What Stephen seems to imply is that his hearers also do not truly “know Joseph”. Like the “new king” they might be reading the same Scriptures as their ancestors in the days of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, and Elijah, but they do not understand them the way an earlier generation of OT saints did. Nor do they live in the spirit and faith of a Joseph. They know about Joseph, but they do not know Joseph. Just as the pharaoh of the exodus was incapable of seeing God's hand in a Moses, so they are incapable of seeing their deliverer in Jesus.

20-22 record the birth and first 40 years of Moses' life. The introductory description of Moses in vv. 20-22 certainly does not look like the words of a man accused of blaspheming Moses and his law! Stephen says that at his birth Moses was “beautiful to God” (ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ, taken from the Greek version of Exod 2:2, whose Hebrew ‏כִּי־טוֹב הוּא ‎ simply means he was a healthy baby). This is doubtless Stephen's way of saying that God had a special mission for this baby, so that God spared him from the fate of the other Jewish boys mentioned in v. 19. Through his adoption by the "daughter of the pharaoh" God placed the child Moses in the household of the king and gave him education, so that he was “powerful in speech and action”.

21 The adoption of a worthy and faithful slave by his master was a theme in Greco-Roman culture:

“In ancient Rome, adoption of boys was a fairly common procedure, particularly in the upper senatorial class. The need for a male heir and the expense of raising children were strong incentives to have at least one son, but not too many children. … As Rome was ruled by a selected number of powerful families, every senator's duty was to produce sons to inherit the estate, family name and political tradition. But a large family was an expensive luxury. Daughters had to be provided with a suitable dowry and sons had to be pushed through the political offices of the cursus honorum. The higher the political status of a family, the higher was the cost. Due to this, Roman families restricted the number of children, avoiding more than three. … Sometimes, not having enough children proved to be a wrong choice. Infants could die and the lack of male births was always a risk. For families cursed with too many sons and the ones with no boys at all, adoption was the only solution.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_ancient_Rome).

So Theophilus and other Gentile readers would relate to Stephen’s description of this beautiful slave child’s adoption by a member of the Egyptian royal family. In an ancient Hittite legend from the time of Moses the infant sons of a queen, abandoned to the river, were rescued and reared by the gods themselves (see Hoffner, Hittite Myths [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], 81 §1).

23-29 Despite his position of privilege in the royal household, Moses' true loyalties were not with the Egyptians who had raised him, but with the people of God, the enslaved Israelites. Stephen says (v. 23) that when Moses became 40, he decided to “visit” his people. The Greek verb translated “visit” (ἐπισκέψασθαι) means to “look after the wellbeing of someone” or “come to the aid of someone”. It is often used in the Greek translation of the OT of God rescuing His people from harm. Most significantly, it is used in the mouth of the dying Joseph, predicting the exodus under Moses:

Gen. 50:24 (NRSV) Then Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die; but God will surely come to (LXX ἐπισκέψεται = MT ‏יִפְקֹד אֶתְכֶם‎) you, and bring you up out of this land to the land that he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” 25 So Joseph made the Israelites swear, saying, “When God comes to you, you shall carry up my bones from here.”

Moses is portrayed in the dual role of savior-defender (λυτρωτής) and ruler-judge (ἄρχων) (see v. 35) — the Hebrew original was ‏שַׂר וְשֹׁפֵט‎ (Exod 2:14). As savior-defender (vv. 24-25) he is seen killing the Egyptian slave driver, an adumbration of the future deliverance from the oppressive pharaoh in the exodus. As judge he mediates to stop violence in a legal dispute between members of his own people (v. 26). This foreshadows his future role of transmitting God's laws at Sinai and administering them during the desert wanderings. Stephen uses these two roles to describe Jesus' twofold ministry: (1) saving us from sin's penalty through his death and resurrection, and (2) setting the example for how the OT scriptures, especially the ethical norms, are to be understood through his discourses in the Sermon on the Mount.

But Moses' people refused to recognize him (v. 25) as God's chosen deliverer and rejected his early attempts, scaring him into flight to the land of Midian (v. 27-29). Although the Book of Exodus does not say this, Stephen claims (v. 25) that Moses “thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them”, but they did not. Like Joseph before him (Gen 50:20) and Jesus (Luke 23:34) and Stephen (Acts 7:60) after him, Moses forgave his brothers, because of their ignorance of God's plan (Acts 7:25).

