I. Summary Statement (19:20)

20In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

COMMENTARY

20 The advances of the gospel into Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia did not come about without great difficulty and several periods of discouragement. At times, in fact, matters looked very bleak. Viewed externally, one may even be tempted to agree with Wilfred L. Knox (St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1939], 85) that Paul’s “journey into Macedonia had been the height of unwisdom and its results negligible.” Perhaps Paul felt that way himself when forced to leave the province. But such a view forgets that at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea a flame had been lit that was to spread throughout the area. Furthermore, it is to ignore the fact that, to judge by Paul’s own extant letters, the churches founded in these cities—certainly at Philippi and Thessalonica but probably also at Berea—were among his best and most loyal ones.

At Athens Paul faced the snobbery and polite refusal of self-satisfied people, and it seems evident that their lack of response on top of his difficulties in Macedonia almost drove him to despair. But at Corinth, in spite of his own feelings of “weakness,” “fear,” and “much trembling” (1Co 2:3), God worked remarkably by giving Paul an open door and a successful ministry. Of course with success also came problems, which at Corinth arose from within the congregation. Nonetheless, Paul had much to thank God for when he called to mind his experiences at Corinth, and he evidently returned to Jerusalem to fulfill his Nazirite vow with much joy. At Ephesus, after revisiting his Galatian converts, his ministry continued in ways that evidenced God’s presence and power.

Paul’s second and third missionary journeys read like a slice of life. Having set out in his earlier panels episodes depicting the gradual widening of the gospel to new groups of people and the establishment of a new missionary policy to the Gentiles, Luke in panel 5 presents for his readers a graphic account of the gospel’s entrance into new regions. It is the story of the church’s dedicated service under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit in proclaiming the good news to those who desperately needed to hear it. It is a story not without opposition and not without times of depression and soul-searching. But it is also a story of divine blessing, times of elation, and periods of confidence. Through it all God was at work. And in looking back on those days Luke says simply, “In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.”

NOTES

20 Codex Bezae (D) reads οὕτως κατὰ κράτος ἐνίσχυσεν καὶ ἡ πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ ηὔξανε καὶ ἐπλήθυνε (houtōs kata kratos enischysen kai hē pistis tou theou ēuxane kai eplēthyne, “So mightily it prevailed, and the faith of God grew and multiplied”), thereby conflating the verse, changing its order, and substituting ἡ πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ (hē pistis tou theou, “the faith of God”) for τοῦ κυρίου ὁ λόγος (tou kyriou ho logos, “the word of the Lord”).

PANEL 6—TO JERUSALEM AND FROM THERE TO ROME (19:21–28:31)

OVERVIEW

Acts 19:21–28:31, the sixth and last panel of material in Acts, sets out Paul’s somewhat circuitous journey to Jerusalem, his arrest and defenses at Jerusalem, his imprisonment and defenses at Caesarea, his voyage to Rome, and his entrance into and ministry at Rome. The panel is introduced by the programmatic statement of 19:21–22 and concludes with the summary statement of 28:31. Three features immediately strike the reader in this panel: (1) the disproportionate length of the material presented, for it includes one-third of the total material in Acts; (2) the prominence given the speeches of Paul in his defense (22:1–21; 23:1–6; 24:10–21; 25:8–11; 26:1–29); and (3) the dominance of the “we” sections in the narrative portions (cf. 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16).

There are many matters of theological interest that appear in this sixth panel. Yet it cannot be said that its length is related to the theological significance of the material presented. Rather, its length seems to be related primarily to (1) the apologetic purpose of Luke, particularly in the five defenses of chs. 22–26, and (2) the eyewitness character of the narrative, with the inevitable elaboration of details in such an eyewitness report. In particular, starting at 20:5 and going throughout the rest of Acts to 28:31, Luke’s narrative gives considerable attention to ports of call, stopovers, and time spent on Paul’s travels. Furthermore, it includes a number of revealing anecdotes and detailed accounts of the various events narrated. It contains, in fact, the kind of detail found in a travel journal. And the use of “we” in 20:5–15; 21:1–18; and 28:16 suggests its eyewitness character—as seen earlier in the treatment of Paul’s ministry at Philippi in the “we” section of 16:10–17 and the further events of 16:18–40. The material of this final panel spans the time from about AD 56 through AD 62.

A. Programmatic Statement (19:21–22)

21After 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.” 22He sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he stayed in the province of Asia a little longer.

COMMENTARY

21 “After all this had happened” (hōs de eplērōthē tauta, lit., “when these things were fulfilled”) refers to the events bracketed by the participle plērōsantes (“having fulfilled”; NIV, “when Barnabas and Saul had finished”; NASB, “when they had fulfilled”) of 12:25 and the verb eplērōthē (“they were fulfilled”; NIV, “had happened”; NASB, “were finished”) of 19:21—i.e., to the events of the first, second, and third missionary journeys of Paul as recorded in 12:25–19:20 (the two preceding panels, which depict the extension of the Christian proclamation to Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world). Some have conjectured that “after all this had happened” has reference only to the two-year ministry of v.10. But for Luke the fulfillment of the Gentile mission came in (1) the inauguration of the new missionary policy for reaching Gentiles, which was established on Paul’s first missionary journey and confirmed at the Jerusalem Council (i.e., panel 4), and (2) the extensive outreach of the gospel to the Gentile world, which took place during Paul’s second and third missionary journeys (i.e., panel 5). All that took place earlier (i.e., panels 1–3) was for Luke a preparation for the Gentile mission, and all that happened afterwards (i.e., panel 6) was its aftermath and extension into Rome.

With the eastern part of the Roman Empire evangelized (cf. Ro 15:23, “now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions”), Paul decided to return to Jerusalem and then go on to Rome. On the way he would revisit the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, ministering to them and gathering from them a collection for the Jewish believers at Jerusalem (cf. 1Co 16:1–4). After Jerusalem and Rome, he planned to take up a Gentile mission in the western part of the empire, using the Roman church as the base for that western outreach, just as the church at Syrian Antioch had been his base for evangelizing the eastern part of the empire (cf. Ro 15:24–29). Now, however, he must return to Jerusalem, knowing full well that serious difficulties would befall him there (cf. Ro 15:30–32).

Luke says that Paul’s decision to go to Jerusalem and then on to Rome was en tō pneumati, which may mean “by his human spirit” (so NASB, “in the spirit”) and be translated he “decided” or “resolved” (so NEB, JB, TEV, NIV), or may refer to direction “by the Holy Spirit” and be translated “in the Spirit” (so NRSV). This same expression is used in 18:25 to refer to Apollos’s own spirit (NIV, “with great fervor”; NASB, “fervent in spirit”). But in 20:22, tō pneumati probably has reference to the Holy Spirit (NIV, “by the Spirit”; NRSV, “captive to the Spirit”), and in 21:4, dia tou pneumatos (NIV and NASB, “through the Spirit”) certainly refers to the Holy Spirit—with both references having to do with Paul’s travel plans. So we should probably understand the statement etheto ho Paulos en tō pneumati of this verse to mean that “Paul decided [lit., made up his mind] by the direction of the Spirit” to go to Jerusalem and then on to Rome. This seems to be supported by the use of the impersonal verb dei (“must”), which in Luke’s writings usually connotes the divine will. Thus by the combination of the expression en tō pneumati and the verb dei, Luke appears to be making the point in this programmatic statement that the aftermath of the Gentile mission and its extension into Rome were likewise under the Spirit’s direction, just as the Gentile mission itself had been.

22 Before going to Jerusalem, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia while he remained “in Asia” (eis tēn Asian; NIV, “in the province of Asia”), which probably means that he stayed on at Ephesus a while longer, not that he went on a further mission elsewhere in the Roman province of Asia. Luke has not mentioned Timothy since his return from Macedonia to rejoin Paul at Corinth (cf. 18:5). But he was with Paul at Ephesus and served at some time during Paul’s Ephesian ministry as his emissary to Corinth (cf. 1Co 4:17; 16:10–11). This is, however, the first time we hear of Erastus, though in 2 Timothy 4:20 he is spoken of as a well-known companion of Paul who had a special interest in the church at Corinth. That he was the “director of public works” (NIV) or “city treasurer” (NASB) of Corinth referred to in Romans 16:23 is not at all likely. Nor can he easily be identified with the Erastus mentioned in a Latin inscription found at Corinth in 1929 that reads, “Erastus, commissioner of public works [aedile], laid this pavement at his own expense” (H. J. Cadbury, “Erastus of Corinth,” JBL 50 [1931]: 42–58). Erastus was a common Greek name, and it is unlikely that Luke would mention so casually such a significant person as the “director of public works” or “treasurer” of the city of Corinth.

As for Silas, though Luke speaks of him repeatedly in his accounts of Paul’s second missionary journey (nine times in 15:40–18:5), he makes no reference to him in the rest of Acts. Luke’s interest in these last chapters of Acts is focused solely on his hero Paul. Nonetheless, that is no reason to assume that others were no longer with Paul. Titus, for example, is not mentioned at all by Luke in Acts, but Paul refers to him in his letters as having been extensively involved at various times during the Gentile mission (cf. 2Co 2:13; 7:6, 13–14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; Gal 2:1, 3; 2Ti 4:10; Tit 1:4).

NOTES

21 On the use of δεῖ (dei, “it is necessary,” “one must”) in Luke-Acts, see comments and note at 1:16.

22 Codex Bezae (D) adds ὀλίγον (oligon, “little,” “short”) after the word χρόνον (chronon, “time,” GK 5989), thereby making it clear that Paul only stayed at Ephesus a “short time” longer (NIV, “a little longer”; NASB, “for a while”).

On the synonymous use of the preposition εἰς (eis, “into”) and ἐν (en, “in”)—here with respect to the expression εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν (eis tēn Asian)—see comments and note at 2:38 (cf. 7:4, 12 [also note]; 8:16 [note]; 19:5 [note]).

B. The Journey to Jerusalem (19:23–21:16)

1. A Riot at Ephesus (19:23–41)

OVERVIEW

Before Paul left Ephesus, a riot threatened his life and could have put an end to the outreach of the gospel in the Roman province of Asia. The situation was undoubtedly more dangerous than Luke’s account suggests. In what may well be allusions to this riot, Paul in his letters speaks of having “fought wild beasts at Ephesus” (1Co 15:32), of having “despaired even of life” in the face of “a deadly peril” in Asia (2Co 1:8, 10), and of Priscilla and Aquila having “risked their lives” for him (Ro 16:4). Luke’s purpose in presenting this vignette is clearly apologetic, in line with his argument for the religio licita status of Christianity in panel 5 (16:6–19:20) and in anticipation of the themes stressed in Paul’s speeches of defense in panel 6 (chs. 22–26). Politically, Luke’s reports of (1) the friendliness of hoi Asiarchoi (NASB, “the Asiarchs”; NIV, “officials of the province [of Asia]”) toward Paul (v.31) and (2) the city clerk’s intervention on his behalf (vv.35–41) comprise the best defense imaginable against the charge that Paul and Christianity were any threat to the empire. Religiously, Luke’s description of the Ephesian riot makes the point that, as Haenchen, 578, aptly expressed it, “in the final analysis the only thing heathenism can do against Paul is to shout itself hoarse.”

23About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. 24A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in no little business for the craftsmen. 25He called them together, along with the workmen in related trades, and said: “Men, you know we receive a good income from this business. 26And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that man-made gods are no gods at all. 27There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.”

28When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia, and rushed as one man into the theater. 30Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him. 31Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater.

32The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. 33The Jews pushed Alexander to the front, and some of the crowd shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. 34But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

35The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: “Men of Ephesus, doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? 36Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash. 37You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. 38If, then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. 39If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly. 40As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of today’s events. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it.” 41After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly.

COMMENTARY

23 The temporal notation “about that time” (kata ton kairon) is indefinite (cf. 12:1). By itself, it does not necessarily place the riot at the end of Paul’s Ephesian ministry. Nevertheless, by the separation of this pericope from the account of Paul’s mission in Ephesus in 19:1–19, which closes the fifth panel of material, and by the temporal reference in 20:1 (“when the uproar had ended”), Luke certainly wanted his readers to understand that the riot set off by Demetrius took place at the close of Paul’s ministry there. Also, by the absolute use of “the Way” (hē hodos, cf. v.9), it seems evident he wanted them to understand that what happened was not simply against Paul personally but was primarily a threat to the continued outreach of the gospel.

24–27 The goddess “Artemis of Ephesus” was not the fair and chaste huntress of Greek mythology but a Near-Eastern mother-goddess of fertility. Her image at Ephesus, which was believed to have been fashioned in heaven and fallen from the sky (cf. v.35), depicted her as a grotesque, multibreasted woman. Probably the Ephesian Artemis was originally a meteorite that resembled a multibreasted woman and so became an object of worship, just as other meteorites that had fallen at or near Troy, Pessinus, Enna, and Emesa became sacred cult objects. Her worship incorporated the traditional features of nature worship. Her high priest was a eunuch with the Persian title “Megabyzos,” and under him served other eunuch priests and three classes of priestesses (cf. L. R. Taylor, “Artemis of Ephesus,” Beginnings of Christianity [ed. Foakes-Jackson and Lake], 5.251–56).

With the silting up of the harbor, the temple of Artemis became the primary basis for the wealth and continued prosperity of the city of Ephesus (see comments at 19:1). This temple was situated 1.5 miles northeast of the city, measured about 400 by 200 feet in size, and was considered by the ancients as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Thousands of pilgrims and tourists came to it from far and near. Around it swarmed all sorts of tradesmen and hucksters who made their living by supplying visitors with food and lodging, dedicatory offerings, and souvenirs. The temple of Artemis was also a major treasury and bank where merchants, kings, and even cities made deposits and where their money could be kept safe under the protection of a deity.

Paul’s preaching turned many away from the idolatry of the Artemis cult, with the result that the economy of Ephesus was being affected. One profitable business was the making of “silver shrines of Artemis” (naous argyrous Artemidos, v.24), which probably denotes not just souvenirs of the Artemis temple but miniature silver statuettes of Artemis herself to be used as votive offerings, amulets, and replicas of the goddess to be venerated in people’s homes. When the gospel began to touch their income, the silversmiths led by their guildmaster, Demetrius, instigated a disturbance that they hoped would turn the people against the missionaries and stir up greater devotion for the goddess Artemis—a greater devotion that would, of course, bring about greater profits for them.

28–29 The silversmiths began shouting out the ceremonial chant “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” (cf. Bel 18: “Great is Bel”; also 41: “Great are you, O Lord, the God of Daniel”), in hope of stirring up the city on a pretext of religious devotion. Codex Bezae (D), together with some minuscule MSS, inserts “and running into the street” after the reference to their being “furious” (thymou, GK 2596) and before the verb “[began] shouting” (ekrazon, GK 3189) and so adds a note of local color that may well fit the situation. A magnificent boulevard, the so-called Arcadian Way, ran through the heart of Ephesus from its harbor to its great theater at the foot of Mount Pion. Lined with fine buildings and columned porticoes, it was the main artery of Ephesian life. Into this boulevard Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen poured, sweeping along with them in noisy procession all the residents and visitors within earshot. Their destination was the large open-air theater on the eastern side of the city—a theater whose ruins show it could have held some twenty-four thousand people. In it the city assembly probably met.

