INTRODUCTION
“The Acts of the Apostles” is the name given to the second part of a two-volume work traditionally identified as having been written by Luke, a companion of the apostle Paul. Originally the two volumes circulated together as two parts of one complete writing. But during the late first or early second century, the first volume became associated with the Gospels identified with Matthew, Mark, and John, thus forming the fourfold Gospel. Luke’s second volume was left to go its own way. It was at this time, it seems, that the second volume received its present title, the word “Acts” evidently suggesting both movement in the advance of the Gospel and heroic exploits by the apostles. The reference to “the Apostles,” however, is somewhat misleading, because the work deals almost exclusively with Peter and Paul and the persons and events associated with their ministries. Yet if we did not have Acts, we would know nothing of the earliest days of the Christian movement except for bits of data gathered from the letters of Paul or inferred by looking back from later developments. Acts is the third longest of the NT writings, being about one-tenth shorter than its companion volume Luke (the longest NT book) and almost exactly the length of Matthew. Together Luke-Acts comprises almost 30 percent of the material in the NT, exceeding both the Pauline and the Johannine writings in size.
1. Historical Writing in Antiquity
This book falls in line with ancient historical writing. The concern of classical Greek historians was not the mere chronicling of events, but the conviction that the actions and words of distinctive people in their respective periods represent more adequately the situation than any comments by the historian. That is, the “acts” of the subjects, understood in terms of both their actions and their words, were the building blocks for the historians and biographers of antiquity. What these historians and biographers were primarily interested in were illuminating vignettes that gave insight into the ethos of a period or of a person’s character. One of the main ways in which to portray both these factors was through speeches, of which Acts has many. These speeches are, of course, not verbatim accounts but summaries of the original, more lengthy delivery (as poor Eutychus undoubtedly could testify! Ac 20:7–12).
Furthermore, in writing their histories the ancients frequently grouped their material in a topical manner, without always specifying chronological relationships. While the ancients were interested in what actually happened, it must also be insisted that history was written by the ancients for moral, ethical, and polemical purposes and not just to inform or entertain. This is true for Acts, for Luke certainly did not write for money, literary recognition, or only to add to human knowledge. He wrote, rather, as he tells us in the Prologue to his two-volume work, to proclaim the certainty of what his audience had been taught (Lk 1:1–4). In other words, Luke’s Acts, like the historiography of the OT, traces the activity of God in various historical events as viewed from a particular perspective.
In the process of writing this history, the author of Acts has his own interests, theological viewpoint, and purposes in writing (see next section). And to a considerable extent these have affected his selection, arrangement, and shaping of the particular units of material that he incorporates, though that does not mean that his narrative must be viewed as historically suspect (see the introduction to Luke for comments on Luke’s historical and geographical accuracy).
2. Luke’s Purposes in Writing Acts
Basic to every evaluation of Acts is the question of the purpose or purposes of its author. Luke himself states that his purpose in writing his two-volume work was “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Lk 1:4). The “most excellent Theophilus” (Lk 1:3; cf. Ac 1:1) to whom Luke addressed his work seems to have been a man who, though receptive to the Gospel and perhaps even convinced by its claims, had many questions about Christianity as he knew it. From the way Luke writes to him, we may surmise that Theophilus was concerned about how the Christian faith related to Jesus’ ministry, to Jews and the world of Judaism, to the lifestyle of certain scrupulous Jewish Christians, to the more universalistic outlook of Gentiles, and to the sanctions of Roman law. Also, he was undoubtedly interested in how the Gospel had been received and what success it had met in the various centers of influence known to him in the eastern part of the empire, from Jerusalem to Rome.
Certainly when receiving his first instruction in the Gospel, Theophilus had been told of Jesus’ death and resurrection. But, judging from Luke’s gospel, apparently the meaning and implications of that death and resurrection were not quite clear to him; and a number of references to persons and events associated with the ministry of Jesus baffled him. Likewise, the subsequent experiences of the early Christians seem to have been somewhat vague to him. The advent and activity of the Holy Spirit, the early ministries of the disciples, the conversion of Paul and his relation to the Jerusalem apostles, the nature and extent of Paul’s ministry—and probably more—were all things that Theophilus had questions about. So Luke writes to deal with his friend’s uncertainties and the queries of others like him who will read his account.
a. Kerygmatic purpose
Acts, therefore, like many another work, was probably written with multiple purposes in view. Primary among the reasons for its composition was undoubtedly a kerygmatic purpose (kerygmatic is from the Greek word kerygma [GK 3060], which means “preaching” or “proclamation”). It proclaims the continued confrontation of men and women by the Word of God through the church and shows (1) how that Gospel is related to the course of redemptive history, (2) how it is rooted in and interacts with secular history, (3) how it is universal in character, (4) how it has been freed from the Jewish law, and (5) how behind the proclamation of the Word of God stand the power and activity of the Holy Spirit.
In his first volume, Luke shows how men and women were confronted by the Word of God in the earthly ministry of Jesus (cf. Lk 5:1;8:11, 21; 11:28). In Acts, Luke seeks to show how men and women continue to be confronted by that same Word through the ministry of the church (cf. Ac 4:29, 31; 6:2, 4, 7; et al.). Luke’s stress on the Word of God is rooted inextricably in the confessions of the earliest believers and the consciousness of Jesus himself. For Luke the message of salvation in Jesus proclaimed by the church is in direct continuity with the ministry and teaching of Jesus. That is why Luke wrote a sequel to his gospel, thus making explicit what was presupposed in the earliest Christian preaching.
Furthermore, this Word of God is firmly fixed in the context of world history. It began with the miraculous births that took place “in the time of Herod king of Judea” (Lk 1:5) and during the reign of Caesar Augustus, “while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (2:1–2; see also 3:1–2; 23:1–25). And it spread throughout the Roman world principally during the reign of the emperor Claudius (Ac 11:28; 18:2), when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (18:12–17), when Felix and Festus ruled in Judea and Ananias was the high priest in Jerusalem (chs. 24–25), and between the times of the Jewish kings Herod Agrippa I (12:1–23) and Herod Agrippa II (25:13–26:32).
In addition, this Word regarding salvation in Jesus has permeated the Jewish homeland of Palestine-Syria and has been received with a measure of acceptance in the main centers of the eastern part of the Roman Empire, finally entering the capital city itself “without hindrance” (the final word of Luke’s two-volume work). It is a universal message. It began in Jerusalem among Jews and spread “to the ends of the earth” (as promised by Jesus himself, Ac 1:8) to include all kinds of people. It is a message that by means of a process under the Spirit’s direction, finally and inevitably freed itself from the shackles of Jewish legalism and a Jewish lifestyle. It is a Word of God that affected the lives of many through the power and activity of the Holy Spirit, that selfsame Spirit who came upon Jesus at his baptism and through whom he accomplished his mission.
b. Apologetic purpose
There is also inherent throughout the presentation of Acts an apologetic purpose. Its author seeks to demonstrate that Christianity is not a political threat to the empire, as its Jewish opponents asserted, but the culmination of Israel’s hope and the true daughter of Jewish religion—and, therefore, should be treated by Roman authorities as a religiolicita (a “legal religion”) along with Judaism (see introduction to Luke). He notes, for example, that no Roman official in the first century ever accepted the charge that Christianity was an illegal new religion in the empire (cf. Lk 23:4, 14, 22; Ac 13:6–12; 16:35–39; 18:12–17; et al.).
c. Conciliatory purpose
A third purpose for writing Acts seems to have been a conciliatory purpose to the type of conflict depicted in 1Co 1:12. Acts presents the careers of Peter (chs. 1–12) and Paul (chs. 13–28) in strikingly parallel fashion (see introductory comments to 2:42–12:24). Likewise, Acts presents Paul as conceding primacy in the church to Peter and apostleship to the Twelve based on their earthly companionship with Jesus; whereas Peter and the Jerusalem authorities, in turn, concede to Paul another mode of apostolic authority and accept Peter’s initiative in the law-free outreach to Gentiles.
d. Catechetical purpose
Finally, Luke may well have written Acts with a catechetical purpose in mind. Luke probably wrote his treatise to Theophilus with the expectation that it could also be used within various churches for instructional purposes, to show how Christianity moved out from its origins in Palestine to become a movement of God’s Spirit in the Roman Empire. Thus Luke portrays in dramatic vignettes drawn from the early church’s history the essence of early Christian preaching, the activity of the Holy Spirit in applying and spreading the message, the Gospel’s power, its transforming quality, its type of adherents, their sacrifices and triumphs, and the ultimate entrance of the Christian proclamation into the city of Rome itself. Undoubtedly, such a catechetical purpose met a vital need among scattered congregations only recently formed—a need for instruction about the nature of the faith and the church’s early history. Also, this instructional material helped draw believers together spiritually.
3. The Sources of Acts
It seems likely that, as with the gospel of Luke (see Lk 1:1–4), some basic source or sources, either written or oral, underlie the substructure of the first half of the book. The language of Ac 1–15 has a Semitic flavor, different from the Greek of the second half of the book. Many scholars have posited Aramaic writings as sources used by Luke.
As for possible source materials underlying the writing of Acts 16–28, attention has always been directed first of all to four passages in the narrative where the writer uses the pronoun “we”—16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16. The most likely explanation for these passages is that the author of Acts had from time to time been a companion of Paul in his travels and discreetly indicated this by using “we” in those places in the narrative where he tells of events at which he had been present. The different styles in the speeches of Paul in chs. 13–28 suggest that Luke was using various sources for his accounts of Paul’s sermons and defenses, even though Luke’s thorough reworking of these sources prevents us from identifying or recreating them.
4. The Structure of Acts
The Acts of the Apostles was originally written as the second part of a two-volume work, and its inseparable relation to Luke’s gospel must be kept in mind if we are to understand the work. The Prologue to the two-volume work (Lk 1:1–4) suggests, in fact, that the author’s intention was to write “an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us”—things that stretched from the birth of John the Baptist to the entrance of the Good News into Rome. And his use of the emphatic verb “began” as he commences his second volume (Ac 1:1) sets up the parallel between “all that Jesus began to do and to teach [italics mine]” as recorded in his gospel and what he continued to do and to teach through his church as is shown in Acts.
Luke has taken pains to construct his second volume with an eye to the first; he sets up numerous parallels in the portrayal of events in the two volumes and repeatedly stresses features in the second that fulfill anticipations expressed in the first. The geographical movement of Jesus in the gospel from Galilee to Jerusalem, for example, is paralleled in Acts by the geographical advance of the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. The importance of the Holy Spirit in the birth narratives, in the Spirit’s descent on Jesus at his baptism, and in the Spirit constantly undergirding his ministry (cf. Jesus’ declaration of this fact found only in Luke 4:18–19) is paralleled in Acts by the Spirit’s coming upon the disciples at Pentecost and the repeated emphasis upon the Spirit as the source of the church’s power and progress.
On the other hand, Acts is not simply a parallel to the gospel, ending at Rome as the gospel ended at Jerusalem. If it were, it would be the less important part of Luke’s two-volume work—something like a shadow of the original. But Acts is important in its own right as the logical and geographical completion of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem.The author presents the apostolic ministry as the necessary extension of the redemption effected by Christ. He views both the accomplishment of salvation and the spread of the Good News as inseparable units in the climactic activity of God’s redemption of humankind—a truth probably picked up from Paul (cf. Ro 8:17; Php 3:10–11; Col 1:24). The Gospel had reached its culmination when it reached Rome, the capital of the Gentile world. And with that victory accomplished, Luke felt free to lay down his pen.
The structure for Acts as used in this commentary sees an introduction (1:1–2:41) and six panels, three for the Christian mission to the Jewish world (2:42–12:24) and three for the Christian mission to the Gentile world (12:25–28:31). Each of these panels concludes in a similar manner (see 6:7; 9:51; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31).
5. Date of Composition
Various dates in the first and second century have been proposed for Luke’s writing of his two-volume work. The best choice among those suggested is approximately A.D. 64. Acts contains a number of features that point to an earlier date than A.D. 70 for its composition. Chief among these is the portrayal of the situation of the Jews. They are represented as being both a spiritual and political power who had influence with the Roman courts and whose damaging testimony against the Christians must be countered. The Jews would likely not be depicted in this manner after their destruction as a nation in the war of A.D. 66–70. Nor would Luke have attempted in such a context to argue before a Gentile audience that Christianity should be accepted as a religio licita (“legal religion”) because of its relation to Judaism. In the eyes of the Roman world Palestinian Judaism was largely defunct after A.D. 70, and Diaspora Judaism undoubtedly came under something of a cloud as a result. Luke’s apologetic, however, is built upon the dual premises that (1) the Jewish leaders throughout the Diaspora and particularly the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem are at the time an important voice before Roman courts of law, even the imperial court at Rome; and (2) Judaism both in the Diaspora and at Jerusalem is accepted by Rome as a religio licita.
Likewise, the estimation of Roman justice implicit in Acts argues for its early composition. Acts expresses a generally hopeful outlook regarding Christianity’s acceptance in the Gentile world and its recognition by Roman authorities. This could hardly have been the case after the Neronian persecution of Christians that began in A.D. 65 and resulted in the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, along with that of many other Christians (cf. 28:31, where Paul was able to preach “without hindrance” in Rome).
Finally, there is the surprising fact that Acts reflects no knowledge of Paul’s letters, either in what is said or what is assumed on the part of its readers (cf. especially Paul’s statements in 2Co 1–2; 11–12; Gal 1–2). This phenomenon may, of course, be interpreted as evidence for the personal aloofness and the chronological distance of the author of Acts from his hero. On the other hand, it may also suggest a very early date for Acts—namely, that it was before the significance of the Pauline correspondence was appreciated and before copies began to be distributed throughout the churches.
6. Authorship
Two observations from Acts itself must govern the discussion of its authorship. (1) Stylistically and structurally the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are so closely related that they have to be assigned to the same author (see the introduction to Luke). (2) Luke-Acts claims to have been written by one who reports firsthand some of the events he records. In the Prologue (Lk 1:1–4) to his two-volume work, the author’s use of the expression “among us” should probably be taken to imply his contemporary status with some of the events he purposes to narrate.
Furthermore, we have the evidence of the “we” sections in Acts (see above). Accepting the author as a traveling companion of Paul during some of his missionary journeys explains quite adequately two rather peculiar features about the plan of Acts: (1) the author devotes more than three-fifths of its space to Paul; (2) in the author’s presentation of Paul, the first mission is narrated with great brevity while certain parts of the second and third missionary journeys, Paul’s five defenses, and the journey to Rome are described in great detail. No writer who was altogether a stranger to apostolic times or working entirely from sources would have devoted so much space to the latter part of Paul’s ministry. His work would have been more symmetrically planned.
Traditionally, the author of the third gospel has been identified as Luke, the companion of Paul mentioned in Col 4:14; Phm 24; 2Ti 4:11. Nor has tradition ever considered any author other than Luke. His authorship was accepted by Marcion (c. A.D. 135), was included in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the third gospel (c. A.D. 170), and was taken for granted by the compiler of the Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180–200). Furthermore, with Luke-Acts being originally one work in two volumes, which sometime during the last part of the first century or very early in the second began to circulate as two separate works, what is said regarding the one as to authorship must apply equally well to the other (see the introduction to Luke).
EXPOSITION
Introduction: The Constitutive Events of the Christian Mission (1:1–2:41)
The structural parallelism between Luke’s gospel and his Acts is immediately seen in the comparative size of the two books and the time spans they cover. Each would have filled an almost equal-sized papyrus roll; each covers approximately thirty-three years. The parallelism is also evident in the plan and purpose of the opening chapters of each book. Luke 1:5–2:52 (after the Prologue of 1:1–4) is essentially a preparation for 3:1–4:13, and together these two sections constitute material introductory to the narrative of Jesus’ ministry that begins with the pericope of 4:14–30. So, too, Ac 1:5–26 (after its preface of 1:1–4) serves to prepare for 2:1–41, and together these two chapters comprise an introduction to the ministry of the church that commences with the thesis paragraph 2:42–47 and continues by means of a series of illustrative vignettes beginning at 3:1.
A. A Resumptive Preface (1:1–5)
The Prologue to Luke-Acts is really Lk 1:1–4. Here, however, Luke begins his second book with what may be called a “resumptive preface,” which serves to link the two books and anticipates the features he wants to stress as being constitutive for the Christian mission.
1 Luke calls his gospel “my former book.” He uses the word logos (GK 3364; usually translated “word” or “message” in the NT) in the technical sense of a section of a work that covers more than one papyrus roll. The subject of his first volume is “all that Jesus began to do and teach” up to his ascension. The word “began” stresses Luke’s intent to show in Acts what Jesus continued to do and to teach through his church. And like the gospel, Acts is addressed to Theophilus (see comment on Lk 1:3).
2 Through a certain awkwardness in the Greek of this verse, Luke highlights four important introductory matters in approximately the same order in which he sets them out in his first two chapters and according to his priorities throughout Acts. Luke gives first place to Jesus’ mandate to witness. The instructions he has in mind are undoubtedly those already set out in Lk 24:48–49 as the climax of Jesus’ earthly teaching (quoted in slightly revised form in Ac 1:4–5 and developed in 1:6–8 as the theme of Acts). This mandate to witness was given to the apostles, who acted through the power of the Holy Spirit, whose coming was a direct result of our Lord’s ascension.
3 Having stated the relation of his present book to its predecessor and shown his interest in the four factors named above, Luke turns back to the time before the Ascension. He recapitulates and expands upon certain features in Jesus’ ministry crucial to the advance of the Gospel as he will present it in Acts. Like Paul in 1Co 15:5–7, his emphasis is on the living Christ, who “after his suffering . . . showed himself . . . alive” and demonstrated his resurrection by “many convincing proofs,” such as the events in Lk 24:13ff. “Over a period of forty days” implies that during that time, the risen Lord showed himself at intervals, not continuously. When he did so, he “spoke about the kingdom of God.”
The theme of “the kingdom [GK 993] of God” is a common one in the OT and NT. Primarily it refers to God’s sovereign rule in human life and the affairs of history, and secondarily to the realm where that rule reigns. God’s sovereignty is universal (cf. Ps 103:19). But it was specially manifested in the life of the nation of Israel and among Jesus’ disciples; it is expressed progressively in the church and through the lives of Christians; and it will be fully revealed throughout eternity. In the Gospels the kingdom is presented as having been inaugurated in time and space by Jesus’ presence and ministry (see comment on Mk 1:15). In Acts the phrase “the kingdom of God” usually appears as a convenient way of summarizing the early Christian proclamation (cf. 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). Jesus is explicitly identified as its subject (cf. 8:12; 28:23, 31).
We may infer that Jesus’ teaching during the “forty days” dealt in essence with (1) the validation and nature of his messiahship, (2) the interpretation of the OT from the perspective of his resurrection, and (3) the responsibility of his disciples to bear witness to what had happened among them in fulfillment of Israel’s hope (see Lk 24:25–27, 44–49). This is what Acts elaborates in the chapters that follow.
4 In vv.4–5 Luke parallels his emphasis on the living Christ by stressing the coming and baptism of the Holy Spirit as essential to the advance of the Gospel. Luke gives us a specific occasion on which Jesus and his disciples ate together and he commanded them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for the coming of the gift of the Holy Spirit, who had been promised by God the Father and spoken of by Jesus (repeated from Lk 24:49). This promise Jesus had made on behalf of the Father (see Jn 14:16–21, 26; 15:26–27; 16:7–15).
5 The statement appears to come from Mk 1:8 (see also Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16), where it is part of the message of John the Baptist. One could take v.5 as an explanatory comment on Luke’s part, but its parallel in Ac 11:16, where it is given as the word of the Lord Jesus, suggests that here too it should be understood as being attributed to Jesus.
B. The Mandate to Witness (1:6–8)
Though vv.6–8 are usually treated either as the last part of the Preface (1:1–8) or as an introduction to the Ascension narrative (1:6–11), in reality they serve as the theme, setting the stage for all that follows in Acts: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (v.8). The concept of “witness” (GK 3459) is so prominent in Acts (the word in its various forms appears some thirty-nine times) that everything else in the book, including the early preaching, should probably be seen as subsumed under it. So as Luke begins his second book, he highlights this witness theme and insists it comes from the mandate of Jesus himself.
6 The question the disciples asked reflects the embers of a once blazing hope for a political theocracy in which they would be leaders (cf. Mk 9:33–34; 10:35–41; Lk 22:24). Now the embers are fanned by Jesus’ talk of the coming Holy Spirit. In Jewish expectations, the restoration of Israel’s fortunes would be marked by the revived activity of God’s Spirit, who had been withheld since the last of the prophets. But though his words about the Spirit’s coming rekindled in the disciples their old nationalistic hopes, Jesus had something else in mind.
7 Jesus’ answer to his disciples’ misguided question is not a denial of any place for the nation of Israel in God’s future purposes (cf. Ro 9–11, which speaks not only of a remnant within Israel responding to God but also of the nation of Israel still being involved in some way in God’s redemptive program). Rather, it stresses the fact that the disciples were to revise their thinking about the divine program, leaving to God the matters that are his concern and taking up the things entrusted to them.
Jesus’ insistence that “it is not for you to know” echoes his teaching in Mt 24:36 and Mk 13:32. The “times” (GK 5989) and “dates” (GK 2789) refer to the character of the ages preceding the final consummation of God’s redemptive program and to the particular critical stages of these ages as they draw to a climax (cf. 1Th 5:1). These “the Father has set by his own authority”; they must not be the subject of speculation by believers—a teaching that, sadly, has been all too frequently disregarded.
8 The mandate to witness stands as the theme for the whole of Acts. It comes directly from Jesus himself—in fact, it is his final and conclusive word to his disciples before his ascension. All that follows in Acts is the result of Jesus’ own intent and the fulfillment of his express word. This commission lays an obligation on all Christians and comes to us as a gift with a promise. It concerns a person, a power, and a program—the person of Jesus, on whose authority the church acts and who is the object of its witness; the power of the Holy Spirit, which is essential for the mission; and a program that begins at Jerusalem (cf. 2:42–8:3), moves out to “all Judea and Samaria” (cf. 8:4–12:24), and progresses until it finally reached the imperial capital city of Rome (12:25–28:31). The Christian church, according to Acts, is a missionary church that responds obediently to Jesus’ commission, acts on Jesus’ behalf in the extension of his ministry, focuses its proclamation of the kingdom of God in its witness to Jesus, is guided and empowered by the selfsame Spirit that directed and supported Jesus’ ministry, and follows a program whose guidelines for outreach have been set by Jesus himself.
C. The Ascension (1:9–11)
Luke next speaks of the second constitutive factor of the Christian mission, the church’s ascended Lord. The Greek of v.2 includes this as a fourth element in its listing of constitutive factors, but here Luke is proceeding more chronologically. So he speaks of the Ascension before mentioning the full complement of apostles and the coming of the Holy Spirit. The important thing about this account of the Ascension (cf. Lk 24:5–51) is the attention focused on (1) the fact of Jesus’ ascension and entrance “into heaven” and (2) the angel’s message that rebukes the disciples for their lack of understanding and assures them of their Lord’s return. Luke’s point is that the missionary activity of the early church rested not only on Jesus’ mandate but also on his living presence in heaven and the sure promise of his return.
Many modern scholars have asserted that looking for Jesus’ return paralyzes missionary activity and inhibits Christian social action by diverting attention away from present needs to the “sweet by and by.” Luke, however, insists here that Christian mission must be based on the ascended and living Lord who directs his church from heaven and who will return to consummate what he has begun.
9 For Jesus’ ascension Luke simply says that he “was taken up.” He tells us very little else about it except that it occurred after Jesus had given his mandate to witness and while the disciples were watching. Not even the place where the Ascension occurred is mentioned in v.9, though in v.12 Luke says it took place on the Mount of Olives. More important for Luke than the description of the Ascension is its significance, and this he gives us in saying that “a cloud hid him from their sight.”
The cloud undoubtedly symbolizes the shekinah (see comment on Ex 24:16–17), the visible manifestation of the divine presence and glory. Such a cloud hovered above the tabernacle in the wilderness as a visible token of the glory of God that dwelt within the tabernacle (cf. Ex 40:34); it also enveloped Jesus and three of his disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration as a visible sign of God’s presence there and his approval of his Son (cf. Mk 9:7–11). Something similar is presented here: Jesus as the ascended Lord is enveloped by the shekinah cloud, the visible manifestation of God’s presence, glory, and approval.
10–11 Luke describes the disciples as “looking intently up [a favorite word of Luke] into the sky as he was going.” They were soon challenged by a double message from two angels “dressed in white.” (1) The Jesus whom the disciples had known now had a heavenly existence (cf. the double use of the phrase “into heaven”). (2) The same Jesus they had known would return also enveloped in the cloud of the divine presence and glory (cf. Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27).
D. The Full Complement of Apostles 1:12–26)
Luke’s third factor (cf. comment on 1:2) underlying the rise and expansion of the early Christian mission is the centrality of the apostles and their ministry. His interest in the apostles was evident already in Lk 6, where he adds that the disciples whom Jesus chose were also “designated apostles” (Lk 6:13). Now he resumes that interest, telling how under God’s direction the apostolic band regained its full number after the defection of Judas Iscariot.
1. In the upper room (1:12–14)
12 The disciples had been instructed by Jesus to “stay in the city [of Jerusalem] until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24:49; cf. Ac 1:4) and to begin their ministry from that city (Lk 24:47; Ac 1:8). So they returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, a distance of “a Sabbath day’s walk from the city” (about two-thirds of a mile).
13 Upper rooms in Palestinian cities were usually the choicest rooms because they were above the tumult of the crowded streets and beyond the prying eyes of passersby. For the wealthy, the upper room was the living room. Sometimes upper rooms were rented out. Often they served as places of assembly, study, and prayer. On their return to Jerusalem, the disciples “went upstairs to the room where they were staying,” a room that presumably was well known to the early Christians—perhaps the room where Jesus and his disciples kept the Passover just before his crucifixion (Mk 14:12–16). Perhaps it was also the room where he appeared to some of them after he rose from the dead (Lk 24:33–43; cf. Jn 20:19, 26).
Luke has already listed the names of the Twelve in his gospel (6:14–16). Now he lists them again—though without Judas Iscariot, pointing out the incompleteness of the apostolic band and setting the stage for the account of its rectification through the choosing of Matthias. All this prepares for the coming of the Holy Spirit and the beginning of the apostolic ministry. In obedience to their Lord and in anticipation of what is to follow, the apostles have returned to Jerusalem—only they lack the full complement needed for their witness within Jewry.
14 In addition to the Eleven, also present in the upper room were “the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” They fill out the nucleus of the early church and in some way are to be included in the apostolic witness. The women Luke refers to are undoubtedly those mentioned in Lk 8:2–3; 23:49; 23:55–24:10, who followed Jesus throughout his ministry—even to his death—and contributed out of their personal incomes to support him and his followers. This mention of women fully accords with Luke’s attitude toward women as portrayed in his gospel and the consciousness within the church of the implications of the Gospel proclamation.
The reference here to “Mary the mother of Jesus” continues Luke’s interest in Mary begun in Lk 1, though this is the last occasion where she is recorded as being involved in the redemptive history of the NT. The reference to Jesus’ “brothers” is particularly interesting because during his ministry they thought him to be “out of his mind” (Mk 3:21–35), perhaps even demon possessed, and because Jn 7:2–10 presupposes their disbelief. Paul, however, recounts an appearance of the risen Christ to James (cf. 1Co 15:7), and we may infer that Joses (or Joseph), Judas (or Jude), and Simon (cf. Mt 13:55–56; Mk 6:3) likewise came to believe in Jesus and attached themselves to the congregation of early Christians. These all are depicted as being assiduous in prayer (cf. Ac 2:42; 6:4). There must also have been others who were at various times assembled with these people, for 1:15 speaks of the total number of believers at the selection of Matthias as being “about a hundred and twenty.”
2. Matthias chosen to replace Judas Iscariot (1:15–26)
15 In keeping with his character portrayal of Peter throughout his gospel, Luke here presents Peter as taking the lead among the apostles. The word “believers” here is usually “brothers” (GK 81), a term that Luke frequently uses for Christian believers but also has just used for the blood “brothers” of Jesus.
16–17 The Greek literally reads “Men, brothers,” a type of formal address found within first-century synagogues (cf. 2:29, 37; 7:2; 13:15, 26, 38; et al.). Peter’s words in v.16, and again later in v.21, speak of the “necessity” (cf. “had to”; GK 1256) of Scripture being fulfilled in relation to Judas’s defection and the choice of another to replace him. Luke frequently stresses the compulsion inherent in the divine plan—a stress usually accompanied by an emphasis on human inability to comprehend God’s workings. At times that divine necessity is explained in terms of the fulfillment of specific Scripture passages (as here; see also Lk 22:37; 24:26, 44), but more often that is not the case (e.g., Lk 2:49; 4:43; 9:22; et al.). This suggests that the concept of “divine necessity” is broader than just “the fulfillment of Scripture.” We should therefore not say that the “necessity” here and in v.21 concerns only certain prophecies of Scripture. The understanding is rather (1) that God is doing something necessarily involved in his divine plan; (2) that the disciples’ lack of comprehension of God’s plan is profound, especially with respect to Judas; and (3) that an explicit way of understanding what has been going on under God’s direction is through a Christian understanding of two psalms that speak of false companions and wicked men generally, and which by means of exegetical rules used in that day could be applied to the false disciple and wicked man par excellence, Judas Iscariot.
18–19 Luke now adds a parenthesis concerning the awful fate of Judas, presenting the tradition he has received (cf. v.6) and emphasizing the awfulness of Judas’s fate, thus suggesting a basis for the disciples’ perplexity in trying to comprehend the plan of God.
The difficulty of reconciling 1:18–19 with Mt 27:3–10 is well known and often considered the most intractable contradiction in the NT. The problem chiefly concerns how Judas died. But it also involves such questions as Who bought the field? and Why was it called “Field of Blood”? These latter matters are perhaps not too difficult. Probably the common explanation suffices: The chief priests bought the potter’s field in Judas’s name with the thirty silver coins belonging to him, and the local Jerusalemites (particularly Christians) nicknamed it “Field of Blood” because they felt it had been purchased with “blood money.”
The major question as to how Judas died, however, is not so easily answered. Had he “hanged himself” (Mt 27:5)? Or was it that “he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out” (Ac 1:18)? We shall probably never know the exact answer. But though the precise solution seems imponderable, the problem is not very different from many other differences among the evangelists in presenting the words and activity of Jesus. If, as seems likely, each writer wrote from the standpoint of his own theological purposes to the specific interests and appreciation of his audience, it is not too difficult to believe that in the context of Matthew’s fulfillment theme it was sufficient for him and his readers to portray Judas’s awful end with the terse expression “he hanged himself.” But this would hardly suffice for Luke, Theophilus, and others in the Gentile world. Gentiles under Stoic influence generally looked on suicide as morally neutral. In order, therefore, to stress the awfulness of Judas’s situation in a way that would grip his readers, Luke spelled out the gory details of Judas’s suicide. He also highlights that what had happened to Judas was a divine necessity.
20 The OT passages Luke uses to support the divine necessity manifest in Judas’s defection and replacement are Ps 69:25 and 109:8. These psalms speak of false companions and wicked men who have become enemies of God’s righteous servant. They lament over his condition and give us his prayers for deliverance and his desire for retribution. Psalm 69 was applied variously within the early church to Jesus the Christ, the Servant of the Lord and Righteous Sufferer par excellence (v.9 is quoted in Jn 2:17 and Ro 15:3; vv.22–23 in Ro 11:9–10). So here in v.20 we have another example of the Christian use of this block of messianic material, to which, using the commonly accepted exegetical principle of analogous subject, Peter added the ominous words of Ps 109:8 in order to defend the legitimacy of replacing a member of the apostolic band.
We need not insist that the early Christians believed that the primary reference of these two psalms was to Judas, as if no one could have understood them prior to the betrayal. What they seem to be saying, however, is that just as the psalmist’s portrayals of “The Servant of the Lord and the Righteous Sufferer” can on the basis of the Semitic concept of corporate solidarity be applied to God’s Messiah, Jesus, the Servant and Righteous Sufferer, so the retribution spoken of as coming upon false companions and wicked men in general is especially applicable to Judas, who above all other men was false.
21–22 A twelvefold apostolic witness was required if early Jewish Christianity was to represent itself to the Jewish nation as the culmination of Israel’s hope and the true people of Israel’s Messiah (cf. Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30; Rev 21:10, 12, 14). The “remnant theology” of Late Judaism made it mandatory that any group that presented itself as “the righteous remnant” of the nation and had the responsibility of calling the nation to repentance and permeating it for God’s glory, must represent itself as the true Israel, not only in its proclamation, but also in its symbolism. The Qumran community, for example, had twelve leaders heading up their community. Consequently, the early church found itself required to replace the defector Judas so as to have a full complement of twelve in its apostolic ranks.
For a candidate to succeed Judas among the apostles, Peter laid down two qualifications. The first was that the successor had to have familiar and unhindered association with Jesus from John’s baptism to Jesus’ ascension. Perhaps not all the Eleven themselves could claim association with Jesus from the days of John the Baptist (Jn 1:35–51 suggests that about half could). But they evidently wanted to make quite sure that there would be no deficiency on this first point. The second qualification was that of having been a witness to Christ’s resurrection. From these two verses we may derive a strict definition of the term “apostle” (GK 693) and one that determines much of what Luke presents in the remainder of Acts (though, of course, Luke also uses the word “apostle” more broadly; cf. 14:14). An apostle was a guarantor of the Gospel tradition because he had been a companion of the earthly Jesus and a witness to the reality of his resurrection through an encounter with the risen Lord.
23 The eleven apostles together “proposed” two men: Joseph, who was called by Aramaic-speaking Jews “Barsabbas” and was also known by his Roman cognomen Justus, and Matthias. While more were perhaps considered (cf. v.21), only two had the necessary qualifications.
24–25 It was not enough to possess the qualifications that other apostles had. Judas’s successor must also be appointed by the same Lord who appointed the Eleven. Likewise, though the church could not represent itself as the righteous remnant of Israel with one apostle lacking, it could hardly symbolize its consciousness as being the true Israel of God with one apostle too many. Therefore, prayer was offered to the Lord for his selection between the two candidates.
While it is not clear linguistically whether God the Father or Jesus is here being addressed in prayer by the vocative “Lord” (GK 3261), it is most natural to understand the same referent for the title here as in v.21: “the Lord Jesus.” Furthermore, Luke seems to draw the parallel consciously by using the verb “to choose” for those selected by Jesus in 1:2 and for this replacement of Judas.
26 After determining qualifications and praying, they “cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias.” Determining God’s will in this manner (likely by casting down marked objects) was common within Israel and the ancient world (cf. Pr 16:33). So by the appointment of Christ himself, the full complement of apostles was restored and the church was ready for the coming of the Holy Spirit and the beginning of its mission.
This pericope on the selection of Matthias has a number of significant implications. In the first place, it shows the necessity of a hermeneutical methodology that is able to distinguish between normative principles and culturally restricted practices in the progressive revelation of the Bible. We are exhorted as Christians to “search the Scriptures” and to “know what is the will of the Lord”—exhortations that are normative. But the early church’s method for interpreting the OT (e.g., Ps 69) and the practice of casting lots in order to determine God’s will need not bind believers today. Second, the pericope suggests that a Christian decision regarding vocation entails (1) evaluating personal qualifications, (2) earnest prayer, and (3) appointment by Christ himself—an appointment that may come in some culturally related fashion, but in a way clear to those who seek guidance.
In addition, it should be noted that it was Judas’s defection and not simply the fact of his death that required his replacement. While the NT lays great stress on the apostolic message and faith and while Luke stresses the importance of the apostles themselves, this pericope gives no justification for the theological necessity of an apostolic succession of office, as is sometimes claimed for it. According to vv.21–22, the task of the twelve apostles was unique: to be guarantors of the Gospel tradition because of their companionship with Jesus in his earthly ministry and to be witnesses to the reality of his resurrection because they had seen the risen Christ. Such criteria cannot be transmitted from generation to generation. Thus when James the son of Zebedee was executed by Herod Agrippa I in A.D. 44 (cf. 12:1–2), the church took no action to replace him.
Finally, and contrary to an oft-heard claim that the apostles were wrong in selecting Matthias and should have awaited God’s choice of Paul to fill the vacancy, it should be pointed out (1) that Paul had not been with Jesus during his earthly ministry—in fact, he acknowledges his dependence upon others with respect to the Gospel tradition (e.g., 1Co 15:3–5); (2) that the necessity of having exactly twelve apostles in the early church sprang largely from the need for Jewish Christians ministering within the Jewish nation to maintain this symbolic number, and, while Paul could appreciate this, he did not feel its necessity for his primarily Gentile ministry; and (3) that Paul himself recognized the special nature of his apostleship—namely, it was in line with that of the Twelve, but it also rested on a somewhat different base (cf. his reference to himself as an apostle “abnormally born” in 1Co 15:7–8). Paul’s background, ministry, and call were in many ways different from those of the Twelve. Yet he insisted on the equality of his apostleship with that of the other apostles.
E. The Coming of the Holy Spirit (2:1–41)
Luke’s fourth constitutive factor (see comment on 1:2) that undergirds the expansion of the early Christian mission is the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the assembled believers at Pentecost. To this the other three factors have pointed. And now Luke gives us an extended account of it that includes the baptism of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and Peter’s sermon to the multitude and welds these separate incidents into a unified whole.
Matthew and Luke have preserved John the Baptist’s distinction between his baptism with water and the baptism by the one who is to come, the “one more powerful” than he was (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). Luke goes on to connect the Baptist’s prophecy of a baptism “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” with the miracle at Pentecost (Ac 1:5; 11:16). So Luke brings John’s baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and the Spirit’s baptism of assembled believers at Pentecost into a parallel in which each event is seen as the final constitutive factor for all that follows—for the ministry of Jesus in Luke’s gospel and for the mission of the early church in Acts.
1. The miracle of Pentecost (2:1–13)
1 Luke describes the miracle of the coming of the Holy Spirit, with its accompanying signs, in four short verses, remarkable for their nuances. The miracle occurred on the festival known as Pentecost, which was celebrated on the fiftieth day after Passover (Lev 23:15–16; Dt 16:9–12). It was originally the Festival of the Firstfruits of the grain harvest (Ex 23:16; Lev 23:17–22; Nu 28:26–31); it was called the Feast of Weeks because it came after a period of seven weeks of harvesting that began with the offering of the first barley sheaf during the Passover celebration. By the time of the first century A.D., however, it was considered the anniversary of the giving of the law at Mount Sinai and was a time for the annual renewal of the Mosaic covenant; it was therefore looked upon as one of the three great pilgrim festivals of Judaism (along with Passover and Tabernacles).
Now no one who had been a companion of the apostle Paul could have failed to have been impressed by the fact that it was on the Jewish festival of Pentecost that the Spirit came so dramatically upon the early believers in Jerusalem. It is this significance that Luke emphasizes as he begins his Pentecost narrative; namely, that whereas Pentecost was for Judaism the day of the giving of the law, for Christians it is the day of the coming of the Holy Spirit. So for Luke the coming of the Spirit upon the early Christians at Pentecost is not only a parallel to the Spirit’s coming upon Jesus at his baptism, it also shows that the mission of the Christian church, as was the ministry of Jesus, is dependent upon the Holy Spirit. And by his stress on Pentecost as the day when the miracle took place, he is also suggesting (1) that the Spirit’s coming is in continuity with God’s purposes in giving the law, and yet (2) that the Spirit’s coming signals the essential difference between the Jewish faith and commitment to Jesus, for whereas the former is Torah-centered and Torah-directed, the latter is Christ-centered and Spirit-directed—all of which sounds very much like Paul.
As to just where the believers were when they experienced the coming of the Spirit, Luke is somewhat vague. His emphasis is on the “when”; all he tells us about “where” is that “they were all together in one place,” in a “house” (v.2.). Most likely Luke is referring to the same upper room as in 1:12–26 as the setting for the miracle of the Spirit’s coming and the place from where the disciples first went out to proclaim the Gospel.
2 There is, of course, nothing necessarily sensory about the Holy Spirit. Yet God in his providence often accompanies his Spirit’s working by visible and audible signs—particularly at certain crises in redemptive history. This he does to assure his people of his presence. In vv.2–4 three signs of the Spirit’s coming are reported to have appeared, each of them—wind, fire, and inspired speech—being considered in Jewish tradition as a sign of God’s presence.
Wind as a sign of God’s Spirit is rooted linguistically in the fact that both the Hebrew word ruah (GK 8120) and the Greek word pneuma (GK 4460) mean either “wind” or “spirit,” depending on the context, and this allows a rather free association of the two ideas (cf. Jn 3:8). Ezekiel had prophesied of the wind as the breath of God blowing over the dry bones in the valley of his vision and filling them with new life (Eze 37:9–14), and it was this wind of God’s Spirit that Judaism looked forward to as ushering in the final Messianic Age. Thus Luke tells us that one sign of the Spirit’s coming upon the early followers of Jesus was “a sound like the blowing of a violent wind.” Just why he emphasized the “sound” of the blowing of the “wind” is difficult to say. This sound “came from heaven” and “filled the whole house,” symbolizing to all present the presence of God’s Spirit among them in a way more intimate, personal, and powerful than they had ever before experienced.
3 Fire as a symbol of the divine presence was well known among first-century Jews (cf. the burning bush [Ex 3:2–5], the pillar of fire that guided Israel by night through the desert [Ex 13:21], the consuming fire on Mount Sinai [Ex 24:17], and the fire that hovered over the wilderness tabernacle [Ex 40:38]). John the Baptist explicitly linked the coming of the Spirit with fire (cf. Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). The “tongues of fire” here are probably not to be equated with the “other tongues” of v.4 but should be taken as visible representations of the overshadowing presence of the Spirit of God.
Also significant is Luke’s statement that these tokens of the Spirit’s presence “separated and came to rest on each of them.” This seems to suggest that, though under the old covenant the divine presence rested on Israel as a corporate entity and upon many of its leaders for special purposes, under the new covenant, as established by Jesus and inaugurated at Pentecost, the Spirit now rests upon each believer individually. In other words, though the corporate and individual aspects of redemption cannot actually be separated, the emphasis in the proclamation of redemption from Pentecost onward is on the personal relationship of God to the believer through the Spirit, with all corporate relationships resulting from this.
4 In OT times prophetic utterances were regularly associated with the Spirit’s coming upon particular persons for special purposes (cf. Nu 11:26–29; 1Sa 10:6–12; et al.). In Judaism, however, the belief arose that with the passing of the last of the writing prophets in the early postexilic period, the spirit of prophecy had ceased in Israel, and God now spoke to his people only through the Torah as interpreted by the teachers. But Judaism also expected that with the coming of the Messianic Age there would be a special outpouring of God’s Spirit, in fulfillment of Eze 37, and that prophecy would once again flourish. This is exactly what Luke portrays as having taken place at Pentecost among the followers of Jesus.
The “tongues” (GK 1185) here are often identified with ecstatic utterances of the sort Paul discusses in 1Co 12–14. This identification is made largely (1) because in both instances the expression “other tongues” is used, and (2) because the verb translated “enabled” (or “gave utterance”; GK 1443 & 710) is frequently used in the OT and other Greek literature in connection with ecstatics (cf. Mic 5:12; Zec 10:2). But the words spoken at Pentecost under the Spirit’s direction were immediately recognized by those who heard them as being languages then current, while at Corinth no one could understand what was said until someone present received a gift of interpretation. And the above-mentioned verb appears in contexts that stress clarity of speech and understanding (see 2:14; 26:25). Therefore, the tongues in 2:4 are best understood as “languages” (see NIV note).
The coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was of utmost significance both theologically and practically for the early church. Was Pentecost the birthday of the Christian church? A great deal depends upon what one means by the term “church” (GK 1711) in the NT. One meaning is “the body of Christ” as the redeemed of all ages. For this meaning, it can hardly be said that the church had its beginning only at Pentecost. What Luke seems to be stressing is (1) that the relationship of the Spirit to the members of the body of Christ became much more intimate and personal at Pentecost, in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that the Spirit who “lives with you . . . will be in you” (Jn 14:17), and (2) that at Pentecost a new model of divine redemption was established as characteristic for life in the new covenant—one that, while incorporating both individual and corporate redemption, begins with the former in order to include the latter.
A second meaning of “church” is “an instrument of service” (distinguishable from the nation Israel) used by God for his redemptive purposes. It has been called by God to take up the mission formerly entrusted to Israel. In this sense, Luke is certainly presenting the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost as the church’s birthday. Neither Jesus’ ministry nor the mission of the early church would have been possible apart from the Spirit’s empowering. So Luke emphasizes Jesus’ explicit command to the disciples to stay in Jerusalem till they were empowered from on high by the Spirit (Lk 24:49; Ac 1:4–5, 8).
5–6 Certain “God-fearing Jews” who were residing in Jerusalem from many parts of the Diaspora, together with a number of Jews and proselytes who had returned to Jerusalem as pilgrims for the Pentecost festival, were “in bewilderment,” “utterly amazed,” and “perplexed” by the miraculous coming of the Spirit (vv.6–7, 12). Others, however, mocked (v.13). What drew the crowd and caused its bewilderment? Commentators differ as to whether it was the sound of the wind or the disciples’ speaking in various languages. But if we break the sentence with some kind of punctuation after “crowd” rather than (as is usually done) after “bewilderment,” we have two coordinate sentences with two separate yet complementary ideas: “When they heard this sound, a crowd came together. And they were bewildered because each one heard them speaking in his own language.” On this reading, “this sound” refers back to the “sound” of v.2 and conjures up a picture of people rushing to the source of the noise to see what is going on. When they get there, they become bewildered on hearing Galileans speaking in their own native languages.
7–8 Galileans had difficulty pronouncing gutturals and had the habit of swallowing syllables when speaking; so they were looked down upon by the people of Jerusalem as being provincial (cf. Mk 14:70). Therefore, since the disciples who were speaking were Galileans, it bewildered those who heard because the disciples could not by themselves have learned so many different languages.
9–11 Why these fifteen countries and no others are named here and why they are cited in this order are questions without ready solutions. Presumably Luke is using a current literary convention to illustrate his more prosaic statement of v.5: “from every nation under heaven.” The list includes both ancient kingdoms and current political entities, moving generally from east to west and in its middle section naming first the northern and then the southern lands.
The appearance of “Judea” in the listing is, admittedly, strange because (1) it hardly ranks being sandwiched between Mesopotamia to the east and Cappadocia to the north; and (2) it involves the curious anomaly of inhabitants of Judea being amazed to hear the apostles speak in their own language. Perhaps the most cogent solution involves viewing “Judea” here in a wider prophetic sense, wherein the reference is to “the land of the Jews” that was held to stretch from the Euphrates to the Egyptian border. This would explain its sequence in the list and the omission of Syria from the list, and it would allow for a variety of dialects different from the one that was native to Jerusalem. The inclusion of “Cretans and Arabs” probably refers to seafaring peoples and to Nabatean Arabs, whose kingdom traditionally extended from the Euphrates to the Red Sea.
Each area and country named had a considerable Jewish population within its borders. Some of these had returned to Jerusalem to take up residence there. One group, however, is singled out as being religious pilgrims to the city: Jews and proselytes to Judaism from Rome. Undoubtedly there were other festival pilgrims in the crowd (just as there must have been other Diaspora Jews in attendance who were residents of Jerusalem), but Luke’s interest in Acts is in the Gospel reaching out even to Rome, the capital of the empire. So he singles out this pilgrim contingent for special mention. It may be that some of these “visitors” from Rome returned there and formed the nucleus of the church in that city.
12–13 The miraculous does not inevitably and uniformly convince. There must also be the preparation of the heart and the proclamation of the message if miracles are to accomplish their full purpose. This was true even for the miracle of the Spirit’s coming at Pentecost. All of the “God-fearing Jews” (v.5) whose attention had been arrested by the signs at Pentecost and whose own religious heritage gave them at least some appreciation of them were amazed and asked, “What does this mean?” Others, however, being spiritually insensitive, only mocked, attributing such phenomena to drunkenness. All this prepares the reader for Peter’s sermon, which is the initial proclamation of the Gospel message to a prepared people.
2. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (2:14–41)
Peter’s sermon at Pentecost consists of (1) an explanation of the occurrence of the phenomena (vv.14–21), (2) a proclamation of the apostolic message in its most elemental form (vv.22–36), and (3) a call to repentance with a promise of blessing (vv.37–41). The sermon is headed by a brief introductory statement and followed by two summary sentences dealing with Peter’s further preaching and the people’s response. It was probably delivered in the outer court of the temple.
a. Explanation section (2:14–21)
14 The first section of Peter’s sermon is addressed to the “fellow Jews” and “all . . . [who are] in Jerusalem.” Later on these two groups are combined under the captions “Men of Israel” (v.22) and “Brothers” (v.29), for it is natural for them to be classed together. But here Peter apparently wanted to include particularly those most bewildered by the multiplicity of the languages spoken, namely, the Diaspora contingent, who most appreciated the incongruity of the situation and wanted an explanation.
15 Peter begins negatively by arguing that the apostles could not be drunk, for it was only “nine in the morning.” Unfortunately, this argument was more telling in antiquity than today.
16–21 Positively, Peter explains the phenomena taking place among the early Christians at Pentecost as fulfilling Joel 2:28–32. His use of the Joel passage employs a then-current method of OT interpretation that lays all emphasis on the fulfillment motif without attempting to exegete the details of the biblical prophecy it “interprets.” The note of fulfillment is heightened by Peter’s alteration of the OT’s “afterwards” to “in the last days” and by his interruption of the quotation to insert the words “and they will prophesy” (v.18), thus highlighting the restoration of prophecy. The solemnity and importance of the words are emphasized by the addition of “God says” at the beginning (v.18).
The way Peter uses Joel 2:28–32 is of great significance for an appreciation of early Christian exegetical practices and doctrinal commitments and as a pattern for our own treatment of the OT. For Peter, we should note, what Joel said is what God says. And while what God said may have been somewhat enigmatic when first uttered, in the light of what has just happened it is clarified. Thus Peter can proclaim from the perspective of the Messiah’s resurrection and living presence with his people (1) that “this” that he and the infant church were experiencing in the outpouring of God’s Spirit “is that” prophesied by Joel, (2) that these are the long-awaited “last days” of God’s redemptive program, and (3) that the validation of all this is the fact of the return of prophesying. By including the prophet Joel’s call for response (v.21), Peter is also suggesting that a prophetic message of salvation and a call for repentance will go out from Jerusalem.
COUNTRIES OF PEOPLE MENTIONED AT PENTECOST
© 1989 The Zondervan Corporation.
How Peter and the earliest followers of Jesus understood the more spectacular physical signs of Joel’s prophecy (i.e., “blood and fire and billows of smoke”; “the sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood”) has been debated (see EBC 1:103–26). What is important to note is that Peter quotes the entire prophecy in Joel 2:28–32 because of its traditional messianic significance and because of its final sentence (“And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”), which leads logically into the proclamation section of his sermon.
b. Proclamation section (2:22–36)
Many scholars, beginning with C. H. Dodd, identify six themes that appear repeatedly in Peter’s sermons in Acts 2–4:
1. The age of fulfillment has dawned.
2. This has come about through the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus (a brief account is given, with proof from Scripture).
3. Jesus was raised from the dead and is now exalted at God’s right hand.
4. The presence of the Holy Spirit is the sign of Christ’s power and glory.
5. The Messianic Age will soon end in the return of Christ.
6. The preaching always ends by an appeal for repentance, the offer of forgiveness and of the Holy Spirit, and the promise of salvation to those who enter the elect community.
With the exception of the return of Christ (which appears in these early sermons only at 3:20–21), all these themes are in Peter’s Pentecost sermon. The early church was interested in the life and character of Jesus. Its preaching about Jesus was principally functional in nature rather than philosophical and stressed ultimate causality more than secondary causes or means. Peter therefore proclaims our Lord as “Jesus of Nazareth,” “a man accredited,” “handed over,” put “to death,” and raised “from the dead.” God was the true author of Jesus’ miracles, the ultimate agent in Jesus’ death, and the only cause for Jesus’ resurrection. There is, to be sure, some allusion to means in the statement “and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” (v.23b). Yet the primary emphasis here is focused on Jesus, including Peter’s closing declaration (v.36) and his call to repentance (v.38).
22 Peter begins his proclamation section with an inclusive form of address: “Men of Israel,” which he parallels with the synonymous vocative “Brothers” (v.29). His topic concerns “Jesus of Nazareth”—a common title used of Jesus throughout Luke’s writings (cf. Lk 18:37; Ac 3:6; 4:10; et al.) and one by which early Christians themselves were at times called (cf. 24:5). The ministry of Jesus is characterized by “miracles, wonders and signs” that God did among the people through Jesus.
23 The death of Jesus is presented as resulting from the interplay of divine necessity and human freedom. Nowhere in the NT is the paradox of a Christian understanding of history put more sharply than in this earliest proclamation of the death of Jesus the Messiah: God’s purpose and foreknowledge stand as the necessary factors behind whatever happens; yet whatever happens occurs through the instrumentality of wicked people expressing their own human freedom. It is a paradox without ready solution. To deny it, however, is to go counter to the plain teaching of Scripture in both the OT and NT and to ignore the testimony of personal experience. “With the help of wicked men” points to the Roman authorities in Palestine, who carried out what had been instigated by the Jewish authorities.
24 Here the resurrection of Jesus is attributed directly to God, apart from any human action or even Jesus himself—just as elsewhere in the NT it is so attributed in quotations from early Christian hymns and catechisms (e.g., 1Co 15:4; Php 2:9). The imagery is of “death pangs” and their awful clutches (cf. 2Sa 22:6; Pss 18:4–6; 116:3), from which God is “freeing” Jesus “because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.”
25–35 Here Peter quotes from Ps 16:8–11 and Ps 110:1 in support of what he has just said about Jesus in v.24. Peter once again uses a principle of the interpretation of Scripture that was acceptable in his day, which said that the same words appearing in two separate passages can be brought together. Both quotations have “at my right hand” and thus are deliberately treated together (cf. v.33).
During this period, both Ps 16 and Ps 110 were considered by Jewish interpreters to be somewhat enigmatic and were therefore understood in various ways. There was no problem with the confidence expressed in Ps 16:8–9, 11, for it was appropriate for the psalmist to whom God’s love had been pledged and who had experienced God’s covenant-keeping lovingkindness. But how could the psalmist have expected God to keep him from the grave and from undergoing decay, as in v.10? And Ps 110 was even more difficult, for who is this “my Lord” to whom “the LORD” has said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (v.34)? Some early rabbis linked the psalm with Abraham, others with David, and some even with Hezekiah; but there is no clearly attested messianic understanding of Ps 110 in rabbinic literature until about A.D. 260.
Nevertheless, Jesus is reported in all three Synoptic Gospels as having interpreted Ps 110:1 as a messianic passage and as applying it to himself (Mt 22:41–46; Mk 12:35–37; Lk 20:41–44). And it was probably Jesus’ own treatment of this verse that (1) furnished the exegetical key for the early church’s understanding of their risen Lord, (2) served as the pattern for their interpretation of similar enigmatic OT passages (e.g., Paul’s combining 2Sa 7:6–16 with Ps 2:7 and Isa 55:3 with Ps 16:10 in his Antioch address of Ac 13:16–41), and (3) anchored all other passages as could be brought together on a “verbal analogy basis” (e.g., the passages listed in Heb 1:5–13).
Therefore working from Ps 110:1 as an accepted messianic passage and viewing Ps 16:8–11 as legitimately related to it, Peter proclaims that Ps 16:10 refers to Israel’s promised Messiah and no other. Furthermore, Peter insists, David could not have been speaking about himself, for he did indeed die, was buried, and suffered decay—as the presence of his tomb in the city eloquently testifies (v.29). Nor did he ascend into heaven. Therefore, David must have been prophesying about the resurrection of the Messiah in Ps 16:10 and about his exaltation in Ps 110:1. And with God’s raising of Jesus from the dead, these formerly enigmatic passages are clarified and the pouring out of the Spirit explained.
36 With the proclamation of Jesus as Lord and Messiah, Peter reaches the climax and conclusion of his sermon. The initial “therefore” shows that God’s resurrection and exaltation of Jesus accredit him as humankind’s Lord and Israel’s Messiah. And Peter calls upon “all Israel” to know with certainty that “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Jesus was acknowledged and proclaimed Lord and Christ both after his resurrection and because of his resurrection. In Jewish thought, no one had a right to the title Messiah till he had accomplished the work of the Messiah. During his earthly ministry, as that ministry is portrayed in all the Gospels, Jesus was distinctly reluctant to accept the acclaim of Lord and Messiah, probably because his understanding of messiahship had to do with suffering and because his concept of lordship had to do with vindication and exaltation by God. But now that Jesus has accomplished his messianic mission in life and death and has been raised by God and exalted “at his right hand,” the titles Lord and Christ are legitimately his. This theme of function and accomplishment as the basis for titular acclaim is a recurring note in the christological statements elsewhere in the NT (cf. Ro 1:4; Php 2:9–11; Heb 2:14; 1Jn 5:6). The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is God’s open avowal that the messianic work has been accomplished and that Jesus now has the full right to assume the messianic title.
In the twelve instances in Acts where the word “Christ” (GK 5986; see comment on Mk 8:29–30) appears singly (2:31, 36; 3:18; 4:26; 8:5; 9:22; 17:3a, 26:23) and where “Christ” is in apposition to “Jesus” but still “used” singly (3:20; 5:42; 18:5, 28), it is used as a title, “Messiah.” And in all these instances, it is addressed to a Jewish audience (only 8:5 and 26:23 are possible exceptions, though both the Samaritans and Agrippa II possessed something of a Jewish background and understanding). Apparently, therefore, the messiahship of Jesus was the distinctive feature of the church’s witness within Jewish circles, signifying, as it does, his fulfillment of Israel’s hopes and his culmination of God’s redemptive purposes.
The title “Lord” (GK 3261) was also proclaimed christologically in Jewish circles, with evident intent to apply to Jesus all that was said of God in the OT (cf. the Christological use of Isa 45:23 in Php 2:10). But “Lord” came to have particular relevance to the church’s witness to Gentiles just as “Messiah” was more relevant to the Jewish world. So in Acts Luke reports the proclamation of Jesus as “the Christ” before Jewish audiences both in Palestine and among the Diaspora, whereas Paul in his letters to Gentile churches generally uses Christ as a proper name and proclaims Christ Jesus as “the Lord.”
c. A call to repentance and a promise of blessing (2:37–41)
37 Peter’s preaching had been effective. The people were “cut to the heart” at the awful realization that in crucifying their long-awaited Messiah they had rejected their only hope of salvation. So with deep anguish they cried out, “Brothers, what shall we do?” The phrase “cut to the heart” may have been drawn from Ps 109:16, the same psalm Luke had earlier applied to Judas (see comment on 1:20). There it is a vivid phrase for those who stand with God’s servant in opposing the wicked men: “those who have been cut to the heart” or those who are “the humble of heart” because they realize their need and are open to God’s working.
The Kerygma of the Early Church
1. The promises by God made in the OT have now been fulfilled with the coming of Jesus the Messiah (Ac 2:30; 3:19, 24, 10:43; 26:6–7, 22; Ro 1:2–4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:1–2; 1Pe 1:10–12; 2Pe 1:18–19).
2. Jesus was anointed by God at his baptism as Messiah (Ac 10:38).
3. Jesus began his ministry in Galilee after his baptism (Ac 10:37).
4. He conducted a beneficient ministry, doing good and performing mighty works by the power of God (Mk 10:45; Ac 2:22; 10:38)
5. The Messiah was crucified according to the purpose of God (Mk 10:45; Jn 3:16; Ac 2:23; 3:13–15, 18; 4:11; 10:39; 26:23; Ro 8:34; 1Co 1:17–18; 15:3; Gal 1:4; Heb 1:3; 1Pe 1:2, 19; 3:18; 1Jn 4:10).