Rejected by his own people, Moses found acceptance and a family in Midian (29), where he spent 40 more years. Like Abraham, Moses received his divine call in a foreign land, yet a place that God called “holy ground” (γῆ ἁγία v. 33, taken from the Greek LXX of Exod 3:5, where the Hebrew is ‏אַדְמַת־קֹדֶשׁ‎). It was to be the place of the future giving of the law of God, Mt. Sinai.

30-36 God's prophet, rejected and sent away by God's people, is called by God to go again and deliver them. The one they rejected in ignorance becomes in fact their Savior and Ruler (v.35). Through Moses God does miracles to deliver them from Egypt and for 40 years in the desert. Of course, Stephen intends his hearers to think of the many miracles performed by Jesus, as well as the explosion of healings in Jerusalem following the resurrection (Acts 1-5).

38 records the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. Moses the lawgiver once rejected by his people (v. 38) promised a prophet like himself (Deut. 18:15), who was Jesus. Through the Prophet-Messiah Jesus the “living words” of the law were authoritatively interpreted (Sermon on the Mount).

But the law which Stephen's opponents so zealously sought to “protect” was not obeyed by the people. The rebellion of the people of Israel against Moses in the Wilderness was both against Moses as lawgiver, and against the temple/tabernacle, because it involved idolatry with the gold calf (v. 41-43). And it is with reference to this rebellion of the people against Moses even to the point of wanting to kill him (Ex 17:4; Num 14:10), that his promise of a “prophet like me” becomes extremely important in Stephen's address. For the Prophet par excellence fulfilled in Jesus was like Moses above all in his being rejected by his people! Here Stephen puts Jesus in the great tradition of the OT prophets who both defended the temple, opposed idolatry, and interpreted and applied the ethical teachings of the law to the people. That Stephen casts Jesus in the role of prophet in no way indicates a diminished Christology: for Stephen and the other earliest Jewish Christians there was no contradiction between the Suffering Servant, the Prophet and the exalted Messiah. Jesus was all of these.

Stephen's lesson from Abraham was that his opponents were unwilling to believe Jesus' claims without seeing an immediate realization of them. From v. 39-40 Stephen alludes to the key to the people's rebellion against Moses and God: they were unwilling to move out of bondage into a freedom with new and unfamiliar demands. This was in fact a major reason for resisting Jesus' claims.

From Moses to Solomon (44-50)

Stephen spends much less time on the period between Moses and Solomon, just skimming the surface of the history. In fact this part of the speech focuses not on a notable person, but on the Tabernacle as the movable “home” of God. It was in the desert with Moses (v. 44), brought into the land with Joshua (v. 45) and remained there until David asked to be able to build a temple home for God (v. 46). But it was Solomon whom God permitted to build it (v. 47). Yet the prophet Amos, whom Stephen quotes, reminded the people what Solomon himself admitted in his dedicatory prayer (1 Kings 8:27): that no earthly temple can contain the God whose throne is heaven and whose footstool is earth.

The real indictment comes in vv. 51-53, where Stephen accuses his hearers of being like the rebels against Moses and the prophets, all of whom predicted the coming of the Righteous One What they did to the prophets who predicted, they did also to the one whose coming was predicted. The Messiah was at the heart of the issue: Stephen's hearers in their heart of hearts knew it as well as he did. And the Messiah is here called “the Righteous One” (δίκαιος = ‏צַדִּיק‎), i.e., the one vindicated (i.e., shown to be right) as Jesus was by his resurrection and ascension. In the wilderness wanderings God was continually vindicating the authority of Moses and Aaron against rebels from the ranks of Israel. Now he had vindicated his Son and Messiah by the resurrection. And if Jesus was the vindicated Messiah (i.e., "the Righteous One"), then he had the “Spirit of wisdom and understanding” predicted of the Messiah in Isaiah 11:2-4, and used it to give the definitive interpretation to the Law (cf. the Sermon on the Mount) and to purify the Temple (cf. the driving out of the money changers). Ironically, it was these two acts which opponents saw as threatening the law and the temple, and led to his crucifixion, as it was now being used as a pretext to murder Stephen!

57-58 The covering of the ears has a double meaning in Luke’s description: (1) the ones doing it did so to avoid hearing further blasphemy from the mouth of the dying man, but (2) believers are to see it as a dramatic depiction of the closed mind that will from now on in Acts generally characterize the Jewish hearers of the Gospel. This may be part of Luke’s portrayal of Stephen’s martyrdom as a turning point in the advancement of the Gospel among the Jewish people.