On their way the crowd laid hold of Gaius and Aristarchus, two traveling companions of Paul from Derbe and Thessalonica respectively (cf. 20:4; 27:2; the genitive “from Macedonia” [Makedonas] probably refers not to both men but only to Aristarchus, contra NIV and NASB), and dragged them into the theater. And there, much to the delight of Demetrius and his fellow silversmiths, the procession became a fanatical mob.

30–31 While there is no evidence that Paul was ever tried by a kangaroo court or imprisoned at Ephesus, as some have maintained, the riot presented him with an extremely serious situation. He wanted to appear before “the assembly” (ho dēmos, GK 1322; NIV, “the crowd”; NASB, “the assembly”), doubtless in the belief that because of his Roman citizenship and his earlier successful appearances before governmental officials he could quiet the mob, free his companions, and turn the whole affair to the advantage of the gospel. But his converts in the city would not let him enter the theater. And even some of hoi Asiarchoi (NASB, “the Asiarchs”; NIV, “officials of the province [of Asia]”) who were his friends sent an urgent message for him not to go there.

The Asiarchs were members of the noblest and wealthiest families of the province of Asia and were bound together in a league to promote the cult of the emperor and of Rome. Their headquarters were at Pergamum, where their chief temple had been erected about 29 BC. Other temples in honor of the ruling emperor had been erected at Smyrna and Ephesus. Every year an Asiarch was elected for the entire province, with additional Asiarchs elected for each city that had a temple honoring the emperor. The title was borne for life by officers in the league, and so in Paul’s day there would have been a number of Asiarchs at Ephesus. Like similar leagues in the other Roman provinces—for example, the Lyciarch of Lycia or the Galatarch of Galatia—the Asiarch was a quasi-religious organization with certain political functions. While it did not have political authority, it served Rome’s interests by securing loyalty to Roman rule. That some of these men were friendly to Paul and gave him advice in such an explosive situation suggests that imperial policy at this time was not hostile to Christianity. Luke had an apologetic purpose in stressing their action, for as Haenchen, 578, observed, “A sect whose leader had Asiarchs for friends cannot be dangerous to the state.”

32 The crowd had been worked up into a frenzy. “Some,” Luke says, “were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there”—which is a remark that reveals Luke’s Greek sense of ironical humor. What united them was a common resentment against those who paid no honor to the goddess Artemis. Yet there appears to have been widespread confusion among the people as to the focus of their resentment.

33–34 The Jewish community at Ephesus was large and enjoyed a number of special exemptions granted by past provincial proconsuls (cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.227, 263–64). But it also suffered from the latent anti-Semitism that lay just beneath the surface of Greco-Roman society. In an endeavor to disassociate themselves from the Christians in such an explosive situation, the Jews sent one of their number, Alexander, to the podium. This may be the same Alexander of 1 Timothy 1:19–20 or 2 Timothy 4:14, but it is difficult to prove because the name Alexander was common among both Gentiles and Jews (cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.226). To the idolatrous mob, however, Jews were as insufferable as Christians on the point at issue, because both worshiped an invisible deity and rejected all idols. So Alexander was shouted down with the chant, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” (v.34). And this shouting kept on for about two hours.

35–37 The “city clerk” (ho grammateus, GK 1208) of Ephesus was the scribe of “the assembly” and its chief executive officer. He came to his position from within the assembly and was not appointed by Rome. As the most important native official of the city, he was held responsible for disturbances within it. He argued with the crowd that a riot would hardly enhance the prestige of the city in the eyes of Rome, and therefore any complaint raised by Demetrius and his guild of silversmiths should be brought before the legally constituted authorities. Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s two companions who stood before them, were, he pointed out, neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of other gods—which were the common accusations made by Gentiles against Jews generally (including Jewish Christians) in antiquity (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.207; Ag. Ap. 2.237).

38–40 “The courts [agoraioi, GK 61] are open and there are proconsuls [anthypatoi, GK 478],” the clerk insisted. “Courts” and “proconsuls” are probably generic references and should not be taken to mean that Ephesus had two agora courts (see comments at 18:12) or two provincial proconsuls—as some argue occurred in late AD 54 when two assassins of the proconsul Junius Silanus usurped power in Asia (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 13.1). The clerk continued by saying that anything further that could not be brought before the courts and the proconsuls could be presented “in the regular assembly” (en tē ennomō ekklēsia [GK 1711]; NIV, “in a legal assembly”; NASB, “in the lawful assembly”), which according to Chrysostom (Hom. Acts 42:2) met three times a month. Otherwise, the clerk concluded, the city risked being called to account by Rome and losing its favorable status because of a riot for which there was no reason (v.40).

41 So the city clerk dismissed the crowd. His arguments are highlighted by Luke in the previous six verses because they are important elements in the author’s apologetic motif in Acts. And it is these kinds of arguments that Luke will emphasize further in reporting Paul’s five speeches in his own defense in chs. 22–26.

NOTES

24 Codex Vaticanus (B) omits ἀργυροῦς (argyrous, “silver”) and simply reads “shrines of Artemis.”

25 The Western text (D, and as possibly reflected in the Syriac Harclean version) expands the vocative ἄνδρες (andres, “men”) to ἄνδρες συντεχνῖται (andres syntechnitai, “men, fellow craftsmen”).

26 Codex Bezae (D) inserts ἕως (heōs, “as far as”) before “Ephesus.” D also adds τίς τοτε (tis tote, “whoever he may be”) after ὁ Παῦλος οὗτος (ho Paulos houtos, “this [fellow] Paul”), thereby heightening the pejorative nature of the clerk’s identification.

29 Probably the final sigma of Μακεδόνας (Makedonas, “Macedonia”) came about because of a scribal dittography with the following word συνεκδήμους (synekdēmous, “traveling companions”).

32 On the use of the connective μὲν οὖν (men oun, “so,” “then”) in Acts, see comments at 1:6 (also at v.38).

32, 39–40 The term ἡ ἐκκλησία (hē ekklēsia, “the assembly,” GK 1711) is used in these verses in its purely secular sense of a duly summoned gathering of people. Its use here is more specific than σύλλογος (syllogos, “a gathering”), being synonymous with ὁ δῆμος (ho dēmos, “the assembly”; NIV, “the people”) of v.33 (cf. 12:22). Elsewhere in Acts the word is used in its distinctive biblical sense of “the people of God” or “the church”—both universally and locally (e.g., 5:11; 7:38; 8:1, 3; 9:31; 11:22, 26; 12:1, 5; 14:23, 27; 15:3–4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; 20:17, 28).

33 Codex Bezae (D) reads κατεβίβασαν (katebibasan, “they pulled [him] down”) rather than συνεβίβσαν (synebibsan, “they instructed [him]”; NIV, “shouted instructions”; NRSV, “gave instructions”), so depicting the crowd as pulling Alexander, the Jewish spokesman, down from the podium.

35 On the address ἄνδρες ᾿Εφέσιοι (andres Ephesioi, “men, Ephesians”; NIV, “men of Ephesus”), cf. 1:16; 2:14, 22; 17:22.

37 The Byzantine text (L P and most minuscules) and a number of Western texts (E and many minuscules, though not D), followed by the TR and so incorporated into the KJV, have the pronoun ὑμῶν (hymōn, “your,” so reading “your goddess”), which Byzantine and Western scribes evidently thought suited better the second person plural ἡγάγετε (hēgagete, “you have brought”), rather than ἡμῶν (hēmōn, “our,” so reading “our goddess”) of the Alexandrian text (P74 א A B etc.) and Codex Bezae (D).

40 The negative οὐ (ou, “not”) is omitted in Bodmer P74, codices D and E, a number of minuscules, and various recensions of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Coptic versions. It is, however, included in the major Alexandrian uncials (א A B Ψ etc.) and the major Byzantine uncials (L P), other minuscules, and other recensions of the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic versions. Conjectures are numerous regarding its inclusion or omission, but probably its inclusion in the major Alexandrian texts calls for its acceptance.

2. Return Visit to Macedonia and Achaia (20:1–6)

OVERVIEW

The report of Paul’s return visit to Macedonia and Achaia is the briefest account of an extended ministry in all of Acts—even more so than the summary of the ministry at Ephesus in 19:8–12. Nonetheless, it can be supplemented to some extent by various personal references and historical allusions in 2 Corinthians and Romans, which are letters of Paul written during this time.

1When the uproar had ended, Paul sent for the disciples and, after encouraging them, said good-by and set out for Macedonia. 2He traveled through that area, speaking many words of encouragement to the people, and finally arrived in Greece, 3where he stayed three months. Because the Jews made a plot against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided to go back through Macedonia. 4He was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy also, and Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia. 5These men went on ahead and waited for us at Troas. 6But we sailed from Philippi after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days.

COMMENTARY

1 Leaving Ephesus, Paul moved north to Troas, probably following the Roman coastal road that connected Ephesus with the Hellespont or perhaps going by ship. At Troas he hoped to find Titus, whom he had earlier sent to Corinth to deal with and report on the situation in the church there. Not finding him and being disturbed about conditions at Corinth, he went on to Macedonia without any further preaching in either Troas itself or the surrounding region (cf. 2Co 2:12–13). As at Athens and Corinth when his concern for believers at Thessalonica prevented him from giving full attention to an evangelistic outreach (see Overview at 18:1–17), so at Troas Paul seems to have been consumed with concern about the believers at Corinth and unable to launch out into any new missionary venture.

2 In Macedonia (probably at Philippi) Paul met Titus, who brought him reassuring news about the church at Corinth (cf. 2Co 7:5–16). In response to the triumphs and continuing problems that Titus told him about, Paul sent back to the church the letter known as 2 Corinthians. Many have proposed that 2 Corinthians 10–13, the so-called “Severe Letter,” preceded the writing of 2 Corinthians 1–9 (with or without 6:14–7:1), the so-called “Conciliatory Letter.” That is possible, though there is nothing to require it.

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 northwestern corner of the Balkan peninsula (cf. Ro 15:19; see also 2Ti 4:10, where Titus is mentioned as returning to Dalmatia, the southern district of the province of Illyricum). Perhaps Paul himself traveled across the Balkan peninsula on the Via Egnatia to the city of Dyrrhachium, from which the southern district of Illyricum (i.e., Dalmatia) would have been readily accessible. Or perhaps one or more of his traveling companions (e.g., Titus) were the missionaries to this area. But however we visualize the movements of Paul and his colleagues during this time, we are doubtless not far wrong in concluding that this ministry in Macedonia lasted for a year or more, probably from the summer of AD 56 through the latter part of AD 57.

One activity that especially concerned Paul at this time was collecting money for the relief of impoverished believers at Jerusalem. He instructed the churches in Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia about this (cf. Ro 15:25–32; 1Co 16:1–4; 2Co 8:1–9:15). The collection was an act of love—like that undertaken earlier by the church at Syrian Antioch (cf. 11:27–30). More than that, Paul viewed it as a symbol of unity that would (1) help his Gentile converts realize their debt to the mother church at Jerusalem and (2) give Jewish believers an appreciation of the vitality of the Christian faith in the Gentile churches.

3 After spending some time in Macedonia, Paul went to Corinth, where he stayed for three months, probably during the winter of AD 57–58. While there, and before his final trip to Jerusalem, Paul wrote his letter to the church at Rome (cf. Ro 15:17–33). The Greek world in the eastern part of the empire had been evangelized (cf. Ro 15:19, 23)—the flame had been kindled; the fire was spreading—and he desired to transfer his ministry to the Latin world, as far west as Spain (cf. Ro 15:24). He wanted to use the Roman church as his base of operations, much as he had previously used the church at Antioch in Syria. Earlier he had hoped to go directly to Rome from Macedonia. When that proved impossible, he then wanted to go to Rome from Achaia. But now it became necessary for him to go to Jerusalem if the collection from the Gentile Christians was to have the meaning that he earnestly desired it to have (cf. Ro 15:25–32). So in place of a visit at this time and in preparation for his future coming to them—and in order to set before believers there the nature of what he was proclaiming to Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world (cf. Ro 1:11)—Paul sent a letter of introduction and exposition to Christians at Rome.

The letter to the Romans is the longest and most systematic of Paul’s writings and more a comprehensive exposition of the gospel than a letter as such. Some have suggested that the body of the letter was composed earlier in Paul’s ministry and circulated among his Gentile churches as a kind of missionary tractate that presented a résumé of his message and, when directed to Rome, was supplemented by an epistolary introduction (Ro 1:1–12; 1–15; or 1–17) and the personal elements of chs. 15 and 16 (esp. 15:14–16:23, with the doxology of 16:25–27 being part of the original tractate). Or the four major sections of Romans that appear in 1:16–15:13 may be understood as Paul’s “message of exhortation” (paralleling an ancient form of rhetoric called a logos protreptikos) set within an epistolary framework. Either view would do much to explain the uncertainties within the early church regarding the relation of the final two chapters to the rest of the writing, the absence of “in Rome” at 1:7 and 15 in some minor MSS, and the presence of two doxologies at 15:33 and 16:25–27.

At the end of a three-month ministry in Corinth, Paul sought to sail for Palestine-Syria with the intent of reaching Jerusalem in time for the great pilgrim festival of Passover (held in conjunction with the Feast of Unleavened Bread) and the expectation of taking passage on a Jewish pilgrim ship. But a plot to kill him at sea was uncovered, and he decided instead to travel overland through Macedonia. Attacks by robbers were endemic on the ancient roads, and inns were not always safe. With Paul carrying a substantial amount of money collected from the Gentile churches, he undoubtedly wanted to get to Jerusalem as quickly and safely as possible. Nevertheless, he felt it best to spend extra time on the longer land route, preferring its possible dangers to the known perils of the sea voyage. So he began to retrace his steps through Macedonia.

4 Gathered at Corinth for the return journey to Jerusalem with Paul were representatives from his Gentile churches: Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy of Lystra, and Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia. With the change in travel plans, they accompanied him (together with Silas and perhaps others) into Macedonia. Almost all the main centers of the Gentile mission were represented, with the notable exception of the Corinthian church. Perhaps Paul himself had been delegated by the Corinthians to represent them. On the other hand, the lack of mention of Corinth may suggest continuing strained relations within the church there. Luke, who appears to have joined the group at Philippi (cf. v.5), may have done so to represent Philippi.

5–6 Having been unable to get to Jerusalem for Passover, Paul remained at Philippi to celebrate the festival and the weeklong Feast of Unleavened Bread (for the conjunction of the two festivals in the first century, see Josephus, Ant. 14.21; J.W. 6.421–27). He sent his Gentile companions to Troas and stayed on at Philippi, apparently with Silas and Timothy. Then after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the missionary party—accompanied by Luke (note the “we” section of vv.5–15; cf. also 16:10–17; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16)—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 (cf. 16:11).

NOTES

2Ελλάδα (Hellada, “Greece”) is the popular title for the Roman province of Achaia (cf. 18:12). Luke prefers the popular territorial names; Paul prefers the official Roman provincial names (cf. Ro 15:26; 1Co 16:15; 2Co 1:1; 9:2).

3 On Συρία (Syria, “Syria”) as a broad designation for “Palestine-Syria,” see 18:18.

The Western text (D, and as represented by the Syriac Harclean version and Ephraem of Syria in his Acts commentary) recasts the last part of this verse to read εἶπεν δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῷ ὑποστρέφειν (eipen de to pneuma autō hypostrephein, “but the Spirit told him to return”) before διὰ Μακεδονίας (dia Makedonias, “through Macedonia”).

