The writer of Acts did not identify himself by name. Traditionally, from the second century CE onward, the account has been attributed to Luke, Paul’s fellow worker and a physician by profession. In modern times, Luke’s writership has been questioned. There is, however, no compelling reason for rejecting the ancient tradition, and doing so leaves the question of the writer’s identity unresolved and contributes nothing meaningful for understanding Acts.
Both the third Gospel (the one attributed to Luke) and Acts are addressed to Theophilus, and the writer’s comments (Acts 1:1, 2) about the first account are descriptive of the subject matter contained in the Gospel. Accordingly, the Gospel and Acts were written by the same person, and the good literary Greek style that both accounts share in common confirm this.
Acts largely focuses on the activity of Peter and Paul. Among others who figure significantly in the account are the first martyr Stephen, the evangelist Phillip, Barnabas, the Lord’s brother James, and Silas. Passages where the first person plural (“we”) appears suggest that Luke was personally present.
Included in the account are conversations and lengthy discourses or defenses, and a considerable number of these were not originally spoken in Greek. Of necessity, this required Luke to choose wording that would convey the message, and he doubtless only included what he considered essential for Theophilus to know. Even in the case of words initially spoken in Greek, one should not expect them to be exact quotations in the written text. As is apparent from the literary style, the narrative serves to express the basic thoughts of the originally spoken words.
Already in early manuscripts (fourth and fifth century CE) numerous differences exist. A number of scholars have attempted to explain the reasons for the variations, but no one view has gained general acceptance. In the commentary that follows, many of the different manuscript readings are included in the Notes section.
From the earliest centuries, the “first account” (literally, “first word”) has been understood as the evangel that is attributed to Luke. At the end of one of the oldest extant manuscripts of this evangel (P75, thought to date from either the late second century or the early third century CE) are the words, “evangel according to Luke” (euangelion kata loukan). Both the “Evangel According to Luke” and “Acts of the Apostles” are addressed to Theophilus. Since he referred to Theophilus as the recipient of the “first account,” the writer identified himself as the person who composed Acts. In the evangel, Theophilus is acknowledged as being krátistos, meaning “highly honored” or “most excellent.” This could indicate that Theophilus held a high position or was highly esteemed as a person with a noble status. The “first account” dealt with “all” that “Jesus began to do and teach.” In this case, “all” does not refer to the inclusion of every detail about Jesus’ activity and teaching but signifies that the written narration related to what Jesus did and taught. (1:1)
The first account concluded with Jesus’ being “taken up” or his ascending to heaven, ending the kind of interaction he had had with his disciples after his resurrection from the dead. Before his being “taken up,” Jesus “gave command to the apostles” (“sent forth ones”) whom he had chosen to testify concerning him. The command was for them to proclaim that, on the basis of his “name” or faith in him, forgiveness of sins would be possible for all who repented of their sins and became his disciples. The proclamation was to have its start in Jerusalem, where the apostles were to wait until they were empowered by holy spirit. (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-49) As one upon whom the holy spirit operated in its fullness, Jesus gave command “through holy spirit.” (1:2)
During a period of 40 days, Jesus, “after he had suffered” an agonizing death and been resurrected, presented himself “alive” to the apostles, providing them with “many proofs” that he was indeed the risen one. (1:3)
The apostles found it hard to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Late on the first day after his resurrection, he suddenly appeared in their midst while they were assembled behind locked doors. Despite his reassuring words, they became fearful, thinking that they were seeing a spirit or an apparition. He asked them to touch him, telling them that a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Even though they were filled with joy, they still seem to have found it hard to accept that Jesus had been resurrected and continued in a state of amazement. He then asked them if they had anything to eat. Upon being given a piece of fish, he ate it, thus providing them with additional proof that he was alive. (Luke 24:29, 33-43) At another time, Jesus made it possible for Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James and John, and two other disciples to have an extraordinarily large catch of fish. (John 21:1-7) Another one of the many proofs by which Jesus revealed himself to be alive included the way he took bread, said a blessing, and then broke the bread. (Luke 24:30, 31)
Besides presenting himself alive by means of many proofs, Jesus also spoke to them about the “kingdom of God” in the course of 40 days. He may have made known to them his role as king by his Father’s appointment and how they and others could remain approved persons in the realm where his Father is recognized as Sovereign, finally to gain entrance into this realm in the complete sense upon his return in glory. (1:3)
Jesus, when meeting with the apostles, instructed them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait there for “the promise of the Father,” concerning which promise they had heard him speak to them before his death. This “promise” referred to the future outpouring of the holy spirit, which promise the Father had made known through his prophets centuries earlier. (Isaiah 32:15; Ezekiel 36:26, 27; Joel 2:28, 29 [3:1, 2]) Moreover, Jesus had told the apostles that, after his departure, they would receive the holy spirit. As their remembrancer and teacher, the spirit would empower them to carry out their responsibilities as Jesus’ devoted disciples, bearing witness to others concerning him. (1:4; John 14:15-18, 25, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-11; see the Notes section.)
