Authorship. The style and themes of Acts clearly reflect the same authorship as those of the Gospel of Luke. Luke varies between Greek contemporary prose style and a Jewish style of Greek heavily influenced by the *Septuagint.
The author claims to be an eyewitness of some secondary incidents (see comment on Acts 16:10), to have therefore known direct sources for much of his information, and to have acquired thorough knowledge of the rest (Lk 1:1-4). The idea of modern scholars that Luke’s use of “we” in Acts to indicate something other than his actual presence reflects a modern agenda rather than sensitivity to the first-century background, for historical works in antiquity barely ever used “we” fictitiously.
Once one accepts the possibility that a traveling companion of Paul authored the work, the tradition that Luke (a physician, Col 4:14) is the author of Luke-Acts has nothing against it and fits what little we know about Luke. A number of terms in Luke-Acts are frequent in medical literature, although most of these terms also occur elsewhere, so this terminology alone would not prove Lukan authorship. Physicians could be lower class, even slaves, but were generally well educated; the presence of women in that field (especially midwifery) may have made some physicians more conscious of women’s concerns (which Luke-Acts is).
Date. Most scholars date Luke-Acts between 70 and 90, with a smaller number dating it in the 60s and a still smaller number dating it later. Because Acts breaks off before Paul’s death, some scholars have suggested that Acts (and hence Luke or its hypothetical earlier draft, proto-Luke) was written before A.D. 64. Others, reading Luke 21, suggest a date after A.D. 70, saying that Acts breaks off about A.D. 62 for literary reasons or because Luke needed only positive legal precedents. (Acts is not a biography of Paul, and Luke has reason to end on the climactic note of the *gospel reaching Rome.) The evidence is not conclusive on either side, but because Luke clearly used the Gospel of Mark as a source, dating Luke-Acts to A.D. 62 would call into question the usual dating of Mark to A.D. 64. Because of this and possible allusions to the temple’s past destruction, the majority of scholars therefore date Luke-Acts later, sometime after 70. Neither the dating of Mark nor that of Luke-Acts is secure, but this commentary tentatively accepts a date for the latter in the early to mid-seventies. Later dates appear less likely. Because Acts recalls in some detail riots that would be counterproductive to narrate unless one could not avoid the truth that they happened, it undoubtedly reflects recent memories that must be addressed. (The charge that Paul was guilty of stirring riots, 24:5, would disturb people loyal to Roman order, and the riots would need to be explained both during his custody and in the wake of his execution.)
Purpose: Legal. One purpose of the work is to record consistent legal precedents in favor of the early Christians. In Acts every Roman court declares Christians not guilty, and this record has so impressed some scholars that they have suggested Luke wrote Acts as a court brief on Paul’s behalf. Acts, however, is a *narrative, not a list of precedents. More likely, Luke cites a wide range of legal precedents from different local courts (which would be helpful but not binding) for the same reason that *Josephus does on behalf of Judaism: to argue that Christianity should enjoy continued legal protection in the empire. Luke thus gives Christians legal ammunition (Lk 21:15) and paves the way for later Christian lawyers and philosophers like Tertullian and *Justin Martyr, who would argue for the toleration of Christianity. That Paul’s custody and several speeches consume the final quarter of Acts reveals how important it is for Luke to answer the false charges against him.
Purpose: Apologetic. The apologetic in Acts extends beyond Roman law and beyond Paul’s case. All history was written with a purpose; it was influenced by *rhetoric and (to a lesser extent) wider literary and dramatic conventions, and was also used to illustrate moral principles. Josephus uses it to justify God and Israel after the war of A.D. 70; *Plutarch and *Livy use it to teach morals; even *Tacitus writes as an aristocrat longing for the grandeur of old Rome. History with a theme or focal point (church history, social history, African-American history, etc.) is no less history for having an interest or editorial perspective. Luke’s apologetic purpose is often advanced in the book’s speeches.
Acts works on several fronts: the gospel confronts Roman law courts, Greek philosophers, rural Asian farmers and others on their own terms, and nothing can stop it. A major theme is the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. Ancient religions were respected by virtue of their age, and Christians needed to demonstrate that the *Old Testament was their book and that they were the authentic voice of Judaism (despite the opposition of much of the Jewish community of Luke’s day to this claim). Luke develops this theme by displaying the fulfillment of Old Testament motifs.
Genre: History. The majority of scholars view Acts as a historical monograph, that is, a historical work focused on a specific topic (in contrast to many historians’ multivolume histories of expansive subjects). Historians were permitted a wide degree of latitude on details, although they were expected to get the bulk of a story right insofar as their sources were accurate. By ancient standards, Luke is meticulously careful with his sources in the Gospel (Lk 1:1-4), and we may regard him as no less trustworthy in Acts, where we can often check him against letters of Paul (few of which would have been available to Luke). Some sections of Acts also include eyewitness accounts of someone who journeyed with Paul; contrary to the opinion of some scholars, “we” normally did literally mean “we” in ancient narratives. Luke is a careful enough editor that had he not meant to include himself in the company of Paul, he would not have allowed an earlier source’s “we” to stand. First-person pronouns appear in historical writing (such as Josephus) as well as novels, but only historical works had historical prologues (Lk 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-2).
Many historical writers also sought an entertaining, lively style just as novelists did; thus the mention of “plot devices” in the following commentary means only that Luke was a good writer, not that he was an inaccurate historian. He was, however, a more popular and less rhetorical historian than most extant ancient historians; like them, he was interested in recounting a cohesive story, but unlike them, he was not interested in showing off lavish rhetoric. “Historian” was not a distinct profession and was practiced by many educated people. Even elite historians who were professional orators, however, like Tacitus, could stick very close to the events (and the substance, though usually not the wording, of speeches) as their sources provided them.
The question of the speeches’ historicity invites special comment. Ancient writers never recorded speeches verbatim (cf. even Acts 2:40); they took notes if they were present, got the gist and were guided by their knowledge (when available) of the speechmaker’s style and proper speechmaking technique. Historians sometimes fabricated speeches (as Josephus does for a speech at Masada with no surviving credible witnesses) but used the basic thrust of the speech when data about it was available. Luke’s editing brings out some consistent themes in the apostolic-proclamation speeches in Acts, but we may also be confident that they also reflect whatever Luke knew of the speeches or kind of speeches in those settings. Acts’s speeches are significant for the book’s purpose; they make up roughly one-fourth of the book.
Luke-Acts may be closer to standard forms of Greco-Roman historical writing than are the other Gospels, which resemble ancient biography. Whereas Matthew, Mark and John wrote forms of ancient biography, Luke’s second volume shows that he wrote history as well. Some multivolume histories had a volume or two devoted to an individual person; when viewed by itself, that volume would be read as biography, but when read with the rest of the work, as a part of a larger history.
Luke and Acts are each roughly the same length as Matthew, with Mark one-half and John two-thirds that length, indicating scrolls of standardized lengths (Matthew, Luke and Acts were each close to the maximum length for normal scrolls, between thirty-two and thirty-five feet). In the first volume, Luke writes about Jesus; in the second volume, Luke writes about the *Spirit’s activity in the Jewish and *Gentile *churches, especially through the figures of Peter and Paul. Many ancient writers would make comparisons between figures as part of their historiographic technique. (*Plutarch is especially known for paralleling Greek and Roman figures in his biographies; perhaps more to the point, 1 Kings 17–2 Kings 13 seems to compare Elijah and his successor Elisha.)
Message. Aside from the themes already mentioned and typical Lukan emphases on prayer, signs and wonders, and the Spirit, Luke’s whole book is structured around world evangelization (1:8), with six or eight summary statements throughout the book displaying the spread of the *gospel (see 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31). For Luke, the ultimate goal is crosscultural communication and world evangelization, and the requisite power to carry out the task is only the *Holy Spirit.
Commentaries. For the background used here, see in greatest detail Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–). Many other commentaries also provide much useful background, including C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994–1998); Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007); F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 31 (New York: Doubleday, 1998); Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, SP 5 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992); Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, PCNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008); and Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Other helpful works for background include especially Bruce Winter, ed., The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, 6 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993–), all vols.; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2 vols. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004); and F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity, 5 vols. (1933; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Examples of excellent monographs on specific topics include, among many others, Loveday C. A. Alexander, Acts in its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles, LNTS 298 (London: T & T Clark International, 2005); Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, WUNT 49 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989); Youngmo Cho, Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile these Concepts (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2005); Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997); Osvaldo Padilla, The Speeches of Outsiders in Acts: Poetics, Theology and Historiography, SNTSM 144 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Stanley E. Porter, Paul in Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001); Brian M. Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); and Clare K. Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography, WUNT 2.175 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).
In a two-volume work it was common to recapitulate the theme or the end of the first volume in the beginning of the second. Thus Luke 24:36-53 is recapitulated in Acts 1:1-14, repeating many points in greater detail. Historians had freedom to arrange materials in their own words and to paraphrase, and readers would have regarded different wording in two volumes of the same work as variation for the sake of readability, not as an accidental oversight. (This pattern also should warn us not to read modern expectations of verbatim quotation into ancient works that no one read that way.)
1:1. This is not an uncommon way to begin a second volume. “Began” is common Lukan style and could simply reflect a Semitic or Koine (the common Greek dialect) figure of speech, but theologically it may indicate that Acts continues a report of Jesus’ works through the *church. Theophilus may be the *patron, or sponsor, of the work, to whom Luke formally dedicates it (as was frequent; see comment on Lk 1:3-4). A writer could also dedicate a work to any person of status who might help circulate the work or whose name in the dedication might be thought useful to circulating the work. Theophilus was a common *Diaspora Jewish name and undoubtedly represents a real person; although the name means “lover of God,” symbolic dedicatees were virtually unknown.
1:2-3. Sample evidences were reported in Luke 24, and the forty days here (perhaps mirroring Luke 4:2) allows for the Galilean ministry reported in the other Gospels. Greeks also wanted eyewitnesses to document the epiphanies (or appearances) of their gods or goddesses, but those appearances were not clearly physical or sustained over such a long period of personal contact.
1:4. “Gathering together” (NASB) is literally “took salt together,” but this was already an idiom for table fellowship. Eating together was the ultimate sign of physicality (in many Jewish traditions, angels could not genuinely eat human food; cf. Lk 24:42-43) and intimacy (see comment on Lk 5:29-32).
1:5. The *Holy Spirit was associated both with purification (thus “*baptism”) and wisdom or *prophecy in segments of ancient Judaism. But the emphasis was usually on the ability to prophesy (speak for God under his inspiration), and Luke especially emphasizes this aspect of the Spirit (see esp. 2:17-18).
1:6. This question was the most natural one for the *disciples to ask Jesus. He had been talking about the *kingdom (1:3), and the references to the outpouring of the *Spirit in the *Old Testament were all in the context of Israel’s restoration (Is 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-28; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28–3:1).
1:7. See Matthew 24:36. Jewish *apocalyptic writers often saw history as divided into epochs determined by God, yet they sometimes used their calculations of the epochs to predict that they were near the end. Jesus says that the Father has determined the time but not revealed it. Some Jewish sources believed that human obedience could hasten the end; others that God had ordained the time immutably. (Because much of Judaism embraced both God’s sovereignty and human will, these options need not always have been mutually exclusive.)
1:8. Although the time of Israel’s restoration might be unknown, the end-time mission given to Israel, to be Spirit-anointed witnesses (Is 42:1, 4, 6; 43:10-12; 44:3, 8), is being given now. The disciples are thus to serve as the prophetic remnant within Israel, and Isaiah’s witnesses for God here are witnesses for Jesus. (When Israel had disobeyed God, he had always kept a remnant; see comment on Rom 11:1-5.) In Luke-Acts, “power” is often expressed in healings and exorcisms (Luke 4:36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:46; 9:1; Acts 3:12; 4:7; 6:8; 10:38), which can be construed as signs of the kingdom era (Is 35:5-6 in Luke 7:22).
Different ancient texts referred to different places by the phrase “ends of the earth.” Writers commonly meant Ethiopia (8:27; cf. Luke 11:31), but in Acts the short-term strategic goal is Rome (perhaps the phrase’s use in *Psalms of Solomon 8:15), to make an urgent impact on the empire. From a long-range perspective, however, all peoples are meant (Ps 67:1, 7; Is 45:22; 49:6; 52:10). Scripture informs this mission (Lk 24:45-49), especially Isaiah’s emphasis noted above (see esp. Is 49:6, cited in Acts 13:47). Many Jewish writers portrayed Jerusalem as the world’s center (certainly theologically). Many scholars treat 1:8 as a summary statement of or outline for Acts; many ancient documents included such statements (often much more detailed than Luke’s).
1:9-11. In Greek stories, various heroes ascended to heaven, usually by dying and becoming gods (like Heracles on his funeral pyre). For Luke, however, the ascension is only a confirmation of Jesus’ status at the *resurrection, a coronation of the king who was both human and divine all along. Jewish accounts of Elijah (from the Old Testament) and others (from later traditions) taken up to heaven show that Jewish readers would understand the ascension, but again, the difference is between the exaltation of a pious man and the exaltation of the Lord, to faith in whom they are to summon humanity. Angels ascended and descended, but Luke’s contemporaries did not regard these angelic movements as unique events. (Judaism also spoke figuratively of divine Wisdom ascending or descending but never in a *narrative context, because Wisdom was a personification, not a historical character.)
The most obvious ascension known to Jewish people from Scripture was Elijah’s ascension in 2 Kings 2. In that same context, Elijah’s successor Elisha received a double portion of Elijah’s spirit to carry on the task (2:9-10). Here Jesus’ ascension prepares for the church’s prophetic empowerment (Acts 2:17-18) by the Spirit that empowered Jesus.
Moses had passed on his work to Joshua, Elijah to Elisha, and *rabbis and philosophers to their disciples. This model of succession created occasional “succession narratives” that described the passing on of a teacher’s call. Jesus’ ascension immediately after the commission of 1:8 leaves believers as his successors, responsible for the job of world evangelization, until his return in the same glorified body (1:11). Clouds often aid ascents in ascension narratives; one may think here of the cloud of divine glory (in texts like Ezek 10:4, but especially Dan 7:13, used in Luke 21:27). Angels (as well as priests and others) were often portrayed as wearing white robes (e.g., Dan 10:5; 1 Enoch 71:1; 2 Maccabees 11:8).
Given the fifty days from Passover to Pentecost, and subtracting Jesus’ time in the tomb and the forty days of 1:3, this meeting may have lasted close to a week. (In church tradition, possibly based on this passage, it is ten days before Pentecost.)
1:12. Mount Olivet was the place of the Lord’s expected coming (Zech 14:4; cf. Zech 14:5, evoked in Luke 9:26). It was about half a mile east of the temple and several hundred feet above it—close to “a sabbath day’s journey,” which was two thousand cubits (sometimes estimated at roughly 2,880 feet). (*Essenes had a shorter measure, but Luke’s measure corresponds with the tradition probably most commonly observed by religious Judeans.) This expression is used as a measure of length, not to indicate that it was the sabbath.
1:13. The wealthy part of Jerusalem was the Upper City, where upper rooms were more common and more spacious. Although upper rooms in many Palestinian homes were nothing more than attics, ancient texts do report gatherings of large numbers of sages in more spacious upper rooms.
The list of the names of the Twelve varies slightly in different *New Testament texts. But business documents from the period show that it was common for people to have two identifying names, either or both of which could be used. The insertion of “brother” before Judas in the KJV is unlikely; ancient inscriptions use Greek phrases like “Judas of James” to mean “Judas son of James.” Some have taken “zealot” as a technical term in use by Luke’s day, but it could also mean one “zealous for the *law.”
1:14. Given the forty days of 1:3, Jesus’ time in the tomb and the fifty days between Passover and Pentecost, the *disciples continued to wait for close to a week. Given the culture’s usual downplaying of women’s public roles, the full participation of women is noteworthy. Nevertheless, women were not necessarily segregated from men in *synagogue services, as some have maintained. The text need not imply uninterrupted prayer by each individual, but it must mean more prayer than usual or Luke would have no reason to mention it.
Retaining the number twelve for the leaders remained important for its symbolic message about the restoration of God’s people (cf. Lk 22:30). When the probably *Essene community of the *Dead Sea Scrolls chose a group of leaders that included twelve special officials (cf. 1QM 2.1-2; 11Q19 57.11-13), it was meant to symbolize that this community was the true remnant of Israel, faithful to God even though the rest of the nation was apostate. Jesus had chosen twelve special disciples to make the same point, so the number had to be restored to twelve official leaders at least until the point of having twelve had been effectively communicated. Judas had forfeited his place by apostasy.
1:15. According to a Jewish tradition of uncertain date, 120 elders first passed on the *law in the time of Ezra. Then again, the Dead Sea Scrolls required one priest for every ten men, so 120 may be the number of people a team of twelve leaders could best accommodate; other disciples may not have all been present at one time. But Luke may simply record the number to emphasize that many more than the Twelve gathered.
1:16-17. The masculine address, “Men” (here and often in Acts) was a regular Greek way of addressing large assemblies, and did not always exclude the presence of women (cf. 1:14). Jewish people believed that Scripture “had to be fulfilled” and that God was sovereign over the events of history. Greco-Roman writers used fate as a plot-moving device, but Luke sees history moving in accordance with God’s revealed purposes in Scripture.
1:18-19. *Digressions were common in ancient literature; Luke makes a brief one here. The account has features in common with and diverging from Matthew 27:1-10; these similarities and differences can be explained on the basis of two authors reporting different details and ancient historians’ freedom on such details. (Some ancient spoofs on suicide attempts report ropes breaking while a person was attempting to hang himself or herself, but these accounts were normally fictitious and at best would have been uncommon in real life! More plausibly, Luke might depict the fate of the corpse if it was cut down.)
1:20. “It is written” was a common Jewish quotation formula. Here Peter might follow the Jewish interpretive principle qal vahomer, a “how much more” argument: if the psalmist (Ps 69:25; 109:8) could speak thus of prominent accusers of the righteous in general, how much more does this principle apply to the epitome of wickedness, the betrayer of the *Messiah? (*New Testament writers appropriately apply many of the points of Ps 69, a psalm of the righteous sufferer, to Jesus.)
1:21-22. Eyewitnesses (cf. 1:8) were very important in ancient times, as they are today; hence the need to select someone who had been with Jesus from his *baptism to his *resurrection. Going “in and out among” people was idiomatic in the *Old Testament for freedom of movement and close association.
1:23. Double (in the case of Joseph Barsabbas, triple) names were quite common, especially with common names (like Joseph) that required qualification. “Barsabbas” is *Aramaic for “son of the sabbath”; normally such a name would apply to someone born on the sabbath.
1:24-25. Greeks and Romans often claimed that particular deities knew or saw matters, and Judaism regularly emphasized the true God’s omniscience. Judaism affirmed that God knew people’s hearts (Ps 7:9; Jer 17:10), and some called God “Searcher of hearts.”
1:26. The lot was often used to select people for special duties in the Old Testament (1 Chron 24:7; 25:8) and in the Dead Sea Scrolls; Romans and Greeks and other peoples also cast lots for this purpose. Lots were also used to decide other matters (so the rabbis, the Jewish historian *Josephus and others), and as a form of divination in Greek circles. Jewish people used the lot because they believed in God’s sovereignty (God even made it work for pagans in Jon 1:7, to expose Jonah’s disobedience; cf. also Esther 3:7), although they forbade all forms of divination. Lots could be stones or pottery fragments, sometimes with markings, placed in containers (vessels or bags); one designating a person could fall out during shaking, or people could draw lots designating different outcomes.
Scholars have compared some of the signs of the *Spirit’s coming in Acts 2:1-4 with the revelation of the *law on Mount Sinai and other theophanies and especially with expectations for the end time. (Many Jewish expectations for the end appear as fulfilled in the NT, because the *kingdom’s promised *Messiah had come and been resurrected.) Jewish people associated the outpouring of the Spirit especially with the end of the age (1:6), and several signs God gave on the day of Pentecost indicate that in some sense, although the kingdom is not yet consummated (1:6-7), its powers had been initiated by the Messiah’s first coming (2:17).
2:1. Pentecost was celebrated as a feast of covenant renewal in the *Dead Sea Scrolls; some texts celebrate the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, but these sources are later than Acts. Some commentators have suggested that Luke intends a parallel between Moses’ giving the law and Jesus’ giving the Spirit, but other scholars argue that little in Acts 2 suggests that Luke makes the connection, even if some Jewish Christians before him might have. Perhaps Luke’s real or at least main reason for mentioning the feast, however, is the crowd it would have drawn in terms of both size and geographic diversity; see comment on 2:5.
2:2. God elsewhere used wind to symbolize his Spirit, who would revive the dead at the future restoration of Israel (Ezek 37). This symbol shows the eruption into history of what was anticipated for the future.
2:3. Storm phenomena (cf. 2:2) and fire sometimes appear in theophanies in the *Old Testament (including at Sinai, Ex 19:18). Moreover, God cast his glory on each tabernacle in which he chose to dwell before the exile (Ex 40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:10-11). But fire was also used to describe God’s impending judgment in the day of his fury and thus could serve as a sign of the future (Is 66:15; cf. comment on Lk 3:16). (Others have suggested an allusion to fire’s use in purifying metals; cf. Mal 3:2-3.)
2:4. Some (esp. those who emphasize Sinai allusions here) note the ancient Jewish interpretation in which God offered the law at Sinai first to the seventy *Gentile nations, each in their own language. Some scholars have adduced instances of incoherent speech in other cultures as parallels to this speaking in tongues, but most scholars today view the purported parallels from Greco-Roman antiquity as weak. Luke presents this speech not as incoherent but as worship in languages they do not know, and he points to an Old Testament background in the gift of *prophecy (see comment on 2:16-18). Inspired worship in others’ languages suits Luke’s larger emphasis on cross-cultural inspired speech (witness, in 1:8).
The most sensible setting for the encounter Luke describes here is the temple courts, where one could preach to such a large crowd (2:41). If the *disciples are still meeting in the “upper room” of 1:13 (this point is debated), they would be near the temple and could have moved to the temple courts; very large upper rooms were found only in Jerusalem’s Upper City, near the temple.
2:5. Many Jewish people from throughout the Roman and Parthian worlds would gather for the three main feasts (Tabernacles, Passover and Pentecost). Because Pentecost was only fifty days after Passover, some Diaspora visitors who had spent much to make a rare pilgrimage to Jerusalem stayed the seven weeks between the two feasts. Pentecost was probably the least popular of the three pilgrimage festivals, but *Josephus attests that it was nevertheless crowded. Besides those who stayed between the festivals, some other Diaspora Jews settled in their people’s “mother” city (see comment on 6:1).
2:6-8. The Jews from Parthia would know *Aramaic; those from the Roman Empire, Greek. But many of them would also be familiar with local languages and dialects spoken in outlying areas of their cities. (Even most Palestinian Jews were functionally bilingual, as are people in many parts of the world today.)
2:9-11. Although these are Jews, they are culturally and linguistically members of many nations; in keeping with his theme (1:8), Luke thus emphasizes that even from the *church’s inception as an identifiable community, the Spirit proleptically moved the church into multicultural diversity under Christ’s lordship.
Among suggested backgrounds for the list of nations here, the most compelling is the proposal that Luke has simply updated the names of nations in the table of nations in Genesis 10. As the Bible’s first such list, it was the most obvious background that Luke shared with his hearers. The nations of Genesis 10 were in the very next chapter scattered at the tower of Babel, where God judged them by making them unintelligible to each other; here God transforms the judgment in a miracle that transcends the language barrier.
Many Jews had never returned from exile in Mesopotamia, and most of these lived in Parthia. Many Jews also lived in some of the provinces of Asia Minor, in Syria, and in Alexandria and Cyrene in north Africa; for Jews in Rome, see comment on 28:17; see also “*proselyte” in glossary. “Arabians” applies especially to the Nabateans, a kingdom headquartered in Petra, though Nabateans were widespread, including many in Herod Antipas’s territory of Perea. Jerusalem had much trade with Nabatea. Although the Nabateans were mostly pagan, Jews succeeded in converting some to Judaism.
2:12-13. Hecklers were common and speakers had to learn to deflect their ridicule. This scene occurs in April, and the grape vintage ended by early fall; in speaking of (literally) “sweet wine,” the speakers are mocking, not trying to make a factual statement. Ancient writers sometimes described inspiration in terms of drunkenness; Greeks believed in frenzied inspiration by the gods, and in particular *Philo, a Jewish writer thoroughly in touch with Greek ideas, wrote of divine intoxication. Thus experiences of the transcendent (whether God-inspired or moved by base spirit possession) sometimes appeared to outsiders as ecstasy similar to drunkenness. Some denounced particular ideologies as madness (see comment on 26:24-25). (Although drunkenness was common in Greek parties, it would viewed negatively in Jewish Palestine.)
2:14-15. In Greco-Roman society, public speakers would normally stand to speak. “Men of [a locale]” was a very frequent form of direct address in ancient speeches. Peter answers the questions (2:12-13) in reverse order. People usually got drunk at night (cf. 1 Thess 5:7), at banquets, not at 9 a.m.; people might have a hangover in the morning, but only in the rarest cases would anyone act drunk then.
2:16-18. “This” (2:16) refers to the speaking in tongues (2:6, 12), which Peter says fulfills Joel’s message about the *Spirit of *prophecy, perhaps evoking an implied Jewish qal vahomer (“lesser to greater”) argument: If the Spirit can inspire them to speak languages they do not know, how much more could he inspire them to prophesy the word of the Lord in their own language? Visions and dreams were especially prophetic activity, and Peter underlines this point by adding “and they will prophesy” at the end of 2:18 (not in Joel).
Peter reads Joel’s “afterward” (2:28) as “in the last days,” a phrase that in the prophets normally meant after the day of the Lord (Is 2:2; Mic 4:1), which fits Joel’s context (Joel 2:30–3:3). Because the future age was to be inaugurated with the *Messiah’s coming, it has been inaugurated in at least some sense because the Messiah, Jesus, had come—a point the outpouring of the Spirit on his followers is meant to demonstrate. Luke elsewhere emphasizes the crossing of barriers noted here (such as gender and age) and especially the ministry to all peoples implied in “all flesh.”
2:19. Joel 2:30 has “wonders” but not “signs”; Peter may add “signs” because he wishes to show that at least some requisite signs took place on earth (Acts 2:22; cf. Deut 26:8). “Blood, fire and columns of smoke” is especially the language of war.
2:20-21. In Joel the sun would be blotted out and the moon discolored especially by the locust (and/or human) invasion (Joel 2:2, 10; 3:15). Peter suggests that in some anticipatory sense, this final time of God’s salvation for Israel has begun. Tongues prove that the Spirit of prophecy has come, which proves that salvation has come, which proves that the messianic era has come, and thus that the Messiah has come.
Peter breaks off his quote from Joel here, but resumes with the final line of Joel 2:32 (“as many as the Lord calls”) at the end of his sermon (Acts 2:39). Thus his sermon is a conventional Jewish (*midrashic) exposition of the last line he quoted, and answers the question: What is the name of the Lord on whom they are to call? In the Hebrew text, “Lord” here is the sacred name of God (Yahweh), which readers in a Judean *synagogue would pronounce as the word for “Lord” (Adonai); in the Greek text that Peter probably cites to communicate with hearers from many nations, it is simply the Greek word for “Lord,” but all biblically literate hearers would know that it means “God” here.
Kenneth Bailey has argued that Peter’s sermon here involves an extensive *chiasmus, a reverse-parallel literary structure: A. Jesus whom you crucified (2:23, 36b); B. David said, “The Lord . . . is at my right hand” (2:25, 34b); C. David died/did not ascend (2:29, 34a); D. David prophesied/the Spirit is evidenced (2:30a, 33c); E. God swore/the promise of the Spirit (2:30b, 33b); F. *Christ enthroned (2:30c, 33a); G. David foresaw/the eleven testify (2:31a, 32b); H. Jesus’ *resurrection (2:31b, 32a); I. Jesus did not rot (2:31cd). Point G connects the disciples’ witness with prophetic empowerment (see comment on 1:8).
2:22. See comment on 2:19. Speakers sometimes explicitly appealed to what their hearers already knew. “Signs and wonders” also characterized the first exodus (Deut 26:8).
2:23. Both Jews and most *Gentiles recognized that a divine plan or plans prevailed in human life. Most early Jews did not regard God’s sovereign plan and human choice and responsibility as mutually exclusive. Crucifixion was a particularly shameful form of execution that Romans applied especially to slaves and low-class provincials. Some anti-Semites have used texts like 2:23 to attack Jewish people in general, but Peter’s critique of their corporate responsibility (cf. killing by means of others in 2 Sam 12:9) is no harsher than that of *Old Testament prophets (e.g., Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah), and cannot rightly be used as if it were.
2:24. Although noting Jesus’ death (2:23), Peter focuses on his *resurrection; speeches generally lingered on their central point. He derives the phrase “pangs of death” from the Old Testament (e.g., LXX 2 Sam 22:6); his language of being “loosed” or “freed” from these may reflect Semitic idiom from the Old Testament.
2:25-28. Peter quotes Psalm 16 to establish his point (developed in Acts 2:29-32): God would raise the *Messiah from the dead. Jesus’ resurrection without corruption fulfills the psalm’s highest aspiration.
2:29-31. Peter argues that the psalm cannot refer to David, because David did see corruption (rot). (A tomb in David’s honor had been dedicated outside Jerusalem, along with one of Huldah the prophetess.) Rather, the psalm refers to David’s ultimate descendant, who was widely agreed to be the Messiah (the anointed king), by definition (Acts 2:30; Is 9:6-7; Jer 23:5-6; cf. Ps 89:3-4; Ps 132:11).
2:32. Having noted the Scripture, Peter now proclaims that he and his colleagues were eyewitnesses that Jesus fulfilled it, and their witness is confirmed by the outpouring of the Spirit, which has no other biblical explanation (2:16-21, 33).
2:33. In the Old Testament, God pours out his Spirit (as was explicit in Joel 2:28-29 in Acts 2:17-18); Jesus’ role here is quite exalted (see comment on 2:34-35).
2:34-35. Jewish interpreters often linked texts using the same word or phrase (the principle was called gezerah shavah). Peter thus introduces Psalm 110:1, a more clearly messianic passage that includes “right hand” and speaks of exaltation just as Psalm 16 does. (Those commentators who see a link with Moses here point out a Jewish tradition that Moses ascended to heaven to receive the *law; but the text makes better sense as a simple exposition of the psalm in question.) Ancient Near Eastern art sometimes depicted defeated enemies as under the conqueror’s feet.
2:36. Peter shows that the resurrected one of Psalm 16 is the one whom David in Psalm 110 called “the Lord.” Thus he bears the name of “the Lord” that Joel mentioned (2:32; see comment on Acts 2:21).
2:37-38. See “*repentance” and “*baptism” in the glossary. Peter instructs the people how to call on the Lord’s name (2:21): be baptized in Jesus’ name. Because baptism was a sign of conversion to Judaism normally reserved for pagans, Peter’s demand would offend his Jewish hearers and cost them respectability. He calls for a public, radical testimony of conversion, not a private, noncommittal request for salvation with no conditions. “In the name of Jesus Christ” distinguishes this sort of baptism, requiring faith in Christ, from other ancient baptisms; this phrase simply means that the person being baptized confesses Christ. (Acts always uses this phrase with “be baptized”—the passive, never the active; presumably it thus does not denote a formula said over the person being baptized, but rather indicates the confession of faith of the person receiving baptism; see 2:21 and 22:16.)
Although different segments of Judaism tended to emphasize different aspects of the Spirit (e.g., purification and wisdom in the *Dead Sea Scrolls, or *prophecy by the *rabbis and many others), and Luke’s writings specifically emphasize the Spirit of inspiration and prophecy, Luke concurs with other *New Testament writers that the Spirit’s work is theologically all one package (cf. comment on 8:14-15).
2:39. Those who read the whole book of Acts will suspect that those who “are far off” are the *Gentiles (Is 57:19; cf. Acts 2:17), though Peter probably is thinking of Jewish people scattered outside Palestine. This universal outpouring of the Spirit was reserved in the Old Testament for the end time and was expected to continue throughout that time. Isaiah 57:19 is the source of the wording.
2:40. Ancient historians edited and arranged speeches; they did not cite them verbatim (nor could anyone have done so unless the speech was short—*rhetoricians sometimes continued for hours—and the speaker provided the author his prepared manuscript). The best historians merely communicated the gist insofar as their sources allowed this. Luke thus summarizes Peter’s point. The exhortation here evokes Deuteronomy 32:5, which also laments a crooked generation (using the same description in the *Septuagint).
Ancient historians sometimes included summary sections (as here in 2:41-47). Luke’s account of the *Spirit’s outpouring climaxes with a transformed community of believers. Luke may here include another chiastic structure:
A People turning to Christ (through proclamation, 2:41)
B Shared worship, meals (2:42)
C Shared possessions (2:44-45)
B' Shared worship, meals (2:46)
A' People turning to Christ (through believers’ behavior, 2:47)
2:41. Considering *Josephus’s estimate of six thousand *Pharisees in all Palestine, three thousand conversions to the new Jesus movement in Jerusalem is no small start! Still, it is a limited percentage; even without festal pilgrims, Jerusalem’s population in this period was probably seventy thousand or higher (some estimate eighty-five thousand; in contrast to lower earlier estimates). The temple mount had many immersion pools that worshipers used to purify themselves ritually; mass *baptisms could thus be conducted quickly under the *apostles’ general supervision.
2:42. Most special groups in antiquity ate together (Greek associations, Pharisaic fellowships, etc.). Many Greek associations met for communal meals only once a month, however (contrast 2:46). This earliest Christian practice of daily meals (less practicable in later New Testament settings) is thus noteworthy.
Table fellowship denoted intimacy and trust. Music or other entertainment, but also discussions and even lectures, were frequent at common meals in antiquity; the topic of discussion recommended by Jewish pietists was Scripture. Given such background and especially what this text says about teaching and prayer (possibly including participation in the temple prayers—3:1), early Christian fellowship undoubtedly centered more on intimate worship, sharing and learning the Scriptures and the apostolic message than its modern Western counterpart often does.
2:43-45. The Greek language Luke uses here resembles language that *Pythagoreans and others used for the ideal, utopian community; others also compare the ancient ideal of “friends” sharing things in common. Luke clearly portrays this radical lifestyle positively, as the result of the outpouring of the Spirit.
Some Jewish groups, such as the group that lived at *Qumran, followed a model similar to that attributed to the Pythagoreans and turned all their possessions over to the leaders of the community so they could all withdraw from society. Differences also remain clear: the Christians do not withdraw from society, and they apparently sell off property to meet needs as they arise (4:34-35), continuing to use their homes (though often as meeting places for fellow Christians, 2:46). These actions do not reflect an *ascetic ideal, as in some Greek and Jewish sects, but instead the practice of radically valuing people over possessions, acknowledging that Jesus owns both them and their property (cf. 4:32). Such behavior reportedly continued among Christians well into the second century, and it was long ridiculed by elite pagans (poor pagans were more appreciative and sometimes converted through it) until pagan values finally overwhelmed the church.
2:46-47. By way of contrast with the daily meetings here, Greek associations (trade guilds, etc.) often met just once a month. Temples were among the most spacious and useful public places to gather, and people often congregated there, especially under the colonnades. There were hours of public prayer at the morning and evening offerings (3:1).
Luke here provides the most prominent example of the wonders he mentioned in 2:43, on one of their occasions of prayer in the temple (cf. 2:42, 46).
3:1. There were hours of prayer at the morning and evening offerings (cf. 2:42); the time of prayer for the evening offering mentioned here is about 3 p.m. (The *Dead Sea Scrolls and later sources suggest also a third time of prayer, probably at sunset.)
3:2-3. The “Beautiful Gate” may have been a popular title for what later sources call the Nicanor Gate (named for its Alexandrian donor), covered with bronze. *Josephus indicates that the temple’s main and largest gate was made of the most expensive bronze, more beautiful than gold (Jewish War 5.201-4). (Some identify the beautiful gate instead with the Shushan Gate facing east, but based on sources possibly no earlier than the fifth century.) In either case, it was accessible from Solomon’s Portico (cf. 3:11). Any gates leading to the outer court or to the Court of Women on the east may have hosted beggars on its steps who could appeal to those entering.
Although Scripture forbade further entrance only to the unclean, some scholars (noting rules at *Qumran) suspect that the purity-centered temple establishment would have excluded the disabled from the inner courts. Begging alms at public places was common in antiquity, although other peoples did not stress individual charity as the Jewish people did. In Judaism only those who could not work made their living this way, but charity was highly regarded, and the blind or those unable to walk would not have to go hungry, especially if they were near the temple. Congenital infirmities were thought harder to cure than other kinds (Jn 9:32).
3:4-10. Ancient miracle workers usually prayed or invoked spirits rather than commanded the sick person to be healed (the *New Testament also recommends prayer—Jas 5:14); but the *Old Testament has ample precedent for doing miracles by simply declaring the word of the Lord, as a prophet speaking God’s will (e.g., 2 Kings 1:10; 2:14, 21-22, 24; 4:43; 5:10). “In the name of Jesus Christ” here probably means “acting as his representative, (I say to you)” or “Jesus cures you” (Acts 3:16; 4:10-12; 9:34; cf. comment on Jn 14:12-14). It credits Jesus exclusively with the honor for the healing (as in 3:12-16).
Many people in the Greco-Roman world were suspicious of potential charlatans who practiced religion or philosophy to acquire wealth for themselves; the *apostles’ lack of resources (3:6) helps to confirm their sincerity.
Signs and wonders often provide opportunity for witness in Acts, but Luke’s primary emphasis is always on the proclamation of the good news itself.
3:11. From the steps of the Beautiful Gate Peter, John and the beggar pass through the temple courts to the eastern colonnade, which supposedly remained from Solomon’s temple (see comment on Jn 10:23).
3:12. Jewish people often thought wonderworkers did miracles (e.g., causing rain) by their great piety. Luke emphasizes that the *apostles were normal people, filled with God’s *Spirit (Acts 14:15).
3:13. The “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” was celebrated in the daily prayers; “servant” (3:13, 26) alludes to Isaiah’s servant (see comment on Mt 12:15-18), who also was “glorified” (the *Septuagint of Is 49:3, 5; 52:13). See the glossary entry on “*Pilate.”
3:14. “Holy One” applied especially to God in Jewish literature; “Righteous One” was also commonly a title for God, although it applied to Enoch, Noah, some *rabbis and others as well; the Dead Sea Scrolls spoke of their founder as “the teacher of righteousness.” The context would indicate to whom the title applied. It could apply to Isaiah’s servant evoked in Acts 3:13; see Isaiah 53:11.
Because the healing did not occur during a feast, most of Peter’s audience is now Jerusalemite or Palestinian (contrast 2:23); but the corporate accusation against his hearers here is no stronger than denunciations of *Old Testament prophets (e.g., Amos 2:6–3:8). Calling a revolutionary (Barabbas) a “murderer” (cf. Lk 23:19) starkly distinguishes the apostles from the sort of people who had revolutionary sympathies.
3:15. “Prince” (NASB) or “author” (NIV) was used for founders and protectors of Greek cities, for heads of clans or military judges (Old Testament), or for commanders who lead the way; it was sometimes applied to Greek divine heroes such as Heracles. Here it may mean the leader who pioneered the way of (*resurrection) life (contrast the murderer of 3:14), who forged on ahead of others to make the way for them to live as well. Luke’s language employs irony and antithesis (frequent literary devices): when the Jerusalemites accepted a murderer (3:14), they killed the author of life.
3:16-17. The Old Testament and Judaism regarded willful sin (Num 15:30-31) as far more heinous than sins of ignorance (Num 15:22-29), but both were sinful, and they also regarded ignorance of God’s truth as sinful (e.g., Is 1:3; 29:11-12; Hos 4:6). Most people in antiquity viewed ignorance as reducing the guilt for crimes.
3:18. Later Jewish teachers sometimes said hyperbolically that the entire message of the prophets dealt with the messianic era or Jerusalem’s restoration, or with other favorite topics. Some later rabbis said that a *Messiah would suffer and spoke of two Messiahs, one who would suffer and one who would reign, but the Christians seem to have been the first to proclaim the concept of a suffering Messiah.
3:19. Jewish teachers differed on whether Israel’s *repentance had to precede its ultimate restoration, or whether God would simply bring it about in a predetermined time (or, as is possible in early Christians’ theology, on some level both). Normally in the Old Testament prophets, Israel’s repentance had to precede it; following the Old Testament, some later Jewish traditions (e.g., *Jubilees 1:15-18; 23:26-27) stressed Israel’s repentance as the goal of history.
3:20-21. *Christ would not return again until the time to restore Israel (1:6) and the world had come. *Stoic philosophers spoke of the universe’s “cycles”: it was periodically destroyed by fire and reborn. But Jewish people expected Israel’s restoration; this was a central message of the Old Testament prophets (e.g., Is 40:9-11; Jer 32:42-44; Ezek 37:21-28; Hos 11:9-11; 14:4-7; Amos 9:11-15), and Peter seems to have it in view here (see Acts 1:6-7; though cf. cosmic associations in Is 11:6-9; 65:17-18).
3:22-23. Other New Testament texts also apply Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18 to Jesus. Some other sources (e.g., *Samaritan documents and the Dead Sea Scrolls) also applied this text to a future prophet like Moses. In the first century, some leaders whose followers thought they were prophets tried to duplicate miracles of Moses or Joshua (by trying to part the Jordan or to make Jerusalem’s walls fall), probably indicating that they sought this role. Josephus states that their miracles failed, however; Jesus’ resurrection places him in a quite different category.
3:24-26. Peter’s hearers are spiritually “heirs of the prophets”; on the prophecies, see comment on 3:18. Because Abraham’s blessing for the nations/families of the earth (Gen 12:3; 22:18) was to come through Israel, the servant (3:13) had been sent to be the blessing to them first.
4:1. The *Sadducees controlled the temple hierarchy and most of the resident priesthood. The sagan, or captain of the temple guard (a local police force permitted by the Romans and made up of Levites; cf. Neh 13:22), is known from other sources and is probably the same official called “the king’s captain” in Herod the Great’s day. Later tradition reports that he was a Sadducean aristocrat of very high rank and also that he could be very harsh, even with his own guards.
4:2. Sadducees disagreed with the Pharisaic doctrine of the *resurrection, but *Pharisees posed less of a threat to them than the Christians, for the Pharisaic doctrine was only a theoretical hope for the future. From the Jewish perspective, the apostolic witness that one person had already been raised would proclaim that the resurrection had been inaugurated. By guaranteeing rather than simply teaching the future hope of the resurrection, the *disciples threatened the Sadducees’ security as leaders of the people.
4:3. Peter and John had come up to the temple about 3 p.m. (cf. 3:1), hence sundown is near. No longer dealing with someone overturning tables in the temple, the aristocracy is content to follow the law and wait till the next day to try them (night trials were illegal, and most business of any regular sort stopped by sundown).
4:4. Estimates of Jerusalem’s population at this time vary from twenty-five thousand to eighty-five thousand; the higher range is more likely in view of more recent research. *Josephus said that there were only six thousand Pharisees in Palestine. A total of five thousand Jewish Christian “men” in Jerusalem, not including women and children (so the Greek here), is thus quite substantial. (Whoever counted or provided the estimates apparently employed the typical ancient practice of numbering only the men.) Because they were in the outer court, the converts surely included women as well.
4:5. The Jewish authorities mentioned here represent the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling court of Jerusalem; presumably they gather in their meeting hall in the vicinity of the temple.
4:6. These officials were widely known. Like other writers of his day (especially Josephus), Luke uses “*high priest” loosely for any officials of the high priestly household; Caiaphas was officially high priest at this time (see comment on Jn 11:49; 18:13). The *rabbis and *Dead Sea Scrolls (as well as other sources like *2 Baruch) offer an unflattering picture of the final generations of the temple aristocracy, with whom they did not get along. Even Josephus, a first-century Jerusalem aristocrat himself, depicts abuses, plots and even violence among the leading priests.
4:7. Trial scenes, as much as pirates and other hardships, were standard suspense-builders in ancient stories. Throughout the empire, nonelites also recognized that they were subject to the decisions of the elites, who controlled the courts as well as most other institutions.
4:8. In the *Old Testament, the *Spirit often came upon God’s servants for specific tasks (e.g., Ex 35:31; Judg 14:6) and is especially often associated with *prophecy and prophetic speech (i.e., the ability to speak what God is saying).
4:9-12. Salvation “in the name” (v. 12) alludes to Peter’s earlier exposition of Joel 2:32 (Acts 2:21); the term translated “saved” includes making whole (i.e., healing the man—so v. 9, literally). Peter learned this use of Psalm 118:22, cited here in verse 11, from Jesus; see Luke 20:17. The “good deed” (4:9, NRSV) or “benefit” (NASB) is literally a “benefaction”: a kind act for which one would normally be praised. In ancient legal debate, a person who could argue that it was actually a praiseworthy act for which they were on trial cast the accusers in a negative light. It was common to charge one’s accusers with a crime, and that reversal is simple enough here: Jerusalem’s elite instigated Jesus’ execution (cf. also possibly Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.64).
4:13. The elite were surprised by the *apostles’ “boldness” or “confidence.” Moralists and philosophers often praised such frankness, loyalty to truth without fear of consequences, even when addressing rulers. Biblical prophets often demonstrated the same sort of behavior, and it could also characterize martyrs (cf. *4 Maccabees 10:5). “Unschooled” means not trained in Greek *rhetoric (public speaking), unlike much of the priestly aristocracy. (It could also mean that they were not trained under a recognized rabbi, if the aristocrats were too arrogant to count Jesus as a recognized rabbi.) Ordinary people did not always resent this “unschooled” label, but they knew that elites looked down on them. Many popular Greek philosophers used to boast that they were not educated in rhetoric and lived simple lives, so what strikes the Sanhedrin as a weakness of Peter and John might strike many of Luke’s readers as a strength. But the reason for their “uneducated” boldness is obvious: they had been educated by Jesus, who was himself bold and “uneducated.” (It was widely understood that disciples regularly reflected the lifestyle and character they had learned from their teachers.)