4 The Byzantine text (A E L P and most minuscules) reads συνείπετο δὲ αὐτῷ ἄχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας (syneipeto de autō achri tēs Asias, “they accompanied him as far as Asia”), whereas the Western text (D, and as represented by a recension of the Old Latin) reads μέλλοντος οὖν ἐξιέναι αὐτοῦ μέχρι τῆς Ασίας (mellontos oun exienai autou mechri tēs Asias, “when he was about to go, they accompanied him to Asia”). The shorter Alexandrian text (P74 א B etc.) reads simply συνείπετο δὲ αὐτῷ (syneipeto de autō, “they accompanied him”), which is to be preferred.

The Byzantine text (L P and as reflected in the Syriac Peshitta and Harclean versions and by Chrysostom) omits Πύρρου (Pyrrou, “son of Pyrrhus”).

The Western text (D, and as represented by recensions of the Old Latin) calls Gaius Δουβήριος (Doubērios, “a Doberian”), thereby identifying him as a native of Doberus in Macedonia, located twenty-six miles from Philippi, evidently in agreement with the plural genitive Μακεδόνας (Makedonas, “Macedonia”) of 19:29, which probably resulted from dittography (see note there).

Codex Bezae (D) explicitly calls Tychicus and Trophimus ᾿Εφέσιοι (Ephesioi, “Ephesians”), not ᾿Ασιανοί (Asianoi, “Asians”). This change may suggest, as has been proposed, that the scribe of D came from or was closely associated with Ephesus. It also has Εὔτυχος (Eutychos, “Eutychus”), not Τυχικός (Tychikos, “Tychicus”), probably by confusion with v.9.

5 Codices א E P etc. read οὗτοι δὲ προσελθόντες (houtoi de proselthontes, “these men had come,” GK 4047, 4665), whereas P74 B D et al. read οὗτοι δὲ προελθόντες (houtoi de proelthontes, “these men went on ahead”). The external textual evidence is about evenly divided, though with slightly more weight to be given to the latter. And the latter fits the context better (so NIV, NASB).

3. The Raising of Eutychus at Troas (20:7–12)

OVERVIEW

From 20:5 through to 28:31 (the end of Acts), as noted earlier in introducing panel 6, Luke’s narrative gives considerable attention to ports of call, stopovers, and time spent on Paul’s travels. And it includes a number of revealing anecdotes and detailed accounts of events. It contains, in fact, the kind of detail found in a travel journal. And the use of “we” in 20:5–15; 21:1–18; and 28:16 suggests its eyewitness character.

7On 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. 8There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9Seated 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. 10Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” 11Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.

COMMENTARY

7 Though Paul himself had not undertaken a mission at Troas (cf. 2Co 2:12–13), the gospel radiated out from many centers of influence in the Roman provinces of Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia, and so penetrated the entire Gentile world of the eastern part of the empire. Thus at Troas, Paul and his colleagues found a group of believers and met with them “to break bread” and to give instruction regarding the Christian life. The mention of their meeting “on the first day of the week” (en tē mia tōn sabbatōn) is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for believers in Jesus gathering together for worship on that day (cf. Jn 20:19, 26; 1Co 16:2; Rev 1:10). The Christians met in the evening, which because of the necessity of working during the day was probably the most convenient time. They met, Luke tells us, “to break bread” (klasai arton, GK 3089, 788), which, especially after Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 and 11:17–34, must surely mean “to celebrate the Lord’s Supper” (see comments at 2:42). At this time Paul “spoke to” (dielegeto, lit., “reasoned” or “discussed with”; NASB, “began talking to”) the believers and continued doing so until midnight.

8–9 “As Paul talked on and on” (dialegomenou tou Paulou, lit., “during the course of the discussion by Paul,” v.9), a young man named Eutychus, who was seated on a windowsill of the third-story room where the people were meeting, went to sleep and fell to his death. Just why he was seated there and why he went to sleep we are not told. He may simply have been bored by Paul’s long discussion. Luke’s reference to “many lamps” or “torches” (lampades hikanai, v.8) in that upstairs room may be taken to suggest that a lack of oxygen and the hypnotic effect of flickering flames may have caused Eutychus’s drowsiness—thereby perhaps clearing Luke’s hero Paul of any blame. Whatever its cause, Eutychus’s fall from that third-story windowsill brought the meeting to a sudden and shocking halt. The people dashed down and found him dead.

10–11 Paul also ran down, and in an action reminiscent of Elijah’s and Elisha’s actions (cf. 1Ki 17:21; 2Ki 4:34–35), he “threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him” and declared to the troubled group, “Don’t be alarmed! He’s alive!” Indeed, Eutychus was restored to life. Then everyone returned to the third-story room, where they had a midnight snack—here certainly the compound “broke bread and ate” (klasas ton arton kai geusamenos) signifying an ordinary meal, not the Lord’s Supper—and Paul continued to talk till dawn.

12 There is no hint that Paul took Eutychus’s fall 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! For Paul had taught them, they had fellowship in the Lord’s Supper, and they had witnessed a dramatic sign of God’s presence and power. No wonder Luke says they “were greatly comforted” (pareklēthēsan ou metriōs, lit., “were comforted not a little”).

NOTES

7 On Luke’s emphasis on persuasion in Paul’s preaching—here by the use of the verb διαλέγομαι (dialegomai, “to reason” or “discuss”) and in v.9 by the adverbial participle διαλεγόμενος (dialegomenos)—see comments at 17:2–3.

8 Codex Bezae (D) reads ὑπολαμπάδες (hypolampades, “small windows” or “lookout holes”) instead of λαμπάδες (lampades, “lamps” or “torches,” GK 3286), though the Latin translation in that bilingual codex has faculae (“little torches”).

12 Codex Bezae (D) reads ἀσπαζομένων αὐτῶν ἤγαγεν τὸν νεανίσκον ζῶντα (aspazomenōn autōn ēgagen ton neaniskon zōnta, “as they were saying farewell, he [Paul] brought the young man [to the people] alive”) rather than the better-supported reading ἤγαγον δὲ τὸν παῖδα ζῶντα (ēgagon de ton paida zōnta, “they [the people] brought the boy [home] alive”).

4. From Troas to Miletus (20:13–16)

13We 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. 14When he met us at Assos, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene. 15The 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. 16Paul 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.

COMMENTARY

13 Leaving Troas, Paul’s companions took passage on a coastal vessel that was to stop at various ports along the western coast of Asia Minor. Paul waited a while longer at Troas. Then while the boat went around Cape Lectum, he took the direct route to Assos on the Roman coastal road and got there in time to join his colleagues on board. He may have wanted to wait at Troas in order to make sure that Eutychus was all right. Or he may have wanted to avoid the northeastern winds that blew around Cape Lectum. Or perhaps he just wanted to be alone with God on the walk to Assos.

14 Assos (modern Bahram Koi) was twenty miles south of Troas on the Gulf of Adramyttium. It was on the Roman coastal road and faced south toward the island of Lesbos. The boat sailed on to Mitylene, a splendid port on the southeastern coast of Lesbos and the chief city of this largest of the islands of western Asia Minor.

15 From there the contingent sailed to Kios, the major city of the island of Kios and an early free port—at least until Vespasian suspended its rights and brought it under Roman authority. Then they “passed through” (parebalomen; NIV, “we crossed over,” GK 4125) the channel separating Kios from the mainland of Asia Minor to come to Samos, an island directly west of Ephesus. So the boat arrived at Miletus, the ancient port at the mouth of the Meander River, some thirty miles south of Ephesus (see comments at 19:1).

16 Because of the extra time involved in his circuitous route of travel, Paul had to miss Passover at Jerusalem (see comments at vv.3, 5–6). But if at all possible he wanted at least to get to Jerusalem for Pentecost, on the fiftieth day after Passover (see comments at 2:1). This was the second of the great pilgrim festivals of Judaism. (The Festival of Sukkoth or Tabernacles, some four months after Pentecost, was the third.) Paul had previously decided not to take a boat that would stop at Ephesus, for he evidently preferred to forgo the emotional strain of another parting with the Ephesian church—possibly also to avoid some local danger. Furthermore, (1) the Aegean crossing had taken five days, (2) Paul and his companions had remained at Troas seven days, (3) the trip along the western coast of Asia Minor would take at least another ten days, and (4) they had yet to sail across the Mediterranean and then travel by land from Caesarea up to Jerusalem. So Paul was content to sail past Ephesus.

NOTES

13 The Old Syriac text, which is preserved in an Armenian translation of Ephraem of Syria’s commentary on Acts, seems to reflect a Greek reading, ἐγὼ δὲ Λουκᾶς καὶ οἱ μετἐμοῦ (egō de Loukas kai hoi met’ emou, “and I, Luke, and those with me”), instead of the better-supported ἡμεῖς (hēmeis, “we”). Evidently this reading stems from a Western text.

A E P (and a corrected B) read προσελθόντες ἐπὶ τὸ πλοῖον (proselthontes epi to ploion, “when [we] had come to the ship”), and D reads κατελθόντες ἐπὶ τὸ πλοῖον (katelthontes epi to ploion, “when [we] went down to the ship”). But the Alexandrian text (P74 א uncorrected B C etc.), which has προελθόντες ἐπὶ τὸ πλοῖον (proelthontes epi to ploion, “[we] went on ahead to the ship”), is better attested and fits the context better (cf. v.5).

Some Byzantine texts (L P, a number of minuscules, and certain recensions of the Syriac and Coptic versions), together with P41 (eighth century), read Θάσον (Thason, “Thasos”) for the earlier and better-supported ῏Ασσον (Asson, “Assos”). Thasos, an island east of Amphipolis, is a geographically impossible reading. It is a puzzle how it found its way into these texts here.

15 Codex Vaticanus (B) reads τῇ ἑσπέρᾳ (tē hespera, “in the evening”) for τῇ ἑτέρᾳ (tē hetera, “on the following [day]”), which is probably a scribal error.

Several Western and Byzantine texts add καὶ μείναντες ἐν Τρωγυλλίᾳ [–ῖῳ] (kai meinantes en Trōgyllia [–iō], “and having remained at Trogyllia” or “Trogyllium”) after Σάμον (Samon, “Samos”).

5. Farewell Address to the Ephesian Elders (20:17–38)

OVERVIEW

Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian elders is the closest approximation to a Pauline letter in Acts. Its general content recalls how in his letters Paul encouraged, warned, and exhorted his converts. Moreover, its theological themes and vocabulary are distinctly Pauline. In his three missionary sermons (13:16–41; 14:15–17; 17:22–31) and five defenses (chs. 22–26) Paul addressed non-Christian audiences. But here he is depicted as speaking in a pastoral manner to his own converts. It is significant that, in a situation similar to many of those faced in his letters, this farewell to the Ephesian elders reads like a miniature Pauline letter. This becomes all the more significant when we recall that nowhere else in Acts is there any evidence of a close knowledge of Paul’s letters on the part of Luke.

The address is constructed in a way familiar to all readers of Paul’s letters. The body of the letter has three parts, which deal with (1) Paul’s past ministry at Ephesus (vv.18–21), (2) Paul’s present plans in going to Jerusalem (vv.22–24), and (3) the future of Paul himself and of the church at Ephesus (vv.25–31). It concludes with a blessing (v.32) and then adds further words of exhortation that point the hearers to Paul’s example and the teachings of Jesus (vv.33–35). Heading each section is an introductory formula, “you know” (hymeis epistasthe) at v.18; “and now, behold” (kai nyn idou; NASB) at v.22; “and now, behold, I know” (kai nyn idou egō oida; NASB) at v.25; and “and now” (kai ta nyn; NASB) at v.32.

17From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. 18When they arrived, he said to them: “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. 19I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. 20You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

22“And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

25“Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. 26Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

32“Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. 34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. 35In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

36When he had said this, he knelt down with all of them and prayed. 37They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. 38What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship.

COMMENTARY

17 At Miletus the coastal boat docked for a number of days to load and unload cargo. So Paul took the opportunity to send for the elders of the Ephesian church to join him at Miletus. The road back to Ephesus around the gulf was considerably longer than the thirty miles directly between Ephesus and Miletus. It would have taken some time to engage a messenger and summon the elders, who could hardly have made the return trip as quickly as a single runner. Probably, therefore, we should think of the elders as arriving at Miletus, at the earliest, on the third day of Paul’s stay there.

18–21 Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders begins with an apologia closely paralleling that of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12. As at Thessalonica, Paul’s Ephesian opponents seem to have been prejudicing his converts against him during his absence, and so he found it necessary to defend his conduct and teaching by appealing to his hearers’ knowledge of him. The opponents at Ephesus, like those at Thessalonica, seem to have been chiefly Jewish (v.19) and to have been asserting that full acceptance by God could only come about by means of a faithful observance of the traditional forms of Judaism. Therefore Paul declares, “I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you” (v.20). His preaching to both Jews and Gentiles focused on “repentance toward God” (tēn eis theon metanoian [GK 3567]; NIV, “that they must turn to God”) and “faith in the Lord Jesus” (pistin [GK 4411] eis ton kyrion hēmōn Iēsoun; NIV, “faith in our Lord Jesus” [NASB adds “Christ” at the end of this phrase], v.21)—a content that is wholly sufficient for salvation (cf. Ro 10:9–10; 2Co 5:20–6:2; also Ac 26:20–23).

22–24 The second section of Paul’s address concerns his plans to go to Jerusalem. Many have claimed a discrepancy between his being “compelled by the Spirit” to go to Jerusalem in 20:22–24 and his being warned by the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem in 21:4, 10–14. Furthermore, some have questioned Luke’s account here in light of their understanding of the situations at Tyre and Caesarea. But Luke opened panel 6 of Acts with the statement that Paul’s decision to go to Jerusalem was “by the Spirit” (see comments at 19:21), and nothing here is incompatible with that programmatic statement. Both compulsion and warning were evidently involved in the Spirit’s direction, with both being impressed on Paul by the Spirit at various times as he journeyed—probably through Christian prophets he met along the way. So he considered it necessary to complete his ministry of testifying to the grace of God throughout the eastern part of the empire by taking to believers at Jerusalem the money sent by Gentile believers in Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia—a contribution he viewed as a tangible symbol of the faith of these Gentiles and of the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.

25–27 In the third section of his address, Paul begins by speaking of his own future expectations after visiting Jerusalem. He tells the Ephesian elders that (1) neither they nor any of those he has ministered to in the eastern part of the empire would ever see him again, and (2) he felt free from any further responsibility in the East because he had done all that he could in proclaiming “the whole will of God” (v.27). Adolf Harnack, who accepted the hypothesis of two Roman imprisonments, concluded from 2 Timothy 4 that Paul did in fact return later to Asia after being released from imprisonment at Rome and that, therefore, for Luke to record the premonition expressed in v.25, which was falsified by later events, meant that he wrote before Paul’s release and further ministry (cf. his Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 103). On the other hand, Martin Dibelius, who denied such an early date for Acts, used this passage to dismiss a two-imprisonment theory, for as Haenchen (who was probably Dibelius’s closest disciple), 592, argued, “Anyone who writes thus knows nothing of Paul’s deliverance and return to the East, but rather of his death in Rome.”

In accord with my own acceptance of an early date for the writing of Acts (see Introduction, pp. 699–701) and my belief that two Roman imprisonments can be inferred from the data, I judge Harnack’s opinion in this matter to be closer to the truth. Romans 15:23–29 clearly indicates that at this time Paul intended to leave his ministry in the East and after visiting Jerusalem to move on to evangelize in the western part of the empire with Rome as his base. But it is not impossible that later his plans changed—as they did at various times throughout his eastern campaign—and that Luke wrote at a time when the remembrance of Paul’s purpose not to return to the East was still fresh and his modification of it still in the future.