6. He was raised from the dead and appeared to his disciples (Ac 2:24, 31–32; 3:15, 26; 10:40–41; 17:31; 26:23; Ro 8:34; 10:9; 1Co 15:4–7, 12ff.; 1Th 1:10; 1Ti 3:16; 1Pe 1:2, 21; 3:18, 21).
7. Jesus was exalted by God and given the name “Lord” (Ac 2:25–29, 33–36; 3:13; 10:36; Ro 8:34; 10:9; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:3; 1Pe 3:22).
8. He gave the Holy Spirit to form the new community of God (Ac 1:8; 2:14–18, 33, 38–39; 10:44–47; 1Pe 1:12).
9. He will come again for judgment and the restoration of all things (Ac 3:20–21; 10:42; 17:31; 1Co 15:20–28; 1Th 1:10).
10. All who hear the message should repent and be baptized (Ac 2:21, 38; 3:19; 10:43, 47–48; 17:30; 26:20; Ro 1:17; 10:9; 1Pe 3:21).
This schema served as the essential proclamation of the early church, though different authors of the NT may leave out a portion or vary in emphasis on particulars in the kerygma. Compare the entire gospel of Mark, which closely follows the Petrine aspect of the kerygma.
Taken from Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament by Wayne House. Copyright© 1978 by The Zondervan Corporation. Used by permission.
38 Peter’s answer to the people’s anguished cry presents interpreters with a set of complex theological problems that are often looked upon only as grist for differing theological mills. But Peter’s words came to his hearers as the best news they had ever heard—far better, indeed, than they could have hoped for. So today these words remain the best of good news and should be read as the proclamation of that news and not as just a set of theological problems.
Peter calls on his hearers to “repent” (GK 3566). This word implies a complete change of heart, beginning with the confession of sin. With this he couples the call to “be baptized,” thus linking both repentance and baptism with the forgiveness of sins. So far this sounds familiar, for John the Baptist had proclaimed a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mk 1:4); and Jesus made repentance central in his preaching (cf. Mt 4:17; Mk 1:15) and baptized (cf. Jn 3:22, 26; 4:1–2). Judaism also had repentance at the core of its message and emphasized baptism (at least for proselytes). But while there is much that appears traditional in Peter’s exhortation, there is also much that is new and distinctive—particularly in three ways.
In the first place, Peter calls on “every one” of his audience to repent and be baptized. Jews thought corporately and generally viewed the rite of baptism as appropriate only for proselytes (though some sects within Judaism baptized Jews). But like John the Baptist and probably Jesus, Peter calls for an individual response on the part of his hearers. So he set aside family and corporate relationships as having any final saving significance and stressed the response of the individual person—not, however, denying the necessity and value of corporate relationships, but placing them in a “new covenant” perspective.
Second, Peter identifies the repentance and baptism he is speaking of as being specifically Christian in that it is done “in the name of Jesus Christ.” What that means, it seems, is that a person in repenting and being baptized calls upon the name of Jesus (cf. 22:16) and thereby avows his or her intention to be committed to and identified with Jesus.
A third feature in Peter’s preaching at this point is the relation of the gift of the Holy Spirit to repentance and baptism. “The gift of the Holy Spirit” is another way of describing what the disciples had experienced in “the coming of the Holy Spirit,” which Jesus called “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” (cf. 1:4–5, 8). We must distinguish between “the gift” (GK 1562) of the Holy Spirit and what Paul called “the gifts” (GK 5922; 1Co 12:1; 14:1) of that selfsame Spirit. “The gift” is the Spirit himself given to minister the saving benefits of Christ’s redemption to the believer, while “the gifts” are those spiritual abilities the Spirit gives variously to believers “for the common good” and sovereignly, “just as he determines” (1Co 12:7, 11). Peter’s promise of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is a logical outcome of repentance and baptism. This primary gift includes a variety of spiritual gifts for the advancement of the Gospel and the welfare of God’s people. But first of all, it has to do with what God’s Spirit does for every Christian in applying and working out the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work.
In trying to deal with the various elements in this passage, some interpreters have stressed the command to be baptized so as to link the forgiveness of sins exclusively with baptism. But it runs contrary to all biblical religion to assume that outward rites have any value apart from true repentance and an inward change. The Jewish mind, indeed, could not divorce inward spirituality from its outward expression. Wherever the Gospel was proclaimed in a Jewish milieu, the rite of baptism was taken for granted as being inevitably involved (cf. 2:41; 8:12, 36–38; 9:18; 10:47–48; 18:8; 19:5; also Heb 10:22; 1Pe 3:18–21). But Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Colonnade (cf. 3:12–26) stresses only repentance and turning to God “so that your sins may be wiped out” (v.19) and makes no mention of baptism. This shows that for Luke at least, and probably also for Peter, while baptism with water was the expected symbol for conversion, it was not an indispensable criterion for salvation.
A few commentators have set Peter’s words in v.38 in opposition to those of John the Baptist in Mk 1:8 and those of Jesus in Ac 1:5, where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is distinguished from John’s baptism and appears to supersede it. But neither the Baptist’s prophecy nor Jesus’ promise necessarily implies that the baptism of the Spirit would set aside water baptism. Certainly the early church did not take it that way. They continued to practice water baptism as the external symbol by which those who believed the Gospel, repented of their sins, and acknowledged Jesus as their Lord publicly bore witness to their new life, which had been received through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In line, then, with the Baptist’s prophecy and Jesus’ promise, baptism with the Holy Spirit is distinguished from baptism with water. But baptism with the Holy Spirit did not replace baptism with water; rather, the latter was given a richer significance because of the saving work of Christ and the coming of the Spirit.
Again, some have observed that there is no mention in this passage, either in the report of Peter’s preaching (vv.38–40) or in the summary of the people’s response (v.41), of any speaking in tongues, as at Pentecost, or of laying on of hands, as in Samaria (8:17). From this various implications have been drawn. In a Jewish context, however, it would not have been surprising if both occurred; in fact, one is probably justified in being surprised had they not occurred. Nevertheless, that they are not mentioned implies (as with the omission of baptism in 3:19) that speaking in tongues and laying on of hands were not considered prerequisites for receiving the Spirit.
A more difficult problem arises when we try to correlate Peter’s words here with the accounts of the Spirit’s baptism in 8:15–17 (at Samaria), 10:44–46 (in the house of Cornelius), and 19:6 (at Ephesus). In v.38 the baptism of the Spirit is the logical outcome of repentance and water baptism; but in 8:15–17; 10:44–46; and 19:6 it appears to be temporally separated from conversion and water baptism—either following them (as at Samaria and Ephesus) or preceding them (as with Cornelius). Catholic sacramentalists take this as a biblical basis for separating baptism and confirmation; and Charismatics of various kinds see it as justification for a doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit as a second work of grace after conversion. But lest too much be made of this difference theologically, we ought first to attempt to understand the historical situation of vv.37–41 and to explain matters more circumstantially. Assuming for the moment that Luke shared Paul’s view of the indissoluble connection between conversion, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (cf. Ro 8:9; 1Co 6:11), the following question may be asked: What if the Pentecost experience, particularly in regard to the sequence and temporal relations of conversion, water baptism, and Holy Spirit baptism, had been fully present in each of these latter three instances?
Take the Samaritans (8:4–8, 14–17), for example, who were converted through the instrumentality of Philip, one of the Hellenists expelled from Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom. Samaritans had always been considered second-class citizens of Palestine by the Jerusalem Jews who kept them at arm’s length. What if it had been the apostles residing at Jerusalem who had been the missioners to Samaria? Probably they would have been rebuffed, just as they were earlier when the Samaritans associated them with the city of Jerusalem (cf. Lk 9:51–56). But God providentially used Philip to bring them the Gospel—Philip, who had also (though for different reasons) been rebuffed at Jerusalem. The Samaritans received him and believed his message. But what if the Spirit had come upon them at their baptism by Philip? Undoubtedly what feelings some of the Christians at Jerusalem had against Philip and the Hellenists would have rubbed off on the Samaritan believers and they would have been doubly under suspicion. But God providentially withheld the gift of the Holy Spirit till Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans—Peter and John, two leading Jerusalem apostles who at that time would have been accepted by the new converts of Samaria. So in this first advance of the Gospel outside Jerusalem, God worked in ways conducive both to the reception of the Good News in Samaria and to the acceptance of these new converts at Jerusalem—ways that promoted both the outreach of the Gospel and the unity of the church.
Or take the conversion of Cornelius (10:34–48). What if, in Peter’s ministry to this Gentile, the order of events Peter had set down after his sermon at Pentecost had occurred (2:38–39), namely, repentance, baptism, forgiveness of sins, reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit? Some at Jerusalem might have accused Peter of manipulating the occasion for his own ends (as his lengthy defense before the Jerusalem congregation in 11:1–18 takes pains to deny). But God in his providence gave the gift of his Spirit, coupled with such signs as would convince both Peter and his possible critics at Jerusalem, even before Cornelius’s baptism, so that all would attribute his conversion entirely to God rather than let their prejudices make Cornelius a second-class Christian. (Regarding 19:1–4, see comments on that passage.)
39 The “promise” (GK 2039) of which Peter speaks includes both the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Both are logically and indissolubly united in applying Christ’s redemptive work to the believer, and they were only separated chronologically, it seems, for what could be called circumstantial reasons. The promise, Peter declares, is not only for his immediate hearers (“for you”) but also for succeeding generations (“for your children”) and for all in distant places (“for all who are far off”). It is a promise, Peter concludes, that is sure; for it has been given by God and rests upon the prophetic word of Joel 2:32: “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Two issues need to be discussed regarding the expression “for all who are far off.” (1) Some prefer to see this as a temporal reference to future Jewish generations, paralleling the phrase “for your children.” But the word “far off” (GK 3426) in Greek is used exclusively as a spatial rather than as a temporal word in the NT. (2) Does it refer only to Diaspora Jews or also to Gentiles? The two OT passages alluded to here (Isa 57:19; Joel 2:32) are probably referring to Diaspora Jews. But this is one of those situations where a narrator like Luke has read into what the speaker said more than was originally there and so implied that the speaker spoke better than he knew. Peter himself was probably thinking of Jewish remnant theology, of God’s call to a scattered but repentant Jewish remnant. But Luke’s desire is to show how an originally Jewish gospel penetrated the Gentile world so extensively that it came to enter “without hindrance” (cf. 28:31) into the capital of the Roman Empire. Very likely, therefore, in recounting Peter’s words here in Acts, Luke meant them to be read as having Gentiles in mind (see also 22:21).
40–41 Two summary statements conclude Luke’s report of Peter’s Pentecost sermon. (1) Peter spoke earnest, solemn words, connoted by the verbs “warned” and “pleaded.” His characterization of this age as a “corrupt generation” has its parallel in Jesus’ words (cf. Mt 16:4; 17:17) and in Paul’s (cf. Php 2:15). What we have here is the vision of an evangelist—a vision that is all too often lost as the Gospel is acclimated to the world and the world to the church. The Jews generally looked on baptism as a rite only for Gentile converts (i.e., proselytes), not for one born a Jew, and it symbolized the break with one’s Gentile past and the washing away of all defilement. So when Jews accepted baptism in the name of Jesus on hearing Peter’s message, it was traumatic and significant for them in a way we in our mildly christianized culture have difficulty understanding. (2) Yet, as a result of Peter’s preaching, “about” three thousand took the revolutionary step of baptism. Thus, the congregation of believers in Jesus came into being at Jerusalem—a congregation made up of the original 120 (1:15) and progressively augmented by about three thousand others.
Part I. The Christian Mission to the Jewish World (2:42–12:24)
Luke gives us the theme of Acts in Jesus’ words: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). Behind them stands Dt 19:15, with its requirement that every matter be established by two or three witnesses. In his gospel Luke has frequently highlighted such matters as (1) the witness of the Scriptures coupled with the ministry of Jesus and the witness of the Spirit, (2) the pairings of the disciples in their journeys on behalf of Jesus (cf. 10:1), and (3) the two angels at the tomb. In his organization of the common tradition in his gospel, he set up a number of parallels between our Lord’s ministry in Galilee (Lk 4:14–9:50) and his ministry in the regions of Perea and Judea (Lk 9:51–19:27). So in Acts Luke continues his pairings of apostolic men in their ministries (e.g., Peter and John in Ac 3:1, 3–4, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14; Barnabas and Saul in 11:25–26; 12:25; 13:2; Paul and Barnabas in 13:43, 46, 50; 15:2, 12, 22, 35; Judas and Silas in 15:32; Barnabas and Mark in 15:39; Paul and Silas in 15:40; 16:19, 25; 17:4, 10; and Silas and Timothy in 17:14–15; 18:5). Luke also sets up a number of parallels between the ministry of Peter in the first half of his work and the ministry of Paul in the last half: both heal a lame man (3:2–8; 14:8–10); both do miracles at some distance (5:15; 19:12); both exorcise evil spirits (5:16; 16:18); both defeat sorcerers (8:18–4; 13:6–11); both raise the dead (9:36–43; 20:9–12); both defend themselves against Jewish authorities (4:8–12; 5:27–32; 22:3–21; 23:1–6; 28:25–28); both receive heavenly visions (10:9–16; 16:9); both are involved in bestowing the Holy Spirit on new converts (8:14–17; 19:1–7); and both are miraculously released from prison (5:19; 12:7–11; 16:25–27). More important, both proclaim the same message and even use to some extent the same set of proof texts (e.g., Ps 16:10; cf. 2:27; 13:35).
It is, then, from Jesus’ declaration about the apostles’ witness (1:8) that Luke derives the framework for his narrative of Acts. First he portrays the mission of the Jerusalem apostles and their colleagues within the Jewish world; next he portrays the mission of Paul and his companions within the Gentile world. Luke presents this material in six blocks or panels—three of them are given to the mission to the Jews, three to the mission to the Gentiles.
Panel 1—The Earliest Days of the Church at Jerusalem (2:42–6:7)
Acts 2:42–6:7 describes the earliest days of the church at Jerusalem and covers the first three to five years of the new messianic movement (i.e., from A.D. 30 to the midthirties). Luke deals with the events of this period by means of a thesis paragraph followed by a series of vignettes that illustrate that paragraph. These portrayals of representative situations are drawn from many experiences within the early church and thus present his material succinctly. In this way he helps his readers feel the nature of what God was doing by his Spirit through the witness of the apostles.
A. A Thesis Paragraph on the State of the Early Church (2:42–47)
In addition to the six summary statements (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31) that conclude each of the six panels, Acts also has in its first panel three short summary-like paragraphs (2:42–47; 4:32–35; and 5:12–16). The latter two each introduce the block of material that immediately follows it, with the specific details in that material directly related to the respective introductory paragraph. But the first of the three paragraphs (2:42–47) is longer than the others and introduces the entire first panel of material. The rest of the first panel explicates, by means of a series of vignettes, the various points made in this first thesis paragraph.
42 Luke begins describing the early church by telling us that the believers in it were distinguished by their devotion to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship with one another, to “breaking of bread,” and “to prayer.” The verb translated “devoted” (GK 4674) connotes a steadfast and single-minded fidelity to a certain course of action (cf. its use in 1:14 regarding devotion to prayer by the 120 in the upper room and in 6:4 regarding the apostles’ resolve, in the context of the Hellenistic widows, to center their attention on prayer and the ministry of the word).
“The apostles’ teaching [GK 1439]” refers to a body of material considered authoritative because it was the message about Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed by accredited apostles. It undoubtedly included a compilation of the words of Jesus (cf. 20:35), some account of his earthly ministry, passion, and resurrection (cf. 2:22–24), and a declaration of what all this meant for humanity’s redemption (cf. 1Co 15:3–5)—all of which was thought of in terms of a Christian “tradition” that could be passed on to others (cf. 1Co 11:2; 1Th 2:13; 2Th 2:15; 3:6). The number of references to teachers, teaching, and tradition within Acts and the letters to the churches (cf. Ro 6:17; 12:7; 16:17; 1Co 11:2; 14:26; 2Th 2:15; 3:6; Jas 3:1), and the frequent linking of prophets and teachers in the NT (cf. Ac 13:1; 1Co 12:28; 14:6; Eph 4:11), suggest that the creative role of prophecy in the early church was balanced by the conserving role of teaching. Undoubtedly the early congregation at Jerusalem, amid differences of perspective and along with a lively eschatological expectation, had a general “sense of center” provided by the teaching of the apostles.
Luke’s reference to “the fellowship” (GK 3126) implies that there was something distinctive in the gatherings of the early believers. With the influx of three thousand on the Day of Pentecost and with daily increases to their number after that (cf. 2:47), they must have had some externally recognizable identity. Perhaps in those early days others thought of them as a “Synagogue of Nazarenes” and gave them a place among other such groups within the mosaic of Judaism. But the Christian community was not just a sect of Judaism, even though they continued to observe Jewish rites and customs and had no intention of breaking with the nation or its institutions. They held to the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth in the redemptive program of God and in their worship. Their proclamation of Jesus as Israel’s promised Messiah and the Lord of the human race set them apart in Jerusalem as a distinguishable entity.
Just what is meant by “the breaking [GK 3082] of bread” in v.42 has been vigorously debated. Suggestions are a type of Jewish fellowship meal, a paschal commemoration of Christ’s death, or an agape feast that emphasized the joy of communion with the risen Lord and of fellowship with one another. Here and in 20:7 Luke may well have had in mind the full Pauline understanding (1Co 10:16; 11:24), but elsewhere he uses this term for an ordinary meal (cf. Lk 24:30, 35; Ac 20:11; 27:35; likely also 2:46). Yet it is difficult to believe that Luke had in mind here only an ordinary meal, since he places the expression between two such religiously loaded terms as “the fellowship” and “prayer.” Undoubtedly “the breaking of bread” was an occasion for joy, love, and praise because it was connected with Jesus. Probably it should also be understood as subtly connoting the passion of Christ, even though the full theology as described by Paul had not yet come into focus.
References to “prayer” (GK 4666) are frequent both in the summary statements and in the narrative of Acts (see 1:14, 24; 4:24–31; 6:4, 6; et al.). Just as Luke has set up in Luke-Acts the parallelism between the Spirit’s work in relation to Jesus and the Spirit’s work in the church, so he also sets up the parallelism between prayer in the life of Jesus and prayer in the life of the church. His use here of both the definite article and the plural in “the prayers” suggest formal prayers, probably both Jewish and Christian. The earliest believers not only viewed the old forms as filled with new content, but also in their enthusiasm they fashioned new vehicles for their praise.
43 Furthermore, Luke tells us that a lingering sense of awe rested on many who did not take their stand with the Christians and that miraculous things were done by the apostles. “Everyone,” in contradistinction to “all the believers” of v.44, refers hyperbolically to nonbelievers in Jerusalem who knew of the events of Pentecost and were observing the life of the early congregation. In the expression “wonders and miraculous signs,” Luke picks up the phraseology of Joel’s prophecy (cf. 2:19) and of Peter’s characterization of Jesus’ ministry (cf. 2:22). Luke probably used it to suggest that the miracles that the apostles did give evidence of the presence of God with his people, just as throughout his ministry, Jesus performed miracles to show that God was with him. These miracles continued to happen during those early days.
44–45 Within the Christian congregation at Jerusalem, the believers’ sense of spiritual unity expressed itself in communal living and sharing with the needy members of their group. While Acts implies that overt persecution of Christians came somewhat later, in certain instances economic and social sanctions were undoubtedly imposed on the early believers. Thus the communal life described in vv.44–45 should be understood, at least in part, as a response to these pressures. Such treatment of minority groups is not uncommon, as both ancient and contemporary history shows. The practice of holding possessions in community was a common feature of some Jewish sects of NT times (e.g., the group at Qumran). The sharing of the early Christians involved both what we would call their real estate (“possessions”) and their personal possessions (“goods”).
46–47a The favorite meeting place of the early believers was in the temple (cf. Lk 24:53), at the eastern edge of the outer court called Solomon’s Colonnade (cf. 3:11; 5:12). There, in typically Semitic fashion, they carried on their discussions and offered praise to God. As Jews who were Christians and also Christians who were Jews, they not only considered Jerusalem to be their city but continued to regard the temple as their sanctuary and the Law as their law. Evidently they thought of themselves as the faithful remnant within Israel for whose sake all the institutions and customs of the nation existed. As such, their refocused eschatological hopes (cf. Mal 3:1) and all their desires to influence their own people were associated with the city of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem temple, and the Mosaic law.
But while they met formally for discussion and worship in the temple precincts, they ate their meals together in their own homes, doing so with gladness and sincerity of heart. They also found a large measure of favor among the people. In Luke’s writings, “the people” (GK 3295) usually refers to Israel as the elect nation to whom the message of redemption is initially directed and for whom (together with the Gentiles) it is ultimately intended (e.g., 3:9; 4:10; 5:13). Later in the narrative of Acts, the attitude of “the people” becomes more and more antagonistic to the Christian Gospel and its missioners. But in this first panel the response of the people (excluding their leaders) is largely favorable toward the early Christians and their manner of life. Luke shows that early Christianity was the fulfillment of all that is truly Jewish and that it directed its mission first to the Jewish world—themes stressed throughout this book.
47b Luke’s thesis paragraph on the state of the early church at Jerusalem concludes with the triumphant note that as people were being saved, they were added to the growing number or Christians—a note that runs throughout this first panel but is not confined to it. Note that it is the Lord himself who adds to his church.
B. A Crippled Beggar Healed (3:1–26)
In 2:42–47, Luke has spoken of the early Christians’ continued attendance at the temple, the wonders and miracles the apostles did, the awe that many of the Jews felt, and the apostles’ teaching. Now he gives us a vignette illustrating these things. Much like the synoptic tradition that selected the healing of a leper as “Exhibit A” to represent the nature of Jesus’ early ministry in Galilee (cf. Mk 1:40–45), or John’s use of the healing of a Capernaum official’s son for the same purpose (cf. Jn 4:46, 54), Luke now singles out this episode in the history of the early Jerusalem congregation to bring the reader into the picture. No doubt the episode at the time was well known and frequently recounted in the early church long before Luke wrote of it.
1. The healing (3:1–10)
1 The story of the healing of the crippled beggar begins with the straightforward statement that Peter and John went up to the temple at the time of prayer. That the apostles had been living in Jerusalem immediately after Jesus’ ascension was in accord with his instructions that they stay in the city until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49; Ac 1:4) and begin their mission there (Ac 1:8; cf. Lk 24:47). But what kept these Galilean disciples in Jerusalem after Pentecost, and why did Jewish Christianity become centered in Jerusalem rather than Galilee? While there were Christians in Galilee who formed themselves into congregations there (cf. 9:31), the earliest extant Christian writings, the Pauline letters, take into account only the Jerusalem community and associate the Galilean apostles directly with that (cf. Gal 1:18–2:10; 1Th 2:14). In other words, as God’s righteous remnant within Israel and as members of the Messiah’s eschatological community, the apostles centered their activities in Jerusalem, the central city of Judaism. Along with that went their continued adherence to Israel’s institutions and forms of worship.
Peter and John are presented as “going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.” The stated times for prayer in Judaism were (1) early in the morning, in connection with the morning sacrifice; (2) at the ninth hour of the day (about three o’clock), in connection with the evening sacrifice; and (3) at sunset. The verb “going up” conveys a vivid visual impression of the apostles’ movement toward Jerusalem. Going to the temple is always spoken of in terms of “going up”—principally out of reverential respect, though also because of location (Lk 18:10; Jn 7:14; Ac 11:2; cf. 15:2; 18:22).
2–3 The man is described as “crippled from birth” and having to be carried daily “to the temple gate called Beautiful” to beg for his living. Since almsgiving was classed in Judaism as a meritorious act, this man was placed at the gate so that those coming to the temple could gain merit by giving him a coin.
Just which gate is referred to as “Beautiful” is not easy to determine. Neither Josephus nor the Talmud refers to such a temple gate. We do not know whether it had to do with the outer court or one of the inner courts. Most scholars today believe it is the Nicanor Gate, which led from the eastern part of the outer court (Court of the Gentiles) into the first of the inner courts (Court of the Women).
4–6 In response to the beggar’s request for money, Peter fixed his eyes on him and said, “Look at us!” Thinking he had a benefactor, the beggar looked up expectantly. To his astonishment he heard the words: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” In Semitic thought, a “name” (GK 3950) does not just identify or distinguish a person; it expresses the very nature of his being. Hence the power of the person is present and available in the name of the person. Peter, therefore, does not just ask the risen Jesus to heal but pronounces over the crippled beggar the name of Jesus, thereby releasing the power of Jesus (cf. 3:16; 4:10). And the power of the risen Jesus, coupled with the man’s response of faith (cf. 3:16), effects the healing.
7–10 The healing is described as an instantaneous one, accomplishing in a moment what God in his providence through the normal healing processes usually takes months to do. The effect on the man was traumatic; he began walking about and jumping and praising God. As for the people, they were “filled with wonder and amazement.” What was taking place was but a token, to those who had eyes to see, of the presence of the Messianic Age, of which the prophet had long ago predicted: “Then will the lame leap like a deer” (Isa 35:6).
2. Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Colonnade (3:11–26)
Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Colonnade is in many ways similar to his sermon at Pentecost (2:14–41). Structurally, both move from proclamation to a call for repentance. The Pentecost sermon, however, is finished and polished, whereas this one is comparatively rough-hewn. Thematically, both focus on the denial and vindication of Jesus of Nazareth. But the Colonnade sermon expresses more of a remnant theology than the one at Pentecost. It shows a more generous attitude toward Israel, coupled with a greater stress on the nation’s responsibility for the Messiah’s death, than does the Pentecost sermon; and it makes explicit the necessity of receiving God’s grace by faith. Christologically, Peter’s sermon here (like his defense in 4:8–12) incorporates a number of archaic and primitive titles used of Jesus within early Jewish Christianity.
It seems strange, at first glance, that Luke would place two such similar sermons of Peter so close together. But his putting the Pentecost sermon in the introductory section of Acts was evidently meant to be a kind of paradigm of early apostolic preaching—a paradigm Luke seems to have polished for greater literary effectiveness. As for the Colonnade sermon, Luke seems to have included it as an example of how the early congregation in Jerusalem proclaimed the message of Jesus to the people of Israel as a whole. Probably the story and the sermon came to Luke from one of his sources as something of a self-contained unit (see the introduction to Acts), and he left it basically unchanged.
11 We are not given many of the “stage directions” for Peter’s Colonnade sermon. What we are told, however, is significant: (1) the healed cripple “held on to” Peter and John so as not to let them get away; (2) “the people” came running to them in Solomon’s Colonnade; and (3) they were “astonished” at what had happened. Solomon’s Colonnade was a covered portico that ran the entire length of the eastern portion of the outer court of the temple precincts, along and just inside the eastern wall of the temple (cf. 5:12; Jn 10:23).
| Miracle | Acts |
| Lame man cured (by Peter) | 3:6–9 |
| Death of Ananias and Sapphira | 5:1–1 0 |
| Saul’s sight restored | 9:17–18 |
| Healing of Aeneas | 9:33–35 |
| Raising of Dorcas | 9:36–41 |
| Elymas blinded | 13:8–11 |
| Lame man cured (by Paul) | 14:8–10 |
| Demon cast out of a girl | 16:16–18 |
| Raising of Eutychus | 20:9–10 |
| Unharmed by viper | 28:3–5 |
| Healing of Publius’s father | 28:7–9 |
12–16 The proclamation section of the sermon is an exposition on “the name of Jesus” (twice repeated in v.16). The sermon begins by denying that it was through the apostles’ “own power or godliness” that the cripple was healed. Rather, “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” brought about this healing that glorified Jesus. Just as Peter earlier spoke of God as the true author of Jesus’ miracles (cf. 2:22), so here he attributes solely to God such wonders as occurred in the apostles’ ministries. And just as Jesus’ miracles were done by God to accredit him before the people (cf. again 2:22), so miracles continued to be done through the apostles in order for God to glorify Jesus.
The sermon focuses on God’s Servant, Jesus, whom Israel disowned and killed but God raised from the dead. It is through his name and the faith that comes through him that the healing of the crippled beggar occurred. In speaking of Jesus, Peter uses a number of early christological titles. (1) The sermon begins and ends by ascribing to Jesus the title “God’s Servant” (vv.13, 26), which echoes the Servant theme of Isaiah 42–53 (cf. Isa 52:13). (2) Peter uses the theme of Moses as prophet (Dt 18:15, 18–19) and applies it to Jesus (vv.22–23). (3) He includes the titles “the Holy One” and “the Righteous One” (v.14) and the ascription “the author of life” (v.15). (4) And Peter stresses “the name of Jesus” as the powerful agent in the miracle (see comment on 3:4–6)—a significant fact since “the Name” was a pious Jewish surrogate for God and connoted his divine presence and power.
17–18 What strikes the reader immediately in the call-to-repentance section of Peter’s sermon is its attitude toward Israel, which in its hopeful outlook is unmatched in the rest of the NT (except for certain features in Paul’s discussion of Ro 9–11). In v.12 Peter addressed his audience as “Men of Israel” and in v.13 spoke of God as “the God of our fathers.” And though he had emphasized Israel’s part in crucifying Jesus (vv.13–15), he now magnanimously says that they had acted “in ignorance” and, somewhat surprisingly, includes their leaders in this. Then he mitigates their guilt still further by saying that God himself had willed it in order to fulfill the words of the prophets.
19–21 Even more positively, Peter goes on to say that if his hearers repent, their repentance will have a part in ushering in the great events of the end time. Evidently Luke wants us to understand Peter’s call to repentance here as being set within the context of a remnant theology and as being quite unlike Stephen’s attitude (cf. ch. 7). Not only so, but he also wants us to view the earliest proclamation of the Gospel in the Jewish world as a kind of intramural effort, with a self-conscious, righteous remnant issuing prophetic denunciations of Israel’s part in the crucifixion of their Messiah and appealing to the people to turn to God in repentance for the remission of their sins.
The call to repentance itself is tersely stated. Then it is elaborated in words unique in the NT and reflective of Jewish remnant theology. “Repent, then, and turn to God,” says Peter, “so that your sins may be wiped out”—and, further, so that there may be brought about the promised “times of refreshing” and so that with the coming of God’s appointed Messiah, he may “restore everything” (the verbal form [GK 635] of the noun “restoration” [used here; GK 640] is often used in the LXX [Greek version of the OT] for the eschatological restoration of Israel; e.g., Jer 15:19; 16:15; Eze 16:55; Hos 11:11).
22–26 No group within Israel that considered itself to be God’s righteous remnant in the inauguration of the final eschatological days could expect to win a hearing among Jews without attempting to define its position vis-à-vis Israel’s great leaders of the past—particularly Abraham, Moses, and David. And that is precisely what Luke shows Peter doing as he concludes his call for repentance. Peter first refers to Moses, quoting his words in Dt 18:15, 18–19. This was a widely accepted messianic proof text of the time, one that emphasized the command to “listen to him” by the addition of the phrase “in everything he tells you.” Peter’s argument here, though not stated, is implicitly twofold: (1) true belief in Moses will lead to a belief in Jesus, and (2) belief in Jesus places one in true continuity with Moses.
In v.24 Peter defines Jesus’ position with respect to David by alluding to Samuel and all the prophets who followed him and by insisting that they too “foretold these days.” Now it is certainly difficult to find any prophecy of Samuel that could be applied to Jesus as explicitly as the words of Moses just quoted. But Samuel was the prophet who anointed David to be king and spoke of the establishment of his kingdom (cf. 1Sa 16:13; see also 13:14; 15:28; 28:17). Furthermore, Nathan’s prophecy regarding the establishment of David’s “offspring” as recorded in 2Sa 7:12–16 was accepted in certain quarters within Judaism as having messianic relevance and was taken by Christians as having been most completely fulfilled in Jesus (cf. 13:22–23, 34; Heb 1:5).
Finally, in v.25 Peter goes on to identify commitment to Jesus as Messiah with the promise God made to Abraham in Ge 22:18 and 26:4: “Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.” What exegetically ties this portion together with what has preceded it is the word “offspring,” which appears in 2Sa 7:12 in reference to David’s descendants and in Ge 22:18 and 26:4 in reference to the descendants of Abraham (see comments on 2:25–35 for this principle of Jewish interpretation of the OT). In this way, Peter proclaims that the promise to Abraham also has its ultimate fulfillment in Christ.
Peter’s call to repentance in this sermon is an expression of the remnant theology of the earliest Christian believers at Jerusalem. He addresses his hearers as “heirs of the prophets and of the covenant.” And he concludes with an offer of blessing that is extended first to individuals of the nation Israel (v.26; cf. Ro 1:16; 2:9–10). Luke wants his readers to appreciate something of how the earliest Christian preaching began within a Jewish milieu. From this he will go on to tell how this preaching developed through the various representative sermons that he later includes.
C. Peter and John Before the Sanhedrin (4:1–31)
As a direct outcome of the healing of the crippled beggar and as a further illustration of the thesis paragraph (2:42–47), Luke now presents a vignette concerning the arrest, trial, and witness of Peter and John. There is a connection of this arrest and trial with the second one in 5:17ff. Jewish law held that a person must be aware of the consequences of his crime before being punished for it. This meant that in noncapital cases the common people—as distinguished from those with rabbinic training, who, presumably, would know the law—had to be given a legal admonition before witnesses and could only be punished for an offense when they relapsed into a crime after due warning. Acts 4:1ff., therefore, presents the Sanhedrin as judging that the apostles were “unschooled, ordinary men” (v.13) and tells how they were given a legal warning not to speak anymore in the name of Jesus (v.17). But Acts 5:17ff. tells how the Sanhedrin reminded the apostles of its first warning (v.28) and turned them over to be flogged because they had persisted in their “sectarian” ways (v.40).
1. The arrest of Peter and John (4:1–7)
1 In vv.1–4 Luke both concludes the narrative of the crippled beggar’s healing (by the phrase “while they were speaking”) and introduces the first appearance of Peter and John before the Sanhedrin (cf. “the next day” in vv.3, 5).
Luke shows that the early opposition against preaching the Gospel arose chiefly from priestly and Sadducean ranks—i.e., “the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees.” “The captain of the temple guard” was the commanding officer of the temple police force. He was considered inferior in rank only to the high priest and had the responsibility of maintaining order in the temple precincts (cf. 5:24, 26). The “Sadducees” (GK 4881) were descendants of the Hasmoneans, who looked to Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon Maccabeus (168–134 B.C.) as having inaugurated the Messianic Age and saw themselves as perpetuating what their fathers had begun. As priests from the tribe of Levi, they claimed to represent ancient orthodoxy and were uninterested in innovations. Thus they opposed any developments in biblical law (i.e., the “Oral Law”), speculations about angels or demons, and the doctrine of the resurrection (cf. 23:8; Mk 12:18, 11). Likewise, they rejected what they considered to be vain hopes for God’s heavenly intervention into the life of the nation and for a coming Messiah, since, as they believed, the age of God’s promise had begun with the Maccabean heroes and was continuing on under their supervision. For them, the Messiah was an ideal, not a person, and the Messianic Age was a process, not a cataclysmic or even datable event. Furthermore, as political rulers and dominant landlords, to whom a grateful nation had turned over all political and economic powers during the time of the Maccabean supremacy, for entirely practical reasons they stressed cooperation with Rome and maintenance of the status quo. Most of the priests were of Sadducean persuasion; the temple police force was composed entirely of Levites; the captain of the temple guard was always a high-caste Sadducee, and so were each of the high priests.
2–3 The priests and Sadducees were “greatly disturbed” about two matters. First, the apostles were “teaching the people,” an activity that those of the Sadducean ranks saw as a threat to the status quo. Like Jesus, Peter and John were rallying popular support and acting unofficially in such a way as to disrupt established authority—an authority vested in their hands. Second, Peter and John were annoying the Sadducees because they were “proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” This probably means they were attempting to prove from the fact of Jesus’ resurrection the doctrine of the resurrection (cf. 17:31–32; 23:6–8), which the Sadducees denied. So Peter and John were taken into custody by the temple guard and, since it was evening, put into prison until the Sanhedrin could be called together the next morning to judge their case.
4 Not everyone agreed with the Sadducees’ view of the activities and message of the apostles. Later in Acts, Luke will speak of the general tolerance of the people, the moderation of the Pharisees, and the desire of Rome for peace in the land as each having a part in restraining the Sadducees from doing all they might have wanted to do to oppose the Gospel and its early missioners. Many who heard the message believed, with the result that the Jerusalem congregation grew to a total of about five thousand.
5 Though the Sadducees had among them the nation’s titular rulers, they were actually a minority party and could govern only through the Sanhedrin. Thus on the next day, this seventy-member group, composed of “the rulers” or “the high priests” (cf. 23:5), the “elders,” and the “teachers of the law” (most of whom were Pharisees) came together. The Sanhedrin (“council”; GK 5284) was the senate and supreme court of the nation, which had jurisdiction in all noncapital cases—though it also advised the Roman governors in capital cases—and in one case, namely, that of Gentiles trespassing beyond the posted barriers into the inner courts of the temple, could on its own sentence even a Roman citizen to death (see comment on 21:27–29). The high priest was president of the Sanhedrin. It met in a hall adjoining the southwest part of the temple area.
6 The early opposition to Christianity arose principally from among the Sadducees, for Luke stresses that the Sadducean element was especially well represented in this first trial of the apostles: “Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family” (see comment on Jn 18:12–14). Just who John and Alexander were, we do not know, though possibly the first was Annas’s son Jonathan, who replaced Caiaphas in A.D. 36.
7 It was before such an assembly, which probably arranged itself in a semicircular fashion, that Peter and John were brought. The man who had been healed was also there (cf. v.14), though Luke does not say whether he had also been imprisoned or had been called in as a witness. The apostles were called on to account for their actions, and they used the occasion for an aggressive evangelistic witness.
2. Peter’s defense and witness (4:8–12)
8 In a context of a prophetic description of national calamities and cosmic turmoil, Luke earlier quoted Jesus as saying: “But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict” (Lk 21:12–15). Undoubtedly Luke was thinking of many incidents of opposition to the Gospel message when he wrote down these words. Indeed, he records a number of such happenings in Acts. But certainly when he wrote about Peter’s first defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin (and also about the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin in 5:17ff.), these words were ringing in his ears. For almost every item of Jesus’ oracle is exemplified in Luke’s account of Peter’s situation, attitude, and message here in Acts, beginning with his being “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Peter receives a special moment of inspiration that brings to a functional focus the person and ministry of God’s Spirit.
9–10 Peter’s defense focuses on the healing of the crippled man as being (1) “an act of kindness,” which (2) was effected “by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead.” His message is specifically addressed to the “rulers and elders of the people,” though it also has “everyone else in Israel” in mind.
11–12 The double use of the verb “to be saved” (GK 5392) to mean “restoration to health” physically and “preservation from eternal death” spiritually allows Peter to move easily from the healing of the cripple to the salvation of humankind and, therefore, from a defensive to an aggressive witness. And in his proclamation he uses two early Christological motifs.
The first is that of “the rejected stone,” which has become “the capstone” of the building. In Judaism there was a frequent wordplay between the words for “stone” (Heb. ’eben; GK 74) and “son” (Heb. berr, GK 1201)—rooted generally in the OT (cf. Ex 28:9; Jos 4:6–8, 20–21; Isa 54:11–13; et al.)—which attained messianic expression in the combination of the stone and the Son of Man imagery in Da 2:34–35 and 7:13–14. It was for this reason, evidently, that Jesus concluded his parable of the vineyard and the rejected son (Mk 12:1–12) with the quotation of Ps 118:22–23: “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.” Peter picks up this motif here in his quotation of Ps 118:22, also building on the associations of “stone” and “son.” While elsewhere in the NT (cf. Lk 20:18; Ro 9:33; 1Co 3:11; 1Pe 2:4–8) the ideas of a “foundation stone” and a “stumbling stone” were based respectively on Isa 28:16 and 8:14, here the thought is of Jesus as the rejected stone that becomes the capstone and completes the edifice.
The second early Christological motif in Peter’s proclamation is “salvation” (GK 5401). In some Jewish documents of the first century, “God’s Salvation” and “Salvation” appear as designations of the expected Davidic Messiah. Luke has already stressed this motif in Zechariah’s hymn of praise (Lk 1:69, “a horn of salvation”), in Simeon’s prayer (2:30, “your salvation”), and in his comments on the ministry of John the Baptist (3:6, “God’s salvation”). Now in addressing the Sanhedrin, to whom such a messianic designation was doubtless well known, Peter proclaims, “Salvation is found in no one else [than in ‘Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead,’ (v.10)], for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (v.12). There is nothing of compromise or accommodation in Peter’s preaching. As this magnificent declaration shows, he was wholly committed to the uniqueness of Jesus as the only Savior. Peter and the other apostles never watered down the fact that apart from Jesus there is no salvation for anyone.
3. The apostles warned and released (4:13–22)
13–14 While literacy was high among Jews of the first century, theological disputations required rabbinic training. Since the common people had not had such training, they were thought to be incapable of carrying on sustained theological discussion. But here were Peter and John, whom the Sanhedrin observed to be “unschooled, ordinary men,” speaking fearlessly and confidently before the Jewish supreme court and senate. Their judges could not but wonder at such ordinary men having such a mastery of biblical argumentation. So they had to fall back on the only possible explanation—“these men had been with Jesus,” who, despite his lack of rabbinic training, taught “as one who had authority” (Mk 1:22). Furthermore, just as Jesus’ teaching was coupled with demonstrations of miraculous powers, which thus reinforced among the people the impression of authority (cf. Mk 1:23–28; 2:1–12; et al.), now Peter and John were beginning to do the same. There was no denying that the man had been healed. There he stood before them, physically regenerated at an age when regenerative cures do not occur of themselves (cf. v.22,). But even the miraculous is not self-authenticating apart from an openness of heart and mind; and the Sadducees’ preoccupation with protecting their vested interests shut them off from really seeing the miracle that occurred.
15–17 Just how Luke knew what went on among the members of the Sanhedrin in closed session has often been debated, though we cannot know for sure. Perhaps Saul (Paul) was a member of the council at that time and he later told Luke. Or maybe Paul heard the gist of the discussion from his teacher Gamaliel and then told it to Luke. Or there may have been secret sympathizers of the apostles in the council who “leaked” to them what was said and from whom Luke picked it up. Most probable is the suggestion that the substance of the discussion was inferred from what was said to Peter and John when they were brought back to the meeting. What is certain about the council’s response is that (1) they would have denied the miracle if they could, (2) they had no disposition to be convinced either by what had happened or by the apostles’ arguments, and (3) they felt the need of stopping the apostles’ activity and teaching and therefore proposed to take the measures allowed them by Jewish law.
18–20 The Sanhedrin decided to impose a ban on the apostles, both to warn them and to provide a legal basis for further action should such be needed (cf. 5:28; see initial comment on 4:1–31). So they called in the apostles and warned them “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.” But the council had before it men whose lives had been transformed by association with Jesus, by God’s having raised him from the dead, and by the coming of the Holy Spirit. As with the prophets of old, God’s word was in the heart of Peter and John like a burning fire; and they could neither contain it nor be restrained from speaking it (cf. Jer 20:9). They had been witnesses of Jesus’ earthly ministry and resurrection (cf. Ac 10:39–41) and had been commanded by their risen Lord to proclaim his name to the people (cf. 1:8; 10:42). When faced with this ban, their response was never in doubt; they would continue to speak about what they had seen and heard. Where the Jewish established authority stood in opposition to God’s authority, thus becoming in effect demonic, the early believers knew where their priorities lay and judged all religious forms and functions from a Christocentric perspective.
21–22 The Sanhedrin had given its warning. And after stressing its nature and what would happen if it went unheeded, they let them go. The moderation of the people prevented them from doing more, for “all the people were praising God for what had happened.” Yet a legal precedent had been set that would enable the council to take, if necessary, more drastic action in the future.
4. The church’s praise and petition (4:23–31)
23–30 The church’s response to the apostles’ release was a spontaneous outburst of praise, psalmody, and petition. It begins (v.24) by addressing God as “Sovereign Lord” (GK 1305), a common title in the Greek world for rulers and one that appears occasionally in Jewish circles as an address to God (cf. Lk 2:29; Rev 6:10). It is especially appropriate here in conjunction with the “servant” (GK 4090) names used of David (v.25), Jesus (vv.27, 30), and believers themselves (v.29). Structurally, the church’s response includes an ascription to God drawn from Hezekiah’s prayer in Isa 37:16–20 (v.24b), a quotation of Ps 2:1–2 (vv.25–26), the reference to Jesus’ passion in terms of the psalm just cited (vv.27–28), and a petition for divine enablement in the Christians’ present circumstances (vv.29–30).
In the prayer of the church two matters of theological interest stand out. First, using a common Jewish method of interpreting the OT (cf. comments on 2:16), these Christians saw in Ps 2 the persons and groups involved in Jesus’ crucifixion: “the kings of the earth” corresponds to King Herod, “the rulers” to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, “the nations” to the Gentile authorities, and “the people” to “the people of Israel.” Sometime just prior to the Christian period, Ps 2 was beginning to be used within some Jewish circles as a messianic psalm, and the early Jewish Christians knew of this usage, approved it, and applied it to Jesus of Nazareth (cf. also the use of Ps 2:7 in Ac 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5; and Ps 2:9 in Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).
Second, in the church’s prayer the sufferings of Christian believers are related directly to the sufferings of Christ and inferentially to the sufferings of God’s righteous servants in the OT. This theme of the union of the sufferings of Christ and those of his own people is a theme that is developed in many ways throughout the NT (cf. esp. Mk 8–10; Ac 9:4–5; Ro 8:17; Col 1:24; 1Pe 2:20–25; 3:14–4:2; 4:12–13). It reaches its loftiest expression in Paul’s metaphor of the body of Christ.
Most significant is the fact that these early Christians were not praying for relief from oppression or judgment on their oppressors but for enablement “to speak your word with great boldness” amid oppression and for God to act in mighty power “through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (v.30). Their concern was for God’s word to go forth and for Christ’s name to be glorified, leaving to God himself their own circumstances. With such prayer surely God is well pleased. Luke has evidently taken pains to give us this prayer so that it might serve as something of a pattern to be followed in our own praying.
31 As a sign of God’s approval, Luke informs us that “the place where they were meeting was shaken” (cf. Ex 19:18; Isa 6:4) and “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (cf. comments on v.8). And with such motivation and divine enablement, their prayer was answered: they “spoke the word of God boldly” (i.e., with confidence).
D. Christian Concern Expressed in Sharing (4:32–5:11)
Going back to one of the themes of his thesis paragraph of 2:42–47, Luke now illustrates the nature and extent of the early believers’ commitment to one another in social concern. This he does by a summary statement, then by an example of genuine Christian concern, and finally by an example of disastrous deceit. For Luke as well as for the early Christians, being filled with the Holy Spirit not only concerned proclaiming the Word of God but also sharing possessions with the needy because of believers’ oneness in Christ.
1. Believers share their possessions (4:32–35)
In this section, v.32 speaks of a customary practice in the early church of believers retaining their personal possessions and property and sharing them among the believers; vv.34–35 speak of an extraordinary response to special needs by some selling their property and possessions and distributing them to the needy. In other words, Luke here emphasizes that both continuous and extraordinary acts of Christian social concern were occurring in the early church, and he ties these acts into the apostolic proclamation of the Resurrection. Because of such acts and the recognition that they must always be an inextricable part of the Christian ministry, God’s blessing rested upon the early church.
32 The whole congregation was united to one another in their allegiance to Jesus. This sense of oneness extended to sharing their personal possessions with others in need (cf. 2:45). Theologically, the early believers considered themselves the righteous remnant within Israel. So Dt 15:4 was undoubtedly in their mind, that if they wanted God to bless them, there should be no poor among them. Other Jewish groups that thought of themselves in terms of a remnant theology expressed their spiritual oneness by sharing their goods, and the Jerusalem church seems to have done likewise. Practically, they had many occasions for such sharing. With the economic situation in Palestine steadily deteriorating because of famine and political unrest, employment was limited—not only for Galileans and others who had left their fishing and farming for living in the city, but also for the regular residents of Jerusalem who now faced economic and social sanctions because of their new messianic faith. Experientially, the spiritual oneness the believers found to be a living reality through their common allegiance to Jesus must, they realized, be expressed in caring for the physical needs of their Christian brothers and sisters. Indeed, their integrity as a community of faith depended on their doing this.
Here, then, is Luke’s illustration of his thesis statement in 2:44–45 regarding the way the believers practiced communal living. They were not monastics, for the Jerusalem apostles, the brothers of Jesus, and many of the other believers were married (cf. 5:1–11; 1Co 9:5). Nor did the believers form a closed society like Qumran. They lived in their own homes (cf. 2:46; 12:12) and had their own possessions as any household would. But they did not consider them private possessions to be held exclusively for their own use and enjoyment. Rather, they shared what they had and so expressed their corporate life.
33 Because of its juxtaposition with v.32, we must understand that the “great power” accompanying the apostles’ witness “to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” refers not just to rhetorical, homiletical, or even miraculous power but to the power of a new life in the believing community—a new life manifest in sharing possessions to meet the needs of others. It was this kind of power Jesus had in mind when he said, “All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another” (Jn 13:35). In view of such a combination of social concern and proclamation of the Word, it is no wonder that Luke goes on to say, “And much grace was upon them all” (cf. Lk 2:40).
34–35 The acts Luke alludes to here were extraordinary and voluntary acts of Christian concern that were done “from time to time” in response to special needs among the believers, and they involved both sharing possessions and selling real estate. By separating these actions from those described in v.32, Luke suggests that they were exceptional and were not meant to be normative for the church. The church at Jerusalem—even in its earliest days—was neither a monastic nor semimonastic community. Nevertheless, such acts were highly regarded as expressions of a common social concern, though as with any noble deed they could be done either sincerely or hypocritically.
2. The generosity of Barnabas (4:36–37)
36 Luke uses the generosity of Barnabas as “Exhibit A” to illustrate the type of extraordinary social concern mentioned in v.34. Joseph was this man’s Hebrew name, used at home, in the synagogue, and among Jews generally. To this the apostles added the descriptive nickname Barnabas, which means “Son of Encouragement,” in order to distinguish him from others of the same name (cf. 1:23). His family came from Cyprus, and he may have had ancestral property there. John Mark was his cousin (cf. Col 4:10).
37 Barnabas is an important figure in Luke’s account of the church’s expansion from Jerusalem to Rome; he appears a number of times as a kind of hinge between the mission to the Jewish world and that to the Gentiles (cf. 9:27; 11:22–30; 13:1–14:28; 15:2–4, 12, 22, 36–41; see also 1Co 9:6). Here, however, he is introduced as one who sold a field and gave the money to the apostles for distribution among those in need. We are not told whether the property he sold was in Cyprus or Palestine. Nor are we told how the biblical prohibition against Levites owning real estate applied in Barnabas’s case (cf. Nu 18:20; Dt 10:9); such a regulation seems not always to have been observed (cf. Jer 32:7–44). What we are told, however, is that Barnabas gave a practical demonstration of Christian social concern, undoubtedly under no compulsion of either precedent or rule (cf. 5:4).
3. The deceit of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1–11)
The case of Ananias and Sapphira is opposite that of Barnabas, though it was meant to look the same. No doubt the story circulated within the church as a warning of the awfulness of deceit, for at times of great enthusiasm such a warning is especially necessary. And though Luke has taken evident pleasure in reporting the progress of the Gospel and the vitality of faith during these early days of the church in Jerusalem, he does not omit this most distressing event. This situation must have lain heavily on the hearts of the early Christians, and it is a message that needs to be constantly kept in mind by Christians today.
1–2 The details of the conspiracy are concisely stated. A certain Christian man named Ananias (meaning “God is gracious” in Hebrew) and his wife, Sapphira (meaning “beautiful” in Aramaic), wanted to enjoy the acclaim of the church as Barnabas had, but without making a genuine sacrifice. So they too sold a piece of real estate and pretended to give the full price to the apostles for distribution to the needy, though they conspired to keep back part of the money for themselves. Luke’s language here seems to draw a parallel between the sin of Achan just as the Israelites began their conquest of Canaan (see Jos 7) and the sin of Ananias and Sapphira as the church began its mission; both incidents come under the immediate and drastic judgment of God and teach the people a sobering lesson. This is very likely how the early church saw the incident as well.
3–4 Probably no account in Acts has provoked more wrath from critics than this one has. Commentators have complained about the difficulty of accepting the death of both husband and wife under such circumstances and have questioned Peter’s ethics in not giving them an opportunity for repentance and in not telling Sapphira of her husband’s death. Even more difficult for many is the way the story portrays Peter, who appears to be without the compassion or restraint of his Lord. Jesus’ relations even with Judas, whose sin was a thousand times more odious, certainly were not on this level. But note that Peter did not view the action of Ananias and Sapphira as merely incidental. He spoke of it as inspired by Satan and as a lie to both the Holy Spirit and God. It was a case of deceit and was an affront, not just on the community level, but primarily before God. Deceit is spiritually disastrous—a sin, whatever its supposed justification, that sours every personal relationship. Where there is even the suspicion of conscious misrepresentation and deception, trust is completely violated.
Ananias and Sapphira were severely dealt with because their act of pretended piety (cf. v.4) was done voluntarily and because the greater freedom permitted in the church at Jerusalem made the individual Christian more responsible to be honest and more culpable when dishonest. In addition, the way Ananias and Sapphira attempted to reach their goals was so diametrically opposed to the whole thrust of the Gospel that to allow it to go unchallenged would have set the entire mission of the church off course. Like the act of Achan, this episode was pivotal in the life and mission of God’s people, for the whole enterprise was threatened at its start. And while we may be thankful that judgment on deceit in the church is not now so swift and drastic, this incident stands as an indelible warning regarding the heinousness in God’s sight of deception in spiritual and personal matters.
5 The psychological explanations of Ananias’s sudden death attribute his fatal collapse to the shock and shame of being found out. The verb Luke uses for his death, however, appears in the NT only in contexts where someone is struck down by divine judgment (5:5, 10; 12:23). Whatever were the psychological and physical factors involved, Luke’s emphasis is on God as the ultimate cause of Ananias’s death. This is the light in which he means his readers to understand his further comment: “And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.”
6 The expression “the young men” (cf. v.10) refers to certain younger men in the Christian community. Whether they covered Ananias with a shroud and carried him away or wrapped him up in some manner and then carried him away or simply picked him up from the floor and took him off for burial is impossible to say. It is understandable that burial in hot climates takes place soon after death. We have no explanation why Ananias was buried so quickly and his wife was not told about it.
7–11 “About three hours later” the tragic episode was repeated with Sapphira. Just as Ananias and his wife were united in their conspiracy, so they were united in the judgment that came upon them. It may seem redundant that Luke closes his account of Ananias and Sapphira’s deception with the statement “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.” However, this is a vignette of warning; and in concluding it Luke wants to stress this note of reverent fear—as he expressly did in v.5 and implicitly does throughout his account.
This is the first time in Acts that the word “church” (GK 1711) appears, though it is the regular word for both the church universal and local congregations elsewhere in the book (cf. 7:38; 8:1; 9:31; 11:22; 13:1; 14:23; 15:22, 41; 16:5; 19:32, 40; 20:28) and throughout the NT letters (cf. also Mt 16:18; 18:17).
E. The Apostles Again Before the Sanhedrin (5:12–42)
Luke now gives the second account of the apostles’ arraignment before the Sanhedrin. Whether he clearly grasped or fully appreciated the rationale in Jewish jurisprudence for two such appearances is debatable (cf. introductory comments on 4:1–31). Nevertheless, in this account of the second appearance, he emphasizes the development of attitudes in these earliest days of the Christian mission in Jerusalem: the reverential fear on the part of the church and the people (cf. 5:5, 11), the deepening jealousy and antagonism of the Sadducees (cf. 5:17–33), the moderation of the Pharisees (5:33–40), and the increasing joy and confidence of the Christians (cf. 5:41–42). In so doing, Luke continues the elaboration of his thesis paragraph (2:42–47).
1. Miraculous signs and wonders (5:12–16)
This paragraph, like 2:42–47 and 4:32–35, is a Lukan summary introducing the material that follows. It includes some statements that reach back to what has been narrated before—principally vv.12–14, which recall the Christians’ practice of meeting in Solomon’s Colonnade, the reverential fear aroused by the awful end of Ananias and Sapphira, and the increasing number of people who believed. In the main, however, the paragraph introduces the story of the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin by giving a reason for the Sadducees’ jealousy and for their second inquisition of the apostles, namely, the continued success of the Christian mission at Jerusalem.
12a As with his summary paragraph of 4:32–35, Luke puts his thesis statement at the very beginning of his treatment. The Sadducees called the apostles to appear a second time before the Jewish Sanhedrin because, in defiance of the council’s orders, they were continuing their ministry among the people, with “many miraculous signs and wonders” being performed.
12b–14 Luke now speaks resumptively of three groups of people and their response to the Sanhedrin’s warning and to the fear engendered by Ananias and Sapphira’s fate: (1) the Christians continued meeting together in Solomon’s Colonnade; (2) the unbelieving Jews (“no one else”) were reluctant to associate too closely with the Christians; and (3) some of the Jews (“the people”) responded to and honored the Christians—in fact, many men and women from this group came to believe in the Lord and were added to the number of Christian believers. Thematically, the resume serves to support the thesis statement of v.12a.
15–16 The material in these two verses is structurally much like that of 4:34–35, for in both cases there is a logical and linguistic connection with each thesis statement. In both instances special and extraordinary expressions of the respective thesis statements are detailed. Just as healing virtue had flowed from Jesus by touching in faith the edge of his cloak (cf. Mk 5:25–34,), so even Peter’s shadow was used by God to effect a cure (cf. 19:11–12). And whereas the healing of the crippled beggar had originally aroused the Sadducees’ antagonism, now, Luke tells us, such miracles were being repeated numerous times in the apostles’ ministry. Thus crowds from the outlying districts around Jerusalem thronged the apostles. No wonder the Sadducees’ jealousy erupted anew!
2. The arrest and trial of the apostles (5:17–33)
17–18 As in 4:1–31, Luke has the early opposition to Christianity arising principally from the Sadducees. Pharisees were undoubtedly present in the Sanhedrin (cf. comments on “the full assembly of the elders of Israel,” v.21), but their presence in these earliest days of the church’s existence (at least until ch. 7) is depicted as exerting a moderating influence on the antagonism of the Sadducees. Thus the high priest and members of the party of the Sadducees take official action a second time against the apostles by arresting them and putting them “in the public jail.”
19–21a This is one of three “opening of the prison doors” stories in the book of Acts (cf. 12:6–11; 16:26–29). The “angel of the Lord” is the NT term for the OT “Angel of the LORD,” which denotes God himself in his dealings with humans (cf. Ex 3:2, 4, 7; at al.). Here “angel” (GK 34) denotes the presence or agency of God himself (cf. 8:26; 12:7, 23; cf. also Mt 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19; 28:2; Lk 1:11; 2:9). By divine intervention, then, the apostles were released from the public jail and told by God to go back to the temple and persist in preaching the message of new life to “the people” (i.e., the nation of Israel), in spite of the Sanhedrin’s attempt to silence it. The focus of their message is on “this new life”—with “life” (GK 2437) and “salvation” (GK 5401) understood in the NT as synonymous. And since the apostles had been miraculously released and divinely commissioned, that is exactly what they began to do.
21b–27 Having (as they thought) confined the apostles in the public jail for the night, “the high priest and his associates” called together the members of the Sanhedrin in the morning in order to make some judgment and take some action about the disturbances the Christians were causing. Luke adds “the full assembly of the elders of Israel” here, probably to make clear that the Pharisees were well represented in the council at this time; though they may not have been at the first trial, they did become vocal through Gamaliel at the second one (cf. vv.34–40). So the Sanhedrin sent for their prisoners—but did not find them. “The captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled,” probably concluding that the escape was aided by members of the temple guard. But when they heard that the apostles were teaching the people in the temple courts, “the captain” took command of his temple police and brought the apostles in before the council to be interrogated (v.26a). No violence was used in the arrest because the captain and his guard feared the reaction of the people (v.26b). This says something about the early Christians’ response to Jesus’ example of nonviolence and nonretaliation during his own arrest (cf. Mk 14:43–50), for they might have begun a riot and thus extricated themselves. It also continues the theme of “the favor of all the people” in 2:42–47.