Jesus reminded the apostles that John had “baptized with water.” They, however, in not many “days” from then, would be “baptized with [en, literally, “in”] holy spirit.” At the time John baptized persons who had repented of their sins, he proclaimed that the one who would come after him (the promised Messiah) would baptize with holy spirit. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8) The Greek preposition en here does not mean that the baptism of the apostles would occur in the element of spirit but that they would be recipients of, or baptized with, the spirit. (1:5; see the Notes section.)
When the apostles had come together with Jesus on the Mount of Olives, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” They framed their question according to their expectations regarding Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ, the son of David. They thought in terms of an independent monarchy with its capital in Jerusalem and Jesus as king, free from subservience to any other earthly sovereignty. The apostles did not then understand the true nature of the kingdom as being heavenly and not of this world. As the realm where God is recognized as Sovereign and rules by means of his Son, the kingdom would be revealed in the completeness of its authority upon Jesus’ return in glory. The Son of God would then accept those who are his own to be with him and express judgment against all who choose to oppose him. (1:6)
Jesus’ reply to the apostles focused on his return as the highly exalted Lord, the King by his Father’s appointment. He told them that it was not for them to know the “times and seasons which the Father has set by his own authority.” It is God’s exclusive domain to determine just “when” the kingdom would be revealed in all its fullness as the realm where he is the recognized Sovereign and rules through his Son. This knowledge was not imparted to the apostles nor has it been revealed to any humans in all the intervening centuries since their time. (1:7; see the Notes section.)
The apostles had a work to do in relation to the kingdom, identifying Jesus as the promised Messiah, Christ, or King, and making known how through faith in him individuals everywhere could become part of the royal realm and gain the ultimate entrance into this realm as sinless persons at the time of his return in glory. To empower them to carry out their commission, Jesus revealed that the holy spirit would come upon them and they would be his “witnesses in Jerusalem and [in] all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” In Jerusalem (located in Judea), they would start to present their testimony concerning Jesus Christ as the resurrected and exalted Lord in heaven. From there they would make known the message about him throughout all of Judea, the Roman district that lay to the north of Judea (Samaria), and then far beyond the boundaries of their land. (1:8; see the Notes section.)
After Jesus had said this and while the apostles were “looking on” (their attention being directed to him), he was “lifted up” from where he was standing and began to ascend. A “cloud caught him away from their eyes.” This suggests that he passed through the cloud and out of their sight. (1:9)
The apostles kept looking in the direction where Jesus had ascended. As they gazed at the sky, two men dressed in white garments appeared to them. The two men were angels, as indicated by their white garments. Whenever the attire of angels is specified in the Scriptures, it is referred to as having been white. (Mark 16:5; John 20:12; Revelation 19:14) Moreover, what the two men said indicated that they were heavenly messengers, for they revealed future developments regarding Jesus. (1:10)
Addressing the apostles as “men of Galilee,” the angels asked them, “Why do you stand [here] looking to heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will thus come in the way you saw him going into heaven.” The question indicated that it was not then the time for them to look for Jesus to appear again, continuing to interact with them as he had after his resurrection. This question may also have implied that they had a work to do until he would be returning in glory as their highly exalted Lord. That he would return, however, was certain. The apostles had seen Jesus ascend and vanish from their sight, and his disappearance from view came about by means of a cloud. Therefore, it appears reasonable to conclude that they would have thought of his coming again as involving actual sight and clouds. Other references to Christ’s return do mention that he would be seen coming on or with the clouds. (1:11; Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; Revelation 1:7; see the Notes section.)