28–31 The third section of Paul’s address continues with an exhortation to the Ephesian elders in the light of what Paul sees as soon taking place in the church. He warns regarding persecution from outside and apostasy within (vv.29–30; cf. 1Ti 1:19–20; 4:1–5; 2Ti 1:15; 2:17–18; 3:1–9, which tell of a later widespread revolt against Paul’s teaching in Asia, and Rev 2:1–7, which speaks of the Ephesian church as having abandoned its first love). So he gives the elders the solemn exhortation of v.28: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”

Theologically, much in Luke’s précis of Paul’s address reflects Paul’s thought and expression at this stage in his life, as these are revealed in the letters he wrote at Ephesus (i.e., 1 Corinthians), in Macedonia (i.e., 2 Corinthians), and at Corinth (i.e., Romans), all of which were composed shortly before this time. Paul’s use of the word for “church” (ekklēsia, GK 1711), for example, is an interesting case in point. For while in the salutations of his Galatian and Thessalonian letters he used ekklēsia in a local sense (cf. Gal 1:2, “to the churches in Galatia”; 1Th 1:1 and 2Th 1:1, “to the church of the Thessalonians”), in addressing his converts at Corinth he used the word in a more universal way: “to the church of God in Corinth” (1Co 1:2; 2Co 1:1). And thereafter in his writings ekklēsia or “church” appears always in a universal sense (cf. esp. Ephesians and Colossians). Likewise, his easy association of “God” with the one who obtained the church for himself “with his own blood”—i.e., Jesus—corresponds closely in expression to the doxology of Romans 9:5, which speaks of “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” In addition, reference to the blood of Jesus (hē haima tou idiou, “his own blood,” GK 135) as being instrumental in humanity’s redemption appears first in Paul’s writings at Romans 3:25 and 5:9 (and thereafter in Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20).

32 Paul concludes his address with a blessing committing them “to God and to the word of his grace.” Though Paul must leave them, God was with them and so was his word—the word of grace that was able to build them up, give them an inheritance, and sanctify them. Again, the expressions used in Luke’s précis of Paul’s blessing comprise a catena of Pauline terms: “grace” (which appears in almost all of his salutations and benedictions, as well as being at the heart of his expositions); “build up” (cf. 1Co 8:1; 10:23; 14:4, 17; 1Th 5:11); “inheritance” (cf. Ro 8:17; Gal 3:18; Eph 1:14; 5:5; Col 3:24); and “sanctified” (cf. Ro 15:16; 1Co 1:2; 6:11; 7:14; Eph 5:26; 1Th 5:23).

33–35 Following his blessing, Paul adds—as he does in his own letters—a few further words of exhortation, which urge the elders of the church to care for the needs of God’s people without thought of material reward. He asks them to follow his example (cf. Php 3:17) and calls on them to remember the words of Jesus applicable here: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (v.35). Paul often related his ethical exhortations to the teachings of Jesus (cf. Ro 12–14; 1Th 4:1–12), as well as to the personal example of Jesus (cf. Php 2:5–11), and he does so here. These express words, of course, do not explicitly appear in any of the canonical gospels. But they can be approximately paralleled by Luke 6:38, and the spirit they express certainly permeates the portrayals of Jesus in all four gospels. While some believe the words themselves to have come through a post-ascension revelatory oracle by a Christian prophet that was attributed to Jesus, it is probably truer to ascribe them to an original Logia or “Sayings” collection of Jesus’ teachings (so-called “Q”) that circulated within the early Christian communities, whether in written or oral form.

36–38 When Paul had finished speaking he knelt down with the Ephesian elders and prayed with them. On the basis of the parallels between this farewell address and Paul’s own letters, the substance of what he prayed for can be found in such places as Ephesians 1:15–23; Philippians 1:3–11; Colossians 1:3–14; and 1 Thessalonians 1:2–3; 3:11–13; 5:23–24. Then after a deeply moving, affectionate, and sorrowful farewell with tears on both sides, Paul and his traveling companions boarded the ship.

NOTES

18 Codex Bezae (D) has a number of characteristic additions in this verse: (1) it adds ὁμόσε ὄντων αὐτῶν (homose ontōn autōn, “while they were together”) after ὡς δὲ παρεγένοντο (hōs de paregenonto, “when they [the Ephesian elders] arrived”), which is decidedly superfluous; (2) it inserts ἀδελφοί (adelphoi, “brothers”) after ἐπίστασθε (epistasthe, “you know”), which is understandable but unnecessary; and (3) it reads ὡς τριετίαν ἢ καὶ πλεῖον ποταπῶς μεθὑμῶν ἦν παντὸς χρόνου (hōs trietian ē kai pleion potapōs meth’ hymōn ēn pantos chronou, “for about three years or even more”) after ᾿Ασίαν (Asian, “Asia”), which is probably derived from v.31.

21 The Alexandrian text (P74 א A B C E Ψ) and Byzantine text (L P and most minuscules) read εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν (eis ton kyrion hēmōn Iēsoun Christon, “in our Lord Jesus Christ”), though B Ψ L and some recensions of the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions omit Χριστόν (Christon, “Christ”). There is, however, as Metzger, 424, comments, “no good reason why Χριστόν [Christon] should have been omitted if it were present originally, whereas scribal expansion of the names of the Lord is of frequent occurrence.” The Western text (D, and as represented in a recension of the Old Latin) has the preposition διά (dia, “through”) rather than εἰς (eis, “in”).

24 The Alexandrian text (P74 א B C etc.) reads ἀλλοὐδενὸς λόγου ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ (all’ oudenos logou poioumai tēn psychēn timian emautō, “but I consider my life worth nothing to me”), which is a somewhat awkward Greek construction. Codex Bezae (D) rephrases and expands that better-supported reading as follows: ἀλλοὐδενὸς λόγον ἔχω μοι οὐδὲ ποιοῦμαι τὴν ψυχὴν μου τιμίαν ἐμαυτοῦ (all’ oudenos logon echō moi oude poioumai tēn psychēn mou timian emautou, “but I take no account regarding myself, nor do I value my life as being precious to me”). The Byzantine text (E H L P and most minuscules) has the same expansion as the Western text but reverses the verbs ἔχω (echō) and ποιοῦμαι (poioumai).

The Byzantine text (E H L P and most minuscules) adds μετὰ χαρᾶς (meta charas, “with joy”) after τὸν δρόμον μου (ton dromon mou, “my race”; NIV, “the race”; NASB, “my course”); so also the TR, which was picked up by the KJV.

Codex Bezae (D) adds τοῦ λόγου (tou logou, “of the word”) after τὴν διακονίαν (tēn diakonian, “the ministry”; NIV, “the task”). It also adds ᾿Ιουδαίοις καὶ ῞Ελλησιν (Ioudaiois kai Hellēsin, “to Jews and Greeks”) after διαμαρτύρασθαι (diamartyrasthai, “to testify”; NIV, “testifying”), evidently attempting to parallel v.21.

25 The Western text (D, and as reflected in recensions of the Old Latin and Coptic versions) adds τοῦ [κυρίου] ᾿Ιησοῦ (tou [kyriou] Iēsou, “of [the Lord] Jesus”) after τὴν βασιλείαν (tēn basileian, “the kingdom”), while the Byzantine text (E H L P and most minuscules) add τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou, “of God”), as does the TR and thus the KJV. The text without either of these additions is well supported by the Alexandrian text (P74 א A B C etc.).

28 Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B), together with a number of minuscules and many church fathers, read τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ (tēn ekklēsian tou theou, “the church of God”), whereas P74 A C E Ψ, together with a number of other minuscules and many other church fathers, read τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου (tēn ekklēsian tou kyriou, “the church of the Lord”). The external textual evidence seems almost evenly balanced, though because of the combined testimony of the major Alexandrian uncial MSS א and B it is probably best to read “the church of God.”

On the early use of the christological title “God” in Romans 9:5, see my Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 138–39.

32 The reading τῷ θεῷ (tō theō, “to God”) is well supported by P74 א A C D E Ψ L P, most minuscules, and most versions, though Codex Vaticanus (B), supported by some minuscules and some Old Latin and Coptic versions, reads τῷ κυρίῳ (tō kyriō, “to the Lord”).

Several Western texts (though D is here corrupt) add at the end of this verse the doxology, “To him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

6. On to Jerusalem (21:1–16)

OVERVIEW

The narrative of Paul’s journey to Jerusalem is of particular literary and historical interest because it comprises most of the third of Luke’s four “we” sections (21:1–18; cf. 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 27:1–28:16). The material in this section seems to be based on a travel journal of one of Paul’s companions (see Introduction, pp. 684), for it includes numerous details about the trip and various anecdotes. The section is also significant theologically because Luke appears to be describing Paul’s trip to Jerusalem in terms of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem to die. Luke knows, of course, that Paul did not die at Jerusalem. Yet he seems to sketch out Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in terms that roughly parallel Jesus’ journey: (1) a similar plot by the Jews; (2) a handing over to the Gentiles (cf. v.11); (3) a triple prediction of coming suffering (cf. 20:22–24; 21:4, 10–11; see also Lk 9:22, 44; 18:31–34); (4) a steadfast resolution (cf. v.13); and (5) a resignation to God’s will (cf. v.14). As Luke has reserved for Paul the mission to the Gentiles, which Jesus saw as inherent in the Servant theology of Isaiah 61 (cf. Lk 4:16–21; see Overview, pp. 907–8), so he describes Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in terms reminiscent of the Suffering Servant.

1After 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. 2We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went on board and set sail. 3After 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. 4Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. 5But 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. 6After saying good-by to each other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home.

7We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed with them for a day. 8Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

10After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11Coming 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.’”

12When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. 13Then 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.” 14When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”

15After this, we got ready and went up to Jerusalem. 16Some 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.

COMMENTARY

1–2 “After we had torn ourselves away” (the passive participle apospasthentas, GK 685, offering the suggestion of emotional violence in the parting), Luke says that “we”—i.e., Paul and his associates—continued by boat to Cos. Cos was a small island of the Dodecanese group of islands and a free state within the province of Asia in NT times. The next day, they sailed to Rhodes, the capital of the large Dodecanese island of Rhodes just twelve miles off the mainland of Asia Minor. In the Greek period, Rhodes had been a rich and powerful city-state. In Paul’s day, however, it was little more than a beautiful port with an aura of past glory, which still lingers on in the Rhodes of today. The next stop was Patara, a Lycian city on the southwestern coast of Asia Minor. Patara was a fairly large commercial city with a fine harbor. It served as a favorite port of call for large ships traveling between the eastern Mediterranean ports in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt and the Aegean ports in Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia. There Paul and his associates boarded a large merchant ship bound nonstop for Tyre, the famous Phoenician seaport of Syria, for they desired to travel quickly (v.2).

3 Sailing the 400 miles from Patara to Tyre, they passed by Cyprus to the south. John Chrysostom (Hom. Acts 45.2) of Syrian Antioch said that the voyage took five days, which is as intelligent an approximation as any.

4 A church had been established at Tyre through the witness of the Christian Hellenists, or hellenized Jewish believers in Jesus (see comments and note at 6:1), who were forced to leave Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom (cf. 11:19). Paul had fellowship with the Christians at Tyre while the ship was unloading. Their attempt to dissuade him “through the Spirit” (dia tou pneumatos) from going on to Jerusalem may mean that the Spirit was ordering Paul not to continue on with his plans. In that case, his determination to proceed was in disobedience to the Holy Spirit. Or it may be, as Kirsopp Lake proposed, that Paul doubted the inspiration of these Tyrian believers (Beginnings of Christianity [ed. Foakes-Jackson and Lake], 4.266). In all likelihood, however, it is probably best to understand the Greek preposition dia (“through”) as meaning that it was the Spirit’s message that was the occasion for the Christians’ concern rather than that their trying to dissuade Paul was directly inspired by the Spirit. So in line with 19:21 and 20:22–24, we should treat this not as Paul’s rejection of a prophetic oracle but as another case of the Spirit’s revelation to Christian prophets of what lay in store for Paul at Jerusalem—and, of course, of his new friends’ natural desire to dissuade him (cf. vv.10–15).

5–6 After a scene reminiscent of Paul’s parting with the Ephesian elders (cf. 20:36–37), the apostle and his companions sailed from Tyre.

7 The ship went on to Ptolemais (Acco, or modern Acre on the northern cove of Haifa bay), which was another ancient Phoenician seaport some twenty-five miles south of Tyre. There it made harbor for a day, undoubtedly again to unload cargo. Once more, Paul met with the Christians of the city. Like the origin of the church at Tyre, probably Christianity at Ptolemais also stemmed from the witness of the Hellenistic Jewish believers who had to flee Jerusalem earlier (cf. 11:19).

8 Paul and his party came to Caesarea, the magnificent harbor and city built by Herod the Great as the port of Jerusalem and the Roman provincial capital of Judea (see comments at 10:1). Caesarea is thirty-two miles south of Ptolemais. Luke does not say so, but Paul and his companions probably reached it by the ship on which they had crossed the Mediterranean instead of by disembarking at Ptolemais and walking to Caesarea.

There they stayed with Philip the evangelist (not the apostle Philip), one of the Seven who had been appointed in the early days of the Jerusalem church to take care of the daily distribution of food (cf. 6:1–6). He had evangelized in Samaria and the maritime plain of Palestine (cf. 8:4–40) and then apparently settled at Caesarea for some twenty years. Paul stayed at Philip’s home for “a number of days” (hēmeras pleious, v.10). The timing of Paul’s stopovers from Troas to Caesarea had been largely dependent on the shipping schedules. But having disembarked at Caesarea, he could now arrange his own schedule. For a man in a hurry to get to Jerusalem, this delay of several days—perhaps, as has often been supposed, up to two weeks—seems somewhat strange and leads us to ask why he broke his journey here. Of course, he might simply have wanted to rest after his strenuous trip from Corinth to Philippi by land and from Philippi to Caesarea by sea. Certainly he would have been warmly welcomed by the Caesarean believers, and they would undoubtedly have wanted him to rest after such a strenuous journey. More to the point, however, is the fact that he wanted to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (cf. 20:16)—not just to get there as early as possible, but to arrive at what he believed was a strategic moment. So Paul’s stay at Caesarea was probably a deliberate matter of timing.

9 Luke speaks of Philip as having four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (prophēteuousai, GK 4736), yet says nothing about what they prophesied. Had he been in the habit of making up speeches for the various characters he portrays in Acts, this would have been a prime opportunity for doing so. Perhaps these prophesying maidens and their father gave Luke source material for his two volumes—possibly, it may be conjectured, on women for the writing of his gospel and on Philip’s mission in Samaria and ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch for his Acts. He could have received such information from them either during this visit or during the two-year period of his imprisonment in the city, or perhaps at both times (so Harnack, Luke the Physician, 155–57). Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.39) tells us that Philip and his daughters eventually moved to Hierapolis in the province of Asia—probably in flight from Roman antagonism toward Jews in Palestine from the mid-60s on—and that his daughters provided information on the early days of the Jerusalem church to Papias, the author of five books (which are not extant) on “Our Lord’s Sayings.”