4:14-16. Both the disciples and the priestly aristocracy recognize that there is no valid basis for a legal charge. Still, as custodians of the temple, the priestly aristocracy has the police power to control what they consider subversive teachings on what they consider their grounds. Authorities sometimes accommodated popular sentiment to prevent unrest, but despised demagogues who enticed the uncritical populace with what the elite viewed as flattery or idle promises. Some later Jewish teachers argued that miracles would not validate another’s teaching if it did not accord with their own reasoning from Scripture and tradition.
4:17-18. In a society emphasizing honor and shame, the elite would lose face if they allowed the apostles the final word. Authorities in the Roman Empire might be satisfied to execute a movement’s ringleader if the group did not threaten further instability. The apostles so far pose no clear serious threat, so that a warning is deemed sufficient.
4:19-20. Philosophers often stressed obeying God rather than people, following truth rather than social convenience; Socrates, who refused to be silent even on pain of death, was a notable example. The *Old Testament prophets (such as Nathan, Elijah and Jeremiah, who confronted kings, or Uriah, who suffered martyrdom—Jer 26:20-23) are even clearer examples. Some modeled nonviolent civil disobedience (Dan 3:16-18; 6:10, 13); Maccabean martyrs offered particularly stark examples. Whether the readers’ background is Greek or Jewish, it would be clear to them who is on the side of right.
4:21-22. Although the municipal authorities back down, they do not admit wrongdoing, which would be a matter of shame. Pharisees were more popular with the people, but the politically dominant *Sadducees were less in touch with the people. Elites usually despised populist speakers, whom they considered demagogues, who had exceptional influence with the people.
4:23-24. Although choruses in Greek drama recited lines together, here “with one accord” (KJV, NASB) simply means “together, in unity” (the same word occurs in 1:14; 2:46; 5:12). This is not a unified liturgy as eventually became standard in *synagogues; scholars do not even all agree that prayers were recited in unison in most Palestinian synagogues in this period. Instead, the text probably means simply that someone inspired by the Spirit led the prayer.
The title for God as “Master” or “Sovereign Lord” here was used for deities in Greek sources and, more relevantly here, for the one true God in Jewish sources. The prayer begins by confessing God’s sovereignty (his power to answer prayer) with lines from Psalm 146:6, a context praising God’s faithfulness to vindicate the oppressed; he is greater than their opponents.
4:25-26. Psalm 2 refers plainly to a royal descendant of David, and would be applied particularly to the *Messiah (“the anointed one”) against whom the rulers were gathered. (Later rabbis applied this text to Gog and Magog, nations gathered against the Messiah and Israel).
4:27-28. In verse 27 the believers recognize the fulfillment of that opposition in Jesus’ opponents (even Jewish “peoples,” though the psalm focused on *Gentile ones). Others also employed “Herod” as a title for Herod Antipas (e.g., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.104-6, 243-255). The rejection of the servant might evoke Isaiah (see Is 53:3, 7-9; comment on Acts 3:13), especially in view of his anointing here (Is 61:1; cf. Lk 4:18; Acts 10:38). This is a recognition that the opposition to Jesus (and to themselves) is according to God’s will. God acting “by his hand” reflects *Old Testament language.
4:29-31. Prayers for vindication were common in the Old Testament and Judaism (see 2 Chron 24:21-22; Ps 109:6-20; Jer 15:15; see also Rev 6:10), but this is a prayer for faithfulness and boldness (cf. Ps 138:3). Occasionally ancient texts reported shaking of places in response to prayers; the parallels most obvious to most of Luke’s audience specifically would be biblical theophanies (e.g., Ex 19:18), especially the shaking of God’s house in the context of Isaiah’s empowerment for his mission (Is 6:4). Although Judaism boasted stories of rare miracle workers and paganism had local healing shrines and some magicians, a movement trusting God for such widespread miracles through individuals (cf. Acts 2:43; 5:12) is unparalleled.
As in 2:41-47, the outpouring of God’s *Spirit here leads not only to miracles and inspired verbal witness but also to actively caring for one another and sharing possessions. For background, see comment on 2:43-45.
4:32-33. In the *Old Testament, God’s favor and the Spirit could be “upon” individuals (cf. Num 11:24-29; Ezek 11:5).
4:34-35. In the *Dead Sea Scrolls, community officials distributed contributions to the community; later sources suggest that in most of Palestinian Judaism, supervisors of charity distributed funds given them. For discussion of the sharing, see also comment on 2:44-45.
4:36. Many Jews lived in Cyprus. “Joseph” was a quite common Palestinian Jewish name, inviting the addition of a nickname. The *Aramaic “Barnabas” can mean “son of encouragement” (i.e., encourager) or perhaps “son of a prophet,” that is, prophet and exhorter (cf. 13:1). Nicknames were commonly given to describe personal attributes.
4:37. Donations like Joseph’s happened often (4:34), but Luke wishes to state a positive example before the negative one (5:1-11) and to introduce an important character here (9:27). Contrasting positive and negative examples was a recommended technique of ancient speaking and writing. Although Levites did not own land under Old Testament *law, they commonly did own it in the first century (cf. Barnabas’s relatives in 12:12-13), and some, like the Sadducean priests, were even rich.
Ancient writers often compared positive and negative examples; Luke contrasts Barnabas (4:36-37) with Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11). In the *Old Testament, the sin of one man who had kept spoils for himself had once brought judgment on all Israel and the death of many, and only the death of the transgressor allowed Israel to move forward again (Josh 7). God took the corporate purity of his people, and the importance of sincerity in claims to total commitment, very seriously.
5:1. Ananias (reflecting the Hebrew Hananiah) was a common name; “Sapphira” was rare and seems to have belonged especially to well-to-do women. Since husbands usually married wives of comparable social status, this couple probably has more money than most.
5:2-3. The Greek term nosphizo here may evoke Joshua 7:1, where an “insider” acts secretly regarding property not one’s own. Achan kept some of Jericho’s forbidden wealth and brought judgment on the entire assembly until he and his family (who knew of his activity) were executed. Gehazi also took wealth, lied about it, and was punished (2 Kings 5:27).
5:4. Ancient groups that required members to turn over their possessions usually had a waiting period during which one could take one’s property and leave (see the *Dead Sea Scrolls and the *Pythagoreans). The early Christians act not from a rule but from love, but this passage treats the offense of lying about turning everything over to the community more seriously than others did. The Dead Sea Scrolls excluded such an offender from the communal meal for a year and reduced food rations by one-fourth; here God executes a death sentence. Both 2 Kings 5:20-27 and a Greek inscription from Epidauros show that most ancient people knew the danger of lying to gods, God or one of his representatives.
5:5. God protected the sanctity of the tabernacle by striking down wicked priests (Lev 10:1-5). Judgment miracles were recognized in Greek tradition and are frequent in the Old Testament (e.g., Num 16:28-35; 2 Sam 6:6-7; 2 Kings 1:10, 12; 2:24; 2 Chron 26:16-21). Judgment miracles also appear in later Jewish tradition; for example, when an adulteress drank the bitter waters of the temple (Num 5) she immediately died; or some *rabbis allegedly disintegrated foolish pupils with a harsh look.
5:6. Ancients covered corpses to preserve the dignity of the deceased. It was customary to bury people on the day they died, although normally the wife would know of the burial (5:7). If relevant here, bodies might also need to be carried out of a holy place (cf. Lev 10:4-5). Perhaps Ananias and Sapphira owned no family tomb because they had handed over so much property to the *church.
5:7-11. The Old Testament (e.g., Deut 21:21) and later Judaism (*Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbis, etc.) in many cases prescribed the death penalty so that others might “fear” (v. 11), to deter further crime. Judgment miracles sometimes had the same effect (Num 16:34; 2 Kgs 1:13-14).
Although a few ancient teachers were known as miracle workers, only the most prominent were reported to have done miracles like those attributed to the *apostles here (with Elijah and Elisha as major biblical models for Jewish ones), and these reports are not from contemporary sources. More contemporary sources credited such miracles to deities housed in temples (for the early Christian view of which, see 1 Cor 10:20).
5:12. On Solomon’s “porch” (KJV) or “Colonnade” (NIV), see 3:11 and comment on John 10:23.
5:13. “No one else” seems to refer to nonbelievers rather than to other Christians (2:42, 47; in contrast to some Greek sects like that of Pythagoras, which reportedly counted only selected people worthy of entering his presence, or the unapproachability of Moses at times, Ex 34:30). Many non-Jews attended *synagogue and believed in Israel’s God without fully converting and keeping Jewish rules (see comment on 10:2); it is possible that a similar group of Jewish outsiders who respect the Jesus movement without converting to it is in view here. In context, people fear to associate with the movement without full commitment, knowing the fate of Ananias and Sapphira.
5:14-16. Ancient people thought that one’s shadow was attached to oneself. In Jewish *law, for example, if one’s shadow touched a corpse one was as unclean as one who physically touched the corpse; some Greeks felt that one could suffer harm through injury to one’s shadow. The public’s emphasis on needing to touch healers may be drawn from magical superstition (power as a substance was a pagan magical concept), but God still meets their need through his appointed representatives (cf. 19:11; Mk 5:28-30).
5:17. The *Sadducees were politically powerful but never gained the popularity that the *Pharisees enjoyed. Although the political situation required them to maintain relations with the Pharisees, it is not surprising that they would be “jealous” (cf. Mk 15:10) and act with hostility toward the apostles. *Josephus described the Sadducees as a “sect” (alongside Pharisees and *Essenes), the same term Luke uses here (so most translations; cf. “party”—NIV, GNT; see also Acts 15:5; 26:5); Josephus also wrote for a Greek audience, for whom the term could mean a philosophical school. Ancient sources (biographies, novels and histories) often cite jealousy as a motivation for hostile behavior; envy was common in the honor-based, competitive and stratified culture of ancient Mediterranean cities.
5:18. Jails were normally used for detention until trial, not for imprisonment as a punishment. The Roman garrison in this period controlled the Fortress Antonia on the temple mount; the Levite temple police thus jail the apostles in a different location, though it might also be near the temple. The elite had accommodated the apostles’ popularity so far, but now risked losing face if they continued to fail to act.
5:19. Stories of miraculous escapes from prison appear occasionally in Greek tradition (e.g., the Greek deity Dionysus, imprisoned by King Pentheus, in Euripides’s Bacchae and subsequent writers) and in one pre-Christian story about Moses in the *Diaspora Jewish writer Artapanus. Of course, even the exodus from Egypt was a miraculous deliverance from captivity (cf. also Lev 26:13; Ps 107:10-16).
5:20-21. The gates of the temple opened at midnight, but the people returned only at daybreak. The hearing for the apostles had been scheduled for daylight, because trials were not to be held at night (4:3, 5).
5:22-23. These guards are fortunate that they are Levites policing for the Jewish temple aristocracy rather than recruits under the Romans or Herod Agrippa I, who might have executed them (see 12:18-19).
5:24-25. Such events would cause these leaders to lose face further.
5:26. Jewish tradition suggests that the Levite temple guards were known for violence during the corrupt administrations of these *high priests; but political sensitivity determines their actions here. Once out of control, ancient mobs often stoned those who acted contrary to their sentiments.
5:27. The high priest presided over the Sanhedrin, or ruling judicial council.
5:28. Transgressors were often given a first warning (hence the first and now a second hearing). But now the apostles’ defiance had publicly challenged and shamed the city’s leaders, who had approved Jesus’ execution; it therefore risked unrest, something too dangerous to tolerate. “Bringing blood on them” is a serious charge, invoking the biblical concept of blood guilt. Biblically, those guilty of murder had to be punished to remove judgment from the land. The charge against the apostles is that they are trying to incite unrest against the municipal aristocracy which the Romans approved, by accusing them of responsibility for Jesus’ execution. (The Sanhedrin conversely viewed Jesus’ execution as eliminating a revolutionary who was creating unrest.)
5:29-30. See comment on 4:19-20. The apostles claim that the Sanhedrin is responsible for Jesus’ execution. A famous line attributed to Socrates was his obedience to God rather than his judges (*Plato, Apology 29D); the elite, educated Sadducees would have known this, whether or not Peter did. Although people were sometimes crucified on trees, no one treated that as the only way to crucify people; the use of “tree” here (literally) alludes to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which the *Dead Sea Scrolls applied to crucifixion. Philosophers valued frankness and truth rather than diplomatic language at the expense of truth; Luke’s audience undoubtedly appreciate these words much more than the Sanhedrin did. It was customary for defendants to charge their accusers in court, but it was considered dangerous to charge one’s judges.
5:31. See comment on 3:15. The Sadducean leaders of the Sanhedrin might view the apostles’ claim that Jesus is a king after all, reigning for God and vindicated by him after the Sanhedrin had executed him, as an error; but more significantly in this case they would view this claim as a direct challenge to their political power and wisdom.
5:32. On witnesses, see 1:8; the *Holy Spirit is the Spirit of *prophecy inspiring them to witness, so that the apostles claim to speak for God, an authority higher than the Sanhedrin. Many expected the Spirit to be available only in the end time or only to the extremely pious. The apostles’ reply indicates that they do not regard the Sanhedrin as obedient to God (contrast 5:29).
Whether Sadducean aristocrats with political agendas or Pharisaic teachers with pietistic agendas, all the Sanhedrin members claimed to be followers of Israel’s God and would not wish to oppose him.
5:33. The apostles’ refusal to be intimidated threatens the honor assumptions of the elite. Because it is not a festival and the procurator is thus out of town, the apostles’ critics probably could have lynched them, as illegal and against all protocol as it would have been (cf. chaps. 6–7); they lacked legal authority under the Romans to conduct executions. Pharisaic traditions reported that the leading priestly families in this period sometimes used force to guarantee their will. But lynchings were rare, and once tempers are subdued they revert to a more traditional punishment (5:40).
5:34-35. That Gamaliel I, reputedly the most prominent pupil of the gentle *Hillel, was widely respected may be an understatement; he was probably the most influential Pharisaic leader of the time and held prestige as a Jerusalem aristocrat as well. Later *rabbis extolled his piety and learning, and accorded him the title “Rabban,” which later belonged to the rulers of the Pharisaic courts. Josephus mentioned Gamaliel’s aristocratic son Simon, indicating the family’s power in Jerusalem. (The later tradition that Gamaliel was Hillel’s son is probably wrong.)
Pharisees had comparatively little political power and did not believe in executing someone for political reasons. Even if the Christians were in serious error, as long as they kept the *law of Moses the Pharisees would not believe in punishing them. Pharisees were known for leniency and devised rules that, if followed, made executions quite difficult (a conclusion particularly convenient since Rome normally prohibited locals from exercising the right to executions anyway). Luke portrays Gamaliel I as acting according to the Pharisees’ noble ideals (see also 22:3).
5:36. Gamaliel compares the Jesus movement with some populist revolutionary movements, revealing a misunderstanding perhaps widely shared in the Sanhedrin. If Josephus is accurate, Theudas arose about A.D. 44—some ten years after Gamaliel’s speech. The name Theudas is not a common enough name to make an earlier revolutionary named Theudas likely, although the name does occur (e.g., in a Jerusalem tomb inscription). Luke may simply fill in names of the most prominent revolutionary leaders known by his own period rather than a less-known name Gamaliel might have cited (historians sometimes adjusted characters’ speeches in their own words); the alternative would be that either Luke or Josephus is mistaken. But ancient historians had more flexibility with the content of speeches than with events, and that would be especially a speech to which the apostles themselves were not privy.
Theudas was a Jewish “magician” (he probably viewed himself as a prophet) who gathered followers to the river Jordan, promising to part it. The Roman governor Fadus sent troops who killed and captured members of the crowd; Theudas was beheaded (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98).
5:37. Judas the Galilean led the tax revolt of A.D. 6 (Josephus, Jewish War 2.56, 118; Jewish Antiquities 18.23). The Romans retaliated by destroying Sepphoris; Judas’s model led to the revolutionaries who later came to be called the *Zealots. Judas’s sons also revolted in the war of 66-70; they were crucified (Jewish Antiquities 20.102; cf. Jewish War 2.433-34). Judas was helped by a certain Saddok—a Pharisee. Gamaliel would naturally view such revolutionaries more favorably than the *Sadducees would, since the Sadducees had more vested interests in Roman rule.
5:38-39. Continuance was often viewed as a proof of divine help; “fighting against God” (found in combating Jewish martyrs in 2 Maccabees 7:19) may reflect a familiar Greek saying, perhaps originating with the Greek tragedian Euripides but quoted in anthologies for students learning Greek. Many of those in the Sanhedrin might have used such anthologies and hence been familiar with this expression. Gamaliel and many others would also know the context in Euripides: after a god miraculously released his followers from a prison (see Acts 5:19), one who opposed that god was ultimately destroyed.
Waiting for the Romans to take care of this problem would appeal more to Pharisees, who in this period were more convinced than the Sadducees that a future *Messiah should intervene to establish God’s cause and overthrow the current order. (They were also far more affirming of the idea of *resurrection.) Like many of his successors, Gamaliel wants no trouble with Rome, but he is sure that the Romans could take care of revolutionaries themselves—unless God is with the revolutionaries. By comparing the Jesus movement to followers of Theudas and Judas, however, he shows that he still misunderstands it in merely political terms.
5:40. The Pharisaic element would especially listen to Gamaliel, having great respect for teaching of their elders; perhaps reconsidering the extremeness of an illegal lynching, the predominant Sadducean element also concurs. Lynching or even handing over to the governor for execution leaders of a popular movement could provoke a popular backlash, so they hoped to manage the problem differently. Scourging as a civil punishment unconnected with execution is well-known (Lk 23:16; see comment on Jn 19:1); such beatings were intended to inflict public humiliation as well as pain. If the beating resembled later rabbinic practice, the victim would be bound to a post or laid on the ground, then flogged with a calf-leather strap twenty-six times on the back and thirteen on the chest. Even if Sadducees considered Pharisees too lenient in general, they undoubtedly would observe Deuteronomy 25:2-3, especially in public (see comment on Mt 10:17).
5:41. In Jewish tradition, the righteous could rejoice when they suffered, because of their reward in the world to come; nevertheless, disobeying a ruler’s decree was considered courageous, and Judaism extolled martyrs who did so. (The apostles’ continuing to teach publicly in the temple courts is especially courageous.) Perhaps relevant to *Gentiles in Luke’s audience, many philosophers also taught rejecting worldly definitions of shame and learning to celebrate sufferings as a way of redefining true freedom. Ancient hearers would respect this description of the apostles. When Jewish people suffered on behalf of the “Name,” they normally meant the divine name, a concept here transferred to Jesus’ name as divine (cf. Acts 2:21, 38).
5:42. “Teaching” is primarily instruction; “preaching” is especially proclamation of the saving *gospel.
Those with political power generally repressed complaining minorities; here the *apostles hand the whole system over to the offended minority that had felt marginalized. In so doing, they affirmed a minority that would someday yield the *church’s future.
6:1. Some scholars think that the “Hellenists” (NRSV) here are simply Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews, but most Jews in Palestine were bilingual, and Greek was probably the first language for many Jerusalemites. The more likely proposal is that this text refers to Greek-speaking *Diaspora Jews who have settled in Jerusalem, as opposed to more bilingual natives of Judea and Galilee.
The Bible mandated caring for widows, who had no other means of support if they had no family nearby. Judaism took this responsibility very seriously. But because it was considered virtuous to be buried in the land of Israel, many foreign Jews would come to spend their last days there, then die and leave a disproportionate number of widows. (In later centuries, Palestinian rabbis provided further theological incentive to immigrate to the holy land: according to one common tradition, the dead would be resurrected only in Israel, so the righteous dead of other lands would have to roll the whole way back to Israel underground. This was supposed to be a very unpleasant experience for the corpses!)
Thus an apparently disproportionate number of foreign Jewish widows lived in Jerusalem, which did not have enough foreign Jewish *synagogues (6:9) for their distributors of charity to supply all the widows adequately. This urban social problem of Jerusalem spilled over into the church.
6:2-4. “Seven” was a reasonable number for leaders; *Josephus suggests that an average of seven elders governed most towns (Jewish Antiquities 4.214, 287; Jewish War 2.571). Moses also delegated his work to other leaders who met some spiritual and moral qualifications (Ex 18:21), so Moses could focus on interceding for the people before God (18:19) and teaching his Word (18:20). The term for “select” need not imply voting, but given the usual Greek practice familiar to Luke’s audience, that might be what he intends. (There seems to be some evidence for some elective offices in Jewish circles as well. Greek voting could be through ballots or raised hands.) Distributors of charity filled an office in later Palestinian Judaism. Reputation was important for the sake of public credibility; see comment on 1 Timothy 3:7. There was *Old Testament precedent for having the people themselves choose these distributors and the leader ratify their choice (Deut 1:13), and the *Essenes reportedly elected their officials. When Moses laid hands on Joshua, the latter was filled with the *Spirit of wisdom (Deut 34:9; cf. Ex 28:3; 31:3; 35:31).
6:5. Tomb inscriptions show that some Jerusalemites had Greek names whether or not their parents or grandparents had lived outside Judea. But even in Rome, under forty percent of Jews had any Greek in their name, and only one or two of the apostles had a Greek name. That all seven of these men have Greek names suggests that they are obvious *Hellenists (6:1), first-or second-generation Jewish immigrants to Palestine—hence members of the offended minority. One is even a *proselyte—a former *Gentile who had converted to Judaism; many of these lived in Antioch (cf. 11:19).
6:6. The laying on of hands communicated blessing in the Old Testament (cf. Gen 48:14; still occasionally attested in the apostolic period), but the idea here seems to be that of ordination or transfer of spiritual power for ministry, as in Numbers 27:18, 23 (cf. 11:25); Joshua was filled with the Spirit of wisdom because Moses laid hands on him (Deut 34:9). Later *rabbis ordained rabbis by laying on hands (with heavy pressure), called semikhah (cf. 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). (Rabbis applied this rite of laying on hands only to sacrifices and to ordaining scholars.) If so, the apostles considered their new colleagues’ office of social ministry quite important.
6:7. In ancient literature, summary statements sometimes concluded literary sections. There were probably well over two thousand priests in Jerusalem alone. Although most upper-class priests were *Sadducees, the poorer priests, many of whom came to Jerusalem only several weeks of the year, were not; some priests were even *Pharisees. Priests were accorded high status in the *Qumran community, and Luke’s Diaspora audience would have probably been impressed with them as well. Priests did not represent any given ideology or economic status (Josephus complains that rich priests sometimes oppressed poorer priests), but their conversion here shows that the Christians are making inroads even into the temple establishment, or at least the lower eschelon of priests who served there.
Despite Jesus’ orders to engage in the *Gentile mission (1:8), the *apostles had stayed in Jerusalem and remained there as late as 15:2. It is ultimately the bicultural minority within the Jerusalem church that holds the strongest promise for the future. Luke gives us examples of two leaders from that minority (6:5), Stephen (chap. 7) and Philip (chap. 8).
6:9-10. Stephen’s fellow Hellenists were debating new ideas more than the church’s Hebrew faction (see comment on 6:1). Jerusalem had many synagogues (though not the 480 of later tradition), including some of those mentioned here. Freedpersons constituted a particular class in Greco-Roman society in the first generation; later rabbis ranked freedpersons just below proselytes, but they were probably not thinking primarily of Roman freedpersons. The specific term here is the Latin loanword libertinus; the synagogue was established by freed slaves of Roman citizens, who were therefore Roman citizens themselves. Most were probably Judeans enslaved by the Roman general Pompey in the first century B.C., afterward freed by Roman Jews; as Roman citizens, those who returned to Jerusalem would have high status, a status maintained by their descendants so long as they continued to marry and bear other descendants of citizens (cf. 22:28). Archaeologists have found an inscription (the “Theodotus inscription”) from a Greek-speaking Jerusalem synagogue from this period; Theodotus’s father, Vettenos, was probably a Jew from Rome and, given the name, probably a freedman.
Later sources attest the synagogue of the Alexandrians and that of the Cilicians; the capital of Cilicia was Tarsus, Paul’s hometown (for Paul’s possible descent from Jews enslaved by Pompey, see comment on 16:37). Other ancient cities with large Jewish immigrant populations also sported diverse synagogues. Luke’s description here may be a single synagogue of freedmen constituted by those who have returned from the various locations where they or their ancestors settled for a time after being freed.
6:11. Some ancient *rhetorical handbooks that taught public speakers how to win court cases explicitly instructed them how to prepare false witnesses to be persuasive. “Blasphemy” here does not have the later technical sense of pronouncing the divine name of God but the more general sense of the Greek term, namely purported disrespect for God. Ironically, perjury (6:13) was always considered disrespectful to deities.
6:12. Ancient courts normally depended on accusers to arraign those they wished to charge. The Sanhedrin was not likely to be favorably disposed toward Stephen; the Jewish *law of rebuke required a warning, but the Sanhedrin had already warned the leaders of this movement (5:40), and from this point the Sanhedrin would have to take action.
6:13-14. On training false witnesses, see comment on 6:13. Ancients viewed perjury as an affront to the god in whose name the false witnesses had sworn an oath. False witnesses in a capital case were to be executed if found out (Deut 19:18-19; also under Roman law), but in this case Stephen will seem to confirm half their charge in reply to the *high priest’s interrogation (7:1). He is for the law (cf. the bulk of his quotations in chap. 7) but in some sense challenges the unique role that many of his contemporaries assigned to the temple (chap. 7); for “this holy place” (6:13), see comment on 7:33. Even publicly predicting the temple’s destruction could lead to arrest and scourging (as happened a generation later to a figure reported in Josephus). The temple was famous for its beauty and grandeur; it was also central to Jerusalem’s economy (e.g., Josephus claims that its completion in A.D. 62–64 put eighteen thousand people out of work). Jewish tradition praised those who had suffered to preserve the ancestral traditions based on Scripture; its defenders would regard Stephen as apostate. The accusers spoke first in a case.
6:15. Like Jesus (Lk 9:29) and Moses of old (Ex 34:29-30, 35), Stephen is somehow transfigured; Stephen will soon mention an angel’s glory to Moses (Acts 7:30, 35) and will see Jesus’ glory (7:55-56).
7:1. The high priest opens the questioning of the accused; his broad statement would give Stephen the opportunity to deny the charge.
Reciting Israel’s history in ways to make points was common (historical retrospective, e.g., 1 Sam 12:7-12; 1 Maccabees 2:49-69; Sirach 44–50), and one need not study Acts 7:2-53 long before the point becomes clear: Stephen answers the charges (6:11, 13-14). Although he upholds the *law, making his case profusely from Scripture, he denies that the temple or even the land of Israel is necessarily central to God’s short-term working in history. Although *Old Testament prophets had made the same case (e.g., Jer 7; Jonah), Stephen is bound to draw at least as much opposition as they did. Where Stephen’s points differ from the standard Hebrew text, they generally agree with the *Septuagint or sometimes the *Samaritan text.
7:2-4. Abraham was the respected ancestor of the Jewish people, the model of faith and obedience, lauded in many Jewish texts. Palestinian Jewish tradition strongly emphasized the specialness of the land of Israel, and some teachers even claimed that God revealed himself directly only in the land of Israel (with a few explainable exceptions; Mekilta Pisha 1:35-88). Here, although God calls Abraham to the Promised Land, he reveals himself to Abraham in Mesopotamia, far to the east. In Luke’s *narrative, the experience of God’s glory that Stephen infers in Genesis 12:1 will anticipate Stephen’s own in Acts 7:55. Genesis does not portray Abraham’s father as dying before Abraham’s departure for the promised land, but some other Jewish traditions do so.
7:5-7. Although Abraham was the ideal man of God, neither he nor his descendants for four centuries were allowed to possess the Holy Land. Alluding to Genesis 17:8, Stephen in Acts 7:5 adapts it with inheritance language from Numbers and Deuteronomy and “not even a foot” from Deuteronomy 2:5. In Acts 7:6-7, Stephen uses especially Genesis 15:13 to anticipate a subsequent section of his speech, regarding Israel in Moses’ time.
Samaritans viewed Joseph and Moses as the greatest leaders of the past. Jewish literature also spoke of them highly.
7:8. For the covenant of circumcision, see Genesis 17:13.
7:9. The patriarchs were jealous of the one whom God planned as their deliverer (Gen 37:11; cf. 37:4). They were the ancestors of most of the Jewish people (for which reason some postbiblical Jewish stories tried to mitigate their guilt). Thus Stephen begins the secondary emphasis of his sermon: you oppose the real leaders God gives you. Returning charges was characteristic of defense speeches, and Stephen is already preparing for this offensive strategy that supplements his defensive one.
7:10. The place where God exalted and blessed Joseph was Egypt, not the Promised Land.
7:11-13. Joseph rescued his family, but at first they did not recognize him. They heard of the grain in Egypt in Genesis 42:2; Pharaoh’s hospitality appears in Genesis 45:16-20.
7:14. Citing the Old Testament in Greek for a Jewish audience whose first language is Greek, Stephen follows the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text for the number of people in Joseph’s family—seventy-five (the usual Hebrew text has seventy; two Hebrew texts from the *Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuagint; but Deut 10:22 suggests that seventy is the earlier reading).
Table 5. Old Testament Parallels Between Joseph and Moses
| Joseph | Moses |
|---|---|
| Brothers sold him into slavery | Family, who were slaves, saved him from slavery |
| Midianites sold Joseph into Egypt | Midianites welcomed Moses when he fled Egypt |
| Joseph became Pharaoh’s “father” (Gen 45:8) | Moses became a son to Pharaoh’s daughter |
| Joseph was abruptly exalted from slavery, made a prince over Egypt | Moses abruptly lost his Egyptian royalty by defending slaves |
| Joseph made all Egypt Pharaoh’s slaves (47:19) | Through Moses God freed slaves |
| Through Joseph God delivered Egypt during famine | Through Moses God devastated Egypt’s economy |
| Joseph, exiled in Egypt, marries the daughter of an Egyptian priest | Moses, exiled from Egypt, marries the daughter of a Midianite priest |
| The name of Joseph’s first (of two named) sons evokes Joseph’s sojourn in a foreign land | The name of the first (of two named) sons evokes Moses’ sojourn in a foreign land |
| Future deliverer’s leadership initially rejected by brothers | Future deliverer’s leadership initially rejected by his people |
Table 5 is adapted from Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2014), 2:1363.
7:15-16. Summaries sometimes condense, telescope and omit information so that some details are missing. Thus Jacob, not Abraham, bought this site (Gen 33:19), although Abraham bought another site for a tomb in the Promised Land (Gen 23). Jacob, Joseph and his brothers died in a foreign land, although their bones were later moved to the Holy Land (cf. comment on 6:1). Scripture does not record that they were all buried in Shechem. (Jacob was buried near Hebron—Gen 23; 49:29-32; 50:13; Joseph was buried at Shechem—Josh 24:32. *Josephus has the other sons buried at Hebron, but because they died after Jacob’s burial, their burial at the same time and place as their brother Joseph seems somewhat more likely.) But Stephen here agrees with Samaritan tradition, which naturally accorded Shechem this honor because it had become the leading city of the Samaritans (see comment on 8:5). Judean purists would be interested in their ancestors being buried not only in the promised land, but in the Judean part of it.
Stephen follows the Old Testament closely, avoiding the extensive elaboration on Moses’ life found in other writers of the period. Here he ties together both his preceding themes: God reveals himself outside the Holy Land, and Israel rejects its deliverers. His connection of Old Testament leaders, noting a pattern of rejection, is not his own invention but is rooted in Genesis and Exodus themselves. Compare, for example, Joseph and Moses, as shown in table 5.
By highlighting connections among biblical leaders (to foreshadow the ultimate leader, Jesus), Stephen merely develops connections already implicit in earlier biblical *narrative.
7:17-18. That they “grew and multiplied” echoes Exodus 1:7; the other king who did not know Joseph quotes Exodus 1:8. Israel’s hard times in Egypt, during which a deliverer was needed, resemble the difficulties in first-century Palestine; many people were looking for another prophet like Moses to deliver them from oppression.
7:19. In the *New Testament period, non-Jews often left their children out to die, but Jews (and in this period, Egyptians) abhorred this practice; here Luke uses the same term often used for child abandonment, increasing revulsion for Pharaoh. In Luke’s period some rescued discarded babies, but most often reared them as slaves; it was known, however, that the biblical Pharaoh did not want babies rescued. Stephen’s hearers might think also of the wicked *Gentile oppressor Antiochus Epiphanes, who killed Israel’s babies (1 Maccabees 1:61; 2 Maccabees 6:10). For Pharaoh’s mistreatment of Israelites summarized here, cf. Exodus 1:9-11, 22.
7:20. Cf. Exodus 2:2. Some writers (especially though not exclusively later *rabbis, perhaps adapting earlier stories about Noah) related fantastic stories about Moses’ birth (that his beauty at birth was so great that it lit up the room, that he was born circumcised, that his mother hid him “in her womb” for three more months, etc.); Stephen reports exactly what the Old Testament says about Moses’ birth.
7:21. Cf. Exodus 2:5-6, 10. Josephus also interpreted Pharaoh’s daughter’s action in Exodus 2:10 as adoption (though using a less technical phrase for it than Stephen, who plays on the Septuagint wording). Adoption was widely practiced in the Roman world; the adopted son lost his former legal identity and was counted the legal son of the adopter. Most ancient Jewish sources elaborate the biblical narrative more extensively than Stephen does here; for example, Jewish tradition elaborated on Pharaoh’s daughter (e.g., naming her Thermuthis, Tharmuth or later Bithiah).
7:22. Like Josephus, other writers elaborated extensively on Moses’ Egyptian education and legendary exploits as an Egyptian general. Stephen infers Moses’ Egyptian education, presumably correctly (for all boys in the royal family), yet he simply tells what needs to be told. His emphasis on Moses’ Gentile education would not disturb his Greek-speaking hearers the way his emphasis on geographically diverse revelations may have (e.g., 7:2-4, 10). His mention of Moses’ Gentile education, though brief, contributes to Stephen’s polemic that God planned to reach beyond Israel even from the beginning.
7:23. “Forty” could reflect the average figure for a generation and other numbers in the narrative (Ex 7:7; Deut 34:7). But it also roundly fits other Jewish traditions (forty-two in *Jubilees 47:10-12; forty in later rabbinic sources, e.g., Sifre Deuteronomy 357.14.1).
7:24. Cf. Exodus 2:12. Like both later rabbis and earlier Greco-Jewish writers such as *Philo and Artapanus, Stephen presents Moses’ murder of the Egyptian in a positive light; writing Jewish history for Gentile readers, Josephus omits the incident entirely.
7:25-28. Cf. Exodus 2:13-15. Although Moses sacrificed his standing in Egypt to identify with his people, as a bringer of deliverance (the word usually translated “salvation”) for them, they rejected him. See comment on 7:35-37.
7:29. Jewish tradition elaborates Moses’ escape (e.g., that Moses killed the assassin sent to slay him), but Stephen’s speech sticks to the basic story. Exodus reports Moses’ sons (2:22; 4:20; 18:3-6; 1 Chron 23:15); in a narration notable for its conciseness, the *digression on this point may underline Moses’ interethnic union (Ex 2:21-22; cf. Num 12:1), highlighting Luke’s theme of good news for Gentiles.
7:30-34. Added to the forty years of 7:23, the figure in 7:30 allows Moses’ age of eighty in Exodus 7:7. God not only revealed himself to Moses on Mount Sinai and sent him to Egypt, but he also called the mountain “this holy place” (v. 33), a term Stephen’s accusers reserved for the temple (6:13). Stephen’s narration condenses Exodus 3:2-10.
7:35. Like Jesus, Moses was rejected by his people as a deliverer. In 7:35-38, Stephen four times begins with “This one”; orators employed such emphatic repetition to drive home a point.
7:36. Like Jesus, Moses did signs and wonders.
7:37. As many Jewish people and the Samaritans recognized, God would send a deliverer like Moses (Deut 18:18). In the style of a good ancient Jewish expositor of Scripture, Stephen asks, “In what way will the prophet be like Moses?” He answers: he will be rejected by his people (7:35, 39); his hearers’ very opposition proves his point (cf. Is 53:1-3).
7:38. The Jewish people celebrated that Moses had received the *law and passed it on to Israel (Stephen uses terms that might translate those used for Jewish teachers receiving and passing on traditions, though not as strong as those in, e.g., 1 Cor 11:23). The term that Stephen uses for the “congregation” in the wilderness was a legitimate Greek translation for the assembly of Israel (though less common in the Septuagint than the word also translated as “*synagogue”), but it is also the early Christian word for “*church,” allowing Stephen another connection between Moses and Jesus.
7:39. Yet Moses’ own generation rejected him; why is it so hard to believe that the one whom the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ generation rejected might not also be a deliverer for them?
7:40-41. That Egyptians worshiped animal figures was widely known and widely despised in the Greco-Roman world (where most preferred human figures for deities). Egyptians worshiped some cow-figures; Israel may have borrowed this practice. The episode of the golden calf was so embarrassing that Josephus omitted it. It was the incident in Israel’s history of which the rabbis were most ashamed; they felt it was the most sinful of Israel’s acts. But they grew defensive when pagans queried them about it, and several centuries later they argued that the pagans who accompanied Israel, not Israel, made the calf (against Ex 32:1-6). Israel had worshiped idols right after deliverance under Moses; yet, Stephen is going to imply, his accusers also follow the “works of their [human] hands”—an expression often used for idols in the Bible and other Jewish sources but equally applicable, in a literal sense, to their humanly built temple (Acts 7:48).
Now Stephen replies to the charge directly: Scripture does not support the importance his opponents attach to the temple. To the keepers of the temple—which was the symbol of the unity of Jewish people throughout the empire—Stephen’s accusation sounds like the sort of accusation that *Samaritans or other despisers of the Jerusalem temple might bring. Even the schismatic *Essenes condemned only the impurity of the leadership in the temple, while longing for a restored temple.
7:42-43. The “star” and “host of heaven” might imply astral deities (Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4-5); by this period most people in the Mediterranean world viewed stars as divine. In a *prophecy also favored in the *Dead Sea Scrolls (Amos 5:25-27; see CD 7.14-17), Stephen plays on the term translated “tabernacle” (KJV, NASB) or “shrine” (NLT): Israel carried the tabernacle of a pagan god in the wilderness. He follows the Septuagint rendering of the deities’ names. “Beyond Damascus” becomes “beyond Babylon,” perhaps to warn of an impending captivity in addition to the earlier captivity in Babylon (cf. Lk 21:24).
7:44-47. Stephen quickly qualifies that God did tell Moses to build the tabernacle in a particular way (see comment on Heb 8:1-5), and the tabernacle had remained until David’s time; the temple was not built till Solomon’s time. Stephen does not deny that God blessed and approved the building of the Old Testament temple; but he denies that God meant it to be the idol that he argues his hearers have made it. In verse 46 Stephen echoes Psalm 132:5.
7:48-50. Isaiah 66:1-2 attest that God does not need the temple made with human hands; his own hands made everything. Although Stephen focuses on the Law (more emphasized by both *Sadducees and many *Diaspora Jews), like many synagogue expositors he afterward explains the Law in terms of a reading from the Prophets. The title “made with hands” may recall 7:41 where, as often elsewhere in Scripture and Jewish tradition, it applies to idols. In verse 50, God’s “hand” made everything, so he is not limited to houses made by human “hands” (7:48).
Stephen preaches like the prophets he mentions. Closing arguments of speeches often included intense emotion. The conclusion of a Greco-Roman deliberative speech was meant to produce change or decisive action. Stephen’s speech also includes elements of forensic speech, however—more to convict his hearers than to defend himself. Forensic speeches often charged the accusers with the very sort of crime with which they charged the defendant—in this case, with subverting God’s *law (cf. 6:13). Courageously, Stephen condemns not only his accusers but also his judges; such behavior, when followed on rare occasions by philosophers and prophets, often led to losing one’s case or (as in a serious case like that of Socrates) martyrdom.
7:51. “Stiff-necked” and “uncircumcised heart” are standard prophetic insults in the Old Testament; they appear together in Deuteronomy 10:16. Moses emphasized circumcision (7:8), but those who were spiritually uncircumcised were especially cut off from the covenant (e.g., Deut 10:16; 30:6). Stephen could hardly choose harsher words. His point is that his hearers, like their ancestors, reject God’s messengers; the *Holy Spirit was especially seen as the Spirit who had inspired the prophets (with implications for the application of Acts 7:52).
7:52. Jewish tradition had heightened Israel’s responsibility for the death of the prophets (1 Kings 18:4, 13; Neh 9:26; cf. 2 Chron 24:20-22; Jer 26:21-23) beyond what was found in the Old Testament, so Stephen’s hearers could not deny his charge. Like Socrates in Greek tradition, but more relevantly like Jesus, Stephen allows his words to provoke his accusers to kill him, thereby proving his point: they are like their ancestors who killed the prophets.
7:53. Aside from the angel who appeared to Moses in the bush, the Old Testament does not say that God mediated the law through angels; Jewish tradition had added them to heighten reverence for the law (Deut 33:2 LXX; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 15.136; perhaps Ps 68:17-18; 4Q521; cf. also Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2). Stephen concludes that his accusers are wrong; they, not he, are guilty of breaking the law, and are thus uncircumcised in heart. Like Socrates who turned the charge of impiety against the gods upon his accusers, he knows what the result will be: martyrdom.
After speaking like the prophets and noting that prophets get martyred (7:52; cf. 7:9, 35), Stephen experiences a prophet’s martyrdom. Romans did not permit subject peoples to execute capital punishment, but Stephen’s hearers are so enraged that they lynch him according to their own Jewish *law. Stephen’s death proves his point, laying the theological groundwork for the expansion of the Jesus movement outside Palestine; it also leads to further persecution and thus the direct spread of the faith (8:1); and it sows a seed in a certain Saul (7:58)—a seed whose fruit would later be reaped on the road to Damascus (9:3-4; cf. the similar themes shared by Stephen’s and Paul’s preaching in Acts).
Ancient writers sometimes paralleled figures, and *disciples often imitated their teachers; Stephen’s death follows the example of Jesus: compare Acts 7:56 with Luke 22:69; Acts 7:59 with Luke 23:46; and Acts 7:60 with Luke 23:34. Luke may also reverse the charges in his portrayal: note comments below on the *Son of Man standing (7:55), the false witnesses stripping themselves (7:58) and Stephen’s prayer for them (7:60). Such reversal of charges was standard in forensic rhetoric; ancient thinkers also sometimes spoke of unjust courts (such as the one that condemned Socrates) being those really on trial before truth or world opinion.
7:54-55. Looking to heaven was a common posture in prayer. Witnesses typically stood to testify, and judges normally stood to render verdicts (certainly when referring to God; cf. Ps 3:7; 7:6; 9:19; 10:12; 12:5; 17:13; 82:8; Is 3:13); the point might be that Jesus, the true judge, is now vindicating his servant even as his opponents prepare to condemn him. As elsewhere in the narrative, Luke leaves no doubt as to who is really on trial before God (see comment on 7:57-58, 60; cf. Is 54:17).
7:56. In Daniel 7:13-14, the coming of the Son of Man would vindicate the righteous (Israel) against their oppressors (the nations); Stephen’s hearers would know in which category he places himself and in which category he places them.
7:57-58. Death by stoning was a common mob action throughout the ancient world, but it was also a legal form of execution in the Torah (including for blasphemy, Lev 24:16). Mob violence and lynchings often used stones, including in Judea; Scripture reported God’s people stoning or threatening to stone his agents (e.g., Ex 17:4; Num 14:10; 2 Chron 24:21). Although Stephen’s death is a lynching, Jewish traditions about appropriate methods of execution might shed some light on how Stephen’s accusers killed him. According to tradition, a condemned criminal would be taken out to the edge of a city (cf. Num 15:35-36) and thrown over a drop at least twice his height. The witnesses would be the first (cf. Deut 17:7) to hurl large stones on top of him, aiming for the chest (though precision was impossible), till the victim died. Under Jewish law, they were to strip the criminal before killing him; here Stephen’s accusers strip themselves, probably because they are hot, as Greeks stripped for athletic activities. (Such self-stripping also appears in some other ancient accounts of violence.) But Luke may record the detail to identify the guilty parties—those stoning Stephen figuratively admit their own guilt by stripping themselves. (Stripping was customary before beatings or execution; nakedness also publicly humiliated those so stripped, especially given Jewish and Middle Eastern revulsion against being seen naked.) Under Mosaic law, false witnesses in a capital case were to be executed themselves (Deut 19:19).
Luke’s first-time hearers probably know the name Paul, but perhaps not his other name, Saul (13:9); like a good ancient (or modern) writer, Luke might reserve an important revelation for later. “Young man” or “youth” is not very precise; the usual sense of “youth” extends from fourteen (or twenty-one) to twenty-eight years old, but the word used here can extend up to forty (though Saul is much younger than that here). In Jewish tradition (based on Num 4:35) one did not qualify for some offices before age thirty, but this point is probably irrelevant to Saul’s mission in 9:2, especially if he is single (a common Jewish tradition also encouraged men to marry by age twenty). That Saul is in his twenties (the most common age to which the term translated “youth” referred) is a reasonable guess. People associated young men with vigor, intense feelings, rashness and valor in battle or other violence. Those who could gain respect while young were considered exceptional (cf. Gal 1:14).
7:59. Stephen’s prayer parallels Jesus’ cry in Luke 23:46. Ancient writers often liked to draw parallels between different figures; Luke wants his readers to see that Stephen, an ideal representative of the church, follows in the steps of his Lord in martyrdom.