28 As the apostles stood before the Sanhedrin, the high priest (the president) began the interrogation by reminding the apostles of the council’s order for them to be silent, which obviously had not been complied with. It is uncertain whether Luke had in mind Annas or Caiaphas as leading the interrogation; while the latter was officially the high priest at the time, the former is assumed in the NT to be the real power behind the throne and continues to be called the high priest (cf. Lk 3:2; Jn 18:13–24). Formally, the high priest’s interrogation contains no questions but only points up the apostles’ refusal to obey the Sanhedrin’s earlier order (i.e., a charge of “contempt of court”). He also objects to their insistence on blaming the council for Jesus’ death (cf. 4:10). For the Sadducean leadership of the council, the uncontested charge of contempt of court was sufficient legal warrant for taking action against the apostles. With their vested interests, the Sadducees wanted only to preserve their own authority and put an end to the rising disturbance among the people. They evidently had no interest in determining the truth or falsity of the Christians’ claims. Their hardened attitude is manifest in their refusal to mention the name of Jesus (compare v.28 with 4:18) and in their spitting out the epithet “this man” when they had to refer directly to him.
29–32 By saying “Peter and the other apostles replied,” Luke suggests that Peter was the spokesman for the group of apostles on trial, with the others in some way indicating their agreement. Their response is hardly a reasoned defense but simply a reaffirmation of their position. As at the first trial (4:19), here they voice even more succinctly their noble principle, “We must obey God rather than men.” Also as at the first trial, the focus is on Jesus. “By hanging him on a tree” is a locution for crucifixion that stems from Dt 21:22–23 (cf. Ac 10:39; 13:29; Gal 3:13 [quoting Dt 21:23]; 1Pe 2:24). The titles “Prince” and “Savior” are Christological ascriptions rooted in the confessions of the early church and particularly associated with the NT themes of exaltation and Lordship.
33 As far as the Sadducees were concerned, the charge of contempt of court was not only uncontested but repeated. On hearing the apostles reaffirm what to them could only be considered intolerable obstinacy, the Sadducees were furious and wanted to destroy them. While the Sanhedrin did not have authority under Roman jurisdiction to inflict capital punishment, undoubtedly they would have found some pretext for handing these men over to the Romans for such action—as they did with Jesus himself—had it not been for the intervention of the Pharisees, as represented particularly by Gamaliel.
3. Gamaliel’s wise counsel of moderation (5:34–40)
The portrayal of Gamaliel’s counsel is the high point of Luke’s account of the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin and the main reason why he included the whole vignette. His purpose here is to contrast the developed antagonism of the Sadducees with the moderation of Gamaliel as spokesman for the Pharisees.
34–35 The “Pharisees” (GK 5757) represent the continuation of the ancient Hasidim, that group of “pious ones” in Israel who, during the Seleucid oppressions, joined the Hasmoneans (the Maccabees; see comment on 4:1) in the struggle for religious freedom but later opposed the Maccabean rulers in their political and territorial claims. They came from diverse family, occupational, and economic backgrounds and gave themselves to studying the Law (Torah) in both its written and oral forms, to expounding the Law in terms of its contemporary relevance, and to preparing the people for the coming of the Messianic Age by means of education in Scripture and the oral tradition. The name “Pharisee” probably comes from the Aramaic verb meaning “to separate” (thus they are “the separated ones” or “holy ones dedicated entirely to God”). In the period before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, they were in the minority in the Sanhedrin. But their support by the people was so great that all matters of life and ceremony were guided by their interpretations, and Sadducean magistrates had to profess adherence to their principles in order to hold the formal allegiance of the populace.
Theologically, the Pharisees looked for a Messianic Age and a personal Messiah; they accepted a doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (though they understood such a doctrine to mean either the immortality of the soul or the resuscitation of the body); they believed in the presence and activity of angels and demons; they held in balance the tenets of God’s eternal decrees and human freedom of will; and they tried to live a life of simple piety apart from needless wealth and luxury.
The first-century Pharisee Gamaliel I, who was either the son or grandson of the famous Hillel, was one of the most highly esteemed Pharisees. Here in Acts he is portrayed as having taken charge at a certain point in the council meeting and as having gained the acquiescence of those present—not through any vested authority but through personal forcefulness and respect for what he represented. And he addresses the council members with the traditional designation “Men of Israel” (cf. 2:22).
36–37 Many have seen a problem in Gamaliel’s reference to the Jewish revolutionaries Theudas and Judas the Galilean in this speech. According to Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century, Judas’s rebellion occurred about A.D. 6 and Theudas’s about A.D. 44, thus making Luke’s chronology wrong (cf. “after him” in v.37). Furthermore, this scene before the Sanhedrin occurred about A.D. 34, well before the rebellion of Theudas. In answer to these problems, it seems most likely that the Theudas that Gamaliel referred to was one of the many insurgent leaders who arose in Palestine at the time of Herod the Great’s death in 4 B.C., not the Theudas who led the Jewish uprising of A.D. 44. Our problem with these verses, therefore, may result just as much from our own ignorance of the situation as from what we believe we know as based on Josephus.
38–39 It has frequently been claimed that the words of Gamaliel here are “a historical mistake,” for they are not in character with what we know of Pharisaism. But Josephus himself informs us that whereas the Sadducees were rather boorish in their behavior, the Pharisees were affectionate, interested in harmonious relations among the Jews, and often lenient in matters of punishment. Many of them were content to allow history to be the final judge of whether something was of God or not.
Of course, later on in Acts (cf. 8:1, 3; 9:1–2), Saul of Tarsus, who was trained under Gamaliel I (cf. 22:3), takes a very different attitude toward the Christians, joining with the Sadducees and obtaining the high priest’s authorization to track them down and imprison them. But between Gamaliel’s advice in Ac 5 and Saul’s action in Ac 8–9, there arose from the depths of Christian conviction what the Pharisees as well as the Sadducees could only have considered to be a threat of Jewish apostasy. Before Gamaliel’s counsel of moderation, the central issues of the church’s proclamation had been the messiahship, lordship, and saviorhood of Jesus of Nazareth—his heaven-ordained death, his victorious resurrection, and his present status as exalted Redeemer. To the Sadducees who instigated the early suppressions, such teaching not only upset orderly rule but, more important, impinged upon their authority. To the more noble of the Pharisees, however, the Jerusalem Christians were yet within the scope of Judaism and not to be treated as heretics. The divine claims for Jesus as yet lay in the subconsciousness of the church, and those who were his followers showed no tendency to relax their observance of the Mosaic law because of their new beliefs.
Between Gamaliel’s advice and Saul’s action, however, there arose within Christian preaching something that could only be viewed within Jerusalem as a real threat of Jewish apostasy. In Ac 6–7 Stephen began to apply the doctrines of Jesus’ messiahship and lordship to traditional Jewish views regarding the land, the law, and the temple. Moreover, he is seen as beginning to reach conclusions that related to the primacy of Jesus’ messiahship and lordship and the secondary nature of Jewish views about the land, the law, and the temple (see comments on ch. 7). For Stephen this was a dangerous path to tread, particularly in Jerusalem—a path even the apostles seemed unwilling to take at that time. Stephen’s message was indeed Jewish apostasy. Had Rabbi Gamaliel the Elder faced this feature of Christian proclamation in the second Sanhedrin trial of the Jerusalem apostles, his attitude would undoubtedly have been different.
40 Gamaliel’s wise counsel here prevailed to some extent among his Sanhedrin colleagues and held back the worst of Sadducean intentions, though it did not entirely divert their wrath. Thus the apostles were flogged (probably with the severe beating of thirty-nine stripes), were warned that the ban against teaching in the name of Jesus was still in effect, and were then released.
4. The apostles’ rejoicing and continued ministry (5:41–42)
Luke ends his account of the apostles’ second appearance before the Sanhedrin with a brief summary that speaks of their rejoicing and continued ministry. It is a statement that has nuances of defiance, confidence, and victory; and in many ways it gathers together all Luke has set forth from 2:42 on.
41 Luke stresses the fact that just as the apostles performed miracles through the power of the name of Jesus (cf. 3:6) and proclaimed that name before the people and the council (cf. 3:16; 4:10, 12), so they rejoiced when “counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.”
42 Furthermore, Luke tells us that “they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.” In this somewhat formal statement, which comes close to concluding our author’s whole first panel of material, there is both a correlation with the thesis paragraph of Acts (2:42–47)—explicitly in the phrases “in the temple courts and from house to house” (cf. 2:46), though also inferentially in the note of continuance that is sounded—and an anticipation of the final words of Luke’s sixth panel at the very end of Acts: “boldly and without hindrance” (28:31).
F. The Hellenists’ Presence and Problem in the Church (6:1–6)
In this last section before the beginning of the second panel of Part I of Acts (the second panel focuses on three individuals—Stephen, Philip, and Saul of Tarsus—and their ministry among the Greek-speaking Jews, i.e., the Hellenists), Luke finds it necessary to tell his readers something about this Hellenist element in the church. He might have started his second panel with discussing the presence of the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem, for that would have provided a good thematic introduction for the panel. To have done so, however, would have separated them from their roots in the early church and would have damaged his theme of continuity amid diversity and development. Thus he chose to include the portrayal of the Hellenists in the Jerusalem congregation in his first panel and before the summary statement (6:7) that concludes that panel.
1 This verse is not only one of the most important in Acts, it is also one of the most complicated and discussed verses in the entire book. What one concludes regarding the identity of “the Grecian Jews,” their relation to “the Aramaic-speaking community,” and their circumstances within the church largely affects how one understands the material in Luke’s second panel (6:8–9:31) and the whole course of events within the Jerusalem church. It is important, therefore, to understand as precisely as possible what Luke says and implies in describing “the Grecian Jews” (i.e, the Hellenists) within the early church, a group he introduces by the phrases “in those days” and “when the number of disciples was increasing.”
As for differentiating the Hellenists from the believers of Hebrew background, scholars have made various suggestions: the Hellenists are (1) Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora who settled in Jerusalem among the native-born and Aramaic-speaking populace, (2) Jewish proselytes from a Gentile background, (3) Jews who were related in some manner to the Essene movement in Palestine, (4) the Samaritans, and (5) Jews (whether by birth or as proselytes) who spoke only Greek and no Semitic language such as Hebrew or Aramaic. Of these choices, the last one seems the best. It hurdles the difficulty of how Paul could call himself a Hebraic Jew even though he was from the Diaspora (Php 3:5), it provides an explanation as to why Hellenistic synagogues were required in Jerusalem, and it offers an insight into the problem of why two of the seven men chosen in 6:5 (Stephen and Philip) appear almost immediately thereafter as evangelists within their own circle when they had actually been appointed to supervise more mundane concerns.
Probably, therefore, “the Grecian Jews” in Acts 6 were originally Hellenized Jews who had come from the Diaspora but who were now living in Jerusalem and had come under some suspicion (by reason of their place of birth, their speech, or both) of being more Grecian than Hebraic in their attitudes and outlook. Many of them, no doubt, had originally returned to the homeland out of religious ardor and today would be called Zionists. Perhaps they tended to group together because of their similar backgrounds and common language, as the many Hellenistic synagogues in Jerusalem would seem to indicate. Since coming to Jerusalem, they had become Christians. But since attitudes and prejudices formed before conversion are often carried over into Christian life—too often the unworthy more than the worthy ones—some of the problems between the Hebraic Jews and the Hellenistic Jews in the church must be related back to such earlier differences and prejudices.
In 6:1–6, Luke tells us that the Hellenists’ “widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.” Judaism had a system for the distribution of food and supplies to the poor, both to the wandering pauper and to those living in Jerusalem itself. The early Christian community at Jerusalem likewise expressed its spiritual unity in communal sharing of possessions and in charitable acts (cf. 2:44–45; 4:32–5:11). Apparently with the “increasing” number of believers and with the passing of time, the number of Hellenistic widows dependent on relief from the church became disproportionately large. Many pious Jews of the Diaspora had moved to Jerusalem in their later years in order to be buried near it, and their widows would have had no relatives near at hand to care for them as would the widows of the longtime residents. Nor as they became Christians would the “poor baskets” of the national system of relief be readily available to them. So the problem facing the church became acute.
The issue about the distribution of food may not have been all that disrupted the fellowship. It is likely that it was only the symptom of a larger tension between the two groups, opening up earlier prejudices. If the Hellenists spoke mostly in Greek, they may have required separate meetings within the Christian community, and these too could have brought back old resentments.
2–4 The apostles’ response in this matter was to call the Christians together and suggest a solution. It is significant that the apostles were not prepared simply to ignore the problem; they seem to have realized that spiritual and material concerns are so intimately related in Christian experience that one always affects the other for better or worse. Similarly, there was no attempt to assign blame or to act in any paternalistic fashion. Rather, they suggested that seven men “full of the Spirit and wisdom” be chosen from among the congregation (perhaps only from among the Hellenists) who could take responsibility in the affair. The apostles would give their attention exclusively “to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
The reference to the apostles as “the Twelve” occurs only here in Acts (cf. 1Co 15:5), though earlier Luke has spoken of “the Eleven” in such an absolute and corporate manner (cf. Lk 24:9, 33; Ac 2:14). Likewise, the references to Christians as “the disciples” here and in v.1 are the first instances of this usage in Acts, though in the remainder of the book it occurs fairly often. In using both these terms, Luke has gone back to the language of the earliest Christians and tried to make idiomatic use of it. The words “full of the Spirit and wisdom” evidently refer to guidance by the Holy Spirit and skill in administration and business, which, singly and together, are so necessary in Christian service. While Christian ministers wish such qualities were more characteristic of their own boards and councils, it is only fair to say that boards and councils often wish their ministers were given more “to prayer and the ministry of the word”! A pattern is set here for both lay leaders and clergy, and God’s work will move ahead more efficiently if it is followed carefully.
5–6 The apostles made a proposal, but the church, the community of God’s Spirit, made the decision. The apostles therefore laid their hands on the Seven and appointed them to be responsible for the daily distribution of food. The laying on of hands recalls Moses’ commissioning of Joshua in Nu 27:18–23, where through this act some of Moses’ authority was conferred on Joshua. That is evidently what the laying on of hands was meant to symbolize here, with the apostles delegating their authority to the seven selected by the church (cf. also 8:17; 9:17; 13:3; 19:6).
All seven men have Greek names; one of them is singled out as having been a Gentile convert to Judaism (i.e., a “proselyte”). But it is impossible to be sure simply from the names whether all seven were Hellenists, for at that time many Palestinian Jews also had Greek names. Nevertheless, the fact that Luke gives only Greek names suggests that all seven were in fact from the Hellenistic group within the church. Furthermore, Luke does not directly call these seven by the ecclesiastical title “deacon” (diakonos; GK 1356), even though he uses the cognate noun diakonia (“distribution”; GK 1355) in v.1 and the verb diakoneo (“wait on”; GK 1354) in v.2 for what they were to do. Yet the ministry to which the seven were appointed was functionally equivalent to what Paul covered in the title “deacon” (cf. 1Ti 3:8–13); in the NT ministry was a function long before it became an office.
Acts 6:1–6 is particularly instructive as something of a pattern for church life today. In the first place, the early church took seriously the combination of spiritual and material concerns in carrying out its God-given ministry. In doing so, it stressed prayer and the proclamation of the Word, but never to the exclusion of helping the poor and correcting injustices. And even when the church found it necessary to divide internal responsibilities and assign different functions, the early believers saw these as varying aspects of one total ministry.
Second, the early church seems to have been prepared to adjust its procedures, alter its organizational structure, and develop new posts of responsibility in response to existing needs and for the sake of the ongoing proclamation of the Word of God. Throughout the years various so-called restorationist movements in the church have attempted to reach back and recapture the explicit forms and practices of the earliest Christians and have tried to reproduce them as far as possible in their pristine forms, believing that in doing so they are more truly biblical than other church groups. But Luke’s narrative here suggests that to be fully biblical is to be constantly engaged in adapting traditional methods and structures to meet existing situations, both for the sake of the welfare of the whole church and for the outreach of the Gospel.
Finally, Luke’s account suggests certain restraining attitudes that could well be incorporated into contemporary churchmanship. Among these are (1) refusing to get involved in the practice of assigning blame where things have gone wrong, preferring rather to expend the energies of God’s people on correcting injustices, praying, and proclaiming the Word, and (2) refusing to become paternalistic in solving problems, which implies a willingness to turn the necessary authority for working out solutions over to others—even, as was possibly the case here, to those who feel the problem most acutely and may therefore be best able to solve it.
G. A Summary Statement (6:7)
7 Luke concludes his first panel of material on the earliest days of the church in Jerusalem with this summary statement, which is very much in line with his thesis paragraph (2:42–47) and his summary paragraphs (4:32–35; 5:12–16) that head their respective units of material. His focus in this first panel has been on the advances of the Gospel and the responses of the people. Therefore he concludes by saying that “the word of God spread” and “the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly.”
Before he leaves his first panel of material, however, Luke—almost, it seems, as an afterthought—inserts the comment that “a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” At first glance this is, to say the least, somewhat perplexing because, in view of 4:1ff. and 5:17ff., it seems extremely difficult to believe that priests in any numbers would have become Christians. Nevertheless, there were perhaps as many as eight thousand “ordinary” priests and ten thousand Levites, divided into twenty-four weekly courses, serving at the Jerusalem temple during the period of a year, whose social position was distinctly inferior to that of the high priestly families and whose piety in many cases could well have inclined them to an acceptance of the Christian message. Luke indicates that a great number of persons calling themselves priests became believers in Jesus and were numbered with the Christians in the Jerusalem church.
Panel 2—Critical Events in the Lives of Three Pivotal Figures (6:8–9:31)
Luke now turns to three key events in the advance of the Gospel beyond its strictly Jewish confines: the martyrdom of Stephen, the early ministries of Philip, and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Luke’s presentation is largely biographical. This is the type of material that would have circulated widely among the dispossessed Hellenistic Christians, including Stephen’s argument before the Sanhedrin. Furthermore, Luke may have heard Philip and Paul speak together about these matters either during Paul’s stay for “a number of days” at Philip’s home in Caesarea (cf. 21:8–10) or during Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea (cf. 25:27).
No doubt Stephen’s martyrdom was imprinted on Philip’s memory, and accounts of his defense had probably become the raison d’etre for the Hellenists’ continued ministry. Likewise, Philip must have made a lasting impression on Luke as an important figure in the advance of the Christian mission, just as he was an important person in the Christian community at Caesarea (cf. 8:40; 21:8–9). And Paul was of such immense significance for Luke’s narrative that an account of his conversion was inevitable—particularly because of its miraculous circumstances.
Just when the events of Luke’s second panel took place depends largely on the dates for Paul’s conversion and ministry. Since Stephen’s death occurred before the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (cf. 7:58; 8:1), and since Luke presents Philip’s ministries in Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch as following on the heels of the persecution that arose with Stephen’s martyrdom, the accounts of these two Hellenistic spokesmen are historically tied to the conversion of Saul. For the chronological issues associated with Paul, see the comments on 9:1–30 and other succeeding passages. As for this second panel, it is sufficient to say that the events Luke presents in it took place somewhere in the mid-thirties, possibly as early as A.D. 33 or as late as A.D. 37.
A. The Martyrdom of Stephen (6:8–8:3)
1. Opposition to Stephen’s ministry 6:8–7:1)
8 Stephen has earlier been described as being “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (6:3) and “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (6:5). Now Luke says he was “full of God’s grace and power.” The three descriptions are complementary. The word “grace” was previously used by Luke to characterize both Jesus (Lk 4:22) and the early church (Ac 4:33) and connotes “spiritual charm” or “winsomeness.” “Power” has already appeared in Acts in conjunction with “wonders and signs” (2:22) and “grace” (4:33) and connotes divine power expressed in mighty works.
Like Jesus and the apostles (cf. 2:22, 43; 5:12), Stephen is portrayed as having done “great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.” Just what these were, Luke does not say, though we are undoubtedly to think of them as being of the same nature as those done by Jesus and the apostles. Nor does Luke tell us just when these manifestations of divine power began in Stephen’s ministry. Perhaps they were a direct result of the laying on of the apostles’ hands (cf. 6:6).
9–10 Stephen soon began preaching among his Hellenistic compatriots. Many commentators have found this to be a major problem in the narrative because Stephen was appointed to supervise relief for the poor, not to perform the apostolic function of preaching. But if we posit (1) the continuation, to some extent, of old tensions between Hebraic Jews and Hellenistic Jews in the Jerusalem church and (2) occasional separate meetings for the Aramaic-speaking and Greek-speaking believers (cf. comments on 6:1), several difficulties in the historical reconstruction of this period are partially explained. While not minimizing the importance of the apostles to the whole church, we can say that in some way Stephen, Philip, and perhaps others of the appointed seven may well have been to the Hellenistic Christians what the apostles were to the those born in Palestine. Philip seems to have performed such a function later on at Caesarea. And in the early church, where ministry was a function long before it became an office, such preaching was evidently looked upon with approval.
Opposition to Stephen arose from certain members within the Hellenistic community. Opinion differs widely as to just how many Hellenistic synagogues are in view in v.9. Many have insisted that there are five, though more likely the singular form of “synagogue” in the passage and the epexegetical nature of the last four designations posit only one synagogue, the synagogue of the Freedmen, made up of Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia (cf. NIV text). The word “Freedmen” probably refers to Jewish freedmen and the sons of such freedmen.
We have no account of the content of Stephen’s preaching that so antagonized his Hellenistic compatriots. Luke labels the accusations against him (vv.11–14) as false—though, to judge by his response of ch. 7, they seem to have been false more in nuance and degree than in kind. From the accusations and from his defense, it is clear that Stephen had begun to apply his Christian convictions regarding the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah in God’s redemptive program to such issues as the significance of the land, the law, and the temple for Jewish Christians. This, however, was a dangerous path to tread, particularly for Hellenistic Jewish Christians! It was one that the apostles themselves seem to have been unwilling to explore. And it was a path that Jews who had lately returned to Jerusalem from the Diaspora would view with reticence.
Having originally immigrated to their homeland out of a desire to be more faithful Jews, and having come under some suspicion of an inbred liberalism by the native-born populace, the Hellenistic Jewish community in Jerusalem undoubtedly had a vested interest in keeping deviations among its members to a minimum, or else exposing them as outside its own commitments, lest its synagogues fall under further suspicion. Thus the Hellenistic members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen were probably quite eager to bait Stephen in order to root out such a threat from their midst—though it is evident from the record that Stephen welcomed the challenge. But as Luke tells us, “they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by which he spoke.” This fulfills Jesus’ promise of the gift of “words and wisdom” in the time of persecution (cf. Lk 21:15).
11–14 Four things are said about certain members of the synagogue of the Freedman: (1) “they secretly persuaded some men to say” that Stephen had spoken “blasphemy” (GK 1060); (2) “they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law” on their trumped-up charge against Stephen; (3) “they seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin”; and (4) “they produced false witnesses” at his trial.
The rumors had to do with Stephen’s being “against Moses and against God”—“against Moses” because his arguments appeared to challenge the eternal validity of the Mosaic law, and “against God” because he appeared to be setting aside that which was taken to be the foundation and focus of national worship—the Jerusalem temple. In so doing, the rumors struck at the heart of both Pharisaic and Sadducean interests. In the first century, “blasphemy” was broadly interpreted along the lines of Nu 15:30: “Anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people.”
The testimony of witnesses who repeated what they had heard a defendant say was part of Jewish court procedure in a trial for blasphemy. But the testimony against Stephen (v.14), according to Luke, was false (cf. the testimony against Jesus, Mt 26:61; Mk 14:58). Its falseness lay not so much in its wholesale fabrication but in its subtle and deadly misrepresentation of what was intended. Undoubtedly, Stephen spoke regarding a recasting of Jewish life in terms of the supremacy of Jesus the Messiah and expressed in his manner and message something of the subsidiary significance of the Jerusalem temple and the Mosaic law, as did Jesus before him (e.g, Mk 2:23–28; 3:1–6; 7:14–15; 10:5–9; cf. Jn 2:19–22). But that is not the same as advocating the destruction of the temple or the changing of the law—though on such matters we must allow Stephen to speak for himself in Acts 7.
6:15–7:1 The members of the council “looked intently” at Stephen as he was brought before them and saw one whose appearance was “like the face of an angel.” Luke probably wants us to understand that Stephen, being filled with the Holy Spirit (6:3, 5) and possessing a genuine spiritual winsomeness (6:8), radiated a presence marked by confidence, serenity, and courage. And with the question of the high priest—“Are these charges true?”—the stage is set for Stephen’s defense.
2. Stephen’s defense before the Sanhedrin (7:2–53)
The defense of Stephen before the Sanhedrin is hardly a defense in the sense of an explanation or apology calculated to win an acquittal. Rather, it is a proclamation of the Christian message in terms of the popular Judaism of the day and an indictment of the Jewish leaders for their failure to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah or to appreciate the salvation provided in him. Before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the three great pillars in the religious faith of the vast majority of Jews were the land, the law, and the temple. It is this type of thought that Stephen confronts here, as the writer of Hebrews also did later.
a. On the land (7:2–36)
Declarations of faith within a Jewish milieu were often tied into a recital of God’s intervention in the life of Israel, for God is the God who is known by his redemptive activity on behalf of his people in history. So by beginning his defense with a resume of Israel’s history, Stephen is speaking in accord with Jewish form. But while Jewish in form, the content of his address runs counter to much of the popular piety of the day. He argues that God’s significant activity has usually taken place outside the confines of Palestine, that wherever God meets his people can be called “holy ground,” that God is the God who calls his own to move forward in their religious experience, and that therefore dwelling in the land of promise requires a pilgrim lifestyle in which the land may be appreciated but never venerated.
In the OT the important concepts of “rest” (GK 4957) and “remnant” (GK 8642) are frequently associated closely with the land. For example, Dt 12:9–10 reads: “You have not yet reached the resting place [GK 4957] and the inheritance the LORD your God is giving you. But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you rest from all your enemies around you so that you will live in safety” (cf. Dt 3:20; Jos 1:13; Joel 2:32b; Mic 4:6–7). Facing much the same problem and with much the same purpose as the writer of Hebrews (cf. Heb 4:1–13; 11:8–16), though with a difference of method and structure in his argument, Stephen argues against a veneration of the Holy Land that leaves no room for God’s further saving activity in Jesus of Nazareth, Israel’s Messiah. Stephen is not renouncing Israel’s possession of the land; he makes no attempt to deny or avoid mentioning God’s promise that Abraham’s descendants would inherit Palestine. He is rather delivering a polemic against a veneration of the land that misses God’s further redemptive work. And while his message relates to his time and situation, it also has great relevance for us. For we Christians today are constantly tempted to assert that our nation and our possessions are God-given rather than to confess our dependence on a God who is not limited by anything he has bestowed and to affirm our readiness to move forward with him at all cost.
2–8 Stephen begins by addressing the council in a somewhat formal yet fraternal manner: “Men, brothers and fathers” (cf. 22:1). Then he launches into his message, taking up first the situation of Abraham. “The God of glory,” Stephen says, “appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran [italics mine].” God’s word to him was to move forward into the possession of a land that was promised to him and his descendants. But though he entered into his promised inheritance, he did not live in it as if living in it was the consummation of God’s purposes for him. Rather, he cherished as most important the covenantal and personal relationship that God had established with him, whatever his place of residence—a relationship of which circumcision was the God-given sign.
There are a number of difficulties as to chronological sequence, historical numbers, and the use of biblical quotations in Stephen’s address that have led to the most strenuous exercise of ingenuity on the part of commentators in their attempts to reconcile them. Four of these difficulties appear in vv.2–8. Verse 3 quotes the words of God to Abraham given in Ge 12:1 and implies by its juxtaposition with v.2 that this message came to Abraham when he was still in Mesopotamia, whereas the context of Ge 12:1 suggests that it came to him in Haran. Verse 4 says that he left Haran after the death of his father, whereas the chronological data of Ge 11:26–12:4 suggest that Terah’s death took place after Abraham’s departure from Haran. Verse 5 uses the words of Dt 2:5 as a suitable description of Abraham’s situation in Palestine, whereas their OT context relates to God’s prohibition to Israel not to dwell in Mount Seir because it had been given to Esau. And v.6 speaks of 400 years of slavery in Egypt, whereas Ex 12:40 says 430.
We need not, however, get so disturbed over such things as, on the one hand, to pounce on them to disprove a “high view” of biblical inspiration or, on the other hand, to attempt to harmonize them so as to support such a view. These matters are paralleled in other popular writings of the day, whether overtly Hellenistic or simply more nonconformist in the broadest sense of that term. The Jewish philosopher Philo, for example, explained Abraham’s departure from Ur of the Chaldees by referring to Ge 12:1, even though he elsewhere wrote that Ge 12:1–5 is in the context of leaving Haran. The Jewish historian Josephus spoke of Abraham’s being seventy-five years old when he left Chaldea (contra Ge 12:4, which says he was seventy-five when he left Haran). Likewise, Philo placed the departure of Abraham from Haran after his father’s death. And undoubtedly the round figure of four hundred years for Israel’s slavery in Egypt—a figure that stems from the statement credited to God in Ge 15:13—was used in popular expressions of religious piety in first-century Judaism.
There is a remarkable psychological or emotional truth in Luke’s report of Stephen’s address. With his life at stake, Stephen was speaking under intense emotion and with God-given eloquence. With remarkable verisimilitude Luke shows him using commonly understood language in vivid terms and with burning eloquence as he refers to Israel’s history. Stephen’s speech was not a scholarly historical survey; it was a powerful portrayal of God’s dealing with Israel, and it mounted inexorably to a climax that unmasked the obstinacy and disobedience of Israel and of their leaders in Stephen’s time. Church history knows of few, if any, greater displays of moral courage than Stephen showed in this speech. And to dissect it on precisionist grounds shows lack of understanding of its basic truth.
9–16 Stephen’s address next turns to the sons of Jacob, or “the twelve patriarchs” as they were known more popularly. Here Stephen’s point is that God was with Joseph and his brothers in Egypt (the name itself is repeated six times in vv.9–16), even though the only portion of the Holy Land that they possessed was the family tomb in Palestine, to which their bones were brought back later for final burial.
This section has two further difficulties of the type noted in vv.2–6: (1) v.14 gives the number seventy-five as the total number who originally went down to Egypt, whereas Ge 46:27 sets the figure at seventy, and (2) v.16 confuses Abraham’s tomb at Hebron, in the cave of Machpelah, which he bought from Ephron the Hittite (cf. Ge 23:3–20) and wherein Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried (cf. Ge 49:29–33; 50:13), with the burial plot purchased by Jacob at Shechem from the sons of Hamor (Ge 33:19), wherein Joseph and his descendants were buried (cf. Jos 24:32). Again, these are but further examples of the conflations and inexactitudes of Jewish popular religion, which, it seems, Luke simply recorded from his sources in his attempt to be faithful to what Stephen actually said in his portrayal. And again, they can in large measure be paralleled elsewhere.
17–36 Still on the subject of “the land,” Stephen recounts the life of Moses. Incorporated into this section, largely by way of anticipation, is a Moses-rejection theme in vv.23–29 and 35, which will later be highlighted in vv.39–43 and then driven home in the scathing indictment of vv.51–53. But here Stephen’s primary emphasis is on God’s providential and redemptive action for his people apart from and outside the land of Palestine, of which Stephen’s hearers made so much: (1) God’s raising up of the deliverer Moses in Egypt (vv.17–22); (2) his provision for the rejected Moses in Midian (v.29); (3) his commissioning of Moses in the desert near Mount Sinai—the place God himself identified as being “holy ground,” for wherever God meets with his people is holy ground though it possesses no sanctity of its own (vv.30–34); and (4) Moses’ resultant action in delivering God’s people and doing “wonders and miraculous signs” for forty years in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the desert. This narration of events in Moses’ life is not given just to introduce the Second Moses theme that follows in vv.37–43, though it certainly does that. Its primary purpose seems rather to be that of making the vital point, contrary to the popular piety of the day in its veneration of “the Holy Land,” that no place on earth—even though given as an inheritance by God himself—can be claimed to possess such sanctity or be esteemed in such a way as to preempt God’s further working on behalf of his people. By this method Stephen was attempting to clear the way for the proclamation of the centrality of Jesus in the nation’s worship, life, and thought.
b. On the law (7:37–43)
Involved inevitably with the Jews’ exaltation of the law were veneration of Moses the Law-giver and idealization of Israel’s days in the desert. All parties within Judaism of the first century A.D.—whether Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Apocalypticists, Hellenists, Samaritans, or the so-called People of the Land—were united in this veneration and idealization. So in meeting the accusation that he was speaking blasphemous words “against Moses” (6:11) and “against the law” (6:13), Stephen argues two points clearly and a third inferentially: (1) Moses himself spoke of God’s later raising up “a prophet like me” from among his people and for his people, which means therefore that Israel cannot limit the revelation and redemption of God to Moses’ precepts (vv.37–38); (2) Moses had been rejected by his own people, even though he was God’s appointed redeemer—which parallels the way Jesus of Nazareth was treated and explains why the majority within the nation refused him, even though he was God’s promised Messiah (vv.39–40); and (3) even though Moses was with them and they had the living words of the law and the sacrificial system, the people fell gross idolatry and actually opposed God (vv.41–43).
37–38 Tension is now beginning to build up in Stephen’s speech. Starting from the rather placid historical narrative of vv.2–34 and moving to the more strident conclusion in vv.35–36, the speech peaks with a passionate treatment of the Moses testimonium passage in Dt 18:15 and of the significance of Moses himself there. This probably reflects a method of interpreting Scripture common to nonconformist Jews in general (cf. comments on 2:16) and points to the crux of Stephen’s argument.
Stephen in no way disparages Moses. Indeed, in referring to Moses as being “in the congregation in the wilderness, with our fathers and with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai,” he was speaking in a complimentary way. Likewise, Moses received “living words” that he passed on—an expression that implies the opposite of any disparagement of the Mosaic law. But Stephen’s point is that in Dt 18:15 Moses pointed beyond himself and beyond the instruction that came through him to another whom God would raise up in the future and to whom Israel must give heed; therefore, Israel cannot limit divine revelation and redemption to the confines of the Mosaic law.
In the first century A.D., Judaism was generally looking for a Messiah who would in some way be “like Moses.” Numerous contemporary Jewish documents suggested a parallel between Israel’s first redeemer Moses and Israel’s expected Messiah-Redeemer, who would be like Moses. Stephen’s argument from Dt 18:15–18, therefore, was generally in accord with Jewish eschatological expectations. And he evidently used it, as Peter did before him (cf. 3:22–23), expecting it to be convincing.
39–40 But while Peter and Stephen agree in seeing Christological significance in Dt 18:15–18 and in considering it an important testimonium passage for a Jewish audience, their attitudes toward Israel are very different. For Peter, his hearers are the sons of the prophets who should hear the new Moses (cf. 3:22–26); whereas for Stephen, his hearers are the sons of those who rejected Moses and killed the prophets (cf. 7:35–40, 51–53). In vv.39–40 Stephen specifies his rejection-of-Moses theme by picking up the awful words of Nu 14:3, “Their hearts turned back to Egypt” (v.39) and citing almost verbatim the people’s defiance of Ex 32:1: “Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!” (v.40).
The Jewish Talmud also speaks of the people’s rebellion in making the golden calf and generally views it as Israel’s first, ultimate, and most heinous sin. But there is a decided difference between the way they treat the people’s rebellion and the way Stephen does. The rabbis do not take this episode as the people’s rejection of Moses, but emphasize Moses’ successful intercession for Israel. Stephen, however, lays all his emphasis on Israel’s rejection of their deliverer, implicitly drawing the parallel between their treatment of Moses and their treatment of Jesus—a parallel he will broaden and drive home in his scathing indictment of vv.51–53.
41–43 Stephen emphasizes that the golden calf incident was the time when the Israelites “brought sacrifices to it and held a celebration in honor of what their hands had made.” So detestable to God was this episode in Israel’s experience in the desert that Stephen calls it a time when “God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies” (cf. Ro 1:24, 26, 28 for the expression “God gave them over”). The inescapable inference from Stephen’s words is that Israel’s shameful behavior and God’s drastic response to it find their counterparts in the nation’s rejection of Jesus.
To support his assertion that Israel’s idolatry caused God to give them over to the worship of heavenly bodies, Stephen quotes Am 5:25–27 (following closely the Greek translation of the OT). In applying this passage, Stephen emphasizes that rejection of God’s activity in the eschatological day of salvation brings God’s judgment, despite all the sacrifices and offerings that may be offered, just as Israel’s idolatry of the golden calf eventuated in Israel’s exile “beyond Babylon.”
c. On the temple (7:44–50)
Stephen has met the accusation of blasphemy against the law by reassessing Moses’ place in redemptive history and by counter-charging his accusers with both rejecting the one Moses spoke of and turning to idolatry in their refusal of Jesus the Messiah. Stephen now proceeds to meet the charge of blasphemy against the temple in the same way. In form, this section of the address recalls the more placid manner of vv.2–34. In tone and content, however, it carries on the strident and passionate appeal of vv.35–43, which amounts to a vigorous denunciation of the Jerusalem temple and the type of mentality that would hold to it as the apex of revealed religion.
44–46 Stephen’s assessment of Israel’s worship experience lays all the emphasis on the tabernacle, which he eulogistically calls “the tabernacle of Testimony.” It was with our forefathers, he says, during that period in the desert, which so many consider exemplary. It was made according to the exact pattern God gave Moses and was central in the life of the nation during the conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. And it was the focus of national worship through the time of David, who found favor in God’s sight. So significant was it in Israel’s experience, in fact, that David asked to be allowed to provide a permanent type of “dwelling place” for God in Jerusalem. (Here Ps 132:5 is quoted and 2Sa 6:17; 1Ch 15:1 are alluded to.)
Like the writer to the Hebrews (cf. Heb 8:2, 5; 9:1–5, 11, 24), and probably like many other nonconformist Jews of his time, Stephen seems to have viewed the epitome of Jewish worship in terms of the tabernacle, not the temple. This was likely because he felt the mobility of the tabernacle was a restraint on the status quo mentality that had grown up around the temple. Furthermore, also like the writer to the Hebrews, Stephen attempts to lift his compatriots’ vision to something far superior to even the wilderness tabernacle—namely, to the dwelling of God with humans in Jesus of Nazareth and as expressed through the new covenant.
47 “But it was Solomon,” Stephen tersely says, “who built the house for him.” This brevity shows something of Stephen’s pejorative attitude toward the temple. And his contrast between the tabernacle (vv.44–46) and the temple (v.47) expresses his disapproval. Probably Stephen had in mind 2Sa 7:5–16 (cf. 1Ch 17:4–14). There God spoke through the prophet Nathan of his satisfaction with his “nomadic” situation and declined David’s offer to build a house for his divine presence; but he went on to announce that David’s son would build such a house and promised to build a “house” (lineage) for David. Certainly 2Sa 7:5–16 was a foundational passage for much of early Christian thought (cf. Lk 1:32–33, alluding to 2Sa 7:12–16; Ac 13:17–22 to 7:6–16; Heb 1:5b to 7:14; and, possibly, 2 Cor 6:18 to 7:14). Obviously Stephen did not consider Solomon’s temple to be the final fulfillment of God’s words to David in 2Sa 7. Probably he understood the announcement of a temple to be a concession on God’s part and laid greater emphasis on the promise of the establishment of David’s seed and kingdom (cf. 2Sa 7:12–16).
48–50 Stephen reaches the climax of his antitemple polemic by insisting that “the Most High does not live in houses made by men”—a concept he supports by citing Isa 66:1–2a. Judaism never taught that God actually lived in the temple or was confined to its environs but spoke of his “Name” and presence as being there. In practice, however, this concept was often denied. This would especially appear so to Stephen, when further divine activity in Jesus Christ was refused out-of-hand by the people in their preference for God’s past revelation and redemption as symbolized in the existence of the temple.
As a Hellenist, Stephen seems to have had a tendency to view things in a more “spiritual” ’ manner than most Jews (i.e., in more inward and nonmaterial terms)—a tendency with both good and bad features. As a Christian, he could have been aware of the contrast in the early oral instruction of converts between what is “made with hands” and what is “not made with hands” (cf. esp. Mk 14:58; Heb 8:2; 9:24). But whatever its source, Stephen’s main assertion is that neither the tabernacle nor the temple was intended to be such an institutionalized feature in Israel’s religion as to prohibit God’s further redemptive activity or to halt the advance of God’s plan for his people. The response Stephen wants from his hearers was what God declared as his desire for his people in Isa 66:2b (this text follows the passage Stephen cites): “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.” To those who desired to localize God’s presence and confine his working, however, Stephen repeated the denunciation of Isa 66:1–2a, leaving the appeal in Isa 66:2b to be inferred.
d. The indictment (7:51–53)
The most striking feature of Stephen’s speech and the one that sets it off most sharply from Peter’s temple sermon of Ac 3 is its strong polemical stance toward Israel. As Stephen recounts the history of Israel, he sees a litany of sin, rebellion, and rejection of God’s purposes and emphasizes the unworthiness and continual rebelliousness of the Jews. Some have supposed that the suddenness and harshness of the indictment were occasioned by an angry outburst in the court, to which vv.51–53 are a kind of “kneejerk” response. But there is little reason to assume that to be the case. Stephen’s address has led naturally up to the invective; and after his quotation of Isa 66:1–2a, there was really nothing to add.
51 Stephen’s description of his accusers is loaded with pejorative theological nuances. The phrase “stiff-necked” was fixed in Israel’s memory as God’s own characterization of the nation when it rebelled against Moses and worshiped the golden calf (cf. Ex 33:5; Dt 9:13). And the expression “with uncircumcised hearts and ears” recalls God’s judgment on the apostates among his people as being “uncircumcised in heart” (cf. Lev 26:41; Dt 10:16; Jer 4:4; 9:26). And now, says Stephen, speaking like a prophet of old, God’s indictment rests upon you just as it did on your idolatrous and apostate ancestors.
52 Israel’s persecution and killing of her prophets is a recurrent theme in Jewish literature. The OT not only speaks of the sufferings of individual prophets but also has a number of general statements about how the nation had persecuted and killed the prophets of God (cf. 2Ch 36:15–16; Ne 9:26; Jer 2:30). Various writings from this period of Judaism elaborated on this theme, particularly as a result of the idealization of martyrdom that arose in Maccabean times. Even the Talmud speaks frequently about Israel’s persecuting and killing her prophets. All such statements, though, were for the council well-learned lessons from the past. Stephen’s accusation, however, was that they had learned nothing from the past since an even more horrendous crime had been committed in the present—the betrayal and murder of “the Righteous One”—by the very ones who were so smug about Israel’s past failures.
53 Stephen’s address began with the fraternal greeting “Men, brothers and fathers.” It affirmed throughout his deep respect for such distinctly Jewish phenomena as the Abrahamic covenant (vv.3–8), circumcision (v.8), and the tabernacle (vv.44–46). He repeatedly referred to “our father Abraham” and “our fathers” in such a way as to stress his ready acceptance of his Israelite heritage (vv.2, 11–12, 15, 19, 39, 44–45). Yet his repeated use of the second person plural pronoun in vv.51–53 shows his desire to disassociate himself from the nation in its recurrent refusal of God throughout its history. Consequently, taking the offensive, Stephen drives home his point: “Your fathers always resisted the Holy Spirit. . . . Your fathers persecuted the prophets. . . . You received the law put into effect through angels, but you have not obeyed it.” Perhaps he jabbed with a finger at his accusers—though even a blind man would have felt his verbal blows.
3. The stoning of Stephen (7:54–8:1a)
54 To interpret Stephen’s address as an absolute renunciation of the land, the law, or the sacrificial system is an exaggeration. Indeed, Stephen saw worship in terms of the tabernacle, not the temple, to be the ideal of Israel’s worship. But that is not to say he rejected the worship of the temple, particularly as it continued the pattern of worship instituted by God in giving the tabernacle. Nor can it be said that Stephen was proclaiming a law-free and universal Gospel or suggesting the futility of a Christian mission to Israel. Instead, his desire, it seems, was to raise a prophetic voice within Israel, pleading with his hearers to make Jesus, not their traditional holy things, the center of their worship and thought. Certainly Stephen was more daring than the Jerusalem apostles, more ready to explore the logical consequences of commitment to Jesus than they were, and more ready to attribute Israel’s rejection of its Messiah to a perpetual callousness of heart.
Nonetheless, Stephen’s message was, for his hearers, flagrant apostasy—in both its content and its tone. While his purpose was to denounce the status quo mentality that had grown up around the land, the law, and the temple, thereby clearing a path for a positive response to Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, this was undoubtedly taken as a frontal attack against the Jewish religion in its official and popular forms. And in the council’s eyes, its assumed prophetic stance together with its obnoxious liberal spirit must have represented the worst of both Jewish Hellenism and the beginning Christian movement. So, Luke tells us, “they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him.”
55–56 While the content and tone of his address infuriated the council, Stephen’s follow-up solemn pronouncement raised again the specter of blasphemy and brought his hearers to a frenzied pitch: “Look, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” Only a few years before, Jesus had stood before this same tribunal and had been condemned for answering affirmatively the high priest’s question as to his being Israel’s Messiah and for saying of himself: “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mk 14:62). Now Stephen was saying, in effect, that his vision confirmed Jesus’ claim and condemned the council for having rejected him. Unless the council members were prepared to repent and admit their awful error, they had no option but to find Stephen also guilty of blasphemy. Had he been judged only an impertinent apostate (cf. 5:40), the thirty-nine lashes of Jewish punishment would have been appropriate. But to be openly blasphemous before the council as well was a matter demanding death.
Luke’s description of Stephen as “full of the Holy Spirit” is in line with his characterizations of him in 6:3, 5, 8, 15. The identification of Jesus as “the Son of Man” is used outside the Gospels only here and at Rev 1:13; 14:14 (also at Heb 2:6, though as a locution for a human being in line with Ps 8:4). In the Gospels except for Lk 24:7; Jn 12:34, Jesus alone used “Son of Man” in referring to himself (see comment on Mk 8:31). The title was generally not attributed to Jesus by the church between the time when his sufferings were completed and when he would assume his full glory. Here, however, an anticipation of Christ’s full glory is set within a martyr context (as also at Rev 1:13; 14:14), and, therefore, “Son of Man” is fully appropriate.
In Stephen’s vision the juxtaposition of “the glory [GK 1518] of God” and the name of Jesus—together with his saying that he sees “heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”—is Christologically significant. The OT viewed “the glory of God” as the revelation of the nature of God or even as the divine mode of being itself. By bringing together “the glory of God” and the name of Jesus, therefore, Luke suggests that Jesus manifested the divine nature and the divine mode of being. Likewise, inasmuch as God dwells in the highest heaven, the open heaven with Christ at God’s right hand suggests something about his work as providing access into the very presence of God.
Stephen’s reference to Jesus “standing” at the right hand of God, which differs from the “sitting” of Ps 110:1 (the passage alluded to here), has been variously understood. Most commentators have interpreted the “standing” to suggest Jesus’ welcome of his martyred follower, who, like the repentant criminal of Lk 23:43, was received into heaven the moment he died. Dispensational commentators have taken Stephen’s reference to Jesus’ “standing” as supporting their view that the distinctive redemptive message for this age was not proclaimed till the Pauline gospel; and, therefore, in the transitional period between Israel and the church, Jesus is represented as not yet having taken his seat at God’s right hand. Still others speak of Jesus as “standing” in order to enter his messianic office on earth or depict him as “standing” in line with the common representation of angels standing in the presence of God.
Regardless of what position one takes, we should emphasize the idea of “witness” as being connoted in Jesus’ “standing.” Stephen has been acknowledging Christ before the council, and now he sees Christ acknowledging his servant before God (cf. Mt 10:32). The proper posture for a witness is standing. Stephen has been condemned by an earthly court and appeals for vindication to a heavenly court.
57–58 There is a progression in Luke’s portrayals of the trial scenes of 4: 1ff., 5:17ff., and here, with the first ending in threatenings (4:17, 21), the second with flogging (5:40), and the third with stoning (7:58–60). Moreover, the historical interplay of divergent ideological factors gave rise to Judaism’s united stance against the Hellenists.
The message of Stephen, it seems, served as a kind of catalyst to unite Sadducees, Pharisees, and the common people against the early Christians. Had Gamaliel been confronted by this type of Christian preaching earlier, his attitude as reported in 5:34–39 would surely have been different. The Pharisees could tolerate Palestinian Jewish believers in Jesus because their messianic beliefs, though undoubtedly judged terribly misguided, effected no change in their practice of the Mosaic law: the Pharisaic and priestly devotees of the new movement continued their scrupulous observance of the law, and the Hebraic Christians continued to live in accordance with at least its minimal requirements. But the Hellenistic Christians, who had probably entered Palestine avowing their desire to become stricter in their religious practice, were now beginning to question the centrality of Israel’s traditional forms of religious expression and to propagate within Jerusalem itself a type of religious liberalism that, from a Pharisaic perspective, would eventually undercut the basis for the Jewish religion itself. They might have been able to do little about such liberalism as it existed throughout the Diaspora and in certain quarters within Palestine. But they were determined to preserve the Holy City from further contamination by such outside elements and thus, as they saw it, best prepare the way for the coming of the Messianic Age.
It is not easy to determine whether the stoning of Stephen was only the result of mob action or whether it was carried out by the Sanhedrin in excess of its jurisdiction. The reference to “the witnesses” in v.58, whose grisly duty it was to knock the offender down and throw the first stones, suggests an official execution. If, as we believe, Stephen’s martyrdom occurred sometime in the mid-thirties and during the final years of Pilate’s governorship over Judea (A.D. 26–36), and if, as we have argued, the Pharisees were not prepared to come to his defense in the council, conditions may well have been at a stage where the Sanhedrin felt free to overstep its legal authority. Pontius Pilate normally resided at Caesarea, and the later years of his governorship were beset by increasing troubles that tended to divert his attention.
“The witnesses,” Luke tells us, in preparing for their onerous work of knocking Stephen down and throwing the first stones, “laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.” This suggests that Saul had some official part in the execution. “Young man” generally refers to someone from about twenty-four to forty years old. Some have argued from the action of the witnesses and from Saul’s age that he was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin at the time (see comment on 8:1a), though he may also have been exercising only delegated authority.
59–60 As Stephen was being stoned, he cried out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” and, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” The cries are reminiscent of Jesus’ own words from the cross in Lk 23:34, 46, though the parallelism of sequence and wording is not exact. While it is probably going too far to say that Luke meant Stephen’s execution to be a reenactment of the first great martyrdom, that of Jesus, the parallelism here is certainly not just inadvertent; and it was probably included to show that the same spirit of commitment and forgiveness that characterized Jesus’ life and death was true of his earliest followers. The expression “fall asleep” (GK 3121) is a common biblical way of referring to the death of God’s own (cf. Jn 11:11; Ac 13:36; 1Co 7:39; 11:30; 2Pe 3:4), and the word “sleep” suggests something as to the nature of personal existence during that period of time theologians call “the intermediate state.”
8:1a Again, as in 7:58, Luke makes the point that Saul was present at Stephen’s death and approved of it. Because the verb “to give approval” (GK 5306) is also used in 26:10, some have taken the reference here to be to Saul’s official vote as a member of the Sanhedrin. But that is not necessarily implied. All Luke wants to do here is provide a transition in his account of the developing Christian mission.
4. The immediate aftermath (8:1b–3)
1b Taken in the broader context of Luke’s presentation, we should probably understand the persecution recorded here as directed primarily against the Hellenistic Christians of Jerusalem rather than chiefly against the whole church. A certain stigma must also have fallen on the native-born and more scrupulous Jewish Christians, and they probably became as inconspicuous as possible in the countryside and towns around Jerusalem. The Hellenistic Jews of the city had already been able to disassociate themselves from the Hellenistic Jewish Christians among them. Probably the Jewish leaders made a somewhat similar distinction between the Hellenistic and the more Hebraic Christians within the Jerusalem church, though not nearly so sharply. We are told by Luke in a somewhat sweeping statement that “all” the Christians of Jerusalem “except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” Apparently, however, only the Hellenistic believers felt it inadvisable to return.
As a result of the persecution that began with the martyrdom of Stephen, the Gospel was carried beyond the confines of Jerusalem, in initial fulfillment of Jesus’ directive in 1:8. From this time onward, the Jerusalem church seems to have been largely, if not entirely, devoid of Hellenistic believers. With the martyrdom of Stephen, the Christians of Jerusalem learned the bitter lesson that to espouse a changed relationship to the land, the law, and the temple was (1) to give up the peace of the church and (2) to abandon the Christian mission to Israel. The issues and events connected with Stephen’s death and the expulsion of those who shared his concerns would stand as a warning to the Jerusalem congregation throughout its brief and turbulent history and would exert mental pressure upon Christians in the city to be more circumspect in their future activities within Judea.
2–3 Luke has already used “godly men” to describe the Jews at Pentecost who were receptive to the working of God’s Spirit (2:5). He has also used the adjective “devout” of the aged Simeon in the temple (cf. Lk 2:25), and he will use it of Ananias of Damascus (cf. Ac 22:12). Therefore, when Luke says that “godly men buried Stephen,” he apparently means that certain devout Jews who were open to his Christian message volunteered to ask for Stephen’s body and bury him, much as Joseph of Arimathea did for Jesus (cf. Lk 23:50–53). Luke also tells us that those who buried Stephen “mourned deeply for him,” which may well be Luke’s way of suggesting their repentance toward God as well as their sorrow for Stephen.
Saul, who had had some official capacity at Stephen’s stoning, now began a campaign to destroy the church (cf. also 9:1–30; 22:1–21; 26:2–23).
B. The Early Ministries of Philip (8:4–40)
The accounts of Philip’s ministries in Samaria and to the Ethiopian minister of finance are placed in Acts between the Hellenists’ expulsion from Jerusalem and the outreach of the Gospel to Gentiles—an outreach prepared for in Saul’s conversion and first effected through the preaching of Peter to Cornelius. Luke uses these accounts of Philip’s ministries as a kind of bridge in depicting the advance of the church. Each account represents a further development in proclaiming the Gospel within a Jewish milieu: the first, an outreach to a dispossessed group within Palestine who were often considered by Jerusalem Jews as “half-breeds,” both racially and religiously; the second, an outreach to a proselyte or near-proselyte from another land.
1. The evangelization of Samaria (8:4–25)
Historically, the movement of the Gospel into Samaria following directly on the heels of the persecution of Hellenistic Jewish Christians in Jerusalem makes a great deal of sense. Doubtless a feeling of kinship was established between the formerly dispossessed Samaritans (see comment on Lk 9:53–54) and the recently dispossessed Christian Hellenists because of Stephen’s opposition to the mentality of mainstream Judaism and its veneration of the Jerusalem temple—an opposition that would have facilitated a favorable response to Philip and his message in Samaria.
4 Luke records the mission to Samaria as inaugurated by Philip and carried on by Peter and John as “Exhibit A” for his thesis that “those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.” Luke does this because in the mission to Samaria he sees in retrospect a significant advance in the outreach of the Gospel.
5 Philip, the second of the seven enumerated in 6:5 (cf. 21:8) and one of the Hellenistic believers expelled from Jerusalem in the persecution directed against Hellenistic Christians, traveled to the north and proclaimed “the Christ” to Samaritans. The text is uncertain as to which city of Samaria he preached in, for every direction from Jerusalem is “down.” Luke was evidently not interested in giving a precise geographical identification for that city.
6–8 In the highly fluid and syncretistic atmosphere of first-century Palestine a number of parallels of outlook and ideology existed between various nonconformist groups generally looked upon as being Jewish. Stephen, the covenanters of Qumran, and the Samaritans, for example, all had an antitemple polemic, which, at least superficially, could have drawn them together (though, in actuality, their positions were each based on quite different rationales). In addition, as the antagonism of Jerusalem Jews was focused upon the Hellenistic Christians, these lately dispossessed Jewish believers undoubtedly found something of a welcome among the Samaritans, who had felt themselves the objects of a similar animosity for so long.
In Philip’s preaching of Jesus as the Christ (vv.5, 12), he undoubtedly used Dt 18:15, 18–19 as a major testimonium passage in his preaching, just as Peter and Stephen had done (3:22; 7:37). With the Pentateuch as their Scriptures, and looking for the coming of a Mosaic Messiah, the Samaritans were open to Philip’s message. Furthermore, God backed up his preaching by many “miraculous signs,” with many demoniacs, paralytics, and cripples healed. Thus Luke summarizes the response of these Samaritans to Philip’s ministry by saying, “So there was great joy in that city.”
PHILIP’S AND PETER’S MISSIONARY JOURNEYS
© 1989 The Zondervan Corporation.
9–13 Simon the sorcerer, or Simon Magus as he is called in postapostolic Christian writings, was a leading heretic in the early church. Justin Martyr (died c. 165), who was himself a Samaritan, says that nearly all his countrymen revered Simon as the highest god, and many legends grew up around him. Just exactly how Simon of Ac 8 is related to Simon Magus of later legend is not clear. Luke’s statement about the Samaritans’ veneration of Simon (they said, “The man is the divine power known as the Great Power”) seems to support the identification of these two. Likewise, what exactly is meant by the title “the Great Power” (v.10) is uncertain; it may mean that Simon was acclaimed to be God Almighty. At any rate, he claimed to be some exceedingly great person and supported his claim by many acts of magic.
Nevertheless, as the Gospel advanced into Samaria, Simon believed and was baptized. His conversion must have greatly impressed the Samaritans, and their evangelist Philip must have long remembered it. But Simon himself, to judge by the narrative that follows, was more interested in the great acts of power accompanying Philip’s preaching than God’s reign in his life or the proclamation of Jesus’ messiahship. Simon’s belief in Jesus seems to have been like that spoken of in Jn 2:23–25—i.e., based only on miraculous signs and thus inferior to true commitment to Jesus.
14 For the early church the evangelization of Samaria was not just a matter of an evangelist’s proclamation and people’s response. It also involved the acceptance of these new converts by the mother church in Jerusalem. So Luke takes pains to point out here (see also his account of Cornelius’s conversion in 10:1–11:18) that the Jerusalem church sought to satisfy itself as to the genuineness of Philip’s converts and that they did this by sending Peter and John to Samaria. Along with his thesis about development and advance in the outreach of the Gospel, Luke is also interested in establishing lines of continuity and highlighting aspects of essential unity within the church. Therefore, in his account of Philip’s mission in Samaria, he tells also of the visit of Peter and John. Instead of minimizing Philip’s success in Samaria, as some have proposed, it is more likely that Luke wants us to understand Peter and John’s ministry in Samaria as confirming and extending Philip’s ministry.
Just as in Ro 15:26 and 2Co 9:2, where a whole province is regarded as acting in a Christian manner when represented by only one or two congregations located there, so Luke here speaks sweepingly of the Jerusalem church hearing “that Samaria had accepted the word of God,” even though in v.25 he refers to further evangelistic activity in other Samaritan villages.
15–17 When Peter and John arrived, they prayed for the Samaritan converts, laid their hands on them, and “they received the Holy Spirit.” Before this, Luke tells us, “The Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” We are not told just how the coming of the Holy Spirit upon these new converts was expressed in their lives, but the context suggests that his presence was attended by such external signs as marked his coming on the earliest Christians at Pentecost—probably by some form of glossolalia. On the temporal separation of the baptism of the Spirit from commitment to Jesus and water baptism, see comment on 2:38. In effect, in this first advance of the Gospel outside the confines of Jerusalem, God worked in ways that were conducive not only to the reception of the Good News in Samaria but also to the acceptance of these new converts by believers at Jerusalem.
18–24 Simon’s response to the presence of God’s Spirit and the evidences of God’s power is one of those tragic stories that accompany every advance of the Gospel. Whenever and wherever God is at work among people, there are not only genuine responses but also counterfeit ones. Simon “believed” and “was baptized,” Luke has reported. Evidently Simon was included among those on whom Peter and John laid their hands. But the NT frequently reports incidents and events from a phenomenal perspective without always giving the divine or heavenly perspective. For this reason the verb “believe” (GK 4409) is used in the NT to cover a wide range of responses to God and to Christ (e.g., Jn 2:23; Jas 2:19). Neither baptism nor the laying on of hands conveys any status or power of itself, though Simon with his shallow spiritual perception thought they could.