10–11 While Paul was at Caesarea, the Jerusalemite prophet Agabus (cf. 11:27–28) came to the city. With the belt that held together Paul’s outer cloak, he tied his own feet and hands in an act of prophetic symbolism (cf. 1Ki 11:29–39; Isa 20:2–6; Eze 4:1–5:17) and announced, “In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles” (v.11).

12–13 In response to this dramatic prophecy, the Caesarean believers, together with Paul’s own traveling companions (note the “we” of v.12), begged him not to go. But Paul’s determination to go to Jerusalem came from an inner spiritual constraint that could not be set aside. It had come to Paul by the Spirit’s direction (cf. 19:21; 20:22) and was in response to a growing conviction that he must present the gift of money from the Gentile churches personally for it to be understood as the symbol of unity he intended it to be (cf. 1Co 16:4 with Ro 15:31). Paul well knew that his reception at Jerusalem might be less than cordial (cf. Ro 15:30–32). And when his friends learned of the dangers ahead of him, they naturally tried to dissuade him.

15–16 Paul and his colleagues, accompanied by some Caesarean Christians, took the road up to Jerusalem, some sixty-five miles to the southeast. At Jerusalem they brought him to the home of Mnason, a Cypriot and one of the “early disciples” (archaiō mathētē)—i.e., a disciple of Jesus from the beginning of the Jerusalem church. Not everyone in the Jerusalem church, of course, would have been prepared to have Paul and his company of Jewish and Gentile associates as houseguests during the festival of Pentecost. But the Caesarean Christians knew their man.

NOTES

1 The Western text (D, and as represented in recensions of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions) reads εἰς Πάταρα καὶ Μύρα (eis Patara kai Myra, “to Patara and Myra”), while P41 (eighth century) apparently reads only εἰς Μύρα (eis Myra, “to Myra”). Myra was a Lycian port farther east of Patara on the south coast of Asia Minor. Probably it was added here under the influence of 27:5 (“we landed at Myra in Lycia”) or possibly assimilated to the narrative of the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, ch. 4 (Paul preaching at Myra).

8 The Byzantine text (H L P and most minuscules) inserts οἱ περὶ τὸν Παῦλον (hoi peri ton Paulon, “those with Paul” or “those of Paul’s party”) before ἤλθομεν (ēlthomen, “we came” or “reached,” GK 2262), which was incorporated into the TR and so into the KJV.

12 The Western text (D, and as represented by a recension of the Old Latin) adds the name τὸν Παῦλον (ton Paulon, “Paul”), evidently for stylistic reasons (as does the NIV, though not the NASB).

On “going up” (ἀναβαίνω, anabainō, GK 326) to Jerusalem, see 11:2; 21:15; 24:11; 25:1, 9. On the reverential use of the expressions “to go up” and “to go down,” see comments at 3:1 and 8:5.

13 Codex Bezae (D) adds πρὸς ἡμᾶς (pros hēmas, “to us”) before ὁ Παῦλος (ho Paulos, “Paul”), thereby picking up the first person plural ἡμεις (hēmeis, “we”) of v.12. It also adds βούλομαι (boulomai, “I am resolved”) after δεθῆναι (dethēnai, “to be bound”), which only strengthens the adverb ἑτοίμως (hetoimōs, “ready,” “willing”). And D, together with C and recensions of the Old Latin and Syriac versions, adds Χριστοῦ (Christou, “Christ”) after τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ (tou kyriou Iēsou, “of the Lord Jesus”), which is a fairly typical expansion of many ancient scribes.

14 Codex Bezae (D) adds πρὸς ἀλλήλους (pros allēlous, “to one another”) after εἰπόντες (eipontes, “saying” or “we said”), which in context is superfluous.

15 On the preposition μετά (meta) with a temporal designation (here μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας, meta tas hēmeras tautas, “on the next day”; NIV, “after this”; NASB, “after these days”) as vying with μὲν οὖν (men oun, “so,” “then”) as a Lukan connective in the latter half of Acts, see comments at 15:36.

Codex Bezae (D) recasts the first part of this verse to read μετὰ δέ τινὰς ἡμέρας ἀποταξάμενοι (meta de tinas hēmeras apotaxamenoi, “and after some days we bade them farewell”).

The participle ἐπισκευασάμενοι (episkeuasamenoi; NIV and NASB, “we got ready”) is without parallel in the middle voice. Its general meaning seems to be “having furnished ourselves for the journey” and so may suggest anything from “packed our baggage” (NEB, JB)—which is a refinement on “took up our baggage” (RSV, ASV), and which, in turn, was a modernization of “took up our carriages” (KJV)—to “saddled our horses” (cf. W. M. Ramsay, in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898], 5:398).

16 The Western text (D, and as represented in a recension of the Syriac version) recasts the last half of this verse to read, “And these [the Caesarean believers] brought us to those with whom we were to lodge. And when we arrived at a certain village, we stayed with Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple.” Such a reading suggests that Paul and his associates stayed with Mnason in “a certain village” outside Jerusalem, not in Jerusalem, which is wholly unnecessary to postulate.

C. Arrival, Arrest, and Defenses at Jerusalem (21:17–23:22)

1. Arrival at Jerusalem (21:17–26)

17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

COMMENTARY

17–18 With these two verses the third “we” section of Acts concludes (cf. 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). It is likely, however, that the pronoun “we” is dropped in 21:19–26:32 for purely literary reasons and that we should assume Luke’s presence in Palestine for a longer time than vv.17–18 themselves imply. Where Paul is the focus of the narrative—particularly in his discussion with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, his arrest in the temple precincts, and his five speeches of defense at Jerusalem and Caesarea—Luke speaks only of him, though it may be assumed that Luke himself was also somewhere in the background.

It was probably at Mnason’s house in Jerusalem that the believers gathered to receive Paul and his associates “warmly.” Then on the next day, “Paul and the rest of us,” as Luke has it (v.18), called on James. In all likelihood, Peter, John, and some of the other apostles had been in the city fifty days earlier for Passover. But from the fact that Luke does not mention them when Paul arrived for the festival of Pentecost, we may assume they were away from Jerusalem at the time. James was the resident leader of the Jerusalem church (see comments at 12:17; 15:13). Sharing with him in the administration of the church was a body of “elders” (hoi presbyteroi, GK 4565)—perhaps, as many have surmised, a group of seventy leaders patterned after the Sanhedrin—who were also there to meet Paul and his colleagues.

19 On this occasion, Paul “reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.” Undoubtedly he also presented the collection of money from the Gentile churches to James and the elders. Nowhere in Acts does Luke himself refer to this collection for believers at Jerusalem, except later at 24:17 in reporting Paul’s speech before Felix. This omission is probably because he did not know how to explain to his Gentile readers (1) the significance of such a gift of money as being anything more than a way of currying favor, and (2) Paul’s fears that the Jerusalem Christians might not accept it. But the presentation of this gift from his Gentile churches was the chief motive for Paul wanting to go to Jerusalem (cf. 1Co 16:1–4; Ro 15:25–27). In fact, he felt it absolutely necessary to present the gift personally to the Jerusalem church so that it would be viewed as a true symbol of Christian unity and not as a bribe, though he feared both opposition from the Jews and rejection by the Jewish Christians of the city (cf. Ro 15:30–31).

To understand Paul’s fears we must realize that the Jerusalem church was increasingly caught between its allegiance to the nation and its fraternal relation to Paul’s Gentile mission. In such a bind, to accept a contribution from the Gentile churches was to be identified further with that mission, and so to drive another wedge between themselves and their Jewish compatriots. True, believers at Jerusalem had accepted such a contribution earlier (cf. 11:27–30) and had declared their fraternity with Paul in previous meetings (cf. Gal 2:6–10; also Ac 15:13–29). But with the rising tide of Jewish nationalism and a growing body of scrupulous believers in the Jerusalem church—perhaps as a result of a large number of Essenes becoming “obedient to the faith” (see comments at 6:7b)—Jewish-Christian solidarity with the Gentile mission was becoming more and more difficult to affirm. For if the Jerusalem church’s relations with the nation were to be maintained and opportunities for an outreach to Israel kept open, Jewish Christians could hardly be seen to be fraternizing with Gentiles.

Undoubtedly, Paul recognized the increased tensions at Jerusalem. No wonder he feared that James and the elders, for the sake of their Jewish relations and mission, might feel constrained to reject the contribution, thereby severing, in effect, the connection between the Pauline churches and the Jerusalem church—which, at least in his eyes, would have been a disaster in many ways. Luke, however, seems to have found all this exceedingly difficult to explain to his Gentile readers. Thus it may be postulated that he excluded (except in 24:17 when reporting Paul’s words in his defense before Felix) any mention of this collection in his Acts.

20–24 James and the elders responded to Paul’s report about “what God had done among the Gentiles” (v.19) by praising God (v.20). Yet they also urged Paul to join with four Jewish Christians who were fulfilling their Nazirite vows and to pay for their required offerings (v.24). In effect they were saying to Paul, “We can identify ourselves more openly with your Gentile mission if you will join with these men and identify yourself openly with the Jewish nation.” Thus they were protecting themselves against Jewish recriminations while at the same time affirming their connection with Paul and his mission. As they saw it, they were providing Paul with a way of protecting himself against any accusation that he was teaching Jews to apostatize from Judaism. In view of his having come earlier to Jerusalem in more placid circumstances to fulfill a Nazirite vow of his own (cf. 18:18–19:22), Paul seems not to have viewed such a suggestion as particularly onerous (cf. v.26). Such an action was evidently considered by all concerned to be a happy solution to the vexing practical and political problems facing both Paul and the Jerusalem church.

25 Many commentators have argued that the fourfold Jerusalem decree (cf. 15:20, 29) has no relevance to this situation but was only brought in to inform Paul for the first time of something drawn up behind his back at Jerusalem after the Jerusalem Council. Yet the reference to the decree here is closely connected with what has gone before and should be viewed as a reminder of that agreed-on basis for fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. So having urged Paul to follow their proposed course of action, the leaders of the Jerusalem church go on to assure him that such action would in no way rescind their earlier decision to impose nothing further on Gentile converts than these four injunctions, which were given for the sake of harmony within the church and in order not to impede the progress of the Jewish-Christian mission.

26 Coming from abroad, Paul would have had to regain ceremonial purity by a seven-day ritual of purification before he could be present at the absolution ceremony of the four Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem temple. This ritual included reporting to one of the priests and being sprinkled with water of atonement on the third and seventh days. To imagine that Paul was here taking on himself a seven-day Nazirite vow conflicts with Jewish law because thirty days were considered the shortest period for such a vow (cf. m. Naz. 3:6). What Paul did was to report to the priest at the start of his seven days of purification, inform him that he was providing the funds for the offerings of the four impoverished men who had taken Nazirite vows, and return to the temple at regular intervals during the week for the appropriate rites. He would have also informed the priest of the date when the Nazirite vows of the four would be completed (or perhaps they were already completed and the four had only to make the offerings and present the hair) and when he planned to be with them (either with all of them together or with each individually) for the absolution ceremony. To pay the charges for Nazirite offerings was considered an act of piety and a symbol of identification with the Jewish people (cf. Josephus, Ant. 19.294, on Herod Agrippa I’s underwriting of the expenses for a number of poor Nazirites).

NOTES

17 Codex Bezae (D), as supported by the Syriac Harclean version, reads κακεῖθεν δὲ ἐξιόντες ἤλθομεν (kakeithen de exiontes ēlthomen, “when we had departed thence we came [to Jerusalem]”) rather than the better-supported γενομένων δὲ ἡμῶν (genomenōn de hēmōn, “when we arrived [at Jerusalem]”). The Western reading assumes that Mnason lived in a village outside Jerusalem (see note at v.16) and so has Paul and his associates leaving Mnason’s home in that village and coming to Jerusalem.

20 Codex Sinaiticus (א) omits the phrase ἐν τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις (en tois Ioudaiois, “among the Jews”), probably accidentally. The Western text interprets the phrase to mean simply ᾿Ιουδαίων (Ioudaiōn, “of Jews”), as does the NIV. The Byzantine text (H L P and several minuscules) omits any reference to “the Jews,” probably as the result of homoioteleuton, where the eye of the scribe passed from one word to another with the same ending (᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ πεπιστευκότων, Ioudaiōn kai pepisteukotōn).

21 The word πάντας (pantas, “all”) is omitted by A D E and by the Vulgate and the Coptic Bohairic version. It is otherwise well attested (P45 א B etc.). Furthermore, its awkwardness in the sentence suggests that it would hardly have been inserted by a later scribe.

23 For εὐχή (euchē, “oath” or “vow,” GK 2376) as meaning a Nazirite vow, see TDNT 2.777 (cf. 18:18).

24 The Greek verb ξυράω (xyraō, “to shave,” GK 3834) is the equivalent of the Hebrew verb gillaḥ, which appears several times in m. Naz. 2:5–6 to mean “to bring the offerings of a Nazirite”—i.e., a male lamb, a female lamb, a ram, and their associated meal and drink offerings as stated in Numbers 6:14–15.

25 The Western text treats the Jerusalem decree as a three-clause ethical maxim, as it does at 15:20 and 29 (though here without the appended negative Golden Rule).

2. Arrest in the Temple (21:27–36)

27When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28shouting, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place.” 29(They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)

30The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. 31While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

33The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. 34Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. 35When Paul reached the steps, the violence of the mob was so great he had to be carried by the soldiers. 36The crowd that followed kept shouting, “Away with him!”

COMMENTARY

27–29 The strategy of Paul’s taking a vow and paying for the Nazirite offerings hardly proved successful. Probably nothing could have conciliated those whose minds were already prejudiced against Paul. Jews from Asia who had come to Jerusalem for the festival of Pentecost determined to take more effective action against him than they had at Ephesus. So toward the end of Paul’s seven-day purification—possibly when he came to receive the water of atonement on the seventh day—they instigated a riot under the pretense that he had brought Trophimus, the Gentile representative from Ephesus, beyond the barrier (the soreg) that separated the court of the Gentiles from the temple courts reserved for Jews alone.

Josephus (J.W. 5.193) described the wall separating the court of the Gentiles from the Holy Place, or inner courts reserved for Jews alone, as “a stone balustrade, three cubits high [ca. four and one-half feet high; though m. Mid. 2:3 says it was “ten handbreadths high,” ca. two and one-half feet high] and of excellent workmanship.” “In this at regular intervals,” he goes on to say, “stood slabs giving warning, some in Greek, others in Latin characters, of the law of purification, to wit that no foreigner was permitted to enter the Holy Place, for so the second enclosure of the temple was called” (ibid. 5.194; cf. 6.124–26; Ant. 15.417). One of these Greek notices was found by C. S. Clermont-Gannau in 1871, and two Greek fragments of another were found in 1935. The complete notice reads, “No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and embankment around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows” (cf. C. S. Clermont-Gannau, “New Discoveries,” PEQ 3 [1871]: 132). Roman authorities were so conciliatory of Jewish scruples about this matter that they ratified the death penalty for any Gentile—even a Roman citizen—who was caught going beyond the balustrade (cf. Josephus, J.W. 6.126).

The charge against Paul resulted from the fact that he and Trophimus were seen together in the city, which led to the assumption that they went together into the Holy Place in the temple (v.29). But as F. F. Bruce, 434 n. 46, has rightly observed, “It is absurd to think that Paul, who on this very occasion was going out of his way to appease Jewish susceptibilities, should have thus wantonly flouted Jewish law and run his own head into danger.”