7:60. His final cry parallels Luke 23:34; see comment on Acts 7:59. At least according to later rabbinic ideals, the person being executed was to confess his sin and pray, “May my death *atone for all my sins.” Stephen confesses not his own sin but that of his false accusers (see 7:57-58). Sometimes Jewish people (and less often *Gentiles) would kneel in prayer (as a sign of submission), often with hands lifted toward heaven (1 Kings 8:54; 2 Chron 6:13; Ezra 9:5). Ancients often described death euphemistically as “sleep” (so literally here).
8:1. It took persecution and the scattering of believers—especially the bicultural, foreign Jews (11:19-20)—to get the *church to begin to do what Jesus had commanded them back in 1:8. As the second-century North African theologian Tertullian pointed out, “the blood of Christians is the seed” of the church’s growth.
8:2. Dying unburied was the greatest dishonor possible in the ancient Mediterranean world; many Gentiles even believed that those who died unburied were denied entrance to the netherworld, hence condemned to roam as ghosts. Usually only the cruellest of rulers would deprive even their enemies of burial, though it was sometimes denied criminals; but some prohibited burial for the worst criminals, leaving it to vultures and dogs to pick their bones clean. Most people, however, considered it honorable to bury the dead, and risking one’s life to bury the dead (e.g., in the stories of Antigone or Tobit) was considered honorable and heroic. Adult sons or those closest to the deceased would take charge of burial. Although Judaism required burial (often in a criminals’ dishonorable grave), and publicly mourning the dead was normally a pious duty in Judaism, Jewish law forbade public mourning for a condemned criminal. Stephen’s pious friends ignore the illegal ruling of the highest Jewish court to honor their friend.
8:3. Prison was normally a holding place till trial; that Saul detains women as well as men suggests that he is more zealous than most of his contemporaries would have felt necessary (Gal 1:13-14; Phil 3:6). Crackdowns usually targeted men, but women were included during the most severe crackdowns (e.g., in the cult of Dionysus in earlier Rome). Perhaps the only charge against the church members is an assumption of their opposition to the temple, aroused by Stephen’s speech.
8:4. Although Acts focuses on prominent individuals (as was common in ancient history), we learn here that many people were involved. Most ancient religions were spread by traveling merchants or other travelers more than by prominent individuals.
Having finished narrating his first example from the Seven (Stephen), Luke now turns to his second example, one of those “scattered” in 8:4.
8:5. “The city of Samaria” could refer to the *Old Testament site of Samaria, now a pagan Greek city called Sebaste, dedicated to the worship of the emperor and full of occult influences (see comment on 8:10). But the bulk of Sebaste’s people were Greeks rather than *Samaritans, so the phrase probably refers to the main Samaritan town of the district of Samaria, later called Neapolis, on the site of ancient Shechem (cf. 7:15-16). This was the religious center of the Samaritans. Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim show that at least many Samaritans knew Greek, and in this urban center the *Hellenist Philip could preach in his first language.
8:6-8. Signs were accorded high evidential value in antiquity. That the modern Western educated elite tends to denigrate them is more a commentary on our culture than on theirs; most cultures in the world today (virtually all cultures not influenced by Western deism or atheism) accept some forms of supernatural activity. People often respected exorcisms that included outward signs of the spirit coming out, as here.
8:9. Magicians usually drew large followings in antiquity; given the prominence of Jewish magicians in Greco-Roman antiquity, a Samaritan magician should not surprise us; Samaria had even more Greek influences than Judea. Like the Old Testament, official leaders in mainstream Judaism opposed *magic, but later magical *papyri show considerable Jewish influence, and even a minority of later *rabbis reportedly indulged in something like sorcery, claiming simply to exploit insight into the secrets of God’s laws of creation. Whether someone was called a miracle-worker or a magician often depended on whether the writer liked him, but in general magicians were thought to act less publicly and particularly to act more for personal gain.
8:10. In nearby Sebaste many Greeks were synthesizing the various Greek gods into one universal male deity and the goddesses into another female one. This synthesis followed a trend that had been developing among some educated Greeks for centuries. A second-century Christian writer suggested that Simon claimed to be the avatar, or incarnation, of the male form of the deity, while his consort Helena was its female form. Samaritans themselves were monotheistic, but syncretism was common on a popular level. Throughout history and in many cultures today people are convinced about God through what missiologists have called “power encounters,” where God’s power is revealed as greater than that of those claiming to be spiritual competitors (earlier, cf. e.g., Ex 7:10-12; 1 Kings 18:28-39).
8:11. Judaism allowed that *Gentile sorcerers could perform signs; many Jews attributed this to Belial (*Satan). The Old Testament taught that pagan sorcerers could duplicate some of God’s signs on a small scale (Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7), but that their power was definitely limited (Ex 8:18-19; 9:11).
8:12. Familiar with Samaritan opposition to Judaism, Jewish people would have found this scenario remarkable. Already circumcised, Samaritans would have converted to Judaism by *baptism alone; but such conversion rarely if ever occurred, because it would have seemed tantamount to betraying one’s own people. For Philip, a Jew, to present the *gospel in such terms that a Samaritan could follow a *Messiah proclaimed by Jews (probably by not demanding adherence to the Jerusalem temple) would be viewed by many Judeans as a betrayal of Judaism. Philip follows the same theological program of decentralized witness supported by Stephen in chapter 7 and outlined by Jesus in 1:8.
8:13. Some writers have argued that Simon was not genuinely converted, given his subsequent behavior (8:18-24), but this issue depends on the meaning of “conversion”; like Judaism in the same period, early Christianity lamented not only false converts but also apostates (e.g., 1 Sam 10:6; 16:14; 2 Pet 2:21; 1 Jn 2:19).
Philip’s crosscultural ministry has broken new ground, of the sort that might draw opposition from some conservative elements in the Jerusalem church (8:12). It is thus important for Luke to describe the response of the Jerusalem *apostles and the blessing of God on the work.
8:14-15. From a theological standpoint, the work of the *Spirit is one package (2:38-39), but in the experience of the church not all aspects of his work are necessarily manifested simultaneously. Luke emphasizes the prophetic-empowerment dimension of the Spirit (1:8) so much that he rarely mentions other aspects of the Spirit’s work known in the *Old Testament and early Judaism; this prophetic-empowerment aspect could be in view here, although Philip’s hearers were already converted in 8:12.
8:16. “Into the name” is a literal translation that could reflect the language of ancient business documents, meaning that the converts have transferred ownership of their lives to Christ. Conversely, it could simply reflect the increasing ambiguity of Greek prepositions in this period (thus simply meaning, “with reference to Jesus”). Cf. “*baptism” in the glossary.
8:17. Ancient Judaism provides rare examples of laying on hands for prayer (one in the *Dead Sea Scrolls); in the Old Testament hands were laid on to impart blessings in prayer (Gen 48:14-20), among other matters (see comment on 6:6).
8:18-22. The only category into which many Greeks could fit the miracles performed by the apostles would have been that of magical works, but this text clearly distinguishes an amoral, magical interpretation of the miracles from the apostolic miracles, which are much more like those of Old Testament prophets such as Elijah and Elisha. Sorcerers could buy magical formulas; no one could buy the Spirit. One of the ways ancient observers distinguished *magic from miracle is that the former involved greed and self-aggrandisement. Those defending miracle-workers often had to distinguish them from magicians.
8:23-24. “Gall” and “bitterness” appear together in the *Septuagint of Lamentations 3:15, 19, for suffering, but most relevantly in Deuteronomy 29:17; 32:32, in the context of paganism. “Bond of injustice” may reflect Isaiah 58:6.
8:25. After the new mission was pioneered by the bicultural witnesses of Acts 6, the apostles finally begin to develop their own mission (1:8). Far from the apostles fixing or correcting Philip’s inadequate conversion of the Samaritans (as some commentators have suggested), the whole *narrative indicates that they recognize and ratify the propriety of his work and develop what he began. Because *Aramaic would be the dominant language of the Samaritan villages (as opposed to Neapolis; see comment on 8:5), Peter and John could press into villages where Philip had not ministered.
Luke devotes nearly as much space to the conversion of this one foreigner, who can function as an indigenous witness in his own culture, as to the mass conversion in Samaria. Because *Samaritans were not considered fully Jewish, this is the first fully *Gentile convert to Christianity (probably unknown to most of the Jerusalem church—11:18).
8:26. Two roads led south from near Jerusalem, one through Hebron into Idumea (Edom) and the other joining the coast road before Gaza heading for Egypt, both with plenty of Roman milestones as road markers. Old Gaza was a deserted town whose ruins lay near the now culturally Greek cities of Askalon and New Gaza. Philip might have no one to preach to on a little-traveled road that would lead by a deserted city, and after the revival in Samaria this command must seem absurd to him; but God had often tested faith through apparently absurd commands (e.g., Ex 14:16; 1 Kings 17:3-4, 9-14; 2 Kings 5:10). The term translated “south” can also mean “noon”; traveling at noon was very rare (see 22:6; comment on Jn 4:5-6), so this detail, if intended, would make the command seem even more absurd.
8:27. The Greek term Aithiopia (“Ethiopia”) referred not specifically to modern Ethiopia, but to Africa south of Egypt. Ethiopia figured in Mediterranean legends and mythical geography as the very end of the earth (sometimes extending from the far south to the far east), and the most commonly mentioned feature of Ethiopians in Jewish and Greco-Roman literature (also noted in the *Old Testament—Jer 13:23) is their black skin; some sources also depict their hair and other features in ways that leave no doubt that black Africans are in view.
He hails from a black Nubian kingdom south of Egypt partly in what is now the Sudan, a kingdom that had lasted since about 750 B.C. and whose main cities were Meroë and Napata (this should not be confused with Abyssinia, which came to be called Ethiopia in more recent times and converted to Christianity in the fourth century A.D.). Meroë was so powerful that Rome settled for a peace treaty and trade ties rather than its empire venturing south of Egypt. This official and perhaps members of his entourage would have known Greek, necessary for his kingdom’s trade with cities in Egypt. He is probably a Gentile “God-fearer” (see comment on 10:2). As the queen’s treasurer, this man is a high and powerful official. Meroë was wealthy, so the treasurer probably supervised considerable wealth. The empire’s capital, also named Meroë, was roughly one hundred miles northeast of modern Khartoum and roughly two hundred miles south of modern Egypt—no small journey to Jerusalem. Although this kingdom had some trade with Rome, even the treasurer for Meroë’s queen would not normally have business so far north.
Various queens of this African kingdom bore the title “Candace” (kandak’a), which Greeks viewed as a dynastic title of the queen mother of Ethiopia, whom they believed ruled in Ethiopia. In fact queens may have born this title whether or not they were reigning; at least some, however, did rule Ethiopia. If the Candace here is regnant, she might be Queen Nawidemak or one of the queens about whom we lack sufficient knowledge.
When meant literally (which was not always the case—Gen 39:1 LXX), “eunuch” referred to a castrated man. The term’s fivefold repetition in this narrative probably signals that the official was a true eunuch, as was often the case of close associates of queens in some regions. Although eunuchs were preferred court officials in the East, many Mediterranean peoples mocked them as deficient in manliness. The Jewish people opposed making men eunuchs, and Jewish *law excluded eunuchs from Israel; the rules were undoubtedly instituted to prevent Israel from neutering boys (Deut 23:1). Thus this official, while Jewish in faith (8:27, 30), would not have been accepted as a full convert to Judaism. But God could certainly accept eunuchs (Is 56:3-5, even foreign eunuchs; Wisdom of Solomon 3:14). An Ethiopian “eunuch” in the Old Testament turned out to be one of Jeremiah’s few allies and saved his life (Jer 38:7-13).
8:28. Most people walked, the more well-to-do rode animals, but only the most well-to-do had chariots or carriages. Expensive carriages could be covered and have four wheels, and could be drawn by horses, donkeys, mules or oxen. (The official would probably use the carriage only as far as Alexandria; from there he would sail south on the Nile.) As a wealthy person, he could have had a reader, but as an educated person, he may have been reading the scroll himself (as Luke’s wording probably suggests). People were occasionally known to read while sitting in expensive carriages; thus the chariot may be moving while the eunuch is reading.
8:29-30. Although taught along with reading aloud in modern times, the skill of reading silently was not practiced as often in antiquity; those who could read generally read aloud. Meroë had its own language and alphabetic script. Nevertheless, because of Meroë’s trade contacts with Greek-speakers in Egypt, the official knew Greek (the trade language in Egypt’s cities). Because Philip understands what he is reading and they go on to communicate, the official may be reading a copy of the *Septuagint. The situation here is obviously divinely arranged (cf., e.g., Gen 24:13-27). The chariot probably was not traveling quickly; its maximum speed might be only twenty-five or thirty miles per day. People in antiquity valued youthful vigor, a vigor Philip employs to good effect here.
8:31. Often only one attendant would accompany the official in a chariot; the wealthy eunuch might have more, but there is still room for Philip.
8:32-35. Earlier servant passages in Isaiah refer explicitly to Israel, but 49:5 distinguishes the servant from the rest of Israel, and in 53:1-3 he is rejected by Israel; in 53:4-12 he bears the sins of Israel, although he himself is not guilty (53:9; contrast 40:2) and suffers voluntarily (53:12). The official’s confusion is understandable, but one can well imagine how Philip explained the passage. (Luke does not report all of Is 53, but the context is implied; because chapter and verse references had not yet been assigned, one had to cite part of a passage to let the readers know where one was reading.) Three chapters later Isaiah speaks of God welcoming foreigners and eunuchs (Is 56:3-8).
8:36-38. There are some wadis near Gaza (wadis are dry creek beds that fill with water during the rainy season); because Jewish *baptism presupposed full immersion, this is no doubt what Luke intends here. As a eunuch (a designation highlighted by Luke five times), the official could not be a full *proselyte, hence would have been denied circumcision (Deut 23:1). Now, however, he expresses readiness to embrace baptism. As a God-fearer, the Ethiopian undoubtedly understands the usual Jewish view that full conversion includes baptism; in Jesus, he is welcomed fully into God’s people (cf. Is 56:3-5).
8:39. Christianity especially began to expand in Abyssinia through lay witness in the third century, and that empire was declared “Christian” about the same time as the Roman Empire was. Nubia (the region of this official) converted later; no certain record of this Ethiopian’s witness remains, but with Luke we may suppose that he testified of his faith in high places.
Some magicians claimed the ability to fly (not very commonly demonstrated!), but the language of Philip’s removal suggests supernatural movement more like that suggested as possible for Elijah (1 Kings 18:12; cf. 2 Kings 2:11, 16) or other biblical sources (Ezek 3:12, 14).
8:40. Ancient writers sometimes framed sections with parallel language; Philip’s preaching as he is going might echo 8:4 and 8:25. Philip’s continuing ministry involves the coastal plain, again in advance of Peter’s mission in the same region (see 9:32, 43; 10:24). The Judean Azotus, about four kilometers from the Mediterranean sea, had been the Old Testament’s Philistine city of Ashdod. It was twenty to twenty-five miles northeast of Gaza (about a day’s walk) and about thirty to thirty-five miles west of Jerusalem, situated roughly halfway between Gaza and Joppa. Caesarea Maritima (the coastal Caesarea, not Caesarea Philippi) was over fifty miles to the north of Azotus, just off the same coastal road; this city, Judea’s Roman capital, will become significant for Acts in 10:1 (cf. 21:8). Although Jews also lived in Gaza, Azotus and Caesarea, these cities all included large numbers of Gentile residents; Philip foreshadows the mission of other *Hellenists (11:20).
The three accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts display some differences (chaps. 9, 22, 26; all fit the accounts in his letters). Classical literature sometimes reports messages given to messengers and then repeats them verbatim on their delivery. *Rhetorical style by Luke’s day preferred variation, which makes the repeated *narratives much less repetitious, hence more interesting to read. Luke’s three accounts fit their varied audiences.
9:1. Saul may have been a prominent person (cf. Gal 1:14) from a prominent family (cf. Acts 22:3; 26:5) to have direct access to the *high priest.
9:2. Official letters of introduction authorizing or recommending their sender were common, and *Josephus confirms that Palestinian agents could take orders from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. Jewish communities outside Palestine respected the high priest, and letters from him authorize Saul to carry out his mission with the full cooperation of *synagogues there. (Saul rather than the high priest initiates the action here.) Because Jerusalem high priests earlier exercised extradition rights over fugitive Judeans when they ruled Palestine, local synagogues in Syria may have still recognized this right, although the local ruler would probably not. These synagogue communities could cooperate with Saul in his mission to weed out the Jewish Christians. Contrary to some modern romanticized readings, intra-Jewish conflict occurred and sometimes even became violent (see, e.g., 1 Maccabees 3:8; *Dead Sea Scrolls CD 1.20-21; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.213).
The *Essene sect at *Qumran also described itself as “the way”; this was a natural designation for a group that believed that it alone followed the way of righteousness (cf., e.g., Prov 8:20; 12:28; 16:31; they also explicitly drew on Is 40:3). Essenes had apparently also settled in Syrian Damascus, if their writings on this point are meant literally. Tens of thousands of Jews lived in Damascus (as many as eighteen thousand were massacred there in A.D. 66).
9:3. Damascus lay roughly 135 miles north of Jerusalem on the Great North Road, about a six days’ walk (shorter if they rode horses, as is possible, but cf. 9:8). The light from heaven indicates the Shekinah, God’s presence (related to the concept of yeqara, “glory”), as God often revealed his glory in the *Old Testament. A number of Old Testament calling narratives include a theophany or other direct experience; see Exodus 3:1–4:17; Isaiah 6:1-13; Jeremiah 1:4-19; Ezekiel 1:1–3:15; cf. Judg 6:11-24. Jewish people also recognized that God might suddenly intervene to convert a persecutor (2 Maccabees 3:24-36).
9:4. In the Old Testament and Jewish literature, people often fell to the ground when confronted with divine or angelic revelations (e.g., Ezek 1:28; Dan 8:17). Usually the revealer then commands the person to stand (e.g., Ezek 2:1; Dan 8:18); the lack of such instruction here likely suggests that Saul’s behavior is not an object of divine favor. In Jewish literature names are often repeated when God calls to someone, drawing special attention to what is about to be said (e.g., Gen 22:11; 46:2; Ex 3:4; 1 Sam 3:10). In Jewish literature, a voice from heaven almost always belongs to God himself; usually it was in *Aramaic or Hebrew, as is apparent here (from the form of “Saul” and from 26:14). Given the nature of the revelation, “Lord” here means more than “Sir”; perhaps Saul wonders if God or an angel is addressing him, or perhaps he simply cannot believe he is opposing God.
9:5-6. Persecuting his followers is persecuting Jesus, because they are his representatives (Lk 10:16). Letters of recommendation (cf. Acts 9:2) often identified the sender with the person recommended; here Jesus identifies with his persecuted followers. In the Old Tesament God evaluated the treatment of some people as if it were treatment of himself (Ex 16:8; 1 Sam 8:7; Prov 19:17).
9:7. The reaction of Saul’s companions is analogous to that in Daniel 10:7.
9:8. God sometimes struck people with blindness to stop them from an evil purpose or as a temporary measure to get their attention (Gen 19:11; 2 Kings 6:18-20; note also the contextual play on spiritual blindness and sight in 2 Kings 6:17).
9:9. Three days was not uncommon for a fast (Esther 4:16); but without water one would become dehydrated, and to continue without water would eventually lead to death. *New Testament examples usually conjoin fasting with prayer, but fasting was commonly an expression of mourning or *repentance. According to this narrative, Saul does not change religions; he learns the true way to follow his Jewish religion. Social studies of conversion suggest that a convert sometimes retains some basic structures of thought but initially reverses his or her approach.
The pairing of Ananias’s and Saul’s visionary experiences, like the pairing of those of Cornelius and Peter in chapter 10, confirm the supernatural character of the revelation (as in some other ancient sources; e.g., Judg 7:9-15).
9:10. Another individual bears the name Ananias elsewhere in Acts (23:2), but this was a common name, the Greek form of the Hebrew Hananiah (e.g., Jer 28:1; Dan 1:6). His response is the proper one for an obedient servant of God ready to obey orders (1 Sam 3:10; Is 6:8). His biblically appropriate response to a theophany (cf. Gen 22:11; 46:2; Ex 3:4; 1 Sam 3:4-8; Is 6:8) contrasts with Saul’s less informed approach above. (Damascus, capital of modern Syria, was then the capital of the Nabatean Arabs.)
9:11-12. Each is informed about the other in a vision. Such twin visions occur rarely in ancient literature (e.g., *Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11.13; cf. Tobit 3); when they occur they allow no misunderstanding that the event was divinely coordinated (cf. Gen 41:32). Ancient Jewish hospitality was great, and accommodations with a fellow Jew in Damascus would not be hard for Saul to secure, whether or not Judas has advance notice of Saul’s coming. Cities built before the *Hellenistic era, like Damascus, would have many narrow, winding streets. Damascus, however, was reconstructed on the Greek grid pattern, with fairly evenly spaced east-west and north-south streets. Many scholars believe that Straight Street is the long, main east-west street through Damascus, where tradition still places Judas’s ancient home (near the street’s west end). This important street ran parallel to the Barada River, which passed through Damascus, and was fifty feet (fifteen meters) wide, with colonnades on either side. (We cannot be certain that this was the street, however.) Once one found a street, one normally asked neighbors for directions to the house (although according to local tradition, Ananias’s house was near the same street, albeit near the eastern end).
Jews are attested in ancient Tarsus, the capital and most prominent city of Cilicia in southern Asia Minor. Civic strife was apparently characteristic of Tarsian (and more generally Cilician) culture; Cilicia’s reputation for viciousness might reflect the influence of the region’s common violence a generation or two before. A Hellenized city prosperous from trade, it also had prominent schools and boasted many philosophers, though many of its own residents chose to do advanced studies abroad. But cf. comment on 22:3.
9:13-14. Ananias is naturally less eager to obey his orders (9:10) after he finds out what they are (but he does obey, 9:17). Even after saying, “Here I am” (9:10; cf. Ex 3:4) one might voice objections (e.g., Ex 4:10; see also Acts 10:14). On commands that seem absurd, see 8:26.
9:15-16. The language here is that of *Old Testament call or commissioning narratives; Saul is apparently converted already and is about to be called to ministry. “On behalf of my name” or “for my name” (NIV) means either for Jesus’ honor or that these sufferings would be incurred while Saul is acting as his representative (cf. comment on Jn 14:12-14).
9:17. “Brother” was often used for coreligionists, fellow members of the same Greek association or fellow Jews (usually in Acts it applies to fellow believers in Jesus).
9:18-19a. Saul would know the popular Jewish story of the healing of Tobit’s blindness, in which white film and scabs (the same language in Greek as here) were removed (Tobit 3:17; 11:11-13); the analogy might underline for Saul the miraculous character of his own experience. Damascus had plenty of places available for *baptism (e.g., the river Barada, running through Damascus near what may have been “Straight Street”).
9:19b-21. Although Saul had carried the letters authorizing his mission (9:2) on his own person and presumably not delivered them, word of his mission had gotten around in Damascus’s Jewish community. “*Son of God” is characteristic of Paul’s style more than Luke’s; writers tried to imitate the style of those whose speeches they reported, and it is not likely that Luke would know Paul’s style this early unless he knows him personally (which he undoubtedly did; see the introduction to Acts; 16:10).
9:22. Saul’s position presupposes that he is already expert in the Scriptures; now he turns this expertise against his former mission.
9:23-24. Saul’s Jewish opponents plan to assassinate him, not to execute him legally; but his own account in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 indicates that they had secured the cooperation of the (*Gentile) Nabatean ethnarch. Saul’s preaching in other cities under the control of Aretas IV of Nabatea (9 B.C.–A.D. 40) for as long as three years (Gal 1:17) had possibly aroused such opposition. The collusion of such interests made Paul’s situation in Damascus politically impossible. A city’s gates would be closed at night, though individuals might be able to exit with permission.
9:25. Houses were sometimes built into city walls; Saul’s escape method has biblical precedent (Josh 2:15; 1 Sam 19:12). A pre-Arabic, Roman-period tradition claims that Ananias’s house was built on the wall; if the tradition is early (by no means certain; it could simply reflect on Paul’s experience), the house might have even been that of Ananias. That he has gained *disciples there suggests that he has worked like a Christian *rabbi, or teacher, and that he has the requisite training to present himself as such (cf. 22:3; but contrast Mt 23:8).
9:26-29. As provocative as his evangelistic predecessor Stephen, Saul appears headed for the same fate, until he is sent to Tarsus. The only representatives of the *apostles he gets to know well are Peter and James (Gal 1:18-19).
9:30. Caesarea, perhaps two days’ journey away on the Judean coast, was the Roman capital of Judea, and Paul could catch a ship from there northward to southern Asia Minor. “Sending him off” may imply also that they paid his fare. Because he had been born in Tarsus (22:3), he possibly had relatives there; but his training had been thoroughly Palestinian Jewish (Phil 3:5), so it is during this period in his life that Saul begins to relate especially to Gentiles from Asia Minor (modern Turkey).
9:31. In ancient literature, summary statements sometimes concluded literary sections.
9:32. Lydda and Joppa (9:36) were the most prominent cities on the coastal plain that were almost completely Jewish. Lydda, about twenty-five miles northwest of Jerusalem, was the most significant Jewish city of the Sharon plain. Capital of one of the Judean districts that included non-Jews, it escaped most of the devastation of the later Judean revolt and eventually hosted many prominent rabbis and a rabbinic school.
9:33. Jewish piety included visiting the sick. Although Aeneas is a familiar *Gentile name, a number of Jews also bore it (which seems likelier here). Aeneas could have been paralyzed from a stroke or another problem with the central nervous system, or from an accident (such as a fall from a roof), or from tuberculosis affecting the spine, or from some other cause. Apart from massaging the person with olive oil, little treatment was available.
9:34-35. Sharon is not a town but the coastal plain that extended from Lydda toward Mount Carmel in the north. Most writers in Greek designate it a “plain” or the like, but Luke has a simple transliteration of the Hebrew expression. The Christian presence was still notable in Lydda in the second century A.D.
9:36. Joppa, modern Yaffa, now joined with Tel-Aviv, was a profitable port city, about eleven miles from Lydda. It was about 30 miles south of Caesarea Maritima (8:40; 10:1, 5), and controlled one of Judea’s administrative districts. It was under Jewish control for about forty years until it came under direct Roman authority in A.D. 6. Tabitha is a Semitic name and Dorcas a Greek one (both meaning the same thing, “gazelle”).
Jewish women were active in charity projects. In Greco-Roman culture in general women were sometimes *patrons, and it has been suggested that Tabitha may have been a patron or benefactor of the widows mentioned in verse 41. But whether officially (as a benefactor) or unofficially, she was looking out for their interests.
9:37. Jewish dead were always washed before burial. Only women prepared women’s bodies for burial. The upper room may evoke 1 Kings 17:19, 23; 2 Kings 4:10-11, 32 (although on other occasions also bodies were kept in upper rooms).
9:38. It is important that Lydda is near Joppa, because corpses had to be buried right away (ideally before sundown). The distance of fewer than twelve miles meant perhaps roughly four hours’ journey each way (for the messengers to Peter and Peter to Joppa); because it was customary to bury the corpse before sundown, even if Tabitha had died early in the day they could afford no delay.
9:39. Upper rooms were usually small (1:13 is an exception), generally attics built on the flat rooftops; this one is at least large enough to accommodate a few people. Making clothing was one of the domestic tasks assigned to women in that culture. Well-to-do Roman women had maids to do it but were still considered responsible for it getting done. Caring for widows was a fundamental act of piety in early Judaism; Tabitha had been their benefactor. If we may extrapolate from a somewhat later painting somewhat further to the east, Judean women, or at least those with some means, may have worn ankle-length tunics with wide sleeves at the elbows; over this tunic they might wear a shorter dress.
9:40. In accordance with Jewish scruples, Tabitha’s body would be covered before Peter is brought into the room. On Peter’s sending the others out, cf. 1 Kings 17:19; 2 Kings 4:33.
9:41-42. The resuscitator normally presented the raised person to the suppliants who had requested the resuscitation (1 Kings 17:23; 2 Kings 4:36; Lk 7:15).
9:43. It was customary to name people by their occupation or parentage. Tanning was a despised trade; because of the odors associated with animal carcasses (perhaps less offensive to a fisherman), tanneries usually existed only outside towns. Strict observers of Pharisaic opinions likewise avoided tanners whenever possible, because their stripping of animal hides continually involved them with unclean carcasses. Second-century rabbis reported that tanners were forbidden in cities, especially Jerusalem (many rabbis were more lenient if the tannery were near water, as Simon’s house is—10:6). They even insisted that a tanner must allow his wife a divorce if she could not endure the smell! But Judaism stressed hospitality, and Peter, who probably never followed Pharisaic opinions anyway, is happy to receive it.
Compare comment on the twin visions of Paul and Ananias in 9:12.
10:1. Herod the Great had renamed Strato’s Tower “Caesarea” in honor of the emperor; it now had a splendid theater seating more than four thousand, an amphitheater, temples and a massive harbor complex. By this period, it was a mixed city of both Jews and *Gentiles, with the latter predominating, but the two groups often were in conflict; a generation later, local Syrians slaughtered much of the Jewish population (*Josephus estimates twenty thousand in one hour in A.D. 66; Jewish War 2.457). Most local soldiers were anti-Jewish. Nevertheless, some Gentiles honored, and even converted to, Judaism there.
The residence of the Roman governor of Judea (23:23-24), Caesarea held a regular Roman garrison of a cavalry unit and five infantry cohorts. (Even during the brief reign of Agrippa in A.D. 41–44, Gentile troops remained stationed there; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19.356-65.) The soldiers were auxiliaries, that is, provincials recruited to the Roman army; most were Syrian by birth, although they received Roman citizenship on retirement. Centurions commanded units of roughly eighty men (rather than their official designation of one hundred). Unlike the aristocrats who could directly become tribunes or legates, centurions were often soldiers who worked their way up through the ranks. Some took twenty years to achieve this rank; others achieved it more quickly.
His century was part of a “regiment” (NIV, GNT) or cohort (NASB, NRSV), one-tenth of a legion, made up of up to six hundred men. Five cohorts were stationed in Caesarea and another in Jerusalem. We have attestation for this particular cohort in Palestine a few decades later. More than one cohort in antiquity bore this name; the name simply indicates that the cohort’s original members were Italians, sometimes reflecting a cohort’s earlier history. Sometimes auxiliaries took a Roman name (such as Cornelius) when enlisting, receiving citizenship only later; but perhaps Cornelius was a Roman citizen and a member of the legion in Syria, lent to an auxiliary cohort for service there (perhaps because of complaints about the behavior of local auxiliaries). Others think that he was retired.
Military service was a preferred occupation. Some estimate that only roughly half those who enlisted survived the twenty years of service (generally ages seventeen to thirty-seven; it became twenty-five years of service later in the first century), but apart from legions that saw heavy fighting the actual figures were probably higher. In any case, rewards for survivors were high. Noncitizens could not join legions but could become auxiliary troops who received citizenship upon their discharge.
10:2. Cornelius is clearly not yet a full convert to Judaism (10:28), but his almsgiving and the appreciation of Jews who know him (10:22) testify to his devotion. Although the term “God-fearer” had a broader usage, it generally functions technically in Acts and in some other Jewish sources for righteous Gentiles who had not been circumcised. Josephus, *Philo, inscriptions and even the pagan philosopher *Epictetus mention this class of incomplete converts. Inscriptions indicate a high level of religious interest among many of the soldiers.
If these events are before 41, as many scholars think, Cornelius would probably be retired (centurions could retire at the age of sixty) by the war of 66–70 (if he was not already retired at the time of this *narrative, as some think). Nevertheless, most Jewish Christian readers after A.D. 70 would not be fond of Roman officers stationed in Syria-Palestine, and this account would challenge their prejudices. Recruits had all sworn oaths of allegiance to the divine emperor.
Cornelius’s “household” (NASB, NRSV) or “family” (NIV, GNT) is of interest. Luke would certainly know that military personnel were not officially permitted to marry. Cornelius might be retired, but otherwise he would not be married officially. Soldiers, often recruited from the local areas where they served, commonly had illegal concubines whom superiors ignored, but centurions were moved around somewhat more often and thus could maintain long-term informal marriages with local concubines less often than other soldiers might. Thus while Cornelius may have unofficially married a concubine, it is also possible that he did not. It was considered proper for a wife to share her husband’s religion, so if he was married, her shared devotion here would be natural. But the term translated “household” could include servants or *freedpersons; although a cheap slave would cost about one-third of a regular soldier’s annual pay, centurions received fifteen times the pay of rank-and-file soldiers. “Household” here might mean simply “servants” (v. 7).
10:3. The “ninth hour” (KJV, NASB) is about 3 p.m.—he keeps the Jewish hours of prayer, which corresponded to the morning and evening offerings in the temple (3:1).
10:4-8. In the *Old Testament as well God looked out for many Gentiles who were seeking him, whether or not they had yet become full converts (e.g., Josh 6:25; 2 Sam 12:9-10), and revealed himself to individuals other than Abraham’s descendants (Gen 5:24; Num 22–25). “Memorial” (v. 4) may be the language of sacrifice (Lev 2:2), which would be fitting for prayers offered during the time of sacrifice in the temple. Ironically, Joppa (Acts 10:5; cf. 9:36-43) was where Jonah began fleeing to avoid preaching to Gentiles (Jon 1:3).
Compare Cornelius’s vision in 10:1-8; on such cases of “double vision,” compare the comment on 9:12.
10:9. Caesarea was about thirty miles north of Joppa. If Cornelius’s messengers left even immediately after 3 p.m. (10:3) on the same day (some commentators believe they left the next day), they must have traveled part of the night on foot, or (less likely) Cornelius must have found horses for them to ride, because here they approach Joppa by noon (“the sixth hour”—KJV, NASB). Thus their task must be urgent.
The flat rooftops were used for drying vegetables and for prayers. If one reclined under a canopy, the rooftops were cooler even at midday than the poorly ventilated rooms of most Palestinian homes (although this home may be larger than most; cf. 10:17). Noon was not a regular hour of prayer (3:1), so Peter prays in addition to the traditional hours followed by many of his contemporaries.
10:10. Peter is not hungry from any special fast; noon was the normal time for a meal in Rome and some other locations and may have been in Joppa as well. Some Jewish writers described mystical experiences when the soul would be so filled with God that one would lose touch with one’s surroundings; but in contrast to those who sought mystical experiences, Peter has done nothing intentionally to bring it about.
10:11-13. Even Palestinian Jews most lenient in other regards kept kosher. By conservative standards, any animals that were clean by themselves would have been contaminated by contact with the unclean animals. Thus this vision would present a horrifying situation for any first-century Palestinian Jew (and the vast majority of foreign Jews as well): God commands Peter to eat all these animals, some of which are unclean, forbidden creatures. Hungry he may be (10:10), but he is not that hungry!
10:14-16. In another vision half a millennium before, God had similarly called Ezekiel, a priest, to eat something unclean, and he had offered the same protest; in that case, God granted an improvement (Ezek 4:13-15). Jewish people had preferred death to eating unclean (nonkosher) food in the time of the *Maccabees; thus Jewish readers would be appalled that God would require anything so disgusting (from the perspective of cultural cuisine) and impious (from an *Old Testament perspective). The point of the vision, that God can declare anything clean, applies especially to the Gentiles Peter is about to meet (10:28; 15:9). Repetition of a revelation is not unusual (1 Sam 3:4-10).
10:17. Joppa was a large town, but knowing Simon’s profession and that his house was near the sea would make it easy to find him. In many cities of the Roman world, people of the same trade would live in the same district; most people in Joppa would know the right district. Moreover, tanners normally lived outside or near the edge of a city, preferably near a water source. Asking directions was common. That Simon has an outer gate indicates that he is a man of some means.
10:18. Being knowledgeable about Judaism themselves (10:2), Cornelius’s messengers “call out” rather than simply going up to the house to enter (10:28), although as representatives of a Roman centurion they could surely have done so with official impunity.
10:19-21. Peter “went down” to them possibly by a ladder but much more likely by an outside staircase leading from the flat roof.
10:22. Although many stories tell of Jewish teachers talking with *Gentiles, strict Jews would not enter a Gentile’s house or allow a Gentile in theirs. Thus Peter faces a problem in being invited to Cornelius’s house. Although more lax Jews would probably not object (v. 23a), Peter has to be concerned about stricter elements within the Jerusalem *church, which eventually included even *Pharisees (15:5).
10:23a. Pharisees and other pietists were concerned about impure table fellowship; lodging Gentiles overnight, no matter how exhausted the guests may have been, contradicted strict Jewish piety (though it was understood that in some regions one could not avoid Gentiles altogether). Although some allowed eating with Gentiles, so long as the food was “pure,” others opposed eating with Gentiles altogether. Many forbade eating with them on the principle that they were evil company (*Jubilees 22:16). Perhaps Simon, being a tanner, is less concerned with strict rules; although most of his customers were probably Jewish, Joppa was a mixed town and his was a profession despised by strict pietists anyway. (Even later *rabbis allowed some short-term business contacts with Gentiles and recognized that some shops employed both Gentile and Jewish workers.) But Peter’s vision probably has something to do with the treatment the guests receive.
10:23b. Peter’s companions are no doubt brought partly to serve as witnesses that he behaves properly (10:45; cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15).
10:24. The return journey is less rushed (if the messengers rode to them, which is uncertain, Peter and his companions lack horses). Had they left around sunrise, after the Gentiles had lodged in his house overnight (NASB “he arose”—v. 23), and walked at a fast pace without stopping, they could have arrived at Cornelius’s house that evening, but they did not. “The following day” here means that they all stopped for overnight lodging along the way (v. 30), presumably in a mixed town (perhaps in Apollonia, just under halfway along the Mediterranean coast, or perhaps a town further along the way). That Cornelius is patiently “waiting” (NASB, GNT) for them means not only that he trusted his servants not to run off but also that he is eager to hear Peter’s message. Whereas Roman policy had failed to reconcile Jew and Gentile in Caesarea, divine visions succeeded, at least for the circles of their recipients.
“Friends” here could include social dependents as well as peers (see comment on Acts 19:31). The term translated “relatives” (NASB, NIV) can also mean “countrymen.” If it means relatives, it could mean distant relatives who were soldiers stationed in the same city, although that coincidence is unlikely. Because soldiers in this period were often stationed in the region from which they come, these may be local Syrian kin of either Cornelius or his wife or concubine (if he had one; cf. comment on 10:2). It is not the usual way to describe one’s immediate family (cf. also on 10:2), but it is even less likely to include servants. That he had “called them together” suggests that they are not infants (cf. also v. 46), and nothing in this passage requires the reference to infant *baptism that some writers have seen here (v. 48).
10:25-26. Greco-Roman paganism believed not only in gods but in semidivine men, often sons of the gods, who had supernatural powers (14:11; 28:6; cf. 12:22-23). One would offer obeisance to gods by falling at their feet and worshiping them, as Cornelius does to Peter here. Cornelius should know better (10:2) than to treat Peter with such reverence; perhaps he intends only a special form of homage (as was customary for Eastern rulers), which a servant of Jesus finds inappropriate (cf. Lk 22:25-27). Even Greeks considered it hubris for a mortal to accept worship, and respected those who declined divine honors. Yet people often fell at others’ feet or sometimes grasped their knees (an ancient Greek approach) to beg for mercy or an essential request.
10:27-29. Devout Jews would not enter into idolaters’ homes lest they unwittingly participate in idolatry; some may have extended this custom to not entering any Gentile’s home. Strict Jews considered it unclean to eat Gentiles’ food or to drink their wine; although this purity regulation did not prohibit all social contact, it prevented dining together at banquets and led much of the Roman world to feel that Jews were antisocial. Cornelius is probably accustomed to accepting reluctant (10:22) snubs, so Peter’s statement in 10:28 would mean much to him. Hospitality obligations would demand (sooner or later) the new guests being fed, which would also raise questions about table fellowship (see comment on 10:23).
10:30-33. See comment on 10:3-6. By ancient reckoning, “four days” means at least parts of four different days (thus the NIV, “three days ago”).
10:34-35. Peter begins this speech to Gentiles with a complimentary exordium, or preface, according to *rhetorical custom (and perhaps polite propriety in any case). Judaism heavily emphasized God’s impartiality; cf. Romans 2:11. Some Gentile thinkers also envisioned their chief deity Zeus as impartial and universal.
10:36. Jewish people in general would call God “Lord of all” (Wisdom of Solomon 6:7; 8:3). “Preaching peace” alludes to the concept of Israel’s redemption, found in Isaiah 52:7 and similar passages, although even God-fearing Gentiles might not catch this allusion (but perhaps cf. Is 57:19 in Acts 2:39). This was a better hope than the empire’s fictitious promise of “Roman peace.”
10:37. “Judea” here apparently includes Galilee and is used in the broader sense (common in *Diaspora usage) of “the Jewish land.” This makes sense in addressing Gentile hearers.
10:38. “Doing good” is literally “benefacting”—the sort of thing a ruler, deity, or some other powerful person would do when bestowing gifts or mercy on those of lower status (often cities or groups). Depending on how much Cornelius knows about Judaism, he may recognize that anyone anointed with the *Holy Spirit in his own time would be considered extraordinary by his Jewish contemporaries. On the *Christ as “anointed one,” see “*Messiah” in the glossary; the present allusion is to Is 61:1 in Luke 4:18.
10:39. Hanging on a tree alludes to Deut 21:22-23, where it is a shameful death.
10:40-41. Some Greeks seem to have believed that heroes or gods sometimes remained invisible; cf. also Num 22:23, 27-28; 2 Kings 6:16-17. But Peter has no thought here of Jesus’ remaining selectively invisible; rather, he comes only to those whom God had chosen.
10:42. Although subordinate human judges do appear for the judgment of the dead in both Jewish and most often Greek tradition, Jewish tradition especially emphasizes God as the ultimate judge.
10:43. Many prophets had messianic prophecies, but only a few of them (e.g., Is 53) directly connected the *Messiah and the forgiveness of sins. Peter probably means this in a general sense: all the prophets testify of forgiveness through God’s *grace, which will be provided in the time of the Messiah (cf., e.g., Jer 23:5-6).
10:44. Luke’s audience, familiar with public speeches, would understand that Peter’s speech remained *rhetorically incomplete; the *gospel message, however, is complete. Interruption was a common literary device; when enough has been said, the author allows the speaker to be interrupted. Of course, it happened in real life as well as in the literature that imitated it; public speakers were often interrupted by individuals in the crowd. “Fell upon” is equivalent to “filled” here (cf. 2 Chron 7:2-3). The *Spirit “upon” appears in both of Luke’s most prominent programmatic texts from Scripture (Lk 4:18; Acts 2:17-18); in the *Old Testament, the idiom usually refers to empowerment, whether to prophesy (most often), lead, or show superhuman strength (Num 11:17, 25-26; Judg 3:10; 6:34; 1 Sam 19:20, 23; Ezek 11:5).
10:45-47. Most Jewish teachers felt that the Spirit inspired only the most pious with divine utterances, or that the Spirit would mark God’s people in the future age. That Gentiles would receive the gift was unthinkable. Most importantly, the Spirit was an *eschatological promise only for the people of the covenant (e.g., Is 44:3; Ezek 39:29). Gentiles obviously could not receive the gift if God had not accepted them, so he clearly had accepted them—even without circumcision.
10:48. *Baptism was used as a public declaration of conversion (see comment on 2:37-38)—but accompanied by circumcision, which is not demanded here. Peter’s lodging at a Gentile home for several more days would compound the offense to Jewish piety but drives home Peter’s lesson (10:28).
11:1. On “brethren” (KJV, NASB) or “brothers” (ESV), see comment on 9:17.
11:2-3. Not all Jews were this strict, but some were, especially in Judea (see comment on 10:23), and the Jerusalem leaders here are as strict about eating as were the *Pharisees in Luke’s Gospel. Table fellowship created a covenant between host and guests. Most Jews welcomed God-fearers (10:2), but *Gentiles had to be circumcised to convert fully to Judaism. (This requirement is a natural inference from the *law and continues to be an issue as late as 15:1, 5.) No one objected to Peter preaching *Christ to Gentiles; the issue is that he ate with them even though as Gentiles they were ritually unclean (10:28; cf. Gal 2:12).
11:4-15. See comment on 10:9-46. On repeating a story in slightly different words, see the introduction to 9:1-9. Claiming (truly or falsely) divine authorization or sanction (v. 12) was a common means of defending one’s actions in antiquity; Peter’s ultimate evidence, then, is in 11:16-17.
11:16-17. Peter may imply a standard Jewish “how-much-more” argument: if God gave them the greater *baptism, how could he withhold the lesser one? Because Judaism used baptism alongside circumcision to signify conversion, if God had baptized someone in his *Spirit, he had certainly accepted their conversion—with or without circumcision.
11:18. The believers in Jerusalem marvel that God has given “even the Gentiles” (cf. NIV, NRSV; likelier than merely “also”—KJV, NASB, GNT) the gift. Jewish people believed that Gentiles could be saved by converting to Judaism; many also believed that Gentiles could be saved simply by being righteous, which for some meant keeping the seven laws God gave to Noah (according to developing Jewish tradition). But no one had believed that Gentiles could be welcomed on the same terms as Jewish people, who had been chosen for salvation by God’s sovereign *grace. More importantly, more conservative Jewish movements (such as the *Essenes) believed that even most Jewish people were lost, so the salvation of the Gentiles without fully embracing Judaism appeared difficult.
The Jesus movement shifts from a predominantly rural movement in Galilee to an urban movement in Jerusalem to a cosmopolitan movement in Antioch. Such a rapid transition is virtually unparalleled in antiquity and indicates considerable social flexibility. That Judaism had already adapted to these various settings over the centuries provided a conduit for these rapid transitions within the Jewish Christian community.