Simon’s offer to pay for the ability to confer the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands evoked Peter’s consignment of Simon and his money to hell. Simon regarded the bestowal of the Spirit as a specially effective bit of magic, and he had no idea of the spiritual issues at stake. Peter’s analysis of the situation, however, is that Simon’s heart was “not right before God” because it was still “full of bitterness and captive to sin.” So Peter urges him, “Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.” But Simon, preoccupied with external consequences and physical effects, asks only and rather lamely, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.” Luke expresses a sobering truth here: It is all too often possible to make a counterfeit response to the presence and activity of God’s Spirit.
25 Luke closes his account of the evangelization of Samaria with a transitional sentence that tells us that on the apostles’ return journey to Jerusalem, further evangelization of Samaria took place. The “they” of this verse refers primarily to Peter and John, but it may also refer to Philip for part of the journey, as they evangelized together in the southern regions of Samaria.
2. An Ethiopian eunuch converted (8:26–40)
This account of Philip’s ministry to a high-ranking Ethiopian government official represents a further step in the advance of the Gospel from its strictly Jewish confines to a full-fledged Gentile mission. Though a Gentile, the official was probably a Jewish proselyte or near-proselyte (a so-called Proselyte of the Gate) and was therefore viewed by Luke as still within a Jewish religious milieu. He had been to Jerusalem to worship, was studying the prophecy of Isaiah, and was open to further instruction from a Jew. Here was a notable instance of providential working that carried the development of the Gospel proclamation even beyond Samaria.
26 Luke does not tell us just where Philip was when he received his divine directive to go south to the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. He highlights instead the fact that Philip’s ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch was especially arranged by God and providentially worked out in all its details.
When Luke desires to stress the special presence and activity of God in his narrative, he frequently uses the expression “the angel of the Lord” (cf. Lk 1:11; 2:6; Ac 12:7, 23) for the more normal reference to “the Spirit of the Lord.” Here Luke begins in just such a way and with such a purpose, telling us that “an angel of the Lord” began the action by giving instructions to Philip—and also sustains it throughout, though the more usual “the Spirit” and “the Spirit of the Lord” are used in vv.29, 39. Gaza was the southernmost of the five chief Philistine cities in southwest Palestine and the last settlement before the desert waste stretching away to Egypt. The fifty-mile journey from Jerusalem to Gaza trailed off at its southwestern terminus into patches of desert.
27–28 It is difficult to determine from the text itself how Luke wanted his readers to understand the Ethiopian eunuch’s relation to Judaism. It is also uncertain how first-century Judaism would have viewed a eunuch coming to worship at Jerusalem. While Dt 23:1 explicitly stipulates that no emasculated male could be included within the Jewish religious community, Isa 56:3–5 speaks of eunuchs being accepted by the God of boundless lovingkindness. Nor is it clear what the Ethiopian’s physical condition was, for the word “eunuch” (GK 2336) frequently appears in the LXX and in secular Greek writings as a euphemism for high military and political officials, without necessarily suggesting emasculation. Therefore, we are probably justified in taking this eunuch as a governmental officer in an Oriental kingdom and in emphasizing two facts when considering his relation to Judaism: (1) he had been on a religious pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and (2) he was returning with a copy of the prophecy of Isaiah in his possession, which would have been difficult for a non-Jew to get.
The ancient kingdom of Ethiopia lay between Aswan and Khartoum. It was ruled by a queen mother who had the dynastic title Candace and ruled on behalf of her son the king, since the king was regarded as the child of the sun and therefore too holy to become involved in the secular functions of the state. The minister of finance in the Ethiopian government had become either a full proselyte or a Proselyte of the Gate and had gone to Jerusalem to worship at one of the Jewish festivals. He was now returning home reading Isaiah; possibly Isa 56:3–5, the passage that refers to God’s lovingkindness to eunuchs, first caught his attention and caused him to return to Isaiah again and again. But whatever got him into Isaiah’s prophecy, the interpretation of the Servant passage of Isa 52:13–53:12 troubled him.
29–30 Having been directed to the desert road on the way to Gaza, Philip is again directed by the Spirit to the carriage that the Ethiopian minister of finance is traveling in. As Philip approaches, he hears the man reading aloud from Isaiah (the normal practice in the ancient world). So while running along beside the Ethiopian’s carriage, Philip asks, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31–34 The Ethiopian, being open to instruction from a Jew, invites Philip into his carriage to explain Isa 53:7–8 to him. His problem, it seems, concerns the references to suffering and humiliation: “Who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Perhaps he had heard an official explanation of this passage at Jerusalem, but he still had questions about its meaning.
While in Judaism at this time the concept of God’s Servant carried messianic connotations in certain contexts and among certain groups, there is no evidence that anyone in pre-Christian Judaism ever thought of the Messiah in terms of a Suffering Servant. What rabbinic interpretations are available relate the suffering either to the nation Israel (at 52:14; 53:2, 4, 10) or to the wicked Gentile nations (at 53:3, 7–9, 11). Though it is true that the certain Jewish elements were in the process of forming the concept of a suffering Messiah (such as at Qumran), a doctrine of a suffering Messiah was generally considered unthinkable.
35 At a time when only what Christians call the OT was Scripture, what better book was there to use in proclaiming the nature of divine redemption than Isaiah, and what better passage could be found than Isa 52:13–53:12? Thus Philip began with the very passage the Ethiopian was reading and proclaimed to him “the good news about Jesus,” explaining from Isa 53:7–8 and its context a suffering messianology. Matthew and John applied Isa
53 to Jesus’ ministry of healing (cf. Mt 8:17 on Isa 53:4; Jn 12:38 on Isa 53:1), but Luke portrays Jesus quoting Isa 53 as being fulfilled in his passion (Lk 22:37 quotes Isa 53:12). Luke, therefore, sets up a parallel between Jesus’ use of Isa 53 and Philip’s preaching based on this chapter and implies in that parallel that the latter was dependent on the former (cf. also 1Pe 2:22–25 on Isa 53:4–6, 9, 12). After beginning his preaching about Jesus with Isa 53, Philip probably went on to include other passages from that early Christian block of testimonium material that has been dubbed “Scriptures of the Servant of the Lord and the Righteous Sufferer” (i.e., Isa 42:1–44:5; 49:1–13; 50:4–11; and Pss 22, 34, 69, 118).
36–38 The eunuch responded to Philip by asking for baptism. As a Jewish proselyte or near-proselyte, he probably knew that water baptism was the expected external symbol for a Gentile’s repentance and conversion to the religion of Israel. Therefore, it would have been quite natural for him to view baptism as the appropriate expression for his commitment to Jesus, whom he had come to accept as the fulfillment of Israel’s hope and promised Messiah. Or perhaps Philip closed his exposition with an appeal similar to Peter’s at Pentecost (cf. 2:38) and his own in Samaria (cf. 8:12). However the subject of baptism arose, Philip baptized the eunuch. That is the climax Luke has been building up to.
39–40 The account of the Ethiopian’s conversion ends as it began—with a stress on the special presence of God and his direct intervention. We are told that the Spirit of the Lord “suddenly took” Philip from the scene. This verb connotes both a forceful and sudden action by the Spirit and a lack of resistance from Philip.
With our Western interest in cause-and-effect relations and our modern understanding of historiography, we would like to know more about what exactly happened between the eunuch and Philip and about their subsequent lives. Irenaeus writes that the eunuch became a missionary to the Ethiopians, though we have no way of knowing whether this is true. All that Luke tells us about the eunuch is that his conversion was a significant episode in the advance of the Gospel and that he “went on his way rejoicing.” Likewise, all Luke tells us about Philip is that his early ministries in Samaria and to the eunuch were important features in the development of the Christian mission from its strictly Jewish confines to its Gentile outreach. He refers to further evangelistic activity on the part of Philip in the maritime plain of Palestine and to a final ministry at Caesarea. Later he mentions Philip and his four prophetess daughters at Caesarea in connection with Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem (cf. 21:8–9). Beyond these meager references, Luke tells us nothing because he is interested in the advances of the Gospel proclamation and not in what happened after that.
C. The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus (9:1–30)
There are three accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts: the first here in ch. 9 and two more in Paul’s defenses in chs. 22 and 26. Luke uses such repetitions to indicate that something is extremely important.
The major charge Paul faced in his life was his willingness to carry the Gospel directly to Gentiles, refusing to be confined to a mission to the Jews. All three accounts stress that Christ himself brought about this change in the strategy of divine redemption. It was not a strategy Paul thought up or a program given to him by another; it was a compelling call that came directly from Christ himself, and he had no choice but to obey. Luke, therefore, climaxes his portrayals of three pivotal figures in the advance of the Gospel to the Gentile world (the theme of this panel) by recording the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, emphasizing the supernatural nature of the call and the miraculous circumstances of the conversion. With these emphases, though with inevitable variations in detail, Paul himself was in full agreement (cf. Gal 1:1–24).
1. The Christ encounter on the Damascus road (9:1–9)
1–2 The account of Saul’s conversion opens with the picture of him “still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” (cf. 8:3). Even after the death of Stephen and the expulsion of the Hellenistic Christians from Jerusalem, Saul felt it was necessary to continue the persecution in places outside the Sanhedrin’s jurisdiction.
The past generation of commentators, particularly those of the English-speaking world, often read into such passages as Ro 7:14–25, Gal 1:13–14, Php 3:4–6 and the portrayals of Ac 9, 22, and 26 a mental and spiritual struggle on the part of Saul that was, either consciously or unconsciously, fighting fervently against the logic of the early Christians’ preaching, the dynamic quality of their lives, and their fortitude under oppression. Therefore his “breathing out murderous threats” was taken as his attempt to slay externally the dragons of doubt he could not silence within his own heart. But the day of the psychological interpretation of Paul’s conversion experience appears to be over, and deservedly so. Indeed, Luke connects historically the martyrdom of Stephen, the persecution of the Hellenistic Jewish Christians, and the conversion of Saul. But the argument for a logical connection is not as certain.
It is, of course, impossible to speak with certainty about what was going on in Saul’s subconscious mind at the time, for psychoanalysis two millennia later is hardly a fruitful exercise. His own references as a Christian to this earlier time in his life do not require us to view him as struggling with uncertainty, doubt, and guilt before becoming a Christian. They rather suggest that humanly speaking, he was immune to the Christian proclamation and immensely satisfied with his own ancestral faith. While he looked forward to the full realization of the hope of Israel, Paul seems from his reminiscences of those earlier days to have been thoroughly satisfied with the revelation of God that was given through Moses and to have counted it his chief delight to worship God through those revealed forms. Nor need we suppose that the logic of the early Christian preachers greatly affected Paul. His later references to “the offense of the cross” show that for him the cross was the great stumbling block to any acknowledgment of Jesus of Nazareth as Israel’s Messiah—a stumbling block no amount of logic or verbal gymnastics could remove (cf. 1Co 1:23; Gal 5:11).
It is probable that Saul took up his brutal task of persecution with full knowledge of the earnestness of his opponents, the stamina of the martyrs, and the agony he would necessarily cause. Fanaticism was not so foreign to Palestine in his day as to leave him unaware of these things, and it is quite possible that he was prepared for the emotional strain involved in persecuting those he believed to be dangerous schismatics within Israel.
More important, however, in days when the rabbis viewed the keeping of the Mosaic law as the vitally important prerequisite for the coming of the Messianic Age, Paul could validate his actions against the Christians by reference to such godly precedents as (1) Moses’ slaying of the immoral Israelites at Baal Peor (cf. Nu 25:1–5); (2) Phinehas’s slaying of the Israelite man and Midianite woman in the plains of Moab (cf. Nu 25:6–15); and (3) the actions of the Maccabees and the Hasidim in rooting out apostasy among the people. With such precedents and parallels, coupled with the rising tide of messianic expectation within Israel, Saul could very well have felt justified in mounting a further persecution against the Christians. Probably he felt that the nation must be faithful in its obedience to the law and kept from schism or going astray if their messianic hopes were to be fulfilled. In his task, he doubtless expected to receive God’s commendation.
The Sadducean high priests of Jerusalem were, it seems, recognized by Rome as the titular rulers of their people in most internal matters; and evidently they retained the right of extradition in strictly religious situations. Therefore Saul, seeking the return of Jewish Christians, went to the high priest and asked him for written permission to take any Christian men and women as prisoners to Jerusalem (cf. 22:5; 26:12).
Damascus was a large and thriving commercial center at the foot of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range. Since 64 B.C. it had been part of the Roman province of Syria and was granted certain civic rights by Rome as one of the ten cities of eastern Syria and the Transjordan called the Decapolis (cf. Mk 5:20; 7:31). It had a large Jewish population. It was to this city that Saul went with the authority of the Jewish Sanhedrin, seeking to return to Jerusalem Christians who had fled the city—chiefly the Hellenistic Jewish Christians—in order to contain the spread of Christianity.
While we have spoken repeatedly of the early believers in Jesus as Christians, the term “Christian” was first coined at Antioch of Syria (see comment on 11:26). Before then and during the early existence of the church, those who accepted Jesus’ messiahship and claimed him as their Lord called themselves those of “the way” (see also 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22), while their opponents spoke of them as members of “the sect of the Nazarenes” (cf. 24:5, 14; 28:22). The origin of “the Way” (GK 3847) as a term for Christians is uncertain, though it surely had something to do with the early believers’ consciousness of walking in the true path of God’s salvation and moving forward to accomplish his purposes. In the vignette of 9:1–30, it is synonymous with such self-designations as “the disciples of the Lord” (vv.2, 10, 19), “saints” (v.13), “all who call on your [Jesus’] name” (v.14), and “brothers” (vv.17, 30).
3–6 As he approached Damascus, Saul saw a light from heaven and heard a voice from heaven. In 9:3 the light is described as simply “a light from heaven,” while both 22:6 and 26:13 emphasize its brightness. Likewise, in 9:4 Luke reports that Saul heard the voice and in v.7 that his companions also heard the voice, whereas both 22:9 and 26:14 state that only Saul heard the voice. Since the Greek noun used here (GK 5889) means both “sound” in the sense of any tone or voice and “articulated speech” in the sense of language, undoubtedly while the whole group traveling to Damascus heard the sound from heaven, only Saul understood the spoken words.
As Saul fell to the ground, the voice from heaven intoned his name in solemn repetition: “Saul, Saul.” It was common in antiquity for a person in a formal setting to be addressed by the repetition of his name (cf. Ge 22:11; 46:2; Ex 3:4; Lk 10:41; et al.). Saul understood the voice to be a message from God himself, for to the rabbis to hear a voice from heaven connoted a rebuke or a word of instruction from God. Therefore when the voice went on to ask the question “Why do you persecute me?” Saul was without doubt thoroughly confused. He was not persecuting God! Rather, he was defending God and his laws!
Some have translated Saul’s reply in v.5 as “Who are you, sir?” since the Greek title kyrios (GK 3261) was used in the ancient world not only as an ascription of worshipful acclaim but also as a form of polite address and since the context indicates that Saul did not know whom he was speaking to. But he did know that he had been struck down by a light from heaven and had been addressed by a voice from heaven, both of which signaled the divine presence. So his use of the term “Lord” was probably meant in a worshipful manner—even though he was thoroughly confused as to how he could be rebuked by God for doing his will and service. Unable even to articulate his confusion, though realizing the need for some response in the presence of the divine, he cries out in stumbling fashion, “Who are you, Lord?”
In what must have been for Saul almost total disbelief, he hears the following reply: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” Then in a manner that throws him entirely upon the guidance of Jesus, apart from anything he could do or work out for himself, the voice continues: “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” Such a confrontation and such a rebuke must have been traumatic for Saul. Time would be needed to heal his emotions and work out the implications of his experience, and both Acts and Paul’s later Christian letters reveal something of the process of development throughout the rest of his life. But in this supreme revelational encounter, Saul received a new perspective on divine redemption, a new agenda for his life, and the embryonic elements of his new Christian theology.
Once Saul had been encountered by Christ on the Damascus road, a number of realizations must have begun to press in upon his consciousness—each of which was to receive further explication in his thought and life as time went on. First, Saul began to understand that despite his zeal and his sense of doing God’s will, his previous life and activities in Judaism lay under God’s rebuke. A voice from heaven had corrected him, and there was nothing more to be said.
Second, Saul could not escape the fact that the Jesus whose followers he had been persecuting was alive, exalted, and in some manner to be associated with God the Father, whom Israel worshiped. He, therefore, had to revise his whole estimate of the life, teaching, and death of the Nazarene because God had beyond any question vindicated him. Thus he came to agree with the Christians that Jesus’ death on the cross, rather than discrediting him as an impostor, fulfilled prophecy and was really God’s provision for the sin of humankind and that Jesus’ resurrection confirmed him as being the nation’s Messiah and the world’s Lord.
Third, Saul came to appreciate that if Jesus is the nation’s Messiah and the fulfillment of Israel’s ancient hope, then traditional eschatology, rather than merely dwelling on the future, must be restructured to emphasize the realized and inaugurated factors associated with Jesus of Nazareth and focus on the personal and transcendent dimensions instead of just the historical.
Fourth, in the question “Why do you persecute me?” Saul came to realize something of the organic and indissoluble unity that exists between Christ and his own. For although he believed he was only persecuting the followers of Jesus, the heavenly interpretation of his action was that he was persecuting the risen Christ himself.
Fifth (though hardly final), Saul came to understand that he had a mission to carry out for Christ. Its details, to be sure, were first given in general terms by Ananias of Damascus (vv.15–16) and only later set forth more fully by various visions and providential circumstances (cf. comments on chs. 13–28). But though it was not till later that Saul understood that his mission involved the equality of both Jews and Gentiles before God and the legitimacy of a direct approach to the Gentile world, it was his constant habit to relate his Gentile commission firmly and directly to his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road.
7–9 The effect on Saul’s traveling companions of his encounter with Christ was dramatic. Acts 26 says that they fell to the ground at the flash of heavenly light. Here we are told that after getting up they “stood there speechless.” Evidently they were able to regain a semblance of composure and thus lead Saul into Damascus. For Saul, however, for whom the spoken message was even more traumatic than the light, the experience was overpowering. Physically, as his system reacted to the emotional shock, he became blind for three days, during which time he neither ate nor drank while waiting for further instructions.
2. Ananias’s ministry to Saul (9:10–19a)
10–16 Ananias was a Jew of Damascus and a believer in Jesus. Here (v.10) he is called a “disciple” and is presented as one who immediately recognizes the Lord Christ, who speaks to him in a vision, while in 22:12 he is called “a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews.” From his statement that he had heard reports about Saul’s persecutions in Jerusalem (v.13), it may be inferred that he was not one of the Hellenistic Christians who had formerly lived in Jerusalem but that he lived in Damascus. We are not told anything about how he became a Christian.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
Damascus represented much more to Saul, the strict Pharisee, than another stop on his campaign of repression. It was the hub of a vast commercial network with far-flung lines of caravan trade reaching into north Syria, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Persia and Arabia. If the new “Way” of Christianity flourished in Damascus, it would quickly reach all these places. From the viewpoint of the Sanhedrin and of Saul, the archpersecutor, it had to be stopped in Damascus.
The city itself was a veritable oasis, situated in a plain watered by the Biblical rivers Abana and Pharpar.
Roman architecture overlaid the Hellenistic town plan with a great temple to Jupiter and a mile-long colonnaded street, the “Straight Street” of Ac 9:11. The city gates and a section of the town wall may still be seen today, as well as the lengthy bazaar that runs along the line of the ancient street.
The dominant political figure at the time of Paul’s escape from Damascus (2 Co 11:32–33) was Aretas IV, king of the Nabateans (9 B.C.-A.D. 40), though normally the Decapolis cities were attached to the province of Syria and were thus under the influence of Rome.
The Lord Jesus directed Ananias: “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying.” Straight Street was an east-west street and is still one of the main thoroughfares of Damascus. Jesus’ words identified Saul as one who was praying. For Luke, his hero Paul was a man of prayer (cf. 16:25; 20:36; 22:17), as was Jesus in his earthly ministry (cf. Lk 3:21; 6:12; 9:18, 28; 11:1; 22:41). Probably in the religious experience of Paul, his devotion to prayer was the most important link between his life as a Pharisee and as a Christian.
It takes no great imaginative power to appreciate the reasons for Ananias’s hesitation in going at once to meet Saul. Even the prophets of old had doubts about the appropriateness of what they understood to be God’s will, particularly when it seemed so contrary to what might be expected. But Luke lays emphasis on Ananias’s hesitancy, not just to humanize his narrative, but also to impress on his readers the magnitude of the change in Saul’s life and to highlight the heaven-ordained nature of his later Christian mission: (1) instead of a persecutor, he is Christ’s “chosen instrument”; (2) instead of a concern for Israel alone, his mission is “to carry my [Jesus’] name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel”; and (3) instead of prominence and glory, it is necessary for him “to suffer for my [Jesus’] name.” In highlighting these three features, Luke has, in effect, given a theological precis of all he will portray historically in chs. 13–28—a precis that also summarizes the self-consciousness of Paul himself as reflected in his own letters.
17–19a Ananias was obedient to his Lord and followed the directions given in the vision. He was undoubtedly comforted by knowing that Saul too had been given a vision about his coming (v.12), though he must have proceeded with some trepidation. Going to the house of Judas on Straight Street, he entered, laid his hands on Saul, and greeted him with the fraternal greeting “brother”—believing, it seems, that whomever Jesus had accepted was his brother. He spoke about Jesus, who had appeared to Saul on the Damascus Road, and about the restoration of Saul’s sight and his being filled with the Holy Spirit. And “immediately,” Luke tells us, “something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.”
We would like to know more about the persons and details of this event, but this is all Luke records. What he says, however, is significant. As the Gospel advanced to the Gentiles, the main missioner was converted to Christ and given his commission in a manner that fully showed the heaven-ordained nature of his conversion and call—a manner that did not make him dependent on the Jerusalem church for either his conversion or call, yet brought him into essential unity with all those who are Christ’s.
3. Saul’s conversion evidenced in Damascus (9:19b–25)
It may seem strange for Luke to include in his account of Saul’s conversion a sketchy report of his preaching Christ in Damascus and his unceremonious exit from the city. But Luke wants to emphasize the unprecedented nature of Saul’s about-face and the genuineness of his conversion. In clarifying his purpose, Luke (1) presents Saul as proclaiming Jesus as both “Son of God” and “Messiah,” (2) depicts his hearers as being so astonished that they had to ask themselves if this was indeed the same man who had been persecuting Christians, and (3) highlights the fact that the persecution he once headed was now directed against him.
19b–22 Luke’s references here to what Saul did immediately after his conversion is difficult to fit in with Paul’s own account of his conversion and the immediately subsequent events (see Gal 1:15–24). But these differences help substantiate Lukan authorship of Acts. Certainly no later admirer of Paul would have disregarded Paul’s most important autobiographical statement about his conversion and commission and given a portrayal that can be taken as ambiguous and contradictory. But if, as seems likely, the letter to the Galatians was written before Luke himself joined Paul’s missionary team, then it may very well have been the case that Luke was unfamiliar with the specific contents of Paul’s earlier Galatian letter.
Of more importance, however, is the fact that the purposes of Paul in Gal 1:15–24 and Luke here are different, with these purposes affecting both the selection and shaping of each writer’s presentation. Thus in his desire to assert the revelational nature of his Gentile ministry, Paul emphasized in Galatians that he was not dependent upon “any man” (Gal 1:16) for his distinctive gospel, and particularly not upon the Jerusalem apostles. Luke, however, while also interested in depicting the heaven-ordained nature of Paul’s conversion and commission, is concerned here to stress the genuineness of Saul’s conversion and call. This he does by speaking of the new convert’s distinctly Christian proclamation in the synagogues of Damascus and his persecution by the Jews of the city because of his preaching (neither of these is ruled out by Gal 1:15–24).
A likely historical reconstruction is as follows: (1) Saul’s conversion and commission (9:1–19a); (2) his preaching in the synagogues of Damascus for a time immediately following his conversion (9:19b–22); (3) his prolonged residence in Arabia (Gal 1:17); (4) his return to Damascus (9:23–25); and (5) his first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian some three years after his conversion, with his subsequent travel to Caesarea, Syria, and Cilicia (9:26–30; Gal 1:18–24).
The content of Saul’s preaching in the Damascus synagogues focused on Jesus: “Jesus is the Son of God” (v.20) and “Jesus is the Christ” (v.22), i.e., the “Messiah.” That Saul could preach such a message immediately after his conversion is not impossible because the certainty of Jesus’ messiahship was deeply implanted in his soul by his experience on the Damascus road. And while he had much to understand about the implications of commitment to Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, he was certainly in a position to proclaim Jesus’ messianic status with conviction and enthusiasm.
Nor is it surprising that Saul also spoke of Jesus as “the Son of God,” though this is the only occurrence in Acts of this Christological title. In a number of NT passages the titles “Messiah” and “Son of God” are brought together (cf. Mt 16:16; 26:63; Lk 4:41; Jn 11:27; 20:31), for the Anointed One par excellence expressed uniquely that loving obedience inherent in the Hebraic understanding of sonship. That is how Paul used the titles “Son” and “Son of God” some fifteen times later in his own letters (e.g., Ro 1:3–4, 9; 1Co 1:9; 2Co 1:19; Gal 1:16; et al.).
Those who heard Saul preach, Luke says, were “astonished” and “baffled.” But with his interest in advance and growth (cf. Lk 2:52), Luke also says that “Saul grew more and more powerful,” suggesting both a growth in his understanding of the meaning of commitment to Jesus as Messiah and Son of God and an increasing ability to demonstrate the validity of his proclamation.
23–25 Luke’s expression “after many days had gone by” probably means three years later (see Gal 1:18). Paul himself refers to his escape from Damascus in 2Co 11:32–33. Both Luke and Paul clearly state that Saul’s preaching stirred such opposition that plans were laid to kill him. The persecutor became the persecuted, but rather ingeniously, he was able to elude his opponents’ designs.
Acts uses “disciple” (GK 3412) almost exclusively to denote the members of the Christian community (e.g., 6:1–2, 7; 9:19; 11:26; 13:52). The one exception to the normal usage in Acts is here in v.25, where this word is translated and used of “followers” of Saul; it suggests that his proclamation of Jesus had a favorable response among at least some. One of these converts, it seems, had a home situated on the city wall, from whose window Saul was let down in a basket outside the wall, thus eluding his opponents. From there, he evidently made his way directly to Jerusalem.
4. Saul’s reception at Jerusalem (9:26–30)
As in the narrative concerning the evangelization of Samaria (8:4–25) and the later accounts of the conversion of Cornelius (10:1–11:18) and the founding of the church at Antioch of Syria (11:19–30)—in which not only are features of advance and development stressed but also continuity with the mother church at Jerusalem—Luke ends his account of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus by telling of his reception by the Christians at Jerusalem. As in Luke’s depiction of Saul’s preaching in Damascus (vv.19b–25), here the material, when compared with Paul’s own account in Gal 1:18–24 of his first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian, entails a number of problems relating to historical correlations—probably for much the same reasons as in vv.19b–25, though heightened here by Paul’s purpose in Galatians to stress his lack of dependence upon the Jerusalem church whereas Luke’s purpose is to trace out lines of continuity.
26–28 Saul’s arrival at Jerusalem as a Christian was three years after his conversion (Gal 1:18). Being persona non grata among his former associates and suspected by Christians, he probably stayed at his sister’s home in the city (cf. 23:16). We can understand why his reception by his former colleagues might have been less than welcome. But that the apostles and other Christians in Jerusalem were leery of him does raise questions. Certainly they must have heard of his conversion and his preaching in Damascus. Yet, it seems, they never knew him personally, either as a persecutor or as a Christian; and stories about his motives and activities during a three-year period might well have become distorted. Many might, in fact, have asked why, if Saul had really become a Christian, he remained aloof from the Twelve and the Jerusalem congregation for such a long time. We may wish, and might even have expected, that there had been more openness toward Saul the convert on the part of the Jerusalem Christians. History, however, has shown that minority movements under persecution frequently become defensive and suspicious of news that sounds too good.
It was Barnabas, Luke says, who was willing to risk accepting Saul as a genuine believer and who built a bridge of trust between him and the Jerusalem apostles. This is certainly in character with what is said about him elsewhere in Acts (cf. 4:36–37; 11:22–30; 13:1–14:28; 15:2–4, 12, 22). In presenting Saul to the apostles, Barnabas told what Saul had seen and heard on the road and that he was now preaching “in the name of Jesus” in Damascus itself—thus summarizing Luke’s account of Saul’s conversion and explicitly using his activity in Damascus to support the genuineness of his conversion. So with Barnabas’s help, Saul and the Jerusalem apostles were brought into fellowship.
In light of Paul’s own insistence in Gal 1:18–20 that he saw only Peter and James on this first Jerusalem visit, Luke’s use of the term “apostles” must be considered a generalizing plural to be taken more broadly than “the Twelve.” Likewise, in view of Paul’s statement in Gal 1:18 that he stayed with Peter for fifteen days, Luke’s claim that he “stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem” must be seen as somewhat overstated. Probably we are not far wrong in reconstructing the situation as follows: Saul resided with his sister’s family on his first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian; through the aid of Barnabas he came to visit with Peter for fifteen days and to meet James as well; broadly speaking, his reception by the Christians he met was cordial, though there undoubtedly still existed some fears about him within the Christian congregation.
29–30 At Jerusalem Saul took up a ministry to Jews in the Hellenistic synagogues there. It was a ministry that had been neglected, it appears, since Stephen’s death and the expulsion of the Hellenistic Jewish Christians. But it was one that Saul may have felt himself particularly suited to, coming as he did from Tarsus in Cilicia and having probably carried on such a ministry at Damascus. In so doing, however, he soon faced the same opposition Stephen had faced, and he seems to have gotten into the same difficulty Stephen did. The Jerusalem church apparently did not care to go through again the same kind of thing that followed Stephen’s preaching. So when they realized what was taking place in Saul’s newly begun ministry in Jerusalem, “they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.” Saul took it as by divine approval, for in his defense in Ac 22 he speaks of having received a vision in the Jerusalem temple that not only confirmed his apostleship to the Gentiles but also warned him to flee Jerusalem (22:17–21).
Saul is not mentioned in the period between these experiences in Jerusalem and his ministry at Antioch (11:25–30), though from his words in Gal 1:21–24 it seems fairly certain that he continued his witness to Diaspora Jews in Caesarea and his hometown of Tarsus. The cordiality of the Christians in Caesarea at the end of his third missionary journey may imply that Saul had an earlier association with Philip and the believers there. Many of the hardships and trials he enumerates in 2Co 11:23–27 may stem from situations in Caesarea and Tarsus during those days, and perhaps also the ecstatic experience of 2Co 12:1–4.
D. A Summary Statement (9:31)
31 Luke’s second panel of material on the martyrdom of Stephen, the early ministries of Philip, and the conversion of Saul ends with a summary statement that speaks of the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (an expression for all of the Jewish homeland of Palestine) enjoying a time of peace after the turbulence resulting from what happened to these three pivotal figures. Here also he insists that the church in the homeland, instead of being torn apart, “was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.”
Panel 3—Advances of the Gospel in Palestine-Syria (9:32–12:24)
In his portrayal of the gradual widening of the Christian mission from its strictly Jewish beginnings to its ultimate Gentile outreach, Luke presents in this third panel three episodes of the Gospel’s advance: (1) the ministry of Peter in the maritime plain of Palestine (9:32–43), (2) the conversion of a Roman centurion and his friends at Caesarea (10:1–11:18), and (3) the founding of the church at Antioch of Syria (11:19–30). Two notes are sounded in these episodes of advance. (1) The Gospel was now spreading into areas more distant from Jerusalem than before. (2) The second, and undoubtedly the more important, has to do with the attitude of the converts and that of the missioners. Then, before moving on to speak of the distinctive advances of the Gospel within the Gentile world through the ministry of his hero Paul, Luke again returns to an account of the circumstances at Jerusalem and gives two vignettes of God’s continued working on behalf of his people there (12:1–23). Luke seems to be trying to make the point that though his interest is in tracing the movement of the early Christian mission from Jerusalem to Rome, his readers are not to assume that God was finished with Jerusalem Christianity or that his divine activity within the Jewish world had come to an end—a point all too often ignored by Christians since then. Finally, Luke summarizes the material in this third panel with the following statement: “But the word of God continued to increase and spread” (12:24).
A. The Ministry of Peter in the Maritime Plain of Palestine (9:32–43)
Luke’s rationale for the inclusion of Peter’s miracles at Lydda and Joppa has often been debated. Most likely he had two goals in mind. (1) The vignettes of the healing of Aeneas and the raising of Dorcas shift the focus of Luke’s narrative from Jerusalem to the west country of Palestine, thereby setting the stage for the conversion of Cornelius at Caesarea. (2) Luke may also be suggesting that with Peter’s ministry in the maritime plain, the evangelization of Palestine was completed and it was therefore time to look farther afield.
1. Aeneas healed at Lydda (9:32–35)
32 Lydda was located twenty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem, at the crucial intersection of the highways from Egypt to Syria and from coastal Joppa to Jerusalem. At this time Peter was engaged in an itinerant ministry in the western part of Palestine, somewhat like his earlier preaching in Samaria (cf. 8:25). In the course of his travels, he visited “the saints” in the important commercial center of Lydda. However they came to commit themselves to Jesus as God’s Messiah, Peter viewed them as within the sphere of his ministry—even though many of them were probably less scrupulous in keeping the Mosaic law than Jews of the capital city.
33 At Lydda Peter came upon Aeneas, a paralytic who had been bedridden for eight years. Luke does not say that Aeneas was a Jew nationally or a Christian by profession, though presumably he was both. It would hardly have been consistent with Luke’s purpose to show Peter ministering to a Gentile before his encounter with Cornelius, and the “there” of the sentence has as its antecedent the community of saints at Lydda and not just the city itself.
34–35 Peter’s words, “Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and take care of your mat,” express in Greek the idea that “this moment Jesus Christ heals you.” Aeneas responded immediately to Peter’s command. News of his healing spread throughout Lydda and northward into the Plain of Sharon (the largest of the maritime plains of northern Palestine, stretching from Joppa to Mount Carmel). Rather hyperbolically Luke says that “all those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.” So, Luke tells us, there was a further widening of the Christian mission within the Jewish nation, preparing the way geographically and ideologically for the accounts of Peter’s ministry at Joppa in 9:36–43 and at Caesarea in 10:1–48.
2. Dorcas raised at Joppa (9:36–43)
36–39 Joppa (modern Jaffa) was the ancient seaport for Jerusalem. Situated on the coast thirty-five miles northwest of the capital city and ten miles beyond Lydda, it possesses the only natural harbor on the Mediterranean between Egypt and Ptolemais (see 2Ch 2:16; Jnh 1:3). Its rival in NT times was Caesarea, thirty miles to the north, which Herod the Great, because the people of Joppa hated him, built into a magnificent new port city and provincial capital. At Joppa lived a woman called Tabitha (Heb.) or Dorcas (Gk.); both names mean “gazelle.” She was a “disciple” and “was always doing good and helping the poor,” particularly destitute widows. When she died, the Christians at Joppa sent this message to Peter at Lydda: “Please come at once.” Luke does not say what they expected from him or asked him to do. But since (1) Tabitha’s body was washed but not anointed for burial and (2) her good deeds were told to Peter when he arrived, they apparently wanted him to restore her to life. Having heard of Aeneas’s healing, they seem to have thought it merely a slight extension of divine power to raise the dead.
40–42 Peter had been instrumental in a number of physical healings (cf. 3:1–10; 5:12–16; 9:32–35) and even pronounced the death sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (cf. 5:1–11). Yet raising people from the dead was hardly a common feature of his ministry. Nevertheless, knowing himself to be an apostle of Jesus empowered by the Holy Spirit—and probably remembering his Lord’s raising of Jairus’s daughter (cf. Mk 5:21–24, 35–43)—Peter responded to the urgent call. As he had seen Jesus do in the case of Jairus’s daughter, he ordered the mourners out of the room, prayed, and then spoke these words: “Tabitha, get up” (cf. Mk 5:41). When she opened her eyes and sat up, he took her by the hand, helped her to her feet, and presented her alive to the Christians who stood by. It was an exceptional exhibit of God’s mercy and the Spirit’s power, and “many people believed in the Lord.”
43 This verse serves as a geographical and ideological hinge between the accounts of Peter’s miracles in the maritime plain and the account of Cornelius’s conversion at Caesarea. Instead of returning ten miles to Lydda, Peter remained at Joppa “for some time” (cf. 8:11), where the messengers from Cornelius later found him. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that Peter stayed there with a man called Simon, a tanner who was presumably working in his own home. Luke’s stress on this feature of Peter’s lifestyle provides a preface to 10:1–11:18.
B. The Conversion of Cornelius at Caesarea (10:1–11:18)
With the range of the Christian mission steadily broadening, the time had come for the Gospel to cross the barrier that separated Jews from Gentiles and to be presented directly to Gentiles. Thus Luke takes up the story of the conversion of Cornelius, the importance of which in his eyes can be judged in part by the space he devotes to it—sixty-six verses in all.
Four matters in the account of Cornelius’s conversion receive special emphasis and in turn provide insight into Luke’s purpose for presenting this material. (1) The early church resisted the idea of Gentiles being either directly evangelized or accepted into the Christian fellowship apart from any relationship to Judaism (cf. 10:14, 28; 11:2–3, 8). (2) God himself was the one who introduced the Gentiles into the church and miraculously showed his approval (cf. 10:3, 11–16, 19–20, 22b, 30–33, 44–46; 11:5–10, 13, 15–17). (3) Peter, the leader of the Jerusalem apostles, not Paul, was the human instrument in opening the door to the Gentiles (cf. 10:23, 34–43, 47–48; 11:15–17). (4) The Jerusalem church subsequently accepted a Gentile’s conversion to Jesus the Messiah, apart from any allegiance to Judaism, for God had so obviously validated it (cf. 11:18).
1. Cornelius’s vision (10:1–8)
1 Caesarea is in the center of the coastal Plain of Sharon in northern Palestine, on the shores of the Mediterranean, some sixty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem. It was named in honor of Augustus Caesar (cf. Lk 2:1). Herod the Great made the harbor into a magnificent seaport and the village into his provincial capital. He deepened the harbor, built a breakwater against the southern gales, constructed an imposing city with an amphitheater and a temple in honor of Rome and Augustus, brought in fresh water through an aqueduct that ran over stately brick arches, and established a garrison of soldiers to protect not only the harbor and city but also the fresh water supply.
The name Cornelius was common in the Roman world from 82 B.C. onwards, when Cornelius Sulla liberated ten thousand slaves, all of whom took their patron’s name as they established themselves in Roman society. Probably, therefore, the Cornelius of this story was a descendant of one of these freedmen. He is identified as a centurion of the Italian cohort, i.e., a noncommissioned officer who had worked his way up through the ranks to take command of a group of soldiers within a Roman legion. A cohort numbered anywhere from three hundred to six hundred men in size, being officially always the latter.
2 Cornelius was “devout [GK 2356] and God-fearing”—characteristics also attributed to his entire household (a “household” included both one’s immediate family and one’s personal servants). Perhaps we are to understand by “God-fearing” that Cornelius was a near-proselyte to Judaism or a so-called Proselyte of the Gate (cf. comments on 8:27–28), though more likely it simply means something like “a religious man,” especially in view of Luke’s addition of “devout” and “righteous” in v.22. From his report of Peter’s use of this expression for Cornelius in v.35 (“men from every nation who fear him [God] and do what is right”), it seems that Cornelius was a Gentile who, having realized the bankruptcy of paganism, sought to worship a monotheistic God, practice a form of prayer, and lead a moral life, apart from any necessary association with Judaism. It was, then, to such a spiritually minded Gentile, Luke tells us, that God first reached out his hand in the advance of the Christian mission.
3–4 “One day about three in the afternoon,” an angel of God appeared to Cornelius in a vision and called him by name. The time element here emphasizes that the vision happened in broad daylight. In response, Cornelius “stared in fear” and could only blurt out the words “What is it, Lord?” While the Greek title kyrios (“Lord”; GK 3261) was used in antiquity for everything from polite address to worshipful acclamation (see comment on 9:3–6), Cornelius undoubtedly meant it in some sense of worshipful acclaim—even though he might not have had any firm idea of whom he was addressing (cf. 9:5). In his consternation he heard the reassuring words that his prayers and alms had arisen as a memorial before God (cf. Lev 2:2; Php 4:18; Heb 13:15–16), a biblical and traditional way of saying that he was commended before God and that God was attentive to his situation.
5–6 Cornelius was told to send to Joppa for Simon Peter. The surname Peter distinguishes the apostle from his host Simon the tanner, whose house was by the sea. No indication is given as to why Peter was to be summoned. Instead, the emphasis is on the fact that Cornelius was prepared to respond to God.
7–8 Cornelius’s response was immediate. Calling two of his household servants and one of his soldiers and telling them what had occurred and what he had been told to do, he sent them to Joppa to bring back Peter. The servants were probably two of those already mentioned in v.2 as part of Cornelius’s household; and the soldier is identified as being also “devout,” one to whom the full characterization of v.2 (also vv.22 and 35) also applied.
2. Peter’s vision (10:9–16)
9–13 Though Peter was not by training or inclination an overly scrupulous Jew, and though as a Christian his inherited prejudices were wearing thin, he was not prepared to go so far as to minister directly to Gentiles. A special revelation was necessary for that, and Luke now tells how God took the initiative in overcoming Peter’s reluctance.
The revelation came to him on the day following Cornelius’s vision, as the three from Caesarea were approaching Joppa. About noon Peter went to the roof of the tanner’s house to pray, apparently looking not only for solitude but also for shade under an awning and a cooling breeze from the sea. While in prayer, Peter became very hungry and, it seems, somewhat drowsy. As he was waiting for food, he fell into a trance and saw a vision (cf. 10:17, 19; 11:5) of “something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners,” on which were “all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air.” Then he heard a voice say, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” Psychologically, the details of the vision may be explained in terms of (1) Peter’s increasing perplexity about Jewish-Gentile relations within various Christian congregations of the maritime plain, (2) the flapping awning over him (or perhaps, the full sail of a boat out on the sea), and (3) his gnawing hunger. God frequently reveals himself not only in but also by means of our human situations. And Peter took what the voice said as a message from God—a message in the form of an almost inscrutable riddle, but one soon to be clarified by both word and event.
14 Peter’s shock and repugnance are expressed in his words: “Surely not, Lord”—a response like that of the prophet Ezekiel when called upon by God to eat unclean food among the Gentiles (Eze 4:14). While not overly scrupulous, Peter nonetheless had always observed the basic dietary restrictions of Lev 11, which distinguished clean and unclean animals. And while clean animals were represented in the sheet, Peter was scandalized by the unholy mixture of clean and unclean and by the fact that no distinctions were made in the command to “kill and eat.” Indeed, it was a command given him by one he acclaimed as “Lord”—perhaps recognizable to him as the voice of Jesus. But that did not leave him any less repelled by the idea.
15–16 The voice told Peter, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” The particular application had to do with nullifying Jewish dietary laws for Christians in accord with Jesus’ remarks on the subject in Mk 7:17–23. But Peter was soon to learn that the range of the vision’s message extended much more widely, touching directly on Jewish-Gentile relations as he had known them and on those relations in ways he could never have anticipated. Three times this interchange took place, and three times the message was indelibly impressed on Peter’s subconscious. Luke then says, “The sheet was taken back to heaven.”
3. Messengers from Cornelius arrive at Joppa (10:17–23a)
17–18 While Peter was recovering from the shock of the vision and its message, the men from Cornelius had found the tanner’s house. It had immediate access from the street through a gateway or vestibule. Thus at the gate the messengers shouted out their inquiry for anyone within earshot to hear: “Is Simon who is known as Peter staying here?”
19–20 But on the roof of the tanner’s house, Peter was still so deep in thought about the vision that even their shouting and calling out his name failed to rouse him. Rather, the Spirit told him of the messengers’ presence and then urged him to go with them. “For I have sent them,” he said. A question naturally arises about the relation of the “angel of God” that appeared to Cornelius (10:3–6, 22, 30; 11:13), “the voice” that spoke to Peter (10:13–15; 11:7–9), and “the Spirit” who urges him to go with the messengers from Cornelius. But the question, though legitimate, is almost unanswerable because it is by the Holy Spirit that the ascended Christ manifests his presence to his own. That is, we cannot draw any sharp lines between the angel of God, the Holy Spirit, and the ascended Christ (cf. also 8:26, 29, 39; 16:6–7). It appears in even such closely reasoned didactic statements on the relation of Christ and the Spirit as Ro 8:9–11 and 2Co 3:17–18.
21–23a In response to the Spirit’s urging, and probably by means of an outside stairway, Peter went down to meet the messengers. After he identified himself and asked why they had come, they told him of their master, Cornelius, of the angel’s visitation, and of their mission to bring Peter back so that he might tell their master what he had to say. In their response they characterized Cornelius as not only “a righteous and God-fearing man” (cf. comments on 10:2) but also as one whose personal qualities were witnessed to “by all the Jewish people.” Then Peter, in obedience to the command of the vision, received these Gentiles into the house as his guests, acting (no doubt with the tanner’s permission) more as a host than a lodger.
4. Peter’s reception by Cornelius (10:23b–33)
23b–24 The conversation in the tanner’s house that evening must have been a lively one, with many of the Joppa believers joining in the discussion of the strange visions. Six of the Joppa believers accompanied Peter to Caesarea the next day (cf. 11:12), a wise action in view of the questions that would later be raised at Jerusalem. So the party of ten set out for Caesarea. It apparently took them longer to cover the thirty miles than the messengers had taken earlier because they did not get to Caesarea till the following day. Cornelius was expecting them and had drawn together a group of relatives and close friends to hear Peter.
25–26 As Peter was brought into the centurion’s home past the gatehouse and then into the courtyard, Cornelius came from his living quarters to meet him. He fell at Peter’s feet and offered him “reverence” (GK 4686)—doubtless an expression of his belief that there was something supernatural about Peter. But Peter, not only unaccustomed to such honors but brought up to consider them blasphemous, ordered him to stand up and assured him: “I am only a man myself” (cf. 14:14–15; Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).
27–29 In Cornelius’s living quarters Peter found a large group waiting to hear what he had to say. Perhaps self-consciously, he began by saying that Jewish law prohibited a Jew from associating with Gentiles. Admittedly, this was an ideal representation of the Jewish position, for Jewish ethical law contained a number of provisions for Jewish-Gentile business partnerships. But such contacts made a Jew ceremonially unclean, as did entering Gentiles’ buildings or touching their possessions. Above all, it was forbidden to accept the hospitality of Gentiles and eat with them, particularly because Gentiles did not tithe. But, Peter said, God had taught him in a vision not to call anyone impure or unclean; so now he was associating with them without traditional scruples. Then he asked, “May I ask why you sent for me?”
30–33 Cornelius told all about his vision, described how he sent for Peter, and invited him to relate “everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.” Few preachers have ever had a more receptive audience than Peter had on this occasion.
5. Peter’s sermon in Cornelius’s house (10:34–43)
Peter’s sermon in Cornelius’s house is a precis of the apostolic kerygma. It is similar structurally and in content to his earlier sermons in 2:14–40 and 3:11–26, though it contains more information about Jesus’ precrucifixion ministry than those two sermons (cf. also 4:8–12; 5:29–32). Peter told more about Jesus’ earthly ministry because a Gentile audience, even though knowing something about Jesus of Nazareth from living in Palestine, would require more details of Jesus’ life and work than a Palestinian Jewish audience would.
34–35 The sermon is prefaced by the words, “Opening his mouth, Peter said” (lit. tr.). This is one way to introduce a weighty utterance (cf. Mt 5:2; 13:35; Ac 8:35); and in Luke’s eyes, what Peter was about to say was indeed momentous in sweeping away centuries of racial prejudice. It begins by Peter’s statement that God does not show racial “favoritism” (cf. Ro 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; Jas 2:1; 1Pe 1:17) “but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.” While some consciousness of this may be implicit in Israel’s history and at times may have been expressed by her prophets (cf. Am 9:7; Mic 6:8), it was only by means of a revelational clarification of what had earlier been considered highly enigmatic (a “mystery”; cf. Eph 3:4–6) that Peter came to appreciate the racial challenge of the Gospel.
36 The Greek of vv.36–38 is syntactically awkward, probably stemming from Peter himself as he spoke before his Gentile audience in somewhat “broken” Greek. The apostle captions his sermon as “the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.” This caption contains three emphases that set the tone for what follows. (1) It is a divine revelation, a message from God. (2) Peter emphasizes the proclamation of the Gospel “to the people of Israel,” its immediate recipients. (3) His third emphasis relates the bringing of that Gospel to the Gentile world in terms comprehensible to Gentiles, characterized by the expression “Lord of all” (both Jews and Gentiles). This phrase was a pagan title for deity, but it was rebaptized by the early Christians to become an appropriate christological title (cf. Col 1:15–20).
37–41 Peter begins his sermon with a resume of Jesus’ life and work during his earthly ministry. Though Peter assumes that his hearers already know something about this ministry through living in Palestine, he proceeds to summarize it in greater detail than anywhere else in his recorded preaching. In scope and emphasis, the account is much like the portrayal of Jesus’ ministry in Mark’s gospel. It begins with John the Baptist, moves on to Jesus’ anointing with the Holy Spirit, refers to Jesus’ many acts of divine power in Galilee, alludes to his continued ministry throughout Palestine and in Jerusalem, stresses his crucifixion, and concludes with a declaration of his resurrection and its verification by his appearances to chosen followers.
As it stands before us, the sermon is only a summary of what Peter actually said at the time. Originally it may have contained a number of examples of Jesus’ acts of kindness and healing, such as those recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. In addition, as a summary of what Peter said, it shows several interests of Luke who put the sermon into its present form: (1) the influence of Isa 61:1 in v.38, an OT passage Luke highlighted in his theme paragraph of Lk 4:14–30 at the start of his two-volume writing; (2) the importance of the apostolic witness in establishing the Christian tradition (see vv.39–41); (3) Luke’s interest in Jesus’ postresurrection eating and drinking with his disciples (cf. Lk 24:41–43; Ac 1:4) as a convincing proof of his physical presence.
42–43 Peter ends his sermon by stating that the risen Christ has commanded his apostles to preach “to the people” and to testify about his divine appointment as “judge of the living and the dead.” The word “people” probably refers to “the Jewish people.” And until then the early church knew no other mission. But then Peter went on to speak of the OT prophets testifying about this risen Lord and saying that “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” It was this reference to “everyone who believes in him” that seems to have broken through the traditional barrier between Jews and Gentiles (see next comment).
6. Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit (10:44–48)
44 As Peter was “speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.” Most likely “these words” refer back to “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Luke suggests that it was this phrase that struck like a thunderbolt into the consciousness of the assembled Gentiles, releasing their pent-up emotions and emboldening them to think that they could believe and so receive the blessings promised to Israel. With their reception of that inclusive message, the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentile congregation gathered there, just as he had come upon the disciples at Pentecost.
45–46 The six Jewish believers who were there with Peter were astonished at what they saw and heard. For in accepting these Gentiles and bestowing his Holy Spirit on them, God had providentially attested his action by the same sign of tongues as at Pentecost. This gift at Pentecost should probably be understood as distinguishable languages, because the tongues were immediately recognized as dialects then current (cf. comment on 2:4). Here, however, an outburst of foreign languages would have fallen on untuned ears and failed to be convincing. So we should probably view “the tongues” (GK 1185) here as being the ecstatic utterances that Paul later describes in 1Co 12–14. Undoubtedly the sign of tongues was given primarily for the sake of the Jewish believers right there in Cornelius’s house. But it was also given for Jerusalem believers, who would later hear of what happened, so that all would see the conversion of these Gentiles as being entirely of God and none would revert to their old prejudices and relegate these new converts to the role of second-class Christians.
47–48 Peter may not have been much of an abstract thinker. But to his great credit he was ready to follow the divine initiative, if only he could be sure that God was really at work. So, convinced by God and consistent with his conviction about the logical connections between Christian conversion, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (cf. comments on 2:38), Peter calls for the Gentiles who have received the baptism of the Spirit to be baptized with water “in the name of Jesus Christ.” While Acts 2 and 8 indicate that water baptism does not take the place of the Spirit’s baptism but that the two go hand-in-hand with conversion, so vv.47–48 speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit not as supplanting baptism with water but rather as being the spiritual reality to which water baptism testifies. Thus the baptism of these Gentile converts pointed to a new spiritual reality in their lives. But it also had immense significance for Peter and his six companions. For in baptizing these Gentiles, Peter and those with him confessed that God in his sovereignty does bring Gentiles directly into relationship with Jesus Christ, apart from any prior relationship with Judaism. Peter may have remained uncertain as to just how Cornelius’s new-found faith should be expressed in worship and service and how it would be related to the Roman social order and to Judaism. But now that God had broken down the traditional barriers between them, Peter was content to stay with them in Caesarea “for a few days.”
7. The response of the Jerusalem church (11:1–18)
The conversion of Cornelius was a landmark in the history of the Gospel’s advance from its strictly Jewish beginnings to its penetration of the Roman Empire. True, it did not settle any of the issues relating to Jewish-Gentile relations within the church, nor did Jewish believers take it as a precedent for a direct outreach to Gentiles. But it did show that the sovereign God was not confined to the traditional forms of Judaism and that he could bring a Gentile directly into relationship with himself through Jesus Christ, apart from any prior commitment to distinctive Jewish beliefs or lifestyle. Cornelius’s conversion is important to Luke not only because of the Gospel’s advance but also because of the response of the Christians in Jerusalem to it. Amid his thesis of development and advance, Luke is interested in emphasizing lines of continuity and areas of agreement within the early church. So he takes pains to point out here, as in his account of the conversion of the Samaritans (cf. 8:14–25), that the leadership of the Jerusalem church accepted the validity of Cornelius’s conversion. And that acceptance was of as great importance in validating a later Gentile mission as the event itself.
1–3 News of Peter’s direct approach to Gentiles at Caesarea and his acceptance of them apart from the strictures of Judaism reached Jerusalem and the believers there before Peter himself did. This news caused great alarm both within the church and among the Jewish populace generally. The Hellenistic believers had stirred up much antagonism by their liberal attitudes toward the tenets of Jewish popular piety (cf. 6:8–7:56). The immediate consequences were the martyrdom of Stephen and the expulsion of the believers from areas under Sanhedrin control (cf. 7:57–8:3). Now if it were really true that Peter, the leading member of the apostolic band, had gone further in disregarding the traditional laws of Judaism in favor of a direct association with Gentiles, what goodwill still remained toward believers in Jerusalem would be quickly dissipated. The practical implications for the existence and the mission of the Christian church in Jerusalem were grave, and such practical considerations undoubtedly led to principial questions. Peter’s return to Jerusalem, therefore, was like lighting a match in highly combustible air. “The circumcised believers” (i.e, “Jewish Christians”) immediately confronted Peter and charged, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” This charge, while traditionally worded, was tantamount to saying that Peter had set aside Christianity’s Jewish features and thereby seriously endangered its relation with the nation.
4–17 Peter defended his actions by recounting his experiences at Joppa and Caesarea, with an emphasis on (1) the divine initiative in all that transpired and (2) his inability to withstand God. Thus he recounts the details of the vision that came to him at Joppa (vv.5–10), of his reception by Cornelius (vv.11–14), and of the Spirit’s coming upon the group gathered in Cornelius’s house (vv.15–17). It was the Lord, insisted Peter, who gave him the vision and who explained its meaning. It was the Spirit who told him to have “no hesitation” to go with the messengers to Caesarea and enter Cornelius’s house. And it was God who took the initiative by baptizing Cornelius and his companions with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, concluded Peter, “Who was I to think that I could oppose God?”
By giving a second witness to this story of the Gospel reaching out to Gentiles (cf. introductory comments on 2:42–12:24), likely taken from a different source than ch. 10, Luke is providing greater support for his theme of the legitimacy of a mission to Gentiles.
18 On hearing about Peter’s experiences, the Christians at Jerusalem “remained silent” and “praised God.” This probably means that his critics, at least for the moment, were silenced, while those more receptive to God’s working acknowledged that Peter was right and credited God rather than human ingenuity for what had happened. In view of what Peter reported, the Jerusalem church could come to no other conclusion than that “God has even granted the Gentiles repentance unto life.”
This was a response of momentous importance by the church at Jerusalem, and Luke meant his readers to appreciate it as being as significant in validating a later Gentile mission as Cornelius’s conversion itself. But while of vital significance for the acceptance of Gentiles, it said nothing about the many related questions that soon were bound to arise. For example, what lifestyle was appropriate for Gentiles coming to Christ directly out of paganism? How should they relate themselves as Christians to Jewish Christians and to Jews, both of whom followed a Jewish lifestyle? And how should the Jerusalem church relate itself in practice to these new Gentile believers that it had in theory accepted? These are matters the Jerusalem church did not address itself to in ch. 11. Yet such matters were logically involved in its response and were to be taken up again later (cf. 15:1–35).
And just as there were ideological issues left unresolved in the response of the church in ch. 11, so there are also a number of historical matters about which Luke gives us no information, though we would like very much to know. For example, whatever happened to Cornelius and his fellow Gentile Christians after Peter left them? Did they join with Philip and his converts in Caesarea (cf. 8:40) to form a worshiping community there? Or did they somehow inaugurate a distinctive form of Gentile Christian worship? Or, being doubtless all associated in one way or another with the Roman army and the Roman administration in Palestine, were these Gentile believers in Jesus transferred to other posts in the empire by Rome, either through due course or because of their recent alignment with a minority group within Palestine? Luke does not tell us.
Neither does Luke tell us how such a response affected the Jerusalem church itself. Did it lose some goodwill among its Jewish compatriots because it accepted Cornelius? Were there believers within its ranks who felt badly about this decision and who expressed their dissatisfaction—now or later—in ways disruptive for a further Gentile outreach? Was this one reason why the church soon found it appropriate to have as its leader the Pharisaically trained and legally scrupulous James the Just rather than one or more of the apostles (cf. comments on 12:2)? Again, Luke does not tell us, though some of these matters will come to the fore later in Acts.
C. The Church at Antioch of Syria (11:19–30)
Antioch of Syria was founded about 300 B.C. by Seleucus I Nicator, who named it after either his father or his son, both of whom bore the name Antiochus. It was situated on the Orontes River about three hundred miles north of Jerusalem and twenty miles east of the Mediterranean, at the joining of the Lebanon and Taurus mountain ranges where the Orontes breaks through and flows down to the sea. To distinguish it from some fifteen other Asiatic cities built by Seleucus and also named Antioch, it was frequently called “Antioch-on-the-Orontes.” During the first Christian century, it was, after Rome and Alexandria, the third largest city in the empire, having a population of more than 500,000. It was a melting pot of Western and Eastern cultures, where Greek and Roman traditions mingled with Semitic, Arab, and Persian influences. The Jewish population is estimated to have been about one-seventh of the total population and had vested rights to follow its own laws within its three or more settlements in and around the city. During the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37–41), however, many Jews were killed; and during the tumultuous period of the middle and late 60s, Jewish acceptance and prosperity in Antioch came to an end.
In Christian history, apart from Jerusalem, no other city of the Roman Empire played as large a part in the early life and fortunes of the church as Antioch of Syria. It was the birthplace of foreign missions (13:2) and the home base for Paul’s outreach to the eastern half of the empire. It was the place where those of “the Way” (9:2) were first called “Christians” (11:26) and where the question as to the necessity for Gentile converts to submit to the rite of circumcision first arose (15:1–2; cf. Gal 2:11–21). It had among its earliest teachers such illustrious persons as Barnabas, Paul, and Peter (cf. Gal 2:11–13). In the light of its great importance for the early church, it is surprising that Luke’s account of the founding of the church at Syrian Antioch and of the progress of the Gospel there is so compressed.