30 “The whole city [hē polis holē],” Luke says in rather hyperbolic fashion, “was aroused.” The crime Paul was alleged to have committed was a capital offense—and one that could easily ignite the fanatical zeal of many pilgrims who had come to Jerusalem for this important Jewish festival. So they seized Paul in one of the inner courts of the temple and dragged him out to the court of the Gentiles. Then the temple police, who patrolled the area and stood guard at the gates leading into the inner courts, closed the gates so as to prevent the inner courts from being defiled by the tumult and possible bloodshed (cf. J. Jeremias, 209–10).

31–32 Word of the riot came to “the commander of the cohort” (tō chiliarchō tēs speirēs; NIV, “the commander of the Roman troops”; NASB, “the commander of the Roman cohort”) garrisoned in the Fortress of Antonia, and with some soldiers (stratiōtas, GK 5132) and centurions (hekatontarchas, GK 1672) he rushed into the mob and prevented the people from beating Paul further. While the temple police were drawn from the ranks of the Levites (see comments at 4:1), the commander of the fortress was a Roman military officer whose responsibility it was to keep peace in the city. The Fortress of Antonia was built by Herod the Great to overlook the temple area immediately to the south and the city to the north and west, with exits to both the court of the Gentiles and the city proper. The commander was not a chief priest (contra Str-B, 2.631; 4.644) and had nothing to do with the priests and officials of the temple (contra Schürer, 2.1.267). Rather, he represented Rome’s interests and was commissioned to intervene in the affairs of the people on behalf of those interests (cf. J. Jeremias, 211–12).

33–36 The commander formally arrested Paul and ordered him bound with two chains. Undoubtedly he thought him to be a criminal and was prepared to treat him as such. But when he asked the mob about his crime, he got no clear answer. Therefore he ordered Paul to be taken into the fortress where he could be questioned directly and a confession extracted from him (v.34). But the mob continued to press hard after its quarry—so hard, in fact, that the soldiers had to carry Paul up the steps to the fortress (though probably they dragged him more than carried him). All the while the mob was crying out, “Away with him!” (Aire auton! v.36)—a cry that, on the basis of its other occurrences in Luke’s writings and Christian literature (cf. Lk 23:18; Ac 22:22; see also Jn 19:15; Martyrdom of Polycarp 3.2; 9.2), meant, “Kill him!”

NOTES

31 At the end of this verse, a marginal reading in the Syriac Harclean version (which represents a Western reading) adds with an asterisk the words, “See, therefore, that they do not make an uprising.”

3. Defense before the People (21:37–22:22)

OVERVIEW

The account of Paul’s defense before the people consists of three parts: (1) Paul’s request to address the people (21:37–40), (2) his speech in defense (22:1–21), and (3) the people’s response (22:22). In this first of Paul’s five defenses, Luke’s apologetic interests come to the fore in highlighting the nonpolitical character of Christianity (contrary to other messianic movements of the day, cf. 21:38) and presenting Paul’s mandate to the Gentiles as being the major reason for Jewish opposition to the gospel (cf. 22:10–22).

37As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?”

“Do you speak Greek?” he replied. 38“Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?”

39Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.”

40Having received the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic: 22:1“Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.”

2When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.

Then Paul said: 3“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. 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. 4I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5as 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.

6“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’

8“‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.

“‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

10“‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

“‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.

12“A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. 13He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.

14“Then he said: ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

17“When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18and saw the Lord speaking. ‘Quick!’ he said to me. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’

19“‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these men know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. 20And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’

21“Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

22The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, “Rid the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!”

COMMENTARY

37–38 At the head of the stone stairway leading into the Fortress of Antonia, Paul asked for permission to say something to Claudius Lysias, the garrison commander (cf. 23:26). The commander was startled to hear his charge speaking in fluent Greek and surmised (note the inferential particle ara in the commander’s question) that perhaps the prisoner was the Egyptian Jew who three years earlier had appeared at Jerusalem claiming to be a prophet, had led a large band of followers into the wilderness, and then marched to the Mount of Olives in preparation for the messianic overthrow of Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.261–63; Ant. 20.169–72). Most people considered him a charlatan, and Felix and his soldiers drove him away.

39 Paul assured the commander that he was not the Egyptian revolutionary. The epithet “no ordinary city” (ouk asēmou poleōs), by which Paul referred to Tarsus, had been used by various cities to publicize their greatness (cf. Euripides’ reference [Ion 8] some five hundred years earlier to Athens as “no ordinary city of the Greeks” [ouk asēmos Hellenōn polis]). Paul’s use of the epithet here reflects his pride in the city of his birth. Jerome (On Illustrious Men 5; Commentary on Philemon 23) records a tradition that Paul’s parents originally came from Gischala in Galilee and migrated to Tarsus after the Roman devastation of northern Palestine in the first century BC.

40 Paul spoke to the crowd in Aramaic (lit., “in the Hebrew dialect,” which elsewhere in the NT means “in Aramaic,” except at Rev 9:11 and 16:16). Haenchen, 620–21, claimed that the record here is clearly unhistorical for three reasons: (1) Paul would have been physically unable to make such a speech after having been mauled by the mob; (2) the commander would not have allowed him to speak just because he asked to; and (3) the crowd would not have honored Paul’s request for silence. But these objections are certainly quite pedantic. We need not think that the rioters had beaten Paul into insensibility. The Roman commander may well have been impressed by Paul’s composure under such a trying circumstance and may also have thought that by letting him speak he might gain some insight into the cause of the riot. As for the crowd, they may also have been momentarily impressed by Paul’s composure—probably, as well, their attentiveness was encouraged by gestures of the commander and rough proddings by his soldiers for them to be quiet. Moreover, Paul’s use of Aramaic (the lingua franca of Palestine), though probably frustrating for the commander, may have been appreciated by some of the crowd and elicited a temporary measure of goodwill.

22:1–2 Paul opens his defense with the formal Jewish address “men, brothers” (andres adelphoi), to which he adds “and fathers” (kai pateres, GK 4252), as did Stephen before the Sanhedrin (cf. 7:2). Some have thought that this form of address, particularly with its addition of “and fathers,” implies that members of the Sanhedrin were in the crowd. But that need not follow either from the parallel with Stephen’s defense or from the way Paul addresses the Sanhedrin later on (cf. 23:1). Many commentators have objected that this defense does not fit the occasion, for it makes no mention of the people’s charge that Paul had defiled the temple by taking Trophimus, a Gentile, into its inner courts (cf. 21:28b–29). In reality, however, Paul’s speech from the steps of the Fortress of Antonia deals eloquently with the major charge against him—that of being a Jewish apostate (cf. 21:28a). It does this by setting all that had happened in his Christian life in a Jewish context and by insisting that what others might consider apostasy really came to him as a revelation from heaven. Indeed, the speech parallels much of what Luke has already given us about Paul’s conversion in 9:1–19 and what he will set out again in 26:2–23. These repetitions are given, it seems, to impress indelibly on his readers’ minds something of the exceptional importance of what Paul says in defense (see Overview, 9:1–30). Yet it is remarkable how Luke fits the variations in each of these three accounts so closely to their respective contexts and purposes.

3 The triad of “birth” (gennēsis, GK 1167), “upbringing” (trophē, GK 5575, lit., “nourishment”), and “training” (paideia, GK 4082) was a conventional way in antiquity of describing the stages of a man’s youth (cf. W. C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth [London: Epworth, 1962], 9, 28). Alternative ways of punctuating this verse leave open the question as to whether (1) Paul’s early childhood was spent in Jerusalem (as van Unnik proposed) or (2) his coming to Jerusalem was related to his studying under Gamaliel I some time later in his teens (as I argue in Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 25–27). If each participle of this triad is taken as heading its respective clause (so KJV, NASB, NRSV, TEV; contra JB, NEB, NIV), Paul is here saying: “I am a Jew, born [gegennēmenos, GK 1164] in Tarsus of Cilicia, brought up [anatethrammenos, GK 427] in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and instructed [pepaideumenos, GK 4084] in the strict manner of the law of our fathers.” From this he argues that his Jewishness cannot be disputed. And he goes on to insist that with such a background he was as zealous for all that Judaism stands for as any of those in the crowd before him (cf. Gal 1:14).

Needless to say, not everyone has accepted these biographical claims. Many have taken the fact of Paul’s birth at Tarsus as sufficient grounds for consigning him to the ranks of Hellenistic Judaism. Others have cited certain of the apostle’s attitudes, actions, and teachings, as well as various phrases he uses, as negating any real knowledge on his part of Judaism as it existed in the orthodox circles of Jerusalem. Theologically, the assertion has often been made that Paul’s doctrine of the law is so gross a caricature of Pharisaic teaching and his understanding of repentance so deficient as to prohibit his having had any real association with the famed rabbi Gamaliel I (cf., e.g., Beginnings of Christianity [ed. Foakes-Jackson and Lake], 4.279). Methodologically, the claim has sometimes been made that Paul’s exegetical procedures do not correspond to rabbinic practices (cf., e.g., Haenchen, 625). But these assertions and claims must be judged from the evidence to be very wide of the mark (cf. my Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 21–64 [on Paul’s biographical claims], and my Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period [2d ed.], 6–35, 88–116 [on rabbinic and Pauline exegetical procedures]). Paul himself claims to be “a Hebrew of Hebrews” (2Co 11:22; Php 3:5), and the evidence is almost overwhelming in support of this claim in his own letters and in the portrayal of him by Luke in Acts.

4–5 As evidence of his zeal for God and the Jewish religion, Paul cites his earlier persecution of Christians (see comments at 9:1–2). The ascription “the Way” (hē hodos, GK 3847) picks up what was the earliest self-designation of the first believers in Jesus at Jerusalem, i.e., “those of the Way” (see comments at 9:1–2; also 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22).

6–9 This description of Christ’s encounter with Paul on the road to Damascus, except for some stylistic differences, closely parallels the earlier description in 9:3–6 (see comments there). As in Acts 9, here both Paul and Luke describe Paul’s conversion to Jesus as God’s Messiah as the result of a heavenly confrontation, not something that Paul himself originated or others imposed on him. It was, indeed, “Jesus of Nazareth” who confronted him (v.8), and this places his messianology in the matrix of the Jewish homeland. But it was the risen and ascended Jesus, the heavenly Christ, who rebuked him and turned him about spiritually, and this alone explains his new understanding of life and his new outlook on all things Jewish.

10–11 In response to the heavenly confrontation—and as a good Jew who thought first in terms of how he should act in obedience to divine revelation—Paul’s immediate question was “What shall I do, Lord?” He was told to go into Damascus, where the divine will would be revealed to him. So in his blindness he was led into Damascus by his companions to await instructions as to God’s purposes for him (v.11).

12–16 At Damascus Paul was visited by Ananias, God’s messenger to bring about renewal of Paul’s sight and announce God’s purpose for him as a witness “to all men” (pros pantas anthrōpous, v.15). The Jewish matrix of Paul’s commission is highlighted by the description of Ananias as “a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there” (v.12), and the Jewish flavor of the episode is strengthened by the expression “the God of our fathers” and the messianic title “the Righteous One” (v.14; cf. 3:14). The words “Brother Saul, receive your sight!” (v.13) are a summary of the fuller statement reported in 9:17. What was important in the present circumstance was not to reproduce the exact words of Ananias but to emphasize that the commission Paul received from the risen Christ was communicated by a pious Jew who spoke in distinctly Jewish terms. Later on, when Paul defends himself before Agrippa II (ch. 26), there will be no need for this particular emphasis, and so the substance of what Ananias said in the name of the Lord Jesus is there included in the words spoken by the heavenly voice on the Damascus Road (cf. 26:16–18). Having thus delivered the Lord’s message, Ananias called on Paul to respond: “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name” (v.16)—an exhortation reminiscent of Peter’s invitation at Pentecost in 2:38.

17–21 Paul’s commission at Damascus to be God’s witness to all people was reaffirmed and amplified in a vision he received as he was praying in the temple. Most likely the visit to the temple and the vision referred to here occurred on Paul’s return to Jerusalem three years after his conversion (cf. 9:26–29; Gal 1:18–19). At that time, Luke tells us, Paul faced opposition from the city’s Hellenistic Jews, who viewed him as a renegade and sought to kill him (cf. 9:29). It was evidently at that time—during a period in his life when he most needed divine direction and support—that the same heavenly personage he met on the road to Damascus, the risen and exalted Jesus, directed him to “leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me” (v.18). More important, it was at that time that the same exalted Jesus also ordered him, “Go, I will send you far away to the Gentiles” (v.21). Therefore Jerusalem, Paul says, was his intended place of witness and the temple God’s place of revelation. But his testimony was refused there. And by revelation he learned that his commission to all people was to have explicit reference to Gentiles who are “far away” (makran, lit., “far off,” GK 3426; see comments at 2:39).

22 During most of Paul’s defense the crowd listened with a certain degree of respect, for he had spoken mostly of Israel’s messianic hope and had done so in a thoroughly Jewish manner. Even his identification of Jesus of Nazareth as Israel’s Messiah and the one who spoke to him from heaven, while undoubtedly straining his credibility for many in the crowd, could have been tolerated by a people given more to orthopraxis (i.e., correct practice) than orthodoxy (i.e., correct belief). When, however, Paul spoke of being directed by divine revelation to leave Jerusalem and go far away to the Gentiles, who had no relation to Judaism, it was “the last straw.” In effect, Paul was saying that Gentiles can be approached directly with God’s message of salvation without first being related to the nation and its institutions, which was tantamount to placing Jews and Gentiles on an equal footing before God. For Judaism, that was the height of apostasy indeed! When he made such an assertion, Paul was shouted down by the crowd, who called for his death: “Rid the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!” In reporting this incident, Luke highlights the major reason for the Jewish opposition to Paul, namely, his universal outlook, which was willing to include Gentiles in God’s redemptive plan on the same basis as Jews.

NOTES

21:38 The number “thirty thousand” in Josephus (J.W. 2.261) for the followers of the Egyptian self-styled prophet possibly derives from a misreading by Josephus or his secretary of the Greek capital letter Δ (D), which means four thousand (as Luke has it here), for the Greek capital letter Λ (L), which means thirty thousand.

22:1 On the address ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (andres adelphoi, “men, brothers”), see comments at 1:16.

3 Instead of the well-supported phrase ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τοῦ θεοῦ (zēlōtēs hyparchōn tou theou, “being zealous for God”), several Western witnesses offer other readings; e.g., the Vulgate reads “being zealous for the law” (legis); the Syriac Harclean version reads “being zealous for the traditions of my ancestors” (cf. Gal 1:14).

5 Some minor Western witnesses (minuscule 614 and the Syriac Harclean recension) add the name ῾Ανανίας (Hananias, “Ananias”) after ὁ ἀρχιερεύς (ho archiereus, “the high priest,” GK 797), evidently influenced by 23:2.

7 Some Western texts (represented by the Old Latin Gigas and the Syriac Harclean recensions) add “in the Hebrew language,” evidently influenced by 26:14.

Likewise, several Western texts (E, some minuscules, and as represented by the Old Latin Gigas, Vulgate, and Syriac Harclean recensions) add σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν (sklēron soi pros kentra laktizein, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads”), also influenced it seems by 26:14.

9 The Western text (D E etc.) and Byzantine text (L P and most minuscules) add καὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο (kai emphoboi egenonto, “and they were afraid”) after τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο (to men phōs etheasanto, “they saw [indeed] the light”)—a phrase incorporated by Erasmus into the TR and so translated by the KJV.