11:19. The large Jewish communities in Phoenicia, Cyprus (4:36) and Antioch (6:5) were natural places for Jewish Christians to settle after 8:1-4.
11:20-21. Antioch on the Orontes in Syria was the third (or possibly fourth) largest urban center of the Roman empire (after Rome and Alexandria), though population estimates range from one hundred thousand to six hundred thousand. As the seat of Syria’s Roman governor, it was the headquarters of Rome’s Syrian legion. Rome granted it the privilege of being a “free city,” mostly governing itself. With a famous cult center of Apollo within walking distance and Seleucia, its port city off the Mediterranean coast, only a brief river journey, it boasted numerous *mystery cults and was known for its pagan religious diversity.
Because of its cultural pluralism, it included an upwardly mobile and generally accepted Jewish element with many “God-fearers” (see 10:2) and was far less segregated than Alexandria. The Jewish community here was large; some guess roughly twenty thousand, perhaps around ten percent of the city’s population. Antioch, in contrast to most predominantly *Gentile cities in the region, spared its Jewish inhabitants in the war of 66–70, though they did not fully trust them. Some more liberal non-Palestinian Jewish people saw their witness to the God of Israel among the Gentiles as making monotheism reasonable and contacting the best in pagan philosophy; circumcision was to them a lesser issue. Antioch’s cosmopolitan nature allowed for much interchange of different cultural ideas. Many *proselytes and God-fearers attended Antioch’s *synagogues. Thus Antioch was a more natural place for Gentiles (here, perhaps “Hellenizing” Syrians) to hear the *gospel without circumcision than Judea was (15:1).
11:22-24. Barnabas trusts God’s work in people (9:27; 15:37-39).
11:25. Tarsus was about a hundred miles to the north, but Jerusalem was more than three hundred (to the south). This is no short journey, but Barnabas knows of Paul’s calling.
11:26. “Christians” occurs in the *New Testament only here, as a nickname given by outsiders, and in 1 Peter 4:16, as something like a legal charge. The title is formed on the analogy of adherents to a political party: the “Caesarians,” the “Herodians,” the “Pompeians” and so forth. Had it been interpreted politically (“partisans of the executed Judean king”) it could have stirred persecution, but here it apparently functions merely as derision. At least by a later period, Antiochans were known for making fun of people. By the early second century, however, Jesus’ followers had welcomed the title.
11:27. That the movement had a number of prophets would impress those outside the movement; few if any movements even claimed to have many prophets acting together, although Greek oracles still operated at cultic centers (less popular than in the past), and *Josephus claimed that many *Essenes could prophesy. Syria was known for its oracles, so Antiochans are probably also impressed by Christian prophets.
11:28. A person would rise to speak in an assembly. A series of famines devastated Mediterranean agriculture in the time of Claudius: *papyri show high grain prices around A.D. 46; a grain shortage in Rome nearly led to Claudius’s being mobbed in the streets (about A.D. 51); Queen Helena of Adiabene bought Egyptian grain “for large sums” (due to famine there) to help Judea (about 45–46).
11:29. Antioch was a wealthy city with many trade connections, and some of the Jewish community there was also wealthy. Most Jewish relief efforts were local except in severe cases, for instance, when Queen Helena helped famine-stricken Palestinian Jews. But this local focus was due more to the nature of the Roman Empire—where multiprovincial organizations were suspect—than to the nature of Judaism; cf. comment on 2 Corinthians 8–9. Wealthy *patrons often alleviated food crises in cities, but here all the believers participate. What is significant here is that the believers act in advance of the famine through faith in the *prophecy (cf. Gen 41:33-36)—even though the hardship is likely to strike Antioch as well.
11:30. “Elders” reflects the traditional Israelite leadership structure for towns and villages, continuing in this period. Ancient historians had to compromise between following the action of their story and events occurring elsewhere at the same time; Luke postpones taking up the completion of the project until 12:25.
12:1. This Herod is Agrippa I, brother-in-law, and son of a half-brother, of Antipas, the Herod of the Gospels whose attempt to gain as much power as Agrippa cost him his own kingdom. (Antipas’s fatal jealousy of Agrippa was instigated by his own consort Herodias—*Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.7.1-2, 240-44, 250-54—although she had helped her brother Agrippa out after he had wasted all his money in Rome and returned to Palestine in debt—Jewish Antiquities 18.6.1-2, 143-49.) Herod Agrippa I had partied with Gaius Caligula in Rome; when Caligula became emperor, Agrippa I became the first official Jewish “king” since his grandfather Herod the Great. Although Caligula kept Agrippa in Rome, the following emperor Claudius sent him to Judea, where he reigned from 41 until his death in 44. Because his grandmother Mariamne was a Hasmonean princess, he was ethnically Jewish as well as Idumean (in contrast to Herod the Great). He was thus very popular with the people, on behalf of whom he used his influence. He was pro-*Pharisee and frequented the temple.
12:2. Formerly often performed with an ax, in this period beheading was performed with the sword and was the more merciful form of execution given to Roman citizens and others for whom crucifixion was considered too cruel. As king, Agrippa had the legal right of life and death that had been denied the Sanhedrin before and after him. Like Judaism, early Christians believed that death did not come apart from the sovereign purpose of God.
12:3. Luke may specify the Feast of Unleavened Bread to recall to the reader the time of Jesus’ execution (Lk 22:7). Although Agrippa gave generously to *Gentiles outside Judea, his policies made him much more popular with his Jewish subjects (to whose majority whims he catered) than with his pagan subjects. He identified with and appealed to Judean values despite his past aristocratic Roman lifestyle. He worked hard to please people, and had sometimes spent lavishly to do so, though ancient writers (normally from the elite) viewed with contempt “demagogues” who catered to what elite writers regularly portrayed as the fickle whims of the “masses.” His brief reign seems to have ignited conservative nationalist sentiments that ultimately clashed with Roman rule.
12:4. Agrippa I resided in Jerusalem. Luke does not mention the specific place of Peter’s imprisonment, but the fortress Antonia on the temple mount is one possibility. As a trusted client ruler of Rome, Agrippa could have his own army, so the soldiers mentioned here need not be Romans, although they are described in terms of Roman organization. The basic unit of the Roman army was the contubernium, composed of eight soldiers who shared a tent; half units were sometimes assigned to special tasks, as here (sixteen soldiers total). Perhaps these groups of four worked in four three-hour shifts during the night. Agrippa perhaps feared armed resistance. Luke may use “Passover” in its general sense in this period to refer to the entire Feast of Unleavened Bread. Following Roman custom, he was known to execute criminals for public entertainment. Executions during festivals provided optimum propaganda value, though Romans usually waited until afterward.
12:5-6. Prisoners who were chained between guards (as often they were—21:33; cf. 28:16, 20) had no human hope of escaping. Peter was chained between two guards, with the other two watching the door.
12:7-11. On miraculous escapes, see comment on 5:19-20. Agrippa wielded much more direct power than the Sanhedrin had, and his guards were much more efficient. Prisons did not supply clothes, so the cloak and sandals (12:8) are Peter’s own. Outer garments were often used for sleep at night, so Peter may have been using it as a blanket. To “gird” himself might refer to wrapping a sash or belt around his waist, or tucking his robe into his sash, to allow free mobility. In a popular Greek story, Dionysus had made chains drop off and locked doors open; doors opening “by themselves” appear in ancient literature from Homer to Josephus (see esp. Euripides, Bacchae 447-48). They appear in the *Hellenistic Jewish story of God freeing Moses from Pharaoh’s prison (Artapanus in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 9.27.23). Thus we can understand why Peter might think he is dreaming.
12:12-13. A home with an outer gate, a servant girl who could serve as a porter and a gathering much farther back in the house would suggest the home of a fairly wealthy resident of Jerusalem’s Upper City. (For another indication of the family’s wealth, cf. Col 4:10 with Acts 4:36-37. As Levites—4:36—they may have had ties with the priestly aristocracy; many well-to-do priests lived in the Upper City.) Thus the home is not far from the temple mount (hence not far from the fortress Antonia, where Peter may have been held). In fact, one branch of Jerusalem’s main street (although Luke’s term here could refer to an alley) ran along the temple’s western wall from the Antonia southward; from there Peter could cross Wilson’s Arch into the Upper City. That Rhoda (a common slave name) has to come to the door, rather than being a full-time porter, however, suggests that though they had means, they were not extremely wealthy. Household slaves often lived in better economic conditions (and had far better chances of improving their positions, including gaining freedom) than free peasants, but they had other disadvantages. Among Gentiles, female household slaves could be subject to sexual harassment; but Jewish ethics despised this behavior (though it happened), and this household headed by a woman made it much less likely here.
Believers met in homes rather than church buildings for the first three centuries of the *church (e.g., Rom 16:5). Greek and Roman associations without their own buildings usually met in homes, and many *Diaspora *synagogues apparently started the same way. House gatherings thus followed association patterns available (as well as practical) in the culture.
“Mary” was the most common woman’s name in Palestine. “Mark” is a Latin name, but as a praenomen it need not indicate Roman citizenship; still, the name was rare in Palestine, and its use hardly indicates antipathy toward Rome or its interests in Jerusalem, and may again suggest the family’s wealth (see 12:13).
12:14-16. In Greek comedy, a slave sometimes utters foolishness; here, however, it is her free hearers who serve for comic relief. Given the purpose for this prayer meeting (12:5), their surprise (and Peter’s having to keep pounding on the gate—which could wake up some of the other neighbors, who are probably from aristocratic priestly families and hence potentially dangerous) is ironic; ancient hearers probably would have picked up on the irony (cf. Lk 24:10-11, 37). In some popular Jewish traditions the righteous would become like angels after death.
12:17. The hand gesture for silence was a raised right hand, extending the smallest finger; a gesture preparing for one’s speech extended the thumb and next two fingers. “James” (literally “Jacob,” as with every use of “James” in the *New Testament) was a common Jewish name; this is not the James of 12:2, but the James of 15:13, 1 Corinthians 15:7 and Galatians 2:9. Jewish sources tell us that this James, Jesus’ younger brother, was highly reputed for his devoutness in Judaism (cf. Acts 21:18-20), and when he was later martyred some leading Jerusalemites protested his death (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200-203). He would thus be more safe from Agrippa, who catered to the conservative Jewish masses (12:1-3).
12:18-19. Given the soldiers’ precautions (chains, doors and different guards posted for each—12:6), it was humanly impossible for Peter to have escaped without all the guards having aided him. Agrippa examines them for information, perhaps under torture, but they have none. Under Roman law, a guard whose prisoner escaped would pay for it with the penalty due the prisoner—in this case, his own life (cf. 16:27; 27:42), a custom Agrippa, deprived of a favor for the masses, chooses to follow (at least with the final shift of guards). Since Agrippa cannot acknowledge divine intervention on Peter’s behalf, he executes the guards for their complicity or negligence.
12:20. The *Hellenistic (culturally Greek) cities of Tyre and Sidon were dependent on Agrippa’s territories for vital food supplies; he had been withholding trade from them (perhaps a special problem now; 11:28).
12:21. Agrippa I liked to flaunt his power; his self-display had unfortunately led to anti-Jewish riots in Alexandria earlier. His public meeting with these emissaries is in the theater of Caesarea, built by his grandfather Herod the Great; the foundations of this theater still remain today. (This was a mercantile port city easily accessible to Tyrian and Sidonian delegates.) According to Josephus this speech occurred on a festival day in honor of the emperor (Jewish Antiquities 19.343).
12:22-24. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus reports that on this occasion Agrippa flaunted his power, and his flatterers praised him as a god—the sort of flattery toward royal *patrons common for centuries in the Greek East. But in the Roman period Caesar expected even pagans who were not emperors (such as the general Germanicus in Egypt) to humbly deflect such praise. Because Agrippa does not repudiate their praise, he collapses immediately. Josephus reports that he was carried to the palace, where he died at the age of fifty-four, after five days of stomach pains (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19.344-50). Deaths from bowel diseases and worms were thought among the most horrible (e.g., 2 Chron 21:15-19; 2 Maccabees 9:5-9; Josephus, Jewish War 7.453).
Despite the commission of 1:8, the Galilean *apostles are still in Jerusalem (15:6). The leaders of the *church in Antioch, however, discovered success in the *Gentile mission (11:19-26) and are moved to ratify the apostolic call of two of their number.
12:25. The journey from Jerusalem to Antioch was over three hundred miles. It was customary for ancient teachers to take *disciples with them, and it was safer to travel in groups.
13:1. All the overseers of this church are probably understood to be both prophets and teachers. What sounds normal in early Christianity would sound phenomenal to its culture, for prophets were thought to be rare. Simeon and Manaen (= Menahem) are Jewish names, suggesting strong Jewish representation still in the leadership of the church (no doubt because they had better background for teaching Scripture). But Simeon’s surname “Niger” was a very respectable and common Roman name; he may be a Roman citizen, although this is not clear—the name was also used by Jews and is here apparently a nickname. Nicknames were common and usually significant in antiquity; the meaning of Simeon’s Latin nickname suggests a dark complexion and allows for the possibility that he was descended from *proselytes from the Romanized coast of North Africa (as could have been the case also with Lucius). Cyrene, on the North African coast, had a large Jewish population and a large Greek population as well as including indigenous residents from the area. Jewish residents revolted there in A.D. 115–17 and were decimated.
That Manaen (who may be in his sixties) was “brought up” with Herod could mean they had the same wet nurse, but the term also had broader connotations. Slaves who grew up in the master’s household with the son who would inherit them were often later freed by the son, who had been their companion at play; even as slaves they were powerful because of their relation to the owner. Other boys brought up with princes at the royal court and tutored by the same elite teachers also attained prominence. Especially in Greek culture, friendships from youth determined political alliances and favors. Thus, until the fall of Herod Antipas (“the tetrarch”) perhaps a decade before, Manaen had held a socially prominent position (and could well be Luke’s main source, directly or via Paul, for the Antipas material unique to his Gospel).
13:2-3. Fasting was rare among Gentiles, although sometimes used in mourning. Jewish people fasted to mourn or repent, and some fasted to seek revelations; special fasts for prayer related to mourning were called in the face of great crises such as droughts. Here fasting is apparently simply conjoined with seeking God in prayer. The *Holy Spirit was especially known as the Spirit of *prophecy, so “the Holy Spirit said” probably means that one of the prophets prophesied. For the laying on of hands, see comment on 6:6.
Messengers customarily traveled by twos. Students of the *law also preferred having companions to study with, even on journeys; Saul, Barnabas and Mark (v. 13) no doubt discussed Scripture during many of their long walks. Roman roads were good and generally safe during the day, and travel was easier than it ever had been or would be again until close to the modern period.
13:4. Antioch lay inland on the Orontes; its port roughly fifteen miles to the west was the heavily fortified, free mercantile city Seleucia. Seleucia was Antioch’s port city on the Mediterranean. The island of Cyprus is a natural destination if Barnabas knows the culture and has relatives there (4:36). In addition to being Barnabas’ homeland (and connected politically to Paul’s homeland Cilicia a generation earlier), Cyprus was prosperous and strategically located at a connection of many sea routes.
13:5. Salamis was the chief city of Cyprus, with (by some estimates) more than a hundred thousand residents (its theater seated fifteen thousand). It was a port city only perhaps sixty miles from Seleucia, a straight voyage by ship. As visiting teachers skilled in the law, Barnabas and Saul would be asked to speak in local *synagogues (with its large Jewish community, Salamis must have had several synagogues). Roughly seventy years later, in the early second century (A.D. 116), the Cypriot Jewish community is said to have attacked Salamis in a revolt and to have itself been destroyed.
13:6. New Paphos (also called Augusta), a harbor town on the west side of Cyprus, had long been the provincial capital and maintained some trade relations with Judea. The area around Paphos (especially at old Paphos, some seven miles to the southeast) was traditionally associated with the local cult of the goddess Aphrodite. Jewish magicians were reputed to be among the best in the Roman Empire (though forbidden in Scripture and mistrusted among pious Jews). It was not unusual for Roman aristocrats to attach philosophers to their court; while magicians would be less appealing, the proconsul probably sees Bar-Jesus (“son of Joshua”) as a useful prophetic adviser from a “Jewish” perspective. Even some emperors had astrologers as advisers, and “Magi” were highly reputed for predicting the future. (Romans generally distrusted *magic, but *Josephus said that Felix, a Roman governor of Judea, counted among his friends a Cyprian Jew reputed to be a magician. His name is not Bar-Jesus, but he and Bar-Jesus attest to the same activity of Jewish magicians on Cyprus and their appeal to some Roman officials.)
13:7-8. Sergius Paulus was proconsul of Cyprus (the highest Roman official on the island) about A.D. 45–46. As always, Luke has the correct, specific local title of the Roman official, even though these titles varied from place to place and decade to decade, and the only way to check all the proper titles would be to go to those places. Although we lack the names of most (more than eighty percent) of the proconsuls of Cyprus, for Sergius Paulus to be proconsul there at this time fits his known senatorial career. He was one of the first senators from the east. Inscriptions indicate that his Roman family lived in southern Asia Minor. A rectangular room in what is thought to be the governor’s palace in Cyprus contains a raised apse where the governor may have sat; as it has survived, the room is decorated with floor mosaics and wall panels, including a scene about the mythical hero Achilles as a baby.
13:9. Roman citizens had three names. As a citizen, Saul had a Roman cognomen (“Paul,” meaning “small”) given (or sometimes inherited) at birth (not at Paul’s conversion, against some); his other Roman names remain unknown to us. “Paul” was a fairly respectable Roman name and rare among non-Romans, especially in the Greek East; it is difficult to imagine why Jewish parents would give their child this name if they were not Roman citizens. Inscriptions show that Jews sometimes took Roman names that sounded similar to or carried meanings similar to their Jewish names. Paul’s Roman name sounded similar to his Jewish name (Saul, from the name of the *Old Testament’s most famous Benjamite; cf. Phil 3:5). This is not a name change; now that Paul is moving in a predominantly Roman environment, he begins to go by his Roman name.
13:10-11. Paul’s rebuke of Elymas sounds like an Old Testament judgment oracle. In Jewish literature, temporary blindness was sometimes a judgment to prevent further damage from sin (*Letter of Aristeas 316); see 2 Kings 6:18 and comment on 9:8.
13:12. The proconsul’s employ of a Jewish “prophet” demonstrates his openness to Judaism (v. 6), but Paul and Barnabas show superior power and a better presentation of Judaism than Bar-Jesus had provided.
The cities that Paul and his companions visit in 13:13–14:26 were along the same Roman military road, the Via Augusta, which was built roughly half a century before.
13:13. Pamphylia was north of Paphos, on Asia Minor’s southern coast. They probably landed at Attalia, the main harbor, then proceeded by road to Perga, approximately ten miles north and at least five miles from navigable water. It was part of the district Pamphylia-Lycia in this period (A.D. 43 to about 68). Perga was one of the leading cities of Pamphylia, perhaps as large or nearly as large as Salamis (see comment on 13:5).
13:14. Antioch near Pisidia (not to be confused with Syrian Antioch in v. 1) was a Roman *colony; it was ethnically Phrygian (and officially Galatian, as part of that province), but people identified it as near Pisidia to distinguish it from another Phrygian town of the same name. The second largest town in the province of Galatia, its wall enclosed some 115 acres, with probably more than five thousand Roman citizens of the colony, plus a much larger number of other residents. The town was fairly prosperous, sustained by the produce of the surrounding territory; as a colony, it boasted of its ties with Rome. A prominent local Phrygian deity was Men Askaenos, but the town’s most prominent temple was one devoted to the worship of the emperor.
If Sergius Paulus (13:12) had supplied them with letters of recommendation (cf. 9:2) to the local aristocracy, they would receive immediate hospitality; his own relatives were from this region. (Some of the largest land holdings in the region belonged to the Sergii Paulli, about halfway between Antioch and north Galatia’s capital.)
Pisidian Antioch lay more than a week’s walk (roughly 125 miles, 200 kilometers) uphill into the mountainous interior (3600 feet above sea level). Instead of rugged mountain trails they could follow the paved Via Sebaste from Perga; it continued on after Antioch to Iconium (13:51) in the east. Based on later remains and writings, some people sat on benches along the synagogue walls or elsewhere, with the most prominent sometimes on a raised platform with the Law scroll. Regular Jewish public gatherings at the synagogue in this period were normally only on the sabbath and festivals.
13:15. Other sources make clear that people read Scripture in synagogues in this period (see comment on 1 Tim 4:13). In a later period, the biblical readings (especially from the *law) were fixed; this might not be the case this early, especially in the *Diaspora (and especially from the prophets). Later the synagogue sermon would be a homily on the texts read, similar to the one in this chapter; homilies (expositions of texts) were probably already used in this period. In this period, synagogues probably did not have regular preachers, and maybe not always expositions; but educated members did try to explain the Scripture readings. “Rulers of the synagogue” are attested in Jewish inscriptions throughout the empire. In many cases the titles are honorary—for example, for *Gentile donors—but sometimes they do refer to Jewish people (even if they achieved their influence as wealthy donors or community leaders), as here and normally in the *New Testament.
13:16. Many scholars have drawn parallels between Paul’s speech here and the synagogue teaching form that came to be known as the “proem homily”; others have questioned whether the proem homily can be documented this early so far from Palestine (the similarity could reflect the influence of Greco-Roman *rhetoric on both). Whichever is the case, Paul’s Scripture-laced exposition in 13:16-43 contrasts plainly with 14:15-17 and 17:22-31, showing that Paul adapted to different audiences in his speeches, as he did in his letters. Such adaptation was recommended rhetorical practice (as well as common sense). In Jewish Palestine, one sat to expound the law; in the Diaspora one would normally stand to speak. If Diaspora Jewish speakers used gestures similar to Greeks, the hand motion mentioned here may involve the right hand stretched out, with the thumb pointed upward, the bottom two fingers folded inward, and the two fingers beneath the thumb extended. Speakers often started with an appeal to “listen” to them.
13:17-21. “450 years” may be a rounded figure that includes the estimated four centuries in Egypt (see 7:6) and 40 years in the wilderness. The forty years of Saul’s reign is taken from early Jewish tradition, also preserved in Josephus (although alternative traditions also existed).
13:22-24. David’s reign is the climax of centuries of waiting through other models of leadership; Jesus is the descendant of David, the *Messiah of whom the prophets spoke. Thus they proclaim one greater than the ancient hero David.
13:25. Only servants dealt with the master’s feet; John thus claims he is not even worthy to be the coming one’s servant (though *Old Testament prophets were called the Lord’s “servants”).
13:26. “Children of Abraham” are his Jewish hearers; “God-fearers” here may refer to interested Gentiles (cf. 10:2) or perhaps full *proselytes (cf. 13:43).
13:27. Luke’s speech summary might allude to texts that he cites elsewhere. For the Jerusalemites’ fulfilling the Scriptures in condemning Jesus, see especially Isaiah 53, which states that the servant would be rejected by his own people; early Christians also cited psalms of righteous sufferers (Ps 22 and 69). Luke does not cite all Paul’s references, because he would not have room in his scroll to record the whole speech (see comment on 2:40).
13:28-29. The Sanhedrin lacked capital authority; only Rome could legally execute Jesus.
13:30-32. Paul needed to bolster especially this section of his proclamation with Scripture (13:33-35), because Judaism did not expect the death of a Messiah or his *resurrection within history.
13:33. Psalm 2:7 was already applied to the messianic enthronement in Judaism (most clearly in the *Dead Sea Scrolls). Psalm 2 celebrated the promise made to David of an eternal dynasty, a promise that was repeated regularly in the temple worship, in the hope of the ultimate Davidic king who would fulfill it completely.
13:34. Paul cites Isaiah 55:3 (and perhaps originally 55:4, with its hope for the Gentiles) to indicate that Israel’s future hope was bound up with the promise to David. Paul might connect “David” in his quotation in verse 34 with the implicitly assumed author of the psalm cited in verse 33.
13:35. Rabbis used a technique called gezerah shavah to connect passages that used the same key word; thus here Paul may use “holy” in Isaiah 55:3 to lead into a citation of Psalm 16:10, which guarantees that the object of David’s promise would never rot (cf. also Acts 2:25-28).
13:36-37. “Sleep” was a common metaphor for death. Paul *midrashically demonstrates that David could not have fulfilled the promise himself, so it must apply to his descendant.
13:38-41. Paul concludes with Habakkuk 1:5; he says “in the Prophets” (NASB) because some of the smaller books of the prophets were grouped together and treated as a single book. Habakkuk refers to impending judgment under the Chaldeans (1:6), which only the righteous remnant will endure by faith (2:4, a verse possibly cited in the fuller Pauline exposition behind Luke’s summary at Acts 13:38-39); here the principle is applied to the judgment of the end. The Dead Sea Scrolls apply the text to those who violated God’s covenant by disbelieving the Teacher of Righteousness (the founder of the *Qumran community).
13:42-43. Luke speaks here of *proselytes, but other Gentiles were interested as well (13:44-45). According to *Josephus, many *Gentiles attended synagogues with great interest. Even as late as the fourth century, the Christian preacher John Chrysostom complains that Gentiles—in this case Christians—were still attending synagogue services. Those who were interested in Judaism but unattracted to circumcision might well find Paul’s message appealing.
13:44. When famous speakers (e.g., Dio Chrysostom) would come to town, much of the town would go to hear him. Word of a skilled new speaker thus spread quickly in cities, especially a smaller inland town like Antioch. Most of the Gentiles who came had worshiped at the major imperial temple in Antioch, and probably most also had worshiped the local deity Men Askaenos. Paul, probably originally more comfortable giving expositions of Scripture than public speeches in the Greek style, is billed as a *rhetorician or philosopher.
13:45-46. Paul and Barnabas’s response to their opponents here has some Old Testament precedent (cf. Lk 4:24-27; Amos 9:7) but goes further. It had always been God’s purpose to bless the Gentiles in Abraham (Gen 12:3), but the tenacity of ancestral religions as part of cultural tradition is well known; when ethnic religion loses its uniquely ethnic component it may attract outsiders but simultaneously weaken its own constituency.
13:47. Here they quote the mission of the servant of Isaiah 49:6. The servant is clearly Israel in 49:3-4; in 49:5-7 it is the one who fully carries out the servant’s mission and suffers on behalf of Israel (as in 52:13–53:12), whom the early Christians recognized to be Jesus. As followers of Jesus, Paul and Barnabas take up the servant’s mission, part of which was revealing the way of salvation to the Gentiles.
13:48-49. Because the Jewish people believed that they were predestined for salvation by virtue of descent from Abraham, the idea that many Gentiles had been “ordained to *eternal life” (KJV) could be offensive—but was apparently what Isaiah 49:6 implied (see Acts 13:47).
13:50. Ancient sources report that many prominent women were interested in Judaism (partly because their wealth gave them leisure to consider it, partly because they, unlike men, did not have to face circumcision if they became serious about it, and partly because it did not diminish their status the way it diminished that of men); these women in turn could influence their powerful husbands. (Women appear on only forty percent of tomb inscriptions, yet they comprise fifty percent of proselytes and eighty percent of God-fearers.) Local aristocracies made up a fraction of the population but held great wealth and most of the political power; from them came decurions for the local councils, and their opposition could drive someone out of town. In Pisidian Antioch, these leaders would have been Roman citizens, descendants of the Roman veteran colonists who founded the city, who took great pride in their status. The two leading families of Antioch known to us were the Caristanii and relatives of Sergius Paulus. But the leaders’ authority was only local, and by going to Iconium Paul and Barnabas move out of their jurisdiction.
13:51-52. Iconium was further along the same road (the Via Sebaste) at the very east end of Phrygia-Galatia (assuming, as is probable though disputed, that this region was called “Galatia” in this period). Iconium was apparently more than eighty-five miles beyond Antioch, so the *apostles walk for at least four days in 13:51. Using the main road, the Via Sebaste (Augustus Highway), made them easier to follow (cf. 14:19). They had no choice but to take this road unless they wished to retrace their steps; this was the only easily passable east-west route available in this mountainous terrain.
Showing one’s heel or shaking dust was a visible way to show rejection. Jewish tradition suggests that many Jewish people on returning to the Holy Land would shake the dust of a pagan land from their feet; because the temple was considered holier than the rest of Israel, they would also shake the dust from their feet when they entered the temple. Paul and Barnabas probably imply that those who reject their message are pagan and stand under God’s judgment. Jesus had commanded his *disciples to follow this practice even in Jewish Palestine (Lk 10:10-12).
14:1-4. Although Iconium was a wealthy and prosperous town, it was hardly the size of a city like Ephesus or Smyrna. It was apparently not yet a Roman *colony. “Greeks” might distinguish Paul’s hearers here not only from Jews but also from the less Hellenized people of the countryside (despite Iconium’s identity also as Phrygian). Whereas urban culture in the empire tended to be uniformly Greco-Roman, rural society preserved local language and customs, and a town like Iconium would have its share of both. Traveling teachers would undoubtedly have drawn more attention in a town like Iconium than in larger cities. Inside the synagogue the language would be Greek. Outside the synagogue, because the native language of Iconium was Phrygian, Paul and Barnabas may address mainly the Greek-speaking upper social strata, or they may speak through interpreters (cf. 14:11, 14); but it is more likely that most of the crowd understands Greek, even if it is not their first language.
Among the deities that the *Gentiles of Iconium worshiped, the most prominent was Cybele, the Phrygian mother goddess; Phrygian *mystery cults were also common. But Iconium’s civic religion included the cult of the emperor, and in general Gentile religion there was more Greek than Phrygian. Inscriptions testify that the Christian faith spread and Iconium later became a major center of Christianity in Asia Minor.
14:5. Under law, city magistrates could do whatever necessary to quell disturbances; in the case of Paul and Barnabas, the officials could quell the disturbance simply by legally banning them from the city. Thus the plot to kill them goes beyond the law.
14:6-7. Iconium was in Phrygia near the border of Lycaonia, which contained Lystra and Derbe. In this period Iconium was a Greek city culturally distinct from the surrounding countryside; most ancient writers counted it part of Lycaonia, but it was culturally Phrygian, so writers sometimes counted it part of Phrygia (whose culture and political administration it shared). It shared elements of each local culture; from a political standpoint it belonged to the larger province of Galatia. (Some argue that Iconium was in Isaurian rather than Lycaonia in this period; at the least, they left the Phrygian linguistic and cultural sphere for Lycaonia.)
Some people considered flight undignified, but others recognized it as common sense in some situations. Jewish teachers preferred it to death, unless flight required denying the *law of God. The estates of the Sergii Paulli are about 110–20 kilometers north of Iconium, but there were few possible evangelistic goals to the north, and the *apostles venture south. Although they continued on the paved Via Sebaste, their flight was likely not pleasant; the plateaus of Lycaonia tended to be cold and poorly watered. The road to Derbe, over sixty miles southeast of Lystra, may not have even been paved.
14:8. Lystra, a thriving market town, was about twenty to twenty-five miles (thirty-five to forty kilometers) south-southwest of Iconium. For half a century Lystra had been a Roman *colony, beginning with the settlement of perhaps a thousand Romans; its own citizens were accorded privileges as citizens of Rome. It valued its local culture and its Roman character alongside Pisidian Antioch and against the geographically closer Greek cities of the region. Greek flourished in the countryside, but nearly a third of Lystra’s inscriptions are Latin (though some of it poor Latin). But although it viewed Antioch as a sister city, it emphasized its Roman character less than did Antioch.
Although some philosophers lectured in halls or served wealthy *patrons, many preached their philosophical wares on street corners or in marketplaces; powerful speakers like Dio Chrysostom criticized philosophers like *Epictetus who reserved their lectures for the classroom. Higher classes normally disdained those who preached in the open market, but would-be sages may have outnumbered those who could hire them in more professional settings. Like some ancient philosophers, Paul here preaches on the street rather than in a *synagogue (perhaps Lystra has none; see 14:19). Paul’s approach should not surprise us; his own letters indicate that he shares some of this philosophical ideal (1 Cor 4:11-13), and he often uses the *Cynic-*Stoic preaching style in them (which could be used both on the street and in the classroom). What is surprising is not that Paul would occasionally preach this way but that he draws such a vigorous response; perhaps the controversy his opponents create helps him. Secluded philosophers tended toward academic discourse, while those on the streets were ready to denounce the folly of their hearers to secure their attention.
14:9-11. The parallels between the healings in 3:6-8 and 14:8-10, like many other parallels in Luke-Acts, are probably deliberate, fitting ancient literary conventions that highlighted such possible parallels. Local Phrygian legend told of an ancient visitation by Zeus and Hermes to Phrygia. In the story only one couple, Baucis and Philemon, received them graciously; the rest of the population was destroyed in a flood. Knowing some form of the story in their own language, the Lycaonians are not about to make the same mistake ancient Phrygia had made; they want to honor Paul and Barnabas, whom they mistake for gods. People sometimes considered miracle workers as gods. Lystra’s colonists, who were Roman citizens, employed Latin for official business; those speaking Lycaonian here are the longstanding indigenous residents of the area (who may have been more prone to listen than the more elite citizens).
14:12. Hermes was the messenger of the Olympian gods who spoke for the more dignified Zeus (though in other stories Zeus was less dignified and out chasing women or occasionally boys for his sexual delights). Like most early Jewish and Christian writers (cf. also Is 46:5-7), Luke is not above making fun of what he viewed as paganism’s folly.
14:13. Inscriptions show that Hermes and Zeus were worshiped together in the Phrygian region. An inscription allows that Lystra’s temple of Zeus may have had multiple priests, though only one is acting here. People could wear garlands at festivals, but sacrificial animals were often decorated with garlands before being offered. Oxen and bulls were among the most expensive sacrifices; priests sometimes were wealthy benefactors who donated their services to the community, including at times sacrifices. Temples “outside the city gates” or “just outside the city” (NIV) were quite common in Asia Minor; some scholars, however, believe that the gates belong instead to the sacred enclosure of Zeus (it is not clear that Lystra had walls in this period). The disabled man had probably been healed at the gate, because disabled people often made their living by begging, and beggars normally found their best income at such places of transit (cf. 3:2).
14:14. Villages of the East usually kept their own ancient language after Greek had become the language of the cities. Landowning citizens of Lystra spoke Latin, but outside the town proper people spoke Greek and the local dialect; Lystra was a market town for the surrounding territory. (outside Lystra, most inscriptions are Greek, but names are local, suggesting use of a mother-tongue in addition to the more geographically widespread trade and literary language.) Although the hearers would have understood Greek, they spoke among themselves in their mother tongue. Paul and Barnabas are preaching to the masses, the abundant Anatolian noncitizens who lived there; only at verse 14 are they informed of what the crowds are saying. Jewish people were required to tear their robes when they heard blasphemy (forming an ironic contrast with 14:19!)
14:15-16. One may contrast this speech, to rural farmers, with the somewhat similar philosophic speech in 17:22-31 and the very different synagogue homily in 13:16-47; *rhetoric emphasized adaptability to one’s audience. “Turning” was biblical language for *repentance, and “vain things” for idols; “the living God” is also biblical language, and “maker of . . . all that is in them” evokes Ps 146:6 (cf. Ex 20:11; Neh 9:6). Although using biblical language, Barnabas and Paul preach to these Anatolian farmers in terms they would not need to know the Bible to understand, emphasizing the God who rules nature, who was already recognized by paganism. Jewish people often pointed to pagan philosophical teachings on the supreme god, which Jews felt contradicted the pagan worship of idols. Jews called idols “vain” (futile), in contrast to the “living” God. Jewish people sometimes believed that God allowed a lower moral standard for *Gentiles; but idolatry, like sexual immorality, was not an issue on which God would permit compromise. They often mocked the worship of other gods (see comment on 19:37). Perhaps God’s patience here evokes Wisdom of Solomon 11:23.
14:17. Phrygia was fertile, and Phrygians especially worshiped the mother goddess who was supposed to provide fertility to the earth. Lycaonia was less fertile, but Lystra’s residents were mostly rural in orientation. Various philosophers, especially Stoics, believed that nature itself testified to the character of the supreme god. Jewish teachers agreed that nature testifies to God’s character (this is biblical; cf. Ps 19:1; 89:37) and taught that he provides all peoples with health, food and so forth. Scripture already emphasized that God was the source of these agricultural blessings.
14:18-20a. The visitors from Antioch had no legal authority outside their own territory, but they are able to persuade the mob to accomplish what had failed in Iconium (14:5-6). A mob could change its views quickly (cf. Lk 23:18), especially in a case like this one: when Paul and Barnabas deny the gods, they would be considered impious and hence would appear to fit a different category of ancient paganism. Now they were not gods after all, but dangerous magicians. (Whereas gods were popularly regarded as generally beneficent, sorcerers were viewed as secretive and usually harmful.)
Iconium was only twenty miles away, but Antioch was four or five days’ travel, nearly a hundred miles from Lystra by road. Nevertheless, it is known that Antioch and Lystra were in contact with each other, considering themselves sister cities. Sources show that particularly effective speakers could sometimes (though not always) calm mobs. Stoning was an appropriate penalty for blasphemy (for Luke’s audience an ironic treatment of the monotheistic preacher in 14:14-18). See 7:58 for details on Jewish stoning, but stoning was also the most common form of urban mob violence in the Gentile world. Stones, tiles and cobbles were readily available in ancient streets. When Jewish crowds stoned a transgressor, they sought the transgressor’s death; Paul’s survival undoubtedly points to divine protection. Normally such executions were performed outside the city, and they may have dragged him out of the city for purity reasons; that he not only survived but could walk afterward must be understood as miraculous.
14:20b. The site usually considered Derbe today was some sixty miles (about ninety-six kilometers) southeast of Lystra; Luke reports that the journey toward Derbe started on the next day, but presumably it took more than a day to complete. Unlike the Via Sebaste from Iconium to Lystra, this road was apparently unpaved. Derbe had only recently begun to achieve some status (it became a Greek polis, Claudioderbe, only in Claudius’ reign); but it would be out of the way of their enemies. Luke does not report legal action against Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, but even if there had been, decrees from one town were not automatically binding in another.
14:21. From Derbe they could have crossed the Taurus mountains (it was presumably not yet winter) to Paul’s home town of Tarsus (perhaps over a week’s walk, about 150 miles), but they wanted to revisit the *churches. Returning to towns where they had faced persecution required courage (praiseworthy in ancient accounts), though the opposition may have usually involved mob actions (even with officials’ cooperation) rather than official decrees. It would offer a model of faithfulness to local believers who could not leave so easily.
14:22. Judaism also demanded perseverance (as opposed to apostasy). Much traditional Jewish teaching spoke of a period of intense suffering before the time of the *kingdom (cf. Dan 12:1); Paul could allude to this idea in verse 22, although “tribulation” (KJV, NASB) here could also be more generic.
14:23. Elders had always governed and judged in towns and villages in the *Old Testament (and in much of the rest of the Mediterranean world as well), and the evidence is abundant that this form of rule continued in many places in the *New Testament period. Many ancient synagogues had several elders who filled a religious office (acting as councils rather than as individuals); indeed, a “council of elders” ruled the massive Jewish community in Alexandria. Normally rule was exercised by a council of elders, not a single elder. On fasting, see comment on 13:2.
14:24. It was known that Pamphylia was near Pisidia; given their proximity, ancient writers sometimes treated Pisidia and Pamphylia together. Both peoples were reputed to be especially adept in augury (predicting the future by the flights of birds)—forbidden by the Old Testament prohibition of divination (Deut 18:10).
14:25. Perge (see comment on 13:13) in Pamphylia was largely *Gentile, perhaps explaining why Luke does not mention the *apostles preaching there in 13:13-14; perhaps they have gained more confidence now. The Via Sebaste probably ended in Perge, so they would have taken a lesser road to Attalia. Attalia was Pamphylia’s main port, and it lay on the mouth of the Catarractes. Most of Attalia lay on a steep elevation just above the sea. That port town included some high-status Roman settlers (notably the Calpurnii), and had many ships sailing to Syria, being a major port for trade with that region.
14:26-28. When they return to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas report on their missionary work to the sending church. Although Jewish people in the *Diaspora were concerned to propagate a favorable impression of their religion and to gain converts when possible, they do not seem to have engaged in a concerted effort at what we call “mission.” Yet synagogue communities throughout the Diaspora informally remained in contact through travelers who reported news, and reports of large numbers of converts to Judaism would have been considered news when it occurred. The Antiochan church’s commitment probably goes beyond such interest, because the early Christians’ interest in missions was far more central than that of other Jewish sects; Luke-Acts is clear that missions is at the heart of Jesus’ purpose for his church. For “open door” as an idiom, see comment on 1 Cor 16:9.
15:1. Many Jewish people believed that *Gentiles were saved simply by avoiding major sins (such as idolatry and sexual immorality; later *rabbis summarized these as seven laws allegedly given to Noah); some others believed that Gentiles had to convert to Judaism by being circumcised (if male) and (according to most of this group) baptized (whether male or female). (*Josephus reported that some Jews insisted on a Gentile king being circumcised, whereas others believed that his acceptance of Jewish faith was sufficient. Indeed, some of Josephus’s colleagues demanded the circumcision of Gentiles who had come to them for refuge, but Josephus himself forbade this requirement.) Of course, even those Jewish people who believed that righteous Gentiles could be saved without converting to Judaism did not accept them as part of God’s people Israel unless they converted (cf. comment on Galatians, where inclusion in God’s people, rather than salvation, may be in view).
15:2. Strife was common in ancient Mediterranean public life. These believers would “go up” because Jerusalem is higher in elevation than Antioch (the image of “ascending” to Jerusalem recurs often in the *Old Testament). The *churches of the *Diaspora, like the *synagogues, were ruled by local elders, not by a hierarchy in Jerusalem; but just as synagogues respected messengers from the temple authorities in the homeland, the non-Palestinian churches need to resolve the issues raised by those purporting to speak for Judean Christians (15:1). (Josephus pointed out that Jerusalemites, priests and those who knew the *law well were given great respect by others. He reported that some who were qualified in this way were sent to subvert his own similar qualifications as an officer in Galilee.)
15:3-4. Their testimonies, like Peter’s (11:12; 15:8), appeal to divine attestation, which was widely accepted in both Jewish and Gentile circles. But many strict *Pharisees believed that even miracles were insufficient attestation if they contradicted traditional interpretations of the law (15:5).
15:5. “Sect” or “party” was a standard way of referring to the Pharisees (and other Jewish groups like *Sadducees and *Essenes), found also in Josephus. Among the Pharisees, the stricter school of *Shammai may have prevailed at this time; the school of *Hillel, which predominated later, was more generous toward Gentiles. Other Jews respected Pharisees for their piety, and the Jerusalem church no doubt accorded them high status for their knowledge of the law. Nationalism and conservative sentiments had been on the rise in Judea since the hopes stirred by the brief reign of Agrippa I (A.D. 41–44; see comment on 12:1) a few years earlier.
In ancient *rhetoric, citing a voice respected by one’s opposition was strategic. Having the backing of the leading minister to the traditional constituency (Gal 2:7) on one’s side (Acts 10–11) is certainly strategic in granting credibility to the very different ministry of the Antioch church.
15:6-7. The *apostles do not rule without the elders, and both engage in vigorous debate, as Jewish teachers did in their schools. Jewish assemblies often sought to function by majority opinion or consensus among themselves rather than fiat. In later rabbinic schools, rabbis often had to agree to disagree, though submitting to majority opinion; this assembly seeks to achieve consensus (v. 22). The *Essenes reportedly worked by consensus, but it was difficult to achieve in most of ancient society, which was very divisive.
15:8-9. The Spirit was an *eschatological gift for Israel (Ezek 36:27). Gentiles were continually impure by virtue of their state as Gentiles; for this reason, they were expected to undergo *proselyte *baptism when they converted to Judaism. Peter, however, emphasizes that God enacts that “cleansing” (NASB, NRSV) or “purifying” (NIV, KJV; cf. 10:15) simply through their faith. For God knowing the heart, see 1 Samuel 16:7.
15:10-11. Here Peter may refer to the common Jewish tradition of the “yoke” of God’s *law or his *kingdom as opposed to the yoke of worldly care. Most Jewish people saw the law not as a burden but as a gracious gift; they believed that its duties freed them from real burdens (cf. Mt 11:29-30). If he refers here to the law, Peter may think of its inadequacy only in the sense found in Jeremiah 31:32: the ancestors broke it, but under the new covenant God would write the law in their hearts (Jer 31:33-34). Later rabbis sometimes offered more lenient rulings for the sake of the majority of their people, who could not live by the stricter ones.
15:12. See comment on 15:3-4. “The multitude” (KJV, NASB) means “the assembly” (NIV, NRSV), as in the *Dead Sea Scrolls.
15:13-14. In the *Old Testament “a people for his name” (KJV, NASB, NRSV, literally; or “a people for himself”—NLT) normally meant Israel (whom he “took” for his name in Ex 6:7); James derives this title for Gentile Christians from Amos, whom he cites in verse 17.
15:15-16. James refers to “the Prophets” (plural) in this case presumably because he is speaking of the scroll containing the twelve smaller books of the prophets, including Amos.
“Tabernacle of David” (Amos 9:11) probably means the “house [line] of David,” fallen into such pitiable disrepair that it is called merely a tabernacle (KJV, NASB), or tent (NIV). Rebuilding David’s house would mean raising up a *Messiah after the Davidic line’s rule had been cut off. The Dead Sea Scrolls also cited this text as messianic, along with 2 Samuel 7:10b-14.