1. The founding of the church (11:19–26)
19 Luke opens his account of the Gospel’s proclamation at Antioch of Syria with the same words with which he began the story of the mission to Samaria in 8:4—a fact that suggests he wants to reach behind his accounts of Peter’s ministries at Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea and start a new strand of history that began with the death of Stephen. From such an opening we should probably understand that the Hellenistic Christians’ outreach to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch was (1) logically parallel to that in Samaria, rather than a continuation of Peter’s outreach at Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea, and (2) chronologically parallel, at least in its early stages, to the accounts in 8:4–11:18. Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch had large Jewish populations; and Syria, like Babylonia, was often considered an integral part of the Jewish homeland because of the many scrupulous Jews living there. Thus since this mission to the north was carried on within areas roughly considered to be Jewish terrain, was mounted by Hellenistic Jewish believers in Jesus, and was directed, at least at first, “only to Jews,” Luke presents it here as still being part of the Christian witness to the Jewish world, even though the account speaks of a time when the categories “Jew” and “Gentile” were beginning to break down.
20–21 At Antioch, some of the Hellenistic Jewish Christians “began to speak to Greeks also.” Did Luke have in mind Gentiles who had no affiliation whatever with Judaism, or did he have in mind Gentiles who had some kind of relationship with Judaism—perhaps “Proselytes of the Gate,” or something like that? Usually Luke speaks of such near-proselytes as “God-fearers” (GK 4936; cf. 13:50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7). Yet judging by his evident purpose in Acts to present Paul as the first to inaugurate a deliberate policy of a direct approach to Gentiles, one should probably not view these Greeks apart from some contact with Judaism. Peter’s activity in Caesarea was indeed a direct approach to Gentiles, but it set no precedent and established no policy for such an outreach. With the merging of cultures and blurring of distinctives that was taking place in Antioch generally, perhaps even Judaism itself faced some problems in drawing a sharp line between Gentiles who had some minimal relationship with the synagogue and those who were considered near-proselytes.
Whatever their exact status, it seems fair to say that Luke did not look on the Greeks in v.20 as simply Gentiles unaffected by the influence of Judaism and that he did not view the Hellenistic Christians’ approach to them as preempting the uniqueness of Paul’s later Gentile policy. All we are told about the identity of the Jewish-Christian missioners to Antioch is that they were from Cyprus and Cyrene. Perhaps Simeon Niger and Lucius of Cyrene were two of them (cf. 13:1), though Barnabas of Cyprus was not. But Luke does say that the missioners’ proclamation of “the good news about the Lord Jesus” led to a significant response, so that “a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.” And since among that “great number” were both Jews and Gentiles, the Antioch church took on a decidedly different complexion from that of other early Christian congregations spoken of thus far. It was a mixed body of Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles meeting together for worship and fellowship in common allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Gal 2:12).
22–24 News of the situation at Antioch was of definite concern to believers in Jerusalem. With the conversion of Samaritans, the conversion of some Gentiles in Caesarea, and now the report of a mixed congregation in Syrian Antioch, many in Jerusalem were doubtless fearful that the Christian mission was moving ahead so rapidly as to be out of control. The Jerusalem church, therefore, as in the case of the Samaritan conversions, decided to send a delegate to Antioch, probably in order to regularize whatever had gone awry and report back to the mother church. The man chosen for this task was Barnabas, a Jew from Cyprus who had gained an outstanding reputation for piety and generosity among the believers at Jerusalem (cf.4:36–37). In all likelihood, Barnabas’s position as both a Diaspora and “Zionistic” Jew and his piety and generosity qualified him in the eyes of the Jerusalem church for this mission to Antioch. In addition, the high esteem in which he was held made it certain that both his counsel and his report would be received with all seriousness.
The Jerusalem church could hardly have selected a better delegate. His generous spirit was gladdened by what he saw of the grace of God at work among the believers at Antioch, and, true to his nickname “Son of Encouragement” (cf. 4:36), he “encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.” Here was a crisis point in the history of the early church, for much depended on Barnabas’s reaction, counsel, and report—not only at Antioch itself, but also at Jerusalem and in the later advance of the Gospel through Paul’s missions. With evident feeling, therefore, Luke says of him, “He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith.” And as a result of his response, the work that was started at Antioch was enabled to go on, with many being brought to Christ.
25–26 Sometime after reaching Antioch, Barnabas went to Tarsus to find Saul to help him in the ministry back in Syria. We have no record of what Saul was doing between the time when he left Jerusalem and when Barnabas found him in Tarsus, though he was probably ministering to Gentiles (see comments on 9:30). Barnabas was the one who had supported Saul when there was suspicion at Jerusalem about his conversion (cf. 9:27). And now, knowing of Saul’s God-given commission to minister to the Gentiles, recalling his testimony at Jerusalem, and needing help for the work among the Gentiles, Barnabas involved Saul in the ministry at Antioch where they served together “for a whole year” and taught “a great crowd of people.”
In joining Barnabas at Antioch, Saul may have thought he was carrying out the mandate received at his conversion to take the message of the risen Christ to Gentiles. Most likely, however, the Antioch mission in those days was confined to the synagogue, so that there was little thought of the propriety of appealing more widely and directly to Gentiles. All the early believers at Antioch, whether Jews or Gentiles, may well have been related in some way to the synagogue. Thus in the eyes of many Jewish Christians, the conversion of Gentiles who had to some extent come under the ministry of Judaism before they believed in Jesus would not have been thought exceptional.
But others within the city—evidently the nonbelievers, who were more perceptive in this matter than the church itself—nicknamed this group of Jewish and Gentile believers “Christians” (GK 5985; i.e., “Christ followers,” or “those of the household of Christ”). They saw that the ministry to Gentiles and the fellowship of Jews with Gentiles went beyond the bounds of what was usually permitted within Judaism. They also voiced an insight that the Christians themselves only saw clearly later on: Christianity is no mere variant of Judaism. The new name doubtless helped develop the self-consciousness of the early Christians, despite its having first been given in derision. Later the early Christians accepted it and used it of themselves (cf. 26:28; 1Pe 4:16) along with their earlier self-designation of “the Way” (see comment on 9:2; cf. 19:9, 23). But the use of the name “Christian” posed two great problems for the church. For one thing, Christians began to risk losing the protection that Rome gave to a religio licita (i.e., a legal religion; cf. “Luke’s Purposes in Writing Acts” in the introduction to Acts), which they had enjoyed when considered only a sect within Judaism. Furthermore, being now in some way differentiated from Judaism, Christians were faced with how to understand their continuity with the hope of Israel and the promises of the Jewish Scriptures. As we shall see, these problems were to loom large as the Christian mission moved onto Gentile soil.
2. The famine relief for Jerusalem (11:27–30)
27–28 Here Luke uses the connective “in those days” just as he did at 1:15 and 6:1, to link parts of his narrative. Now he tells of certain “prophets” who “came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.” Among them was Agabus, with his dire prediction of impending famine in Jerusalem (cf. 21:10). The Jews believed that with the last of the writing prophets, the spirit of prophecy had ceased in Israel; but the coming Messianic Age would bring an outpouring of God’s Spirit, and prophecy would again flourish. The early Christians, having experienced the inauguration of the Messianic Age, not only proclaimed Jesus to be the Mosaic eschatological prophet (cf. 3:22; 7:37) but also saw prophecy as a living phenomenon within the church (cf. also 13:1; 15:32; 21:9–10) and ranked it among God’s gifts to his people next to that of being an apostle (cf. 1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11).
Agabus’s prediction was of a “severe famine” affecting “the entire Roman world,” which took place, Luke notes, during the reign of the emperor Claudius (A.D. 41–54). Although there is no record of a single famine that ravaged the whole empire in the time of Claudius, various Roman historians referred to a series of bad harvests and famine conditions during his reign. One of them, the Jewish historian Josephus, refers to famine relief sent from northern Mesopotamia to Jerusalem.
29–30 Similarly, the Christians at Antioch, in response to Agabus’s prophecy, decided to provide help for their fellow believers at Jerusalem, whose plight as a minority group within the nation would be particularly difficult at such a time. We are not given any details as to how the relief was collected, how it was administered, or when it was delivered. All we know from the text is that it was an expression of Christian concern by the Antioch church “for the brothers living in Judea” and was taken by Barnabas and Saul “to the elders” (i.e., the leaders) of the Jerusalem church.
The “famine visit” of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem of 11:27–30 should probably be dated about A.D. 46. That date, even though tentative and general, presents commentators with their first real date for working out a Pauline chronology (cf. comments on the reign of Herod Agrippa I at 12:1–23, the Edict of Claudius at 18:2, and Gallio’s pro-consulate at 18:12). But as to how we are to reconcile this date with what Paul tells us in his letters and how we are to fit it into an overall chronology depends largely on the answer to the conundrum of the relation of Paul’s two Jerusalem visits mentioned in Galatians to his three Jerusalem visits reported in Acts. While most accept the correlation of Gal 1:18–20 with Ac 9:26–29 and count that as the first visit, many feel that Gal 2:1–10 should be identified with the Jerusalem Council of Ac 15. But this appears to make Ac 11:27–30 either a fabrication on Luke’s part or a doublet of the Ac 15 material placed here by Luke for his own purposes.
The issues are complex and have far-reaching consequences. (See comments on Ac 15 in the context of 12:25–16:5.) Here it is sufficient to say that the simplest solution, one that provides the most satisfactory and convincing reconstruction and leaves the fewest loose ends, is that Gal 2:1–10 corresponds to the famine visit of Ac 11:27–30. On such an understanding, and taking the temporal conjunctions “then” of Gal 1:18 and 2:1 as referring back to Saul’s conversion (A.D. 33, allowing some flexibility in rounding off the years), his first visit to Jerusalem can be dated about 36, and his famine visit some fourteen years after his conversion about 46. On such a basis, the reference in Gal 2:2 to Saul’s having gone to Jerusalem “in response to a revelation” should probably be related to Agabus’s prophecy of Ac 11:28.
D. Divine Intervention on Behalf of the Jerusalem Church (12:1–23)
With its acceptance of the conversion of “half-Jews” in Samaria, a Gentile centurion and his friends at Caesarea, and Gentiles who were only loosely associated with the synagogue at Antioch of Syria, the Jerusalem church was straining the forms and commitments of Judaism almost to the breaking point. There is hardly any further room for expansion within the traditions of Judaism, and soon the Christian mission would break out of those limits to embrace a direct mission to the Gentile world. In fact, the preparation for this had begun with Saul’s conversion and with his early attempts to carry on a Christian ministry, even though not till later would he formally espouse and explicitly carry out a direct mission to Gentiles.
But before Luke turns to his portrayal of the Christian mission to the Gentile world, he takes the opportunity of presenting two further glimpses of God’s working on behalf of the believers at Jerusalem. Just as his mentor Paul, while arguing for the legitimacy of a direct outreach to Gentiles, continued to characterize Jewish Christianity as “the church of God” (Gal 1:13; cf. 1Th 2:14) and to respect God’s ongoing activity within the Jewish world (cf. Ro 9–11), so Luke seems desirous of making the point that, though he is about to portray the advances of the Gospel within the Gentile world, it should not be assumed that God was finished with Jerusalem Christianity or that his activity within the Jewish world was finished. Luke has portrayed the Christian mission to the Jewish world that had its center at Jerusalem. Now he prepares to present the Christian mission to the Gentiles as a kind of ellipse emanating from that same center.
Before doing so, however, Luke gives us two further vignettes relating to God’s intervention on behalf of the Jerusalem church so that his readers might more fully appreciate the fact that while the Christian mission within the Jewish world and the Christian mission to the Gentiles differed, in many ways they possessed a common focus, had many similarities, and were complementary. Divine activity on behalf of the Gentiles, Luke appears to be insisting, does not mean divine inactivity on behalf of Jewish Christians or unconcern for Jews—which is a heresy that has often afflicted Gentile Christians and resulted in horrendous calamities.
1. The deliverance of Peter (12:1–19a)
1–4 The narrative of Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison and death really begins at v.5. The narrative is introduced as having taken place “about this time,” which refers to the events of the famine visit to Jerusalem of 11:27–30. But if the famine visit occurred about A.D. 46 and Herod Agrippa I died in A.D. 44 (as will be seen below), 11:27–30 and the material of 12:1–23 are chronologically reversed. Yet we must remember that ancient historians frequently grouped their materials without always being concerned about chronology (see introduction). So Luke, having begun his account of Christianity in Antioch by speaking of the founding of the church, tied into that narrative a further vignette about the famine relief Antiochean believers sent to Jerusalem. As a result, his full account of the church at Antioch (11:19–30) reaches back behind Peter’s ministries at Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea at its start (cf. 11:19) and goes beyond the accounts of Peter’s deliverance and Herod Agrippa I’s death at its close (the events of ch. 12 coming between those of 11:19–26 and 11:27–30). Luke seems to have wanted to close his portrayals of the Christian mission within the Jewish world (2:42–12:24) with two vignettes having to do with God’s continued activity on behalf of the Jerusalem church.
The Herod of Ac 12 is Agrippa I (born in 10 B.C.), the grandson of Herod the Great and the son of Aristobulus. After his father’s execution in 7 B.C., he was sent with his mother Bernice to Rome, where he grew up on intimate terms with the imperial family. In his youth he was something of a playboy, and in A.D. 23 he went so heavily into debt that he had to flee to Idumea to escape his creditors. Later he received asylum at Tiberias and a pension from his uncle Herod Antipas, with whom, however, he eventually quarreled. In 36 he returned to Rome but offended the emperor Tiberius and was imprisoned. At the death of Tiberius in 37, he was released by the new emperor Caligula and received from him the northernmost Palestinian tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanius (cf. Lk 3:1) and the title of king. When Herod Antipas was banished in 39, Agrippa received his tetrarchy as well. And at the death of Caligula in 41, Claudius, who succeeded Caligula and was Agrippa’s friend from youth, added Judea and Samaria to his territory, thus reconstituting for him the entire kingdom of his grandfather Herod the Great, over which he ruled till his death in 44.
Knowing how profoundly the masses hated his family, Herod Agrippa I took every opportunity during his administration in Palestine to win their affection. When in Rome he was a cosmopolitan Roman. But when in Jerusalem, he acted the part of an observant Jew. In A.D. 40 Agrippa cajoled Caligula not to carry out his insane plan of erecting a statue to himself as a god in the Jerusalem temple and intervened on behalf of the Jews in Alexandria for their more humane treatment. When Judea came under his jurisdiction, he moved the seat of government from Caesarea to Jerusalem. This established the holy city in Jewish eyes as the political capital of the country. He also began to rebuild the city’s northern wall and fortifications, thus enhancing both its security and its prestige. Many Jews viewed these days as the inauguration of a better era—perhaps even the Messianic Age. Agrippa himself, however, seems to have been primarily interested in a successful reign through the cooperation of loyal subjects, and his expressions of concern for the people and their religion were probably more pragmatically based than sincere.
Agrippa’s policy was preserving the Roman peace through preserving the status quo. He supported the majority within the land and ruthlessly suppressed minorities when they became disruptive. He viewed Jewish Christians as divisive and felt their activities could only disturb the people and inflame antagonisms. So he arrested some of the believers in Jesus and had James, one of Jesus’ original disciples, beheaded by the sword (a form of execution supported by Jewish tradition). Finding that this pleased the Jewish leaders, he then took Peter during Passover Week and imprisoned him till he could bring him out for public trial after the Jewish holy days. While in prison, the apostle was guarded by “four squads of four soldiers each,” with two soldiers chained to him on either side and two standing guard at the inner entrance to the prison (cf. v.6). Evidently Agrippa planned to make of Peter a spectacle and warning at a forthcoming show trial. And he did not want to be embarrassed by Peter’s escape.
5 Peter was likely imprisoned somewhere within the Fortress of Antonia, which overlooked the temple area to the north and had entrances to both the temple courts and the city. More important to Luke, for whom prayer is the natural atmosphere of God’s people and the normal context for divine activity (cf. 1:14, 24; 2:42; 4:24–31; 6:4, 6; 9:40; et al.), is the fact that “the church was earnestly praying to God for him [Peter].”
6–9 On the night before Agrippa’s show trial, “an angel of the Lord” appeared in the apostle’s cell and began to take charge of affairs. The “angel of the Lord” signifies God himself in his dealings with people (cf. Ex 3:2, 7; Mt 1:20, 24; Lk 1:11; 2:9; Ac 5:19; 8:26; 12:23; et al.). The angel awoke Peter, and as he stirred, the chains by which he was bound fell from his wrists. Then the angel, like a parent with a child awakened from sound sleep, carefully instructed the groggy apostle to get dressed. Then he ordered Peter to follow him, and they left the cell. But Peter, too sleepy to grasp the reality of what was happening, thought he was dreaming.
Herod Agrippa I had planned to try Peter as the leader of the divisive minority in Palestine that identified itself with the crucified Jesus of Nazareth and then execute him as a warning to other followers of Jesus to stop their activities. Usually a prisoner was chained to only one guard, but in view of Agrippa’s intentions, the guard was doubled. The Christians in Jerusalem understood Agrippa’s intentions because he had earlier imprisoned some of them and killed James the son of Zebedee. Neither Peter nor his fellow believers were in any doubt about what the king had in mind. It was a crisis of great magnitude for the life of the early Christian community at Jerusalem. But while God does not promise deliverance from persecution and death, at crucial times he often steps in to act for the honor of his name and the benefit of his people. This was what now happened. Peter’s deliverance must be ascribed entirely to God, for it was in no way due to the apostle’s own efforts or those of the Christian community—apart, of course, from their prayers.
10–11 Passing the two guards at the inner entrance to the prison, Peter and the angel came to the main iron gate, which opened automatically as they approached. Then the angel left Peter a block away from the prison. For Peter, standing there alone in the street and brought to his senses by the cool night air, there was no doubt that “the Lord sent his angel and rescued me [Peter] from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were anticipating.”
12 Realizing where he was and the danger he faced if Herod’s soldiers should find him there, Peter went to one of the meeting places of the early Jerusalem Christians, the home of Mary, John Mark’s mother. A number of people were praying there. Luke’s identification of Mary by her son implies that her son’s name was better known to his readers than hers. It also suggests that the John Mark referred to here was the one who was with Paul and Barnabas on a portion of the first missionary journey (Ac 13:5, 13)—namely, a cousin of Barnabas and the likely writer of the second gospel (cf. Ac 15:37–39; Col 4:10; Phm 24; 1Pe 5:13).
13–16 Mary’s house must have been of some size, with a vestibule opening onto the street, a courtyard, and rear living quarters—not only were “many people gathered” there, but Peter was knocking at the door of the vestibule, and Rhoda the servant girl was rushing back and forth for joy. The unfolding scene is one of confusion and joyful humor, which must have led to hilarity every time it was repeated among the early believers. There was Peter’s knocking, becoming more and more urgent as he beat on the door; Rhoda’s losing her wits for joy and forgetting to open the door; the Christians’ refusal to believe it was Peter, even though they had just been praying for him; their belittling of Rhoda and of her insistence she had heard Peter’s voice at the door; Rhoda’s frantic persistence; and their utter astonishment when they finally opened the door and let him in.
17 On entering, Peter “motioned with his hand for them to be quiet.” This was not the time for celebration. After all, Herod’s soldiers would soon be prowling on the streets to look for him. Peter had to get moving to escape being recaptured. So he gave them a quick summary of “how the Lord had brought him out of prison” and instructed them to tell James and the other brothers what had happened. And with that, Luke tells us, Peter left “for another place.”
The James mentioned here is, of course, James the Lord’s brother, not James the brother of John and son of Zebedee who was earlier beheaded by Herod Agrippa I (cf. v.2). Undoubtedly Peter was the leader of the first Christian community at Jerusalem, as the early chapters of Acts presuppose. But from the mid-thirties through the mid-forties James seems also to have exercised administrative leadership along with Peter and the apostles (cf. Gal 1:19; 2:9), and he presided at the Jerusalem Council of A.D. 49 (cf. 15:13–21). Later still Luke refers to him as head of the Jerusalem church (cf. 21:18). He was likely martyred in 62. Luke does not state how or why the shift in leadership of the church from Peter to James came about, nor what qualified James for such a position. Apparently it had to do with (1) external pressures on the Jerusalem congregation to demonstrate its Jewishness, and (2) the need within the church for someone who could lead the growing number of scrupulously minded converts drawn from Pharisaic and priestly backgrounds (cf. comments on 6:7).
After the expulsion of the Hellenists, both the Jews and the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem felt the need for the community of believers in Jesus to demonstrate more actively their continued respect for the traditions of Israel. Peter and his fellow apostles would hardly have been the best ones to head such an endeavor—in fact, Peter’s association with the Samaritans and Cornelius may have made him particularly suspect in certain quarters. It is, therefore, not improbable the Jerusalem church found it advantageous to be represented in its leadership by one whose legal as well as spiritual qualifications were above reproach. Such a person was James, the Lord’s brother, who seems to have been a devout Pharisee and who was not only physically related to Jesus but also had seen the risen Jesus (1Co 15:7).
Furthermore, the missionary activities of Peter and the apostles would require some kind of arrangement for the continuance of administrative authority at Jerusalem. That the apostles considered themselves to be something other than ecclesiastical functionaries has already been shown in Ac 6:2–6. And it is not too difficult to imagine that with the dispersion of the Hellenists and the Seven who were appointed to supervise the distribution of food within the community, the church turned to James for administrative leadership—not only, to demonstrate its Jewishness, but also to free the apostles for their “ministry of the word” (cf. 1Co 9:5).
The mention of “another place” to which Peter went after his miraculous deliverance has led to various suggestions. Roman Catholics have frequently suggested Rome, though most now agree it is unlikely. If 12:1–19 precedes 9:32–11:18 chronologically (see comments on 12:1), this other place may refer to the maritime plain of Palestine, with its cities of Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea. But such a region was still within Herod Agrippa’s jurisdiction. More likely Antioch of Syria is the place Luke had in mind—a place where Peter had fellowship with a mixed body of Jewish and Gentile believers till “certain men came from James,” and where he suffered the rebuke of Paul (cf. Gal 2:11–21). Later on Peter appears at Jerusalem in connection with the Jerusalem Council (cf. 15:7–11, 14), though presumably only in transit.
18–19a In Roman law, a guard who allowed his prisoner to escape was subject to the same penalty the escaped prisoner would have suffered. No wonder that in the morning when Peter’s escape was discovered, “there was a great commotion among the soldiers.” When Herod heard of Peter’s escape, he instituted a search and cross-examined the guards. Frustrated by his lack of success, he ordered the guards to be taken out to execution.
2. The death of Herod Agrippa I (12b:19–23)
Peter had been miraculously delivered from prison and death, but the tyrant Herod Agrippa was still at large, continuing his oppression of the church. Therefore Luke gives us a second scene in his account of God’s intervention on behalf of the Jerusalem church. He does this not only to show how far-reaching this intervention was but also to reinforce by a second witness the theme of God’s continued interest in Jewish Christianity (cf. the introductory comments on 2:42–12:24).
19b–20 The situation Luke describes in these verses is not entirely clear. Caesarea, with its excellent man-made harbor (see comments on 10:1), was still nominally the provincial capital of Palestine. Though we have no other record of conflict between Herod and Tyre and Sidon, Herod became enraged with the people of these two cities; and they, in turn, sent a delegation to ask for peace, using in some way the good offices of Blastus, King Agrippa’s personal servant, for their purposes. Agrippa appears to have left Jerusalem for Caesarea shortly after the Jewish Passover, perhaps because of frustration over Peter’s escape.
21–23 Luke’s account of Agrippa’s death is paralleled by a story in Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century. Both accounts differ from each other in significant ways, but they are so similar in outline that we may assume that we know in general how Herod Agrippa I died in A.D. 44. Both Luke and Josephus attribute his death to the king’s impiety and God’s judgment. Moreover, Luke sees it as part of God’s activity on behalf of the Jerusalem church. Luke’s reference to worms suggests an infection by intestinal roundworms, which grow as long as ten to sixteen inches and feed on the nutrient fluids in the intestines. Bunches of roundworms can obstruct the intestines, causing severe pain, copious vomiting of worms, and death.
E. A Summary Statement (12:24)
24 Luke’s third panel on the Christian mission within the Jewish world ends with a summary statement comparable to the summaries that conclude the two preceding panels (cf. 6:7; 9:31). In its context, v.24 contrasts the progress of the Gospel to the awful end of the church’s persecutor Herod Agrippa I. More broadly, it implies that though in the remainder of Acts Luke’s attention will be focused on the advances of the Gospel to Gentiles, within the Jewish world “the word of God continued to increase and spread.” In other words, God was still at work on behalf of the Jerusalem church and its ministry and was still concerned for his ancient people Israel.
Part II. The Christian Mission to the Gentile World (12:25–28:31)
In the Nazareth pericope (Lk 4:14–30), Luke set the main themes for all that follows in Luke-Acts. Two features of particular relevance stand out in those verses. (1) Luke presents Jesus’ reading of Isa 61 as ending in mid-sentence at Isa 61:2a, thereby emphasizing grace (“to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”) without sounding the note of judgment (“and the day of vengeance of our God”). The omission of the judgment theme underscores the fact that the period of the Gospel is a time characterized by grace, when the offer of deliverance is freely extended. To such a message of salvation, the residents of Nazareth responded positively. They failed to see any other implication in a message of free grace than God’s messianic blessings poured out on Israel. So they spoke well of Jesus and commented favorably about his “gracious words” (Lk 4:22). (2) Next, Luke shows Jesus as indicating that the blessings of the Messianic Age were not intended for Israel alone but were for Gentiles as well—with the blessings of God’s grace extending even to a Phoenician widow and a Syrian leper. Here was a repudiation of the Jewish concept of exclusive election. Jesus’ townsmen were furious, drove Jesus out of the synagogue, and tried to kill him.
Jesus’ own earthly ministry was, of course, limited almost entirely to Jews. Luke’s gospel depicts only one healing of a centurion’s servant (7:1–10) and two brief contacts with Samaritans (9:52–55; 17:11–19). Moreover, it even omits the story about the Syro-Phoenician woman of Mk 7:24–30 (cf. Mt 15:21–28), though it contains several intimations of a later inclusion of Gentiles (cf. Lk 2:30–32; 3:6; 11:31; 13:29; 14:16–24). Also, in the first half of Acts, Luke has presented the Jerusalem church’s ministry as focused primarily on the Jewish world, with such outreaches as Samaria, Caesarea, and Syrian Antioch being understood in some ways as exceptional. In effect, then, Luke has reserved for Paul the mission to the Gentiles that Jesus saw as inherent in Isa 61. Now as Luke turns to a portrayal of how the Gospel advanced among the Gentiles, he also concludes his two-volume work by explicating Jesus’ promise of the universal extension of God’s grace. This he does (1) by building on what Jesus accomplished in his earthly ministry, death, and resurrection, as presented in his gospel, and (2) by paralleling in its Gentile advances many features of the extension of God’s grace within the Jewish world, as presented in the first half of Acts.
Pane l4—The First Missionary Journey and the Jerusalem Council (12:25–16:5)
Luke’s fourth panel, the first of his three on the Christian mission to the Gentile world, embodies both Paul’s first missionary journey and the Jerusalem Council. It concludes by telling how believers in Syria, Cilicia, and Galatia received the decisions of the council. Luke presents his material more thematically than geographically. Therefore, before closing with the summary in 16:5, he draws together several matters: (1) a report of events on the first missionary journey that led up to the Jerusalem Council; (2) an account of the debate and decisions reached at the council; and (3) a precis of how those decisions were received in areas of Gentile outreach.
In his first missionary journey, Paul began a radically new policy for proclaiming the Gospel and making converts: namely, he approaches the Gentile world apart from any prior commitments to Judaism on the part of the converts or any Jewish stance on the part of the missioners; on their part, the Gentile Christians express their faith in Jesus apart from a Jewish lifestyle and distinctive Jewish practices (cf. 14:27b; 15:3). For the early church with its Jewish roots, such a policy was revolutionary. It had enormous significance and many implications for the Christian movement that required a full discussion and decision at the Jerusalem Council.
A. The Missioners Sent Out (12:25–13:3)
25 This verse reaches back behind the events of ch. 12 to connect 13:1–3 with the account of the Antioch church in 11:19–30. Luke uses it as a kind of bridge statement before turning to the missionary journey itself. Thus he shifts his readers’ attention from Jerusalem to Antioch of Syria and tells of John Mark’s return with his cousin Barnabas (Col 4:10) and with Saul from Jerusalem to Antioch.
13:1 At Antioch there were five “prophets and teachers” in the church. The Greek suggests that Barnabas, Simeon, and Lucius were prophets, and Manaen and Saul were teachers—with prophecy here understood to include “forthtelling” as well as “foretelling” and teaching having to do with showing OT relationships and implications.
We know Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus who resided in Jerusalem and became a leading figure in the Jerusalem church (4:36–37; 9:27; 11:22–30). He was, as Luke tells us, “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith” (11:24) and undoubtedly served as a channel for the truth of the Gospel direct from the Jerusalem congregation. Simeon Niger (meaning “black”) may have come from Africa; he was possibly the Simon from Cyrene of Lk 23:26. As for Lucius and Manaen, we know nothing certain apart from this verse. Lucius of Cyrene was frequently identified in the postapostolic period with Luke the evangelist and author of Acts; but this is not likely, for Luke refrains from identifying himself with Paul’s missionary journeys, except through the occasional use of the pronoun “we.” Manaen is identified as one “who had been brought up with” (GK 5343; lit., a “foster brother” or “intimate friend”) Herod the Tetrarch. This suggests that he had been raised as an adopted brother or close companion of Herod Antipas. As for Saul, we know him from 7:58–8:3; 9:1–30; and 11:25–30.
2–3 While Barnabas and Saul were carrying out their activities at Antioch, the Holy Spirit directed that they should be set apart for a special ministry. Luke does not tell us how the Spirit made his will known, though it was probably through a revelation given to one of the believers. Neither does he tell us the nature of the special ministry the two were set apart for, though from what follows it is obvious that we are meant to understand that it was to be a mission to Gentiles. The whole congregation, together with its leaders, was involved in attesting the validity of the revelation received, laid hands on the missioners, and sent them out (cf. 14:27, where the missioners reported back to the whole church). Ultimately, though, Luke insists that Barnabas and Saul were “sent on their way by the Holy Spirit” (v.4).
B. The Mission on Cyprus and John Mark’s Departure (13:4–13)
The first major outreach of the Gospel from Antioch soon encountered the false prophet Bar-Jesus in Cyprus, just as the first major outreach from Jerusalem ran afoul of Simon the sorcerer in Samaria (cf. 8:9–24). By the manner in which he narrates both events, Luke apparently wanted his readers to see the parallel. Moreover, not only does Luke seem to have been interested in this parallel between these two episodes, he was also interested in showing how great a step forward the mission on Cyprus really was—with its revolutionary implications for the Christian mission to Gentiles and its radical effect on the missioners themselves.
4 Luke now begins the account of the missioners’ outreach to Cyprus, Pamphylia, and the southern portion of Galatia. While the church confirms in its own experience the divine will, identifies itself with God’s purposes and those whom he has called for specific tasks, and releases them from their duties for wider service (cf. v.3), it is God who by his Spirit is in charge of events and sends out his missioners. Thus, being “sent on their way by the Holy Spirit,” they went down to Seleucia on the Mediterranean and sailed from there to the island of Cyprus. Just why they thought of going to Cyprus first in carrying out their mandate we don’t know. But Barnabas was from Cyprus (4:36); and knowing generally the will of God, he and Saul were ready to move from the known to the unknown.
Seleucia was the port city of Antioch of Syria, some sixteen miles west of Antioch and four or five miles northeast of the mouth of the Orontes River. It was founded by Seleucus I Nicator, the first king of the Seleucid dynasty, about 300 B.C. in conjunction with the founding of Antioch. Cyprus was an island of great importance from very early times, being situated on the shipping lanes between Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. In 57 B.C. it was annexed by Rome from Egypt and in 55 B.C. incorporated into the province of Cilicia. In 27 B.C. it became a separate province governed on behalf of the emperor Augustus by an imperial legate. In 22 B.C. Augustus relinquished its control to the senate, and, like other senatorial provinces, it was administered by a proconsul.
5 Leaving the mainland of Syria, the missionary party sailed to Salamis on the eastern coast of Cyprus, about 130 miles from Seleucia. Salamis was the most important city of the island and the administrative center for its eastern half, though the provincial capital was 90 miles southwest at Paphos. The population of Cyprus was dominantly Greek, but many Jews lived there as well. Thus Barnabas and Saul began their mission in the synagogues of the city, and John Mark was with them as their helper.
6–11 From Salamis, Barnabas and Saul traveled throughout the island of Cyprus, continuing to preach within the Jewish synagogues to both Jews and “God-fearing” Gentiles. But when they reached Paphos—or, more exactly, New Paphos, the Roman provincial capital seven miles northwest of the old Phoenician city of Paphos—their ministry definitely changed. At Paphos the Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus asked them to present their message before him. This was probably meant to be an official inquiry into the nature of what the missioners were proclaiming in the synagogues so that the proconsul might know how to deal with charges already laid against these wandering Jewish evangelists and head off any further disruptions within the Jewish communities. The invitation could not have been refused. But neither the proconsul nor the missioners could have anticipated what actually happened at the inquiry.
Luke describes Sergius Paulus as a man of discernment, which he proved to be in accepting the Christian message. Within his court at Paphos was a certain Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus. In assuming himself as the Jewish spokesman in opposition to these Christian evangelists, this man probably wanted to enhance his own reputation. While sorcery and magic were officially banned in Judaism, there were still Jews who practiced it, both under the guise of Jewish orthodoxy and as renegades (cf. Lk 11:19; Ac 19:13–16). Bar-Jesus is also called Elymas (a name meaning “sorcerer,” “magician,” “fortune-teller”).
In all of Saul’s activities thus far, nothing had happened to suggest that he was anything but “a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents” (cf. Php 3:5). He was interested in an outreach to Gentiles but made no special appeal to them directly. Nor did he approach them as being on an equal footing with Jews or apart from the synagogue. Though his preaching aroused strong feelings within certain Jewish communities, it engendered no more ill will than had been directed against the other apostles before him. Here in the hall of the proconsul, however, Saul was in new surroundings as he presented his message before a leading member of the Roman world, a world of which he himself was a member. As a Jew, he proudly bore the name of Israel’s first king, Saul. As a Roman citizen (cf. 16:37–38; 25:10–12), he undoubtedly had two Roman names, a praenomen and a nomen, though neither is used of him in the NT. But as a Jew of the Diaspora, who must necessarily rub shoulders with the Gentile world at large, he also bore the Greek name Paul, which became his cognomen in the empire and was used in Gentile contexts. So at this point in his narrative Luke speaks of “Saul, who was also called Paul,” and hereafter refers to him only by this name.
As the Gospel was being proclaimed to Sergius Paulus, Bar-Jesus tried to divert the proconsul from the faith. But Paul turned on the sorcerer and pronounced a curse upon him. In highly biblical language, he denounced Bar-Jesus as “a child of the devil,” “an enemy of everything that is right,” one “full of all kinds of deceit and trickery,” always “perverting the right ways of the Lord,” and pronounced a curse of temporary blindness on him. “Immediately,” Luke tells us, “mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand.”
12 The nature of the proconsul’s response has often been debated, chiefly because the text says nothing about his being baptized when he believed. But the statement that Sergius Paulus believed can hardly be taken with any less significance than Luke’s use of the same word in 14:1; 17:34; and 19:18, where baptism is also not mentioned yet where we might well assume it was performed.
The conversion of Sergius Paulus was, in fact, a turning point in Paul’s whole ministry and inaugurated a new policy in the mission to Gentiles—namely, the legitimacy of a direct approach to and full acceptance of Gentiles apart from any distinctive Jewish stance. This is what Luke clearly sets forth as the great innovative development of this first missionary journey (14:27; 15:3). Earlier Cornelius had been converted apart from any prior commitment to Judaism, and the Jerusalem church had accepted his conversion to Christ. But the Jerusalem church never took Cornelius’s conversion as a precedent for the Christian mission and apparently preferred not to dwell on its ramifications. Paul, however, whose mandate was to Gentiles, saw in the conversion of Sergius Paulus further aspects of what a mission to Gentiles involved and was prepared to take this conversion as a precedent fraught with far-reaching implications for his ministry. It is significant that from this point on, except for 14:14; 15:12; and 15:25 (situations where Barnabas was more prominent), Luke always emphasizes Paul’s leadership by listing him first when naming the missioners.
13 Verse 13 has puzzled many commentators. Pamphylia was a geographically small and economically poor province on the southern coast of Asia Minor, with the mountains of Lycia to the west, the foothills of Pisidia to the north, and the Taurus range to the east. It contained a mixed population and seems to have been as open to the Gospel as any other province. Yet Luke gives us no account of evangelization in Perga or its environs at this time, though he expressly states later that the missioners “preached the word in Perga” on their return to Syrian Antioch (14:25). And it was at Perga that John Mark left the group to return to Jerusalem.
The usual explanation for the missioners’ initially bypassing Perga and moving on to Antioch of Pisidia is that Paul may have been ill with a case of malaria and that this forced redirecting the mission to gain the higher ground to the north. As for John Mark’s departure, it is usually explained as a combination of homesickness, the rigors of travel, dissatisfaction with Paul’s assuming leadership over Mark’s cousin Barnabas, and unhappiness at leaving Cyprus so soon. But discussion among the missioners after Paphos and during their stay at Perga may very well have focused on the implications of Sergius Paulus’s conversion for their ministry. And it can plausibly be argued that (1) the lack of preaching in Perga at this time was due primarily to uncertainty within the missionary party itself about the validity of a direct approach to and full acceptance of Gentiles, and (2) John Mark left because he disagreed with Paul and was concerned about the effect the news of a direct Christian mission to Gentiles would have in Jerusalem. His return to the Christian community in Jerusalem may originally have stirred the “Judaizers” in the church to action. In any case, Paul’s strong opposition to Mark in 15:37–39 suggests that his departure on this first missionary journey was for reasons more than merely personal.
C. At Antioch of Pisidia (13:14–52)
At Pisidian Antioch the typical pattern of the Pauline ministry was established: an initial proclamation in the synagogue to Jews and Gentile adherents and then, when refused an audience in the synagogue, a direct ministry to Gentiles. This pattern is reproduced in every city visited by Paul with a sizable Jewish population—except Athens. As he later declares in Romans, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in condemnation (Ro 2:1–3:20) or in access to God (Ro 3:21–31); so his ministry at Pisidian Antioch began to express this equality. While the synagogues were appropriate for beginning his ministry in the various cities, offering as they did an audience of both Jews and Gentiles theologically prepared for his message, they were not the exclusive sphere of Paul’s activity. Since Jews and Gentiles stood before God on an equal footing, they could be appealed to separately if need be.
This understanding of the validity of a direct approach to Gentiles and their full acceptance as Christians is what Paul speaks of as “my gospel” (Ro 16:25; cf. Gal 1:11–2:10). It was a gospel not different in content from the earliest gospel (1Co 15:1–11) but a gospel distinct in strategy and broader in scope. The nature of Paul’s ministry had been given to him by revelation (see Eph 3:2–6); by providential action at the beginning of his first missionary journey, its specifics were spelled out.
1. A welcome extended at Antioch (13:14–15)
14a Pisidian Antioch was founded by Seleucus I Nicator about 281 B.C. (see comment on 11:19–30). It was situated a hundred miles north of Perga on a lake-studded plateau some thirty-six hundred feet above sea level. The foothills between Perga and Pisidian Antioch largely ruled out any extensive east-west traffic until one reached the plateau area, but following the river valleys one could move northward from the Pamphylia area. On the plateau Antioch stood astride the Via Sebaste, the Roman road from Ephesus to the Euphrates. The city had been incorporated into the expanded Roman province of Galatia in 25 B.C. by Augustus, who at that time imported into it some three thousand army veterans and their families from Italy and gave it the title of Colonia Caesarea. Antioch was the most important city of southern Galatia and included a rich amalgam of Greek, Roman, Oriental, and Phrygian traditions. Acts tells us that it also had a sizable Jewish population.
14b–15 Arriving at Pisidian Antioch, Paul and Barnabas entered the synagogue on the Sabbath. A typical first-century synagogue service would have included the shema (see comments on Dt 6:4–5), the liturgy of “The Eighteen Benedictions,” a reading from the Law, a reading from one of the prophets, a free address given by any competent Jew in attendance, and a closing blessing. The leader of the synagogue, usually one of the elders of the congregation, took charge of the building and made arrangements for the services (Lk 8:41, 49). This office was sometimes held for life and passed on within a family. Perhaps Paul’s dress proclaimed him a Pharisee and thereby opened the way for an invitation to speak.
2. Paul’s synagogue sermon at Antioch (13:16–41)
Three missionary sermons of Paul are presented in Acts: the first here before the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, the second to Lystrans assembled outside the city gates (14:15–17), and the third before the Council of Ares at Athens (17:22–31). Each sermon as we have it is only a precis of what was said, for the longest in its present form takes no more than three minutes to deliver and the shortest can be read in thirty seconds or less. But there is enough in each account to suggest that whereas Paul preached the same gospel wherever he went, he altered the form of his message according to the circumstances he encountered.
16 When Jesus addressed the congregation at Nazareth, he read the lesson standing and then sat down to speak (cf. Lk 4:16, 20). Luke, however, portrays Paul as “standing” to address the synagogue worshipers at Pisidian Antioch. Paul’s speech at Pisidian Antioch was probably an exhortation not arising from the passages read that day from the Law or the Prophets. In Paul’s audience were both Jews and “God-fearing” Gentiles. So he addressed both groups: “Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God.” With a gesture of his hand and with his words, he invited them to listen to him.
17–22 Paul’s exhortation begins with a review of Israel’s history that emphasizes the pattern of God’s redemptive activity from Abraham to David. It is an approach in line with Jewish interests and practices and can be paralleled by Stephen’s defense before the Sanhedrin, by the argument of the Letter to the Hebrews, and by the underlying structure of Matthew’s gospel.
Highlighted is a four-point confessional summary that for Jews epitomized the essence of their faith: (1) God is the God of the people of Israel; (2) he chose the patriarchs for himself; (3) he redeemed his people from Egypt, leading them through the desert; and (4) he gave them the land of Palestine as an inheritance. To such a confessional recital, Jews often added God’s choice of David to be king and the promises made to him and his descendants (cf. Pss 78:67–72; 89:3–4, 19–37). Paul proclaims these great confessional truths of Israel’s faith, which speak of God’s redemptive concern for his people and undergird the Christian message.
Of importance also is the fact that underlying Paul’s treatment of David is 2Sa 7:6–16, the passage that speaks of David’s descendant as God’s “son.” By anchoring Israel’s kerygma in the messianically relevant “son” passage of 2Sa 7, Paul has begun to build a textual bridge for the Christian kerygma, which he will root in the messianic “son” passage of Ps 2:7. And by drawing these two passages together, he will draw together Israel’s confession and the church’s confession, thereby demonstrating both continuity and fulfillment.
23 Paul’s Christian proclamation begins by announcing that God has brought forth the messianic Deliverer from David’s line in the person of Jesus. The promise Paul alludes to is in Isa 11:1–16, a messianic passage of special importance for Judaism because it speaks of the Messiah’s descent from David, of his righteous rule, of his victories, and of the establishment of his kingdom.
24–25 The announcement of Jesus as the Messiah is put in the usual form of the apostolic proclamation, beginning with John the Baptist and his ministry (cf. Mk 1:2–8). John’s preaching and baptism of repentance paved the way for the public ministry of Jesus. John was the forerunner of the Messiah, as he himself confessed (cf. Lk 3:15–18).
26–31 As Paul comes to the heart of his sermon, he appeals respectfully and urgently to both the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles for a hearing. Then he presents a four-point Christian confession like that in 1Co 15:3–5: (1) Jesus was crucified; (2) they “laid him in a tomb”; (3) “God raised him from the dead”; and (4) “for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem,” who are “now his witnesses to our people.” Also significant is the clear note of fulfillment explicitly sounded in v.27 and implied throughout the whole presentation.
32–37 To support this four-point confession and to demonstrate the fulfillment of what God has promised, Paul cites three OT passages fraught with messianic meaning for Christians and also for some Jews. The first is Ps 2:7, which Paul uses to bind together Judaism’s confession and Christianity’s confession by juxtaposing it with 2Sa 7:6–16 (the text underlying vv.17–22). Both 2Sa 7:14 and Ps 2:7 portray God as speaking of his “son.” Linking passages on the basis of their verbal analogies was common in Judaism (see comment on 2:25–35). In doing this Paul does two things: (1) he brings these two “son” passages together as the substructure of his argument in this synagogue, and (2) he joins OT redemptive history and the history of Jesus, understanding both as having messianic significance.
Paul then quotes Isa 55:3 and Ps 16:10, joining his OT passages again on the interpretative principle of verbal similarities between “the holy blessings” and “the Holy One.” The messianic treatment of Ps 16:10 stems from the earliest Christian preaching at Pentecost (cf. 2:27).
38–41 Paul now uses the simple appellation “Men, brothers” (cf. vv.16, 26) as he applies his message and calls the people to repentance. Through Jesus, Paul declares, are “forgiveness of sins” and justification for “everyone who believes.” What we have here are his distinctive themes of “forgiveness [GK 912] of sins,” “justification” (GK 7467; cf. 1466), and “faith” (GK 4409; cf. 4411)—themes that resound in his first address in Acts just as they do throughout his extant letters.
The call to repentance is cast in terms of Hab 1:5. In effect, Paul concludes by warning the congregation that Habakkuk’s words apply to all who reject God’s working in Jesus’ ministry and who refuse Jesus as the divinely appointed Messiah.
3. Varying responses to the sermon (13:42–45)
42–43 Those who heard Paul’s sermon requested Paul and Barnabas “to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath.” More than likely the synagogue authorities took a less favorable view of the sermon. But “many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism” were interested and after the service followed the apostles to hear more. And “some” of those who did this were “persuaded” (NIV “urged”) by the apostles “to continue in the grace of God”—which, to judge by Paul’s usual understanding of grace, must connote continuance in the Good News about salvation through Jesus.
44–45 “Almost the whole city,” Luke says rather hyperbolically, gathered on the following Sabbath to hear “the word of the Lord”—an expression suggesting the Christological content of Paul’s preaching. But “when the Jews saw the crowds,” their initial interest turned to antagonism. Not only was the synagogue being flooded by Gentiles as though it were a common theater or town hall, but, even more, it became clear that Paul and Barnabas were ready to speak directly to Gentiles without first relating them in some way to Judaism. The majority of the Jews, including their leaders, were apparently unwilling to countenance a salvation as open to Gentiles as it was to Jews. So in their opposition “they blasphemed” (NIV: “talked abusively”; GK 1059), because from Luke’s perspective opposition to the Gospel is directed not so much against the messengers as against the content of the message—Jesus himself (cf. 26:11).
4. To the Jews first, but also to the Gentiles (13:46–52)
46–47 In response to the Jews’ abuse and blasphemy, Paul and Barnabas asserted their new policy—“To the Jews first, but also to the Gentiles”—a policy that had begun with the conversion of Sergius Paulus and had evidently been discussed by the missioners on the way from Paphos to Pisidian Antioch (see comment on v.13). There is evidence from the fifth century Latin commentator Jerome that this policy of preaching first to Jews and then to Gentiles, though initiated on Paul’s first missionary journey and not in Jerusalem, was acknowledged very early even among certain Jewish Christians at Jerusalem.
As Paul and Barnabas saw it, the Jews of Pisidian Antioch in their exclusiveness had rejected the very thing they were looking for—“eternal life.” Now, however, the Gospel must be directed to the Gentiles, for included in its mandate is the promise of Isa 49:6, that God’s servant will be “a light for the Gentiles” and a bringer of salvation” to the ends of the earth” (cf. Lk 2:28–32). It was, of course, Jesus of Nazareth who was uniquely God’s Servant and who was at work through his Spirit in the church, completing what he had begun and also making the missioners God’s servants and inheritors of the promise in Isa 49:6.
48–49 Many of the Gentiles responded with thanks for the apostles’ ministry and with openness to their message. “All who were appointed [GK 5435] for eternal life believed” suggests that belief in Christ is not just a matter of one’s faith but primarily involves divine appointment. And through the conversion of many of the Gentiles, who brought the message of salvation to others, “the word of the Lord spread through the whole region.” This spreading of the word, along with the apostles’ own outreach to the cities named in chs. 13 and 14, probably led to the agitation of the so-called Judaizers that resulted in the problem Paul dealt with in Galatians.
50 Unable to confine the ministry of Paul and Barnabas to the synagogue, the Jews stirred up trouble against them and brought pressure on the city’s magistrates through their “God-fearing” wives. Since Luke speaks of the persecution as expulsion rather than mob action, it probably took the form of a charge that Christianity, being disowned by the local Jewish community, was not a religio licita in Rome’s eyes and therefore must be considered a disturbance to the Pax Romana. Later in Acts, Luke will show how the agitation against the Gospel usually arose from within the Jewish community, not from the Roman authorities, and that the charge was that Paul was preaching an illegal religion (cf. 16:20–21; 17:7; 18:13)—a charge Luke insists was unfounded. This is part of the fabric of why he wrote Acts (see Introduction: Luke’s Purposes in Writing Acts).
51–52 Having been expelled from Pisidian Antioch, Paul and Barnabas “shook the dust from their feet in protest against them”—a Jewish gesture of scorn and disassociation, which was directed at the city’s magistrates and the Jewish leaders. Then they went southeast on the Via Sebaste, heading for Iconium some eighty miles away. The new “disciples” left behind at Pisidian Antioch, far from being discouraged at this turn of events, were “filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.”
D. At Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe and the Return to Antioch (14:1–28)
The Via Sebaste, the great Roman road from Ephesus to the Euphrates, became two roads at Pisidian Antioch. One went north through mountainous terrain to the Roman colony of Comana about 122 miles away. The other moved southeast across rolling country, past the snow-capped peaks of Sultan Dag, to the important Greek city of Iconium, some eighty miles distant from Antioch, and from there to the Roman colony of Lystra. As Paul and Barnabas left Pisidian Antioch, therefore, they were faced with a choice as to the future direction of their mission. Choosing the southeastern route, they headed off to what would become a ministry to people of three very different types of cities in the southern portion of the Roman province of Galatia.
1. The ministry at Iconium (14:1–7)
1–2 Iconium, an ancient Phrygian town, had been transformed by the Greeks into a city-state. Situated in the heart of the high and healthy plateau of south-central Asia Minor, it was surrounded by fertile plains and verdant forests, with mountains to its north and east. With Augustus’s reorganization of provinces in 25 B.C., Iconium became part of Galatia. But while Rome chose Antioch of Pisidia and Lystra as bastions of its authority in the area, Iconium remained largely Greek in temper and somewhat resistant to Roman influence. Greek was the language of its public documents, and during the NT period it attempted to retain the ethos of the old city-state. The name “Iconium” is probably Phrygian, but a myth was invented to give it a Greek meaning. According to the myth, Prometheus and Athena recreated humankind in the area after a devastating flood by making images of people from the mud and breathing life into them. The Greek for “image” is eikon, hence the name Iconium.
Entering Iconium, Paul and Barnabas went to the Jewish synagogue, following the same pattern as they had at Pisidian Antioch. As they proclaimed the Gospel, a great number of both Jews and Gentiles believed. Opposition to the Gospel soon arose, but since this city was governed by Greek jurisprudence, this opposition did not follow the same pattern as in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas were able to stay there for some time.
3 Luke tells us that the apostles ministered for a “considerable time” in the city and preached boldly “for the Lord,” with God confirming “the message of his grace” by “miraculous signs and wonders.” The mention of “the Lord” undoubtedly refers to Jesus the Lord, thus showing the Christocentric nature of the missioners’ preaching. And the couplet “miraculous signs and wonders” (cf. 15:12) places the ministry of Paul and Barnabas directly in line with that of Jesus (cf. 2:22) and the early church (cf. 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36) in fulfillment of prophecy (cf. 2:19). Later when writing his Galatian converts (assuming a “South Galatian” origin for the letter), Paul appeals to these mighty works performed by the Spirit as evidence that the Gospel as he preached it and as they received it was fully approved by God (cf. Gal 3:4–5).
4–5 There was a division among “the people” (GK 4436) of the city regarding the apostles and their message, some siding with the Jews and others with the apostles. Interpreted broadly, “the people” denotes no more than the populace of the city, though it may denote an assembly of prominent citizens that met to conduct the business of a Greek city-state. While no official action seems to have been taken against them, there was a “plot” brewing among some of the Gentiles and Jews to mistreat and stone them.
Significant here is Luke’s lumping Barnabas together with Paul in the phrase “with the apostles” (GK 693), While Barnabas was neither one of the Twelve nor a claimant to any special revelation, he was probably one of the 120 (cf. 1:15) and may have been a witness of Jesus’ resurrection. Yet as with most titles of the NT, Luke, like Paul himself (cf. 2Co 8:23; Gal 1:19; Php 2:25), not only used “apostle” in the restricted sense of a small group of highly honored believers who had a special function within the church but also in the broader sense of messengers of the Gospel.
6–7 The opposition to the ministry of Paul and Barnabas must have grown to sizable proportions, for they took it seriously enough to leave Iconium and travel to Lystra and Derbe. By referring to Lystra and Derbe as “Lycaonian cities,” Luke implies that Iconium belonged to a different region from Lystra and Derbe. All three, of course, were part of the Roman province of Galatia. But in the administration of so large a province, the Romans subdivided Galatia into various regions, four of which have come down to us by name: Isauria, Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia. In fleeing to Lystra and Derbe, therefore, Paul and Barnabas were leaving one political region to start afresh in another. Thus in the Lycaonian region they continued preaching the Gospel, both in the cities of Lystra and Derbe and in the surrounding countryside.
2. The ministry at Lystra (14:8–20)
8–10 Lystra was an ancient Lycaonian village whose origins are unknown. Caesar Augustus turned it into a Roman colony in 6 B.C., and, by bringing army veterans and their families into it, made it the most eastern of the fortified cities of Galatia. Jews also lived there (16:1–3), but their influence seems to have been minimal. The Via Sebaste joined this city with Iconium (see comment on 14:1–28).
That Paul began the ministry at Lystra by preaching to a crowd may imply that no synagogue was available for him to preach in. While he was speaking, Paul saw “a man crippled in his feet, who was lame from birth and had never walked” and who was listening to him attentively. Seeing “that he had faith to be healed,” Paul commanded him to stand up, and the man jumped up and walked about. Luke undoubtedly wanted his readers to recognize the parallel between the healing of this crippled man and the healing of another one by Peter (cf. 3:1–8). But the sequel to the healing of the crippled man here differs significantly from that of Peter’s miracle.
11–13 The healing amazed and excited the crowd, and they shouted out in Lycaonian: “The gods have come down to us in human form!” (cf. 28:6). Barnabas they identified as Zeus, the chief of the Greek pantheon, probably because of his more dignified bearing. Paul they identified as Hermes, Zeus’s son by Maia and the spokesman for the gods, since “he was the chief speaker.” Archaeological findings have confirmed that both Zeus and Hermes were worshiped in Lycaonian Galatia.
Approximately half a century before Paul’s first missionary journey, the Roman poet Ovid retold an ancient legend that may have been well known in southern Galatia and helps explain the wildly emotional response of the people to Paul and Barnabas. According to the legend, Zeus and Hermes once came to “the Phrygian hill country” disguised as mortals seeking lodging. Though they asked at a thousand homes, none took them in. Finally, at a humble cottage of straw and reeds, an elderly couple, Philemon and Baucis, freely welcomed them with a banquet that strained their poor resources. In appreciation, the gods transformed the cottage into a temple with a golden roof and marble columns. Philemon and Baucis they appointed priest and priestess of the temple, who, instead of dying, became an oak and a linden tree. As for the inhospitable people, the gods destroyed their houses. Seeing the healing of the crippled man and remembering the legend, the people of Lystra believed that Zeus and Hermes had returned, and they wanted to pay them homage lest they again incur the gods’ wrath.
That the people shouted in Lycaonian explains why the apostles were so slow to understand what was afoot until the preparations to honor them as gods were well advanced. But when the priest of Zeus joined the crowd and began to do them homage, Paul and Barnabas realized what was about to happen. We can visualize the priest of Zeus bringing out sacrificial oxen draped in woolen “wreaths” and preparing to sacrifice at an altar that stood in front of the Temple of Zeus, hard by the city gates. And as the idolatrous worship proceeded, Paul and Barnabas began to see that they were the object of it.
14–18 When they finally realized what was going on, Paul and Barnabas tore their clothes in horror at such blasphemy and rushed out into the crowd—shouting their objections and trying to make the people understand them. There is no reason to think that the majority of the Lystrans knew anything of Jewish history or of the Jewish Scriptures, or that they had been vitally affected by Athenian philosophies. Culturally, they were probably peasants living in the hinterland of Greco-Roman civilization, with all of the lack of advantages of people in their situation. Such is the context of Paul’s second missionary sermon. By far the briefest of the three (cf. 13:16–41; 17:22–31), its brevity reflects its confused setting.
Negatively, Paul’s sermon at Lystra has to do with the futility of idolatry; positively, it is a proclamation of the one true and living God. Its language, particularly in its denunciation of paganism, is biblical. But its argument is suited to its hearers. And despite the brevity with which Luke reports it, two features stand out in the development of Paul’s argument. First, his demonstration of the interest and goodness of God is drawn neither from Scripture (as at Pisidian Antioch) nor from philosophy (as later at Athens) but from nature: “He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food. . . .” It is an approach to theism that peasants would understand.
Second, Paul preached that “in the past, he [God] let all nations go their own way,” which suggests that at Lystra Paul preached about a progressive unfolding of divine redemption. While the sermon does not explicitly refer to salvation through Christ, it is hard to believe that it was not meant to point to Jesus Christ and his work as the divine climax of history. “We too are only men, human like you,” Paul and Barnabas insisted. But, they went on to say, “we are bringing you good news”—the best news possible—of the unity and character of the one true God and of redemption through the person and work of Jesus his Son. Yet for most of the Lystrans, the message fell on deaf ears, and they tried to carry on the sacrifices in honor of the visitors.
19–20 Later on certain Jews from Pisidian Antioch and Iconium, disaffected with Paul and Barnabas, came to Lystra to spread their views. Complaining first among the Jewish residents of the city, they managed to gain a hearing with the people. The fickle Lystrans, thinking that if the apostles were not gods they were impostors, stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city for dead. But with the aid of those who had accepted the Gospel, he revived; and, with great courage, he returned that evening to the city where he had almost been killed. The next day, Paul and Barnabas left for the border town of Derbe.
Some months later, when Paul wrote the believers in Galatia (again, we assume a “South Galatian” destination for the letter), he closed by saying, “Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal 6:17). Some of the marks may well have been scars caused by the stoning at Lystra. And when still later he wrote the Corinthians of his being stoned (2Co 11:25), it was Lystra he had in mind (cf. also 2Ti 3:11).
3. The ministry at Derbe and the return to Antioch (14:21–28)
21a Derbe was situated in the southeastern part of the Lycaonian region of Galatia, about sixty miles southeast of Lystra. In 25 B.C. Augustus incorporated it into the province of Galatia, making it a provincial border town on the eastern edge of the southern Galatian plateau. Luke’s account of the ministry at Derbe is brief. All he says is that the apostles “preached the good news” there and “won a large number of disciples.” Luke spends more time talking about the larger and more influential churches in Antioch and Iconium, though the congregations in the smaller and more rural towns seem to have contributed more young men as candidates for the missionary endeavor (e.g., Timothy from Lystra [16:1–3; 20:4]; Gaius from Derbe [20:4])—a pattern not altogether different from today, where the larger churches often capture the headlines and the smaller congregations provide much of the personnel.