11 Several Western witnesses (recensions of the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions) add at the beginning of this verse, “And rising up I could not see.”

Codex Vaticanus (B) reads οὐδὲν ἔβλεπον (ouden eblepon, “I saw nothing”) instead of the more widely supported οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον (ouk eneblepon, “I could not see”; NIV, “had blinded me”), probably influenced by 9:8.

4. Claim of Roman Citizenship (22:23–29)

23As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, 24the commander ordered Paul to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and questioned in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this. 25As 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?”

26When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. “What are you going to do?” he asked. “This man is a Roman citizen.”

27The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”

“Yes, I am,” he answered.

28Then the commander said, “I had to pay a big price for my citizenship.”

“But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied.

29Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.

COMMENTARY

23–24 The garrison commander—evidently at a loss to ascertain from the people why they were rioting and probably unable to understand Paul’s defense in Aramaic—decided to find out the truth of the matter by torturing Paul. His earlier friendliness toward Paul had soured, and the brutal part of his nature and job came to the fore.

The scourge (Lat. flagellum), an instrument of Roman inquisition and punishment, consisted of leather thongs studded with pieces of metal or bone and fastened to a wooden handle. Its use often crippled for life and sometimes killed. Earlier in his ministry, Paul had five times received thirty-nine lashes at the hands of Jewish authorities and three times been beaten with rods by the order of Roman magistrates (cf. 2Co 11:24–25; also comments at Ac 9:30; 11:25; 16:22–24). But being flogged with a scourge was a far more brutal penalty than any of these. Here Paul was on the brink of receiving the kind of unjust punishment that Jesus had endured when Pilate, in a travesty of justice, had him flogged after declaring him innocent (cf. Jn 18:38–19:1).

25 Roman citizens were exempt from examination under torture. The Valerian and Porcian laws, confirmed and amplified by the Edicts of Augustus, prescribed that in trials of Roman citizens there must first be a formulation of charges and penalties, then a formal accusation laid, and then a hearing before a Roman magistrate and his advisory cabinet. So as the soldiers “stretched him out to flog him”—i.e., stretched Paul out on the stone floor or at a pillar or post, or perhaps by suspension from the ceiling or a hook—he said to the centurion in charge, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?”

26–28 Roman citizenship in Paul’s day was a highly prized right conferred only on those of high social or governmental standing, on those who had done some exceptional service for Rome, or on those able to bribe an imperial or provincial administrator to have their names included on a list of candidates for enfranchisement. In the second and third centuries AD, bribery in order to gain citizenship rights became increasingly common. Earlier, however, it accounted for only a small minority of citizens. New citizens received a diploma civitatis Romanae or instrumentum, and their names were recorded on one of the thirty-five tribal lists at Rome and also on their local municipal register. Succeeding generations of a citizen’s family possessed a professio or registration of birth recording their Roman status and were registered as citizens on the taxation tables of their respective cities.

No article of apparel distinguished a Roman citizen from the rest of the people except the toga, which only Roman citizens could wear. But even at Rome the toga was unpopular because of its cumbersomeness and was worn only on state occasions. Papers validating citizenship were kept in family archives and not usually carried on one’s person. The verbal claim to Roman citizenship was accepted at face value. Penalties for falsifying documents and making false claims of citizenship were exceedingly stiff—in fact, the Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus (ca. AD 55–135) speaks of death for such acts (Diatr. 3.24, 41; see also Suetonius, Claud. 25).

We do not know how, why, or when Paul’s family acquired Roman citizenship. William M. Ramsay (Cities of St. Paul, 185) argued that it stemmed from 171 BC, when Tarsus received its constitution as a Greek city and many of its socially elite were made citizens. Cadbury, 73–74, proposed that Pompey, in settling the eastern provinces during the 60s BC, transferred a number of Jewish prisoners to Tarsus, set them free, and bestowed Roman citizenship on them. But Roman citizenship was not a corollary of citizenship in a Greek city-state, nor were former prisoners or slaves considered fit subjects for enfranchisement. Most likely one of Paul’s ancestors received Roman citizenship for some valuable service rendered to a Roman administrator or general (perhaps Pompey), whether in the Gischala region of northern Palestine or at Tarsus.

When Paul claimed Roman citizenship, the centurion immediately stopped the proceedings and reported to the commander, “This man is a Roman citizen” (v.26). This news brought the commander posthaste to question Paul, who convinced him that he was indeed a Roman citizen (v.27). His own citizenship, the commander said, was purchased by a large sum of money—probably, since his name was Claudius Lysias (23:26), during the reign of Claudius by paying a bribe to one of the members of Claudius’s court. Paul’s response, “But I was born a citizen” (v.28), suggests his high estimate of his citizenship.

29 The fact that Paul was a Roman citizen put the situation in an entirely different light (cf. 16:37–39). Examination under torture, while suitable for ordinary men in the empire, had to be abandoned and some other way of determining the nature of the charge had to be found. Undoubtedly the commander shuddered as he realized how close he had come to perpetrating a serious offense against a Roman citizen.

NOTES

26 The Western text (D, and as represented in recensions of the Old Latin and Vulgate) adds ὃτι ῾Ρωμαῖον ἑαυτὸν λέγει (hoti Rhōmaion heauton legei, “that he calls himself a Roman”) after ἀκούσας (akousas, “when he heard”), thereby leaving nothing unclarified about Paul’s claim.

27 Codex Bezae (D) has εἶπεν εἰμί (eipen eimi, “‘I am,’ he said”) in place of the better-supported ἔφη ναί (ephē nai, “‘Yes,’ he answered”; NIV, “‘Yes, I am,’ he answered”; NASB, “And he said, ‘Yes’”).

29 The Greek text of Codex Bezae (D) ends with εὐθέως οὖν ἀπέστησαν ἀπαὐτοῦ (eutheōs oun apestēsan ap’ autou, “immediately then they withdrew from him”), which sentence begins this verse. (The Latin text of bilingual D ended earlier in the middle of 22:20.) Hereafter the Western text of Acts is represented by other Greek uncial and minuscule MSS; recensions of the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions; and various Latin and Syrian church fathers.

The Western text (some minuscules, and as represented by recensions of the Syriac Harclean and Coptic Sahidic versions) adds at the end of the verse καὶ παραχρῆμα ἔλυσεν αὐτόν (kai parachrēma elysen auton, “and at once he released him”), which again is an attempt to clarify matters for the reader.

5. Defense before the Sanhedrin (22:30–23:11)

OVERVIEW

The structure of Luke’s account of Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrin is somewhat irregular, which probably reflects the tumultuous nature of the session itself. Three matters pertaining to Luke’s apologetic purpose quite clearly come to the fore: (1) Christianity is rooted in the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (cf. 23:6); (2) the debate Paul was engaged in regarding Christianity’s claims must be viewed as first of all a Jewish intramural affair (cf. 23:7–10); and (3) the ongoing proclamation of the gospel in the Gentile world stems from a divine mandate (cf. 23:11).

30The next day, since the commander wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the Sanhedrin to assemble. Then he brought Paul and had him stand before them.

23:1Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” 2At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3Then Paul said to him, “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!”

4Those who were standing near Paul said, “You dare to insult God’s high priest?”

5Paul replied, “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.’”

6Then 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.” 7When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8(The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)

9There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 10The 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.

11The 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.”

COMMENTARY

30 Still unsuccessful in ascertaining why the people were so angry with Paul, the commander ordered the Jewish Sanhedrin (see comments at 4:5) to come together to interrogate his captive. As a Roman citizen, Paul had a right to know the nature of the charges against him and the penalties involved before formal accusations were laid. The commander also needed to know these things in order to decide what else should be done. Perhaps he had talked with Paul after releasing him from his chains (cf. 21:33). Since this was a religious matter, however, he decided to have it clarified before the highest judicial body of Judaism. As a Roman military commander, he had no right to participate in the Sanhedrin’s deliberations. But as the Roman official charged with keeping peace in Jerusalem, he could order the Sanhedrin to meet to determine the cause of the riot.

23:1 Paul began his defense by addressing the members of the Sanhedrin as “men, brothers” (andres adelphoi; NIV, “my brothers”; NASB, “brethren”), the common formal address used among assembled Jews. Then he asserted, “I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day”—which was certainly a bold claim, but not without parallel on Paul’s part in other situations (cf. 20:18–21, 26–27; 24:16; Ro 15:19b, 23; Php 3:6b; 2Ti 4:7).

2 Such a claim so enraged the high priest that, in violation of the law, he ordered those near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Ananias, the son of Nedebaeus, reigned as high priest from AD 48 to 58 or 59 and was known for his avarice and liberal use of violence. Josephus (Ant. 20.205–7, 213) says that he confiscated for himself the tithes given to the ordinary priests and gave lavish bribes to Roman and Jewish officials. In a parody on Psalm 24:7, the Talmud lampoons Ananias’s plundering and greed:

The temple court cried out, “Lift up your heads, O you gates, and let Yohanan [mixing the letters in his Hebrew name Hananiah, which is Ananias in Greek], the son of Narbai [a textual corruption that confuses the similarly formed Hebrew letters ר and ד and reads Narbai for Nadbai, a title meaning “generous one” and used ironically] and disciple of Pinqai [a satirical wordplay on the Hebrew verb pānaq, “to pamper”], enter and fill his stomach with the divine sacrifices” (b. Pesah. 57a).

Ananias was a brutal and scheming man who was hated by Jewish nationalists for his pro-Roman policies. When the war with Rome began in AD 66, the nationalists burned his house (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.426), and he was forced to flee to the palace of Herod the Great in the northern part of Jerusalem (ibid., 2.429). He was finally trapped while hiding in an aqueduct on the palace grounds and killed along with his brother Hezekiah (ibid., 2.441–42).

3 Indignant at the affront, Paul lashed out at Ananias and accused him of breaking the Jewish law, which safeguarded the rights of defendants and presumed them innocent until proven guilty. Paul had not even been charged with a crime, let alone tried and found guilty. Anyone who behaved as Ananias did, Paul knew, was bound to come under God’s judgment. Paul’s words, however, were more prophetic than he realized. For Ananias’s final days, despite all of his scheming and his bribes, were lived as a hunted animal and ended in death at the hands of his own people.

Ananias’s order to strike the defendant was in character. But Paul’s retort seems quite out of character for a follower of the one who “when they hurled their insults at him, … did not retaliate; [and] when he suffered, … made no threats” (1Pe 2:23). Paul, it seems, momentarily lost his composure—as, evidently, Ananias hoped he would—and put himself at a disadvantage before the council. We cannot excuse Paul’s burst of anger, though we must not view it self-righteously. We are made of the same stuff as Paul, and his provocation was greater than most of us will ever face. Yet his quickness in acknowledging his wrongdoing (v.5) was more than many of us are willing to emulate.

4–5 In his apology Paul cites Exodus 22:28. Theodor Zahn (Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas [Leipzig: Deichert, 1916], 763) supposed that, in disclaiming knowledge of Ananias’s being the high priest, Paul was speaking ironically. But the tone of the statement (cf. the use of adelphoi, “brothers,” in v.5) and the reference to Exodus 22:28 suggest that the words were meant quite seriously. William M. Ramsay (Bearing of Recent Discovery, 90ff.) proposed that a meeting convened by a Roman officer would have been run like a Roman assembly, with Paul on one side, the Sanhedrin (including the high priest) on the other, and the commander himself presiding. But while Rome’s chief administrative officer in the city could order the Sanhedrin to meet, he was not a member of the council—nor would he have wanted to offend Jewish sensibilities by taking part in the session.

It is frequently claimed that Paul’s failure to recognize the high priest suggests that he had an eye affliction that would have obscured his vision. This is a doubtful inference drawn from the juxtaposition of Paul’s mention of an illness in Galatians 4:13–14 and his colloquial idiom of concern (“you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me”) in Galatians 4:15. Luke was not averse to excusing his hero from blame wherever possible (see comments at 20:8), and it may be assumed that he would have made some reference to Paul’s failing eyesight if that were the case and was relevant here.

The high priest presided at regular meetings of the Sanhedrin and so would have been easily identifiable. But this was not a regular meeting, and the high priest may not have occupied his usual place or worn his robes of office. Furthermore, since he had visited Jerusalem only sporadically during the past twenty years, and since the office of high priest passed from one to another within certain priestly families (see comments at 4:6), Paul might very well not have known who held the office of high priest in AD 58—whether Ananias, who had reigned since AD 48, or Ishmael ben Phabi, who took the office in AD 58–59 (see comments at 25:2). Nor would he have known any of the current high priestly claimants by sight.

All Paul could do when told that he was speaking to the high priest was apologize—though he did so, it seems, more to the office than to the man—and acknowledge by his citation of Scripture that, while he did not accept the view that laws provide the supreme direction for life (cf. 1Co 2:15; 9:20–21), he had no intention in being guided by Christ and the Holy Spirit to act in a way contrary to the law or to do less than the law commanded.

6 Ananias’s interruption changed the entire course of the meeting, but not as he had evidently expected. For instead of being cowed into submission, Paul began again (note the resumptive use of the formal address “men, brothers” [andres adelphoi; NIV, “my brothers”; NASB, “brethren”]). This time he took the offensive. “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee,” he declared; “I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead” (cf. 24:21; 26:6–8; 28:20b).

Many have agreed with Johannes Weiss, 1.148, that “we must be on our guard against spoiling the portrait of Paul by the impressions we receive from the speeches of the Apostle which have been interpolated, especially the speeches in the defence during his trial.” Adjectives such as “improbable,” “incomprehensible,” and “unhistorical” have, in fact, been frequently used of the narrative here. And even when Luke’s account is accepted as being at least basically reliable, Paul is often interpreted as having played the enfant terrible before rather unworthy opponents and engaged in an adroit maneuver that was not really sincere. But Pharisaism in Paul’s day was not as stereotyped as it later became under rabbinic development. He could still have been considered a Pharisee because of his personal observance of the law and his belief in the resurrection, even though he did not separate himself from Gentiles.

And as for saying he was tried “because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead,” we must realize, as Harnack (Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 87) has aptly pointed out, that “whenever the Resurrection was spoken of, our Lord, as a matter of course, formed for St Paul, for St Luke, and for the listeners the efficient cause.” The phrase “the resurrection of the dead” seems to have been used by Paul and by Luke to refer to the whole doctrine of resurrection as that doctrine was validated and amplified by the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 17:32 in the context of 17:31)—even before members of the Jewish Sanhedrin. We need not, therefore, attribute deceit to Paul in this matter. Luke may have been condensing Paul’s speech by leaving out the obvious, as seems to have been done in 17:32. And as Harnack (ibid.) went on to argue, “We may even believe that St Paul, at the beginning of his discourse, said roundly, ‘Touching the Resurrection of the dead I stand here called in question’; for Luther also declared a hundred times that he was called in question touching the merits and honour of Jesus Christ, while his opponents asserted that these things did not come at all into the question.”

7–10 Paul’s declaration served to divide the council, with Sadducees on the one side (see comments at 4:1) and Pharisees on the other (see comments at 5:34). Some of the Pharisees may have viewed the inquisition of Paul as an attempt by the Sadducees to discredit Pharisaism generally (i.e., to make Paul and his message the reductio ad absurdum of a Pharisaic position) and so rose to his defense (v.9). The Sadducees, however, kept pressing their objections, and the debate soon got out of hand. So violent, in fact, did it become that the commander had to bring in soldiers and rescue Paul (v.10). Once more the commander was frustrated in his effort to learn exactly why the Jews were so adamantly opposed to his prisoner.