15:17. James uses the *Septuagint, appropriate for an argument that will be used in the Diaspora; later rabbis mixed and matched variant readings as they suited their point. Amos 9:12 says “the remnant of Edom,” but by slightly changing the spelling (as Jewish interpreters often did to make points), the Septuagint (followed by James and Luke here) can read the text as if it said “the remnant of Adam,” meaning “of humanity.” (Amos 9:12 refers to “possessing” Edom, and nations being “called by my [God’s] name” (NASB) could refer to conquest rather than willing submission. But God’s people are also “called by his name” (Deut 28:10; Is 63:19; Jer 14:9; Dan 9:19). The point is that the nations will come under the rule of God (cf. Is 19:24-25; Zeph 3:8-9; Zech 2:11; 9:7), and the context in Amos (9:7) suggests that God is concerned for the nations themselves.
15:18. James may blend in an allusion to Isaiah 45:21.
15:19-20. God forbade Noah and his descendants to eat meat with blood in it (Gen 9:4); Jewish people thus deemed as unacceptable even for Gentile consumption animals killed by strangling without draining the blood. The few requirements James suggests they impose may derive from requirements for Gentiles living among Israelites in Leviticus 17–18 and are representative of the handful of laws that Jewish tradition came to believe that God gave Noah. According to the more lenient Jewish position, any righteous Gentiles who kept those basic laws would have a share in the world to come. Because even stricter Pharisees had to get along with the majority of more lenient people, these teachers did not try to invalidate other teachers’ rulings if they had majority consent. James provides a compromise approach that gives each side the basic element of what they need to work together (and not lose face with their constituencies): even conservative Jewish believers should treat Gentile Christians as saved provided they follow the minimal Jewish expectations for God-fearers. This means that cooperation was possible based on shared common ground; it does not mean that everyone in the Jerusalem church consented to Paul’s view (articulated in his letters) that Gentiles were full members of God’s people.
15:21. James’s statement here could mean that Moses already has enough observers of his *law; or it could mean that believers are to abstain from the practices in verse 20 lest they offend the many people of verse 21. *Synagogues existed in major cities throughout the empire, and those who wished to observe the law as *proselytes could learn about it there.
15:22. When views were disputed in the later rabbinic academies, the majority view always prevailed; here a partial compromise (in favor of the Antioch church) seems to command consensus. Other Jewish groups also had “general sessions,” such as at *Qumran, where the priests, elders and people would gather. “Silas” and “Silanus” are attested as names used by Jewish people; the nearest Latin name is “Silvanus” (1 Thess 1:1). (Some also suggest that “Silas” may be an *Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew “Saul.”)
15:23. That ethnic *Gentiles should be called “brothers and sisters” is significant (though sometimes Jews had called Gentile allies this; cf. 1 Maccabees 12:6; 14:40). The greetings are standard for Greco-Roman letters; the address shows that it is a circular letter, to be copied and circulated by its messengers to these different regions. Central authorities sometimes sent their authorized agents bearing circular letters. Both novels and historical works sometimes cited the contents of letters. The letter is of average length (papyrus letters averaged eighty-seven words, and this one is just over a hundred). Antioch was the leading city of Syria; Cilicia adjoined Syria and was administered as a common province with it in this period.
15:24. One sign of the respect the Jerusalem church shows the Gentile believers is the care with which they craft the letter; 15:24-26 is a “periodic sentence,” the most intricately designed rhetoric in the entire book of Acts. Division and rivalry characterized ancient urban life, but moralists often exhorted people to unity; “harmony” was a major topic of ancient civic rhetoric and the discussion of moralists (on consensus, see comment on 15:22).
15:25-27. In accordance with custom, the messengers they send to deliver the decree will be widely respected as trustworthy and representative of the council (analogies occur elsewhere, e.g., *Letter of Aristeas 40).
15:28. Because the *Holy Spirit was frequently associated with prophetic inspiration or special enlightenment, readers would understand that the apostles and elders are claiming that God directly led the decision of their community. “It seemed good” (also v. 22) appears in Greek decrees in the sense, “Be it resolved” or “it was decided,” often associated with votes in citizen assemblies (or decrees from emperors or local councils).
15:29. See comment on verse 20. Greco-Roman letters normally ended with “Farewell,” as here.
15:30-31. Most people could not read, especially a letter in such sophisticated Greek; someone would read it while others listened.
15:32-35. The frequency with which prophets turn up in Acts would seem phenomenal to ancient readers. Although some ancient *Essenes and others claimed to be prophets, this was a rare phenomenon and no group boasted prophetic activity to the extent that Christians did; many Jews felt that there were no genuine prophets in their own time. To send people away “in peace” indicates that they had been received in an acceptable manner (Gen 26:29, 31; 2 Sam 3:21-23).
15:36-40. That Israelite literature reported the failings of its heroes even during the epic period may be noteworthy, but by this time it had long been standard for Greco-Roman biographers to admit their heroes’ weaknesses. Luke surely intends us to see God’s blessing on the new Paul-Silas team (15:40; cf. 16:37), but this does not signal his approval of the dispute between Paul and Barnabas, handled so unlike the council in 15:22.
15:41. Cilicia (Paul’s home province) adjoined Syria (which included Antioch, from which he was being sent); see comment on 15:23. From Tarsus, the new team could then take the Roman trade route over the Taurus mountains (it would not be winter) to Lycaonia.
On Derbe and Lystra, see 14:8, 20. Palestinian Jews considered intermarriage between Jews and pagans a horrible sin (Tobit 4:12; 1 Esdras 8:68-96; 9:7-9), but views were no doubt more lenient in places like Lystra, where the Jewish community was smaller. Under Jewish *law at least as early as the second century, a person was presumed Jewish if his or her mother was Jewish. But even if that ruling was in effect in Paul’s day (which is questionable), Timothy would not have been accepted as fully Jewish, because he had not been circumcised. (Wives were expected to submit to their husband’s religion, and Timothy’s father had probably refused to let him be circumcised.)
Paul makes him a full Jew for the sake of his witness to the Jewish community (cf. the different situation addressed in Gal 2:3-4, where the issue is not witness but coercion). Paul opposed forcing circumcision on Gentiles (Acts 15:1-2), but not someone Jewish or partly Jewish identifying with their Jewish heritage for witness to their community. The Gentile community already recognized Christians as proclaimers of a form of Judaism; thus, offended as many of them were by the idea of circumcision, they would not be more offended by a circumcised Jewish Christian than by an uncircumcised Christian. For the decrees, see 15:29 (though these were specifically addressed only to Syria and Cilicia, see 15:23).
16:6. The Greek phrase here may view Phrygia and Galatia together as a unit (though cf. 18:23); most scholars believe that Paul’s letter to the Galatians covers the Phrygian regions included in Acts 14. The phrase here likely involves “Phrygia-Galatia,” that is, the southern part of the province of Galatia encompassing traditional peoples of Phrygia. (“North” Galatia is about two hundred kilometers away from the most obvious route between Lystra and Mysia.) “Asia” is the Roman province in western Turkey, whose leading city was Ephesus; journeying west on a major road that passed Colosse and Laodicea would have taken him there. In antiquity, both Israelites and *Gentiles sought divine guidance. Most Jewish groups believed that the *Holy Spirit was no longer active in the *Old Testament sense, and none paralleled the magnitude of the Spirit’s working regarded as normal among the early Christians.
16:7. They were opposite Mysia, possibly at a city on its eastern border in northern Phrygia; there they could turn right to Bithynia in the north (a strategic region), or left to Mysia and Asia in the west. They pass northwest through Mysia in 16:8.
16:8. The Troad (including Troas) was in northwest Mysia. Troas was directly to the west of much of Mysia; Bithynia was a senatorial province northeast of Mysia. Thus Paul and his companions go from eastern Mysia (near Bithynia and just north of Phrygia) westward toward Alexandria Troas, which was about ten to fifteen miles south-southwest of the more famous ancient Ilium, Homer’s Troy. (Because Rome traced its mythical lineage to Troy, the site had symbolic significance for Rome.) Troas was not the most accessible site, so they probably journeyed there not for convenience but because it was a strategic site not forbidden to them by the *Spirit. Troas, a Roman *colony with population estimates as high as a hundred thousand, had a mixed population of Roman citizens and natives who never quite adjusted to one another’s presence; it was also where two major routes from the East toward Rome converged, and those traveling from Asia to Macedonia or the reverse regularly passed through the port of Troas. Alexandria Troas’s artificial harbor had made it the leading mercantile port between Macedonia and Asia Minor, and Greco-Roman history and legend amplified the area’s importance.
16:9. Macedonia had been a Roman province since 146 B.C. In some respects it was strategically more important to Rome than Achaia (most of Greece) was, because it was the link between Rome and the whole eastern part of the empire along the Via Egnatia (the Egnatian Way), a road originally constructed about 148 B.C. The narrow body of water between Troas and Thrace was the famous divider of Asia and Europe. (Old Troy’s status as a traditional boundary between Europe and Asia was highlighted, for example, by Alexander the Great’s invasion of Asia there; by contrast, the *gospel of peace here moves from Asia to Europe. Romans counted themselves as part of Europe, but believed themselves descended from a Trojan.) Because deities in Greek religion used visions to send people on missions, even unconverted Gentile readers would understand Luke’s point here.
16:10. Most people believed in divine guidance through dreams, or at least through some dreams. In contrast to the views of some scholars (who regard “we” as a fictitious literary device because it appears in some novels as well as in historical works), “we” in ancient historical texts nearly always meant “we.” (A fictive eyewitness claim might have also made the narrator more central to the *narrative or emphasized his presence on more dramatic occasions such as Pentecost; Luke instead indicates his presence in passing here, leaving off at Philippi, then picking up at Philippi years later [20:6] until the end of the book.) Luke is writing a historical work (novels did not have historical prologues or address very recent historical characters), so he is no doubt reporting that he was with Paul as an eyewitness on this and subsequent occasions when he uses the term. Personal eyewitness experience was considered the most dependable source for history. Historians sometimes mentioned their own presence or activity in either the first person or the third person (or both).
16:11. The mountainous and thus easily visible island of Samothrace (with Mount Fengari over five thousand feet high) is the first port travelers would reach; it was about halfway on the voyage and was a major landmark. Its northern port city (also called Samothrace) was a natural location for spending a night in port. Samothrace was famous for the nocturnal mysteries of the Cabiri. Neapolis was one of the two best ports of south Macedonia, directly serving Philippi (the other major port was Thessalonica). A voyage from Troas to Neapolis covered over 150 miles; a two-day voyage indicates favorable winds (cf. 20:6), probably from the northeast. Except during the winter (mid-November to early March), sea travel was quicker and less expensive than land travel, allowing one to cover perhaps a hundred miles a day.
16:12. Neapolis was the port of Philippi, which lay about ten miles to the northwest across Mount Symbolum. This was the eastern end of the Via Egnatia, which led westward to Dyrrhachium, an Adriatic port from which one could sail to Italy. Philippi had been a Roman *colony (see comment on Phil 3:20) since Rome had settled veterans there in 42 B.C. Some 85 percent of Philippi’s inscriptions are in Latin, roughly double the proportion in an earlier colony Paul visited, Pisidian Antioch. Although not all its residents were citizens of Philippi, its citizens also held Roman citizenship. Its population is sometimes estimated at five to ten thousand. Although prosperous, it was more an agricultural than commercial center, unlike many urban areas Paul visited.
Thessalonica, not Philippi, was Macedonia’s capital; moreover, Amphipolis (17:1) held the designation of “first” city of the district. Philippi was considered in the “first part” or “first district” (GNT) of Macedonia, which was divided into four districts. More importantly for Luke’s account, Philippi was also a “first” or “leading” city of the province in the sense that it was one of the most eminent there (alongside Thessalonica); it was the wealthiest and most honored city of this district.
16:13. “Place of prayer” was a customary non-Palestinian Jewish term for a *synagogue, but the gathering here seems to be without a building. According to later Jewish pietists concerned about assimilation, a minimum of ten Jewish men was necessary to constitute a regular synagogue and thus indicate a city where Jewish people would be likely to form their own community; this number of Jewish men may not have lived in Philippi. But in places with no official synagogue, Jewish people preferred to meet in a ritually pure place near water; ritual washing of hands before prayer seems to have been standard in *Diaspora Judaism, and excavations show the importance of water to synagogues.
The nearest major body of flowing water, the Gangites (a tributary of the Strymon), is about one and a quarter miles (2.4 km) west of Philippi. It was thus more than a “sabbath day’s journey” by Pharisaic standards (see comment on 1:12), suggesting that they were more concerned with assembling near a pure place than with the technicalities of Palestinian legal ideals. If Luke has this river in view, the “gate” is probably the colonial archway of the city, through which the Via Egnatia (cf. 16:9) went out to the Gangites. Some others prefer a site on the Krenides creek, nearer the city, or to the east, at a stream that existed in antiquity.
16:14. Conservative Roman writers often complained that women pursued religions from the eastern Mediterranean, and both *Josephus and inscriptions attest that tremendous numbers of women (far more than men) were attracted to Judaism. The sphere of religion was the one sphere in Greek culture where women were given some public responsibility, and the Diana cult in Philippi may have made women more prominent than in other Greek centers. Macedonian women traditionally exercised more freedom than Greek women, and Roman women also had more freedom than Greeks (relevant for Philippi as a Roman colony heavily influenced by Roman custom). But Greek religion consisted of ritual, not teaching, and without a local *synagogue there would be little study of the *law. Thus these women would have had little training in Scripture and would welcome Paul’s teaching. Many men looked down on preachers who catered to women, especially when they felt that these speakers undermined women’s loyalty to their family religion.
The name “Lydia,” though common, would be especially natural for a woman from Thyatira, which was in the region of ancient Lydia. Thyatira was known for its dyers’ guilds and textiles, and inscriptions show that other Thyatiran business agents also sold purple dye in Macedonia, becoming prosperous. (Although Macedonians, like inhabitants of most of the empire, were generally poor, Macedonia had historically been one of the more prosperous provinces.) Some plausibly suggest that her name and trade may indicate that she was a freedwoman (former slave); many traders in purple dye were freedwomen who continued to work as agents of their former masters’ businesses. Other traders, however, were free born. The most expensive purple was dye that Tyrians, in Phoenicia, extracted by crushing shellfish. Some estimate that it took 10,000 shellfish to produce a little of the costly dye; despite the foul odor associated with the dye, its rareness made it a symbol of wealth and power. Some suggest that Thyatira used a cheaper form of purple from the madder plant (see comment on 16:15).
16:15. By this period, some women gained wealth through business; even slave women could become managers, just like slave men. More than likely Lydia has some means as a seller of purple, a luxury good associated with wealth throughout Mediterranean culture for over a thousand years. (The dye had been especially procured from the murex shellfish near Tyre, but in Macedonia it could have been procured from the mollusks near Thessalonica. Thyatiran purple often came from the madder plant, not the more expensive Tyrian shellfish.) Well-to-do women sometimes became *patrons, or sponsors, of pagan religious associations; those attracted to Judaism helped support Jewish causes.
Paul and his companions might have been staying at an inn till the sabbath (a less than ideal choice; inns were notoriously dangerous and immoral), but Lydia immediately offers the proper Jewish hospitality and invites the *apostles into her home, thus serving as a patron of their work (cf. 1 Kings 17:13-24; especially 2 Kings 4:8-11). Jewish people often displayed hospitality by welcoming fellow Jews into their homes (sometimes for up to three weeks) if they had reason to trust them. Some people would have looked askance at the group staying in a woman’s home, but she was not alone, having a “household” (which could include servants). She appears to be the head of a household consisting mainly of servants, though it is not impossible that she is married to a husband who simply leaves her religious activities alone (contrast the usual custom in Acts 16:31-32; cf. 2 Kings 4:8-23). Widowhood could explain Lydia’s independence, though it could also be explained in other ways (being a divorcée or a freedwoman).
16:16. This slave girl (as in 12:13, the Greek implies that she is very young) has literally a “spirit of a pythoness”—the same sort of spirit that stood behind the most famous of all Greek oracles, the Delphic oracle of Apollo whose priestess was called a pythoness (she was named after the “Pythian Apollo,” slayer of the great Python). Thus Paul and his companions confront a powerful *demon here.
16:17. “Most High God” is ambiguous, a common designation for God in Jewish texts but also occurs in pagan sources for Zeus or for the Jewish God with whom pagans sometimes identified Zeus. Magical texts show that pagans respected this supreme God, often identified with the Jewish God, as the most powerful. The spirit ambiguously reduces the missionaries’ deity to a chief role in polytheism.
16:18. Exorcists sometimes tried to use names of higher spirits to evict lower spirits (see comment on 19:13); but for the use of “the name of Jesus Christ” here, signifying that Paul acts as Jesus’ agent, see comment on 3:6 (cf. also comment on Jn 14:12-14).
16:19. On shared ownership, see comment on Matthew 6:24. The “authorities” here are the “magistrates” (v. 20), the most common Greek title for the Latin duoviri, the two Roman officials of Philippi, who probably called themselves by the more dignified title of “praetor.” What most translations call the “marketplace” was normally the square agora at the center of a Greek town, the center of all civic activity. Philippi, however, was a Roman colony. The commerical agora was nearby, but the passage refers to the central agora, the colony’s Roman rectangular forum. It stood on the main road, the Via Egnatia, that passed through the city. At 230 by 485 feet, the forum could hold many people. In the ancient system, accusers were responsible for charging the accused before the magistrates, here at the raised platform near the forum’s main, north entrances. The raised platform was the rostrum or bema, approached by stairs on both its sides.
16:20. People could be jailed for disturbing the peace; normally the plaintiffs could be assured the court’s favor if their social status was higher than that of the defendants. The accusers are property-owning Philippian citizens, hence Roman citizens (see comment on 16:12), hence fancy themselves of higher status than the foreign preachers (unaware of their citizenship, 16:37).
The charge of “property damage” would be difficult to prove, so they charge them with disturbing the peace—a prisonable offense—and that they preach non-Roman customs. These charges were particularly sensitive in a Roman colony since the emperor Claudius’ recent expulsion of Jews from Rome (see comment on 18:2). The Jewish-Roman contrast (16:20-21) is a taste of common ancient anti-Judaism, although the assumption that one could not be both Jewish and Roman will not hold up in this case (16:37). Proponents of traditional ways always demanded avoidance of new or alien gods, and one of the main complaints Romans brought against Jews was that they were always converting people to their religion (especially when the converts were Roman women). Although the Jewish population of Philippi was very small, there was a large native non-Roman population, and other immigrants from the East had settled there.
16:21. Philippi was extremely Romanized; despite its location, over half of its inscriptions are in Latin, more than usual in most eastern Mediterranean colonies. Because Philippi was a Roman colony (16:12), its citizens enjoyed Roman rights, used Roman law, were exempt from tribute and modeled their constitution on that of Rome. Foreigners and noncitizen residents did not acquire Roman rights simply by settling in Philippi.
16:22. Unless the accused were Roman citizens, they could be beaten even before trial as a means of securing evidence (this was called the coercitio); in practice, lower-class persons had few legal protections. Roman magistrates’ six attendants, called lictors, walked single-file before duoviri and carried fasces, or bundles of rods, which they could use for beatings, as here. Normally, as here, the accused were stripped first. Public beatings served not only to secure evidence but also to humiliate those beaten and to discourage their followers. The mob’s role here reflects badly on the magistrates, who were officially responsible to maintain order. Roman citizens were not allowed to be beaten with rods, but ancient reports show that local officials sometimes ignored this rule in practice, so Paul and Silas could not be certain to gain exemption even if they protested. (Governors acted with greater freedom in Judea, the setting the pair knew best. It turns out that Philippi, however, with its close ties to Rome, took the rule quite seriously; 16:38.)
Perhaps because of the mob situation, or because this advantage had not yet occurred to them, or because they did not have their travel documents on hand, or simply because they wished to put the court in a situation where it would have to negotiate afterward (16:37-39), Paul and Silas cannot or do not reveal their citizenship.
16:23. Some jailers were public slaves. Prison directors (whether slave or free, as may be likelier here; cf. 16:33-34) could receive good pay. Prisons were typically filthy, risking infection for the men’s wounds. Jailers were often known for, and sometimes chosen for, their brutality. Women did not have separate facilities, but men were the majority of prisoners.
16:24. The jailer guards them “securely” (16:23)—far more than needed for those who have just been beaten with rods. A prison’s “inner cell” was usually its harshest, least ventilated, and most degrading part; jailers sometimes secured all prisoners there for the night for security reasons, here undoubtedly producing crowding. (Such conditions led to excess heat and dehydration, as well as spreading sickness.) Wooden stocks, anchored to the floor, were often used for torture as well as detention, with extra holes so the legs could be forced into painful positions. They were normally reserved for prisoners of low social status; prisoners in stocks could barely shift position.
16:25. Jewish sources praised the ability to glorify God amidst suffering and shame, and Greco-Roman philosophers praised the wisdom of being content and thankful in one’s situation. Ancient sources honor sages who lived consistently with their teachings about endurance. Most people were usually well into their sleep around midnight, which was also not a customary time for Jewish prayers (though cf. Ps 119:61-62). Prisoners apparently often slept on the floor, using a cloak for a cover.
16:26. Miraculous deliverances are common in Jewish and other traditions (cf. the exaggerated deliverance of Abram by an earthquake in *Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 6:17). Earthquakes are known to occur near Philippi, but an earthquake severe enough to split the staples of prisoners’ bonds from the wall could have brought down the roof as well but miraculously does not. Although some ancient intellectuals offered naturalistic explanations for earthquakes, most people viewed them as acts of deities.
16:27. When confronted with execution (in this case, for letting prisoners escape), Romans considered suicide a noble alternative (contrast Mt 27:5). Falling on one’s sword was a preferred Roman method. (Many Jews, however, considered it normally shameful, as people generally considered it under normal circumstances. Ancient Christian sources oppose suicide.) Although a jailer would not be responsible for earthquake damage, he could be responsible if deemed negligent in adequately securing the prisoners (cf. 12:19). The jailer was asleep (though we cannot say whether his subordinate guards or servants were).
16:28. The other prisoners may have remained for fear of the guards (the jailer “calls for” torches—v. 29—hence he has subordinates) or because of the missionaries’ witness (v. 25). Roman law treated escape from custody as a criminal act, but often treated with favor those who refused to escape.
16:29-30. An inner cell (16:24) would be very dark, even if it had not been night; the jail official requests torches or perhaps lamps from his subordinates. Asking how to be saved is a motif in Luke-Acts (Lk 3:10; 10:25; 18:18; Acts 2:37); the jailer in this case may be familiar with the report about their teaching (see the “way of salvation” in 16:17; the report in 16:23 is merely a summary). The term translated “sir” often means this in direct address, but in other contexts can mean “lord” (as in 16:31).
16:31-32. Romans expected the whole household to follow the religion of its head; they also expected the head to lead his household to the worship of Roman gods. Here conversion is not automatic; the whole household must hear the word.
16:33. Prisoners normally were unable to wash or trim hair in jails. Since jails were usually in city centers, many sources of water were available in the public area of Philippi near the likely area of the prison, helpful for the jailer’s washing of the prisoners and their washing of his household in *baptism (although these could have increased the risk of being seen by Philippi’s night watchmen). If the jailer removed them from the prison, he risks punishment for negligence if they escaped (cf. 16:23; but cf. also 16:28).
16:34. Prison rations were meager at best; normally prisoners depended on those outside the prison to supply food. In view of 16:20-21, the jailer risks getting in serious trouble here. If discovered, a jailer eating with prisoners was punishable, potentially even by death (and minimally by loss of job; cf., e.g., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.230-33). Because the jailer would not likely have fully kosher food available, Paul and Silas accepting his food (cf. Luke 10:8) might be offensive to some fellow Jews, who sometimes subsisted even on figs and nuts in prison to avoid eating unclean food.
16:35-36. Perhaps the magistrates felt that public humiliation would have been sufficient punishment to silence the troublemakers. Or the magistrates could have regarded the earthquake as a sign, perhaps from the gods or dangerous magicians. The financial intercession of Lydia may have helped, but because she was not likely a citizen her effectiveness with the officials was less likely.
16:37. Because public stripping and beatings involved shame, that shame would follow the new *church unless Paul and Silas can receive a measure of public vindication. Even Paul’s name probably indicates his citizenship; usually only Roman citizens bore this cognomen, and Jewish people rarely if ever bore it if they were not citizens. (Silas’ Roman name is “Silvanus,” e.g., 2 Cor 1:19.) Roman citizenship in the provinces in this period was a mark of high status. (Paul’s ancestors may have been among Jewish captives taken by the Roman general Pompey; these slaves received Roman citizenship when they were freed. The Julian law forbade binding or beating Roman citizens without trial; sometimes ancient officials ignored these rules, but Philippi, proud of its Roman heritage, did not. No one would lie about Roman citizenship once they had nothing to gain from it except to recoup their honor; falsely claiming citizenship was a capital offense, and, given enough time, documentation could be checked.
16:38. Ancient writers tell of a Roman citizen who cried out that he was a citizen during a scourging, thereby humiliating his oppressors, who had not properly recognized his high status. By waiting until after the beating (cf. 22:29) to inform the authorities that they were citizens, the missionaries had placed the magistrates themselves in an awkward legal position: now the magistrates, not the missionaries, are forced to negotiate. The duoviri could act without trial only against noncitizens, and had simply assumed without inquiry that Paul and Silas were not Roman citizens. Paul and Silas could bring a case against the magistrates; if found guilty of depriving Roman citizens of rights, the magistrates could be barred from office, and their city could (in principle, though it was rare) lose privileges. This strategy might help secure the future safety of the fledgling Christian community.
16:39. The magistrates had no legal authority to expel Roman citizens without trial, but a trial would bring up their own breach of law; thus they are reduced to pleading. To force Paul and Silas to leave secretly would reinforce the public humiliation; Paul demands vindication. The officials still want them to leave to prevent trouble, but by forming their escort from the jail (which was probably in or near the forum) the officials had to humble themselves and offer at least some vindication to those they beat in Philippi, a highly honor-conscious city.
16:40. To visit the believers shows boldness and refusal to accept the humiliation; but per the officials’ request, Paul and Silas do leave quickly. The western city gate was thirteen hundred feet (four hundred meters) from the forum. Through it ran the Via Egnatia, on which Paul and Silas would have headed north alongside the Krenides and then west to the river Gangites; ahead on the same road are the cities of 17:1.
17:1. Amphipolis on the Strymon (thirty-three miles, over fifty kilometers, beyond Philippi), Apollonia (twenty-seven miles, forty kilometers, or a day’s travel, beyond Amphipolis), and Thessalonica (thirty-five miles west of Apollonia) were all on the Via Egnatia (16:9, 12); this road continued further westward into Illyricum (Rom 15:19), but Acts reports only Paul’s turn to the south, off this road, to Berea (17:10). Roads were usually no more than twenty feet wide, but they were better and safer than most European roads before 1850, and especially inviting to those who traveled on foot or with donkeys or mules.
Luke may well mention Amphipolis and Apollonia as night stops; these were slightly uphill from Philippi hence could represent significant haste, though it is possible that they did stop elsewhere on the way or stayed longer than overnight. The longest leg of the journey, however, to Thessalonica, was mostly downhill. Thessalonica was an important city in this period, Macedonia’s largest port, capital of its old second district and now residence of the provincial governor. Although the real population must have been much lower, the highest estimates of Thessalonica’s population place it at about two hundred thousand, roughly ten times the population of the average ancient city. While Rome did not grant Thessalonica “*colony” status (unlike Philippi; see 16:12), it made it a “free” (mostly self-governing) city.
17:2-3. Thessalonica’s non-Greek religious importations included not only Judaism but the Egyptian cult of Serapis and Isis. Paul had to be there long enough to receive support from Philippi (Phil 4:15-16), about a hundred miles away; until then, his occupation, which would allow him to set up shop in the agora, must have supported him (1 Thess 2:9).
17:4. Macedonian women had earlier gained a reputation for their influence, which they probably still exercised in this period (though they did not always exercise as much influence as men of their own social class). As *patrons within *church or *synagogue, upper-class women could also enjoy higher status than was available to them in society at large due to their gender. Social conditions made it easier for well-to-do women than for men to convert. *Gentile women are attested as following Judaism far more often than Gentile men.
17:5. Despite the city’s economic strength, many people in Thessalonica were poor and many were unemployed. Ancient examples attest that the idle unemployed of the marketplace, usually despised in ancient sources, could be stirred to mob action. Jewish inhabitants were a small minority in Thessalonica, so those Jews whom Paul did not persuade (v. 4) would need help to oppose Paul effectively. The most likely site for the Jewish quarter in Thessalonica is not far from the forum. “The people” (KJV, NASB, GNT) means the citizen body (cf. “assembly”—NRSV); as a “free city,” Thessalonica’s gathered citizen body performed judicial functions.
17:6. Jason was a common Greek name but was also common among Hellenized Jews, as inscriptions and business documents alike testify (cf. Rom 16:21). He is probably a Jewish host with whom Paul and Silas stay while working there. Delatores, or accusers, were necessary to open a case under Roman law; dragging a person to court was one way to ensure their appearance. Polemical *hyperbole about “the world” was common in ancient literature. Anti-Jewish Gentiles in this era sometimes slandered Jews as “stirring unrest,” but the charge here comes from Paul’s own people. So serious was the charge that it could warrant even execution.
17:7. Romans could understand proclaiming another king (i.e., the *Messiah—v. 3) as treason against the majesty of the emperor; they could take mention of signs indicating this new ruler’s coming (see 1–2 Thessalonians) as predictions of the current emperor’s demise, and such predictions violated imperial edicts. That Jesus had been crucified on the charge of sedition only lent further credibility to the charge against Paul and his associates. Citizens who pledged loyalty to Caesar also pledged to report any possible treason; Thessalonica’s devotion to the imperial cult made this a religious matter as well. Thessalonica had a temple for the worship of the emperor and its coins honored Julius and Augustus Caesar as gods. The distorted accusations here, however, are slander; ancient *rhetorical handbooks in fact supported attacking opponents’ character with any believable charges. Like John, Luke likes to show the denseness of the *gospel’s opponents; cf. 17:18.
17:8. Luke uses the precise designation for Thessalonica’s city officials, “politarchs” (also v. 6), a term virtually restricted to Macedonia; there were between three and seven politarchs at given times during the early Roman Empire period. Rome gave them a free hand to run the city, although they ultimately had to answer to Rome for inappropriate actions. Evidence indicates that local officials in the eastern Mediterranean were responsible for enforcing loyalty to Caesar.
17:9. As their host (v. 6), Jason is held responsible for their actions and required to post bond for them, as if they were members of his household. Nevertheless, the officials possibly recognized that Paul and Silas posed little real threat to order, and simply accommodate the mob to allow the situation to quiet down. Usual punishments for genuinely stirring unrest were serious. By contrast, a fine was a lenient penalty as far as Roman courts went, and a bond to curtail troublemakers would not have been unusual. But given the charge (v. 7), had Paul himself been caught, he might not have been so fortunate. The politarchs’ decision would stand till they left office (cf. 1 Thess 2:18). Laws and rulings in Greek cities did not apply outside their area; so long as Paul and Silas keep moving, his antagonists must charge him anew in each city.
17:10. One who fled trial could be presumed guilty, but given the seriousness of the charge and the local forces against them, Paul and Silas are better off escaping. The Via Egnatia (17:1) continued westward, but it is now safer to travel south, off the major Via Egnatia. Berea, some fifty miles southwest of Thessalonica, was not even on the main coastal road south; off the beaten path, it might throw off pursuers for awhile. Still, it was a significant town, possibly the second most important city in the province of Macedonia as well as a center of the imperial cult. Some considered fleeing by night cowardly, but it was also acknowledged as the most practical way to escape undetected.
17:11. Judaism regarded nobly those who checked everything against the Scriptures and diligently listened to teachers; Greek philosophers likewise praised those who listened attentively.
17:12. For the special mention of women (especially before men), see comment on 17:4.
17:13. Thessalonians had no legal jurisdiction in Berea, but mobs are not prone to follow the law and could create political pressure in Berea as they had in Thessalonica.
17:14. Messengers rarely traveled alone, and travelers over long distances were safer to travel in the company of those they knew. If a direct land route to Dion on the coast existed, Paul journeyed some thirty miles; if not, he may have been forced into a roundabout journey of some fifty miles. Once reaching Dion, he could take a ship south to Athens. The intervening land of Thessaly was apparently sparsely inhabited in this period, and Paul may have also wished to be farther from his slanderers on this occasion.
17:15. At least three miles inland, Athens had port towns, such as the walled seaports Piraeus and (less used in this period) Phalerum. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:1.
Athens’s fame rested mainly on the glories of its past; even as a philosophical center, its primacy was challenged by other centers in the East such as Alexandria and Tarsus. (Even in its immediate vicinity Corinth had long surpassed it in power, population and prosperity.) But Athens remained the symbol of the great philosophers in popular opinion, so much so that it made a useful foil for other cities or groups (for example, later *rabbis liked to tell stories of earlier rabbis besting Athenian philosophers in debate). Romans did not always trust philosophers, but Acts records other speeches to appeal to those with less philosophical tastes. This speech is Paul’s defense of the gospel before Greek intellectuals.
17:16. Some majestic temples on Athens’s Acropolis, such as Athena’s temple (the Parthenon), were visible from afar; sanctuaries and images stood even in Piraeus and other ports of Athens. The second-century travel narrator Pausanias depicts in detail the various idols that consumed much public space in Athens; one could not avoid them. Shrines filled the agora and Acropolis, city streets were often lined with statues of men and gods, and Athens was decorated with the Hermae, pillars mounted with heads of Hermes; many visitors wrote of the evidences of Athenian piety. From an aesthetic standpoint, Athens was unrivaled for its exquisite architecture and statues. Paul’s concern is not aesthetics, however, but the impact of idols on human lives.
17:17. Inscriptions attest the Jewish community in Athens, but it was not prominent. Those without an official post in rhetoric could at least speak in the marketplace.
17:18. *Epicureans were influential only in the educated upper classes, and their views about God were similar to deism (he was uninvolved in the universe and irrelevant); if there were gods, they were only those known through sense knowledge, like stars or planets. Life’s goal was pleasure, which they defined as the lack of physical pain and emotional disturbance. *Stoics were more popular, opposed pleasure, and criticized Epicureans (though not as much as they had in previous times). Here, as in 23:6, Paul practices the maxim “divide and conquer”: 17:22-29 is calculated to gain a Stoic hearing, but Paul and the Epicureans have much less common ground.
Although Stoics still professed belief in the gods, many philosophers were considered impious, because they questioned the old traditions, although allowing them for the masses. The charge against Paul, “proclaimer of strange deities” (NASB), would remind Greek readers of the charge of impiety against Socrates centuries earlier (cf. 17:19-20; e.g., Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.1.1; Dio Chrysostom, Orations 43.9). Others had been prosecuted for the charge in earlier centuries, and it still violated the Athenian psyche in Paul’s day.
“Babbler” (NIV, NASB) translates a Greek expression applied originally to birds pecking up grain but which came to apply to common chatterers in the marketplace or those who simply gathered and spread scraps of others’ opinions. But in the same verse Luke lets these critics demonstrate their own ignorance: they think Paul is preaching gods (plural), because he preaches Jesus and *resurrection—“Resurrection” (Anastasis) was also a woman’s name.
17:19-20. Socrates had also been “led” or “brought” to the Areopagus many centuries before, as was well known. Socrates was the ideal philosopher, and Luke may portray Paul as a new Socrates for his Greek audience; given the outcome of Socrates’s speech (which, like Stephen’s, provoked his hearers to martyr him), this allusion builds suspense, although no one would expect the Areopagus to execute anyone for ideas in this period.
The Areopagus is here the council, not the site earlier used for this council (the literal hill of Ares). In this period the council may have met in the Stoa Basileios, in the Agora where Paul had already been ministering (v. 17). Because Rome had made Athens a “free” city, it had its own ruling bodies: another council, the city assembly, and, highest of all, the Areopagus. It was Athens’s chief court, consisting in this period of probably roughly a hundred elite members. They had authority to evaluate new cults coming to town, and city officials would also evaluate potential lecturers who sought official platforms (though mere discussion in the market would require no accreditation).
Paul’s views are quite different from those of the Stoics, but he emphasizes the points of contact, even when they are only verbal (e.g., Paul believed that God’s presence was everywhere, but not in the Stoic sense, which could divinize creation itself)—until the climax of his sermon. Defenders of Judaism had worked for centuries to make their faith philosophically respectable, and here, as in his letters, Paul draws heavily on his Jewish predecessors’ arguments. Ancients valued the rhetorical skill of being able to communicate relevantly to different audiences; Paul communicates in synagogues (13:16-41), to farmers (14:15-17), and to the philosophically educated (17:22-31). Given its brevity, this speech summary is rhetorically sophisticated, with many rhetorical devices (e.g., alliteration) in Greek, and some high-class Greek (e.g., use of the optative).
17:21. Athens was proverbial for its residents’ curiosity and their captivity to novelty. By the first century, Athenian desire for entertainment also extended to gladiatorial shows, but the city was especially known for seeking intellectual stimulation.
17:22. It was customary to begin a speech by complimenting the hearers in the opening exordium, designed to secure their favor. Some scholars think that this practice was forbidden at the Areopagus, but numerous examples show that even in Athens, speakers usually praised their hearers. “Religious” meant that they were religiously observant, not that he agreed with their religion. Paul’s hearers would naturally assume it to be a compliment; Luke’s audience will recognize the term’s potential ambiguity (cf. KJV: “superstitious”). Many people thought of philosophers as unreligious (even though Stoics tried to accommodate the beliefs of the masses; see comment on 17:18). But Paul is thinking of the religious interest expressed in the idols (17:16).
17:23. A visiting speaker would sometimes start by commenting on a city’s splendid sites, building rapport with the audience. Paul preaches here no “foreign deities” (17:18), but a deity that was near them (17:27-28). One Athenian tradition about the altars—associated with one of the very poets Paul may quote in 17:28 (Epimenides)—would have served Paul’s point. During a plague long before Paul’s time, no sacrifices had successfully propitiated the gods; Athens had finally offered sacrifices to the unidentified deities of the sites where the sacrificial sheep lay down, immediately staying the plague. These altars of nameless deities were still standing, and Paul uses them as the basis for his speech. Paul does avoid, however, the practice of some of his Jewish predecessors and some second-century Christian successors of accusing pagan philosophers of plagiarizing their good ideas from Moses.
17:24. While rooted in Scripture, most of Paul’s speech until the end emphasizes points of contact shared with Stoicism (his letters also reveal his familiarity with some Stoic language). For at least three centuries Jewish apologists (defenders of Judaism) had worked to make their faith respectable to Greek philosophers, so Paul is able to draw on a long heritage here. His rhetoric here is of the highest quality, as would be essential before the Areopagus. Paul preaches differently to philosophers (here) than to farmers (14:15-17) and synagogues (13:16-47); good rhetoricians were supposed to be able to adapt to their audiences. Paul’s language here is fully biblical, yet chosen also to be intelligible to his audience.
Some philosophical trends in this era combined deities, moving toward a single supreme god. Non-Palestinian Jews sometimes identified their God with the supreme God of the pagans, hoping to show pagans that their highest religious aspirations were best met in Judaism. *Epicureans rejected temples and sacrifices; Stoics believed that God permeated all things and therefore was not localized in temples (cf. Is 66:1, cited in Acts 7:49), though by this period some Stoics sacrificed in them. The idea had a respectable intellectual pedigree; nevertheless, Paul’s words would contrast starkly with all the temples (those of Hephaistos, Athena, Ares, Zeus and the deified Augustus) in plain sight of the council!
17:25. Stoics and Greek-speaking Jews emphasized that God “needs nothing,” using the same word Paul uses here; the concept was also biblical (Ps 50:8-13), as was God giving breath to all (Gen 2:7; Is 42:5).
17:26. For Jews, creation from “one” meant from Adam; it contradicts an Athenian tradition of a special origin of Athenians from the soil. Jews and many Greeks agreed that God was creator and divider of the earth’s boundaries and of seasons’ boundaries; here, however, Paul probably has in mind especially human epochs and (as in Genesis 10) the boundaries of peoples. Jewish people commented especially on the four world empires of Daniel 2:37-44 and 7:3-8, which they believed climaxed in Rome. Stoics also believed that the universe periodically dissolved back into God, but on this belief they had no point of contact with mainstream Judaism.
17:27-28. Jewish people usually spoke of God as a father to his people (in the *Old Testament, e.g., Deut 32:6; Is 63:16; 64:8; Jer 3:4). But Greeks (including some Stoic thinkers), *Diaspora Jews and some second-century Christian writers spoke of God as the world’s father in the sense of creator, as here. Stoics believed that deity pervaded all things, though *Hellenistic Jews applied such language to God’s omnipresence, not (as in many early Stoics) to pantheism. “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28) has long been attributed to the Greek poet Epimenides (from the same poem as Tit 1:12), who in one tradition was the person who advised building altars to the unknown gods (cf. 17:23). The other quotation, “we are his offspring,” is likeliest from the third century B.C. Greek poet Aratus, who was from Paul’s region, Cilicia (a similar line appears in the Stoic Cleanthes). It appears in Jewish anthologies of proof texts useful for showing pagans the truth about God, and Paul may have learned it from such a text. (Greeks cited Homer and other poets as proof texts in a manner similar to how Jewish people cited Scripture; they also exhibited their education by their array of quotations.) Some philosophers criticized poets as too mythological, but others freely used their wording to prove their own case.
17:29. Many philosophers viewed images of deities as at best props to remind people of the deities; most at least retained them for their symbolic value, however, unlike Jews, including Paul (v. 30).
17:30. Speakers sometimes reserved their most controversial arguments for the end of the speech, first building agreement where possible. After building rapport with some of his hearers through much of the speech, here Paul breaks with his audience’s views; although philosophers spoke of conversion to philosophy through a change of thinking, Paul here clearly communicates the Jewish doctrine of *repentance toward God. Many philosophers emphasized knowledge of God; Paul’s claim of their ignorance (here and in v. 23) would not be flattering.
17:31. The Greek view of time was that it would simply continue, not that history had a future climax in the day of judgment. (The closest idea, the Stoic conception of a cyclical repetition of history, is quite unlike the biblical prophets’ future “day” of judgment.) Most offensive is Paul’s doctrine of the *resurrection; see comment on verse 32.
Although Paul’s message to the intellectual elite of his day does not produce massive immediate results, his ministry to the Areopagus is effective, apparently reaching even some of the elite.
17:32. Unlike many philosophers, *Epicureans (17:18) denied the soul’s immortality: they believed that the soul was material, like the body, and died with it. Greeks traditionally believed in a shadowy afterlife in the underworld (perhaps similar to the *Old Testament refa’im); some no longer believed in afterlife; some now accepted reincarnation (found in some philosophers); under *Plato’s influence some Greeks sought to free the immortal soul from worldly existence so it could escape back to the pure heavens from which it was created. Stoics believed that the soul lived on after death (although, like everything else, it was cyclically resolved back into primeval fire), but like other Greeks they could not conceive of a *resurrection of the body. Many Greeks believed in ghosts (disembodied souls) on the earth, but physical “resurrection” would conjure images of reconstituting corpses. Those who wanted to hear him again apparently maintained intellectual interest in something “new” (cf. 17:21); Epicureans (17:18) were likely among the mockers.
17:33-34. The Areopagus probably held about a hundred members but included only those of highest status in this university community, so the conversion of Dionysius is significant. Modern readers who judge Paul’s work in Athens a failure on the basis of 1 Corinthians 2:1 have missed Luke’s point (the emphasis of Acts is on his success, and the original readers of Acts could not simply turn to 1 Corinthians).
Damaris would not have been a member of the ruling Areopagus court and might have simply been listening in the marketplace (17:19-20), but she may have belonged to the elite. Although traditionally the most educated and publicly seen women in Athens were prostitutes and foreigners, some schools of philosophers (including Epicureans, Pythagoreans and some Stoics) had some women *disciples, though they were always a minority. Damaris may have been a philosopher, or (more likely) the student of one.
18:1. Corinth was fifty-three miles (eighty-five kilometers) west of Athens, so the next natural stop for Paul; but it was also strategic. Rome destroyed Corinth in 146 B.C.; some Greeks continued to live on the site, but it was revived as a city again only when Julius Caesar refounded it as a Roman *colony in 44 B.C. Although one of Athens’s ancient rivals, after being revived it had long since surpassed Athens. Its citizens were citizens of Rome, and official inscriptions emphasize its Roman character, but many Greeks (and others) continued to live there, with an apparent influx of more non-Romans in this period. Roman Corinth was the political and economic center of Greece, the capital of the Roman province of Achaia and the transit point for all maritime trade between Rome and the prosperous Roman province of Asia.
18:2. Like Tiberius, an earlier emperor, Claudius officially expelled the Jewish community from Rome (probably around A.D. 49); probably only some of the Jewish community actually left, but those who left undoubtedly included leading figures in the controversy that precipitated the expulsion. (Jews who were Roman citizens probably would not have been forced to leave.) *Suetonius, a Roman historian, is often understood as indicating that the Jewish community was expelled because of disturbances about the *Messiah, perhaps caused by opposition to Jewish Christians. Given Luke’s emphasis on legal precedents in favor of Christianity (18:14-16), it is easy to see why Luke would omit that detail. Corinth was a major conduit for trade with Rome and a primary destination of Roman ships; it was heavily Romanized and a natural destination for someone leaving Rome for the East.
18:3. In the ancient economy, people of the same trade usually lived together in the same part of town and formed trade guilds. Their trade guilds normally adopted a patron deity, and they ate sacrificial food at their regular banquets together. This cultic orientation of trade guilds would exclude practicing Jews from the fellowship, making Jews delighted to find other Jews of their own trade.
Women could be artisans, and many worked alongside their husbands in small shops. Arrangements varied, but multistory apartment buildings with ground-floor workshops were common; a number of urban artisans lived onsite, sometimes in a mezzanine level above their ground-floor shops. (We cannot be certain about the arrangements here.) Although many sold from shops in their homes, it is also interesting that Corinth’s agora (central marketplace) had one of the longest lines of colonnaded shops in the empire.