21b–23 Having preached at Derbe, Paul and Barnabas returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch. Why they did not push instead further east through the passes of the Taurus range into Cilicia, Luke does not tell us. Perhaps Cilicia was considered already evangelized through Paul’s earlier efforts (cf. comment on 9:30); this would also explain why the apostles began their missionary outreach on Cyprus and not in Cilicia (cf. 13:4). Undoubtedly their concern for the new converts in the Galatian cities led them to return by the same road. In returning to Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, they probably confined their ministries to those already converted, and thus did not stir up any further opposition (cf. 16:6; 18:23; 20:3–6).
While returning through the Galatian cities, Paul and Barnabas tried to strengthen their converts personally and corporately. They encouraged them to remain in the faith, telling them that many persecutions must necessarily be the lot of Christians in order to enter into the kingdom of God—that is, that the same pattern of suffering and glory exemplified in Jesus’ life must be theirs as well if they are to know the full measure of the reign of God in their lives (cf. Mk 8:31–10:52; Ro 8:17; Php 3:10–11; Col 1:24). And “they appointed elders for them in each church,” thus leaving them with suitable spiritual guides and an embryonic ecclesiastical administration. In the early Gentile churches (as also undoubtedly at Jerusalem), the terms “elders” (GK 4565) and “bishops” (or “overseers”; GK 2176) were used somewhat interchangeably and functionally rather than as titles (cf. 20:17, 28).
PAUL’S FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY
© 1989 The Zondervan Corporation.
24–25 Directly south of Phrygia was the region of Pisidia and south of that the province of Pamphylia. In Pamphylia the apostles preached at Perga, the chief city of the province, thus beginning the kind of witness in Perga they had been unable to begin on their first visit (cf. comment on 13:13). Of its results we know nothing, nor do we know the nature of their visit to the port of Attalia, some eight miles further south on the Mediterranean coast, from where they embarked on a boat for the voyage back to Syria.
26–28 On returning to Antioch of Syria and to the congregation that had sent them out, Paul and Barnabas “reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.” They had gone out under divine ordination, and their report stressed the fact that God himself had brought about the new policy for evangelizing the Gentiles, which was inaugurated at Paphos and followed throughout the cities of southern Galatia—a claim that was called into question by some believers in Jerusalem and was soon to be tested at the Jerusalem Council. So having returned from a missionary journey that occupied the best part of a year, the apostles remained at Syrian Antioch, ministering in the church there for approximately another year.
E. The Jerusalem Council (15:1–29)
The convening of the council of apostles and Christian leaders at Jerusalem in approximately A.D. 49 was an event of greatest importance for the early church. That Gentiles were to share in the promises to Israel is a recurring theme of the OT (cf. Ge 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Isa 49:6; 55:5–7; Zep 3:9–10; Zec 8:22). It was the underlying presupposition for Jewish proselytizing and was implicit in the sermons of Peter at Pentecost (Ac 2:39) and in the house of Cornelius (10:35). But the correlative conviction of Judaism was that Israel was God’s appointed agent for the administration of these blessings—that only through the nation and its institutions could Gentiles ever have a part in God’s redemption and share in his favor. There seems to have been no expectation on the part of Christians at Jerusalem that this program would be materially altered, though they did insist that in these “last days” God was at work in and through Jewish Christians as the faithful remnant within the nation.
In the experience of the church, all Gentiles—with one exception—who had come to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah had been either full proselytes or near proselytes (“God-fearers”). Only Cornelius’s conversion did not fit into the pattern (cf. 10:1–11:18). But this event was viewed as exceptional and not an occasion for changing policy. The practice of preaching directly to Gentiles begun by Paul in his mission on Cyprus and throughout southern Asia Minor, however, was a matter of far-reaching concern at Jerusalem, especially in view of the tensions that arose within Palestine after the death of Herod Agrippa I in A.D. 44.
As the faithful remnant, the Jerusalem church naturally expected the Christian mission to proceed along lines God laid down long ago. It could point to the fact that, with few exceptions, commitment to Jesus as Israel’s Messiah did not make Jews less Jewish. Indeed, it sometimes brought Gentiles who were only loosely associated with the synagogues into greater conformity with Jewish ethics. The Christian movement had always insisted on its integral relation to the religion and nation of Israel, even though this relation contained some unresolved ambiguities and was defined in various ways within the movement. But Paul’s new policy for reaching Gentiles, despite his claim of the authority of revelation and of providence for it, seemed to many Jewish Christians to undercut the basis of the ministry of the Jerusalem church. It seemed to give the lie to the stance of Jerusalem Christianity—particularly if condoned by believers of Jerusalem.
A word should be said here about Pauline chronology (for full discussion, see EBC 9:440–42; also 10:417–20), particularly the thorny question of the relation of Paul’s “second visit” to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1–10) to the Jerusalem Council (Ac 15). The literary and historical issues are complex (cf. comments on 11:29–30). But one point drawn from the polemic in Galatians needs to be made here: Paul’s silence in Galatians as to the decision of the Jerusalem Council forces the irreconcilable dilemma of saying either (1) that Luke’s account in Ac 15 of a decision reached in Paul’s favor at Jerusalem is pure fabrication or (2) that Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council. It is the opinion of this commentary that the second option is the more likely.
Accepting Galatians, then, as having been written before the Jerusalem Council, we have some idea from Paul himself concerning repercussions in Jerusalem in regard to his Gentile ministry, both as it was carried on in the synagogues at Antioch of Syria and as it was further developed in Cyprus and southern Asia Minor. On his second visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (cf. 11:27–30 and comments on 11:29–30), the issue came to a head in the case of the uncircumcised Titus who accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. In spite of pressures and some uncertainty, the Jerusalem apostles stood with Paul on the validity of a Gentile mission and the inappropriateness of making circumcision a requirement for Gentiles—though probably neither Paul nor they at that time saw a massive direct ministry to Gentiles in the offing. Paul’s account of the Antioch episode in Gal 2:11–21 clearly shows that the Gentile ministry was causing repercussions at Jerusalem and that the Jerusalem congregation was exerting pressure. The passage also suggests that the rationale for separating Jewish and Gentile believers was based on expediency rather than on principle. And it was this issue of expediency versus theological principle that required clarification in the early church and lent urgency to the Jerusalem Council.
1. The delegation from Syrian Antioch (15:1–4)
1 The immediate occasion for the Jerusalem Council was the visit to Syrian Antioch of some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem and their teaching that on principle, circumcision was essential to salvation. These became known as “Judaizers,” and their comrades were promoting similar teaching among Paul’s converts in Galatia. They may have been incited by the return of John Mark and his unfavorable report (cf. comment on 13:13). Both James and Peter (cf. Gal 2:9) were interested in minimizing conflicts between Judaism and Jewish Christianity. Yet neither was prepared to sacrifice the principles of the Gospel to expediency when the implications of doing this became plain. Undoubtedly the Judaizers thought of themselves as acting conscientiously and on sound theological principles (cf. comment on v.5 below). But as Paul saw it, they sought “a good impression outwardly . . . to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ” (Gal 6:12).
2 With the issues highlighted by the “sharp dispute and debate” that followed, Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with certain others from the Antioch congregation, to go up to Jerusalem to meet with “the apostles and elders” about the matter. It was probably the entire congregation at Antioch and its leaders that appointed these men to discuss the issue (cf. 13:3). Antioch Christians were desirous for the relation between the Jerusalem church’s policy of cautious expediency and the Judaizers’ argument founded on theological principle to be clarified. The Jerusalem Christians, for their part, undoubtedly welcomed an opportunity to air their concerns—particularly the impasse created for them by Paul and Barnabas through their Gentile policy. For while there may have been general agreement on the validity of evangelizing Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:7–10), recent events opened that agreement for reconsideration.
3–4 As the delegation from Antioch journeyed to Jerusalem, they told the believers in Phoenicia and Samaria the news of “the conversion of the Gentiles.” The Phoenician and Samaritan Christians, being themselves converts of the Hellenists’ mission after Stephen’s martyrdom (cf. 8:4–25; 11:19), probably took a broader view than that which prevailed at Jerusalem and rejoiced at the news. Believers at Jerusalem also were interested, but their interest by no means involved whole-hearted approval.
2. The nature and course of the debate (15:5–12)
5 In the ensuing debate among believers in general and in the council itself, some Christian Pharisees, in support of the Judaizers, insisted that it was necessary for Gentile Christians to “be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” And by this necessity they meant that these things were not only expedient but required by the revealed will of God. In their thinking, they read that the prophets spoke of the salvation of the Gentiles as an event of the last days (cf. Isa 2:2; 11:10; 25:8–9; Zec 8:23) through the witness of a restored Israel (cf. Isa 2:3; 60:2–3; Zec 8:23). Thus they could hardly oppose reaching Gentiles through the ministry of the church. But they felt that the outreach to Gentiles should come from within their group and follow a proselyte model, not come from outside their group and be apart from the law. After all, in the last days, all nations were to flow to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem (cf. Isa 2:2–3; 25:6–8; 56:7; 60:3–22; Zec 8:21–23), not depart from it.
6 While Luke says only that the apostles and elders met to consider these questions, his mention of “the whole assembly” in v.12 and “the whole church” in v.22 shows that other members of the congregation were also present. The discussion was undoubtedly heated, but Luke centers on its Pauline aspect.
7–11 Peter was no longer the chief figure of the Jerusalem church, for James had now assumed that role (cf. comment on 12:17). But Peter was dominant in the Jewish Christian mission and responsible to the Jerusalem church. And it is as a missionary, not an administrator, that he spoke up and reminded the council that God had chosen to have the Gentiles hear the Gospel from him and accept it. He argued that since God had established such a precedent within the Jewish Christian mission some ten years earlier—though it had not been recognized by the church as such—God has already indicated his approval of a direct Gentile outreach. Thus Paul’s approach to the Gentiles could not be branded as a deviation from the divine will. Peter had evidently completely recovered from his temporary lapse at Syrian Antioch. Now he saw matters more clearly and was ready to agree with Paul’s position that there is “no difference” between Jews and Gentiles and that the Mosaic law was a “yoke.”
12 Luke’s reference to the silence of the assembly after Peter spoke implies that the turning point had come. Though resisted at Jerusalem for almost a decade, the precedent of Cornelius’s conversion had opened the way for Barnabas and Paul’s report of God’s validation of their missionary policy through “miraculous signs and wonders.” It was a report not of their successes but of how God had acted, and its implication was that by his acts God had revealed his will. Barnabas is mentioned first here (cf. v.25), probably because he enjoyed greater confidence at Jerusalem.
3. The summing up by James (15:13–21)
13 James, the Lord’s brother, presided at the Jerusalem Council (cf. comment on 12:17). He was ascetic and scrupulous in keeping the law. The Judaizers within the church looked to him for support, knowing both his legal qualifications and his personal qualities. But while rigorous and scrupulous in his personal practice of the faith, James was more broadminded than many of his followers. After calling the council to order by using the formal mode of address “Men, brothers,” he went on to sum up the emerging view of the council in a way that linked it to what had already been said.
14 In summing up, James made no reference to Paul and Barnabas’s report, probably more for political reasons than any of principle. After all, it was the work of Paul and Barnabas that was on trial, and James wanted to win his entire audience to the position he believed to be right without causing needless offense. Therefore, he began by reminding the council of Peter’s testimony and went on to show how he felt about the question at issue by speaking of believing Gentiles as a “people” (GK 3295) whom God had taken “for himself”—thus (1) applying to Gentile Christians a designation formerly used of Israel alone, and (2) agreeing with Peter that in the conversion of Cornelius God himself had taken the initiative for a direct Gentile ministry.
15–17 James’s major contribution to the decision of the council was to shift the discussion of the conversion of Gentiles from a proselyte model to an eschatological one. Isaiah had expected Gentile converts to come to Jerusalem to learn God’s ways so that they might walk in them. But Isaiah also spoke of the Gentiles’ persistence as nations whose salvation did not destroy their national identities (cf. Isa 2:4; 25:6–7). Likewise, Am 9:11–12 (in the LXX version) spoke of “the remnant of people” in the last days when “David’s fallen tent” would be rebuilt as being “all the Gentiles who bear my name” and whose continuance as Gentiles was understood. In the end times, James is saying, God’s people will consist of two concentric groups. At their core will be restored Israel (i.e., David’s rebuilt tent); gathered around them will be a group of Gentiles (i.e., “the remnant of people”) who will share in the messianic blessings but will persist as Gentiles without necessarily becoming Jewish proselytes. It is this understanding of Amos’s message, James insisted, that Peter’s testimony has affirmed, the result being that the conversion of Gentiles in the last days should be seen not as proselytizing but in an eschatological context.
18 The interpretation of v.18 is notoriously difficult. Many (such as NIV) understand the clause as part of a conflated biblical citation that extends from v.16 through v.18, probably alluding to Isa 45:21. It seems better, however, to interpret the words here as a comment by James to this effect: We cannot be in opposition to the express will of God, as evidenced by Peter’s testimony and the prophets’ words—but only God himself knows for certain how everything fits together and is to be fully understood!
19 On the basic issue that brought the members of the first ecumenical council together—that of the necessity of relating Gentiles to Judaism in the Christian mission—James refused to side with the Judaizers. He may not have been prepared to endorse openly all the details of Paul’s Gentile policy. Certainly there is no indication that he expected the Jerusalem church to do that. But he could not be in opposition to the express will of God, and therefore his advice was that Jewish Christianity should not take any stance against the promotion of the Gentile mission. In so concluding, he swept aside the obstacles that had arisen to Paul’s Gentile mission among believers at Jerusalem and left it free for further advances within the empire.
20–21 On the practical question that troubled many Christians in Jerusalem and that originally gave rise to the Judaizers’ assertion—namely, the question of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the church and of tolerance for the scruples of others—James’s advice was that a letter be written to the Gentile Christians. This letter should request them to abstain “from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” These prohibitions have often been viewed as a compromise between two warring parties, which nullified the effect of James’s earlier words and made the decision of the Jerusalem Council unacceptable to Paul. But in reality they should be viewed not as dealing with the principial issue of the council but as meeting certain practical concerns. They were not primarily theological but more sociological in nature—concessions to the scruples of others for the sake of harmony within the church and the continuance of the Jewish Christian mission. Therefore James added the rationale of v.21, suggesting that since Jewish communities are found in every city, their scruples are to be respected by Gentile believers.
To sum up, we may say that two types of “necessary” questions were raised at the Jerusalem Council. The first had to do with the theological necessity of circumcision and the Jewish law for salvation, and that was rejected. The second had to do with the practical necessity of Gentile Christians to abstain from certain practices for the sake of Jewish-Gentile fellowship in the church and the Jewish Christian mission throughout the Diaspora, and that was approved.
4. The decision and letter of the Council (15:22–29)
22 With James’s judgment “the apostles and elders, with the whole church,” agreed, deciding to send their decision back to Antioch of Syria not only by Paul and Barnabas but also by two leaders of the Jerusalem congregation, Judas Barsabbas and Silas, whose presence would assure reception of the decision and who could interpret the feelings of the council from a Jerusalem perspective. It seems clear that within the Jerusalem church, the congregation was involved in the deliberations of its leaders.
When one considers the situation of the Jerusalem church in A.D. 49, the decision reached by the Jerusalem Christians must be considered one of the boldest and most magnanimous in the annals of church history. While still attempting to minister exclusively to the Jewish nation, the council refused to impede the progress of that other branch of the Christian mission whose success meant further difficulty for them from within their own nation. Undoubtedly there was some uncertainty among the council’s leaders about details of the decision. Certainly they reached it only after much agonizing. Likewise, there probably remained in the Jerusalem church a recalcitrant group that continued to predict ominous consequences. But the decision was made and the malcontents silenced—at least for a time.
The effects of the council’s decision were far-reaching. (1) It freed the Gospel from any necessary entanglement with Judaism and Israelite institutions, though without renouncing the legitimacy of continued Christian activity within them. Thus both Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and the various Jewish Christian missions were enabled to progress side-by-side without conflict. (2) Attitudes to Paul within Jewish Christianity were clarified. While some of the Jewish believers probably became even more opposed to Paul, others (e.g., John Mark, see vv.37–39) seem to have become more reconciled to him. Also, some felt happier in a Gentile ministry than at Jerusalem (e.g., Silas; see v.40). (3) The decision of the council had the effect of permanently antagonizing many Jews. From this time onward, the Christian mission within the nation—particularly in and around Jerusalem—faced rough sledding (cf. Ro 11:28). When coupled with the zealotism within the nation during the next two decades, this antagonism proved fatal to the life and ministry of the Jerusalem church.
23–29 With Judas, Silas, Paul, and Barnabas, who were going to Antioch, the Jerusalem church sent a letter, recorded here in Ac 15. The placing of “brothers” in apposition to “the apostles and elders” in the salutation is unusual. But it should probably be understood as reflecting a form of expression used within the Jerusalem congregation, similar to “Men, brothers” (cf. 1:16; 2:29, 37; 15:7, 13; et al.). Likewise, the address “to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia” is surprising, for though Paul refers to spending some time in Syria and Cilicia, Luke has not spoken of any mission outside Antioch in these areas. Yet vv.36, 41 assume that churches were established in these areas with Paul’s assistance. And 16:4 shows that the content of the letter from the council was meant not only for congregations in the areas listed in 15:23 but that it applied to Gentile believers generally (cf. 15:19; 21:25).
The body of the letter encapsulates the problem confronted by the churches because of the Judaizers’ claims and the Jerusalem Council’s reaction to them, commending to the churches Barnabas and Paul (cf. comments on 14:14 and 15:12 for this order of their names) and the Jerusalem emissaries Judas and Silas. On the fundamental matter of the theological necessity of circumcision and a Jewish lifestyle for Gentile Christians, the letter rebukes the Judaizers for going beyond their authority and assures the churches that there are no such requirements for salvation. On the practical issues of fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers in the churches and of preventing needless offense to Jews throughout the empire, the letter asks Gentile Christians to abstain from the four prohibitions mentioned in v.20. The letter closed in a way typical of many contemporary nonliterary papyri.
F. The Reception of the Council’s Decision and of the Letter (15:30–16:4)
Luke describes the aftermath of the Jerusalem Council in three vignettes that all relate to the reception of the council’s decision and letter in three localities of earlier Gentile outreach: Antioch of Syria (15:30–35), Syria and Cilicia (15:36–41), and the southern part of Galatia (16:1–4). Other items of information are also included, as Luke uses these final scenes of his fourth panel of material to prepare for the extensive outreach of the Gospel through Paul’s second and third missionary journeys.
1. At Antioch of Syria (15:30–35)
30–32 At Antioch of Syria the delegation on returning from Jerusalem “gathered the church together and delivered the letter,” with Judas and Silas saying “much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.” And the believers, Luke tells us, “were glad.” Having gained a decided victory in the principial matter of circumcision, Paul and the existing Gentile churches were prepared to accept the four decrees as a modus operandi for reducing friction between two groups of people drawn from two different ways of life. Such an attitude is quite in accord with what Paul himself wrote later in 1Co 9:19–23.
33–35 After some time, Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem with the commendation of the Antioch believers. Paul and Barnabas, however, remained at Syrian Antioch and joined others in carrying on the ministry there. Later Paul appears to have sent for Silas to accompany him on his missionary journeys (v.40).
2. Disagreement and two missionary teams (15:36–41)
36 Luke now presents Paul as taking the initiative for another missionary journey. To Paul, of course, it was not intended as a new outreach but only a revisiting of believers converted on the first missionary journey. Nevertheless, God was to bring a second missionary journey out of it. This section provides something of a bridge between the completion of the advances reported in panel 4 and the beginning of those reported in panel 5.
37–39 John Mark, Barnabas’s cousin (cf. Col 4:10), probably became convinced of the appropriateness of Paul’s Gentile policy by the action of the Jerusalem Council, despite earlier qualms about it (see comment on 13:13). Barnabas had evidently called him back to Syrian Antioch to minister in the church there. Barnabas’s earlier involvement in the dispute at Antioch showed that his natural sympathies lay principally with Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 2:13), and it was also natural for him to want to take Mark with them in revisiting the churches. Paul, however, for what seem to have been reasons of principle rather than personal ones, did not want to have so unreliable a man with them day after day. The scar tissue of the wounds Paul suffered in establishing his missionary policy was still too tender for him to look favorably on Mark’s being with them—particularly if, as we have assumed, Mark was in some way responsible for inciting the Judaizers to action.
The fact that Luke does not gloss over the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas shows his honesty. Yet far from letting the disagreement harm the outreach of the Gospel, God providentially used it to double the missionary force, with Barnabas taking Mark and returning to Cyprus (cf. 13:4–12). Acts tells us nothing more about the mission to Cyprus or the missioners there, though Paul later refers in cordial terms to both Barnabas (cf. 1Co 9:6) and John Mark (cf. Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 24).
40–41 Paul’s selection of Silas (or “Silvanus,” as he is referred to more formally by his Latinized name in 2Co 1:19; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Pe 5:12) to accompany him on his return visit to the churches was wise. He had evidently come to appreciate Silas in their contacts at Jerusalem and Syrian Antioch and concluded that he would make a congenial colleague. More than that, Silas was a leader in the Jerusalem congregation (15:22) and was explicitly identified in the Jerusalem letter as one who could speak with authority on the attitude of the Jerusalem church (v.27). He was also, it seems, a Roman citizen who could claim, if need be, the privileges of such citizenship along with Paul (16:37). This was not true of Barnabas. Likewise, Silas was a prophet (15:32), who appears to have been fluent in Greek (15:22, 32) and a helpful amanuensis (1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Pe 5:12). Thus Paul and Silas set out with the blessing of the Antioch congregation. The churches in Syria and Cilicia that they revisited and strengthened were presumably founded through the efforts of Paul (15:23, 36). Because of that, they would be receptive to the decision and letter of the Jerusalem Council.
3. Paul adds Timothy to the team in Galatia (16:1–4)
1–2 Pushing on through the Cilician Gates in the Taurus mountains, Paul and Silas came to the Galatian border town of Derbe and then moved on to Lystra. At Lystra he found a young man who was highly spoken of by believers in both Lystra and the neighboring city of Iconium. The Jewish community at Lystra seems to have been small and without influence (cf. comments on 14:8–10). Probably for that reason Timothy’s mother, a Jewess, was allowed to marry a Greek. Timothy, however, had never been circumcised. In Jewish law, a child takes the religion of its mother; so Timothy should have been circumcised and raised a Jew. But in Greek law the father dominates in the home. Apparently the Jewish community at Lystra was too weak or lax to interfere with Greek custom. In 2Ti 1:5 Paul speaks of the sincere Jewish faith of Timothy’s grandmother Lois and of his mother, Eunice, and 2Ti 3:15 speaks of Timothy’s early instruction in the Hebrew Scriptures. Here Eunice is identified as a Jewess as well as a Christian believer, who had probably been converted during the first visit of Paul and Barnabas to Lystra. The Greek implies that her husband was now dead. From Paul’s reference to Timothy in 1Co 4:17 as his “son,” we may assume that Timothy’s conversion to Christ also dates from the proclamation of the Gospel on that first missionary journey.
3–4 Why, after all the discussion in Jerusalem, would Paul circumcise Timothy? Some commentators even question whether Paul actually did this. But while Paul stoutly resisted any imposition of circumcision and the Jewish law upon his Gentile converts (e.g., Titus; see Gal 2:1–5), he himself continued to live as an observant Jew and urged his converts to express their Christian faith through the cultural forms they had inherited (cf. 1Co 7:17–24). As for Timothy, because of his Jewish mother, he was a Jew in the eyes of the Jewish world. Therefore, it was both proper and expedient for Paul to circumcise him. As Paul saw it, being a good Christian did not mean being a bad Jew. Rather, it meant being a fulfilled Jew. Paul had no desire to flout Jewish scruples in his endeavor to bring both Jews and Gentiles to salvation in Christ. Similarly, there is no reason to think he would have refused to deliver the decision of the Jerusalem Council to his Galatian converts and every reason to believe he would—particularly if he had written Galatians to them earlier and was now able to say that the Jerusalem leaders supported his position.
G. A Summary Statement (16:5)
5 This summary statement, concluding a crucial phase of Luke’s narrative, is comparable to the summary statements of 6:7; 9:31; 12:24 that culminate their respective panels (cf. also 19:20 and 28:31 later). It stresses the strengthening and growth of the churches as a result of Paul’s missionary policy and the response of the Jerusalem church to it.
Panel 5—Wide Outreach Through Two Missionary Journeys (16:6–19:20)
Panel 5 presents the wide outreach of the Christian mission through two further missionary journeys of Paul in the eastern part of the empire. Having described the gradual extension of the Gospel to new groups of people and through a new missionary policy, Luke now shows its entrance into new areas. Notable in this panel are Luke’s emphases upon (1) God’s direction in and supervision of the Gospel’s outreach, (2) Christianity’s right to be considered a religio licita (see Introduction: Luke’s Purposes in Writing Acts), and (3) Paul’s circumstantial preaching in terms of proclamation and persuasion. Also of interest is the fact that the missionary outreach was confined to the major cities of the Aegean coastline connected by the main Roman roads, and that at the beginning of this panel we have our first “we” section (16:10–17; cf. 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Temporal references in the panel are fairly general, and even when datable—e.g., the Edict of Claudius (18:2) and Gallio’s proconsulate (18:12)—they leave some margin for dispute. Generally, however, the material given here covers the years A.D. 49–56, with the journey into Macedonia and Achaia taking place about 49–52 and the one centered in Ephesus during 53–56.
A. Providential Direction for the Mission (16:6–10)
6 The missionary journeys of Paul reveal an extraordinary combination of strategic planning and sensitivity to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in working out the details of the main goals. This is especially noticeable here. Having revisited the churches at Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, Paul evidently expected to follow the Via Sebaste westward to the important coastal city and capital of the Roman province of Asia, Ephesus. But he was “kept by the Holy Spirit” from entering Asia and so continued to travel throughout “the region of Phrygia and Galatia.” There is some uncertainty as to what Luke meant by this region. Some think that Paul journeyed into northern Galatia, but there is no linguistic support here for a so-called North Galatian theory. Rather, the juxtaposition of “Phrygia” and “Galatia” must be understood either (1) politically, meaning not the entire province of Galatia but only its Phrygic region, or, possibly, (2) ethnologically and popularly, meaning a district adjoining the region of Phrygia in the southern portion of the Roman province of Galatia where both Phrygian and Celtic dialects could be heard.
The heightening of terminology in vv.6–10 from “the Holy Spirit” to “the Spirit of Jesus” to “God” is not just stylistic but an unconscious expression of the early church’s embryonic trinitarian faith. All three terms refer to God by his Spirit giving direction to the mission. But just how the Holy Spirit revealed his will we are not told. Perhaps in one or more instances Silas had a part, for he was a prophet (15:32).
7–8 Mysia was a region in northwest Asia Minor that lacked precise boundaries because it never was an independent political entity. It was generally considered to be bounded by the Aegean Sea on the west; the Hellespont (or Dardanelles), Propontis (or Sea of Marmara), and Bithynia along its northern extremities from west to east; Galatia on the east and southeast; Phrygia to the south; and the area of Lydia to the southwest. It included the historic Aegean seaport of Troas and the site of ancient Troy some ten miles inland.
As Paul’s party moved northwest along the borders of Mysian territory, they decided to go on into the Thracian area of Bithynia in order to evangelize the strategic cities and important Black Sea ports there, all of which were interconnected by an elaborate Roman road system. But, Luke tells us, “the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to” (v.7). Later, Christians in Bithynia were included in the salutation of 1Pe 1:1. But Paul was not directed by God to evangelize there. Instead, the missionary party turned westward again, traveling through Mysia till they reached Troas on the Aegean coast.
9–10 Troas became an important Greek port about 300 B.C. and was named Alexandria Troas. After the break-up of Alexander the Great’s short-lived empire, Troas was ruled for a time by the Seleucids from Syrian Antioch, but it soon became an independent city-state. At the mouth of the Dardanelles, it was the pivotal port between the land masses of Europe and Asia Minor and the great waterways of the Aegean and Black Seas.
At Troas Paul received a vision of a Macedonian asking for help. He took this as a divine call to evangelize Macedonia. Many commentators have suggested that Paul met Luke at Troas, perhaps initially for medical reasons, and that Luke impressed upon him during their conversations the need for the preaching of the Gospel in Macedonia—an encounter God used in a vision to direct Paul and his colleagues to Macedonia. Whatever secondary means God may have used, Paul and his party responded to it at once by making preparations to leave for Macedonia. Such preparations would have required finding passage on a ship sailing for Neapolis.
PAUL’S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY
© 1989 The Zondervan Corporation.
Authentic turning points in history are few. But surely among them that of the Macedonian vision ranks high. Because of Paul’s obedience at this point, the Gospel went westward; and ultimately Europe and the Western world were evangelized. Christian response to the call of God is never a trivial thing. Indeed, as in this instance, great issues and untold blessings may depend on it.
It is at Troas that the first of the “we” sections of Acts appears (16:10–17). Because (1) this “we” section stops at Philippi, (2) the second “we” section (20:5–15) begins when the missionaries revisit Philippi after the third missionary journey, and (3) the ministry at Philippi receives the greatest attention (thirty verses) in this fifth panel, we may reasonably suppose the narrator implied in “we” was Luke and that he was a resident of Philippi who traveled from Troas to Philippi with Paul and Silas.
B. At Philippi (16:11–40)
Luke devotes more space to Paul’s mission in Philippi than he does to any other city on his second and third missionary journeys—and he does this despite the brief stay there. To judge from the “we” sections that end in 16:10–17 and begin again in 20:5–15, it may be that Luke had some part in the founding and growth of the church there.
1. Arrival in the city (16:11–12)
11 Samothrace is an island in the northeastern part of the Aegean Sea, lying between Troas and Philippi. It is the most conspicuous landmark in the North Aegean, for its mountains reach up 5,577 feet. It was a stopover for ships plying their trade in the North Aegean. Neapolis on the northern coast of the Aegean was the port for Philippi, which lay ten miles farther inland. Neapolis was on the Via Egnatia, which ran east to Byzantium and west to Philippi, then to Thessalonica, and finally across the Balkan peninsula to the Adriatic coast.
Since Luke was on board, we have a port-by-port description of the voyage, with specific mention of the time it took—as we do in the other “we” sections (see comment on 16:6–19:20). The wind at this crossing must have favored the travelers, for it took only two days to sail the 156 miles to Neapolis, though the trip in the other direction after the third missionary journey took five days (cf. 20:5).
12 Philippi was situated on a plain bounded by Mount Pangaeus to the north and northeast, with the rivers Strymon and Nestos on either side. Its fame in earlier days came from its fertile plain and gold in the mountains to the north. Philip II of Macedon recognized the city’s importance, and in 356 B.C. he established a large Greek colony there. With the subjugation of the Macedonians by Rome in 167 B.C., Philippi became part of the Roman Empire. In 146 B.C. it was included within the reorganized province of Macedonia, whose capital was at Thessalonica. In 42 B.C., the city was designated a Roman colony, meaning that its government was responsible directly to the emperor and not to the provincial administration. Philippi’s importance during the NT period, therefore, resulted from its agriculture, its strategic commercial location on both sea and land routes, its still functioning gold mines, and its status as a Roman colony. In addition, it had a famous school of medicine with graduates throughout the then-known world.
Luke’s reference to Philippi as “the leading [or first] city of that district of Macedonia” is somewhat confusing. Actually, Amphipolis, the early district capital between 167 and 146 B.C., and Thessalonica, the provincial capital after that, had a more valid claim to that title. Luke’s designation of Philippi in this manner probably expresses his pride in his city (though the expression might also mean that is was the leading city only in that particular part of Macedonia).
2. The conversion of Lydia (16:13–15)
13 In Jewish law, a synagogue congregation could be formed only if there were at least ten male heads of households. Failing this, a place of prayer under the open sky and near a river or the sea was to be arranged for. Philippi apparently did not have the quorum and so was without a synagogue. On the Sabbath, therefore, Paul and his companions walked outside the city in search of a Jewish place of prayer, probably heading toward the Gangites River about a mile and a half west of the city. There they found some women gathered for informal worship (see comment on 13:14b–15). The most they could hope for was to hear from a traveling Jewish teacher an exposition or exhortation from Scripture and receive a blessing. Paul and his companions sat down with these women and began to speak to them.
14–15 One of the women was from Thyatira, a city of western Asia Minor. It had been part of the ancient kingdom of Lydia before its incorporation into the Roman province of Asia; hence the woman was called Lydia (or, perhaps, “the Lydian lady”). Thyatira was famous for making purple dyes and for dyeing clothes—industries that were mostly carried on by women at home. Lydia had come to Philippi to carry on her trade. She was a “God-fearer,” having doubtless received instruction at a synagogue in her native Thyatira. She was likely either a widow or unmarried, and some of the women gathered for worship were relatives and servants living in her home. As she listened, God opened her heart to the Christian message and “she and the members of her household were baptized.” Then she urged the missionary party to stay at her home, which they did.
From such small beginnings the church at Philippi began. To judge from his letter to the Philippians, it was one of Paul’s most-loved congregations. Luke, as suggested above, was probably involved in the establishment and growth of this church. Soon, it seems, Lydia’s home became the center for Christian outreach and worship in Philippi (cf. 16:40).
3. The demon-possessed girl (16:16–18)
16 One day on their way to the Jewish place of prayer, the missionaries were met by a slave girl possessed by a demonic spirit. Undoubtedly all who knew the girl regarded her as neither fraudulent nor insane but one who could foretell the future. By her fortunetelling, she earned her masters much money.
17–18 As the girl followed Paul and his companions around, she kept on screaming out: “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved” (cf. Mk 1:24; 3:11; 5:7; Lk 4:34, 41; 8:28). This acknowledgment is stated in terms acceptable to the Jewish world and readily understandable to Gentiles. The title “Most High God,” while originally a Phoenician ascription for deity, was used by the Hebrews for the Lord their God (cf. Nu 24:16; Ps 78:35; Isa 14:14; et al.) and by the Greeks for Zeus. And the announcement of “salvation”— while for Paul and the Jews referring to deliverance from sin—would have connoted for Gentiles release from the powers governing the fate of humans and of the material world. It was, therefore, cast in terms Gentiles could understand but Paul could build on.
But while the demon-inspired words provided some free publicity for the missionaries and helped gather an audience, when it continued for many days, it became a nuisance. The demon’s words were getting more of a hearing than the proclamation of the Gospel! So Paul commanded the evil spirit “in the name of Jesus Christ” to come out of the girl, and the demon left her. Presumably, having been delivered by the power of God, she became a Christian and a church member.
4. Paul and Silas in prison (16:19–34)
19–21 What Paul did for the slave girl was not appreciated by her masters. In exorcising the demon, he had exorcised their source of income. Because of interference with what they claimed as their property rights, and with callous disregard for the girl’s welfare, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the city’s authorities. The charge laid was that Paul and Silas were advocating a religio illicita and thus disturbing the Pax Romana. But the charge, spoken in terms that appealed to the latent anti-Semitism of the people (“these men are Jews”) and their racial pride (“us Romans”), ignited the flames of bigotry and prevented any dispassionate discussion of the issues.
Many have asked why only Paul and Silas were singled out for persecution, with Timothy and Luke left free. Of course, Paul and Silas were the leaders of the missionary party and therefore most open to attack. But we must also remember that Paul and Silas were Jews and probably looked very much like Jews. Timothy and Luke, however, being respectively half-Jewish and fully Gentile (cf. Col 4:14, where Luke is grouped by Paul with his Gentile friends), probably looked Greek in both their features and their dress and therefore were left alone. Anti-Semitism lay very near the surface throughout the Roman Empire. Here it seems to have taken over not only in laying the charge but also in identifying the defendants.
22–24 As a Roman colony, Philippi had a form of government that was independent of the provincial administration headquartered in Thessalonica. There were two chief “magistrates” (vv.20, 22, 35–36, 38), who had “officers” (vv.35, 38) serving under them to carry out their orders. Jailers commonly were retired army veterans, who could be expected to follow orders and use their military skills as required.
Incited to anti-Semitic fury by the slave girl’s owners, the crowd turned on Paul and Silas. The magistrates had them stripped and severely flogged as disturbers of the peace and then ordered them to be jailed. The jailer put them into the innermost cell, fastening their feet in stocks. Though both Paul and Silas were Roman citizens and politically exempt from such treatment (cf. comments on v.37), the frenzy of the mob and the rough justice of the colonial magistrates overrode whatever protestations they may have made. Later when writing to the Christians at Corinth, Paul looked back on this experience as one of the afflictions he suffered as a servant of Christ (2Co 11:23, 25).
25–28 One would expect that after such brutal treatment, Paul and Silas would be bemoaning their plight. Certainly they were suffering pain and shock from the flogging. But about midnight, while Paul and Silas were “praying and singing hymns to God,” God suddenly vindicated his servants by sending an earthquake that shook the prison, opened its doors, and loosened the chains of all the prisoners. When the awakened jailer saw the doors open, he surmised the worst. In Roman law a guard who allowed his prisoner to escape was liable to the same penalty the prisoner would have suffered. Thus the jailer drew his sword to kill himself, believing the prisoners had all escaped. But Paul saw him in the doorway and shouted out from within the prison, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!”
29–30 Since it was midnight, the jailer called for torches to dispel the darkness of the prison. Rushing in, he fell trembling before Paul and Silas, doubtless taking them to be some kind of divine messengers. If he had not heard the shouts of the demon-possessed slave girl (v.17), he undoubtedly had heard from others what she was saying. And now what had happened confirmed her words about Paul and Silas. So he cried out, “Lords [kyrioi; GK 3261; NIV “sirs”; a word that certainly carries a note of adoration here], what must I do to be saved?” His question showed recognition of his spiritual need and opened the way for Paul and Silas to give him the Good News about Jesus Christ.
31–34 What Paul and Silas gave the Philippian jailer was the same Christ-centered Gospel that had been proclaimed since Pentecost: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household” (cf. 2:38–39; 3:19–26; 4:12; et al.). But since it was all new to the jailer, the missionaries took time to explain to him and the others of his household “the word of the Lord.” To judge by their actions, the jailer and his family believed in Christ and received the Holy Spirit. The jailer washed the wounds of Paul and Silas, probably at a well in the prison courtyard, and there too he and all his family were baptized. Then he brought the missionaries into his home and fed them. “And the whole family,” Luke tells us, “was filled with joy, because they had come to believe in God.”
5. Paul and Silas leave the city (16:35–40)
35–36 In the morning the magistrates sent the officers to the prison with an order to release the two vagabond Jews. They had probably only wanted to teach them a lesson about the peril of disturbing the peace in a Roman colony and felt that a public flogging and a night in the city’s jail would be sufficient to do that. So they ordered the jailer to release Paul and Silas.
37 Paul, however, refused to be dealt with so summarily. Claiming the rights of Roman citizenship for himself and Silas, he demanded that they be shown the courtesy due a citizen and be escorted out of the prison by the magistrates themselves. According to Roman law, a Roman citizen could travel anywhere within Roman territory under the protection of Rome. He was not subject to local legislation unless he consented, and he could appeal to be tried by Rome, not by local authorities, when in difficulty.
Evidence regarding the exercise of this right of appeal is scanty. We do not know, for example, how a citizen who made the claim “I am a Roman” supported his claim then and there. Most of our information regarding these rights comes from Acts itself (cf. 22:25–29; 25:9–12; 26:32; 27:1; 28:16). Nevertheless, it does seem that the law protected a Roman citizen against arbitrary flogging without a trial.
Paul took pride in his Roman citizenship and valued it highly (22:25–28)—a feeling that was doubtless shared by Silas. Just why they didn’t assert their rights earlier we can only conjecture. Perhaps the uproar of the mob and the hubbub of the beating kept their protestations from being heard. But now they claimed their rights as Roman citizens—probably not only for their own sakes but also to provide some measure of protection for the few believers meeting at Lydia’s home.
38–39 To beat and imprison a Roman citizen without a trial was a serious offense. So when the magistrates heard that Paul and Silas were citizens, they came to apologize for their illegal actions and to escort them out of prison. Then in order to avoid any further embarrassment or opposition from the crowd, they asked Paul and Silas to leave Philippi. Here was one case where Roman officials took action against the Gospel and its messengers. As such, it seems to run counter to Luke’s apologetic purpose in Acts (cf. Introduction: Luke’s Purposes in Writing Acts). But his point is that the magistrates initially acted in ignorance; and when they came to understand matters more fully, they apologized and did what they could to avoid repetition of the blunder.
40 After leaving the prison, Paul and Silas met with the small body of Christians at the house of Lydia and encouraged them in their new faith. Then they left with Timothy to go westward toward Thessalonica. Apparently, Luke stayed behind at Philippi, for only later (20:5) does the second “we” section begin—again at Philippi. By that time the little congregation that had begun so modestly had grown in size and spirituality; for in the letter Paul later wrote them, he speaks of their “overseers and deacons” (Php 1:1), counsels them as believers growing in maturity, and commends them for their continuing concern for him (cf. Php 2:25–30; 4:10–19).
C. At Thessalonica (17:1–9)
1 Thirty-three miles southwest of Philippi was Amphipolis, at one time the capital of the northern district of Macedonia. Situated on the east bank of the Strymon River, it straddled the Via Egnatia. But though it was larger and more important than Philippi, Paul and his companions “passed through” it. As they continued west-southwest, they also passed through Apollonia some twenty-seven miles beyond Amphipolis. Their desire was to reach Thessalonica, the capital of Macedonia and its largest and most prosperous city, lying another forty miles southwest of Apollonia.
Thessalonica (modern Salonika) was strategically located on the Thermaic Gulf. Straddling the Via Egnatia, it linked the rich agricultural plains of the Macedonian interior with the land and sea routes to the east. When Rome conquered Macedonia in 167 B.C., Thessalonica became the capital of the second of the four administrative districts of the province. With the reorganization of Macedonia into one province in 142 B.C. it became the capital. It was declared a free city in 42 B.C.
As a large commercial and government city of perhaps two hundred thousand, Thessalonica naturally attracted diverse groups of people, including a substantial Jewish contingent (1Th 2:14–16). Paul seems to have looked on it as the strategic center for the spread of the Gospel throughout the Balkan peninsula (1Th 1:7–8). Therefore Paul and Silas—though doubtless in some pain from their recent beating and time in the stocks—pushed on resolutely the hundred miles from Philippi to Thessalonica.
2–3 In portraying the extension of the Gospel to the main cities bordering the Aegean Sea, Luke lays special emphasis on the fact that Paul’s preaching consisted of both proclamation and persuasion—interlocking elements of the one act of preaching. He had struck such a note earlier (cf. 13:43), and it will continue to be heard in 17:17; 18:4, 19; 19:8–10; 20:9; 24:25; 26:28; 28:23.
At Thessalonica the missionaries, true to their policy of “to the Jews first, but also to the Gentiles” (cf. comments on 13:46–52), sought out the local synagogue, sure of finding there a prepared audience of both Jews and “God-fearing” Gentiles. During the span of three Sabbath days Paul carefully reasoned from Scripture, attempting to prove that the Messiah had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead. Then he went on to declare: “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” In other words, the preaching of Paul at Thessalonica was a “proclaimed witness”—i.e., a witness to the facts that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that his suffering and resurrection were in accord with the Scriptures, and that through his earthly ministry and living presence men and women can experience the reign of God in their lives. At times miracles accompanied the proclamation.
4 “Some of the Jews were persuaded,” but the greater number of those who responded positively to Paul’s preaching in the Thessalonian synagogue were “God-fearing” Greeks and “prominent women” (i.e., women of high standing in the city who were the wives of the principal citizens). The Jason mentioned in v.5 as Paul’s host was probably one of the Jewish converts; Aristarchus and Secundus, identified as Thessalonians in 20:4, may have also been converted at this time.
5–7 Just as at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, the Jews who did not believe the Gospel were incensed at the Gentiles’ response to Paul’s preaching and with his direct approach to them. So they stirred up a riot. Their plan was to bring Paul and Silas before “the crowd” and “the city officials” on a charge of disturbing the Pax Romana by preaching a religio illicita and by advocating another king in opposition to Caesar. But when they could not find the missionaries at Jason’s house—evidently because Jason and some others who believed their message had hidden them—they dragged Jason and some other Christian brothers before the politarchs.
As a free city, Thessalonica had its governing assembly of citizens, which is probably what Luke had in mind by the use of the term “crowd” (demos; GK 1322) in v.5. The magistrates of Thessalonica were called “politarchs,” a title applied almost exclusively to Macedonian cities. From five inscriptions referring to Thessalonica, it appears that a body of five politarchs ruled the city during the first century A.D.
Certainly the assembly of citizens and the politarchs at Thessalonica would have known of the troubles within the Jewish community at Rome in connection with Christianity and of Claudius’s edict of A.D. 49–50 for all Jews to leave that city (see comment on 18:2). Probably the Jewish opponents of the missionaries played upon the fear that such a situation might be duplicated at Thessalonica, unless Paul and Silas were expelled. In addition, from their charge that the missionaries proclaimed “another king” (v.7), it may be inferred that they tried to use Paul’s mention of “the kingdom of God” (cf. 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31) to arouse suspicion that he was involved in anti-imperial sedition. Indeed, it may be for this reason that Paul avoided the use of “kingdom” and “king” in his letters to his converts, lest Gentile imperial authorities misconstrue them to connote opposition to empire and emperor.
8–9 The charges against Paul and Silas and their companions naturally alarmed the Thessalonian politarchs. But apparently they found the evidence for the charges scanty; after all, Paul and Silas could not be found. Therefore, they took what they thought to be a moderate and reasonable course of action. They made Jason and those with him post a bond, assuring them that there would be no further trouble. This probably meant that Paul and Silas had to leave Thessalonica and that their friends promised they would not come back, at least during the term of office of the present politarchs.
When writing his Thessalonian converts a few months later, Paul speaks of many times desiring to visit them again but of being unable to because “Satan stopped us” (1Th 2:18). Likely Paul had in mind that posted bond, and therefore his hands were tied. But though he was unable to return, that did not stop either the spread of the Gospel or the opposition of the Jews (cf. 1Th 1:2–10). Amid all their persecutions and difficulties, the Christians of Thessalonica maintained their faith and witness in a manner that filled Paul with joy (cf. 1Th 3:6–10).
D. At Berea (17:10–15)
10 The bail bond Jason and his friends posted would have been forfeited were Paul and Silas to be found in their homes. So the brothers sent them, together with Timothy, on to Berea, some fifty miles southwest of Thessalonica by way of Pella. A city in the foothills of the Olympian range south of the Macedonian plain, Berea was of little importance historically or politically, though it had a large population in NT times. It also was south of the Via Egnatia, but with access to the eastern coastal road that ran down to Achaia and Athens. On arriving there, Paul and his companions went as usual to the synagogue to proclaim the Good News of salvation in Jesus the Christ.
11–12 Luke gives the Jews at Berea undying fame by characterizing them as being “more noble” (GK 2302) than the Thessalonian Jews because they tested the truth of Paul’s message by the touchstone of Scripture rather than judging it by political and cultural considerations. So they examined the Scriptures daily to see whether what Paul proclaimed was really true, and many believed. Among them was probably Sopater son of Pyrrhus (see 20:4; cf. Ro 16:21). Included among the Berean believers were not only “a number of prominent Greek women” but also “many Greek men”—that is, not just converts from among Gentile “God-fearers,” but also converts who had been pagan Gentiles.
13–15 The Thessalonian Jews, on hearing that “the word of God” was being preached at Berea, sent a delegation there to stir up the same opposition as at Thessalonica. Evidently the Berean Christians recognized that not only was Paul not safe at Thessalonica but he was not safe anywhere else in the region, because the Thessalonian Jews had the ear of the provincial authorities. So the Bereans acted immediately as if they were taking Paul to a coastal town to sail for some other country. Having thrown their opponents off the track, they escorted Paul down to the province of Achaia and into Athens, apparently to stay there with some of their relatives. Silas and Timothy remained in Berea since they were not in such danger as Paul. But when those accompanying Paul to Athens returned to Berea, they brought a message from Paul for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible—doubtless because he saw that Athens was another strategic center for proclaiming the Gospel and wanted Silas and Timothy with him.
The movements of Silas and Timothy after Paul left them at Berea are rather difficult to trace, because Luke was not always concerned with details of the minor characters in his narrative and because Paul’s references to their activities are somewhat incidental and allusive. But in accord with Paul’s instructions, Silas and Timothy rejoined Paul at Athens (1Th 3:1). Then Timothy was sent back to Thessalonica (1Th 3:2). Silas, however, seems to have gone back to Macedonia (cf. 18:5—probably to Philippi, where he received from the young congregation there a gift of money for the support of the missionaries; see Php 4:15). In the meantime, Paul moved from Athens to Corinth (Ac 18:1) and was rejoined there by Silas and Timothy (18:5; 1Th 3:6).
E. At Athens (17:16–34)
Paul’s coming to Athens appears to have been intended primarily to escape persecution in Macedonia; preaching in Athens was not part of his original plan. Presumably, when called to Macedonia (16:6–10), he had planned to follow the Via Egnatia all the way to Dyrrhachium, then cross the Adriatic to Italy, and so to Rome. When writing the Christians at Rome some six or seven years later, Paul speaks of having often planned to visit them but being unable to do so (Ro 1:13; 15:22–23). Provincial action in Macedonia appears to have thwarted his plans for a continued mission in Macedonia, and news of Claudius’s expulsion of the Jewish community in Rome (A.D. 49–50; see Ac 18:2) would have caused him to change his plans.
But now in Athens, Paul saw rampant idolatry all around him; this compelled him to present the claims of Christ to Jews and “God-fearing” Gentiles in the synagogue on the Sabbath and to whoever would listen in the marketplace on weekdays. As with Jeremiah (cf. Jer 20:9), “the word of God” burned within Paul like a fire in his bones, and he could not keep silent.
1. Inauguration of a ministry (17:16–21)
16 Athens is five miles inland from its port of Piraeus, which is on an arm of the Aegean Sea stretching fifty miles between Attica and the Peloponnesus. It is situated on a narrow plain between Mount Parnes to the north, Mount Pentelicus to the east, and Mount Hymettus to the southeast. When the Persians tried to conquer Greece in the fifth century B.C., Athens played a prominent part in resisting them. It reached its zenith under Pericles (495–429 B.C.); and during the last fifteen years of his life, the Parthenon, numerous temples, and other splendid buildings were built. Literature, philosophy, science, and rhetoric flourished; and Athens attracted intellectuals from all over the world. Politically it became a democracy.
Culturally and intellectually, Athens remained supreme for centuries, with such figures as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno living there. In 338 B.C. Philip II of Macedonia conquered Athens, but the conquest only served to spread Athenian culture and learning into Asia and Egypt through his son, Alexander the Great. Even when the Romans conquered Athens in 146 B.C., it continued as the cultural and intellectual center of the world. Rome also left the city free politically.
When Paul came to Athens, its population probably numbered no more than ten thousand. Yet it had a glorious past on which it continued to live. Its temples and statuary were related to the worship of the Greek pantheon, and its culture was pagan. Therefore Paul, with his Jewish abhorrence of idolatry, could not but find the culture of Athens spiritually repulsive.
17 In spite of not wanting to begin a mission in Athens until Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul could not keep from proclaiming the Good News about Jesus the Messiah when he attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. There he “reasoned” (GK 1363) with the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. He also presented Jesus in the marketplace (the agora, i.e., the forum of the city and the center of Athenian life) every day to all who would listen.
18 Athens was the home of the rival Epicurean and Stoic schools of philosophy. Epicurus (342–270 B.C.) held that pleasure was the chief goal of life, with the pleasure most worth enjoying being a life of tranquillity free from pain, disturbing passions, superstitious fears, and anxiety about death. He did not deny the existence of gods but argued in deistic fashion that they took no interest in the lives of people. Zeno (340–265 B.C.) was the founder of Stoicism. His teaching centered on living harmoniously with nature and emphasized one’s rational abilities and individual self-sufficiency. Theologically, he was essentially pantheistic and thought of God as “the World-soul.”
Epicureanism and Stoicism represented the popular Gentile alternatives for dealing with the plight of humanity and for coming to terms with life apart from the biblical revelation and God’s work in Jesus Christ. When the followers of Epicurus and Zeno heard Paul speaking in the agora, they began to dispute with him. Some in their pride declared him to be a “babbler” (i.e., a ne’er-do-well; GK 5066). Others, however, thought Paul was advocating foreign gods, probably mistaking Anastasis (“resurrection”; GK 414) as the goddess consort of a god named Jesus.
19–20 The Areopagus (meaning “Council of Ares”; GK 740) reaches back to legendary antiquity. Presumably it first met at Athens on the Hill of Ares, northwest of the Acropolis, for murder trials. Early descriptions of processions in ancient Greek city-states, however, depict the Areopagus of the cities as always heading the column of dignitaries, which suggests that the “Court” or “Council of Ares” was the senate or city council of a Greek city-state. In Roman times it was still the chief judicial body of the city and exercised jurisdiction in such matters as religion and education.
It was before this council that the followers of Epicurus and Zeno brought Paul—probably half in jest and half in derision, and certainly not seeking an impartial inquiry after truth. The city fathers, however, took their task seriously because the fame of Athens rested on its intellectual ferment and on the interplay of competing philosophies. So we should doubtless understand Paul’s appearance before the Athenian Council of Ares as being for the purpose of explaining his message before those in control of affairs in the city so that he might either receive the freedom of the city to preach or be censored and silenced.
21 Luke’s comment about the Athenians “doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas” is paralleled in the evaluation of his fellow Athenians by Cleon, a fifth-century B.C. politician and general, and by Demosthenes (384–322 B.C.).
2. Paul’s address before the Council of Ares (17:22–31)
22–23 Paul does not begin his address by referring to Jewish history or by quoting the Jewish Scriptures, as he did in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch (cf. 13:16–41). He knew it would be futile to refer to a history no one knew or argue from fulfillment of prophecy no one accepted as authoritative. Nor does he develop his argument from the God who gives rain and crops and provides food, as he did at Lystra (cf. 14:15–17). Instead, he took for his point of contact an altar he had seen in the city with the inscription “To an Unknown God.” The presence of such altars is attested by other Greek writers, so it is not surprising that Paul came across such an altar in the city.
As with the other speeches in Acts, this one is a precis by Luke, in which he summarizes the basic content of what Paul said. Luke gives us another illustration of how Paul began on common ground with his hearers and sought to lead them from it to accept the work and person of Jesus as the apex of God’s redemptive work for humanity.
24–28 The substance of the Athenian address concerns the nature of God and the responsibility of human beings to God. Contrary to all pantheistic and polytheistic notions, God is the one, Paul says, who has created the world and everything in it; he is the Lord of heaven and earth (cf. Ge 14:19, 22). He does not live in temples “made by hands,” nor is he dependent for his existence upon anything he has created. Rather, he is the source of life and breath and everything else humanity possesses. While Paul’s argument can be paralleled at some points by the paganism of his day, its content is decidedly biblical (cf. 1Ki 8:27; Isa 66:1–2).
Contrary to the Athenians’ boast that they had originated from the soil of their Attic homeland and therefore were not like other people, Paul affirms the oneness of humankind in their creation by the one God and their descent from a common ancestor. And contrary to the “deism” that permeated the philosophies of the day, he proclaimed that this God has determined specific times for humans and “the exact places where they should live,” so that they would seek him and find him.
In support of this teaching about humankind, Paul quotes two maxims from Greek poets. The first (“For in him we live and move and have our being”) comes from the Cretan poet Epimenides (c. 600 B.C.); the second (“for we are his offspring”), from the Cilician poet Aratus (c. 315–240 B.C.). By such maxims, Paul is not suggesting that God is to be thought of in terms of the Zeus of Greek polytheism or Stoic pantheism. He is rather arguing that the poets his hearers recognized as authorities have to some extent corroborated his message. In his search for a measure of common ground with his hearers, he is, so to speak, disinfecting and rebaptizing the poets’ words for his own purposes. But despite its form, Paul’s address was thoroughly biblical and Christian in its content.
29–31 The climax of the address focuses on the progressive unfolding of redemption and the apex of that redemption in Jesus Christ. Since we are God’s “offspring” (GK 1169)—not in a pantheistic sense but in the biblical sense of being created in God’s image—we should not, Paul insists, think of deity in terms of gold, silver, or stone. All that idolatrous ignorance was overlooked by God in the past (cf. 14:16; Ro 3:25) because God has always been more interested in repentance than judgment. Nevertheless, in the person and work of Jesus, God has acted in such a manner as to make idolatry particularly heinous. To reject Jesus, therefore, is to reject the personal and vicarious intervention of God on behalf of humankind and to open oneself up God’s future judgment meted out by the very one rejected in the present. And God himself has authenticated all this by raising Jesus from the dead.
3. The response to Paul’s address (17:32–34)
32 While the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the convincing proof to the early Christians and Paul that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” (2Co 5:19), to the majority of Athenians it was the height of folly. The tragic poet Aeschylus (525–456 B.C.), for example, made the god Apollo say, “When the dust has soaked up a man’s blood, once he is dead, there is no resurrection.” If Paul had talked about the immortality of the soul, he would have gained the assent of most of his audience except the Epicureans. Instead, outright scorn was the response of many of his hearers. Others, probably with more politeness than curiosity or conviction, suggested that they would like to hear Paul on the subject at another time.
33–34 Paul obviously failed to convince the council of the truth of his message, and he evidently failed as well to gain the right to propagate his views. He could tell from this first meeting that sentiment was against him. Some, of course, did believe, for God always has his few in even the most difficult of situations. Among them were Dionysius, who was himself a member of the Council of Ares, and a woman named Damaris. But because no action had been taken to approve Paul’s right to continue teaching in the city, his hands were legally tied. With a vast territory yet to be entered and a great number of people yet to be reached, Paul decided to move on. We hear of no church at Athens in the apostolic age; and when Paul speaks of “the first converts in Achaia,” it is to “the household of Stephanas” in Corinth that he refers (1Co 16:15).
Many have claimed that Paul’s failure at Athens stemmed largely from a change in his style of preaching and that later on at Corinth he repudiated it (cf. 1Co 1:18–2:5). He spoke, they charge, about providence and being “in God” but forgot the message of grace and being “in Christ”; about creation and appealed to the Greek poets but did not refer to redemption or revelation; about world history but not salvation history; about resurrection but not the cross. We should remember, however, that going to Athens was not part of Paul’s original missionary strategy. Nor should we minimize the working of God’s Spirit or Paul’s message because only a few responded. Still, the outreach of the Gospel at Athens in overall terms must be judged a failure. But the reason for this lay more in the attitude of the Athenians themselves than in Paul’s approach or in what he said.
F. At Corinth (18:1–17)
Paul’s coming to Corinth was “in weakness and fear, and with much trembling” (1Co 2:3). Though he was directed through a vision to minister in Macedonia (cf. Ac 16:9–10), the mission there had not gone at all as he had expected. Nor had his initial attempt in Achaia provided him with any reason to hope for a change in his fortunes. So he must have traveled from Athens to Corinth in a dejected mood, wondering what worse could happen and why God had allowed matters to fall out so badly. Also, he was almost sick with anxiety over the state of the Thessalonian converts whom he had been forced to leave with the threat of persecution hanging over them (cf. 1Th 2:17–3:5). All this drove Paul into depression. He was only human, and he found that his emotions affected his spiritual well-being and his work. Perhaps at this time he prayed repeatedly for deliverance from his “thorn in the flesh,” to which the Lord responded, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (cf. 2Co 12:7–10).
At Corinth the exact situation is difficult to ascertain, mainly because in his letters to the Corinthians Paul provides so much allusive material about his relations with them, while Luke gives so little in Acts. One reason for this problem is the wide difference of purpose between Paul and Luke in their written materials: Paul’s concern was pastoral and Luke’s apologetic. Luke’s main interest here in Ac 18 is the proceedings before Gallio (vv.12–17), in order (1) to demonstrate that one of the wisest of the Roman proconsuls had declared Christianity to be a religio licita and (2) to warn that if Rome began to persecute the church, it would be acting contrary to Gallio, a ruler renowned for his urbanity and wit.