Stephen’s death is very much like that of Jesus. It was occasioned by trumped-up charges made by false witnesses, the decision of the court to “execute” was triggered by the accused’s own words in response to the false testimony and especially by his statement about the exalted Messiah Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and was accompanied by the dying man’s words of forgiveness and his committing his spirit to God. But Pelikan (Acts [Brazos] 107) makes the interesting observation that in Stephen’s prayer “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” he attributes to Jesus a function which in Jewish monotheism could only be performed by God, as witness even Jesus’ own prayer on the cross:

“Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.” (Luke 23:46 NIV)

When Jesus uttered these words, it was 3 PM, when the temple trumpets blared through the streets of Jerusalem the signal for the evening prayer. Jesus also prayed the evening prayer in this way, perhaps as Joseph or Mary had taught him as a child, the Jewish prayer anticipating "sleep", including the final "sleep" of death (E. Stauffer, Jesus: Gestalt und Geschichte 107f., 162 [n. 93]). Now Stephen too uses the Jewish prayer formula—committal of the spirit into the hands of God (in this case Jesus as God)—before he too "falls asleep". It was his "Now I lay me down to sleep. I pray the Lord my soul to keep." With this he turns what could have been a very ugly scene into one of exquisite beauty.

Appendix:
On the historical, political and legal
background of Stephen's trial and the “lynching”

Christopher Bryan (Render to Caesar, pp. 73f. [ch. 4, Appendix C]) writes:

“With regard to the death of Stephen, the evidence is, on any view, confusing. Luke tells the story in such a way that we are reminded (and are clearly meant to be reminded) of the arraignment and death of Jesus (Acts 7.56 cf. Luke 22.69; Acts 7.59 cf. Luke 23.46; Acts 7.60 cf. Luke 23.34). At the same time, Luke does not hide some obvious differences between the two processes. In Stephen's trial, we do not gain the impression of a formally completed procedure—in marked contrast to the gospel's account of what happened to Jesus. The description begins with a solemn gathering of people, elders, and scribes, but then, as Bond says, “the proceedings descend into chaos: there is no verdict, no sentence; Stephen's death resembles a mob lynching rather than an official execution.” One might be forgiven, therefore, for suggesting that the death of Stephen is useless as evidence for what was actually legal, one way or another. It was simply an example of lynch law. Marta Sordi, however, offers a quite different view: the proceedings against Stephen “did have something of a legitimate trial about them. They began with the Sanhedrin hearing the charges brought against him by witnesses, went on with the accused … [being invited by] the Chief Priest to speak in his own defence (Acts 6:11f) and ended with the Sanhedrin's unanimous verdict in favour of the death sentence (Acts 7:57), which was then carried out by the witnesses themselves, in accordance with the ancient Hebrew law against blasphemers.” So was this a formal trial or not? It is impossible, on the evidence we have, to be certain: both Bond's and Sordi's interpretations of the text are possible, for the text itself does not provide enough information to exclude one or the other.

“Whatever it was, just how did it happen? Was it, as Bond and Sordi both suggest, after Pilate had left office, during a power vacuum such as the one that occurred between the death of Porcius Festus and the arrival of Albinus? Or was Pilate (who lasted through most of 36, probably leaving in December) still in office, as Jeremias asserts? If the latter case, did Pilate connive at Stephen's death? And was that connivance a factor in Pilate's departure? It is, again, in the state of our knowledge, impossible to answer any of these questions.

“According to Josephus, L. Vitellius, the legate of Syria, on a generally placatory visit to Jerusalem in AD 36 or 37, in the course of which a number of benefits were bestowed upon the city, removed the high priest Caiaphas from his office (Ant. 18.90–95). But Josephus does not say why. Was it that Caiaphas had become unpopular? Or was it, as Bond suggests, that Caiaphas had taken “advantage of the power vacuum in Judaea [following Pilate's departure],” grown “too assertive,” and become “too powerful for his own good”? If the latter, then in what way had this over-assertiveness manifested itself? … Was it, then, that Caiaphas (with or without Pilate's connivance) had exceeded his authority in the execution of Stephen, exactly as Ananias was to do in 62? Incidental confirmation of that might be implied by Luke, who notes that following the meeting of Peter and Paul, perhaps in the same year as the deposition of Caiaphas, “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace” (Acts 9.31). And Judea, Galilee, and Samaria were precisely the areas under Roman control (direct or indirect) at that time, as opposed to Damascus, under the control of Aretas the enemy of Rome, where Christians were being persecuted (Acts 9.19–25, 2Cor 11.32). But, again, though such a scenario is possible, there is no way that we can arrive at even reasonable certainty about it.”