By this period, the term translated “tentmaker” was also applied to leatherworking in general; scholars debate which is intended here. Leatherworkers were artisans; Paul could have also carried his leatherworking tools from city to city. Artisans were typically proud of their work, despite the long hours they had to invest to succeed, and were higher than peasants in status and income; but they were despised by higher classes, who thought most labor with one’s hands degrading (see the conflicts described in the introduction to 1 Corinthians; comment on 1 Cor 4:12). Some sages worked (*Cynics even begged), but the elite usually preferred to pay sages a salary or be their patrons. (Many Jewish teachers viewed labor more positively; boys learned trades as apprentices, often to their own fathers.) Artisans’ long hours in their shops afforded them much time to talk while doing their work, but Paul apparently is able to discontinue the labor (1 Cor 4:12) when his companions bring a gift from the Macedonian *church (v. 5; 2 Cor 11:8-9; 12:13; Phil 4:15).
18:4. Many foreign religions had settled in Corinth, including Egyptian religions (mushrooming in popularity by the second century). An inscription from a Corinthian *synagogue has also been recovered near the agora (central marketplace); its location suggests that some members of this synagogue had wealth and social status (see vv. 7-8). The inscription is from a later century, however, and the Jewish situation in Corinth after Claudius’s decree (18:2) may have felt less comfortable (note also the probable attendant influx of more Roman Jews). In any case, most Jewish Corinthians in this period were probably immigrants or children of immigrants, holding the somewhat stigmatized status of resident aliens.
18:5. A gift from the Macedonian Christians apparently allowed Paul to spend less time on manual labor (2 Cor 11:8-9; 12:13; Phil 4:15).
18:6. One could shake a garment to warn violators of God’s law that God would judge them (Neh 5:13). In Ezekiel, one who fails to warn people to *repentance has blood on one’s head, that is, is morally responsible for the people’s judgment (Ezek 3:18-21; esp. 33:4).
18:7. The church met in houses for the first three centuries (12:12; Rom 16:5). Synagogues also sometimes gathered in homes until the Jewish community could afford a special building, and between persecution and the need for funds to free slaves, feed the poor and support missionaries, the churches had no money left for buildings anyway. Some scholars note that patrons’ homes in Corinth normally reclined nine to twelve in the triclinium (the best room) and as many as forty others in the adjoining atrium (the largest furnished room). Larger homes are possible, since homes varied in size; most homes were much smaller. (Poorer people could live in upper-story tenement apartments that offered little more than room to sleep.)
For God-fearers, see comment on Acts 10:2. The status and thoroughly Latin name of “Titius Justus” identify him as a Roman citizen and part of the Roman culture (Corinth was both Greek and Roman in this period); he may have been from one of the Roman families established there in the time of Julius Caesar. Some have identified him with Gaius (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:14); Roman citizens had three names (Gaius being a praenomen).
18:8. “Crispus” is a typical Roman name. It was not uncommon for Jewish people to have Latin names (“Crispus” and “Crispina” appear several times in Jewish inscriptions), but the proportion of Latin names among Paul’s associates is so much higher than generally in inscriptions (even though inscriptions were normally made by the well-to-do) that it is likely that a number of Paul’s Jewish and Greek associates were also Roman citizens. To be “synagogue ruler” means that Crispus is a person of status and wealth, responsible for the synagogue services. Given the many public baths and fountain houses in Corinth, finding nearby water for *baptism would not be problematic.
18:9-10. In “assurance oracles,” God often told people not to fear because he was with them (e.g., Gen 15:1; 26:24; 28:15; Jer 1:8; 15:20). In Greek literature gods or goddesses often appeared to people at night, frequently while they slept; but such revelations from God or his angels are no less common in the *Old Testament (e.g., Gen 26:24; 28:12-15; 31:24).
18:11. This duration probably meant that the biennial Isthmian Games occurred when Paul was in Corinth, perhaps providing both some additional “tent-making” or leather business, and additional opportunities to spread his message.
18:12. A proconsul governed Achaia (most of Greece) from 27 B.C. to A.D. 15 and from A.D. 44 on. Gallio apparently began his two-year term of office July 1 of A.D. 51 (or possibly 52); it was cut short by sickness, so we may reasonably date this appearance in A.D. 51–52, somewhat more likely before the end of 51. His brother, the *Stoic philosopher *Seneca, Nero’s tutor, speaks well of him. Luke could not have had access to names of such officials at precise dates unless he learned them from Paul; there were no reference works listing them.
As proconsul, Gallio would decide important cases at his judgment seat in the morning. This “judgment seat” (KJV, NASB) is probably the then-recently constructed ceremonial rostrum that archaeologists have found on the south end of the Corinthian forum, in full view of the public, although some scholars have suggested a tribunal (cf. NRSV) in an administrative building at the forum’s eastern edge.
18:13. If Paul’s views put him outside Judaism, his followers would not have the protection Roman tradition gave to Judaism by virtue of its antiquity. Corinth’s dedication to the imperial cult might potentially render suspect nonparticipants who lacked the excuse accorded to the Jewish community as members of an ancient religion. Others, however, doubt that the governor was enforcing imperial worship in Corinth, where commitment to Rome was not much in question.
18:14. A Roman magistrate’s first decision was whether to accept a charge and so decide a case. Gallio’s wording in 18:14-15 fits standard Roman legal usage.
18:15. Although some Corinthian Jews were likely Roman (and Corinthian) citizens, most would be considered resident aliens. Gallio dismisses the case. Roman courts decided violations of Roman law; but various individual edicts throughout the empire had given Jewish courts jurisdiction over internal Jewish affairs, and Gallio is not about to meddle in them. Gallio thus accepts Paul’s religion as a variant form of Judaism, rather than a new and illegal religion (religio illicita). Although precedent was not binding in Roman law, it was important and could be followed by other provincial governors; if involved in legal cases, Luke’s Christian readers can cite this case on their own behalf.
18:16. That Gallio “drove them away” (NASB), perhaps with the force of his lictors’ (attendants’) rods, betrays more than a tinge of Roman impatience for Jewish religious disputes. Many upper-class Romans viewed Jews as uncultured troublemakers, classing them alongside other religions from Syria and Egypt (cf. 16:20-21). The emperor’s own action in 18:2 would give free rein to other *Gentiles’ disrespect of Jewish people.
18:17. Law courts (especially if held at the forum, or agora) were typically loud and crowded, and tempers flared. Luke may mean that the Jewish community disciplined a leader who was a Christian sympathizer (if this is the same Sosthenes as in 1 Cor 1:1—it was a somewhat common name), or that they beat their leader for getting them into political trouble. Or Luke may mean that, given Gallio’s expression of his anti-Jewish sentiments, some local Gentiles felt free to vent their own. Other Roman officials had encouraged or done worse. Crowds often became unruly during public hearings, though they would normally lead to violence in front of the governor himself only if he were thought sympathetic to the abusers’ cause. If the synagogue officials had publicly charged Paul to dissociate themselves from a potential troublemaker (cf. 19:33-34), the plot backfired.
18:18. On the naming of Priscilla before her husband here, see comment on 18:26. Cenchrea was Corinth’s port on the Aegean side of the isthmus; it also harbored temples of Isis, Artemis, Aphrodite, Asclepius and Poseidon. Travel was easier, faster and cheaper by ship than by land. But ships were generally meant as cargo transports, so seafarers had to bring their own food and bedding.
Some pagan priests (e.g., of Isis) shaved their heads; hence a pagan observer who did not know Paul could have taken him for such a priest (in view of the Isis temple in Cenchrea). But Jewish people shaved their heads after completing a Nazirite vow, and Paul’s faith in Jesus had not diminished his own Jewishness in the least (21:23-24). Technically one shaved at the completion of the vow when offering sacrifice (Num 6:18), thus in Jerusalem. Paul may have shaved before a vow fulfilled later in Jerusalem in Acts 18:22 (if he stopped in Jerusalem) or two years later in 21:17-26. Or Paul may have taken a less Jerusalem-centered approach of *Diaspora (non-Palestinian) Jews who had not the time or money to travel to Jerusalem very frequently. Even in Judea, one could vow to abstain from various matters (here, cutting one’s hair) without it being a technical Nazirite vow (see comment on Mt 26:29).
18:19. Ephesus was the leading city in the Roman province of Asia and the governor’s seat. Many centuries old by this period, it may have held at least a hundred thousand people in Paul’s day (many estimate even twice that number). It was often ranked the fourth city in the empire. It hosted many foreigners, and a recent economic elite not dependent on ancestral nobility. The Jewish community had long held rights there as Ephesians (*Josephus, Against Apion 2.39).
18:20-21. “If God wills” was a standard statement of pious Greeks and some Jews.
18:22. Summer winds were generally northerly but often east of north, which made Caesarea easier to reach by ship than Antioch’s port city of Seleucia. But because Antioch was such a major destination (probably the empire’s third largest city), sailing to Caesarea, only to walk more than two hundred miles north to Antioch, seems out of the way. Many commentators thus suspect that Paul stopped in Jerusalem as well (thus “went up” to greet the church—Jerusalem being in the hills), though this is not explicit (in the Greek; it is reasonably added in some translations). (The Roman province of “Syria” in 18:18 can include Judea; see Lk 2:2-3.)
18:23. The general time of year seems fairly clear: only by late spring or early summer was the land route open from Antioch through the Cilician Gates (a pass in the Taurus mountains) on into Galatia and Phrygia; it would become impassable again in winter.
18:24. Many Alexandrian Jews had names compounded with “Apollo,” a prominent Greek god (Apollos might be a contraction for Apollonius). As in other ancient uses of the term, “eloquent” (NASB) or “learned” (NIV) most likely means “formally skilled in *rhetoric,” the more practical form of advanced learning to which well-to-do pupils could attain (the other was philosophy).
Alexandria, the empire’s largest city after Rome, may have had the largest Jewish community in the empire outside Syria-Palestine, with numerous synagogues. For the most part, however, only Greeks (perhaps a third of the residents) were citizens of Alexandria. The Jewish aristocracy (including *Philo) had worked hard to be culturally acceptable to the Greek privileged class, and they resented their own inferior status. (Most of the ethnocentric Greeks in Alexandria despised Jews and Egyptians, who made up the other possibly two-thirds of their city; thus they spoke of “Alexandria near Egypt.”) Later, the clash of cultures and oppression of Jews ultimately led to a Jewish revolt—and the massacre of the Jewish community.
18:25. Scholars disagree whether “fervent in spirit” (NASB) refers to Apollos’s own spirit or to him being fervent in God’s *Spirit. Although the matter is debated, early Christian usage and context might favor the latter.
18:26. Normally husbands were named first, unless the wife was of higher status, but Priscilla (the formal form of which is “Prisca,” as in Paul’s letters) is named first twice as often in the *New Testament as Aquila. Her role here is fairly unusual by ancient standards (enough that it drew notice from some ancient commentators and apparent discomfort in the later Western text). Although most men in Mediterranean antiquity resented women speaking in public and generally did not respect women teaching, Priscilla teaches privately, and many men did recognize exceptions for exceptional women.
18:27-28. Letters of recommendation were standard in Greco-Roman society (see comment on 9:2). Apollos’s learning might well appeal to the educated elite of the Corinthian church (see the introduction to 1 Corinthians). *Rhetoric (see comment on 18:24) was highly prized in urban Greco-Roman society, notably in Corinth.
19:1. Ephesus afforded an opportunity to influence all of Asia (not meaning the continent, but the Roman province “Asia” in what is now western Turkey). It was the most populous city of the most prosperous and populated province in the empire. Although Pergamum remained the official capital of Asia, Ephesus became the chief city with the real seat of provincial administration. Some argue that Paul’s approach by the “upper country” (NASB) means that he took a higher road further north, one that would lead to the Cestrus valley, rather than the customary route by the Lycus and Meander valleys. Highland travel could avoid the intense heat of the lowlands if the travel were in summer.
“*Disciples” means adherents or students, here perhaps of John (19:3; but cf. 18:25). The Roman world was cosmopolitan, and other Palestinian Jews also settled in Ephesus, which had a large, ancient and influential Jewish community.
19:2. They had to have heard something about the Holy Spirit (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10), though they had not heard that the Spirit had come (cf. Jn 7:39). In most of ancient Judaism and in Luke-Acts, the *Holy Spirit is the Spirit who inspired the prophets. Paul can somehow tell these disciples lack this measure of inspiration, despite much sound knowledge (18:25).
19:3-5. For John’s *baptism, see comment on Mark 1:5; for baptism in Jesus’ name, see comment on Acts 2:38. Water sources were widely available in and near Ephesus. The Selinus River passed the Artemisium; probably more accessible were Ephesus’ many public baths and fountains (other cities also had these).
19:6-7. The tongues and *prophecy, as inspired speech, evidence their reception of the Spirit of prophecy; see comment on 19:2.
19:8-9. Established philosophers and other teachers often lectured in rented halls; this could have been a guild hall, but because it is named for a person it seems likelier a “lecture hall” (NIV), where Tyrannus is the landlord or (somewhat more probably) the customary lecturer. “Tyrannus” (a common name in Ephesus) might be a nickname, perhaps for a severe teacher. Public life in Ephesus, including philosophical lectures, ended by noon; most people in antiquity rested for one or two hours at midday, and advanced education lectures might finish by 11 a.m. Thus if Tyrannus lectured in the mornings Paul used it in the afternoons (perhaps doing manual labor in the mornings, cf. 20:34). In any case, residents of Ephesus would view Paul as a philosopher or sophist (professional public speaker). Many early Greco-Roman observers thought that Christians were a religious association or club (like other such associations in antiquity), or a philosophical school that took the form of a such an association. To outsiders, groups that taught ethics and lacked the sacrifices and idols characteristic of most religious groups could appear like philosophic schools.
19:10. Ancient audiences would understand the *hyperbole of “all Asia” (cf. 19:17, 20); such hyperbole fits frequent ancient usage. Nevertheless, in antiquity travelers did spread word quickly around a region; Luke reiterates the theme in 19:17 and 19:20. Ephesus genuinely was a cosmopolitan center from which word would spread quickly, especially if Paul were training disciples (as philosophers and *rabbis typically did) and sending them out to spread the message.
19:11-12. Paul’s “handkerchiefs and aprons” (NIV) could be rags tied around his head to catch sweat and his work aprons tied around his waist (cf. 20:34; or, less commonly suggested, pieces of his teaching uniform); some suggest that they were taken without his knowledge. Although practitioners of *magic might try to use materials associated with a powerful person, Luke repudiates magic in the following context (19:13-19). Sometimes power was communicated by contact even in the *Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings 13:21); if contact in the Old Testament communicated uncleanness, it could also be used to communicate God’s power (cf. Num 27:23; Deut 34:9; 2 Kings 4:29). Cf. Acts 5:15.
Although some Ephesians who knew no better may have regarded Paul as a magician, God seems to have healed them anyway to draw their attention to his message (19:11-12); but God did not bless unauthorized use of Jesus’ name. Ephesus was widely reputed for its trade in *magic and the need for exorcisms and protection against evil spirits.
19:13. Magic was widespread, but Ephesus had a reputation as one of its centers. Magical exorcists often invoked the names of higher spirits to cast out lower ones. According to magical theory, exorcists could coerce a deity or spirit to do their will by invoking its name. Exorcists sometimes “adjured” spirits (cf. comment on Mk 5:7). Ancient magical texts show that many exorcists were Jewish or drew on some knowledge of Judaism, and these texts include every possible permutation of vowels as guesses for pronouncing the unpronounced name of God (cf. comment on 2:20-21). Others invoked Solomon’s name in expelling *demons (*Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 8.47). Some later ancient magical texts invoked the name of Jesus alongside other formulas, recognizing, as do the exorcists in this *narrative, its efficacy when employed by Christians to expel demons.
19:14. “Sceva” is a Latin name; although Judeans used “*high priest” loosely for the highest members of the priestly aristocracy, it is possible that Sceva simply appropriated the title for himself, since few in the *Diaspora could have easily checked. Inscriptions and texts testify to other irregularities in Jewish priestly claims outside Jewish Palestine. Because Jewish chief priests would be thought to have access to the sacred name (v. 13) and hidden names, especially of the supreme god, were thought to wield great power in magical circles, Sceva is probably highly reputed in those circles. “Sons” could mean they were part of Sceva’s guild, although it is probably meant literally.
19:15. Spirits behind oracles could grant recognition to inquirers (cf. 16:17); these spirits instead insult the exorcists. Ancient literature reports that demons were typically unimpressed with orders from those who had no power over them, although they feared God and could be controlled by the manipulation of spirits more powerful than themselves (who may have appreciated the influence this gave them with the magicians).
19:16-17. Paul has more power than the magicians (cf. Gen 41:8, 39; Ex 7:11). Both in antiquity and today, some of those thought to be spirit-possessed can act violently, sometimes demonstrating feats of pain immunity or unnatural strength.
19:18. When people recognize that Paul’s Jesus cannot be manipulated like lower spirits, they understand that he is a servant of God and not a mere magician. Some translate “confessing practices” (NASB, NRSV) as “divulging spells,” a possible meaning; divulging secret spells was believed to deprive them of their power.
19:19-20. Magical *papyri contained spells; Luke’s term “books” or “scrolls” (NIV) may refer to such papyri. Briefer charms were rolled up in small cylinders or lockets used as amulets around the neck. These magical incantations were so common in Ephesus that some concise magical terms used in charms and amulets were apparently called Ephesia grammata, or Ephesian writings. Books were commonly burned in antiquity to repudiate their contents (in the *Old Testament, cf. analogously the destruction of idols in Deut 7:5, 25; 1 Chron 14:12). The total price of what is burned comes out to about fifty thousand days’ wages for an average worker.
Ancient writers sometimes had statements outlining the rest of the book (this one resembles Lk 9:51), though clearly Paul also did have these plans (Rom 15:24-26). Luke shows that Paul had already planned to leave Ephesus before he knew that trouble was coming (19:23-41), and also sets the pace for the rest of the book, outlined as one more trip through Greece, then to Rome via Jerusalem. Joshua served Moses, Elisha served Elijah, and Gehazi served Elisha; sages in a later period (esp. rabbis) also sometimes expected disciples to serve them. If this is the same person, Erastus may have been the aedile, or commissioner of public works, in Corinth for a time (see comment on Rom 16:23); if so, this text shows that status in the *kingdom and in the world are not determined on the same terms.
When Jewish people could show that not they but their enemies started riots, they could appeal for the government’s reaffirmation of their rights; Luke is emphatic that not Paul but his enemies started the riot. As often, religious piety becomes a thin cloak for personal economic interests. The temple of Artemis served as a bank as well as a temple, and people from all over the world deposited funds there. Amassing significant wealth, the temple apparently controlled more than seventy thousand acres of agricultural land, and some of the temple’s wealth benefitted the city itself. About A.D. 44 (roughly a decade before Paul’s arrival), inscriptions there show that the proconsul had to get involved in the temple treasury due to some serious financial irregularities: temple monies were being funneled to private individuals. In Ephesus, politics and religion were as heavily intertwined as religion and economics, and local civic pride was inseparable from the worship of the Ephesian Artemis.
19:23. The month of Artemis’s reputed birth was called Artemisium and hosted a major festival in her honor, at which Asiarchs (see comment on 19:30-31) would be present (v. 31). Some scholars have suggested that this narrative makes the most sense if it happened at that time; although this theory is possible, loyalty to Artemis ran strong all year long, and processions from Ephesus went out to the temple once or twice a month. The Asiarchs who knew Paul best were those who resided in Ephesus anyway.
19:24-25. Ephesus was growing rapidly, the most prominent city in the empire’s wealthiest province. “Demetrius” was a common name in Ephesus and elsewhere. Metalworkers were usually of low status, though in Ephesus some craftsmen joined the rising class of new and even respected wealth. Members of the same trade united to form professional guilds, or collegia, which set standards for their own trade and united to defend their economic interests. Gathering them would not be difficult, since members of similar trades normally lived in the same section of a city; silversmiths’ shops in Ephesus were probably close to the theater, apparently on what was later called Arkadiane Street, the full half-kilometer length of which ran from the harbor to the theater (on which see 19:29). Miniature shrines were made as souvenirs and amulets; most of the ones we know about were terra cotta, so Demetrius was probably one of the most prestigious shrine-makers. Demetrius’s guild may be that of silversmiths or metalworkers more generally, many of whom did make statuettes of Artemis. Small gold and silver images of Artemis weighing three to seven pounds were dedicated in her temple. Sculptures and other artwork featuring Artemis were common in Ephesus.
19:26. “Not gods at all” was the refrain of Isaiah (e.g., 37:19; 44:9-20; 46:1-11), other prophets (Jer 2:11) and Judaism. Although Demetrius exaggerates (the way ancient audiences expected demagogues to do), mass conversions could have a local impact. By the early second century the Roman governor of a nearby province complained that the temples of the gods were being forsaken due to conversions to Christianity. After the arrest of many Christians, the governor reported, more people did buy animals for sacrifices again (Pliny, Epistles 10.96).
19:27. In the view of many intellectuals, speakers who manipulated religious emotion without offering evidence were demagogues; nevertheless, orators often sought to stir indignation against their enemies. Ephesus did not take well to anyone insulting their patron goddess; earlier, forty-five residents of Sardis accused of assaulting a group of followers of the Ephesian Artemis received the death penalty. Artemis, Ephesus’ patron deity, appears on coins and many statues from Ephesus. “The world worships” reflects the fact that the Ephesian Artemis, distinct from other forms of Artemis, had cult centers dedicated to her in at least thirty-three places in the Mediterranean world. Her fame is widely attested in antiquity: she commanded followers in visions to spread her cult; her temple, on a platform that measured 130 by 70 meters, was roughly four times the size of the Parthenon in Athens and was listed as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world; Jewish texts also mention her temple. It was a mile and a half northeast of Ephesus proper. Ironically, Artemis’s worshipers depicted her as compassionate, and her temple was to be a place of refuge even for foreigners.
19:28. Riots and unrest were common in Asia Minor’s cities in this period. Crying out “Great is [such and such a deity]” seems to have been a standard way of expressing devotion. People could be worked into a frenzy, chanting together. Ephesians often employed the title, “great goddess Artemis,” and used the acclamation reported here and others like it.
19:29. News and trouble spread quickly in ancient cities, which were very crowded (at least in Rome, perhaps two hundred people per acre, a population density found today in the West only in slums). Evidence currently suggests that silversmiths worked in a business district on the road between the harbor and the theater; the street would be crowded during the day, and, more clearly, the large market near the theater would be full of people. Thus one could easily stir a large portion of the populace before entering the theater. The citizen assembly held its normal meetings in this open-air theater, which in this period accommodated some twenty thousand people, was almost five hundred feet in diameter and contained many statues of deities. This was not a regularly scheduled assembly of the citizens, but some, assuming that officials had summoned the crowd, may have believed it was a special assembly.
19:30-31. Asiarchs were the most prominent men of the province; former Asiarchs retained the title, and some filled the office more than once. Many lived in Ephesus; of more than two hundred Asiarchs known from over the course of antiquity, over half came from or were related to Ephesus alone. Because of their elite status, some of them had probably also presided in one-year terms over the cult of the emperor and the goddess Roma. Different cities in the Greek East competed for the honor of having the largest imperial cult, so its priests were important to local civic pride. They had authority over the theater, but here they cannot quell this riot; they can only try to stop their Jewish Christian friend from entering. In accordance with Roman customs, they may have viewed their “friendship” with Paul in terms of providing him support as patrons; the wealthy often enhanced their public reputation by acting as patrons of arts or respected teachers. Benefactors acted in return for honor. The public controversy, however, risks their embarrassment, inhibiting Paul’s entrance; they may count it more prudent to work through the town clerk (19:35), a member of their class.
19:32. Greek comedy frequently parodied people’s stupidity; Luke’s hearers could laugh at the crowd not knowing the purpose of their rioting (cf. 21:34), even though this ignorance characterizes mob psychology well. Luke may employ the Greek term for “citizen assembly” here ironically: it is in fact a mob, not a legal gathering (v. 39). In addition to its regularly scheduled gatherings, the citizen assembly could have emergency meetings, which some participants in the present gathering may assume has happened.
19:33-34. Ancient sources confirm that securing a hearing in a noisy assembly was difficult. Various cities had taken action against their resident Jewish populations at times, and Jewish people in Roman Asia sometimes had to offer defenses of their rights. They were normally careful not to offend the local residents, and Alexander no doubt intends to explain that the Jewish community did not instigate the current confusion; they want to dissociate themselves from this more controversial monotheist (cf. 19:9, 26). But Greek anti-Judaism was common and *Gentiles often resented Jewish monotheism and dietary “separatism.” The knowledge that the Jewish community accepted only one God leads to the assumption that the Jewish community instead wishes to explain their responsibility for the riot. (This event may help explain the Asian Jewish community’s dislike for Paul in 21:27.) Controversial public trials were also often punctuated with shouts.
19:35-36. The clerk here makes a deliberative speech, intended to change the mob’s course of action (v. 36). The “city clerk” (NIV) was the top civic official in Ephesus, who made known the citizen assembly’s rulings and represented the city to the Roman provincial officials also headquartered in Ephesus. Civic pride was common in the cities of Asia Minor, and praising a city was common in the opening of a civic speech. Slightly later sources from Ephesus show that it prided itself on being “guardian” of the imperial cult; no less did the city pride itself on being wardens of their famous local cult.
Other statues worshiped in ancient Asia Minor also purportedly fell from heaven. No records survive of this claim for Ephesus’s Artemis image; the clerk might even be simply currying favor with the religiously motivated crowd. Luke’s own audience might laugh at what “everyone” here supposedly “knows”; they understand that rather than falling from heaven, the statue was “made by hands” (19:26). The bulbous appendages on the statue have been variously identified as breasts, castrated appendages, fruits, or bee or ostrich eggs; these interpretations suggest an Asian fertility goddess related to the local mother goddess and quite different from the Greek virgin Artemis. (Other scholars suggest that the objects represent planets, which fits the picture of Artemis as deliverer from Fate and its astrological agents.) Whatever the appendages are, literary sources show that in this period the Ephesian Artemis remained the virgin huntress of traditional Greek religion.
19:37. “Temple robbery” was considered one of the most impious of crimes, a capital offense, and the term eventually came to stand for sacrilege in a broader sense. Some Jewish apologists claimed that Jewish people did not mock other deities (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 4.207; Against Apion 2.237; *Philo, Life of Moses 2.205), but many Jewish people did mock them (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon 13:10–14:7). In Greek, the masculine noun for deity with a feminine definite article here seems strange, but inscriptions reveal that Ephesians sometimes used precisely this form for their patron goddess Artemis.
19:38. The proconsul met with the gatherings of citizens on various days in nine different cities of the province, hence was available in Ephesus only on particular days; from the wording some suspect that he was in Ephesus at the time. Each province had only one proconsul, but some think that Luke may use the plural because the proconsul of Ephesus had recently died (A.D. 54), after which several officials carried out his administrative functions till the new proconsul arrived. Alternatively, it could simply be a generalizing plural. Publicly naming Demetrius would shame him before the assembly; Demetrius might try to recoup honor by bringing charges (19:38) and certainly by depicting himself as defender of the Artemis cult. The city clerk’s source of information may be from Paul’s Asiarch benefactors (19:31), who would belong to the clerk’s social circle.
19:39. A later source suggests that this assembly met three times a month. Rome allowed Ephesus to hold public meetings legally, having granted it the title of a “free” city. The lawful gathering of the citizen assembly, however, differed significantly from a mob (as here): the former met with Rome’s favor, but the latter could lead to Roman disciplinary measures against the city (in principle even revocation of their status as a free city).
19:40-41. Other examples show that leaders of cities warned their people that Rome would hear of their riots; other riots are recorded as having happened in Ephesus, although Rome never did withdraw their privileges. But the special privileges Ephesus enjoyed as a “free city” (including its own senate) depended completely on Rome’s favor, and other cities had had such privileges revoked. A famous late-first-century *rhetorician named Dio Chrysostom warned the citizens of another Asian city that those who abused the right of free speech had that right taken away.
The *narratives of Acts 20 and 27 presuppose correct data on the length of travel between the places listed and take into account seasonal wind patterns and so forth. In short, they read like the report of an eyewitness.
20:1-2. Hinted in Acts only at 24:17 but clear in his letters, Paul’s purpose is to collect the offering of the Macedonian (Philippi, Thessalonica) and Achaian (Corinth) *churches to help the poor Christians in Jerusalem, to demonstrate the unity of Jewish and *Gentile Christians (see comment on Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:1, 5; 2 Cor 8–9). He may have gone through Illyricum from Macedonia’s Via Egnatia (Rom 15:19; cf. comment on Acts 16:9); if so, many months pass before he reaches Achaia.
20:3. The three months may be three winter months, during which travel was difficult. Paul wrote Romans from this area (Rom 15:26-28). Although some sailors and shipowners were Jewish, most were Gentiles. On a ship to Syria, however, many travelers may have been Jewish—especially if the ship planned to reach Syria by Passover (Judea was part of the Roman province of Syria); cf. Acts 20:6. Travel to Philippi may have consumed two weeks if they traveled on foot; Paul will miss Passover but still has time to reach Jerusalem for the next major pilgrimage festival, Pentecost (20:16).
20:4. *Disciples often traveled with teachers, More relevantly here, just as prominent representatives from each of the Jewish communities would bring the annual temple tax to Jerusalem, so Paul has traveling companions from different Christian communities serving the poor in Jerusalem (20:1-2; cf. earlier, 2 Cor 8:18-24). This offering would show the Jerusalem church that the Gentile Christians still recognize the Jewishness of their faith (see Rom 15:26-27). Travelers, including pilgrims headed for Jerusalem, often voyaged in groups, especially those carrying much money (including those carrying the temple tax).
20:5-6. The “we” picks up where it left off; Paul had left Luke in Philippi (16:10-17). They spend the week in Philippi for the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. When one adds the remaining days (with parts of days reckoned as wholes, as generally in antiquity) presumed in the narrative, from their arrival in Philippi to their arrival in Jerusalem requires over thirty days. Thus they would arrive in Jerusalem before Pentecost (fifty days after Passover) in time for this one of the three major pilgrimage festivals (20:16). “Five days” (i.e., parts of five—perhaps four) was a slow voyage to Troas (16:11) but may include the half-day land journey from Philippi to Neapolis. Paul’s letters show that at some point he had founded a church at Troas.
20:7. Most religious associations in the Greco-Roman world met together once a month. Although some early Christians may have met daily (2:46), at some point they began meeting especially on the first day of the week (Sunday), probably because of the *resurrection (Lk 24:1) and to avoid conflicting with *synagogue gatherings on the sabbath (Saturday).
This may be a special meeting, because Paul is leaving the next day. Christians may have often met early, before sunrise, but would have to work Sunday mornings like everyone else in the empire; so this meeting may have have begun late Sunday afternoon or Saturday at sunset. It depends on whether one reckons days from midnight to midnight, like the Romans and modern Westerners, or from sundown to sundown, like ancient Jews. In the former case, the first day means Sunday; in the latter, it started on what we consider Saturday evening. Most likely, this meeting began Sunday evening and ended Monday morning. Whatever view one takes, because most people went to bed not long after sunset, midnight was well into one’s sleeping time. (Lacking electric lighting, people usually rose at sunrise, hence most people did not stay up late.) Long speeches were common in antiquity—though not usually at night! Paul wants to impart as much insight as possible before his departure the next day.
20:8. Lamps would be needed in night meetings. Scholars sometimes speculate that the odor or heat of the oil lamps may have helped produce drowsiness; more likely, the lamps showed that the meeting had taken the best precautions available against sleep. Most homes did not have so many lamps, so people have come ready and eager for Paul’s long night of teaching.
20:9. Open windows were generally blocked off in the winter, but during summer one could sit in a large one to cool off. (Only a very few windows in this period had glass; they were especially rare in the eastern Mediterranean.) Either the heat from the lamps (midnight in April at Troas was not normally hot) or likelier the crowdedness of the room had forced Eutychus to take a window seat. Many looked down on pupils falling asleep (though lectures were normally in mornings, not at midnight!). Homes in much of the empire were a single story, but they were often in apartment buildings with two or more stories in more crowded urban areas. While most apartment dwellings were small, they might have met (with residents’ approval) in the long hall (with windows) that connected the apartments. This is a fall from what the British would call the second floor (which most languages call the “third floor”), which is not necessarily fatal; but someone who was sound asleep could not break one’s fall.
20:10. For Paul’s action, cf. 1 Kings 17:21-22 and 2 Kings 4:34-35.
20:11-12. When people had not seen each other for a long time, it was common to stay up late filling each other in on one another’s lives.
More than many modern readers, ancient readers were often interested in travel details; educated people knew many of these locations. As elsewhere, Luke’s travel details (e.g., the sequence of locations and the length of time spent traveling between them in view of seasonal wind patterns) fit the geography precisely, as one could expect for an eyewitness account.
20:13. Assos, the best harbor between Troas and Adramyttium, was about twenty miles directly overland from Alexandria Troas, the main port; this was about a day’s journey on foot. The actual road, however, was not direct; following the coast, it was closer to thirty-eight miles. We can only speculate why Paul chose the land route, though walking would be cheaper than buying passage on a boat.
20:14. Mitylene was the largest city on the island of Lesbos, with two functioning harbors. Sailing in from the north, they would have come to the deeper northern harbor, near a smaller island that contained part of Mitylene’s population.
20:15. They take the customary sea route, across from the large island of Chios (probably near Cape Argennum. From Chios it was quicker to sail by the island of Samos and straight to Miletus, rather than cutting in toward the Asian coast to Ephesus. They put in at the Lion Harbor at Miletus, which sported a temple of Apollo; the city also had a sizable Jewish community (as did Samos, where the worship of Aphrodite and Isis was prominent).
20:16-17. Waiting for messengers to bring elders from Ephesus would require a minimum of four days. Various reasons for Paul avoiding Ephesus are possible, including any or all of the following. Their ship had avoided the busy harbor of Ephesus, which was out of the way by the route across Chios and Samos; this ship may have been the only one available going the right direction and with room for all, but had not been going to their exact destination; or the captain could have changed plans. Perhaps more likely, hospitality obligations would risk detaining him in Ephesus. Although Luke does not mention it, some of Paul’s elite supporters or former supporters may have felt that it was better for both Paul and his supporters if he remained away from the city (19:23–20:1; esp. 19:38; cf. 21:27 and comment on 19:31).
The land route for messengers to reach Ephesus was over thirty miles, so they would have to travel quickly to arrive by Paul’s third day; for those who could leave their work, to do so would be a big sacrifice. But Paul’s mission to Jerusalem was urgent; he needed to present the offering at a festival, when Jerusalem would be full and this symbol of the church’s ethnic unity would make the loudest statement. It may have also appeared safer for Paul and his Gentile guests. After Pentecost, it would be three months before the next major pilgrimage festival.
Farewell speeches developed a standard form in antiquity. (Jewish “testaments,” in which a dying or departing figure left important, wise instructions for his children or followers, were one specific kind of farewell speech; against some scholars, they are less relevant here, because Paul bids farewell rather than dies at the end of the speech.) The language of the speech is more like Paul’s than Luke’s. Although historians tended to rewrite speeches in their own words, regular *rhetorical training included practice in imitating others’ styles (prosopopoia). Because Luke presumably had little access to most of Paul’s letters (they were not collected from various churches till long after Paul’s death), he must have learned Paul’s style from direct contact with him. In this case the speech includes even Pauline phraseology and possibly undeveloped hints of the Scripture texts he used, supporting an eyewitness account (he alludes in 20:26 to Ezek 33, and probably in Acts 20:28-29 to Ezek 34:1-8). Ancient speakers were expected to avoid self-praise except in special circumstances such as offering a positive example. The endearing language of the speech fits other intimate speeches (like philosophic discourse to disciples), and the emotional “pathos” was appropriate to farewell speeches.
20:18-19. Appeals to what an audience already knew were common. Many philosophers customarily appealed to their hearers in endearing terms, such as Paul uses here, and reminded them that any reproofs were given as signs of true friendship, as opposed to the flattery of false friends. That this language was common means only that it was culturally relevant to the hearers’ needs, not that it was merely an empty *rhetorical form; Paul and most others who used such language also meant it sincerely. Likewise orators often employed moving emotional language, but many who spoke with emotion also felt it. In ancient rhetoric, noting one’s misfortunes or struggles against adversity could help dispose audiences well toward oneself.
20:20-21. Moralists often emphasized that they were frank and withheld nothing needed for their hearers’ benefit. Ancients often conceptualized the world in private (domestic) and public spheres; the best sages were thought able to address both. Romans considered what was only private to be potentially subversive, but Paul spoke publicly as well.
20:22. True intellectual heroes in Greco-Roman tradition were those who believed their teaching so much that they were willing to die for it. Paul stands in the *Old Testament prophetic tradition of speaking God’s message no matter what the cost, but he also presents his message in a manner that resonates with the best in his hearers’ culture.
20:23. “The *Holy Spirit’s testimony” surely includes prophecies (21:4); early Judaism viewed the Spirit especially as the agent that had inspired the prophets.
20:24. Farewell speeches often explained the need that compelled one’s departure. “Finish the course” (e.g., NASB) or “finish the race” (NIV) is an athletic image; philosophers and moralists often used such images to describe their own mission (cf. GNT).
20:25-27. The image of secondhand guilt for someone’s blood is common in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut 21:1-9), but here Paul refers especially to the watchman who does not warn the wicked to turn from his or her way (Ezek 3:18-20; esp. 33:8-9). If Paul is explaining a text, it would not be surprising to proceed to the shepherd image of Ezekiel 34 in Acts 20:28-29.
20:28. “Overseer” was usually a Greek term for a ruling officer, but it appears in the same sense in the *LXX, and the *Dead Sea Scrolls include a Hebrew equivalent. The image of shepherd as a leader (ideally a benevolent one) was pervasive in antiquity, but those schooled in Scripture would think especially of Old Testament language for the leaders of God’s people. God would call shepherds to account for how they watched over his flock; see Ezekiel 34:1-8 and comment on John 10:1-18. “Take heed” was standard language for moral exhortations.
20:29-30. Both figuratively and literally, ancients often contrasted predatory wolves with helpless sheep, which the shepherd (20:28) must defend. “Wolves” were viewed as treacherous, unfaithful, deceptive, and greedy for plunder or to exploit in other ways. Jesus had warned of false prophets, and Jewish *apocalyptic texts foresaw great trials for the righteous before the end.
20:31. Exhortation often appealed to people to remember. “Night and day” was a standard way of saying “all the time”; parts of a night and of a day could be reckoned as the whole, and “three years” includes a year and at least parts of two others (cf. 19:8-10). Good public speakers were supposed to feel their speeches enough to express proper emotion and to move the crowds emotionally; both might be moved to tears.
20:32. Jewish people believed that they had been “set apart” by God’s covenant. “An inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (NASB) (i.e., “set apart,” “separated” or “consecrated” for God) refers to the Jewish hope that God’s people would inherit the world to come, just as Israel had “inherited” the Promised Land. Paul applies this language to the believers present.
20:33. Philosophers were often accused of seeking personal monetary gain, and many (especially those who acted from sincere motives) had to deny it, providing supporting evidence for their denial. “Clothes” (NASB) were part of one’s substance in the ancient East, just as silver coins were.
20:34. Sages sometimes presented themselves as examples or models. Working with one’s hands was not humiliating to an artisan, but in most cities the small upper class (who drew their income from landowning) and most of the philosophical elite despised manual labor. Many *rabbis had trades, but philosophers preferred charging fees, sponging off rich *patrons or (especially in the case of *Cynics) begging. The motives of those who gave freely (what ancients called benefaction) were harder to question, as philosophers who lived off charity and moralists who demanded no return often pointed out. In Ephesus Paul’s manual labor may have generated less concern than elsewhere; Ephesus had both many wealthy artisans and a rising class of nouveau riche, gradually supplanting the earlier elite class.
20:35. One could close a speech by quoting a familiar maxim. Cf. Luke 6:20-21, 24-25, 35, 38.
20:36-38. Brief kisses might be used in momentary greetings, but repeated kissing and embraces were signs of great affection, such as one would bestow on a family member, a dear teacher or a close friend; thus Paul had bonded deeply with these Christians (cf. 1 Sam 20:41; comment on Rom 16:16). Although some Romans and Greek philosophers believed that it was not proper for men to cry, narrative sources often report it in moving circumstances, such as a sad parting. Narratives sometimes thereby use pathos to emphasize how the persons they describe valued each other (e.g., 1 Sam 20:41). Accompanying a departing loved one to the ship displayed affection.
21:1-2. They put into Cos overnight; a small island, it was on the usual route to Rhodes and had a large Jewish community. (Its chief coastal city was also named Cos.) Wealthy and famous Rhodes was a regular stopping place for ships; its capital bore the same name as the island, and had an influential Jewish community. It had one of the best harbors; on the island’s northeast, it faced Patara and was very accessible from Cos to its northwest. Alexandrian grain ships hugging close to the coast of southern Asia Minor frequently made tedious stops at each port, due to the uncertainty of land breezes; thus after they have put in at the prominent Lycian port of Patara in southern Asia Minor, Paul and his companions find a larger ship sailing across open water directly for Phoenicia, cutting along the south of Cyprus, still under a slight time constraint (20:16). Patara was a major port from which Alexandrian grain ships voyaged to Rome (though less significant than Myra, 27:5). At Patara they found a larger ship that could sail the 350 miles (roughly 550 km) across the open sea to Tyre (a voyage of perhaps four or five days) without hugging the coast and putting into many small ports.
21:3. The southern shore of Cyprus, by which they passed, was shallow and had no harbors, so the ship did not try to put in there. The Roman province of Syria included not only Antioch to the north but also Phoenicia and Judea to the south; they had saved considerable time by sailing across the open sea toward Tyre, which would provide safe harbor throughout the year. A large ship could take a month to unload fully; apparently this one takes a week (21:4-6).
21:4. Tyre was just two days’ walk from Ptolemais, so mere ship’s delays were not what kept them there. Jewish people and Christians could expect hospitality from other members of their groups wherever they traveled; it was an expected part of their culture, honored their host and was an incomparably superior alternative to spending the night in inns, which usually doubled as brothels.
In light of the standard Jewish view that God’s *Spirit especially inspired *prophecy, prophecy is surely somehow involved in their exhortation. Yet this phrase is not Luke’s usual description of prophecy and probably indicates that they were simply warning him not to go on the basis of their prophecies about what would happen (20:23; 21:11). Ancients recognized that prophecies were often ambiguous; among Greeks, they were sometimes virtually riddles. Interpretations of prophecies could be fallible (cf. Jer 35:5; Lk 7:19-20). In Elisha’s day, other prophets recognized that Elijah would soon depart (2 Kings 2:3, 5, 7), but their understanding was incomplete (2 Kings 2:15-18); Elijah and Elisha had the fuller understanding (2 Kings 2:2, 4, 6, 9-10), as does Paul here (Acts 21:13-14).
21:5-6. Tyre was known for its smooth sand beaches.
21:7. Greetings were a prominent part of ancient Mediterranean culture. Ptolemais was some thirty miles (roughly 48 km) south of Tyre. Ptolemy II had made Ptolemais, a strong fortress once named Acco, an important harbor. It had been under Roman control for over a century, but Claudius had made it a Roman *colony just recently, in A.D. 51. Jewish people as well as *Gentiles lived there (*Josephus, Jewish War 2.477)
21:8. Caesarea was thirty to (more commonly estimated) forty miles south of Ptolemais, and if the text suggests that they made the journey in one day, they must have gone by boat. Given the nature of ancient hospitality, much time was probably spent in conversation; guests carried news, and Luke may have heard stories shared by Philip and his former persecutor Paul.
21:9. Some Gentiles associated virginity with spiritual power (as with a special Roman order of celibate women called the Vestal Virgins), but the point of “virgins” here is probably that Philip’s daughters are young, under the age of sixteen (cf. 2:17). (Palestinian Jewish women usually married fairly young, between the ages of twelve and eighteen.) The verb tense indicates that they prophesied regularly or habitually. Despite frequent gender and age prejudice in antiquity, most people did respect prophetesses. The Jewish tradition about Job’s prophetically endowed daughters (in the *Testament of Job) might be later, but it illustrates the high esteem in which such prophetesses were often held in antiquity.
21:10. Agabus “came down” from the mountainous part of Judea, including Jerusalem. Caesarea was the Roman headquarters for Judea, but Luke here uses “Judea” in the narrower sense of Jewish Palestine or the region of ancient Judah, rather than the stricter Roman sense. Caesarea had a mixed Jewish and Gentile population.
21:11. *Old Testament prophets often acted out their prophecies in ways similar to Agabus’s action here (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 27:2). Some commentators point out that the details were not all fulfilled literally (it was the Gentiles who bound him, although his accusers were Jewish), but one need not study the Old Testament prophets long before it is clear that they were allowed a large measure of poetic license, even though the essential message had to be accurate (e.g., 2 Kings 19:7, 28, 33, 35). The girdle was a long cloth wrapped around the waist several times and sometimes used as a pocket; not everyone wore them in this period.
21:12-14. Greeks and Jewish people under the influence of Greek oracular thinking saw predictive oracles especially as preventive warnings (e.g., Jer 18:7-8; Jon 3:4-10); but Paul is convinced that God wants him to face the test (see comment on 21:4). Accounts of martyrs frequently include exhortations to avoid the martyrdom (on account of age, youth, etc.); people also often urged their friends against leaving and against danger. Paul’s friends act out of love but must acknowledge his mission (v. 14).
21:15. The journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem would take two or (probably) three days; they lodge overnight with Mnason (v. 16).