1. Arrival at Corinth (18:1–4)
1 Corinth was on a plateau overlooking the isthmus connecting central Greece to the north with the Peloponnesus to the south. It was built on the north side of the Acrocorinth, an acropolis rising precipitously to 1,886 feet and providing an almost impregnable fortress for the city. To the east was the port of Cenchrea leading out to the Aegean Sea, and to the west, the port of Lechaeum opening to the Adriatic. Smaller ships were actually dragged over wooden rollers across the isthmus for the three and one-half miles between Cenchrea and Lechaeum in order to avoid the long and dangerous trip around the southern tip of the Peloponnesus; cargoes of larger ships were carried overland from port to port.
Because of its strategic land and sea location, Corinth had become a prosperous city-state in the eighth century B.C., reaching its zenith during the seventh and sixth centuries with a population of approximately two hundred thousand free men and five hundred thousand slaves. In 338 B.C. the city was captured by Philip II of Macedon, who made it the center of his Hellenic League; and after Alexander the Great died, it became a leading member of the Achaian League of Greek city-states. In 196 B.C. Corinth was captured by the Romans and declared a free city. In 146 B.C., however, it was destroyed as retribution for the leading part it played in the revolt of the Achaian League against Rome. Julius Caesar decreed in 46 B.C. that it should be rebuilt; in 27 B.C. it became the capital of the Roman province of Achaia.
The population of Corinth in NT times was probably over two hundred thousand, made up of local Greeks, freedmen from Italy, Roman army veterans, businessmen and governmental officials, and Orientals from the Levant—including a large number of Jews. Thanks to its commercial advantages, the city greatly prospered. But along with its wealth and luxury, there was immorality of every kind. Beginning with the fifth century B.C., the verb “to corinthianize” meant to be sexually immoral. Corinth was also the center for the worship of the goddess Aphrodite, whose temple at one time boasted of a thousand sacred prostitutes and crowned the Acrocorinth. Many other pagan shrines, such as those built to Melicertes (the god of sailors), Apollo, and Asclepius (the god of healing), were also located there.
2–3 Entering this large and thriving city, Paul probably asked a passerby where he could find a master tentmaker or leather worker to seek a job from so that he could support himself. On his missionary journeys Paul earned his living in this occupation (cf. 20:34; 1Co 9:1–18; 2Co 11:7–12). So he came in contact with the Jewish Christian couple Aquila and Priscilla, with whom he lived and worked, presumably alongside other journeymen.
Aquila was a native of Pontus, a region in northern Asia Minor on the south shore of the Black Sea. Priscilla is the diminutive of the more formal name Prisca. Since Priscilla is often listed before her husband (18:18–19, 26; Ro 16:3; 2Ti 4:19), we may conclude that she came from a higher social class than her husband or was in some way considered more important. Perhaps Aquila was a former Jewish slave who became a freedman in Rome and married a Jewess connected with the Roman family Prisca, which possessed citizenship rights. Together they owned a tentmaking and leather-working firm, with branches of the business at Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus (see texts listed above).
Lately Aquila and Priscilla had been forced to leave Rome because of the Edict of Claudius, an expulsion order proclaimed during the ninth year of Emperor Claudius’s reign (i.e., January 25, A.D. 49 to January 24, 50). It was directed against the Jews in Rome to put down the riots arising within the Jewish community there “at the instigation of Chrestus” (according to the Roman historian Suetonius). Many take this to be a reference to Christ (Gk. Christos), where the dispute in the Jewish community was between those who accepted his messiahship and those did not. We do not know whether Aquila and Priscilla had any part in the riots—either as agitators or victims.
4 While working with Aquila and Priscilla, Paul attended the local synagogue every Sabbath. There, Luke tells us, “he reasoned” (GK 1363) with those gathered, “trying to persuade” both Jews and Gentiles. But his ministry during those weeks seems to have been relatively unobtrusive, probably conforming to the kind of witness Aquila and Priscilla were already carrying on among the Jews.
2. An eighteen-month ministry (18:5–11)
5 The coming of Silas and Timothy to Corinth altered the situation for Paul. They brought good news about the Christians at Thessalonica (cf. 1Th 3:6) and a gift of money from the congregation at Philippi (cf. 2Co 11:9; Php 4:14–15). The news from Thessalonica was better than Paul dared expect, and it greatly comforted and encouraged him (cf. 1Th 3:7–10)—though it also told of a slanderous campaign started against him outside the congregation (1Th 2:3–6) and of some perplexity within it concerning the return of Christ (1Th 4:13–5:11). The money from Philippi was especially welcome at this time, for Paul was now able to devote himself “exclusively to preaching.” His purpose was to proclaim the Good News to the Jews of the synagogue that Jesus is “the Christ.”
In response to the report from Thessalonica, Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, in which are interwoven (1) commendation for growth, zeal, and fidelity; (2) encouragement in the face of local persecution; (3) defense of his motives against hostile attack; (4) instruction regarding holiness of life; (5) instruction about the coming of the Lord; and (6) exhortation to steadfastness and patience. Some weeks later, on learning of continued confusion at Thessalonica regarding the return of Christ and the believer’s relation to it, he wrote 2 Thessalonians. In that second letter, while acknowledging that the church lives in eager expectation of the Lord’s return, Paul insists that imminency must not be construed to mean immediacy but is rather the basis for dogged persistence in doing right.
6–7 The ministry at Corinth followed the pattern set at Pisidian Antioch (cf. 13:46–52): initial proclamation in the synagogue, rejection by the majority of Jews, and then a direct outreach to Gentiles. In solemn biblical style (cf. Ne 5:13), Paul “shook out his clothes”—an act symbolizing repudiation of the Jews’ opposition, exempting himself from further responsibility for them (cf. 13:51), and protesting against what he considered the Jews’ “blasphemy” (NIV, “became abusive”; GK 1059; cf. 13:45; 26:11). So leaving the synagogue, he went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a “God-fearing” Gentile who was receiving instruction at the synagogue. He invited Paul to make his home the headquarters for his work in Corinth, presumably because he believed Paul’s message. The house of Titius Justus therefore became the first meeting place of the Corinthian church. The first name of this person may have been Gaius, for in Ro 16:23 Paul says that he and the whole church at Corinth enjoyed Gaius’s hospitality. In 1Co 1:14 Paul also speaks of a Gaius whom he personally baptized as he began his Christian ministry in Corinth.
8 One of the first to accept Paul’s message at Corinth was Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, who, together with his whole household, “believed in the Lord.” He was certainly one of the most prominent believers, and his conversion must have made a great impact and led to other conversions. Paul lists him first in 1Co 1:14–16 among the few that he had baptized.
9–10 Paul had come to Corinth in a dejected mood, burdened by the problems in Macedonia and his dismissal at Athens. Of course, he had been encouraged by the reports and the gift brought by Silas and Timothy, and he was beginning to witness a significant response to his ministry. But a pattern had developed in his Galatian and Macedonian journeys of a promising start, followed by opposition strong enough to force him to leave. Undoubtedly he was beginning to wonder whether this pattern would be repeated at Corinth. So one night God graciously gave Paul a vision in which “the Lord” (GK 3261; evidently Jesus, as in 23:11) encouraged him not to be afraid but to keep on, assured him of his presence and of suffering no harm, and told him that many “people” in the city were to be Christ’s own. Here was one of those critical periods in Paul’s life when he received a vision strengthening him for what lay ahead (see also 23:11; 27:23–24). In this case, it was confirmed by the ensuing Gallio incident.
11 With such a promising start and encouraged by the vision, Paul continued to minister at Corinth for a total of eighteen months, during which time he taught the message about salvation in Jesus. This period probably stretched from the fall of A.D. 50 to the spring of 52, as can be determined from the story about Gallio (vv.12–17).
3. Before the proconsul Gallio (18:12–17)
12–13 The promise given Paul in the vision was that he would be protected from harm at Corinth, not that he would be free from difficulties or attack. As more and more people responded to Paul’s preaching, his Jewish opponents attacked him and laid a charge against him. This occurred, Luke says, “while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia.” From what we know of Roman history, Luke is amazingly accurate in the words he uses to designate the various governing officials of Roman provinces.
Gallio was the son of Marcus Annaeus Seneca, the distinguished Spanish rhetorician (50 B.C.–A.D. 40). He was born in Cordova at the beginning of the Christian Era and named Marcus Annaeus Novatus. On coming to Rome with his father during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41–54), he was adopted by the Roman rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, and thereafter bore the name of his adoptive father. He was renowned for his personal charm. An inscription at Delphi mentions Gallio as being proconsul of Achaia during the period of Claudius’s twenty-sixth acclamation as imperator—that is, during the first seven months of A.D. 52. Proconsuls entered office in the senatorial provinces on July 1, and therefore Gallio became proconsul of Achaia on July 1, 51, but only for a brief period of time.
Paul seems to have been preaching in Corinth for eight or nine months before Gallio came to Achaia as proconsul (i.e., from the fall of 50 to July 1, 51). When he took office, the Jews decided to try out the new proconsul. They brought Paul before him on a charge that he was preaching a religio illicita and therefore acting contrary to Roman law.
14–16 The word “law” (GK 3795) in v.13 is somewhat ambiguous. Undoubtedly when it was first used by Paul’s antagonists in their synagogue, it referred to God’s law against which they were convinced Paul was speaking. But at the proconsul’s forum, they meant “law” to be understood as Roman law, which they charged Paul was breaking. Gallio, however, after hearing their charges, was not at all convinced that this was true. For him the squabble was an intramural one about “a word [NIV, words; GK 3364] and names and their own law”—which doubtless means a squabble concerning “a message,” “names” (having to do with an expected Messiah), and particular interpretations of the Jewish law. Gallio’s responsibility was to judge civil and criminal cases, not to become an arbitrator of religious disputes. What Paul was preaching, in his view, was simply a variety of Judaism that did not happen to suit the leaders of the Jewish community at Corinth but which was not for that reason to be declared religio illicita. Thus he did not need to hear Paul’s defense but ejected the plaintiffs from the forum as not having a case worth being heard by a proconsul.
The importance of Gallio’s decision was profound. Luke highlights it in his account of Paul’s ministry at Corinth and makes it the apex of all that took place on Paul’s second missionary journey. No Roman authority had yet repudiated Christianity’s claim to share in the religio licita status of Judaism—neither in Macedonia nor in Athens. If Gallio had accepted the Jewish charge and found Paul guilty of the alleged offense, provincial governors everywhere would have had a precedent, and Paul’s ministry would have been severely restricted. As it was, Gallio’s refusal to act in the matter was tantamount to the recognition of Christianity as a religio licita; and the decision of so eminent a Roman proconsul would carry weight wherever the issue arose again. Later, in the sixties, Rome’s policy toward both Judaism and Christianity changed. But for the coming decade, the Christian message could be proclaimed in the provinces of the empire without fear of coming into conflict with Roman law.
17 Taking their cue from the snub that Gallio gave the leaders of the Jewish community, the crowd at the forum—in an outbreak of the anti-Semitism that always lay near the surface in the Greco-Roman world—took Sosthenes, the synagogue ruler, and beat him. Gallio, however, turned a blind eye to what was going on, evidently because he wanted to teach a lesson to those who would waste his time with such trivialities.
G. An Interlude (18:18–28)
The ministry at Corinth proceeded without any legal hindrance and with considerable success for some nine months after Gallio’s decision. In the spring of 52, however, Paul left Corinth to return to Jerusalem and then to Syrian Antioch—primarily to complete a vow at Jerusalem he had taken earlier. In vv.18–23 Luke briefly summarizes Paul’s route. And in vv.24–28 he uses this interlude in his portrayal of the advance of the Good News to introduce Apollos (cf. 1Co 3:5–9; 4:6–7; 16:12).
1. Paul’s return to Palestine-Syria (18:18–23)
18 Paul now decided to leave Corinth, sail for Jerusalem, and then go on to Syrian Antioch. As he set out, he had his hair cut “because of a vow he had taken.” Paul had apparently earlier taken a Nazirite vow that had now ended; such a vow had to be fulfilled at Jerusalem, where the hair would be presented to God and sacrifices offered. For one who thought of himself as a Jewish Christian (2Co 11:22; cf. Ro 9–11) and who at the conclusion of three missionary journeys to the Gentile world could still insist that he was “a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” (Ac 23:6; cf. 26:5), such an action should not be thought strange. As a Gentile writing to Gentiles, however, Luke felt no need to explain this distinctly Jewish practice.
19 Boarding a ship at Cenchrea, Paul crossed to Ephesus, the major commercial center and capital of the Roman province of Asia. With him were Aquila and Priscilla, his hosts at Corinth, who were either transferring their business from Corinth to Ephesus or leaving their Corinthian operation in charge of a manager in order to open a new branch at Ephesus. What happened to Silas and Timothy during this time, we do not know. They may have remained at Corinth to carry on the ministry there. Or perhaps they went with Paul to Jerusalem, then to Antioch in Syria, and back to Ephesus.
On arriving at Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla set up their business in the city. There they were to remain for four or five years, hosting a congregation of believers in their home and sending their greetings back to their Corinthian friends in one of Paul’s letters (cf. 1Co 16:19). They were probably there during Demetrius’s riot (cf. 19:23–41), even risking their lives to protect Paul (cf. Ro 16:4). Sometime after Claudius’s death in A.D. 54, they returned to Rome (cf. Ro 16:3). Paul, having wanted earlier to minister at Ephesus (cf. 16:6), went to the synagogue and “reasoned” with the Jews gathered there. Though it was not the Sabbath, he knew he could find an audience in the synagogue and probably desired to “test the waters” in anticipation of his later return.
20–21 In the synagogue at Ephesus, Paul found a receptive audience. But though they encouraged him to stay, he seems to have felt that fulfilling his vow at Jerusalem took priority over everything else. Nevertheless, he promised to return, if it were in the will of God. And with a heart lightened by the prospect of a future ministry at Ephesus, he sailed for Jerusalem.
22 Paul probably booked passage for Caesarea, the port city of Jerusalem since the time of Herod the Great (cf. comments on 10:1). From Caesarea, he “went up” to Jerusalem, some sixty-five miles southeast. While the name “Jerusalem” does not appear in the text, it is certainly implied by the expressions “went up” and “went down,” and also by the absolute use of the term “the church.” At Jerusalem, then, he met with the mother church. In addition, he undoubtedly entered into a thirty-day program of purification for his Nazirite vow, after which he presented his shorn hair to God in thanksgiving and offered sacrifices. Then he “went down” to Antioch of Syria, some three hundred miles north, reporting to and ministering within the church that originally commissioned him to reach the Gentiles (13:1–4).
23 Paul remained at Syrian Antioch probably from the summer of 52 through the spring of 53. Then, on what was to be his third missionary journey, he set out for Ephesus some fifteen hundred miles to the west, revisiting the churches throughout “the region of Galatia and Phrygia” and “strengthening all the disciples.” Once again, Luke is probably referring to the Phrygian region of Galatia or some district in southern Galatia where both Phrygian and Celtic dialects could be heard (cf. comments on 16:6). He strengthened the Christian disciples in the areas surrounding Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe.
2. Apollos at Ephesus and Corinth (18:24–28)
24–26 Between the time of Paul’s stopover at Ephesus (18:19–21) and his return to the city on his third missionary journey (19:1ff.), Apollos came to Ephesus. A native of Alexandria, he was a highly educated man and possessed a thorough knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures. Somewhere and somehow he had received instruction about Jesus, and to that extent he knew the Gospel “accurately” and “spoke with great fervor” concerning Jesus. When Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos in the synagogue, they recognized some deficiencies in his understanding of the Christian message. So they invited him to their home and explained “the way of God” to him “more accurately.”
Apollos’s knowledge of Jesus seems to have come through disciples of John the Baptist, perhaps when he was in Alexandria. Presumably he knew that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and knew something of Jesus’ earthly ministry, but that is all. When instructed further by Priscilla and Aquila, Apollos readily accepted all God had done in the death and resurrection of Jesus and in sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
27–28 A number of people who identified themselves in some way with the Gospel were at Ephesus before Paul began to minister there—people like Priscilla and Aquila who understood clearly, like Apollos whose understanding was growing, or like those mentioned in 19:1–7, 13–16, whose faith was to some extent deviant. When Apollos desired to visit Achaia, apparently on behalf of the Gospel, the Christians of Ephesus encouraged him and sent along a letter of commendation, probably written by Priscilla and Aquila, to the believers at Corinth. There he vigorously debated with the Jews and showed from the OT that Jesus was the Messiah. People in the Corinthian church obviously thought highly of him, as Paul also did later (see 1Co 1–4).
H. At Ephesus (19:1–19)
The third missionary journey of Paul was chiefly devoted to an extended ministry at Ephesus, the city he apparently hoped to reach at the start of his second journey. On his brief visit there less than a year before, it had shown a real response to the Gospel (18:19–21). Luke’s account of the ministry at Ephesus is abbreviated, with a short summary of only five verses (vv.8–12) sandwiched between two striking vignettes of a deviant kind of faith (vv.1–7, 13–19). In all, Paul’s Ephesian ministry lasted about three years, from A.D. 53 through 56.
1. Twelve men without the Spirit (19:1–7)
1 Ephesus was on the western coast of Asia Minor, at the mouth of the Cayster River and between the Koressos mountain range and the Aegean Sea. It was founded in the twelfth or eleventh century B.C. by Ionian colonists from Athens as a gateway to the vast resources of the Asian steppes. In 334 B.C. Alexander the Great captured it at the start of his “drive to the East.” From Alexander’s death to 133 B.C. it was ruled by the Pergamum kings. With the inevitability of a Roman takeover, Attalus III, the last of these kings, willed the city to Rome at his death; and Ephesus was made the capital of the newly formed Roman province of Asia.
Ephesus relied upon two important assets for its wealth and vitality. The first was its position as a center of trade, linking the Greco-Roman world with the rich hinterland of western Asia Minor. But because of excessive lumbering, charcoal burning, and overgrazing the land, topsoils slipped into streams, streams were turned into marshes, and storm waters raced to the sea laden with silt that choked the river’s mouth. The Pergamum kings promoted the maintenance of the harbor facilities at Ephesus, and Rome followed suit. But it was a losing battle against the unchecked erosion of the hinterland. In Paul’s day, the zenith of Ephesus’s commercial power was long since past.
The second factor the life of Ephesus depended on was the worship of Artemis, the multibreasted goddess of fertility whose temple was one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. King Croesus of nearby Lydia (reigned 564–546 B.C.) had built the first temple to Artemis one and a half miles northeast of Ephesus. It was rebuilt on the same site in the fourth century B.C. after a fire, its size being almost four times that of the Parthenon at Athens. With the decline of its commerce, the prosperity of Ephesus became more and more dependent on the tourist and pilgrim trade associated with the temple and cult of Artemis. 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 of the ancient world, where merchants, kings, and even cities made deposits, and where their money could be kept safe under the protection of deity. At the time of Paul’s arrival, the people of Ephesus were becoming conscious of the precariousness of their position as a commercial and political center of Asia.
After revisiting the churches of Galatia (cf. 18:23), Paul “took the road through the interior” and came to Ephesus. He arrived after Apollos had left for Corinth, entering the city probably in the summer of 53. There he found “about twelve men” (v.7) who professed to be Christian “disciples,” but in whom Paul discerned something amiss.
2–3 The question Paul put to the twelve, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed,” suggests two things: (1) that he assumed they were truly Christians, since they professed to believe; and (2) that he held that true faith and the reception of the Holy Spirit always went together. These two assumptions caused Paul some difficulty when he met these twelve men, for something in their life indicated that one or the other assumption was wrong. When they answered his question by saying, “We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit,” he knew the second assumption was not in error. So he asked further about the first one and found that they claimed to have been baptized only with “John’s baptism.”
The account is extremely difficult to interpret, principally because it is so brief. Probably these twelve men thought of John the Baptist as the height of God’s revelation—perhaps even as the Messiah himself (cf. Jn 1:19–34; 2:22–36, which counters such thinking). Presumably a John-the-Baptist sect existed within Jewish Christian circles in Asia in the first century (cf. Eph 4:5). As in any such group, some (such as Apollos; see Ac 18:24–26) would have appreciated John the Baptist and yet looked forward to the greater fulfillment of which he spoke; others (such as the twelve men here whom Paul met in Ephesus) would have stayed in their devotion to the Baptist himself without any real commitment to Jesus.
4–7 Despite their being known as disciples, Paul preached Jesus to the men as he would to any Jew. “John’s baptism,” he said, “was a baptism of repentance” that pointed beyond itself and the Baptist to “the one coming after him”—that is, to Jesus. So on their acceptance of Jesus as the focus of Christian faith, they were baptized “into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Then Paul laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit and evidenced the same signs of the Spirit’s presence as the first believers did at Pentecost—namely, tongues and prophecy. Doubtless in Paul’s mind they were not rebaptized but baptized into Christ once and for all.
2. A summary of the apostle’s ministry (19:8–12)
8–10 The ministry of Paul at Ephesus lasted approximately three years (cf. 20:31). It is remarkable how concisely Luke summarizes this extensive period—though perhaps not so remarkable if we may assume from the absence of the pronoun “we” that Luke was not himself an eyewitness of the events here narrated. The conciseness of the passage is particularly notable when compared with Luke’s expansive, anecdotal treatments of the ministry at Philippi (cf. 16:10ff.) and the return journey to Jerusalem (cf. 20:5ff.), where he was an eyewitness.
In the synagogue at Ephesus, Paul argued “persuasively about the kingdom of God.” He was speaking to those who had earlier received him favorably (cf. 18:19–21), and the three-month hearing they gave him was one of the longest he had in any synagogue. When opposition to “the Way” arose within the synagogue, he withdrew and continued to minister for two more years at the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This was probably the hall of a local philosopher named Tyrannus (“Tyrant”) or one rented out to traveling philosophers by a landlord of that name. Since it is difficult to think of any parent naming his or her child “Tyrant,” the name must have been a nickname.
PAUL’S THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY
© 1989 The Zondervan Corporation.
As for the rent for the hall, perhaps Priscilla and Aquila shared it or the growing congregation underwrote it. For two years Paul had daily discussions about the claims of Christ; during that time the Gospel radiated out from Ephesus through Paul’s converts so that the entire province of Asia heard the word of the Lord, with the result that many churches in the outlying cities and villages were founded (cf. Col 1:7; 2:1; 4:16; Rev 2–3). Then after sending Timothy and Erastus as his envoys to Macedonia and Achaia, Paul stayed for a while longer at Ephesus (cf. 19:21–22).
While there, Paul wrote the Corinthian church a letter on the subject of separation from the ungodly (cf. 1Co 5:9–10)—a letter either not now extant or partially preserved (as often suggested) in 2Co 6:14–7:1. In reply he received a letter from certain members of the Corinthian church (cf. 1Co 7:1) seeking his advice on matters concerning marital problems at Corinth, food previously dedicated to idols, the decorum of women in worship, the observance of the Lord’s Supper, spiritual gifts, and (possibly) the nature and significance of the resurrection. At about the same time he also had some visitors from Corinth, whom he identifies as “Chloe’s household” (1Co 1:11), who told of deep and bitter divisions within the church. And from rumors widely circulating (cf. 1Co 5:1), he knew that some of the Corinthian believers were manifesting blatant immorality and pursuing litigations in the public law courts. To deal with these matters, the apostle wrote a second pastoral letter—1 Corinthians.
The problems at Corinth seem to have involved opposition to Paul’s authority and criticism of his doctrine, and he was forced to make a “painful visit” to the city in an attempt to settle matters within the church (cf. 2Co 2:1; 12:14; 13:1). This visit to Corinth from Ephesus is extremely difficult to place historically because Luke’s summary of events during this time is so brief and Paul’s references so allusive. It was not entirely successful, however, for Paul continued to rebuke the Corinthians. His opponents even taunted him, it seems, with being humble in their presence but bold when away (cf. 2Co 10:1).
11–12 From his Corinthian correspondence we learn that Paul, while at Ephesus, had his difficulties, which arose chiefly from conditions at Corinth. But Luke does not mention them or refer to any further difficulties at Ephesus beyond his general reference to Jewish opposition (v.9) and the Demetrius incident (vv.23–41). Instead, he rounds off his summary of Paul’s Ephesian ministry by speaking of “extraordinary miracles” taking place directly through Paul and through such personal garments as Paul’s sweat-cloths and work-aprons being taken to the sick and demon possessed. Luke seems to have had in mind two types of “extraordinary miracles”: (1) direct healings through the laying on of Paul’s hands, and (2) indirect healings through the application of Paul’s clothing. It is certainly strange to read of healings occurring through sweat-cloths and work-aprons. But Ephesus was the home of all sorts of magic and superstition, and the phrase “Ephesian writings” was common in antiquity for documents containing spells and magical formulae. So Paul was likely just meeting his audiences at a point of common ground in order to impress them and lead them on to the Good News of salvation in Christ. The virtue, of course, lay not in the materials themselves but in the power of God and the faith of the recipients.
Luke’s interest throughout this chapter is in emphasizing the supernatural power of the Gospel. Therefore he has highlighted these “extraordinary miracles.” Also, he doubtless included reference to miracles done through Paul’s clothing in order to set up a further parallel with the ministries of Jesus and Peter, where healings took place by touching Jesus’ cloak (Lk 8:44) and through Peter’s shadow (Ac 5:15).
3. The seven sons of Sceva (19:13–19)
13–16 The use of magical names in incantations to exorcise evil spirits was common in the ancient world, and it seems to have been especially prominent at Ephesus. In addition, Jewish practitioners of magic were highly esteemed in antiquity, for they were believed to have command of particularly effective spells. The great reluctance of the Jews to pronounce the divine name was known among the ancients and often misinterpreted according to magical principles. Moreover, those connected with the Jewish priesthood would have enjoyed great prestige in magical circles since they were the most likely ones to know the true pronunciation of the Ineffable Name.
Some Jewish exorcists, on coming into contact with Paul and his preaching about Jesus, attempted to make magical use of this new name. Luke identifies them as “seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest.” Perhaps they did belong to one of the high priestly families of Jerusalem, though the title “Jewish chief priest” was more likely a self-designation manufactured to impress their clients and is reported by Luke without evaluation. Perhaps they even professed to accept Paul’s message and to be committed to Jesus personally themselves, much as Simon of Samaria did (cf. 8:9–24). But their main goal was for the benefits they could derive for their magical arts from the power of the name of Jesus, and so they simply continued in their old ways with a new twist.
When, however, they tried to use this more powerful name in their exorcisms, Sceva’s sons found they were dealing with realities far beyond their ability to cope. The demon they were trying to exorcise turned violently on them, and they fled from the house naked and bleeding. The name of Jesus, like an unfamiliar weapon misused, exploded in their hands; and they were taught a lesson about the danger of using the name of Jesus in their dabbling in the supernatural.
17–19 News of what happened spread quickly throughout Ephesus. All who heard were overcome by reverential fear and held the name of Jesus in high honor. Negatively, they learned not to misuse the name of Jesus or treat it lightly, for it is a powerful name. Positively, many Christians renounced their secret acts of magic and several magicians were converted. Openly demonstrating the change in their lives, they brought their magical scrolls together and burned these expensive items in the presence of the gathered congregation.
1. A Summary Statement (19:20)
20 The advances of the Gospel into Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia did not come about without great difficulty and repeated discouragements. At times, in fact, matters looked very bleak (cf. 1Co 2:3). But God also gave Paul an open door and a successful ministry in places such as Corinth and Ephesus.
Paul’s second and third missionary journeys read like a slice of life. Having shown in his earlier panels 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 entirely 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. Through both the hardships and the blessings, God was at work. In looking back on those days, Luke simply says, “In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.”
Panel 6—To Jerusalem and Thence to Rome (19:21–28:31)
The last panel in Acts presents Paul’s somewhat circuitous journey to Jerusalem, his arrest and defenses, his imprisonment and defenses in Caesarea, his voyage to Rome, and his 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 sixth panel: (1) the disproportionate length of the panel, including one-third of the total material of Acts; (2) the prominence given the speeches of Paul in his defense; and (3) the dominance of the “we” sections in the narrative portions (cf. 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). The length seems to be related to Luke’s apologetic purpose, particularly in Paul’s five defenses, and to the eyewitness character of the narrative (i.e., a predominance of “we” sections) with its inevitable elaboration of details (see introductory comment on 16:11–40). The events narrated here span the time from approximately 56 through 62.
A. A Programmatic Statement (19:21–22)
21 “After all this had happened” (lit., “fulfilled”; GK 4444; tr. “finished” in 12:25) refers to the events of the first, second, and third missionary journeys of Paul, as recorded in Panels 4 and 5 (12:25–19:20). For Luke the fulfillment of the Gentile mission came (1) in the inauguration of the new missionary policy for reaching Gentiles that was established on the first missionary journey and confirmed at the Jerusalem Council (i.e., Panel 4), and (2) in the extensive outreach to the Gentile world that took place during the 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), its aftermath and extension into Rome.
With the eastern part of the empire evangelized (cf. Ro 15:23), Paul decided to return to Jerusalem and then go on to Rome. On the way he planned to revisit the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, ministering to them and gathering from them a collection for the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (cf. 1Co 16:1–4). Thereupon he hoped to take up a Gentile mission in the western part of the empire, using the Roman congregation 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 had to return to Jerusalem, knowing full well that serious difficulties could befall him there (cf. Ro 15:30–32). In all these plans, Paul was under the direction of the Holy Spirit (implied in the NIV word “decided”; lit., “placed in the Spirit”).
22 Before going to Jerusalem, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia while he remained “in the province of Asia” somewhat longer—which probably means that he stayed on at Ephesus. Luke has not mentioned Timothy since 18:5, but he was with Paul at Ephesus and served during Paul’s Ephesian ministry as his emissary to Corinth (cf. 1Co 4:17; 16:10–11). This is the first time we hear of Erastus (cf. 2Ti 4:20). As for Silas, though Luke speaks of him repeatedly in describing the second missionary journey, he makes no reference to him in the rest of Acts. Another companion of Paul not mentioned by Luke is Titus, who was 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).
B. The Journey to Jerusalem (19:23–21:16)
1. The riot at Ephesus (19:23–41)
Before Paul left Ephesus, a riot threatened his life and could have put an end to the outreach of the Gospel in Asia. The situation was undoubtedly more dangerous than Luke’s account suggests. For in what may well be allusions to this riot, Paul said later that he had “despaired even of life” in the face of “a deadly peril” in Asia (2Co 1:8–11; cf. 1Co 15:32), and that Priscilla and Aquila had “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 (cf. Panel 5 [16:6–19:20]) and in anticipation of the themes stressed in Paul’s speeches of defense (Panel 6, esp. chs. 22–26). Politically, Luke’s report of the friendliness of the “officials of the province” toward Paul and of the city clerk’s intervention on his behalf is the best defense imaginable against the charge that Paul and Christianity threatened the official life of the empire.
23 This event of the riot most likely took place at the end of Paul’s Ephesian ministry. What happened here was not simply against Paul personally but threatened primarily the continued outreach of the Gospel.
24–27 Artemis of Ephesus, depicted as a grotesque, multibreasted woman, was believed to have been fashioned in heaven and to have fallen from the sky (cf. v.35). Probably she was originally a meteorite that resembled a multibreasted woman and became the object of worship. Her temple had become the primary basis for Ephesus’s wealth and continued prosperity (cf. comment on 19:1).
Paul’s preaching had 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,” probably silver statuettes of Artemis to be used as souvenirs, votive offerings, and amulets. When the Gospel began to touch their income, the silversmiths, led by their guild master Demetrius, instigated a disturbance they hoped would turn the people against the missionaries and stir up greater devotion for the goddess Artemis—and greater profits for them.
28–29 The silversmiths began shouting out the ceremonial chant: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” hoping thereby to stir up the city on a pretext of religious devotion. A magnificent boulevard ran through the heart of Ephesus, lined with fine buildings and columned porticoes. Into this boulevard Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen most likely 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, large enough to seat twenty-four thousand people. 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), and dragged them along into the theater. There, much to the delight of Demetrius and his fellow silversmiths, the procession became a fanatical mob.
30–31 The riot faced Paul with an extremely serious situation. He wanted to appear before the assembly, doubtless believing that because of his Roman citizenship and his earlier successful appearances before government officials, he could quiet the mob, free his companions, and turn the whole affair to the advantage of the Gospel. But his Ephesian converts would not let him enter the theater, and even some of “the officials of the province” (lit., “Asiarchs”; GK 825) 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 for promoting the cult of the emperor. While they did not have political authority, they 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. This fits in with Luke’s apologetic purpose.
32 The crowd had been worked up into a frenzy; most didn’t even know why they were there. What united them was a common resentment against those who paid no honor to the goddess Artemis.
33–34 The Jewish community at Ephesus was large and enjoyed a number of special exemptions granted by past provincial proconsuls. Yet it also suffered from the latent anti-Semitism that always lay 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. To the idolatrous mob, however, Jews were as insufferable as Christians on the point at issue in the riot because both worshiped an invisible deity and rejected idols. So Alexander was shouted down with the chant “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians.” This shouting kept on for about two hours.
35–40 The “city clerk” of Ephesus was the chief executive officer of the assembly. 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 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, standing before them, were neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of other gods (common accusations in antiquity made against Jews generally, including Jewish Christians). Anything further that could not be brought before the courts and the proconsuls could be presented “in a legal assembly.” Otherwise, he concluded, the city would risk losing its favorable status because of a riot for which there was no reason.
41 The city clerk then dismissed the crowd. Luke highlights his arguments because they are important elements in his apologetic motif in Acts, which he emphasizes further in the accounts of Paul’s five speeches in his own defense later in this panel.
2. A return visit to Macedonia and Achaia (20:1–6)
This 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 (cf. 19:8–12). Nevertheless, it can be filled out to some extent by certain personal references and historical allusions in 2 Corinthians and Romans, which were written during this time.
1 Leaving Ephesus, Paul moved north either by land or by ship to Troas. There 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 the Christians at Thessalonica prevented him from giving full attention to an evangelistic outreach (cf. introductory comments on 18:1–17), so at Troas Paul seems to have been consumed with concern about the Christians at Corinth and was 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, PauLsent back to the church the letter known as 2 Corinthians.
Just how long Paul stayed in Macedonia we do not know. Luke’s words seem to suggest a fairly prolonged period. It was probably during this time that the Gospel entered the province of Illyricum in the northwest corner of the Balkan peninsula (Ro 15:19; cf. also 2Ti 4:10, where Titus is mentioned as returning to Dalmatia, the southern district of the province of Illyricum). Perhaps Paul himself traveled across the Balkan peninsula on the Via Egnatia to the city of Dyrrhachium. It is probable that this ministry in Macedonia lasted for a year or more, from the summer of 56 through the latter part of 57.
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 8–9). The collection was an act of love like that undertaken by the church at Syrian Antioch earlier (cf. 11:27–30). More than that, Paul viewed it as a symbol of unity that would help his Gentile converts realize their debt to the mother church in Jerusalem and give Jewish Christians an appreciation of the vitality of 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 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), and he desired to transfer his ministry to the Latin world, as far west as Spain (cf. Ro 15:24). He anticipated using the Roman church as his base of operations, much as he had previously used the church at Antioch in Syria. But first he needed to go to Jerusalem if the collection from the Gentile Christians was to have the meaning he wanted it to have (cf. Ro 15:25–32). So, instead of going to Rome at this time and in preparation for his future visit—and also to expound the righteousness of God—Paul sent a formal letter to the Christians at Rome (the longest and most systematic of his writings).
At the end of three months in Corinth, Paul sought to sail for Palestine-Syria, doubtless intending to reach Jerusalem in time for the great pilgrim festival of Passover. But a plot to kill him at sea was uncovered, and he decided to travel overland through Macedonia. Robbery was common on the ancient roads, and 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 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 the 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 then 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 Corinth. The lack of mention of this church may suggest continued strained relations within the church there. Luke, who appears to have joined the group at Philippi (cf. v.5), may have represented that church.
5–6 Having been unable to get to Jerusalem for Passover, Paul remained at Philippi to celebrate it and the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. He sent his Gentile companions ahead to Troas and stayed on at Philippi, apparently with Silas and Timothy. Then after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the missionaries—accompanied by Luke (note the “we” section of vv.5–15)—went down to Neapolis, the port city of Philippi, and crossed the Aegean to Troas. It was evidently a difficult crossing because it took five days instead of two days as earlier (16:11).
3. The raising of Eutychus (20:7–12)
From 20:5 through the end of Acts (28:31), Luke’s narrative gives considerable attention to ports of call, stopovers, and time spent on Paul’s travels. The use of “we” (20:5–15; 21:1–18; 28:16) shows its eyewitness character.
7 Though Paul himself had not undertaken a mission at Troas (cf. 2Co 2:12–13), the Gospel had radiated out from many centers of influence in Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia to penetrate the Gentile world of the eastern part of the Roman 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” is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for Christians 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 was probably the most convenient time because of the necessity of working during the day. They met to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1Co 10:16–17; 11:17–34; see comment on 2:42). Paul “spoke to” the believers till midnight.
8–9 “As Paul talked on and on,” Eutychus went to sleep and fell to his death. He may simply have been bored by Paul’s long discussion, though Luke’s reference to the many torch lamps in the room suggests that lack of oxygen and the hypnotic effect of flickering flames caused Eutychus’s drowsiness. But whatever its cause, his fall brought the meeting to a sudden and shocking halt. They dashed down and found him dead.
10–11 Of course, Paul also ran down. In an action reminiscent of Elijah and Elisha (cf. 1Ki 17:21; 2Ki 4:34–35), he “threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him,” restoring Eutychus to life. Then they returned to their third-story room, had a midnight snack, and listened to Paul until dawn.
12 There is no hint that Paul took the incident as a rebuke for long-windedness. Nor were the people troubled by the meeting’s length. They were eager to learn and only had Paul with them a short time. It was an evening of great significance for the church at Troas: Paul had taught them, they had fellowshiped together in the Lord’s Supper, and they had witnessed a dramatic sign of God’s presence and power. No wonder Luke says that they “were greatly comforted.”
4. From Troas to Miletus (20:13–16)
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, however, 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 avoid the northeastern winds that blew around Cape Lectum or may just have wanted to be alone with God on the walk to Assos.
14–15 Assos was on the Roman coastal road and faced south toward the island of Lesbos. The boat went on to Mitylene, a splendid port on the southeast coast of Lesbos and the chief city of this largest of the islands of western Asia Minor. From there they went to Kios; then they passed through 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.
16 Paul had to miss the Passover at Jerusalem (cf. comments on vv.3, 5, 6). But he wanted, if at all possible, to get to Jerusalem for Pentecost, the fiftieth day after Passover (cf. comment on 2:1). He had previously decided not to take a boat that stopped at Ephesus, for he evidently preferred to forego the emotional strain of another parting with the entire Ephesian church and to avoid (possibly) some local danger.
5. Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian elders (20:17–38)
Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian elders is the nearest approximation in Acts to the Pauline letters. 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 was speaking to Christians. It is significant that, in a situation similar to those he faced in many of his letters, this farewell to the Ephesian elders reads like a miniature letter of his. This becomes all the more significant when we recognize that nowhere else in Acts is there any evidence for a close knowledge of Paul’s letters.
The address is constructed in a way familiar to readers of Paul’s letters. Its body 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 a formula: “you know” at v.18; “and now behold” at v.22; “and now behold I know” at v.25; and “and now” at v.32 (pers. tr.).
17 At Miletus the coastal boat docked for a number of days to load and unload cargo. So Paul took the opportunity of sending 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 to summon the elders, who could hardly have made the return trip as quickly as a single runner. Doubtless, therefore, elders arrived 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 that closely parallels 1Th 2:1–12. As at Thessalonica, evidently Paul’s Ephesian opponents had been prejudicing his converts against him in his absence; he therefore found it necessary to defend his conduct and teaching by appealing to his hearers’ knowledge of him. The opposition at Ephesus seems to have been chiefly Jewish and to have insisted that full acceptance with God could come only through a fully developed Judaism. Therefore Paul had to declare that he had faithfully preached what was helpful to them, focusing on repentance to God and faith in the Lord Jesus—a content wholly sufficient for salvation (cf. Ro 10:9–10; 2Co 5:20–6:2; cf. 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 (vv.22–24) and his later being warned by the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem in 21:4, 10–14. But Luke opened Panel 6 of Acts with the statement that Paul’s decision to go to Jerusalem was “by the Spirit” (cf. comment on 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 upon Paul by the Spirit at various times as he journeyed—probably through Christian prophets he met along the way. Nothing would keep him from completing his ministry of testifying to the grace of God throughout the eastern part of the empire by taking to the Jerusalem believers the money sent by Gentile believers in Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia (see comment on 20:2).
25–27 In the third section of his address, Paul began by speaking of his own future expectations after visiting Jerusalem. He told the Ephesian elders that neither they nor any of those he had ministered to in the eastern part of the empire would ever see him again, for he was intending to leave his ministry there and, after visiting Jerusalem, move on to the western part of the empire with Rome as his base (Ro 15:23–29). He said 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.” At it turned out, however, it seems that Paul was able to return later to Ephesus (see 2Ti 4:9–13). Luke thus probably wrote this book before Paul’s release and further ministry.
28–31 The third section of Paul’s address continues with an exhortation to the Ephesian elders in light of what Paul sees will soon take place in the church. He warns regarding persecution from outside and apostasy within (cf. later evidence in 1Ti 1:19–20; 4:1–5; 2Ti 1:15; 2:17–18; 3:1–9; Rev 2:1–7). So he gives the elders the solemn imperative of v.28.
Theologically, much in Luke’s precis of this address reflects Paul’s thought at this stage in his life, as these are revealed in the letters he wrote at Ephesus (1 Corinthians), in Macedonia (2 Corinthians), and at Corinth (Romans) immediately prior to this time. Paul’s use of the word “church” (GK 1711) in v.28 is a case in point. While in the salutations of Galatians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians he used “church” in a local sense (Gal 1:1; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 2:1), in addressing the Corinthians he used the word more universally: “To the church of God in Corinth” (1Co 1:2; 2Co 1:1). And thereafter in his writings “church” always appears in a universal sense (cf. esp. Ephesians and Colossians). Other phrases of Paul are his identification of God with Jesus in the phrase about God’s obtaining the church for himself “with his own blood” (cf. Ro 9:5) and the reference to the blood of Jesus as instrumental in our redemption (Ro 3:25; 5:9; cf. Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20).
32 Paul concluded his address with a blessing, committing them “to God and to the word of his grace.” Though Paul had to 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 summary of Paul’s blessing comprise a catena of Pauline terms: “grace” (GK 5921, which appears in almost all his salutations and benedictions); “build up” (GK 3868; cf. 1Co 8:1; 10:23; 14:4, 17; 1Th 5:11); “inheritance” (GK 3100; cf. Ro 8:17; Gal 3:18; Eph 1:14; 5:5; Col 3:24); and “sanctified” (GK 39; cf. Ro 15:16; 1Co 1:2; 6:11; 7:14; Eph 5:26; 1Th 5:23).
33–35 Following his blessing, Paul adds a few words of exhortation (as in his letters), urging the elders of the Ephesian 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.” Paul often related his ethical exhortations to the teachings of Jesus (cf. Ro 12–14; 1Th 4:1–12) and the personal example of Jesus (cf. Php 2:5–11), so he does that here. The specific words attributed to Jesus here do not appear in any of the Gospels. But they can be approximately paralleled by Lk 6:38.
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 letters, the substance of what he prayed for can be found in such places as Eph 1:15–23; Php 1:3–11; Col 1:3–14; and 1Th 1:2–3; 3:11–13; 5:23–24. After a deeply affectionate and sorrowful farewell with tears on both sides, Paul and his traveling companions boarded the ship.
6. On to Jerusalem (21:1–16)
The narrative of Paul’s journey to Jerusalem is of literary and historical significance because it comprises the third of Luke’s four “we” sections (21:1–18; cf. 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 27:1–28:16). This section is theologically significant because Luke seems to describe Paul’s trip to Jerusalem in terms of Jesus’ going up 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 that of Jesus: (1) a similar plot by the Jews; (2) a handing over to the Gentiles (v.11); (3) a triple prediction on the way of coming suffering (20:22–24; 21:4, 10–11; cf. Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31–34); (4) a steadfast resolution (v.13); and (5) a holy resignation to God’s will (v.14). As Luke has reserved for Paul the mission to the Gentiles, which Jesus saw as inherent in the Servant theology of Isa 61 (cf. Lk 4:16–21; see introductory comments on 12:25–28:31), so he describes Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in terms reminiscent of the Suffering Servant.
1–2 After the emotional farewell, Paul and his party (including Luke) continued by boat to Cos. 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. The next stop was Patara, a Lycian city on the southwest coast of Asia Minor with a fine harbor. There Paul and his party boarded a large merchant ship bound nonstop for Tyre, for they desired to travel quickly.
3–4 Paul and company sailed the four hundred miles from Patara to Tyre, the famous Phoenician seaport of Syria. A church had been established at Tyre through the witness of the Christian Hellenists forced to leave Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom (cf. 11:19). While the ship was unloading, Paul had fellowship with the believers there for a week, who tried to dissuade him “through the Spirit” from going on to Jerusalem. This phrase most likely means that the Spirit’s message, given through a Christian prophet, was the occasion for the believers’ concern because they knew what lay in store for him (cf. vv.10–15).
5–7 After a scene reminiscent of the parting with the Ephesian elders (cf. 20:36–37), Paul and his companions sailed from Tyre. The ship went on to Ptolemais, another ancient Phoenician seaport south of Tyre. There it made harbor for a day, undoubtedly again to unload cargo. Once more Paul met with the believers of the city. Probably Christianity at Ptolemais also stemmed from the witness of the Hellenistic Christians (cf. 11:19).
8–9 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 (cf. comment on 10:1). There they stayed with Philip the evangelist, 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), after which he apparently settled at Caesarea for some twenty years. Paul stayed at his home for “a number of days.” For a man in a hurry to get to Jerusalem, this delay of several days may seem strange. But he wanted to be in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (cf. 20:16)—not just get there as early as possible. So Paul’s stay in Caesarea was probably a deliberate matter of timing.
Luke speaks of Philip’s four unmarried daughters as prophetesses, yet says nothing about what they prophesied. Perhaps these prophesying maidens and their father gave Luke source material for Luke and Acts—for example, on Philip’s mission in Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch.
10–14 While Paul was at Caesarea, the Jerusalemite prophet Agabus (cf. 11:27–28) came there. With the belt that held Paul’s outer cloak together, 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 that Paul would be bound by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles. In response to this dramatic prophecy, the Caesarean believers—together with Paul’s own traveling companions—begged him not to go. But Paul’s determination to go to Jerusalem came from an inward spiritual constraint that could not be set aside (cf. 19:21; 20:22), for he was increasingly convinced that he must present the gift from the 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).
15–16 Paul and his colleagues, accompanied by some Caesarean Christians, took the road up to Jerusalem, some sixty-five miles away to the southeast. They brought Paul to the home of Mnason, a Cypriot and an early follower of Jesus. Not everyone in the Jerusalem church would have been prepared to have Paul and his company of Gentile converts as house guests during Pentecost. But the Caesarean Christians knew their man.
C. Various Events and Paul’s Defenses at Jerusalem (21:17–23:22)
1. Arrival at Jerusalem (21:17–26)
17–18 With these two verses, the third “we” section of Acts concludes, though Luke may have remained in Palestine for a longer time than vv.17–18 imply. Paul is now 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—and so Luke speaks only of him.
It was probably at Mnason’s house that the believers gathered to receive Paul and his party “warmly.” Then on the next day, as Luke says, they called on James, the resident leader of the Jerusalem church (cf. comments on 12:17; 15:13). Sharing with him in the administration of the church was a body of elders, 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 from the Gentile churches to James and the elders, for that was his chief motive for going to Jerusalem (see comments on vv.10–14). Nowhere in Acts (except later at 24:17) does Luke mention this collection, probably because he did not know how to explain to his Gentile readers (1) its significance as being much more than a way of currying favor and (2) Paul’s fears that the Jerusalem Christians might not accept it.
To understand Paul’s fears, we must realize that the Jerusalem church was increasingly being caught between its allegiance to the nation and its fraternal relation to Paul’s Gentile mission. To accept the contribution from the Gentile churches was to be identified further with that mission and to drive another wedge between themselves and their compatriots. True, they 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; Ac 15:13–29). But with the rising tide of Jewish nationalism and a growing body of scrupulous believers in the Jerusalem church, Jewish Christian solidarity with the Gentile mission was becoming more and more difficult to affirm if the Jerusalem church’s relations with the nation were to be maintained and opportunities for an outreach to Israel kept open. 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 themselves constrained to reject the contribution (Ro 15:31), thus severing, in effect, the connection between the Pauline churches and the Jerusalem church.
20–24 James and the elders responded to Paul’s report and the gift from the churches by praising God. Yet they also urged Paul to join with four Jewish Christians who were fulfilling their Nazirite vows and to pay for their required offerings. In effect, they were saying to Paul, “We can accept this gift from the churches and so identify ourselves openly with your Gentile mission, if you will join with these men and identify yourself openly with the nation.” Thus they were protecting themselves against Jewish recriminations while at the same time affirming their connection with Paul and his mission. And, as they saw it, they were providing Paul with a way of protecting himself against a slanderous accusation floating about 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. 18:18–22), Paul would not have viewed such a suggestion as particularly onerous. It doubtless seemed to all concerned a particularly happy solution to the vexing problems that both Paul and the Jerusalem church were facing.
25 James and the elders reminded Paul of the fourfold Jerusalem decree (see comment on 15:20–21) of the early Christians’ agreed-on basis for fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. Having urged Paul to follow their proposed course of action, the leaders of the Jerusalem church went on to assure him that this in no way rescinded their earlier decision to impose nothing further on Gentile converts than these four injunctions 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. In keeping with this ritual, therefore, Paul reported to the priest at the start of his seven days of purification, informing him that he was providing the funds for the offerings of the four impoverished men who had taken Nazirite vows; he undoubtedly returned to the temple at regular prescribed intervals during the week (the third and seventh days) for the appropriate rites.
2. Arrest in the temple (21:27–36)
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 him. Jews from Asia who had come to Jerusalem for 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, a Gentile representative from Ephesus, beyond the barrier that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the temple courts reserved for Jews alone. Archaeologists have found inscriptions at this point of the temple that read: “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.” Roman authorities supported Jewish scruples about this matter and ratified the death penalty for any Gentile—even a Roman citizen—caught going beyond the balustrade.
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. Paul would hardly have done this, however, since his purpose at this time was to appease Jewish susceptibilities.
30 “The whole city,” Luke tells us in natural hyperbole, “was aroused.” The crime Paul was alleged to have committed was a capital one and could easily ignite the fanatical zeal of the many pilgrims in Jerusalem. 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 to prevent the inner courts from being defiled by the tumult and possible bloodshed.
31–32 Word of the riot came to the commander of the Roman garrison stationed in the Fortress of Antonia, a building built by Herod the Great to the north of the temple precincts where it could overlook the temple area to the south and the city to the north and west. With some soldiers and centurions, 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 (cf. comments on 4:1), the commander of the fortress was a Roman military officer, whose responsibility was to keep peace in the city. He represented Rome’s interests and was to intervene in the affairs of the people on behalf of those interests.
33–36 The commander formally arrested Paul and ordered him bound with two chains. Undoubtedly he considered him a criminal and was prepared to treat him as one. But when he asked the mob about his crime, he got no clear answer. Therefore he ordered him to be taken into the fortress where he could be questioned directly and where a confession could be extracted from him. But the mob still pressed hard after their quarry, so hard that the soldiers had to drag Paul up the steps to the fortress. All the while the mob was crying out, “Away with him!” (i.e., “Kill him!” cf. Lk 23:18; Ac 22:22).
3. Paul’s defense before the people (21:37–22:22)
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 in presenting Paul’s command to preach to the Gentiles as being the major reason for Jewish opposition to the Gospel (cf. 22:10–22).
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 commander (cf. 23:26). The commander was startled to hear his charge speaking in fluent Greek and surmised that perhaps the prisoner was the Egyptian Jew who three years earlier had appeared in Jerusalem claiming to be a prophet and had led a large band of followers into the wilderness and then to the Mount of Olives in preparation for the messianic overthrow of Jerusalem. Most people had considered him a charlatan, and Felix and his soldiers had driven him off.
39–40 But Paul assured the commander that he was not the Egyptian revolutionary; rather, he was from Tarsus. The epithet “no ordinary city,” by which Paul referred to Tarsus, was used by various cities to publicize their greatness; Paul was proud of the city of his birth. The Roman commander, probably impressed by Paul’s courteous composure under such trying circumstances and also hoping to gain some insight into the cause of the riot, gave him permission.
Paul then began his speech to the crowd “in Aramaic” (or “in Hebrew”; see NIV note). Though probably frustrating for the commander, this was appreciated by the crowd and elicited for him a temporary measure of goodwill.
22:1–2 Paul opens his defense with the formal Jewish address “Men, brothers” (cf. 7:2). Many commentators have objected that this speech 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, this speech deals eloquently with the major charge against him—that of being a Jewish apostate (cf. 21:28a)—by setting in a Jewish context all that had happened in his Christian life 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 give us again in 26:2–23. Such repetition impresses something of exceptional importance indelibly on his readers’ minds (cf. introductory comment on 9:1–30). Yet the variations in each of these three accounts correspond to their respective contexts and purposes.
3 The triad of birth, upbringing, and training was a conventional way in antiquity of describing a man’s youth. What Paul is here saying is, “I am a Jew, ‘born’ in Tarsus of Cilicia, ‘brought up’ in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and ‘instructed’ in the strict manner of the law of our fathers.” That is, his Jewishness cannot be disputed (cf. 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5), and he insists 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).
4–5 As evidence of his zeal for God and the Jewish religion, Paul cites his earlier persecution of Christians (cf. comments on 9:1–2). The ascription “this way” picks up what was the earliest self-designation of the first believers in Jesus at Jerusalem—namely, “those of the Way” (cf. comment on 9:2).
6–9 This description of Christ’s encounter with Paul on the road to Damascus, except for stylistic differences, closely parallels the one in 9:3–6 (cf. comments there). As in Acts 9, he maintains that his conversion to Jesus as God’s Messiah was the result of a heavenly confrontation and that it was not something Paul originated subjectively or others imposed on him. It was, indeed, “Jesus of Nazareth” who confronted him, and this places his messianology in the matrix of the Jewish homeland. But it was the risen and ascended Jesus of Nazareth, the heavenly Christ, who rebuked him and turned him about spiritually; 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 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.
12–16 At Damascus Paul was visited by Ananias, God’s messenger to bring about renewal of Paul’s sight and to announce God’s purpose for him as a witness “to all men.” 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) summarize 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 defended himself before Agrippa II (ch. 26), there was no need for this particular emphasis; therefore, 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); cf. 2:38).
17–21 Paul’s commission at Damascus to be God’s witness “to all men” was reaffirmed and amplified in a vision he received as he was praying in the temple, which most likely 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 Hellenistic Jews of the city, who viewed him as a renegade and sought to kill him (cf. 9:29). At a period in his life when he most needed divine direction and support, 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, the same exalted Jesus also ordered him: “Go, I will send you far away to the Gentiles” (v.21). Jerusalem, therefore, Paul says, was his intended place of witness, and the temple was God’s place of revelation. Nevertheless, his testimony was refused in the city, and by revelation his earlier commission “to all men” was to have explicit reference to Gentiles, those who are “far away” (GK 3426; cf. comments on 2:39).
22 During most of Paul’s defense, the crowd listened with a certain respect, for he had spoken mostly of Israel’s messianic hope and had done so in a thoroughly Jewish context. Even his identification of Jesus with his people’s messianology and with the Revealer from heaven, while straining the credibility of many in the crowd, could have been tolerated by a people given more to orthopraxis (authorized practice) than orthodoxy (correct thought). When, however, Paul spoke of being directed by divine revelation to leave Jerusalem and go far away to Gentiles who had no relation to Judaism, that was “the last straw.” In effect, Paul was saying that Gentiles could be approached directly with God’s message of salvation without first being related to the nation and its institutions. This was tantamount to placing Jews and Gentiles on an equal footing before God, and for Judaism that was the height of apostasy indeed! Paul was thus shouted down, and the crowd called for his death.
4. Paul claims his Roman citizenship (22:23–29)
23–24 The garrison commander, puzzled why they were rioting and probably unable to understand Paul’s Aramaic, decided to find out the truth of the matter by scourging Paul (see comment on Mk 15:15). His earlier friendliness toward Paul soured, and the brutal part of his nature and job came to the fore. By this time Paul had already received thirty-nine lashes at the hands of Jewish authorities five times and beatings with rods by the order of Roman magistrates three times (cf. 2Co 11:24–25; see comments on 9:30; 11:25; 16:22–24). But this type of flogging was far more brutal than these others. Here Paul was at the brink of the kind of unjust punishment Christ endured when Pilate, in a travesty of justice, had him flogged after declaring him innocent (Mk 15:15; Jn 18:38–19:1).
25 Roman citizens were exempt from examination under torture. In such trials there first had to be a formulation of charges and penalties, then a formal accusation laid, and then a hearing before a Roman magistrate and his advisory cabinet. Therefore, as the soldiers “stretched him [Paul] out to flog him,” 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 At this time, Roman citizenship (GK 4486; also 4871) was a highly prized right conferred only on those of high social or governmental standing, those who had done some exceptional service for Rome, or those able to bribe some imperial or provincial administrator to have their names included on a list of candidates. In the second and third centuries A.D., the use of bribery became increasingly common, but earlier it accounted for only a small minority of citizens. The names of new citizens were recorded on one of the thirty-five tribal lists at Rome and on their local municipal register. Succeeding generations of a citizen’s family possessed at birth a registration of 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.
We do not know how and when Paul’s family acquired Roman citizenship. Most likely one of Paul’s ancestors received it for valuable services rendered to a Roman administrator or general in either the Gischala region of northern Palestine or at Tarsus. When Paul claimed his Roman citizenship, the centurion immediately stopped the proceedings and reported to the commander: “This man is a Roman citizen” (v.26). This brought the commander immediately 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 through paying a member of Claudius’s court. Paul’s response, “But I was born a citizen” (v.28), implies his high estimate of his citizenship.
29 That Paul was a Roman citizen put the situation in a different light (cf. 16:37–39). Examination under torture, while suitable for ordinary people in the empire, had to be abandoned; 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.
5. Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrin (22:30–23:11)
The irregular structure of Luke’s account of Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrin evidently reflects the tumultuous character of the session itself. Three matters pertaining to Luke’s apologetic purpose 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).
30 Still unsuccessful in ascertaining why the people were so angry at Paul, the commander ordered the Jewish Sanhedrin (cf. comment on 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, 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” (see comment on 22:1–2). Then he asserted, “I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day”—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 This so enraged the high priest Ananias that, in violation of the law, he ordered those near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Ananias served as high priest from A.D. 48–58 (or 59) and was known for his avarice and liberal use of violence. As a brutal and scheming man, he was hated by Jewish nationalists for his pro-Roman policies.
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 proved guilty. Paul was not yet 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 were more prophetic than he realized, for Ananias’s final days were lived as a hunted animal and ended at the hands of his own people.
Paul’s retort to Ananias’ order seems quite out of character for a follower of the one who “when they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats” (1Pe 2:23). Paul momentarily lost his composure—as evidently Ananias hoped he would—and put himself at a disadvantage before the council. We cannot excuse this sudden 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. Paul himself realized his wrong and quickly acknowledged it.
4–5 At regular meetings of the Sanhedrin, the high priest presided and would have been identifiable for that reason. But this was not a regular meeting, and the high priest may not have occupied his usual place or worn his robes of office. Also, since Paul had visited Jerusalem only sporadically during the past twenty years, and since the high priest’s office had passed from one to another within certain priestly families (cf. comment on Jn 18:12–14), Paul presumably did now know who the high priest was in A.D. 58. Nor, in fact, would he have known any of the current high priestly claimants by sight. All he could do when told he was speaking to the high priest was apologize—though more to the office than to the man—and acknowledge by citing Scripture (Ex 22:28) that, while he did not accept the view that the OT law provided the supreme direction for life (cf. 1Co 2:15; 9:20–21), he had no intention of being guided by Christ and his Spirit to act contrary to the law or do less than the law commanded.