11 Paul had feared such a reception at Jerusalem (cf. 20:22–23; 21:13; Ro 15:31), and now his worst fears were being realized. He had planned to go to Rome and minister throughout the western part of the empire after his visit to Jerusalem (cf. Ro 15:24–29). But developments at Jerusalem were building up to a point where it appeared his life could come to an end through any number of circumstances beyond his control. Undoubtedly he was despondent as he awaited the next turn of events in his cell at the Fortress of Antonia. “On the following night” (tē de epiousē nykti, lit., “the night of the next day”), however, the risen and exalted Jesus appeared to Paul—as he had done at other critical moments in his ministry (e.g., 18:9–10; 22:17–21)—and encouraged him by his presence. The Lord said, “Take courage!” He assured Paul that he would yet testify in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem. Certainly, as F. F. Bruce, 455, has observed, “this assurance meant much to Paul during the delays and anxieties of the next two years, and goes far to account for the calm and dignified bearing which seemed to mark him out as a master of events rather than their victim.”

NOTES

1 On the address ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (andres adelphoi, “men, brothers”) here and in v.6, see comments at 1:16.

Some have difficulty squaring Paul’s claim to a good conscience here with their interpretation of his words in Romans 7:7–25. On Romans 7:7–25 as (1) a preconversion autobiographical statement, (2) a postconversion autobiographical statement, or (3) a gnomic (i.e., a timeless or widely applicable) statement that expresses a more general truth (as I argue), see my Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 86–127.

9 The Byzantine text (H L P and most minuscules), as incorporated into TR and so included by the KJV, adds at the end of the verse μὴ θεομαχῶμεν (mē theomachōmen, “let us not fight against God”), evidently to balance the protasis (εἰ δὲ …, ei de …) of the previous statement, and so reads: “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him? Let us not fight against God.”

6. A Plot to Kill Paul (23:12–22)

12The next morning the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. 13More than forty men were involved in this plot. 14They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. 15Now 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.”

16But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul.

17Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.” 18So 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.”

19The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, “What is it you want to tell me?”

20He 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. 21Don’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.”

22The commander dismissed the young man and cautioned him, “Don’t tell anyone that you have reported this to me.”

COMMENTARY

12–15 Failing in their earlier plot to kill Paul in the temple precincts, more than forty Jews—probably many of them Asian Jews who had instigated the earlier plot (cf. 21:27–29)—resolved to do away with him by ambushing him in the narrow streets of Jerusalem. For this, however, they needed a pretext to lure him out of the fortress. So they arranged with “the chief priest and elders” (evidently Ananias, together with some of his Sadducean cohorts) to ask for Paul’s return before the Sanhedrin for further questioning (vv.14–15). They pledged that they would kill him as he was brought from the Fortress of Antonia north of the temple to the hall of the Sanhedrin southwest of the temple area (see comments at 4:5). To show their determination, they vowed not to eat or drink until they had accomplished their purpose (v.12). That did not mean, however, that they would necessarily face starvation if they failed. The rabbis allowed four types of vows to be broken: “vows of incitement, vows of exaggeration, vows made in error, and vows that cannot be fulfilled by reason of constraint” (m. Ned. 3:1–3), which exclusions allow for almost any contingency. The conspirators’ plan, though violating both the letter and the spirit of Jewish law pertaining to the Sanhedrin (cf. b. Sanh. 82a), was in keeping with the character of the high priest Ananias (see comments at 23:2).

16 We have no knowledge about Paul’s sister and his nephew. Nor do we know anything about how the young man learned of the plot. In his letters Paul says nothing of his immediate family, and this is Luke’s only reference to any of Paul’s relatives. Perhaps Paul had stayed with his sister and her family when he studied under Gamaliel I at Jerusalem (cf. 22:3) and then when he returned from Damascus as a Christian (cf. 9:26–28)—though probably not on his later visits to the city, and certainly not on his last visit (cf. 21:16). From Philippians 3:8, where Paul speaks of having “lost all things” for the sake of Christ, many have supposed that he was disinherited by his family for accepting and proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah. Such a supposition seems likely. Yet family ties are not easily broken. So when his uncle was in mortal danger, Paul’s nephew could not stand by without warning him. After all, the saving and preservation of life takes precedence in Judaism over everything else.

17 As a Roman citizen under protective custody Paul could receive visitors. Without doubt he could be visited by his nephew. And when Paul heard his nephew’s warning, he asked one of the centurions to take his nephew to the commander.

18–22 This pericope is set off as almost a separate unit of material by Luke’s favorite connecting phrase men oun (“so,” “then”), which appears at both its beginning and its end. Luke may have inferred from the commander’s action what was said between him and Paul’s nephew. But the use of men oun suggests a separate and distinguishable source for his information here, which may very well have been the nephew himself. The seriousness with which the commander took the warning suggests that (1) he knew Ananias to be the kind of man who would fall in with such a plot, and (2) he realized that Jewish feeling against Paul was strong enough to nurture it.

NOTES

12 The Western and Byzantine texts read τινὲς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (tines tōn Ioudaiōn, “some of the Jews” or “certain of the Jews”), as do also the TR and KJV, rather than simply οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (hoi Ioudaioi, “the Jews”) of the Alexandrian text, but v.13 sufficiently explains the general statement without the addition.

15 The Western text (as reflected in recensions of the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions) expands the first part of this verse to read, “Now, therefore, we ask you to grant us this: gather the Sanhedrin together and notify the commander in order that he might bring him down to you.”

The Western text (some Greek minuscules, and as represented by various recensions of the Old Latin and Syriac versions) also closes this verse with the words “even if we must die for it.”

18 On Luke’s use of the connective μὲν οὖν (men oun) here and at v.22, see comments at 1:6.

20 The Byzantine text (H L P and most minuscules), and probably also the original Western text (to judge by various recensions of the Latin and Syriac versions), reads μέλλοντες (mellontes, “as though they would”), with the plural of the masculine nominative participle referring to “the Jews” (so the TR, KJV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, JB). Most Alexandrian texts (P74 A B E etc.) read μέλλων (mellōn, “as though he would”), with the singular of the masculine nominative participle evidently referring to the high priest. Codex Sinaiticus (א), however, reads μέλλον (mellon, “as though it would”), with the singular of the neuter accusative participle agreeing with its immediate antecedent τὸ συνέδριον (to synedrion, “the Sanhedrin,” GK 5284). The reading of Codex Sinaiticus, though early, is not as well supported externally as are the others. Nonetheless, it is probably to be preferred (so UBS4, TEV), for μέλλοντες (mellontes, “as though they would”) seems to be influenced by v.15 and μέλλων (mellōn, “as though he would”) is a somewhat common misspelling of μέλλον (mellon, “as though it would”). Furthermore, it fits the context better.

D. Imprisonment and Defenses at Caesarea (23:23–26:32)

1. Imprisonment (23:23–35)

23Then 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. 24Provide mounts for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.”

25He wrote a letter as follows:

COMMENTARY

23–24 Since the commander could not risk having a Roman citizen assassinated while in his custody, he took steps to transfer Paul to the jurisdiction of Felix, the governor (ho hēgemōn, “the procurator,” GK 2450) of the province of Judea. He wanted to get Paul to Caesarea, the provincial capital (see comments at 10:1), as quickly as possible—before the conspirators got wind of it. So the commander ordered two centurions to ready two hundred infantry and seventy cavalry, together with two hundred “spearmen” (dexiolaboi), for escort duty, who would leave for Caesarea at nine that evening (lit., “the third hour of the night”). In addition, he ordered that “mounts” (ktēnē, GK 3229) be provided for Paul (v.24)—which probably means not only a horse for Paul but also another one for either riding or carrying his baggage, or both, since the word ktēnos is a collective term for both “a riding animal” and “a pack animal.”

The word dexiolaboi appears only here in the NT and nowhere else in extant Greek literature until the sixth century AD. All that can be said for certain is that it is a Greek term translating some Latin title used in the Roman army. Most translators have guessed that it means “spearmen,” since dexios (GK 1288) means “right-handed” and spears were usually thrown with the right hand (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB, TEV, NRSV, NIV). Others prefer not to infer its meaning from its etymology and translate it as either “light-armed troops” (NEB) or “auxiliaries” (JB). Perhaps, however, the dexiolaboi were not another kind of soldier but “led horses” that were included within the cavalry contingent as additional mounts and pack animals (cf. Beginnings of Christianity [ed. Foakes-Jackson and Lake], 4.293).

The purpose of the detachment was security and speed. So we should probably visualize the first (i.e., security) as provided by the two hundred infantry and the second (i.e., speed) by the seventy cavalry with their two hundred extra mounts and pack animals, many of which may also have been used to carry infantry during the night. Luke has repeatedly called the commander a chiliarchos (GK 5941; cf. 21:31–33, 37; 22:24, 26–29; 23:10, 15, 17–19, 22), literally, “commander of a thousand,” though usually he would command about six hundred soldiers. If, therefore, we surmise that the garrison at the Fortress of Antonia consisted of about six hundred men in all—and, further, that the term dexiolaboi refers not to infantry soldiers but to additional mounts or pack animals—then the commander had considered the plot against Paul serious enough to commit almost half his troops to escort Paul, with most of them due to return in a day or two (cf. v.32).

25 In saying that the commander wrote a letter “of this type” (echousan ton typon touton, lit., “having this pattern”; NIV, “as follows”; NASB, “having this form”), Luke is acknowledging that what follows is only the general purport of the letter. He would hardly have been in a position to have read a letter sent by a Roman commander and to a Roman provincial governor. What he knew of the letter probably came from Paul, who himself would only have known about its contents as the governor used it in the initial questioning of his prisoner.

26 To have begun the letter with a salutation that (1) named the sender, (2) named the recipient, and (3) sent greetings would hardly have taxed Luke’s ingenuity. This is standard form for a letter of antiquity and is common to every letter of the NT except Hebrews and 1 John.

For the first time in Acts the commander’s name is given. He was evidently a freeborn Greek who had worked his way up through the ranks of the Roman army and at some time had paid an official of Claudius’s government to receive Roman citizenship (see comments at 22:28). His Greek name Lysias then became his Roman cognomen and he took the nomen Claudius in honor of the emperor.

Felix was the governor of the Roman province of Judea from AD 52–59 (on Felix, see comments at 24:1). The title “Excellency” (kratistos) originally denoted a member of the Roman equestrian order (Lat. egregius), like that of knights in Britain. Later it became an honorific title for highly placed officials in the Roman government (as here; 24:3; 26:25). But it was also used as a form of polite address (cf. 1:1).

27–30 The body of the letter summarizes the events from the riot in the temple precincts to the commander’s discovery of a plot against Paul’s life. Paul may very well have smiled to himself when he heard how Lysias stretched the truth to his own benefit in claiming to have rescued Paul from the mob because “I had learned that he is a Roman citizen” and in omitting any reference to the near flogging. But the most important part of the letter concerning Lysias’s evaluation of the Jewish opposition to Paul was clear: “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” (v.29). And that was of great significance not only for Paul’s fortunes but also for Luke’s apologetic purpose.

31–32 “So” (men oun), Luke says, completing his account of the transfer of Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea with a note of evident relief, the soldiers carried out their orders and brought Paul during the night to Antipatris. The town of Antipatris was built by Herod the Great in honor of his father Antipater, but its exact location is today unknown. Most identify it with modern Kulat Ras el Ain some thirty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at the foot of the Judean hills. Having left Jerusalem at nine in the evening (cf. v.23), the detachment would have lost no time in covering the distance by morning. If the cavalry contingent included two hundred extra mounts and packhorses (see comments at v.23), perhaps the infantry soldiers were allowed to ride and jog alternately. At any rate, the purpose of the mission was both safety and speed. And when the conspirators were left far behind and ambush was less likely, the infantry turned back to Jerusalem and the cavalry took Paul to Caesarea, some forty miles distant.

33–35 At Caesarea the prisoner and Lysias’s letter were turned over to Felix, the governor. On reading the letter he questioned Paul on the basis of its contents. Had Paul been from one of the client kingdoms in Syria or Asia Minor, Felix would probably have wanted to consult the ruler of that 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, and so he ordered the case to be held over until Paul’s accusers arrived from Jerusalem (v.34). In the meantime, Paul was kept under guard in the palace that Herod the Great had built for himself at Caesarea. It now served as the governor’s headquarters and also had cells for prisoners.

NOTES

23 Codex Alexandrinus (A) reads δεξιοβόλους (dexiobolous, “javelin-throwers,” lit., “those throwing with the right hand”) instead of δεξιολάβους (dexiolabous; NIV, “spearmen”), which appears to be only an inadvertent confusion of letters.

23–24 The Western text (eighth-century minuscule 614, and as represented by recensions of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Syriac versions) recasts these verses to read, “‘Get ready soldiers to go to Caesarea, a hundred horsemen and two hundred spearmen [δεξιολάβους, dexiolabous].’ And they said, ‘They are ready.’ And he ordered the centurions also to provide mounts that they might set Paul on them and bring him safely by night to Caesarea to Felix the governor. For he was afraid that the Jews might seize and kill him [Paul] and that afterwards he himself should be blamed for having taken bribes.”

25 Some Western texts read περιέχουσαν τάδε (periechousan tade, “containing these things”) instead of the better-attested ἔχουσαν τὸν τύπον τοῦτον (echousan ton typon touton, “having this pattern” or “to this effect”), evidently wanting to be more precise regarding the contents of the letter. For other instances of τύπος (typos, GK 5596) used in this fashion, see 1 Maccabees 11:29; 2 Maccabees 1:24; 3 Maccabees 3:30.

29 The Western text (minuscules 614 and 2147, and as represented by the Syriac Harclean version) adds Μωϋσέως καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ τινος (Mōyseōs kai Iēsou tinos, “of Moses and a certain Jesus”) after the possessive pronoun αὐτῶν (autōn, “their”), thereby reading, “questions about their law of Moses and a certain Jesus.” The same Western witnesses, with the addition of the Old Latin Gigas version, adds at the end of the verse ἐξήγαγον αὐτὸν μόλις τῇ βίᾳ (exēgagon auton molis tē bia, “I brought him out with difficulty by force”).

30 On a classical model, the Greek of the first part of this verse is confused, for it has a genitive absolute passing into an indirect statement. But Koine Greek is not adverse to such a construction.

Codex Sinaiticus (א) and the Byzantine text (E and many minuscules), and so incorporated into the TR and translated by the KJV, add a final “Farewell” (either ἔρρωσο, errōso, or ἔρρωσθε, errōsthe, GK 4874)—in agreement with the close of the letter of the Jerusalem Council in 15:29 and numerous nonliterary papyrus letters. But it is difficult to account for the absence of “Farewell” in P74 A B and the better Old Latin and Syriac recensions if, indeed, it had been original.

31 On Luke’s use of μὲν οὖν (men oun, “so,” “then”), see comments at 1:6.

34 The Western text (minuscules 383 and 614, and as represented by recensions of the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions) recasts the indirect discourse of the better-attested reading into direct discourse: “And when he had read the letter, he asked Paul: ‘From what province are you?’ He said: ‘A Cilician.’ And when he understood this, he said …”