21:16. Cyprus had a large Jewish community, some of whom had migrated to Jerusalem and been among the first *disciples (4:36). Mnason must be a person of means to be able to host this sizeable group (20:4-5). “Mnason” was an old Greek name; Jews more often preferred the Greek name, “Jason,” but occasionally used “Mnason” too (e.g., a later *rabbi in Rome). Mnason is thus apparently a *Hellenistic Jew; that he provides hospitality for Paul’s Gentiles is significant (see 10:23, 28). That Jewish Christians from Caesarea travel with Paul’s Gentiles underlines that church’s unity, as did Philip’s hospitality; Caesarea was bitterly and often violently divided between Jew and Gentile.
21:17. This gracious reception would necessarily include hospitality for the whole delegation—including offering lodging in Jewish Christian homes to uncircumcised *Gentile Christians (although Paul himself could have stayed with his nephew’s family—23:16). This line thus has more significance than would normally strike the modern reader (see comment on 10:28).
21:18-19. Paul delivers the collection from the Gentile Christians at this time (24:17; cf. comment on 20:1-4).
21:20-22. The Jerusalem believers accept the Gentile work but in so doing are confronted by a conflict with their culture. Jerusalem is not what it had been in Acts 2; tensions are rising, and in the temple sicarii, or assassins, are murdering aristocrats suspected of collaborating with the Gentiles. Jewish nationalism has been on the rise since the brief reign of Agrippa I (see comment on 12:1), and nationalism’s exclusivity often makes it intolerant of supposedly faithful members of its people who have fellowship with members of other peoples. Thus it is incumbent on Paul to prove the integrity of his Jewishness; he cannot compromise the Gentile mission, but he will intentionally affirm his Jewish heritage at any cost short of unbiblical exclusivism.
The Jerusalem *church is providing an effective indigenous witness within its culture, which is good; but most did not understand Paul’s valuable mission to other cultures. James says literally that “many ten thousands” of Judeans believe (v. 20)—though Palestine’s estimated Jewish population might be just half a million and the estimated number of *Pharisees just six thousand. It could be *hyperbole, but the estimated number of believers here is not implausible; Jerusalem alone may have had close to eighty thousand residents, and the surrounding Judean countryside would include far more people. James himself was martyred, along with some other *law-observers, by the *high priest a few years after this time, but his witness to his culture had been so effective that those diligent in the law (possibly Pharisees) demanded the removal of his killer from office. The rise of Judean nationalism, however, was also affecting Judean believers. Jews almost universally despised apostates from Judaism and those whose teaching was held to undermine the law. Rumors spread quickly, and those away from the centers of power (earlier, e.g., Caesar from Rome) could not readily defend their reputations.
21:23-26. These precautions are to protect Paul from false accusations, especially if he is going to move about publicly in the temple courts. Paul pays the fees for the devout Jerusalem Christians who are completing a Nazirite vow. One shaved one’s head on the seventh day if corpse impurity interrupted a vow and offered sacrifice in the temple on the eighth day (Num 6:1-21), but the minimum period of the vow according to widespread Jewish tradition in this period seems to have been thirty days, so scholars differ on the exact meaning here; that Paul is purified and helps them need not mean that he participated in their vow. Those (like Agrippa I) who used their own funds to pay the expenses of Nazirites were considered pious (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19.293-294).
Under Cumanus, the Roman governor immediately preceding Felix (23:24), a Roman soldier lewdly exposed himself in the temple area; Josephus estimated that ten thousand people were trampled to death in the ensuing riot (Jewish War 2.224-27; doubled in Antiquities). When another soldier burned a Jewish Law scroll, Cumanus acceded to the crowds’ demands and executed him (Jewish War 2.229-31). Hostility against *Gentiles and collaborators with Gentiles had been mounting, and in less than a decade would lead to a war that would produce massacres (reportedly over twenty thousand Jews slaughtered in Caesarea in an hour; Jewish War 2.457-58) and culminate in the temple’s destruction.
21:27. “Asia” means the Roman province of Asia, in what is now western Turkey. The chief city of Roman Asia was Ephesus, where Paul had incurred some enemies in the Jewish community (19:9, 33-34); thus they recognized an Ephesian Gentile in 21:29.
21:28. The temple mount consumed most of northeastern Jerusalem. Although Scripture welcomed Gentiles to the temple (1 Kings 8:41-43), a later understanding of purity led to their separation from the Court of Israel (exclusively for Jewish men) and even the Court of Women (which excluded Gentiles; Josephus, Against Apion 2.102-5). The barrier between the outer court, open to the Gentiles, and the Court of Women was about four feet high, with warning signs posted at intervals in Greek and Latin: “Any foreigner who passes this point will be responsible for their own death” (the inscriptions are reported in ancient literature and one has been found by archaeologists; cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 15.417; Jewish War 5.194; 6.125-26). This was the one offense for which Jewish authorities could execute capital punishment—even on Roman citizens—without consulting with Rome. (This special privilege was also accorded the Greek temple at Eleusis; but Rome delegated the right of execution only in rare cases like these, because local nationalists could otherwise use the penalty against Rome’s own supporters.)
21:29. Ephesus was the chief city of the Roman province of Asia, and the Jewish community there knew Paul and his companions well (19:33-34; cf. 18:19-21, 26). Although the assumption of these Jews from Asia is false, it is occasioned by Paul’s relationships with Gentile Christians, which he would not compromise.
21:30. Antipathy toward Gentiles and their collaborators was growing (and would lead to war with Rome less than a decade later). Reports of temple desecration could lead to uncontrolled riots; a few years earlier, as noted when a Roman soldier exposed himself in the temple, a riot led to hundreds of trampling deaths (never one to underestimate, Josephus guesses twenty thousand; Jewish Antiquities 20.112). They drag Paul “out of the temple,” from its inner courts, into the outer Court of the Gentiles. Most of the temple’s gates each had two doors, somewhere around fifty feet high (around fourteen meters) and more than twenty feet (or about seven meters) wide (Josephus, Jewish War 5.202-5); the largest gate was perhaps eighty feet (roughly twenty-five meters) high and more than sixty feet (close to twenty meters) wide (Jewish War 5.205).The sagan, or chief of the Levite temple guard, may have ordered the doors at the Court of Women shut to keep out other intruders or to keep the violence certain to ensue from spilling into the temple proper; bloodshed violated a sanctuary. (Josephus regarded the shedding of blood in the sanctuary as the “abomination of desolation”; keeping bloodshed from the sacred precincts was important.) Alternatively, outer gates may have been shut to prevent escape; or (perhaps most likely) all gates were shut for the moment.
21:31. That the report “came up” to the officer and (in 21:32) the soldiers came down fits the topography of the temple. On the northern part of the Temple Mount was the fortress Antonia, which housed a permanent Roman garrison of 480 to (at its heaviest strength) 600 men; from its towers guards watched for disturbances, especially during festival seasons (relevant here; see 20:16). (Its southeastern tower was more than one hundred feet, or over thirty meters, high, allowing guards to observe the entire temple mount; Josephus, Jewish War 5.242.) To rush into the outer court of the temple, they had only to rush down the stairs from the fortress. The “commander” is a chiliarch, or tribune, literally commander of 1,000 but actually of 480 to 600 troops. Most tribunes were drawn from the small, well-to-do Roman “knight” class, using the office briefly as a political stepping stone. (This tribune is an exception; see 22:28.)
Judea’s Roman governor lacked a full legion (some six thousand troops), but had five auxiliary cohorts, each with about 480–500 infantry. Most cohorts stayed with the governor in Caesarea, but one resided in the Fortress Antonia, on the northern side of the Temple Mount; the cavalry in 23:23 suggests a cavalry unit at this time (which added 120 riders to the infantry). The garrison’s strength was bolstered for festivals, possibly relevant here (cf. 20:16).
21:32. Because “centurions” (KJV, NASB, NRSV) is plural, many soldiers are likely in view (a centurion commanded about eighty troops, although this rapid, emergency deployment may not involve such precision). These troops would be enough to disperse a crowd (cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.111), although they had not always been effective in the recent past. The beating was presumably to kill Paul, to avenge the temple’s sanctity.
21:33-34. Paul is apparently bound between two soldiers (12:6); chains were considered shameful. Apparently believing reports that the crowd has captured a troublemaker, the tribune reasonably asks for coherent witnesses with specific charges; guesses vary (21:34; cf. one guess in 21:38). Ancient audiences were well aware that confused mobs were unreliable; such were those who opposed Paul (cf. 19:29, 32).
The “barracks” by the temple is the old castle Antonia, called Baris by the Hasmoneans but renamed for Mark Antony by his friend Herod the Great.
21:35. The steps of the fortress Antonia led directly down to the temple’s outer court.
21:36. Some Greek writers of this period liked to draw parallels between analogous historical figures; Luke’s record here parallels Jesus and Paul (Lk 23:18).
21:37. In the eastern part of the empire, Latin was confined to use in the military and in documents concerning Roman citizens. The public administration of Syria-Palestine used Greek, which was also the first language of the Jerusalem aristocracy, and most Jewish people in Palestine knew at least some Greek. The “tribune” (NRSV) or “commander” assumes that Paul is a particular troublemaker (v. 38); most rabble-rousers he would know of would have spoken *Aramaic by choice. But most Egyptian business documents of this period were in Greek, which Egyptian Jews normally spoke; he thus should not be surprised that one he supposes to be an Egyptian speaks Greek. The point is not that Paul speaks Greek; it is that he speaks it without an accent, like someone educated and fluent in the language by Aegean standards, which the tribune assumes the Egyptian Jew who had caused problems would not be. Egyptians were normally supposed to have a distinctively Egyptian accent.
21:38. *Josephus wrote (Jewish War 2.261-63) of a Jewish false prophet from Egypt who gained a following of roughly thirty thousand (a figure less realistic than those given in Acts), leading them from the wilderness to the Mount of Olives. The Roman governor Felix (23:24) defeated him, but the Egyptian himself escaped. Many of the messianic-prophetic figures reported in this period gained followings in the “wilderness,” probably partly because they were safer there from official intervention, but perhaps also expecting deliverance to come like a new exodus under a new Moses.
The word for “assassins” (NASB) or “terrorists” (NIV) here is sicarii. These were Jewish terrorists who carried curved daggers under their cloaks and brutally stabbed to death aristocrats in the midst of crowds in the temple, then slipped back into the crowds unseen. A few years after this encounter they kidnapped people to secure the release of their own adherents held by the procurator. Others terrorized the countryside. Josephus’s final reports of them are at the fortress Masada, where they finally perished in A.D. 73. The tribune might be confusing two different kinds of threats, perhaps based on conflicting guesses from the crowd (21:34).
21:39. Romans and Greeks in this period often looked down on Egyptians (21:38), but Tarsus was a respected city. Citizenship in a Greek city gave one higher status than the many who were merely “residents” of the city (who were in turn considered above transients and rural people). One became a citizen only by birth in a citizen family or as a grant from the city authorities. City pride and rivalry were fierce in antiquity, especially in Asia Minor, and Tarsus was a prominent city. It was one of antiquity’s chief educational centers. Rome had made Tarsus a “free” city, the highest honor a city in the empire could receive next to being a Roman *colony. Tarsus’s citizens were not automatically Roman citizens (it was not a Roman colony), but dual citizenship was allowed in this period. Paul saves his disclosure of Roman citizenship as a trump card in case he needs it later. Although most Jews were not citizens of Gentile cities, some of their most prominent members were. Paul’s Roman citizenship was more important than his Tarsian citizenship, but perhaps based on what he had learned in 16:37-40, he saves that privilege for later use in case he needs it.
21:40. The tribune grants Paul permission to speak, probably hoping that he will clarify his identity to a crowd he thinks has wrongly supposed him a leader of temple assassins. Good speakers were supposed to be able to quiet crowds (cf. 19:35), and certain gestures would indicate a request for attention (the tribune’s presence would have helped). “Hebrew” (a language Paul would have studied; cf. 22:3) is possible, but is here probably a loose expression for *Aramaic (so NIV), long the vernacular of much of rural Syria-Palestine and all lands to the east (cf. Neh 8:8). It is especially significant for Paul’s purposes that Aramaic was the vernacular of the Jewish nationalists, and that Paul speaks it as well as they (cf. Phil 3:5). Neither the tribune nor his Asian Jewish accusers (21:27-29) would understand any of what Paul is saying, however; Aramaic is similar to Hebrew, but bears little relation to Latin and Greek (see 22:24).
22:1. This typically Greek way to begin a speech reflects the extent to which Greek culture had permeated Palestine (Greek loanwords even occur throughout rabbinic Hebrew; Paul’s hearers would not automatically associate his words with Gentile culture). The parallel with Stephen (7:2), who provoked his audience to martyr him, also builds suspense for Luke’s readers.
22:2. Those who thought that they had caught a *Diaspora collaborator with the Gentiles must have reconsidered after they heard his fluent Aramaic (see comment on 21:40).
Rhetoricians urged building rapport with one’s audience at the beginning of a speech, if possible. Of the three accounts of Paul’s call, this is the one clearly designed for a nationalistic Jewish audience; good *rhetoric included adaptation for one’s audience. Despite his clear Jewishness, however, his refusal to compromise God’s call to the *Gentiles in the end incites the crowd’s wrath (22:21-22). Paul was always sensitive to his audience but never willing to compromise the *gospel. Speeches usually included a *narrative component; this component takes up Paul’s whole speech, perhaps because he is not permitted to complete it. The outcome of this speech during the Pentecost season (20:16) contrasts starkly with the outcome of Peter’s Pentecost message in chapter 2.
22:3. Tarsus was famous for its education, but while many Tarsians did their studies there, many also went abroad. Alexandria might be a more prestigious center for studying rhetoric, but for the study of Torah a *Diaspora Jew could have no greater place for education than Jerusalem. Paul, however, may have emigrated before this advanced stage. In ancient statements, “brought up” and “educated” (NASB) typically refer to different periods in a person’s life; thus Paul was raised in Jerusalem (cf. 23:16; see comment on Phil 3:5) and studied to become a teacher of the *law under the prestigious Gamaliel I—the famous successor of *Hillel (see comment on 5:34-35). (Paul’s family was probably well-endowed to be able to fund such an education.) Although he was born in another country, he can therefore explain that he is really a Jerusalemite by upbringing and an orthodox Pharisaic teacher by training.
As a son in an educated and perhaps aristocratic home (his father being a citizen; cf. also 9:1), Paul may have begun to learn the law around his fifth year and other Pharisaic traditions around his tenth year, and to pursue training to be able to teach the law sometime after turning thirteen (cf. also Gal 1:14 and his letters’ debate style). He would have probably completed his role as *disciple no later than age twenty (and perhaps much earlier). Although Gamaliel’s household may have included education in Greek, Paul’s tertiary academic focus, in whatever language, was Scripture; those focused on rhetoric or philosophy normally did tertiary study elsewhere. People who could afford to do so normally sat on chairs (or reclined on couches for banquets); sitting at someone’s feet was taking the posture of a disciple. Paul’s model for “zeal” may have been Phinehas, who killed for God (Num 25:13), and his successors in the *Maccabees, who because of zeal killed those they considered traitors in Israel (1 Maccabees 2:26, 54; 3:8; cf. *4 Maccabees 18:12). Within eight years of Paul’s speech the revolutionaries were calling themselves “*Zealots,” those zealous for God; this title may thus have appealed to Paul’s more nationalistic hearers.
22:4-5. See comment on 9:2. Prisons were usually temporary sites for detention until trial or punishment. A different *high priest is now in office than when Paul received letters of authorization (23:5), but Paul may depend on the leaders’ collective memory.
22:6. People normally tried to avoid the noonday sun if possible, seeking shade for themselves and their animals and often eating and/or taking a siesta at that time. Nevertheless, it was unavoidable on urgent missions and on long journeys which required that much of the day be spent traveling.
22:7-15. The background is essentially the same as in 9:4-17, although this speech emphasizes different features, such as Ananias’s Jewish piety, which would commend themselves to Paul’s nationalistic hearers. Minor differences of detail would not have concerned ancient audiences the way they sometimes concern modern ones.
22:16. Some *Old Testament texts speak of ritual washing away of sins (Lev 14:19, 31; 16:30; Num 8:21), but other texts apply the language figuratively (e.g., Ezek 36:33; 37:23; 43:22), most prominently Ezekiel 36:25.
22:17. The ancient Near East and eastern Mediterranean world had a long tradition of receiving revelations (often dreams) in sanctuaries or holy places. God had revealed himself to his servants in such places in the Old Testament (1 Sam 3:3-10; 1 Kings 3:4-5), and Paul’s hearers would regard the temple as the most appropriate place to receive revelations (cf. comment on 7:2-7).
22:18. If Paul had been in danger in the past (as he narrates here), he is in even more danger now, with hostilities rising against Gentile collaborators; Paul would not be able to speak long after this point and could not realistically intend to get past the narratio of his speech (the narrative part occurred early in a speech).
22:19. At least in later times, the chazan, or *synagogue attendant, was normally responsible for beating wayward Jews as public discipline for their crimes, after judges (probably elders; *rabbis in a later period) pronounced judgment. If Paul had been given this responsibility, it was due to some respected authorization (similar to that mentioned in 22:5).
22.20. See comment on 7:58.
22:21. Like Jesus (Lk 4:22-30), Paul knows that this statement will offend his hearers, given the escalation of Jewish-Gentile tensions in Palestine in recent years, tensions that would soon escalate into war (A.D. 66–73). But he cannot compromise the gospel that makes siblings out of believers from different peoples and backgrounds. Ironically, it is Paul’s commitment to welcome Gentiles that will lead momentarily to his Roman custody.
22:22. The reaction is predictable; see comment on 21:20-22; cf. Luke 23:18, 21. On interruption, see comment on 10:44.
22:23. Throwing dust on one’s head was a sign of mourning; removing it from one’s feet meant removing what was unholy (13:51); they may also shake dust from their removed garments to repudiate Paul (cf. 18:6). Here they might wish to stone him but have nothing else to throw at him at the moment (cf., e.g., 2 Maccabees 4:41). They may throw off their cloaks for the same reason (perhaps they also tore them, as one would after hearing blasphemy), although Luke may record it ironically to underline their guilt: see comment on 7:58.
22:24-25. Even had Paul not been a Roman citizen, the tribune would have no authority to try a provincial belonging to another jurisdiction (21:39), after he had quelled the unrest. But it was legal to scourge slaves or aliens, to extort confessions or to determine the truth concerning a situation. In younger days, Paul had experienced Jewish synagogue beatings and lictors’ rods. But this scourge is with a more dangerous Roman whip, which typically included either iron chains ending in metal balls or leather thongs into which pieces of metal or bone were woven. It could tear open the flesh, leaving it hanging in bloody strips or even exposing bones. It could easily lead to the victim’s death, and would certainly scar and probably maim him. Centurions were sometimes left to supervise executions and related duties.
But the Porcian and Valerian laws exempted Roman citizens from such beatings without trial. Paul’s citizenship excluded him from being tortured for information, and together with his being untried, it excluded him from punishment.
22:26-27. In this period, Roman citizenship was not common in the east, especially among the non-elite, so no one had expected it for this prisoner. Paul might wait until he has been chained for the same reason as in 16:37: he now has legal room to maneuver against them. Law prohibited even binding a Roman citizen without trial; although not all governors followed the law, the tribune would be wise to avoid a breach that could bring him into trouble with the governor. If one claimed to be a citizen, officials were supposed to treat him as such until documentation could be procured or checked.
22:28. Scholars note that one could achieve Roman citizenship in several ways: one could be (1) born to a Roman father (so Paul); (2) a citizen of a Roman *colony (say, Pisidian Antioch, Corinth or Philippi); (3) a retired auxiliary soldier; (4) given a special privilege from Rome (granted to groups or individuals), sometimes as part of a municipal aristocracy or other group honored by Rome; or (5)—and this was most common after being born in Rome or in a colony—a slave freed by his or her owner (so perhaps Paul’s ancestors).
This tribune or commander, Lysias, bought his citizenship by a bribe, which was common under the preceding emperor, whose name he took (23:26). To achieve the status of a tribune, he must have had a powerful *patron or been one of the rare individuals who toiled his way up through the ranks to this position, probably partly with more bribes. Tribunes were usually equestrians (the Roman knight class) working their way up the political career ladder; this one had not even been born a Roman citizen. But the current governor himself was not an equestrian, so Lysias may not have experienced much disadvantage.
Lysias the tribune may want to assess Paul’s relative status. Some commentators note that the cost of citizenship bribes declined toward the end of Claudius’s reign, so he may be suggesting, “You probably acquired your citizenship more cheaply than I acquired mine!” (Claudius’s successor reduced such corruption, so the information Luke reports here reflects the period in question.) Paul may have replied in Latin: he was ingenuus, a citizen by birth (though cf. his family in 16:37). Those who were born citizens had higher status in that regard than those who achieved it; Paul thus has superior citizenship status in some sense.
22:29. See comment on 22:26-27. Not all officials would have cared about violating the law—some Roman procurators crucified Jerusalem aristocrats who were Roman citizens—but a tribune was not a governor, and could be held more accountable for actions if accusations came and the governor deemed it politically expedient.
The Sanhedrin was the highest Judean court. The *Pharisees and *Sadducees disagreed on many points. The Pharisees apparently had less power and representation on the council, but some of them (like the aristocratic Simon son of Gamaliel I) would have had some power.
22:30. Because Paul’s offense is clearly a religious one related to the temple, the perplexed official is going to try to ascertain the charge by consulting the Sanhedrin. This council met regularly (though not all members were present on every occasion) and would undoubtedly grant a hearing requested by the Roman garrison’s tribune.
23:1. *Rhetorically, Paul’s claim here (cf. also 24:16; Phil 3:6) may seek to build rapport with devout hearers in his audience (cf. Acts 23:6). In court cases, much often hinged on the person’s known character; whenever the accused could claim to have lived his life previously free of reproach, it counted in one’s favor rhetorically.
23:2-3. Ananias was *high priest from A.D. 47 to 58 or 59, at which time Agrippa II removed him (see comment on 24:27). Ananias was popular and powerful but also a Roman vassal, known for his greed in a period when rapacious aristocratic priests were stealing the tithes belonging to the poorer priests. Aware of his abuses, the *Zealot revolutionaries killed him in A.D. 66, perhaps eight years after this hearing. Sadducees were known for their harshness. Slapping one on the cheek was a grievous insult (see comment on Mt 5:39), sometimes experienced by prophets (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron 18:23); officials could use it to defend their honor, but it was technically illegal and considered unfair in a court setting.
Jewish *law forbade unjust treatment (e.g., Lev 19:15), including condemnation before the accused was proved guilty. Paul’s appeal to Scripture may build rapport with devout Pharisees (cf. Acts 23:6), who were known for careful adherence to Scripture and who were less comfortable with the high priest’s abuses of power. Judicial rhetoric often returned charges on the accuser; Paul accuses his abuser of violating the law. He also pronounces judgment like a prophet; Ananias was murdered by revolutionaries in A.D. 66. A “whitewashed wall” was one whose weakness or ugliness might be concealed—but not changed—by a veneer of whitewash: an appropriate condemnation of abusive leaders of Israel (Ezek 13:10-11; 22:28). Walls facing the street in the eastern Mediterranean were often whitewashed. Ancient sources often honor those courageous enough to confront tyrants.
23:4-5. One should not speak abusively of magistrates (Ex 22:28), but Ananias’s behavior undermines the integrity of his office. Paul has simply appealed to God’s true judgment to reverse the charge and punishment. The *high priest normally sat in a special place and exercised obvious authority (though he would not wear his special, high-priestly robes for this kind of setting). Either he does not do so here because the gathering is informal, or (more likely) Paul answers ironically, because of the official’s corruption and improper claim to power. Socrates and others had endeavored to show themselves more pious in the matter concerning which they were accused than their judges were, which naturally led to condemnation by an angry court. Paul is content to show his piety by citing Scripture (which will appeal to the *Pharisees; 23:6).
23:6. “Son of Pharisees” could be a figurative expression for discipleship; if meant literally, it would be likelier that his father joined the sect after moving from Tarsus (we have little evidence for Pharisees in the *Diaspora). Other sharp-witted Jewish strategists of this period, like *Josephus not many years later (Life 139, 28), also practiced this method of “divide and conquer.” Paul finds supporters to whom he can appeal. The hope of the *resurrection was central to Judaism, and many martyrs had died staking their hope on it. Paul’s views did not violate any central tenets of Pharisaism; he was now a “Pharisee plus,” who taught that the resurrection had already been inaugurated in Jesus. Pharisees recognized that no true Pharisee would have committed the crime with which Paul had been charged by the original crowd (21:28). Moreover, Paul maneuvers strategically: if the tribune can be persuaded that his opposition’s motives are merely theological, this verdict will later help his case before the governor (24:20-21).
23:7. Pharisees and Sadducees were notorious for their disagreements, especially over the doctrine of the resurrection; Pharisees taught that Sadducees had no part in the world to come, because they did not believe in life after death (at least not in a form acceptable to most other Palestinian Jews).
23:8. Some scholars contend that the Sadducees believed only in the five books of Moses; but even if this were the case, they must have believed in the angels that appeared in Genesis. Luke’s parenthetical comment here probably refers to the Sadducees’ denial of the developed angelology and demonology of the Pharisees (12:15 is not Pharisaic), or maybe ideas about people becoming angels after death or being resurrected in angelic form. “Spirit” may address a different issue: The Sadducees reportedly did not believe in life after death; belief in an afterlife before the resurrection allowed Pharisees to accept that Jesus could have appeared to Paul as a spirit (cf. 22:7-8; 23:9) even if they did not accept his resurrection. Many Jewish people believed that resurrection bodies would be like angelic bodies; some also portrayed the intermediate state in angelic terms.
23:9. From the Pharisaic standpoint, if Paul were being condemned for being consistent with his doctrine of the resurrection, then it is natural that the Sadducees want him convicted and likewise natural that the Pharisees and Sadducees should oppose each other on this matter. Later Pharisaic reports declare that the Sadducees would have no share in the world to come, because they did not believe in it. Pharisees, who believed in angels and afterlife, could allow that Paul had a revelation from some spirit.
23:10. Mobs sometimes tore people apart. Raucous though they were, disputes in courtrooms chaired by high officials rarely came to blows; nevertheless, it sometimes happened, even in elite bodies. For example, Josephus shows that in this period some members of Jerusalem’s elite became so hostile toward each other that they threw stones at each other (Jewish Antiquities 20.180, 213). Ancient sources do report that the Sanhedrin and even the Roman Senate broke into confusion sometimes.
The site of the council chamber favored by most scholars today (based especially on Josephus) adjoins the temple on the southwest, perhaps a third of a mile (or half a kilometer) from the Fortress Antonia, where the Roman garrison lay. Nevertheless, Lysias probably had soldiers with him (for safety if nothing else; 21:38). Soldiers from the “barracks,” the Fortress Antonia, on the northwest of the temple mount, would have approached this hall along the west side of the temple, for a distance of over a thousand feet. Prisoners could be detained in the Fortress Antonia, but it also could be a place of relative comfort; it included a bathhouse and rows of rooms.
23:11. See comment on 18:9-10.
23:12-13. Vows of abstinence (promises to abstain from something for a designated period of time) were common. One would swear an “oath” by calling a deity to witness, inviting the deity’s vengeance if one broke one’s word. Revolutionary-minded Jews considered some assassinations pious acts; Herod the Great had once executed ten Pharisees who had formed an association by oath for the purpose of killing him. If Paul’s enemies eventually broke their oaths to kill him, Jewish *law would simply require them to bring *atonement offerings to the temple; thus their oath here does not mean they would literally starve.
23:14-15. Ambushes by robbers and terrorists were common (e.g., Josephus, Jewish War 4.538), especially at night. During these years shortly before the Jewish war with Rome, the sicarii (21:38) regularly assassinated Jews suspected of collaboration with the Romans, and all Palestine was uneasy; this report is thus quite believable. That some aristocratic priests, who in the war of 66–70 turned out to have their own violent agendas, would cooperate in this plot is not surprising. Some of them, and especially some younger members of their families, had revolutionary sympathies, though much of this class remained more loyal to Rome (cf., e.g., Josephus, War of the Jews 2.409; 5.6). (These priests would be some high Sadducean members of the council, not Pharisees.) As noted at 23:10, Paul’s place of detention was probably not far from the council chamber; soldiers bringing him would have to march the thousand to fifteen hundred feet between the Antonia and (probable) location of the council chamber (see comment on 23:10), most of it in fairly narrow formation through public space adjoining the temple.
23:16. Ancient writers report a number of plots foiled on account of “leaks.” Ancient historians report leaks from the Roman Senate, the Jerusalem Sanhedrin and groups such as this one. If Paul’s sister was raised with him in Jerusalem, the whole family had presumably moved there from Tarsus after Paul’s birth, rather than only having sent him there to study. If she married into a similar (Roman citizen) family, Paul’s nephew would be a Roman citizen, perhaps aiding his access at the Antonia. People could visit prisoners at the guards’ discretion (easier for light detentions, but sometimes facilitated with bribes).
23:17-18. In custody, persons of status were sometimes guarded by centurions; on occasion they even became friends (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.230-31). Paul’s access to centurions indicates that his custody is a relatively light one at this point; his status as a Roman citizen in the East would have helped him.
23:19-21. Taking one by the hand was often a gesture of peace, welcome or assurance.
23:22. The tribune must act quickly and discreetly or be seen favoring this report over counterclaims by Jerusalem’s aristocrats. Assassins also killed collaborators, so discretion would help protect Paul’s nephew.
23:23. Somewhere around this period Rome began using units of eight hundred to a thousand soldiers; until this transition, units of 480 soldiers, or (for partly mounted units, as here) 480 infantry and 120 horsemen, were more common. The commander’s assignment of two hundred soldiers with the centurions (perhaps a paper strength; two centurions might command only 160 troops in practice) to guard Paul would weaken the garrison in Jerusalem’s fortress Antonia significantly; thus they must return quickly (23:32). Some evidence suggests that the two hundred “spearmen” (NASB; NRSV; the term is rare) may be non-Roman light auxiliary infantry. Given the unrest in Palestine and night attacks by robbers, especially prevalent under governor Felix’s tenure, a smaller contingent would not be safe in the hills of Judea at night.
The Roman procurator or governor resided in Caesarea, visiting Jerusalem only for the feasts (to insure order). Whether or not Felix came in person for Pentecost (which has just occurred, 20:16; 24:11), he is now in Caesarea; governors usually strengthened the Jerusalem cohort during festivals, so possibly additional troops were stationed in Jerusalem at this time, some of which would be scheduled to return to Caesarea soon. Caesarea was the military headquarters for Judea (the Roman overseer for all Syria-Palestine resided in Syria); a few years after this scene, Syrian residents slaughtered thousands of Jews there.
Leaving at 9 p.m. (the night’s “third hour”), might supply sufficient darkness to keep the nature of their activity obscure, while leaving enough of the night to keep them well on their way to Antipatris. Even then, only a protracted march would get them well on their way; Caesarea was sixty miles away.
23:24. Ancient historians do not portray very favorably Tiberius Claudius Felix (*Tacitus said Antonius; Josephus, in a better position to know, said Claudius; an inscription may support Josephus’s position but the matter is disputed); he governed from A.D. 52 to probably 59. He married three princesses in his lifetime; most relevant among these, shortly after he became procurator of Palestine, he convinced Drusilla to divorce her husband and marry him (24:24). Although technically unqualified, he secured his position because his brother was Pallas, a powerful freedman of Claudius, emperor from 41 to 54. Tacitus reported that Felix was corrupt, having a king’s authority but a slave’s mind (from a Roman aristocrat, the latter was hardly a compliment). Josephus likewise condemned him as thoroughly corrupt, accusing him of bloody massacres and repression. He remained procurator until A.D. 59 or 60 (see comment on 24:27).
23:25. The empire (except perhaps for Egypt) had no postal service except for official government business; most people sent letters via persons who were traveling, or (for official imperial business) by the Roman military’s imperial post. The commander sends this letter with the soldiers. Its legal terms confirm that it is a formal referral; as part of Paul’s court dossier, it would have been available to both Paul’s supporters and accusers.
23:26. This was the standard greeting in letters, and the respectful title was standard for an equestrian official (equestrians were the so-called knight class). Although Felix was not equestrian, his power and status as procurator made that fact irrelevant. Indeed, despite his low birth, his three successive wives (Drusilla probably being the final one) were all from royal households. Lysias is a Greek name; because he achieved citizenship under the emperor Claudius (notorious for selling the privilege indiscreetly), this *patron’s name has become part of his own.
23:27-29. Subordinate officials sometimes put their own slant on a story to make themselves sound good to their superiors; this commander, who may have worked his way up through the ranks (22:28), knows how to play the game well. Given ancient Mediterranean emphasis on gratitude obligations, Lysias can trust Paul as an honorable person not to put Lysias in a bad light with Felix, an action also not in Paul’s interests.
23:30. Local officials (and as Rome’s chief representative in Jerusalem, this military tribune was an official) had to determine which cases should be referred to the procurator. This was obviously such a case. Given the heavy case load in Caesarea, there could be a long delay in Paul’s case; Lysias’ urgent actions may help move the case up on the docket (though ultimately the status of the official plaintiffs will effect this result in any case; 24:1).
23:31. Troops were able and trained to undertake all-night marches when necessary, as Josephus and other ancient historians testify. When military discipline was properly observed, soldiers exercised daily, and were drilled regularly with forced marches of twenty miles at four miles an hour; sometimes the drills were closer to five miles per hour. Antipatris was less than thirty miles (about forty-five kilometers) south of Caesarea, about a day’s march. But by the shortest route Antipatris was at least thirty-five to forty miles (fortunately downhill) from Jerusalem, hence the troops would have to march all night (and into the morning) at a much faster pace than normal travelers. (Such rapid forced marches are reported for soldiers in emergency situations, such as nocturnal surprise attacks.) Antipatris bordered Judea and Samaria, and was a natural stopping place on the inland road between Jerusalem and Caesarea.
23:32. The infantry’s return journey need not have been undertaken so rapidly, nor with so much protection, because it would be in daylight and brigands more frequently and dangerously struck at night. It would be unwise, however, to leave the Antonia garrison’s force depleted very long (cf. 23:23). The mounted troops continuing to Caesarea could proceed across the mostly *Gentile open plain more quickly without infantry protection, but the infantry had been needed during the night journey in mountainous terrain infested with Judean brigands.
The technical details of the trials here accord so well with other evidence on Roman legal procedure that some noted Roman historians use them as major source material for understanding Roman provincial judicial proceedings. Ancient writers often highlighted parallels between major characters; Luke’s Gospel reports three hearings of Jesus (two before the governor and one before a Herodian ruler), and Acts reports three hearings of Paul once he is in Roman custody (two before governors, one before Herod Agrippa II). Courts kept written summaries of the speeches offered. Courts used the shared language of participants, in this case, Greek.
23:33. Caesarea was divided between Jewish and *Gentile residents, with harsh tension between them. Josephus (admittedly known to inflate figures) claims that, with the outbreak of war a few years later, Gentiles massacred over twenty thousand Jews in Caesarea in a single hour.
23:34. Normally people read aloud, so Paul would hear the letter. It was good protocol to check the jurisdiction to which a person belonged before deciding a case. Officials had the authority to try the accused, wherever he might be from, for crimes committed in their region of jurisdiction; but they could also refer the case of the accused to the governor of the latter’s home province, a procedure less complicated for Felix here. Some ancient writers liked to draw parallels between related historical figures; here, cf. Luke 23:6-9.
Cilicia was an imperial province, the capital of which was Tarsus. But during Paul’s period (not, however, Luke’s period), Cilicia was governed as part of Syria. The Syrian legate had too much territory to concern himself with a relatively minor case, so Felix assumes jurisdiction rather than troubling his superior.
23:35. Hearings for Roman citizens arraigned on capital charges required painstaking examination, if Felix were to follow the law. Accusers normally initiated proceedings in a Roman court, so Felix awaits their arrival. The procurator’s residence in Caesarea was a palace built by Herod the Great; Paul was thus kept elsewhere in Felix’s own residence. Officials generally provided better accommodations for prisoners of higher status.
24:1. Given Judea’s political situation, Felix would defer to the *high priest and grant an immediate hearing. The status of the forces against Paul is serious; Felix was now governor because Ananias and his associates won a case against Felix’s predecessor in office (Josephus, Jewish War 2.243-47), but Felix’s relationship with Ananias may not have been entirely positive. Although Tertullus bears a fairly common Latin name, he could easily be a Jewish Roman citizen like Paul. As noted here, the plaintiffs would summarize the nature of the case before Paul was brought in.
24:2. Although a full speech could last for two hours, abbreviated forms (such as we have here) were recorded and kept as legal documents; Luke could thus cite actual court summaries here. The prosecution would always begin first, both in Roman and in Jewish trials. Tertullus begins his speech with a standard captatio benevolentiae—flattery to secure Felix’s favor. (*Rhetoric manuals emphasized winning the judge’s favor, and speeches before public officials always opened by praising them. “Peace” and “foresight” are common topics of praise for administrators, and also relevant to this case.) Although flattery was sometimes true, this example is blatantly false: revolutionaries had escalated under Felix’s corrupt, repressive administration, which brought neither peace nor reforms. Tertullus’s speech includes flowery rhetoric (including some alliteration) but is weak on facts.
24:3. “In every way and everywhere” is a good rhetorical flourish (rhetoric valued repetition of sounds).
24:4. Many valued conciseness, and one could offer claims or promises of brevity. As here, speakers could also apologize for wearying the official as if they had not really finished praising him; this was a rhetorical technique for flattering someone even beyond the limits of one’s own rhetorical skills or credibility.
24:5-6. Compare the analogously triple charge of Luke 23:2; some historians liked to parallel different historical figures. Paul’s accusers make themselves out to be allies of the Romans, who especially in these years were concerned about Jewish unrest throughout the empire. “Pest” (NASB) or “pestilent” (NRSV) and “throughout the world” resemble a charge the emperor Claudius had leveled against Jewish agitators. Profaning the temple was a capital charge, and inciting people to riot against Rome was maiestas, treason; Rome treated sedition (stirring unrest) as one of the worst crimes. Tertullus could accuse Paul only of trying to desecrate the temple, because no witnesses had apprehended a *Gentile with him in the temple (21:29).
If one’s opponent in court were known to be a persuasive speaker, it was also common to warn about his crafty speaking ability; and character defamation (often freely invented) was a major part of winning ancient lawsuits.
“Sect” is not a derogatory term in itself. The term was employed simply to designate various Greek philosophic schools and (by *Josephus) various schools of thought in Judaism (such as *Pharisees or *Sadducees). “Nazarenes” (a term Jewish Christians in time generally applied to themselves) was perhaps originally an insult, calculated against the obscurity of Jesus’ hometown (cf. Jn 1:46).
24:7-8. The text of verses 7-8a is questionable (see marginal notes in translations). Invitations for judges to examine matters for themselves (as in 24:8b) were frequent in forensic rhetoric. Of course, judges could investigate and decide with or without the litigants’ permission, so the invitation was just another way of implying the correctness of one’s assertions.
24:9. It was common in forensic rhetoric for accusers to amplify charges with unsupported assertions of guilt; speakers on both sides normally also claimed to present only the facts. Assertions by a number of people of status could carry weight, and Felix had political as well as judicial considerations in this case (members of Jerusalem’s aristocracy, some of them Roman citizens, versus a Roman citizen who, according to them, was a leader in a widespread movement). A few years earlier, Judeans protested so severely after a Roman soldier burned a Law scroll that the Roman governor had him executed.
Paul’s *rhetorical skills prove more effective than those of his paid accuser Tertullus.
24:10. The defendant spoke after the accuser in Roman trials, as soon as he was given permission to do so. Paul also includes a captatio benevolentiae (see comment on 24:2-3), although a more modest and believable one than that of Tertullus. Felix may have held office since A.D. 52 (i.e., for four to six years) and had been in Judea in another capacity earlier. Proclaiming one’s confidence in the judge’s fairness was an implicit statement of innocence, and other trained speakers appealed to this in court cases as well.
24:11. Here Paul begins a narratio, a stating of the case’s facts or of events leading up to the case; a narratio could be brief when necessary. Paul shows himself skilled in the rhetoric of his day. That he came to worship supports his character; the timing presumably coincides with Pentecost (20:16), suggesting that he had come for the festival (cf. 20:16), like many other good Jews. Luke’s narrative names some of the many witnesses to the timing of Paul’s arrival. Someone who traveled so far to worship is not the sort of person who would try to defile the temple.
24:12. This verse is a propositio, the proposition or thesis of Paul’s speech; this was a standard part of ancient speeches. Paul begins, as speakers sometimes did, by refuting the opponent’s charges.
24:13. Although ancient courts preferred arguments from probability over eyewitness accounts, proof was essential. For example, Herod’s son Antipater, after much proof of his guilt, offered only oaths in favor of his innocence, so the Syrian legate Varus had him executed. Speakers often (and fairly often accurately) charged their opponents with lacking proof; in this kind of case, the burden of proof rested with the accusers.
24:14. In 24:14-17, Paul reinforces a positive portrayal of his character, important in defense speeches; he is not the kind of person who would have committed the crime with which he was charged. Roman lawyers also had defenses for those who confessed their guilt, admitting that the deed was wrong (concessio); they could claim they meant well (purgatio) or simply beseech pardon (deprecatio). But while Paul admits a deed, he does not admit that it is wrong or ask pardon for it. Instead, like some other forensic speakers, he confesses a non-crime. This creates a masterful defense: First, this is an issue of internal Jewish *law, not a crime under Roman law, and therefore worthy neither of Roman trial nor of Roman execution at Jewish instigation. Further, the Christian faith springs from the *Old Testament and is thus an ancient religion, which should be protected as a form of Judaism under Roman toleration. Confessing what was not a crime was a strategic rhetorical move; it would heighten one’s credibility while doing nothing for the opponents’ charge that the defendant had broken the law.
24:15. Sadducees who denied the future *resurrection of the righteous represented a minority position within Judean Judaism; Felix would know that Paul spoke for a majority position on this point. Pharisaism and the rest of Judaism that believed in the resurrection of the righteous were divided on the resurrection of the wicked. Some believed that the wicked would be raised for judgment (either temporary torture followed by annihilation, or eternal torture); others believed that they would not be raised. The early Christians who comment on the matter accept a resurrection of the wicked to judgment (Jn 5:29; Rev 20:5), the most natural way to read Daniel 12:2.
24:16. Establishing one’s character was important for the defense. Here Paul means that one who truly believed the hope stated in verse 15 would be careful to do right before God and people. This is an implied argument from probability, a strongly favored line of argument in ancient law courts. Pharisees and other believers in future judgment often questioned its deniers’ basis for morality.
24:17. Almsgiving was highly regarded in Judaism; it demonstrates Paul’s solidarity with his people and their ancestral customs. Again on a probability argument (v. 16), this point would make the charge of violating the temple absurd. Also, a defendant sometimes sought to show the ingratitude of plaintiffs prosecuting their benefactor (cf. 4:9). (The offerings refer to Paul’s collection, more emphasized in his letters, e.g., Rom 15:26-27.)
24:18-19. Temples were to be places of refuge, yet Paul had been apprehended during worship. It was standard practice in legal rhetoric to reverse the accusers’ charges onto them; speakers often could also insinuate someone’s guilt. Paul here implies that his accusers rather than himself were responsible for the riot. Moreover, the original accusers have not shown up, and therefore could be charged with abandoning the case, a punishable offense (for frivolous prosecution). The current “plaintiffs” are not eyewitnesses and could not withstand cross-examination, and the original plaintiffs have abandoned the case! By the conventions of Roman law, the case should simply be dismissed at this point; that Felix fails to dismiss it suggests the political dangers of doing so.
24:20-21. Speakers sometimes saved the climactic argument for the end. Paul’s concluding, ultimate argument is that his accusers previously disputed only his affirmation of the resurrection, that is, a theological charge (that he had cunningly brought up!), which the tribune had attested (23:29). Roman magistrates would view this as a matter of internal Jewish religious disputes, nothing on which to judge a case of Roman law. Moreover, when plaintiffs changed charges in the midst of the legal process (cf. 23:6, 29; 24:5-6), the case was supposed to be thrown out.
Paul’s case (24:10-21) was legally airtight; Felix should have thrown out the case. Doing so, however, would have alienated members of the Judean elite. Had Paul not been a Roman citizen with a possible supporting constituency, Felix might have even handed him over (cf. Lk 23:23-24).
24:22. Lysias would be considered the independent witness; but Felix already has sufficient facts, and is simply stalling for political reasons, much to the chagrin of Paul’s accusers and (still more) Paul himself. By setting no timetable for Lysias’s coming, Felix fairly obviously postpones the case; he had authority to defer it as long as he wished.
It would have been difficult for Felix not to have known of the massive Judean Jesus movement (21:20), especially given his Judean wife (24:24), but he and the Romans by this period were treating it as politically innocuous, unlike the many bandits in the countryside.
24:23. Prisoners of status usually received lighter custody, especially if the charges against them were not persuasive. Paul is probably still kept in the procurator’s own palace (23:35), making it easy for Felix to visit him. Centurions sometimes oversaw prisoners of status (cf. 23:17). Apart from very meager prison rations, prisoners depended on friends to bring food and other items; guards sometimes charged bribes for access to prisoners, but Felix’s instructions here could forestall that.
24:24. Officials who interviewed prisoners privately for their own ends were often considered corrupt.
Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I (see comment on 12:1) and sister of Agrippa II and Berenice (see comment on 25:13). She married the king of a small region in Syria, but at the age of sixteen divorced him at Felix’s instigation to marry him instead. Although it violated normal Roman policy for a governor to marry a woman from his province, Felix had much power as long as his brother Pallas remained in favor in Rome (cf. comment on 23:24). Drusilla is about twenty years old here.