6 Ananias’s interruption changed the entire course of the meeting, but not as he had expected. Instead of being cowed into submission, Paul began again (note the resumptive use of the formal address used in v.1). 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). Pharisaism in Paul’s day was not as stereotyped as it later became under rabbinic development. He still considered himself 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. 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).
7–10 Paul’s declaration served to divide the council, with Sadducees on the one side (cf. comment on 4:1) and Pharisees on the other (cf. comment on 5:34). Some of the Pharisees saw in the inquisition of Paul an attempt by the Sadducees to discredit Pharisaism and its theology, and they rose to his defense. 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. 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 (see comment on 19:21). But developments at Jerusalem were building up to a point where it appeared his life could come to an end in the city through any number of circumstances beyond his control. Undoubtedly he was despondent as he awaited the next turn of events in his cell in the fortress. But “the following night,” the risen and exalted Jesus appeared to Paul—as he had done at other critical moments in his ministry (cf. 18:9–10; 22:17–21)—and encouraged him by his presence. “Take courage!” he said, and he assured Paul that he would yet testify in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem. This assurance must have meant much to Paul in the ensuing months.
6. A plot to kill Paul (23:12–22)
12–15 Failing in their earlier plot to kill Paul in the temple precincts, more than forty fanatical 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 they needed a pretext to lure him out of the fortress. So they arranged with “the chief priest and elders” to ask for Paul’s return before the Sanhedrin for further questioning. They pledged to kill him as he was being brought from the Fortress of Antonia to the hall of the Sanhedrin (cf. comment on 4:5). To show their determination, they vowed not to eat or drink until they had accomplished their purpose. The conspirators’ plan, though violating both the letter and the spirit of Jewish law pertaining to the Sanhedrin, was in keeping with the character of the high priest Ananias (cf. comment on 23:2).
16–17 We know nothing about Paul’s sister and his nephew (this is the only reference anywhere to Paul’s relatives), nor do we know how the young man learned of the plot. With his uncle in mortal danger, Paul’s nephew could not stand by without warning him. After all, in Judaism the saving and preservation of life takes precedence over everything else. As a Roman citizen under protective custody, Paul could receive visitors—among them his nephew. On hearing the warning, Paul asked one of the centurions to take his nephew to the commander.
18–22 The seriousness with which the commander took the warning about the plot shows that he knew Ananias was the kind of man who could support such action and realized that Jewish feeling against Paul was strong enough to nurture it.
D. Imprisonment and Defenses at Caesarea (23:23–26:32)
1. Imprisonment at Caesarea (23:23–35)
23–25 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 of the province of Judea. He wanted to get Paul to Caesarea, the provincial capital (cf. comment on 10:1), as quickly as possible and before the conspirators got wind of it. So he ordered two centurions to ready two hundred infantry and seventy cavalry, together with two hundred “spearmen” (more likely, the word used here means “additional mounts and pack animals”), leaving for Caesarea at nine that evening. In addition, he ordered that “mounts” be provided for Paul—probably not only a horse for Paul but also another one for either riding or carrying his baggage, or both.
The purpose of the detachment was security and speed—the first being provided by the two hundred infantry and the second by the seventy cavalry with their two hundred extra mounts and pack animals, many of which may also have been used to carry the infantry during the night. If the garrison at Jerusalem consisted of about six hundred men and the word “spearmen” refers not to infantry but to additional mounts and pack animals, then the commander considered the plot against Paul serious enough to commit almost half the garrison at the Fortress of Antonia to escort Paul, with most of them due to return in a day or two (cf. v.32).
In saying that the commander wrote a letter “as follows” (lit., “of this type”), Luke suggests that what follows is only the general purport of the letter. He would hardly have been in a position to read the correspondence between a Roman commander and 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 A letter beginning with a salutation that (1) named the sender, (2) named the recipient, and (3) sent greetings was the 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 paid an official of Claudius’s government to receive Roman citizenship (cf. comment on 22:28). At that time his Greek name Lysias became his Roman cognomen, and he then took the nomen Claudius in honor of the emperor. Felix was the governor of the Roman province of Judea from A.D. 52–59 (see comments on 24:1). The title “Excellency” (GK 3196) here denotes an honorific title for highly placed officials in the Roman government (cf. 24:3; 26:25).
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,” omitting any reference to the proposed flogging. The most important part of the letter, that 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). That was of great significance not only for Paul’s fortunes but also for Luke’s apologetic purpose.
31–32 The soldiers carried out their orders and brought Paul during the night to Antipatris, a town built by Herod the Great in honor of his father Antipater. Having left Jerusalem at nine in the evening (cf. v.23), the detachment lost no time in covering the distance by morning. 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 the kingdom. But on learning that Paul was from the Roman province of Cilicia, he felt competent as a provincial governor to hear the case himself, when Paul’s accusers arrived from Jerusalem. In the meantime, Paul was kept under guard in the palace Herod the Great built for himself at Caesarea. It now served as the governor’s headquarters and also had cells for prisoners.
2. Paul’s defense before Felix (24:1–27)
In his account of Paul’s defense before Felix, Luke gives almost equal space to (1) the Jewish charges against Paul (vv.1–9), (2) Paul’s reply to these charges (vv.10–21), and (3) Felix’s response (vv.22–27). He wants to show that despite the devious skill of the Jewish charges and the notorious cruelty and corruptibility of Felix, no other conclusions can be drawn from Paul’s appearance before him than that (1) Christianity had nothing to do with political sedition and (2) Jewish opposition to Christianity sprang from the Christian claim to legitimate fulfillment of the hopes of Judaism.
1 “Five days later” evidently means five days from Paul’s arrest in the temple (cf. Paul’s remark that “no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship,” v.11). With the notations of time and of place (“Caesarea”), the names of Paul’s adversaries (“the high priest Ananias . . . with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus”), and the identification of the judge (“the governor,” i.e., Felix), the stage is set for Paul’s defense. Ananias characteristically decided to prosecute Paul as quickly as possible (cf. comment on 23:2). To present his trumped-up charges as effectively as possible, he employed a lawyer named Tertullus. This man was probably a Hellenistic Jew who had expertise in affairs of the empire and had manifested strong allegiance to Judaism.
The governor, Antonius Felix, was born a slave and freed by Antonia, the mother of the emperor Claudius. He was a brother of Pallas, who was also a freedman of Antonia and became a good friend of the young prince Claudius. Through the influence of Pallas, Felix was appointed in A.D. 48 to a subordinate government post in Samaria. In 52 Claudius appointed him governor of Judea. History tells us that he was a master of cruelty and lust. During his governorship, insurrections and anarchy increased throughout Palestine. Try as he would to put down the uprisings and regain control, his brutal methods only alienated the Jewish population more and led to further disturbances. Despite his low birth, Felix had a succession of three wives—the third being Drusilla, the youngest daughter of Agrippa I, who had been unhappy as the wife of Azizus, king of Emesa; Felix desired her because of her beauty and persuaded her to leave Azizus for him. The relationship between these two seems to have been based upon greed, lust, and expectations of grandeur.
2–4 Tertullus began the case for the prosecution with the customary flattery for the judge in words chosen for his purpose. Many Jews would have been shocked to hear the high priest’s mouthpiece attributing “a long period of peace” and “reforms” to Felix’s administration; and few would have joined in any expression of “profound gratitude” for the governor’s frequent displays of ferocity, cruelty, and greed. But Tertullus knew how to appeal to Felix’s vanity. It was also customary to promise brevity, though such is human nature that the promise was rarely kept.
5–9 The three charges laid against Paul (v.5) are probably only a precis of the entire case. Tertullus obviously intended to create the impression of political sedition against Rome in his first two charges (disturbing the peace among the Jews; being a ringleader of the Nazarenes) and to argue the right for Judaism to impose the death penalty in his third charge (attempting to desecrate the temple; cf. comment on 21:28–29). During his reign over Judea, Felix had repeatedly crucified the leaders of various uprisings and had killed many of their followers for disturbing the Pax Romana. Tertullus’s endeavor, as supported by the high priest and the Jewish elders with him, was to put Paul on the same level as these brigands, with the hope that in his insensitivity to the issues, Felix would act in his usual manner simply on the basis of their testimony. As in Jesus’ trial before Pilate, their accusations were framed principally in terms of political sedition (cf. Lk 23:2, 5), though all along their main grievance was religious.
10 Invited to respond, Paul also began with a complimentary statement—but a briefer and truer one. Felix had been in contact with the Jewish nation in Palestine for over a decade, first in Samaria and then as governor over the entire province of Judea. Therefore Paul was pleased to make his defense before one who was in a position to know the situation as it was and to understand his words in their context.
11–13 In refuting the charges against him, Paul dealt with each in turn. First, it was “no more than twelve days ago” that he came to Jerusalem, not for political agitation but for worship. In such a short time, he implied, there would hardly have been sufficient opportunity to foment a revolt. Second, his accusers could hardly charge him with being a ringleader of any sedition, for he was alone when they arrested him in the temple and they could not cite any time when he was stirring up a crowd anywhere in the city (v.12). Third, their claim that he desecrated the temple was unproved because it was entirely without foundation (v.13).
14–16 The real reason Ananias and the Jewish elders opposed him, Paul insisted, was religious. He was “a follower of the Way,” aJewish group that agreed with the basic doctrines of Judaism. And while he differed from Ananias and the elders in his acceptance of “the Way,” his conscience in the matter was “clear before God and man” (cf. 23:1).
Paul’s statements about having “the same hope in God as these men” and accepting “a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” have led to much comment since Ananias himself would not have accepted the doctrine of a resurrection (cf. comment on 4:1 regarding Sadducean beliefs) and Paul in his letters speaks only of a resurrection of the righteous (cf. 1Co 15:12–58; 1Th 4:13–5:11; 2Th 2:1–12). But evidently some Pharisees were among the elders who had come down to Caesarea with Ananias (cf. v.1). And though Sadducees did not accept the hope of a resurrection, Paul as a Pharisee was probably sufficiently self-confident to believe that it was the Pharisaic hope that characterized—or, at least, should characterize—all true representations of the Jewish faith. Furthermore, while Paul in his letters speaks only of a resurrection of the righteous (as also did our Lord in Lk 14:14; 20:35–36), this is probably because such treatment is pastoral in nature and deals only with the righteous.
17 Reconstructing for Felix what happened in Jerusalem, Paul spoke of coming to Jerusalem “to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings” (cf. v.11). This is the only time Luke mentions the collection for the poor at Jerusalem, which was so dear to Paul’s own heart (cf. Ro 15:25–27, 31; 1Co 16:1–4). Some have objected that for Paul to say that the gift was “for my nation” adds a note of insincerity, for certainly Paul’s efforts were directed toward relieving the plight of poor believers in the Jerusalem church and not of Jews in general. Yet Paul brought the gift not only for the relief of Christians and as a symbol of unity between believers but also with a view to the conversion of the entire nation. By aiding that branch of the church whose mission it was to call the nation to its Messiah, he was indirectly engaged in a mission to his own nation (cf. Ro 11:13b–14).
18–21 Continuing the summary of what took place at Jerusalem, Paul spoke of his arrest in the temple (v.18) and his arraignment before the Sanhedrin (v.20). But, he insisted, he made no attempt to create a disturbance; rather, he was taken by the crowd while worshiping in a ceremonially clean condition. If the Asian Jews who instigated the riot had any serious charge against him, they should have been present to accuse him before the governor. Roman law imposed heavy penalties upon accusers who abandoned their charges, and the disappearance of accusers often meant the withdrawal of a charge. Their absence, therefore, suggested that they had nothing against him that would stand up in a Roman court of law. Nor did the Sanhedrin, Paul went on, find any crime in him—except that he believed in the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, Paul declared, he was on trial because of his belief in “the resurrection of the dead” (v.21).
22–23 Felix seems to have summed up the situation accurately. After a decade in Palestine (cf. comment on v.1), he was “well acquainted with the way” (v.22). While certainly not a Christian, he could see that the Jewish charges against Paul were entirely religious in nature—even though presented in the guise of political sedition. He therefore sought to preserve the Pax Romana within his jurisdiction simply by removing the possibility of confrontation between the disputants and by delaying judicial procedure. So Paul was placed under protective custody in the palace of Herod the Great, and Ananias was given the deceptive promise of a decision being reached when the commander Lysias came down to Caesarea and presented his testimony (which he had already given in his letter, cf. 23:25–30). As a Roman citizen, Paul was allowed some freedom and permitted visits from friends to care for his needs. But both he and Ananias seem to have realized that Felix had no intention of bringing the case to a decision in the near future; and they evidently, each for his own reasons, decided to await the appointment of a new provincial governor (anticipated soon) before pressing for a resolution.
24–26 Added to the description of Felix’s response is this vignette about the interaction between the Roman governor, his Jewish wife, and the Christian apostle, which elaborates further the nature of Felix’s response and highlights one aspect of Paul’s continued, though restricted, ministry while under protective custody at Caesarea. Drusilla apparently still had some qualms of conscience about her marriage to Felix and therefore took the opportunity to send for Paul in order to hear his message.
Paul spoke to Felix and his wife about the necessity of “faith in Christ Jesus” (v.24). He also made it plain that this involved an ethical life, for he spoke of “righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come” (v.25)—three subjects Felix and Drusilla particularly needed to learn about! Felix ordered him to stop, for he became afraid in the presence of such preaching. Apparently Drusilla was offended by what she considered Paul’s moralistic ranting, for Luke makes no mention of her having listened to him again. Felix’s corruption led him to call Paul often before him in hope of getting a bribe for his release. He must have believed that Paul had access to some money—perhaps through a large number of Christian friends who visited him (cf. 24:23; 27:3).
27 After two years Festus replaced Felix as governor of Judea. According to Josephus, Felix’s downfall came through an outbreak of hostilities between Jews and Greeks at Caesarea, with both claiming dominant civil rights in the city. Using the Syrian troops under his command, Felix’s intervention retaliated on the Jews. Many were killed, taken prisoner, or plundered of their wealth; and a delegation of Jews went to Rome to complain. Felix was recalled to Rome and replaced by Festus in A.D. 60.
During those two years, Paul remained in Herod’s palace at Caesarea—with Felix undoubtedly rationalizing his imprisonment as a protection for Paul and a favor to the Jews. It must have been an extremely tedious time for Paul. Luke, however, probably made full use of these two years to investigate “everything from the beginning” about Christianity (cf. Lk 1:3). And while we cannot say whether he at this time produced either a preliminary draft of his gospel or any portion of Acts, it is probable that he became quite familiar with (1) the traditions comprising Mark’s gospel, (2) other materials having to do with the story of Jesus that he would also incorporate into his gospel, (3) accounts circulating in Palestine of events in the early church that he would include in the first half of Acts, and (4) recollections and interpretations of Paul as to his activities before Luke joined him.
3. Paul’s defense before Festus (25:1–12)
Luke’s account of Paul’s defense before Festus is the briefest of his five defenses. Most of it parallels in summary fashion Paul’s appearance before Felix. The new element is Paul’s appeal to Caesar, setting the stage for his journey to Rome. Luke’s apologetic purpose here is to show that only when Roman administrators were largely ignorant of the facts of the case were concessions made to Jewish opposition that could prove disastrous for the Christian movement.
1 For the Jewish population of Palestine, Porcius Festus was a welcome successor to Felix. Nothing is known of him before he assumed the governorship of Judea. Nor can the time of his nomination for the post or his arrival in Palestine be precisely fixed, though it was probably sometime in A.D. 60. He inherited all the troubles and tensions that were mounting during Felix’s maladministration, which culminated in the disaster of 66–70. His term of office was cut short by his death in 62.
The situation in Palestine demanded immediate action to bring together opposing factions within the Jewish nation. Therefore on arriving in Palestine, Festus took only three days to settle in at Caesarea before going up to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders of the nation.
2 The high priest at Jerusalem when Festus took office was Ishmael, appointed by Herod Agrippa II to succeed Ananias during the final days of Felix’s governorship. Ananias, however, continued to exercise a dominant role in Jerusalem affairs right up to his death in 66 at the hands of Jewish nationalists. This is probably why Luke speaks of “the chief priests” and not just the high priest as appearing with the elders before Festus when he came to Jerusalem (cf. 4:23; 9:14; 22:30; 23:14; 25:15).
3 Counting on the new governor’s inexperience, the Jewish authorities urged Festus to transfer Paul’s case to Jerusalem for trial. They were hoping to ambush and murder him on the way (cf. 23:12–15). Perhaps also they hoped that with such a change of venue, if their plans for an ambush were again frustrated, they could arrange to have Paul tried before the Sanhedrin on the single charge of profaning the temple—for which they had the right to impose the death penalty (see comment on 21:27–29).
4–5 Unwittingly, Festus overturned their plans by inviting the Jewish leaders to return with him to Caesarea and press charges against Paul there. Evidently he desired to carry out only such business as was absolutely necessary on his first visit to Jerusalem and preferred to preside over any extended trial back at Caesarea—particularly since the prisoner was already there.
6–8 Festus convened court and ordered Paul brought before him, thus reopening the whole case against him, and the Jewish accusers restated their charges (cf. 24:5–6). But again they produced no witnesses, nor could they prove their charges. As for Paul, he stoutly continued to insist on his innocence (v.8). So the impasse remained.
9 Festus was at a loss to know what to make of the Jewish charges and Paul’s denials (cf. vv.18–20a). Yet the Sanhedrin plainly wanted the case transferred to Jerusalem for trial; and as the new governor of Judea, Festus saw no reason why he could not concede the Jews this. He seems not to have fully appreciated what lay behind their request and apparently thought it would be politically wise to gain their goodwill by a change of venue.
10–11 Paul knew that to return to Jerusalem would place him in serious jeopardy. It would likely involve being turned over to the Sanhedrin; for once he was in Jerusalem, the Jewish authorities would pressure Festus to have Paul turned over to them for trial on the charge of profaning the temple. “I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried,” he asserted. But being unsure as to just what action Festus might take in the matter if left at that, Paul went on to claim one final right he had as a Roman citizen: “I appeal to Caesar!”
Roman law at this time protected Roman citizens by their right of appealing to the emperor. Such appeals could only be made in cases that went beyond the normal jurisdiction of a governor—particularly where the threat of violent coercion or capital punishment by provincial administrators was present. It may seem somewhat strange that Paul should have preferred to appeal to the emperor Nero (A.D. 54–68), the persecutor of Christians at Rome, rather than continue to entrust his case to Festus, whether at Caesarea or Jerusalem. But the early years of Nero’s rule, under the influence of the Stoic philosopher Seneca and the prefect of the praetorian guard Afranius Burrus, were looked upon as something of a Golden Age. There was little in A.D. 60 that warned of Nero’s character and relations with Christianity during the last five years of his life.
12 Festus’s discussion with his advisors was probably not whether an appeal to Caesar should be allowed. Rather, he had to determine (1) whether the charges against his prisoner fell into the category of normal provincial jurisdiction or went beyond that jurisdiction, and (2) whether it was either just or feasible to acquit the prisoner and make the appeal unnecessary. Since the charges against Paul concerned political sedition, which in Roman law could be punished by death, and profanation of the Jerusalem temple, which in Jewish law called for death, Festus had no choice but to acknowledge the extraordinary character of the charge and accept Paul’s appeal. But Festus still had the legal right to pronounce an acquittal after the act of appeal. Yet politically no newly arrived governor would have dreamt of antagonizing the leaders of the people he sought to govern by acquitting one against whom they were so vehemently opposed. It was more a political than legal decision Festus had to make, and he was probably only too glad to have this way out of a very sticky situation. So he agreed to the appeal.
4. Festus consults with Herod Agrippa II (25:13–22)
Though ridding himself of one problem, Festus now took on another: What would he write in his report to the imperial court at Rome about the charges against Paul and the issues in the case? Undoubtedly, Luke had no direct knowledge of what was said in private between a Roman governor and the king of a neighboring principality. But the gist of what was discussed would certainly have been evident from their resultant actions, and Luke here fleshes out the details of that conversation in order to prepare the way for Paul’s last great defense before Herod Agrippa II.
13 Marcus Julius Agrippa II (A.D. 27–100) was the son of Herod Agrippa I (see comment on 12:1). He was brought up at Rome in the court of Claudius and, like his father, was a favorite of the emperor. At his father’s death in 44 (see 12:21–23), he was only seventeen years old—too young to rule over his father’s domains. Therefore Palestine became a Roman province administered by a provincial governor. In 50, Claudius appointed Agrippa II king of Chalcis, a petty kingdom to the northeast of Judea. In 53 Claudius gave him the tetrarchy of Philip in exchange for the kingdom of Chalcis, which he gave to Agrippa’s uncle Herod. And in 56 Nero added to his kingdom the Galilean cities of Tarichea and Tiberias with their surrounding lands and the Perean city of Julias with fourteen other villages. As ruler of the adjoining kingdom to the north, Herod Agrippa II came to pay his respects to Festus, the new governor of Judea.
With Agrippa II was Bernice (properly Berenice), his sister one year younger than himself. She had been engaged to Marcus, a nephew of the philosopher Philo. Then she married her uncle Herod, king of Chalcis, but at his death in A.D. 48, she came to live with her brother Agrippa. Rumors of their incestuous relationship flourished in both Rome and Palestine.
14 Though Agrippa II did not rule over Judea, he had been appointed by Claudius to be “the curator of the temple,” with power to depose and appoint the high priest and with the responsibility of preserving the temple’s treasury and priestly vestments. He developed an interest in the Jewish religion and was, in fact, looked upon by Rome as an authority. Thus Festus broached the subject of Paul’s case when Agrippa visited him.
15–21 Festus told Agrippa how the Jewish leaders confronted him with Paul’s case when he first went to Jerusalem and that they had asked for Paul’s death (v.15), but he acted in accordance with Roman law in demanding that charges be properly laid and the defendant allowed his day in court (v.16). Furthermore, he insisted, he acted with due dispatch, for on the day after he and the Jewish leaders returned to Caesarea, he convened court in order to try the case (v.17). To his surprise he found that the charges did not concern real offenses punishable under Roman law but theological differences of a Jewish intramural nature (vv.18–19a) and a debate “about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive” (v.19b). With a shrug of his shoulders, Festus confessed his total inadequacy to deal with them (v.20a). In an endeavor to resolve the impasse, Festus told Agrippa he was prepared to accede to the Sanhedrin’s request for a change of venue to Jerusalem (v.20b). But Paul objected and appealed to Caesar, an appeal Festus had granted (v.21). Now then, what was he to write in sending Paul on to the imperial court regarding the charges against the prisoner and the issues of the case?
22 This stirred Agrippa’s interest so that instead of merely giving his advice, he had an intense personal desire to hear Paul himself. Festus was only too happy to arrange a meeting for the very next day. Paul’s meeting with Herod Agrippa II has often been paralleled with that of Jesus before Herod Antipas in Lk 23:6–12. Not only was each arraigned by a Roman governor, but each was brought before a Jewish king who wanted very much to meet him (Lk 23:8). Paul’s time with Agrippa II, however, turned out far more harmoniously than that of Jesus before Antipas.
5. Paul’s defense before Herod Agrippa II (25:23–26:32)
Paul’s defense before Herod Agrippa II was for Luke the most important of the five defenses. It is the longest and most carefully constructed of the five. Perhaps Luke was even in the audience chamber through the courtesy of an officer of the guard.
All the attention in the account is focused on Paul himself and the Gospel, not on the charges brought forward by the Jews, and certainly not on any rumored incest between Agrippa and Bernice. Inherent in Luke’s account are at least three apologetic themes: (1) Paul’s relations with the Roman government in Judea did not end in dissonance but with an acknowledgment of his innocence (cf. 25:25; 26:31); (2) even though the Jewish high priests and Sanhedrin opposed Paul, the Jewish king who in Rome’s eyes outranked them agreed with a verdict of innocence (cf. 26:32); and (3) Paul’s innocence was demonstrated not only before Roman and Jewish rulers but also publicly before “the high ranking officers and the leading men of the city” (25:23).
Yet Paul’s speech before Agrippa II is not just a personal defense of himself. It is also a positive presentation of the Gospel with an evangelistic appeal: (1) according to the OT prophets, the Christ would suffer, rise from the dead, and proclaim light to both Jews and Gentiles (26:23); (2) what God did in and through Jesus the Christ was done openly, “not done in a corner” (v.26); (3) believing the prophets leads one to accept redemption in Christ (v.27); (4) Paul’s prayer for all who hear is that they “may become what I am, except for these chains” (v.29). After this climactic speech of Paul, all that remains for Luke is to sketch out the apostle’s journey to Rome and his ministry there, thus completing the geographical framework of Luke’s presentation and concluding it on a note of triumph (cf. 28:31).
23 Luke describes Agrippa and Bernice as entering the audience chamber of Herod the Great’s Caesarean palace “with great pomp,” accompanied by a procession of “high ranking officers and the leading men of the city.” The Romans always knew how to process well. The sight of Agrippa’s royal robes, Bernice’s finery, and the military and civil dignitaries decked out in their official attire doubtless overwhelmed those unaccustomed to such displays. Paul the prisoner was then brought in. But though the situation asserted the importance of Roman officialdom and the inferiority of the man who stood before it, Luke’s inspired insight penetrated the trappings and saw that the situation was really reversed. And his evaluation has prevailed in history.
24–27 Festus opened the proceedings by turning the dignitaries’ attention to Paul with the words “You see this man!” After saying that he could not substantiate the charges against Paul, he told them how Paul had appealed to Caesar. Then, asking for help with what he would have to write in sending Paul to the imperial court, Festus turned the inquiry over to King Agrippa.
A number of subtle touches in these verses are particularly appropriate for the situation. The title Sebastos (“Emperor,” v.25; GK 4935), found only here and in v.21 in the NT, is the Greek equivalent of Augustus (a title first conferred on Octavian by the Senate in 27 B.C. to denote one who is lifted above other mortals). The addition of Kyrios (“Lord” or “His Majesty”; GK 3261) to the imperial title began in the time of Nero (A.D. 54–68). Despite its associations with deity in the eastern realms of the empire, the growth of the imperial cult, and the pretensions to divinity of such emperors as Nero and Domitian, Kyrios did not by itself signal to Romans the idea of deity but rather connoted that of majesty. Likewise, Festus’s statement (v.27) that he thought it “unreasonable” to send on a prisoner with unspecified charges against him is typical of the face-saving language used among officials, for the failure to specify charges was a dereliction of duty.
26:1 At Agrippa’s invitation to speak for himself, Paul, though manacled by chains (v.29), motioned with his hand for attention (cf. 21:40) and began speaking. While we have only a summary of his speech, it is the longest of Paul’s five defenses, undoubtedly reflecting the relative length of the address. Since Agrippa was considered an authority on the Jewish religion, he might have been expected to listen closely to Paul’s lengthy explanation of the relation of his message and ministry to the hope of Israel.
2–3 This was just the kind of situation Paul had longed for during two bleak years in prison—namely, a knowledgeable judge and a not inherently antagonistic audience before whom he could not only make his defense but also proclaim his message. Therefore he began with unusual fervor, expressing appreciation for the opportunity of speaking, complimenting the judge, and asking for patience in hearing him out. Since Festus had already said that Paul had not committed a capital crime (cf. 25:25), Paul chose to defend himself only against the charge that he had transgressed against Judaism.
4–8 It was not in spite of his Jewish heritage but because of it, Paul insisted, that he believed and proclaimed what he did. So he began the body of his address by drawing together his Pharisaic background and his Christian commitment, arguing that the Jewish hope and the Christian message are inseparably related. His life had been spent among his people in his own country and in Jerusalem (v.4; cf. 22:3). He had lived as a Pharisee, “the strictest sect” of the Jewish religion (v.5; cf. Php 3:5–6). It was because of the Jewish hope in the resurrection of the dead that he was being tried (v.6). Ironically, the charges against him were brought, of all people, by the Jews themselves. Yet why should any of his audience think it “incredible that God raises the dead” (v.8), particularly when God had validated the truth of the resurrection by raising Jesus from the dead (cf. comment on 23:6)?
9–11 Paul went on to acknowledge that he too at one time thought that Christian preaching about the resurrection of Jesus was incredible. Pharisee though he was, he too had denounced belief in Jesus’ resurrection and had persecuted those who claimed to have seen him alive after his crucifixion. He put Christians in prison, agreed with the death penalty for their “blasphemy” (cf. 8:1), and went through the synagogues seeking to punish them for apostasy and to get them to recant. This he did not only in Jerusalem but also in cities outside Judea.
12–14 While Paul was trying to stamp out nascent Christianity, the encounter that changed his life took place. That Paul’s account of his Damascus Road conversion appears three times in Acts (chs. 9; 22; 26) undoubtedly shows how important this event was not only for Paul but also for Luke (cf. introductory comments on 9:1–30). It is in this third account that Luke’s purpose to proclaim the Gospel of Christ in Luke-Acts reaches its climax. Each account fits its own special context in Paul’s life and in Luke’s purpose. Here there is an intensification and explication of the details that is not found in the earlier accounts: (1) the heavenly light was “brighter than the sun” (cf. 9:3; 22:6); (2) it blazed around both “me and my companions” (cf. 9:3; 22:6); (3) “we all fell to the ground” (cf. 9:4; 22:7); and (4) the voice from heaven spoke “in Aramaic” (or “in Hebrew”; see NIV note).
Likewise in v.14b we have the only place in the three accounts where “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” is included (cf. 9:5; KJV). This was a well-known Greek expression for opposition to deity; Paul used it here to show his Greek-oriented audience the implications of the question “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Lest he be misunderstood as proclaiming only a Galilean prophet he had formerly opposed, he was pointing out what was obvious to any Jew: correction by a voice from heaven meant opposition to God himself.
15–18 On the other hand, this third account leaves out certain features of the other two: (1) the heavenly speaker identifies himself only as Jesus (cf. 22:8); (2) there is no mention of Ananias (cf. 9:10–19; 22:12–16); (3) there is no mention of Paul’s blindness and subsequent healing (cf. 9:8–9; 18–19; 22:11, 13). There was, however, no need here to refer to Jesus “of Nazareth” or to the devout Jew Ananias (cf. comment on 22:12–16). Nor was it necessary for Paul to refer to his blindness and healing, which might have been confusing to a pagan audience. Rather, in his address before Agrippa and the others, Paul merged the words of Christ as spoken on the road to Damascus (cf. 9:5–6; 22:8, 10), as given through Ananias of Damascus (cf. 22:14–15), and as received in a vision at Jerusalem (cf. 22:18–21). In other words, while not emphasizing details of time or human aid, Paul did emphasize the lordship of Christ and the divine commission Christ gave him.
The words of the risen Jesus calling Paul to his mission (vv.16–17) recall the commissioning of the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah (Eze 2:1, 3; Jer 1:7–8), and the commission itself (v.18) echoes that of the Servant of the Lord in Isa 42:6b–7. Indeed, Paul’s mission was a prophetic one that perpetuated the commission originally given to God’s Righteous Servant, Jesus Christ. And Christians today, as God’s servants and prophets, are called to the same kind of ministry.
19–21 Having been confronted by the risen and glorified Jesus, Paul henceforth knew but one Master and found it impossible to resist his commands. So he told Agrippa how he began preaching about Jesus in Damascus and continued to do so in Jerusalem (cf. 9:20–30). The words “and in all Judea” are grammatically strange and conflict with the evidence of Ac 9:20–30 and Gal 1:18–24 that Paul did not preach the Gospel throughout “all the region of Judea.” Perhaps this phrase was an early gloss that entered the text through a false reading of Ro 15:19. And Paul also preached to the Gentiles a message of repentance and conversion. It was because of his preaching to Gentiles, he insisted, that the Jews were so aggressively opposed to him.
22–23 Nevertheless, in fulfillment of Christ’s promise (v.17), God had stood by Paul, protecting him and enabling him to proclaim “to small and great alike” a message thoroughly in accord with Israel’s faith and in harmony with all that the prophets and Moses said would happen: “that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” The proclamation of both a suffering Messiah and the resurrection of Jesus were distinctive teachings in early Christianity. To these foundation tenets of the early faith, Paul, by revelation (cf. Gal 1:11–12; Eph 3:1–6), added the legitimacy of a direct outreach to Gentiles, a development brought about by God himself as the true intent of Israelite religion.
24 At this point Festus broke into Paul’s address, unable to endure it any longer. He may not have been speaking for the Jews, to whom a suffering Messiah and a direct ministry to Gentiles were outrageous. But no sensible Roman could believe in the resurrection of a man from the dead—and even if he did privately accept such a strange view, he would not allow it to interfere with his practical living or bring him into danger of death. Paul, Festus concluded, was so learned in his Jewish traditions that he had become utterly impractical. Such talk was the height of insanity.
25–27 But what Festus declared to be madness Paul insisted was “true and reasonable.” Then he turned to Agrippa for support. The ministry of Jesus was widely known in Palestine, and Agrippa would have heard of it. Jesus’ death and resurrection were amply attested, and the Christian Gospel had now been proclaimed for three decades. Certainly the king knew of these things, because they had been done openly. And certainly the king believed the prophets—a belief, as Paul saw it, that inevitably brought one to Christ. So the prisoner became the questioner, as Paul boldly said, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”
28 Paul’s direct question embarrassed Agrippa. He had his reputation to maintain before Festus and the other dignitaries. Whatever he may have thought about Paul’s message personally, he was too worldly-wise to commit himself in public to what others thought was madness. So he parried Paul’s question with his own clever, though rather inane, one: “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” The KJV’s translation of this reply, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” has become one of the famous quotations in history. It has inspired countless sermons and even a gospel hymn. Nevertheless, “almost” is not what Agrippa said.
29 Addressing the king with extreme politeness and taking up Agrippa’s own word “short time,” Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am.” Undoubtedly he spoke with evangelistic fervor, directing his appeal not only to the king but also to the other dignitaries. Then in a lighter vein, recognizing the apparent incongruity of appealing for their acceptance of spiritual freedom while he himself stood chained before them, he raised his hands and added, “except for these chains.”
30–32 Paul had had the last word, and his light touch at the end of his response evidently broke up the meeting. With it Agrippa dismissed the proceedings and with Festus and Bernice strode out of the audience chamber to discuss the situation. Agrippa had presumably heard enough to instruct Festus what he should write in his report to Rome. Their conclusion was that Paul had done nothing that in Rome’s eyes merited death or imprisonment, and Agrippa was heard to comment, “This man could have been set free, if he had not appealed to Caesar.” This comment should not be taken to mean that a provincial governor could not free a prisoner after an appeal to Caesar (see comment on 25:12). In this situation, however, Paul’s status was not a question of law only but also of politics. With these words, Luke concludes his apologetic motif in Acts and vindicates both Paul and Christianity from any suspicion of sedition.
E. The Journey to Rome (27:1–28:15)
One would like to know many things about Paul’s two-year imprisonment at Caesarea. For instance, how was the apostle supported during this time (cf. comment on 24:26)? How cordial were Paul’s relations with the Jerusalem Christians and their leaders? How about his contacts with the Caesarean believers or with other groups of Christians in the area? What were Timothy and Luke doing? What happened to Silas and to those who represented the Gentile churches during Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem (cf. 20:4)? Such matters, however, were evidently not of interest to Luke or to Paul in his letters. In an endeavor to fill these gaps in Luke’s account of Paul’s stay in Caesarea, some have proposed that several of Paul’s letters (notably Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon) were written while he was in prison in Caesarea. But more likely they were composed during his subsequent Roman imprisonment.
Luke’s account of Paul’s voyage to Rome stands out as one of the most vivid pieces of descriptive writing in the whole Bible. Its details regarding first-century seamanship are exceptionally precise and its portrayal of conditions on the eastern Mediterranean remarkably accurate. What stands out is his portrayal of Paul as a man of powerful personality, who commanded respect in various situations. Most of all, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, who had been promised divine protection and assurance that he would reach Rome (cf. 23:11), and, as elsewhere in Acts, Paul was one through whom God by his Spirit worked in an extraordinary fashion (cf. 19:11–12; 20:10–12).
1. From Palestine to Crete (27:1–12)
1 The account of Paul’s journey to Rome is the longest of Luke’s four “we” sections (27:1–28:16; cf. 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18). The vividness and precision of the narrative confirm what the use of “we” implies—that it is an eyewitness report. The centurion Julius, assigned to take Paul to Rome, was a member of “the Imperial Regiment.” The soldiers who performed the police and escort services in Paul’s day were the speculatores, a special body of imperial guards who were particularly prominent in times of military intrigue. They did not belong to any division of a Roman army legion; instead, they formed a special unit of their own.
2 The port of embarkation was undoubtedly Caesarea. The boat they boarded was a coastal vessel from the city of Adramyttium in Mysia. Embarking with Paul were Luke (cf. “we”) and Aristarchus, who were possibly entered on the passenger list as Paul’s personal doctor and servant, respectively. As a Roman citizen who had appealed to the emperor, Paul would naturally have had a more favored position than the other prisoners; and the centurion would have recognized his superiority as a gentleman with attendants. That Aristarchus is included in Col 4:10 and Phm 24 as sending greetings from Rome (assuming a Roman origin for these letters) suggests that he traveled with Paul all the way to Rome and remained with him during his imprisonment there.
3 At Sidon, the ancient Phoenician port some seventy miles north of Caesarea, the boat took on cargo. Here Paul was permitted to visit the Christians of the city, who, like those at Tyre (cf. comment on 21:4), had probably become believers through the witness of Christian Hellenists forced to leave Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom (cf. 11:19). The centurion Julius had probably been advised by Festus to be lenient with Paul, and doubtless Paul had already made a good impression on him. Yet a soldier would have been always with him during his visit.
4–5 From Sidon, the boat sailed northwest toward Cyprus, staying close to the long east coast of the island because of the westerly winds that blow from spring through fall on the eastern Mediterranean. Two and one half years earlier Paul and his companions had sailed with that westerly wind from Patara to Tyre and had passed Cyprus on the south (see 21:3). Now, however, their voyage was considerably slower as their boat had to run against the winds, and they tried to stay in the lee of sheltering land masses. Crossing the open sea between Cyprus and Cilicia, the vessel worked its way westward to Myra in Lycia, on the southwest coast of Asia Minor, helped along by local land breezes and a westward current that runs along that coast.
6 Myra was the most illustrious city in Lycia, with distinguished public buildings, a large theater, and many evidences of wealth. It became the natural port of call for grain ships bound for Rome from Egypt, and in commercial importance it overshadowed its rival Patara to the west. There Julius arranged with the owner of a larger Alexandrian grain ship to take the soldiers and prisoners on board for the longer voyage to Italy.
7–8 Leaving Myra, the grain ship moved slowly along the peninsula that thrusts seaward between the islands of Cos and Rhodes to the port of Cnidus, at the southwestern tip of Asia Minor. Cnidus was the last port of call before sailing west across the Aegean for the Greek mainland. But the northern winds that blow down the length of the Aegean at this time of year pushed the ship off course and forced the pilot to seek protection along the southern coast of Crete, the 160-mile-long island southeast of Greece. Passing Cape Salmone on the eastern tip of Crete, the ship entered the small bay of Fair Havens.
9–10 Navigation in this part of the Mediterranean was always dangerous after Sept. 14 and was considered impossible after Nov. 11. The ship had lost valuable time since leaving Myra, and it was obvious that there was no hope of reaching Italy before winter. “The Fast” (i.e., Yom Kippur or “Day of Atonement”), the chief festival of Judaism celebrated on the tenth of the lunar month Tishri (between the latter part of September and the first part of October), was already past. So Paul warned that disaster would befall them if they tried to go further.
11–12 But the pilot and the ship’s owner preferred not to winter in the small, open bay of Fair Havens, being reluctant to seek quarters for themselves and their passengers in the small town of Lasea. They hoped to winter instead at the larger and safer port of Phoenix, forty miles west of Fair Havens. Between these two ports, however, the south coast of Crete turns suddenly to the north and exposes a ship to the northern gales before it regains the protection of the coast just before Phoenix. The centurion agreed with the pilot and the ship’s owner that it would, if at all possible, be best to winter at Phoenix.
2. Storm and shipwreck (27:13–44)
13–15 Shortly after the decision to winter at Phoenix was made, a gentle southern breeze began to blow; and it appeared that they would have no trouble in crossing the Gulf of Messara that began west of Cape Matala on the southern coast of Crete. But no sooner had they rounded the cape and entered the gulf than they were caught in a hurricane coming from Mount Ida to the north. Sailors called this wind the Euroquilo (lit., “northeaster”). Before it they were helpless.
16–17 Driven southwest some twenty-three miles to the small island of Cauda, the ship managed to gain the lee of the island. The sailors pulled in the dinghy, which was full of water, reinforced the ship with ropes to keep it from breaking up (exactly how these ropes were positioned is not known, though most argue that ropes were passed under the ship and secured above the deck), and put out the sea anchor to keep the ship from running onto the sandbars of Syrtis, off the African coast.
18–20 For fourteen days and nights (cf. v.27), the ship was in the grip of the northeaster. The crew tried to lighten the ship by throwing overboard all the deck cargo (v.18), then by disposing of the ship’s tackle (v.19). In the darkness of the storm they could not take their bearings from the sun or stars. All hope of being saved had vanished.
21–26 Undoubtedly Paul shared the general pessimism on board ship (cf. the inclusive use of “we” in v.20). But one night toward the close of the fourteen-day storm, “an angel of God” stood by him and reassured him with a message of comfort for this time of crisis (cf. 23:11). The next morning when Paul shared this vision with his companions on shipboard, he was human enough to (in effect) say “I told you so” to those who had not taken his advice at Fair Havens. He added that in his opinion they would not be saved without running aground on some island.
27–29 During the fourteenth night after leaving Crete, it was clear—probably from the running swell and the roar of surf—that they were near a shore. Soundings indicated shallower water. To keep the ship from being wrecked against the rocks of an unknown coast in the darkness, they dropped four anchors and waited for dawn. Luke tells us that they were in the Adriatic Sea (the name used in ancient times for all parts of the Mediterranean between Greece, Italy, and Africa).
30–32 Contrary to the best tradition of the sea, the sailors schemed to save themselves by lowering the dinghy (cf. vv.16–17) under cover of lowering some more anchors from the bow. But Paul saw through the ruse, doubtless realizing that no sailor would drop anchors from the bow under such conditions. He knew that to try to make shore in the morning without a full crew would be disastrous. So Paul warned Julius that all would be lost if the sailors deserted the ship. Though he had not listened to Paul earlier (cf. vv.11–12), Julius took his advice here and ordered his men to cut the lines holding the dinghy and let it fall away.
33–38 The storm had been so fierce that preparing food had been impossible. Once again, Paul’s great qualities of leadership came to the fore. Urging all on board to eat, he took some bread, gave thanks to God, and ate it. The others on board also ate. Then, strengthened by the food, they threw the cargo of grain overboard to give the ship a shallower draft as they beached her. Only at v.37 does Luke tell us how many were on board. Probably in distributing the food, they had to know the exact number, and Luke himself may have helped supervise the distribution.
39–41 With a profusion of nautical detail that makes this chapter unique, Luke tells how the ship was beached amid the pounding surf on a sandbar some distance from land and began to break apart. From then on it was every man for himself.
42–44 Roman military law decreed that a guard who allowed his prisoner to escape could expect the same penalty the escaped prisoner would have suffered (cf. comments on 12:18–19a; 16:25–28). Thus the soldiers wanted to kill the prisoners, lest they escape while getting to land. Julius, however, determined to protect Paul, prevented this and ordered all to get to land either by swimming or by holding on to pieces of the wreckage. So God in his providence brought them all safely to shore, as he had promised Paul he would (cf. v.24). Many, like Luke, undoubtedly saw the relation between the promise and their safety and in their own ways praised the God Paul served.
3. Ashore at Malta (28:1–10)
1 Malta is an island about 18 miles long and 8 miles wide, lying 58 miles south of Sicily and 180 miles north and east of the African coast. It had been colonized about 1000 B.C. by Phoenicians, but was captured by Rome in 218 B.C. (though it was given much local autonomy). Augustus established a Roman governor on the island and settled a number of army veterans and their families there. In Paul’s day the island was known for its prosperity and residential architecture, and its native population spoke a Phoenician dialect, though many probably knew some Latin and Greek.
2–4 The islanders showed kindness to “us all” (i.e., the 276 survivors) by building a fire, which was just what was needed in the cold and rain. When Paul was bitten by a viper, the islanders concluded he was a murderer whom Justice had at last caught up with since he had not died at sea. The Greek goddess Dike (i.e., “Justice”; GK 1472), or her Phoenician counterpart, was apparently venerated by the Maltese.
5–6 Seeing that Paul was unaffected by the snakebite, the islanders decided that he must be a god—or, perhaps, a favorite of the gods. Nothing is said about Paul’s rebuking the islanders as he had rebuked the people at Lystra (cf. 14:15–18), for evidently they made no attempt to worship Paul. Luke gives us such a vividly detailed account of the incident because he wants his readers to appreciate that Paul was not only a heaven-directed man with a God-given message but also a heaven-protected man. The powerful account of the storm and shipwreck has shown this, and now this vignette stresses it once more.
7–9 Though Paul spent three months (cf. v.11) on Malta, Luke gives us only one more incident from his stay there—the healing of Publius’s father. This account is much like that of Peter and the crippled beggar (cf. 3:1ff.) in purpose, though not in length. Luke likely included it to illustrate the continuing power of Paul’s ministry despite his being in Malta as a prisoner. No matter what the circumstances are, the true servant of Christ is, like Paul, never off duty for his Lord.
As the Roman governor of Malta and as an act of official courtesy, Publius brought the survivors of the wreck to his estate and entertained them for three days while their respective situations were sorted out and arrangements made for their lodgings over the winter. Luke’s reference to the governor only by his praenomen may reflect a friendly relationship that developed between Publius, Paul, and Luke during those three months.
The malady that the father of Publius was suffering from may have been Malta fever, which in 1887 was traced to the milk of Maltese goats. Cases of Malta fever are long-lasting—an average of four months, but in some cases lasting two or three years. Luke uses the plural “fevers” here, probably implying the way it affects its victims with intermittent attacks.
After Paul had healed Publius’s father through prayer and laying on of hands, “the rest of the sick on the island” came to him and were healed. Paul’s ministry to those he met consisted in both proclaiming the Good News of Christ Jesus and healing them physically. Luke’s inclusion of this vignette prepares for the climax of his book—Paul’s entrance into Rome and the triumphant note of the Good News being preached “without hindrance” (see comment on v.31).
10 As a result of Paul’s ministry during his months on Malta, the islanders honored him and his party in many ways. Paul was no god, as they had soon learned. But he was a messenger of the one true God, with good news of life and wholeness in Jesus Christ. In carrying out his God-given commission, Paul gave of himself unstintingly on behalf of people. That they appreciated his ministry is evidenced by their giving him and his colleagues supplies for the rest of their journey.
Luke suggests that Paul may have looked on his stay in Malta as a high point in his ministry—a time of blessing when God worked in marvelous ways, despite the shipwreck and his being still a prisoner. God seems to have been refreshing Paul’s spirit after the two relatively bleak years at Caesarea and the disastrous time at sea, and he was preparing him for his witness in Rome.
4. Arrival at Rome (28:11–16)
11 “After three months” (probably about mid-February), the centurion Julius arranged for another ship to take his contingent of prisoners and soldiers for the last leg of their voyage to Italy. It was another Alexandrian vessel, probably another grain ship (cf. comment on v.13) from Egypt that had harbored at Malta before winter set in. Ships, like inns, took their names from their figureheads; and this one had the painted carving at its prow of Castor and Pollux, who in Greek mythology were transformed by Zeus into twin gods represented by the constellation Gemini. Their cult was especially widespread in Egypt, and the Gemini were considered by sailors a sign of good fortune in a storm. For an Alexandrian ship, the figurehead was an appropriate one.
12 Sailing north-northeast, the ship reached the harbor of Syracuse, on the east coast of Sicily. There it remained for three days, probably awaiting better wind conditions and loading and unloading cargo.
13 From Syracuse the ship “set sail” for Rhegium, an important harbor at the toe of Italy and on the Italian side of the Strait of Messina. Docking there to await a more favorable breeze, they sailed the next day when a southerly wind began to blow and made the 180 miles up the coast of Italy to Puteoli in only two days. Puteoli was a resort city on the Bay of Naples, the port city of Neapolis (modern Naples) and the principal port of southern Italy. There many grain ships from Egypt docked, and there Julius and his contingent disembarked with Paul and his party.
14 There are two rather surprising statements in this verse. First, at Puteoli Paul and his companions “found some brothers who invited us to spend a week with them.” It was not, of course, unusual for Christians to be found in such an important city as Puteoli, especially since there was a Jewish colony there. What is surprising, however is that prisoner Paul was at liberty to seek out the Christians of the city and accept their invitation to spend seven days in fellowship with them. For some reason Julius found it necessary to stay at Puteoli for a week, and during that time he allowed Paul the freedom (though undoubtedly accompanied by a guard) to seek out his fellow believers and enjoy their hospitality (cf. 27:3). As Luke presses toward the end of his story, his account becomes more and more concise.
A second surprising feature of v.14 is its forthright conclusion: “And so we came to Rome.” It is not surprising that they came to Rome, for that had for some time been the goal of Paul’s journey and Luke’s narrative. But that the mention of their arrival appears here before v.15 and not as the opening statement of v.16 is indeed surprising. The best explanation is that it reflects Luke’s eagerness to get to the climax of his story and that this eagerness led him to anticipate their arrival at Rome even though he had to go back in v.15 and include another detail of the last stage of the journey.
15 Paul and company took the Via Domitiana from Puteoli to Neapolis, turning northwest to travel to Rome on the Via Appia—that oldest, straightest, and most perfectly made of all the Roman roads. During the seven-day stopover at Puteoli, news of Paul’s arrival in Italy had reached Rome. So a number of Christians there set out to meet him and escort him to Rome. Some of them got as far as the Forum of Appius, one of the “halting stations” built every ten to fifteen miles along the entire length of the Roman road system. It was forty-three miles from Rome, and a market-town had grown up around it. Others only got as far as the Three Taverns Inn, another halting station about thirty-three miles from Rome. Paul’s gratitude to God for the delegation that met him must have been unusually fervent, for Luke makes special mention of it. In his letters, Paul often urges his readers to be thankful, and here he illustrates his own advice.
16 At Rome, Paul was allowed to live in private quarters, though a soldier guarded him at all times. The chain he wore (v.20) was probably attached to his wrists. Yet in Luke’s eyes Paul entered Rome in triumph. Through his coming the Gospel penetrated official circles in the capital of the empire, and God used his detention there for two years to spread the proclamation of the kingdom of God and the Lord Jesus Christ throughout the city (cf. vv.30–31).
With this verse, the last “we” section in Acts closes. To judge by Paul’s greetings in Col 4:10–14 and Phm 23–24 (assuming a Roman origin for these letters), Luke and Aristarchus remained with Paul through most—if not all—of his detention at Rome, being joined from time to time by such friends as Epaphras, John Mark, Demas, and Jesus (surnamed Justus).
F. Rome at Last (28:17–30)
At last, Paul’s great desire to visit the capital of the empire (cf. Ro 15:22–24, 28–29) was fulfilled. Despite his manacles, guard, and house arrest, he was free to receive visitors. Among them, Luke tells us, were (1) the leading Jews of the city, whom he asked to visit him when he first arrived (vv.17–28) and (2) others, evidently both Jews and Gentiles, who came to his quarters at various times during his two-year detention (v.30).
1. Meetings with the Jewish leaders (28:17–28)
17–20 Three days after arriving at Rome, Paul invited the leaders of the Jewish community to meet with him in his own quarters. He wanted to learn what they had heard from Jerusalem about him and to find out their attitude toward him. Through their contacts in the imperial court and with their money, they could, if they desired, support the charges against him. Since they undoubtedly knew something about his case, he wanted to defend himself before them. Also, he hoped the occasion would be an opportunity for proclaiming the message about Jesus the Messiah and that some would respond to it.
Paul began with the typical salutation used at Jewish formal gatherings (cf. comment on 23:1). The first word of his address, “I,” clearly shows that Paul was about to deliver a personal defense. He had done nothing, he insisted, against the Jewish people or against the customs of the fathers (v.17). The Roman authorities had in fact judged that he had not committed any capital crime and were willing to release him (vv.17b–18). But objections from Jerusalem forced him to appeal to Caesar—not to accuse his own people but to save his life (v.19). The point of contention between him and his accusers at Jerusalem had to do with the messianic hope of Israel, which Paul believed was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth and they did not. Therefore he concluded: “It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain” (v.20; cf. 23:6; 24:21; 26:6–8).
21–22 The immediate response of the Roman Jewish leaders to Paul’s address is surprising. Apparently they did not want to get involved. They disclaimed having gotten any letters about him from the authorities at Jerusalem and said they had heard nothing, officially or unofficially, against him from any Jew who had come to them from Judea (v.21). Yet Christianity had been known within the Jewish community at Rome for some time (cf. comments on 2:10; 18:2). Certainly the Jewish leaders at Rome knew a great deal about Christianity generally and at least something about Paul, and their claim to know only “that people everywhere are talking against this sect” (v.22) seems much too “diplomatic” in light of their knowledge.
It is, however, in the light of their recent experience that we should judge the Jewish leaders’ response to Paul’s words. Having been expelled from Rome in 49 or 50 because of riots about Christianity in their community (cf. 18:2), and having only recently returned to their city after Claudius’s death in 54, they were simply not prepared in 61 to become involved in Paul’s case one way or another. They doubtless had their own opinions about it. But (1) the Jerusalem authorities had not requested them to get involved; (2) Paul was a Roman citizen who had had essentially favorable hearings before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa II; and (3) his case was now to be tried before Caesar himself. So they wanted to have as little as possible to do with Paul and Christianity. But they did say that they were willing at some future time to hear his views on “this sect.”
23–24 So they arranged a second meeting, and an even larger delegation came to Paul’s quarters. Luke tells us only that it lasted “from morning till evening” and that Paul proclaimed “the kingdom of God” (cf. comment on 1:3), focusing on Jesus, to whom the Law and the Prophets bore witness (v.23; cf. v.31). For the content of what he said, we should probably think of his sermon in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (13:17–41) and the letter sent to the Romans. As for his method, he “tried to convince them,” which implies that Paul combined proclamation with persuasion (cf. comment on 17:2–4) and that there was a good deal of impassioned debate. The day-long session proved profitable, for “some were convinced by what he said”—though, sadly, “others would not believe” (v.24).
25–28 The points at which many of the Jewish leaders disagreed with Paul and left the session, Luke says, were two. (1) Paul attempted to prove the obduracy of Israel from Scripture on the ground that Isaiah, in Isa 6:9–10, had foretold the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as Messiah (cf. the use of this passage in Mt 13:13–15; Lk 8:10; also Mk 4:12; Jn 12:40, though not with quite the same thrust). Paul had elaborated on this issue in Ro 9–11. (2) He quoted prophecy here not just to explain Israel’s stubbornness but to set the stage for his second point: because of Israel’s hardened attitude the message of “God’s salvation” had been sent directly to Gentiles, who would respond positively.
A revolutionary new policy for proclaiming the Gospel and making converts had been providentially worked out during Paul’s first missionary journey and at the Jerusalem Council (cf. 12:25–16:5 and comments). That policy was then carried out through two more missionary journeys extending into Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia (cf. 16:6–19:20). This policy advocated the proclamation of the Gospel “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Ro 1:16; cf. Ac 13:46–52). Luke has carefully shown how everything that happened in the ministry of the early Jerusalem church essentially looked forward to the inauguration of this policy and how it lay at the heart of Paul’s missionary purpose. Now having traced the story of the advance of the Gospel to Rome, Luke reports how that same pattern was followed at Rome. His account of the Gospel’s advance from Jerusalem to Rome in terms of the distinctive policy of first the Jew, then the Gentile comes to a fitting conclusion with the quotation of Isa 6:9–10.
2. Continued ministry for two years (28:30)
30 Luke does not give us details about Paul’s two years in Rome because he is not writing Paul’s biography. But during the storm at sea, the angel of the Lord had assured Paul that he would stand trial before Caesar (cf. 27:24). Therefore, it seems proper to assume that Luke intended his readers to infer that Paul’s case, whatever its outcome, did come before the imperial court.
With Acts ending so abruptly, we must look elsewhere for information about Paul’s Roman imprisonment and its aftermath. Accepting the Prison Letters as having been written during this time, we may surmise that Paul fully expected to stand before Caesar’s court and that, while we cannot not be certain about the outcome, he did expect to be released (cf. Php 1:19–26; Phm 22). We may date such a release around 63. Accepting the Pastoral Letters as genuine, after Paul’s release from this imprisonment, he continued evangelizing the eastern portion of the empire (at least in lands surrounding the Aegean Sea)—perhaps even fulfilling his desire to visit Spain (Ro 15:23–24). And since 2Ti 4:6–18 speaks of a second trial in a tone of resignation, we may conclude that Paul was rearrested about 67 and, according to tradition, beheaded at Rome by order of Nero.
G. A Summary Statement (28:31)
31 This summary statement has often been viewed as only an amplification of v.30, indicating the nature of Paul’s ministry during his two years of detention at Rome. But to judge by Luke’s practice in the other five summary statements in Acts (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20), we should take it as the summary statement for the whole of Panel 6 (19:21–28:31). In all of his prison experiences at Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome, Luke is saying, Paul “boldly . . . preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” And he did this “without hindrance” (GK 219)—the last word in the Greek text of Acts, which thus closes this work on a victorious note. This word shows the tolerance of Rome at that time toward Christianity—a tolerance Luke was passionately promoting throughout these last chapters and hoped would continue.
In seeming to leave his book unfinished, Luke was implying that the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel in the first century began a story that will continue until the consummation of the kingdom in Christ (Ac 1:11).
The Old Testament in the New
| NT Text | OT Text | Subject |
| Ac 1:20 | Ps 69:25 | Judgment on Judas |
| Ac 1:20 | Ps 109:8 | Replacement for Judas |
| Ac 2:17–21 | Joel 2:28–32 | God’s Spirit poured out |
| Ac 2:25–28, 31 | Ps 16:8–11 | Resurrection of Christ |
| Ac 2:34–35 | Ps 110:1 | At God’s right hand |
| Ac 3:22–23 | Dt 18:15, 18–19 | The prophet |
| Ac 3:25 | Ge 22:18; 26:4 | Nations blessed in Abraham |
| Ac 4:11 | Ps 118:22 | Rejected cornerstone |
| Ac 4:24 | Ex 20:11; Ps 146:6 | God the creator |
| Ac 4:25–26 | Ps 2:1–2 | Kings against the Lord |
| Ac 7:3 | Ge 12:1 | Call of Abraham |
| Ac 7:6–7 | Ge 15:13–14 | Prophecy to Abraham |
| Ac 7:18 | Ex 1:8 | King who did not know Joseph |
| Ac 7:27–28, 35 | Ex 2:14 | Moses in Egypt |
| Ac 7:32 | Ex 3:6 | The living God |
| Ac 7:33 | Ex 3:5 | Moses at the burning bush |
| Ac 7:34 | Ex 3:7–8, 10 | God promises to deliver Israel |
| Ac 7:37 | Dt 18:15 | The prophet |
| Ac 7:40 | Ex 32:1, 23 | Asking for idols |
| Ac 7:42–43 | Am 5:25–27 | Sin and judgment |
| Ac 7:49–50 | Isa 66:1–2 | No temple contams God |
| Ac 8:32–33 | Isa 53:7–8 | Jesus as the dying lamb |
| Ac 13:33 | Ps 2:7 | You are my Son |
| Ac 13:34 | Isa 55:3 | Blessings of David |
| Ac 13:35 | Ps 16:10 | Resurrection of Christ |
| Ac 13:41 | Hab 1:5 | Judgment for sin |
| Ac 13:47 | Isa 49:6 | Salvation of the Gentiles |
| Ac 14:15 | Ex 20:11; Ps 146:6 | God the creator |
| Ac 15:16–17 | Am 9:11–12 | Restoration for everyone |
| Ac 23:5 | Ex 22:28 | Cursing rulers |
| Ac 28:26–27 | Isa 6:9–10 | Seeing but not perceiving |