24:25. Although wealthy households often sponsored philosophers to provide interesting insights at dinners or tutor family members, God’s prophets were less pleasant than most philosophers (Jer 38:14-23). Justice and self-control were among the favored topics of many moralists, but the future judgment was especially Jewish teaching and probably not the side of Jewish teaching the procurator was accustomed to hearing. (Future judgment was not emphasized by most upper-class Jews under Greek influence, such as Sadducees or a handful of aristocratic Pharisees such as *Josephus—who could accommodate Platonic views of the afterlife—or like *Philo, whose views accommodated *Hellenism to the furthest possible extent.)
24:26. Felix was not known to be particularly just; Josephus complained that he sent priests to Caesar on a trifling charge. Josephus also complained that the procurator Albinus, several years after Felix, released anyone—including revolutionaries—from jail whose relatives paid him something. All ancient sources agree that Felix also was corrupt, and this verse should not surprise us. Bribery and corruption were punishable offenses, but very common, including among many governors; Josephus reports this among various governors of Judea. If locals complained, however, a governor could be removed from office for the offense.
24:27. When Felix was being replaced by Porcius Festus (probably July of A.D. 59, though some say 60, or even 55–56), Jewish leaders from Caesarea finally went to Rome and accused him. Roman law had permitted provincials to accuse their governors since 149 B.C., and a number of governors faced prosecution. Fortunately for his sake, his powerful brother Pallas, although no longer in power in Nero’s court, retained sufficient influence to protect him from Judean retribution (Jewish Antiquities 20.182). “Wishing to do the Jews a favor” (NASB) here may mean that he needs any Jewish mercy he can get, as he is leaving for the hearing in Rome. (At the same time, he would not want to create other enemies or charges by deciding against another interest group.) Governors did not usually try to clear the slate of backlogged cases before leaving office; the new governor might have to start judicial proceedings all over again.
*Josephus’s portrait of Porcius Festus is much more positive than his portrait of Felix or Albinus. Festus was an efficient and mostly just administrator; he also corrected disturbances and caught many of the revolutionaries. Josephus also indicates that Festus died in office (Jewish Antiquities 20.197), apparently having served in Judea only a year or two. A Roman administrator might struggle to balance the interests of justice for an individual and political sensitivity to the local elite, especially if there was a potential for unrest. Extensive parallels between Jesus’ hearings in Luke 23 and Paul’s in Acts 25–26 indicate that Luke wishes to parallel them, as some other historians paralleled figures; Luke’s point is that Christians must follow in Jesus’ footsteps.
25:1. Festus’s residence would be in Caesarea, but it was politically appropriate to visit the local authorities centered in Jerusalem.
25:2. Relations between Felix and the Jewish authorities had been strained; a new governor, however, meant a new chance to introduce agendas previously deferred. Agrippa II appointed a new *high priest, Ishmael son of Phabi, probably shortly before Festus’s arrival (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.179, 182). As was customary, the plaintiffs advance the complaint.
25:3-5. They wanted Paul moved; given the frequent assaults by revolutionaries throughout the country, members of the priestly aristocracy would not necessarily appear to have sponsored the violence against Paul (as violent as the agendas of some of them were reported to be, according to Josephus and other early Jewish sources). Festus would be eager to correct the bad relationship of the previous administration, hence to accommodate local politics. He thus moves the issue up on the docket, but does not breach protocol (nor plan to remain long in Jerusalem).
25:6. Sitting on his tribunal (NASB), pro tribunali, means that this is an official hearing.
25:7-8. A case could be reopened based on new evidence, but it would be thrown out if no such evidence were presented. Ancients often claimed (often rightly) that their legal opponents offered no proof. A speaker often summarized and then refuted opponents’ charges; like court recorders, Luke also summarizes Paul’s response here. The accusations against Jewish *law and temple (21:28) would be relevant to a Roman magistrate only if Paul had violated the sanctity of the temple (see comment on 21:28), a charge that had not been demonstrated. An implication of treason (seditio) against Caesar, however, would be fatal. Changing charges in the midst of a case was illegal, but with a new governor Paul’s enemies have started the case anew.
25:9. History reports that Festus was a fairer and more cooperative governor than most who ruled Judea; he undoubtedly wishes to engender a good relationship with the provincials here.
25:10-11. Roman citizens had the right to appeal to Caesar’s tribunal (provocatio ad Caesarem), although the emperor in this period (Nero) normally delegated the hearing and judging of cases to others. Later, the governor Pliny in Bithynia executed many Christians but sent those who were citizens to Rome for trial. Noncitizen provincials had no automatic right to appeal a governor’s decision (except to accuse the governor of extortion or on a capital charge). Defendants often expressed willingness to die if found guilty as a way to emphasize their innocence or their indignation at the charge. The current emperor to whom Paul appeals is Nero; still under the more positive influences, he had not yet become notoriously immoral or begun to persecute Christians.
25:12. A Roman judge normally had a consilium, or council, with whom to confer; because a governor might not be learned in the law (iuris prudentes), it was important for him to have some advisors who were, although he was ultimately free to disregard their counsel. This was an unusual case. A citizen could appeal even to the emperor, especially for a capital sentence (appelatio), but appealing before a case had been heard (provocatio), as Paul does here, was unusual, because it was not necessarily advantageous. Nevertheless, Festus has reason to comply with Paul’s request. Under ordinary circumstances, appeals were granted. Moreover, in any case the political implications of dismissing an appeal to Caesar were unpleasant (a critic could potentially accuse the governor of usurping imperial privileges), whereas the benefits of sending Paul to Rome free Festus from having to disappoint the Jerusalem leaders if his own juridical conclusions differ from theirs. Although many Roman governors of Judea ignored inconvenient rules, Festus is the one governor of Judea in this period whom Josephus presents as most faithful in carrying out Roman policies (Jewish War 2.271-72).
Some argue that Luke did not necessarily have inside information concerning the conversation, since he could safely infer its substance from the outcome (25:26); ancient historians could make such inferences and shape them as readable *narrative.
25:13-14. When Agrippa I died (12:23), his son, Agrippa II (here), was only seventeen; his daughters were Berenice (sixteen), Mariamne (ten) and Drusilla (six). Agrippa II ruled a small part of Palestine and worked with the Roman administration. He was an advocate for his people but was also loyal to Rome and later struck a coin in A.D. 89 commemorating Rome’s triumph over the Jewish rebels. *Josephus’s record shows that Agrippa visited Roman officials frequently, especially when they first arrived. Because Agrippa was authorized even to appoint *high priests (Jewish Antiquities 20.179, 196), Festus can obtain Judean advice more important than that of Paul’s accusers. Festus later took Agrippa’s side in a dispute with the priests.
Berenice (which ancient writers sometimes abbreviated as Bernice, as Luke does) was Agrippa’s sister. Some ancient writers maligned her close relationship with her brother Agrippa, slandering it as incestuous, but their charge, whether motivated by politics, anti-Judaism or love of gossip, is unlikely. Berenice later became the mistress of the Roman general Titus, who besieged Jerusalem. Though he was fifteen years her junior, he promised to make her empress once he became emperor. Anti-Jewish public opinion, however, ultimately forced him to renege on the promise, so she finally left Rome brokenhearted. Jewish aristocrats who sided with Rome during the war (like Josephus, at least after his capture) portray Agrippa II and his sister very favorably, and they remained alive when Luke was writing.
25:15-16. Roman law required that the accused be permitted to confront his accusers and defend himself against charges in a public hearing.
25:17-21. “Crimes that I could recognize as such” in 25:18 might reflect a Roman legal formulation. The real issue here is one of Jewish *law—one not tried by Roman courts. Luke again shows the Roman impression that Christianity was part of Judaism and thus should be accorded legal toleration.
25:22. Compare Luke 23:8; historians and biographers often looked for parallels among characters in history. As a newcomer, Festus would naturally want the counsel of Agrippa, who knew Judaism but was more sympathetic to Roman interests than the priestly aristocracy was proving to be. Agrippa had a good Greek education, and Festus might have gravitated to him as one of the few local people with whom he could discuss such matters. If Festus follows Agrippa’s advice, he need not worry about Jerusalem aristocrats’ complaints against his recommendation being conveyed to Caesar’s tribunal (cf. 25:26).
25:23. The pomp Luke mentions here was characteristic of royal families, including Jewish ones (e.g., 1 Maccabees 11:6). The “commanders” (NASB) or “officers” (NIV) are as many as five tribunes, Roman commanders of the five cohorts in Caesarea (cf. the sixth tribune in Jerusalem, 21:31, although given the political mobility of those in this office, Lysias might no longer be there).
25:24-26. “Lord” (v. 26) was a common title for the emperor by this period. Romans, unlike Greeks, would not yet be using it as a divine title. Festus regards particularly Agrippa, as a Romanized Jew, as both unbiased and competent to give Festus advice.
25:27. A governor would not dare to send a case to the emperor’s court frivolously; Festus needs to provide a document explaining the prior inquiry (a cover letter, litterae dimissoriae). The charge against Paul is political, but all the evidence involves Jewish religion, which would be incomprehensible to Roman procurators. Agrippa II is the first official competent in both Roman and Jewish *law to hear Paul’s defense; he will thus supply the evaluation for Festus’s letter to Nero. If this Jewish king does not think Paul guilty, Festus has protected himself against complaints from Jerusalem’s aristocratic priests.
26:1. On receiving permission from the judge (in this case, unofficially Agrippa), one could speak. Paul’s hand is stretched forth in customary *rhetorical style; gestures were an important part of ancient training in public speaking. Studies of ancient gestures suggest that the gesture opening this kind of speech might include pushing together the thumb and middle finger as the outstretched arm moved from right to left.
Standard defense speeches varied somewhat in form but had general consistency, as exhibited here: the complimentary address to the judge (26:2-3), the narratio (narration of events—26:4-18) and finally the argumentio (proofs for one’s case—26:19-23). Whereas in 24:10-21 Paul sought to show his innocence and seek toleration for his message, here he further argues that his message is true.
26:2-3. Here Paul offers the exordium of the speech, in which it was customary to praise the judge (captatio benevolentiae). Paul is able to do so honestly; Agrippa’s interest in the *law was known (though it did not always satisfy the priests), and his realm became a safe haven for Jewish practice after the Jewish-Roman war of 66–70. Requests to hear the speaker patiently appear frequently in ancient speeches.
26:4. Luke’s summary focuses on the speech’s narratio, or preliminary narration of events leading up to the legal situation; here it stretches from 26:4 to at least 26:18 (and perhaps 26:20). Defendants often challenged charges by appealing to their known character. On Paul’s youth in Jerusalem, see 22:3; speeches praising a person often started with the person’s honorable upbringing, when possible.
26:5. The appeal to many potential witnesses is not unusual; it occurs even in *Plato’s version of Socrates’ defense. Also frequent were appeals to common knowledge, often on the part of the audience, and the insistence that one was more upright or pious than one’s accusers in the matter on which one was accused. *Pharisees were less strict than *Essenes, but most Judeans had significantly less contact with Essenes.
26:6-7. Two of the most basic future hopes of most Judeans were the *resurrection of the bodies of the righteous and the restoration of the twelve tribes at the same time. Although the *Sadducees and many *Diaspora Jews may have doubted future resurrection, it was probably the majority view in Palestinian Judaism.
26:8. Ancient courtrooms often counted arguments from probability more heavily than they counted what we would consider hard evidence (such as reliable witnesses); Paul must thus counter the supposition that a resurrection is improbable by reminding his hearers of God’s power and that resurrection is rooted in the most basic Jewish hope.
26:9-10. Favorable testimony from a source expected to be hostile counted more heavily; as a former persecutor Paul has special credibility. Ancient writers sometimes used “casting a vote” figuratively for agreement with decisions; Paul himself had been too young (Acts 7:58; cf. Gal 1:14) to belong to the Sanhedrin. (“Casting a vote,” literally, “a pebble,” was also likely a pun here, similar to some others in antiquity; while witnesses cast their stones, Paul cast what he could, his pebble, i.e., his consent, since pebbles had long stood for voting.) Roman rule forbade executions without the governor’s consent, but they could not prevent lynchings; their Judean forces stayed in Jerusalem and especially Caesarea. Paul’s account here thus paints members of the class to which his accusers belonged as complicit in his past crimes.
26:11. Pliny, governor of Bithynia in the second century, noted that former Christians could easily be moved to worship the gods, but complained that genuine Christians could not be forced to do so, even on the pain of death. Pagan rulers who had earlier tried to force Jews to abandon their ancestral customs had encountered the same resistance, which pagan officials generally considered obstinate.
26:12-13. On “midday” or “noon” (NIV), see 22:6. In 26:13 Paul uses clearly Jewish language for a theophany, a revelation of God’s glory.
26:14. Falling down was a common response to divine (and sometimes even angelic) revelations in the *Old Testament and Jewish tradition. The “heavenly voice” (which some segments of Judaism thought had replaced *prophecy) was often thought to speak in Hebrew or *Aramaic. “Kicking against the goads” was a Greek proverb about fighting a god; its best known form appears in Euripides’ Bacchae 794-95, which is also the ultimate source for the term translated “fighting against God” in 5:39. It is not cited in the other accounts of Paul’s conversion, but it is appropriate in an address to Agrippa, who had an ample Greek education. Greeks displayed their education by providing classical allusions. A “goad” was a pricked utensil used to get animals to move in the right way; ancient writers often applied it figuratively.
26:15-18. Jesus’ words to Paul evoke Old Testament passages about prophets’ calls (Jer 1:5-8) and Israel’s call to the *Gentiles (Is 42:6-7, 16). “An inheritance among those who have been sanctified” (NASB) or “the set-apart ones” refers to the Jewish hope that they as God’s set-apart people would inherit the world to come, just as Israel had “inherited” the Promised Land.
26:19-21. A Roman aristocrat like Festus may dislike Paul’s mission to move Gentiles to repent, but he would not understand the Jewish opposition. Agrippa II, who had pagan friends and knew well the mounting animosity of Judean Jewry against Gentiles, would understand Paul all too well, and it is to him that Paul directs these words. One ancient defense was that one acted by necessity; this could take the form of having to obey a god. In 26:21, Paul again reverses charges; see comment on 24:18-19.
26:22-23. Paul begins marshaling evidence at this point (26:8) that the faith he represents is in continuity with the Old Testament religion tolerated by the Romans as an ancient and ethnic religion.
26:24. Magistrates could interrupt with questions and challenges, as here. Undoubtedly referring to Paul’s Jewish learning (26:4-5) and probably also his visionary claims (26:13-19), Festus gives the usual answer that educated Romans gave to concepts so foreign and barbarian to them as *resurrection. Greeks associated some “madness” with prophetic inspiration; philosophers often considered themselves sober and the masses mad (cf., e.g., Musonius Rufus 20, p. 126.2-3 Lutz), but the masses sometimes considered philosophers mad (possibly relevant to Festus’s claim here).
26:25. A term in Paul’s reply (“utter”—NASB; “saying”—NIV) may imply that he is speaking under inspiration (the same term is used in Acts only at 2:4, 14). But “sober” (or “reasonable”—NIV) speech was a virtue appreciated by Romans, related to the ideas of dignity and respectability; “sober” could contrast with “mad” (26:24), and philosophers, who considered themselves the sanest of all, emphasized their sobriety.
26:26. The charge “speaking in a corner” was an idiom for private speech, and some argue that it was sometimes used to criticize sages who avoided helping the public with their perspectives. Romans mistrusted private meetings as potentially subversive. By the second century Christians were often charged with being secretive (although sometimes they were meeting secretly to avoid being arrested), but Paul argues that Christian claims are public facts, dismissed or ignored by others only because of the others’ bias. Speakers often appealed to public knowledge.
26:27. Paul returns to his argument from Scripture, directed toward Agrippa although incomprehensible to Festus (26:22-24).
26:28. Agrippa evades the force of Paul’s appeal to the prophets by protesting that Paul would make him play the role of a Christian by answering Yes. The rejoinder may be witty rather than harsh.
26:29. Paul is not embarrassed to admit his desire to convert Agrippa. Mentioning Paul’s chains heightens pathos; speakers often emphasized emotional appeal at the conclusion of their speech. Often a prisoner’s right hand would be manacled to a guard’s left; the iron chains frequently weighed ten to fifteen pounds.
26:30-31. Paul is not guilty before Roman law, and this is the only conclusion that Roman law would care about. Nor is he offensive to Agrippa’s more liberal form of Judaism, which abhorred revolutionaries and did not accede to the demands of the Jerusalem aristocracy.
26:32. Agrippa’s opinion would have been included in the cover letter for the case. Because Paul had used his Roman right to appeal to Caesar’s tribunal, Agrippa and Festus can only refer him there with a letter specifying their own opinion. This necessity was likely political rather than legal, and it extracted Festus from a difficult political situation vis-à-vis Paul’s local accusers. This appeal had earlier saved Paul’s life (25:3), and now it provides him free passage to Rome (cf. 19:21) and a public forum for the *gospel there.
Both eyewitness reports and novels included descriptions of storms and shipwrecks; eyewitness reports could tell their story using patterns also found in epic. This *narrative is clearly eyewitness history; the details of the voyage, including the number of days it took to reach particular harbors given the winds mentioned, fit exactly the report of one who had undertaken such a voyage. This point was shown already in the nineteenth century by an experienced Mediterranean mariner.
27:1. Governors at times assigned special duties to centurions and a handful of their soldiers with them. In custody, persons of status were sometimes guarded by centurions; on occasion they even became friends. Given his name, “Julius” may be a Roman citizen, assigned to guard Paul the citizen, though Julius’s soldiers may still be noncitizen auxiliaries. “Augustan” (NASB, NRSV) was often an honorary term; multiple legions and presumably cohorts carried this title, and one cohort known in Syria-Palestine from this period bore that name. Centurions could be moved around. The “other prisoners” may include some sent for trial as Roman citizens, but a higher number of those sent normally were convicted criminals to be killed in the games for the entertainment of the Roman public.
27:2. Shippers had low status but often made large profits. Ancient Mediterranean ships were quite small by modern standards; most of them weighed less than 250 tons, although Alexandrian grain ships (27:6) were much heavier (often estimated at eight hundred tons or more). Caesarea, where they embark, was a major port; its famous and massive artificial harbor was earlier constructed by Herod the Great. Because Adramyttium, southeast of Troas, was the ship’s home port, it was apparently returning northward to Asia Minor, where Julius and the prisoners could transfer to a larger vessel. Imperial messengers normally traveled by land, unless a ship were convenient, as this one proved to be. As an agent of Rome, Julius could requisition passage on ships without paying for it. A prisoner’s friends or servants would be permitted to accompany him only if the captors allowed this; the nature of Paul’s judges’ verdict (26:31-32) has clearly given him light treatment, since two companions accompany him.
27:3. Sidon had a double harbor and was some sixty-nine nautical miles (perhaps a day’s voyage) north of Caesarea, where they had started; their rapid progress suggests smooth sailing at this point. Loading and unloading cargo could take days (or longer) at a busy port, so passengers often went ashore. Ships’ primary purpose was to transport cargo; passengers thus were responsible to bring their own food and other supplies. (At night they slept on deck either in the open or in tents that they brought and erected.) Soldiers normally would need to requisition provisions for themselves and their prisoners from locals, so Paul’s friends’ voluntary support (cf. 24:23) exempts Julius from this unpleasant task here. Although it could be politically dangerous to display loyalty to a prisoner, ancients valued true friendship that remained loyal no matter what one’s circumstances (cf. also 28:13-15).
27:4. The ship is opposed by the usual winds of late sailing season, which blew from the northwest, the direction that they wished to travel. Unable to sail directly northwest toward Myra, they sail on the east of Cyprus, which shields them from westerly winds. Thus, remaining close to the Syrian coast east of Cyprus, and northward to the south of Asia Minor, their voyage is much slower than the reverse voyage across open sea (21:1-3), although aided in their westward movement along the southern coast of Asia Minor by land breezes. Even in better weather, however, ships normally sailed north to Asia Minor before turning west to the south of Crete.
27:5. Myra, a common destination for Alexandrian grain ships, was two miles from its harbor, Andriace. The soldiers and their prisoners could have gone on by land, but the centurion is able to find another ship (27:6).
27:6. Grain ships bound to and from Rome accounted for a vast proportion of Mediterranean trade; ships from Alexandria, Egypt, would travel northward and then westward to bear their cargoes to Rome. This journey took from as little as forty days to over two months (with up to another month to unload the cargo in Italy), although the reverse voyage from Rome to Alexandria could take as little as nine to thirteen days. A particularly large ship could be about 180 feet long, forty-five feet wide and (at their deepest) over forty feet deep; estimates of the amount of grain imported to Rome annually range from two to four hundred thousand tons, probably over a hundred thousand tons of that being imported from Egypt. Because of the fertile Nile valley, Egypt supplied possibly a third of Rome’s grain. Egyptian peasants who raised the grain could not always feed their families, but the grain was disbursed free to citizens of Rome to maintain stability in the heart of the empire. Rome provided economic incentives for shipowners, securing as much grain for Rome as possible. Although in this period owned and operated by private merchants, this was the largest mercantile fleet known to Europe before the 1700s. The Alexandrian fleet was the quickest means of transportation from Syria to Rome.
27:7. Cnidus lay partly on a peninsula, partly on an island, and had two harbors. Ships that sailed over against Cnidus were keeping north of Rhodes. Between storms, they could venture the two or three days from Cnidus to Salmone, on Crete’s northeastern tip, the easiest place to reach in view of the winds from the northwest. Crete was the largest island of the Aegean Sea. It had few harbors in the north, and the current, seasonal winds from the northwest could wreck a ship against the coast. But the south coast of Crete had more harbors, and the south winds there were more gentle.
27:8. Fair Havens is a bay two kilometers west of Lasea; sheltered by small islands, it would protect ships from strong winds. Nevertheless, this fishing village was not a pleasant place for the crew and passengers to spend winter. Six miles (ten kilometers) beyond Fair Havens, however, Crete’s southern coast veers sharply northward after Cape Matala, exposing a ship to the full harshness of a northwesterly wind blowing across the land. To find the better winter harbor of Phoenix further west, therefore, the ship would likely sail northwest across open sea through the Gulf of Mesara toward their destination, but in so doing would gamble that they would not suddenly face a northwester.
Danger was so common at sea that some estimate that a fifth of voyagers faced danger on significant voyages; perhaps half of all voyages faced delays. Shipwrecks were so common that archaeologists have identified more than a thousand ancient shipwreck remains. Luke had good reason to supply many details; ancient readers were interested in stories about such experiences.
27:9. Ships usually left Alexandria in the spring, but could be delayed administratively in Italian ports. Those that returned to Alexandria before late August might venture a second trip; later voyages were more risky, but shipowners’ profit determined whether such voyages would be undertaken. Owners (often newly wealthy urban merchants) could borrow money to pay for their cargo; the loan would be canceled if the ship were lost, but such loans could run as high as thirty percent of the cargo’s cost. Indeed, eager to import more grain, the previous emperor, Claudius, had offered special financial incentives to shippers who would bring grain even in winter (*Suetonius, Life of Claudius 18.2-3). If sailing became too dangerous, ships might winter along the way and resume their voyage in the spring. The “fast” here refers to Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, which occurs in September or October. Sea travel became more dangerous as winter approached (2 Tim 4:21; Tit 3:12). Shipping was completely closed down (except for the brave or foolhardy) from around November 10 to as late as March 10, but September 15–November 10 and March 11–May 26 could be risky periods as well. Given the financial incentives of multiple annual runs for the grain ships, however, some shipowners took the risks.
27:10. Paul’s Roman citizenship and perhaps status as leader of a movement or one with an approving letter from Festus keep him in the presence of the centurion. Pagans undertaking sea voyages always sacrificed to the gods and sought their protection. Bad omens, astrological interpretations or dreams sometimes prevented a ship from sailing if they were taken seriously. Before going to war Romans would check the entrails of animals, the flight of birds and other forms of divination; religious advice was always important to those contemplating a potentially risky venture. Paul might sound to them like the kind of seer who could predict the future without divination. (Unlike Greeks, Romans respected divination more than this kind of *prophecy.) His hearers will take Paul more seriously later in the chapter.
27:11. Most of the elite considered shippers of low status, but the latter often did make huge profits. Although Paul’s travel experience and spiritual reputation might allow Paul a hearing, the centurion, who must decide whether to leave with the ship, gives greater credence to the nautical knowledge of the captain (and the decision of the “majority,” 27:12). Yet such a decision was often made more on economic than nautical grounds. Ships’ contents were expensively insured in case of shipwreck. Grain ships sometimes traveled together; this one is making the voyage alone and is probably one of the latest vessels of the shipping season. The captain at best hopes to make it to a better and/or further harbor before the seas close down for the winter (27:12); he cannot hope to reach Italy this late in the year (27:9).
27:12. Most of Crete’s southwest coast is steep, but one city with an excellent harbor was Phoenix, on the southern side of a Cretan isthmus. Phoenix was probably a common winter harbor; its site is probably a bay across from Loutro, though the topography has changed since antiquity. The voyage would be more than fifty miles (eighty kilometers). The “majority,” presumably of people with rank, come to a consensus.
27:13-14. A south wind would help them stay close to shore and bring them safely to their destination. They would pass Cape Matala four miles to the west, following the coast, but then might try to sail west-northwest in the open across the gulf of Mesará for some thirty-four to thirty-six miles to reach Phoenix. Unfortunately, in this region the south wind often changes suddenly to a dangerous wind from the northeast (a gregale); the conflicting air currents increase the danger. Mountains just one or two kilometers north of Fair Havens could have initially obstructed the sailors’ view of storms coming from the north. They may have seen them when crossing the bay, but (not being from this region) could not have known that the nearby Platanos Valley could funnel the wind toward them and blast them out to sea. The “Euraquilo” mentioned here (NASB; the term mixes Greek and Latin) may be a wind blowing from the east by northeast—the most dangerous kind of wind.
27:15. With a favorable wind in their mainsail, these ships could cover about fifty nautical miles in daylight, or ninety miles in twenty-four hours. But ancient ships had square mainsails and could face into even a normal headwind only with much effort; this wind was more powerful.
27:16. Cauda’s probable location (modern Gavdhos) was over twenty miles southwest of where the storm probably caught them in the bay of Mesará. It offered no place to anchor on the side of the island they were passing; the momentary shelter from the storm’s force, however, allowed for some quick maneuvers. The “boat” or “lifeboat” (NIV), a dinghy, was used for landings, to maneuver the ship for tacking and so forth. Often these boats were towed behind, typically with a sailor in it. Here, filled with water or in danger of breaking loose from the ship or being smashed against it, it has to be brought on deck to be rescued.
27:17. The “supporting cables” (NASB) or “ropes” (NIV) were frapping cables used to undergird the hull against the raging sea in times of fierce storms; they may have been slipped around the stern or prow and worked backward to brace the whole hull.
If they continued on their present course too far (four hundred miles) to the southwest, they would eventually be destroyed in Syrtis Major (modern Gulf of Sidra), a dreaded shoal west of Cyrenaica along the African coast. (Syrtis Minor was further west than their path risked carrying them.) Ancient literature is replete with accounts of ships trapped in these shallows, then destroyed when the water levels rose. Even in good weather, Alexandrian grain ships sailed northward to Asia and then westward to Italy, rather than directly northwest, because a sudden change in winds could wreck them on this shoal.
27:18. Other sources illustrate that jettisoning some of the cargo is the natural step at this point; in crises like this one no distinction is made between valuable and cheap cargo (Jon 1:5; also *Josephus, others). They do not discard all the cargo here (27:38); ships carried at least 68 tons, large ones (such as this one) usually carried over 250 tons, and some could carry up to 1200 tons. Unloading such a ship once docked could take twelve days. Hurling merchandise into the sea required less caution, but the crew certainly could not finish the task in one day. The grain was probably stored in sacks piled six feet high, which could be moved manually only with great effort, without the equipment normally available on docks.
27:19. If, as many commentators think, Luke refers to the yard (“tackle”—NIV)—a spar that could be nearly the ship’s own length—it would take many of those on deck to lower it down to the deck. One would secure it if possible, but in the severity of this storm, they cannot afford the encumbrance created by retaining it.
27:20. Stars were needed for navigation. Pagans felt that those who died at sea never entered the realm of the dead; instead their souls wandered aimlessly forever above the waters in which they perished.
27:21-22. Paul might speak below deck; in any case, some people were able to project their voices so as to be heard widely, even with competing noise. Ancient people often evaluated the sincerity of philosophers (e.g., Aristippus) according to how calm they stayed under pressure. People believed that a true philosopher consistent with his teachings would remain calm in a dangerous storm at sea (so Pyrrho the Skeptic), whereas a false prophet such as Peregrinus would not. The others’ lack of eating could stem from fear or seasickness. The conventional address “Men” need not imply that all 276 persons aboard are male (see comment on 1:16).
27:23-25. It was not unusual for ancient writers in the middle of a story to report earlier events they had not yet mentioned.
Many believed that ships would be destroyed because of the impious aboard, or spared because one of special piety was aboard. A story is told that even some unreligious men began to supplicate the gods during a raging storm; the philosopher Bias, aboard the same ship, urged them to be quiet, lest the gods recognize they were aboard and sink the ship! Like Jonah’s behavior in the *Old Testament (Jon 1:6-16), this attitude contrasts sharply with Paul’s concern for all aboard. (A few other people, like Caesar, were said to have claimed that a ship could not sink with them on it, but Paul’s claim is because of God’s mission and message, not because he is personally indispensable.) Various deities claimed the role of protector at sea, like Isis or the Dioscuri (28:11); but God is the true protector.
27:26-27. Running aground was dangerous, but Paul prepares them for this news. The sea around Malta (28:1) is far south of what is called the “Adriatic Sea” today but was included in the “Sea of Adria” in antiquity. The rate of drift per day and the trajectory they would have followed from Cauda to avoid Syrtis has been calculated; it was exactly fourteen days to reach Malta (28:1). If the wind was below gale strength at this point, a ship heading toward Malta from the east could hear water breaking against land even at a mile and a half from Point Koura.
27:28. Sailors would judge the depth of the water by lowering lead weights smeared with grease on a hollow underside, to pick up samples from the sea floor. The soundings suggest that they were at this point near Koura, east of Malta; they may have passed within a quarter mile of it. Roughly half an hour would pass between twenty and fifteen fathoms, showing that they are approaching grounding dangerously quickly, probably with underwater rocks that would rip open the hull.
27:29. Because they are shoaling quickly with low visibility, they use anchors as brakes. These were normally cast from the bow, but here they are cast from the stern, probably so the stern cannot be blown around into the rocks or because they will advance bow-first in the morning light. The anchors were probably used in succession to prevent the vessel from being smashed against the reefs.
27:30. Other cases are known of crew members’ trying to escape a doomed ship in a small boat; these boats were not meant as lifeboats and fitted only a handful of people. Sailors were sometimes slaves; at other times they sailed to make a living; but they had little stake in the ship.
27:31. The sailors’ expertise will be needed aboard to ground the ship. The centurion and soldiers, being armed, could take charge.
27:32. On the next day they could have used the small boat to ferry people to land (although it would have taken many trips); without it, they would have to run the whole ship aground. Although the captain might hold more rank on the ship than a passenger centurion (against some earlier views of the Roman grain fleet), in an emergency the soldiers would exercise more authority—if only because they were the ones with the weapons.
27:33-34. “Not a hair of one’s head” was a proverbial expression in the Old Testament (1 Sam 14:45; 2 Sam 14:11; 1 Kings 1:52); but it would make sense even to hearers who were not familiar with it.
27:35-36. The meal here is done in the traditional Jewish manner: the head of the household thanked God and distributed the bread. Most passengers would have brought their own food on the ship, probably especially bread (the most fundamental staple of the ancient Mediterranean diet) and other food that did not require cooking. Some of the raw wheat in 27:38 could also be edible in this emergency, though it could be difficult to digest.
27:37. Large ships frequently carried several hundred people; Josephus even claimed that he had traveled aboard a ship with six hundred people. Most ships that hugged the coasts weighed less, but large ones could weigh 250 tons. Alexandrian grain ships (such as in 27:6; 28:11), built for the open sea, were larger, many weighing 340 tons, some over eight hundred tons, and a few to twelve hundred tons.
27:38. They need to lighten the ship further (27:18), in order to run aground as close to land as possible. Once wet, grain would also pose a hazard to the ship, since the grain could swell to twice its original volume and split the hull. Many suggest that they had so far retained some of the cargo as ballast (heavy material kept in the hold of a ship to steady it); whether or not this is the case, such ships carried hundreds of tons of wheat, so they could not have finished the job in 27:18. An Alexandrian ship’s cargo would be wheat.
27:39. Apart from some topographic details that have changed over the centuries, the traditional site of St. Paul’s Bay in northeastern Malta fits all the details of the narrative. Ships often stopped at Malta, but normally in better weather and at safe harbors.
27:40. These actions are normal for a disabled ship trying to come near land. A helmsman would pull and push a tiller, or handle, to control two steering paddles (oars) connected as rudders. The sailors had apparently bound the rudders to prevent unwelcome movement, but now needed to steer. Ships normally had a large, square sail and (mentioned here) a smaller, triangular foresail; the latter could be removed when slowing down when coming into a harbor, but here the objective is to reach the beach as quickly as possible.
27:41. Between St. Paul’s Bay and the island of Salmonetta on the northwest is a shallow channel about three hundred yards wide. The ship may have wedged on a sandbar there, while waves pound the immobilized rear of the vessel.
27:42-43. Chained prisoners cannot swim; unchained prisoners can escape. Guards were responsible for the prisoners’ safe custody. They would be less liable for their charges if the prisoners “died at sea” than if they escaped. In any case, most of these prisoners were likely going to be fed to animals for public entertainment in Rome; out of consistency, Julius might have a hard time later explaining how he spared one prisoner (Paul) and not others, so he spares all.
27:44. The boards might be taken from the grain holds below deck. Papyrus is not waterproof; Luke would have to put any notes in a sealed container and keep it atop a plank. Although some survivors of a shipwreck so close to shore would be likely, the survival of all passengers (likely including the aged, infirm and children), after two weeks without eating and many or most being unable to swim, would be viewed as extraordinary. In Greco-Roman literature, someone’s escape from disaster at sea could serve as evidence of that person’s religious purity even before a court.
28:1. Malta (ancient Melite), some fifty-eight miles south of Sicily, was on the shipping route from Rome to Egypt, whereby empty ships would sail quickly to Alexandria to load up more cargoes. It was the stop immediately after Syracuse in Sicily (28:12). The alternative proposed site for Luke’s island, near Dalmatia (Meleda, modern Mljet, also called Melite in antiquity), is based on a misreading of “Adria” in 27:27 and has no merit; winds from the northeast could not have driven them there, nor would they have sailed from there to Syracuse instead of Italy (28:12).
28:2. Ancients valued hospitality, particularly to survivors of shipwrecks. The Maltese were of Phoenician descent, and most commoners there spoke and read only Punic (the late Phoenician dialect of the Carthaginians). But Roman citizens and retired soldiers also lived there, the elite spoke Latin or Greek, and the island was certainly not considered culturally primitive. The title “barbarians” (“barbarous”—KJV; “natives”—NRSV, NASB; “islanders”—NIV) could apply to all non-Greeks, or, as here, to anyone who did not speak Greek. Greeks did not ordinarily expect kind treatment from them, but Luke’s use of the term is not derisive; he indicts Greek ethnic prejudice at the same time that he displays God’s providential care through them. The temperature during that season would have been typically below 60 degress fahrenheit when raining, and being wet probably made people feel even cooler.
28:3. In cold weather some snakes can look stiff like twigs until the heat of a fire stirs them. Snakebites were a topic of medical concern in antiquity. Poisonous snakes are now extinct on heavily populated Malta, probably partly because the forest cover that once existed is now gone.
28:4. Ancients could argue even in courts that their survival of troubles at sea proved their piety and hence innocence; on the importance of arguing Paul’s innocence, see the introduction to Acts. In some stories, the impious escaped one form of terrible death (e.g., at sea) only to face something worse (besides Greek stories, see Amos 5:19). “Justice” was a goddess who executed the will of Fortune or the Fates; although both Romans and local Punic tradition had personified Justice as a deity, Luke translates the observers’ idea into the idiom of Greek poets. Animals were considered one means of divine punishment. Several groups of Jewish catacombs dating between the second and fifth centuries A.D. have been found on the island; but if Jewish people were on the island in the first century, this *narrative does not mention them.
28:5. For divine protection from or healing of snake bites, see, e.g., Num 21:6-9; for protection more generally, e.g., Ps 91:13; Dan 6:22. (Some Jewish traditions also emphasize Adam’s rule over the beasts [Gen 1:26] or its restoration in Is 11:6-9.)
28:6. Whenever similar stories were told, those who survived bites from poisonous snakes or lizards were considered holy men (e.g., the pious Jewish holy man Hanina ben Dosa); Greco-Roman paganism often considered such holy men to be divine or semidivine. The change of mind on the part of Paul’s viewers could strike the ancient reader as humorous, as in some similar accounts in antiquity where a human was mistaken for a particular divinity. Ancient writers often paralleled or contrasted figures; cf. here 10:25-26; 12:22-23; 14:11, 15.
28:7. Hospitality was an important virtue, especially toward people who had been shipwrecked and were stranded without possessions. Both Greek and Latin often employ “first” (as here) for leading citizens, and the title is attested on Malta. Publius is a Latin praenomen, and as a top official he had probably received a grant of Roman citizenship; the title assigned to him here has been found in Greek and Latin inscriptions as the proper title of the island’s governor.
28:8-9. The most common form of fever was malaria (typhoid also occurred); the description here could fit malaria, with intermittent attacks. Fevers could last briefly or for a year, and could be mild or fatal. Some ancient treatments were superstitious, but many physicians treated winter fever by giving fluids. Dysentery most often accompanied fever during summer, but the dysentery may have persisted or exploited the man’s weakened condition, or the fever may stem from dysentery. Some commentators also note that in subsequent times the Maltese were affected by a special sickness due to a microbe in the milk of the goats there; although such organisms would have mutated over the centuries, perhaps a similar illness is in view here.
28:10. People typically were expected to respond to benefactions with other gifts or honors.
28:11. As an agent of Rome, Julius could requisition passage on ships without paying for it. The seas opened as early as February 7–8 or as late as March 10, depending on the weather; in the year in view here they seem to open toward the earlier date. On Alexandrian ships, see comment on 27:6; like most ships wintering on the island, this one would have left Alexandria too late in the season and spent the winter in a Maltese harbor rather than risking the voyage on to Rome at that time. Ships were named for their patron deity (e.g., “the Isis”) in whose protection they trusted and whose image was used as the ship’s figurehead. The Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux, twin heroes; Pollux, a son of Zeus, shared his immortality with his brother during half the year) were considered special protectors of ships, on whom one might call in a storm. They were also popular deities in Rome and in this region.
28:12. Well-fortified Syracuse was the chief city of Sicily, on its southeast, with a rich Greek and Roman heritage and renowned for its beauty; it boasted two harbors and was perhaps a quarter the size of Rome itself. The voyage there was roughly a hundred miles.
28:13. Rhegium was the Italian harbor closest to Sicily, with a long history as a Greek settlement but also Roman citizenship. In the first century, mercantile vessels, including the Alexandrian grain fleet, put in at Puteoli some twenty miles west of Naples (although the harbor Claudius had improved at Ostia eventually surpassed it). To have reached Puteoli in two days meant that they had made optimum time (about ninety miles a day). Yet from Puteoli they still had far more than a hundred miles left to Rome.
28:14. The Jewish community in Puteoli had been there a long time, as had Egyptian and Phoenician cults. As a regular port receiving visitors from the East, it naturally received foreign religions as well as goods. Thus it is not surprising to find Christians there; but readers of Luke’s day might be more surprised that these Christians offer such extensive hospitality to Paul’s captors, who (probably in view of Paul’s role during the storm) accept it from them. The journey from here to Rome would be perhaps 120 to 130 miles, some of it through hill country; it might take up to a week. On the journey they would proceed first to Capua (some twenty miles on the Via Campana) and from there follow the Via Appia (the “Appian Way”).
28:15. Honorary delegations would come from cities to meet a visiting dignitary; local Christians, probably familiar with Paul’s letter to the Romans and some Christian leaders in Rome who know him, honor Paul in this way, coming even much further than ordinary delegations. (For information about some of the Roman believers, esp. their leaders, see Rom 16.) In older times, isolated inns had grown into larger settlements that retained the names of the inns. One of these was the Tres Tabernae, or Three Inns, 33 Roman miles from Rome on the ancient and famous Appian Way. (A Roman mile was a thousand average-sized paces for a Roman soldier, eventually standardized as about 4,851 feet, about 92 percent of the English mile of 5,280 feet [i.e., about 1479 meters].) The “Market of Appius,” or Appii Forum, was about 43 Roman miles (39.5 miles; 63.5 kilometers) from Rome on the same paved road. Jewish communities had existed in Italy for a long time and may have formed the basis for the first Christian groups there (cf. 2:10).
28:16. Rome had as many as a million residents, though not all fit within its traditional walls. Along the Appian Way, Paul and the others would enter Rome’s Porta Capena, through an area with many poor immigrants. Paul was loosely chained by the wrist to a soldier (28:20), presumably a member of the Praetorian Guard, Caesar’s elite personal guard in Rome, which consisted of nine or twelve cohorts. The relatively light confinement reported here was used only for prisoners of status who posed no threat (officials would know of the opinion in 26:31), though he did not receive the lightest custody (i.e., without chains). Paul would have considerable freedom within the home, which may have been an apartment in one of Rome’s many blocks of tenements; he could have met with visitors in the building’s courtyard, if available.
Two soldiers normally guarded dangerous prisoners; the single soldier (cf. also the single chain of 28:20) suggests that Paul was considered a minimal security threat. The guard likely belonged to the Praetorian Guard, the elite part of the Roman army used in Italy itself. The Praetorian Guard was commanded by the Praetorian prefect, one of the most powerful men in Rome, who was at this time Afranius Burrus. Burrus was officially responsible for all prisoners from the provinces to be tried by Caesar’s court, although the task itself was probably delegated to a lower officer.
28:17. Rome had a significant Jewish community (a common guess is forty to fifty thousand) organized in numerous *synagogues. Many lived in the impoverished area across the Tiber; the majority spoke predominantly Greek. The “local Jewish leaders” (NIV) are leaders (apparently bearing titles such as “rulers of synagogues,” “gerousiarchs,” and “rulers”) of different synagogue communities; in contrast to Alexandria’s Jewish community, no single leader or body ruled over the whole Jewish community in Rome. The Jewish congregations in Rome were all autonomous, and Christians could spread their views among the various synagogues with relative freedom. The Jewish community there had also made many Roman converts and sympathizers (to the chagrin of many male Roman aristocrats). Many of these sympathizers would be happy to embrace a version of the Jewish faith that accepted them fully without circumcision. Many Jewish believers may have been expelled a decade or so earlier due to tensions over Jesus’ identity (see comment on 18:2), however, and though many would have returned on Claudius’s death, it is not clear that they returned to the synagogues.
28:18-20. In terms of ancient logic and *rhetoric, that Paul was “forced” to appeal is an argument from “necessity,” often used to show that a particular behavior was not wrong in a given case. Paul is not, he says, out to bring a countercharge (see comment on 24:19) or embarrass his people, already a sometimes marginal minority in Rome. Paul must also explain his chain, normally a mark of dishonor. Paul continues to emphasize the continuity between the *Old Testament message and his own; this point would be important to Jewish leaders and also to Roman officials, who needed to understand that the Jesus movement was rooted in an ancient religion worthy of toleration (even if, after 70, Judaism was unpopular in some circles).
28:21-22. Paul’s accusers may not yet have arrived (cf. 28:11), but they may also have abandoned the case. Unable to win their case in Judea, Paul’s accusers would have even less chance in Rome; if accusers did not eventually come, a case was to be decided in favor of the defendant. Those who failed to prosecute a charge could also be accused of having fabricated it. By A.D. 62, the Jewish community in Rome had an advocate with the emperor in his wife (and former mistress) Poppaea Sabina—until Nero kicked her to death while she was pregnant. The Roman Jewish community may have had conflicts over the identity of Jesus a decade earlier (see comment on 18:2). These leaders could not but know about this large movement (a few years later Nero killed hundreds of Christians), but they may have lacked an educated Jewish Christian leader who could dialogue with them about it. It is by no means clear that the Roman Jewish community was uniformly hostile to the Christian movement (28:24), but they naturally had questions, especially if their previous (probably partial) expulsion in 18:2 was related to Christian teachings.
28:23-28. Paul’s citation of Isaiah 6 climaxes a theme throughout Acts: that most of God’s own chosen people reject their *Messiah while *Gentiles accept him is not amazing but the fulfillment of Scripture. Toward the end of their work, writers often recapitulated major themes that came up earlier in their book.
28:30. At the end of two years, if no accusers had arrived and no charges had been sent against him (28:21), the case against him might be closed by default. Careful records were kept, so the system would not simply lose track of its prisoners, especially in Rome itself. Paul was later arrested again and beheaded (according to strong tradition, in Nero’s persecution, which began in A.D. 64), but Luke wishes to end on a note of positive legal precedent, before the corruptions introduced by Nero’s tyranny. A number of ancient works had sudden endings; and following the pattern of other Jewish and Christian works (but in contrast to many Greek works), Luke wishes to end happily. Open endings sometimes look beyond the narrative’s closing to the promised or foreshadowed future (here, the completion of Acts 1:8).
28:31. That Paul could preach under the very nose of the Praetorian Guard suggests that, before Nero instituted his persecution against Christians for political reasons, they were tolerated under Roman law. Luke’s defense of Christianity on legal and philosophical grounds paved the way for second-century defenders of Christianity and points the way for Christian lawyers, statespersons and others to work in society today.