The apostles were on the Mount of Olives when Jesus ascended and vanished from their sight. After the angels spoke to them, they returned to Jerusalem, situated just a “sabbath’s day journey” away. According to ancient Jewish sources, a “sabbath’s day journey” was limited to 2,000 cubits (approximately 3,000 feet or over 900 meters). This was the farthest point to which Jews were authorized to walk on the Sabbath, and 2,000 cubits corresponds roughly to what Josephus (in Antiquities, XX, viii, 6 [five stadia]; War, V, ii, 3 [six stadia]) gave as the distance of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. (1:12; see http://bibleplaces.com/mtolives.htm for pictures of and comments about the Mount of Olives.)
Arriving in the city, the apostles headed for the upper chamber of the house where they were staying. Possibly this was the home of Mary, the mother of Mark, and the upper chamber may have been where they had observed the Passover with Jesus just before his being seized in the garden of Gethsemane. (1:13)
The eleven apostles are then named, and Peter (as in all other lists) is mentioned first. As the son of John (Jonah), he was known as Simon, and Jesus gave him the name Peter, meaning “rock.” (John 1:42) The name Peter reflected Jesus’ confidence in him as a disciple who would remain firm or steadfast like a rock and a strengthening aid to fellow believers. John and James were brothers whom Jesus called “Boanerges” (“sons of thunder”), possibly on account of their fiery disposition. (Mark 3:17) If Salome was Mary’s sister (as may be concluded from a comparison of Matthew 27:56 with Mark 15:40 and of John 19:25 with Matthew 27:55 and Mark 15:40, 41), James and John would have been Jesus’ cousins. Andrew was Peter’s brother and the one who had initially introduced Peter to Jesus as the promised Messiah. (John 1:40, 41) In John’s account (1:44-47), Philip is mentioned as introducing Nathanael to Jesus. The fact that Philip and Bartholomew are linked in the lists of the apostles in Matthew, Mark, and Luke suggests that Nathanael is another name for Bartholomew. Jesus invited Matthew or Levi who was seated at his tax collector’s booth, probably on the outskirts of Capernaum, to be his follower. Matthew, who may often have heard Jesus speak and doubtless knew about his miracles, did not hesitate to respond to the invitation. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:13, 14; Luke 5:27, 28) As to Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot (zelotés), and Judas the son of James (Thaddaeus), the biblical record does not include any specifics as to when they became close followers of Jesus before he called them to be apostles (ones sent forth to bear witness concerning him). (1:13; Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:12-16)
In Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18, Simon is called the Cananaean. The designation Cananaean appears to be a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning “zealot” or “enthusiast.” As many have concluded, the corresponding Greek term zelotés may well indicate that Simon had formerly been associated with the political faction known as the Zealots. Another possibility is that the appellative describes Simon as a person of exemplary zeal. (1:13)
Both Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 refer to Judas the son of James, and John 14:22 also calls this apostle Judas but adds, “not Iscariot.” In Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18, he is called Thaddaeus.
Unitedly, the apostles persisted in prayer. Assembled with them were “Mary the mother of Jesus,” Jesus’ brothers, and other women. Among the women may have been Salome (the mother of James and John), Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary (the sisters of Lazarus), Joanna, and Mark’s mother Mary. (Matthew 27:56; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 11:1; 19:25; Acts 12:12) According to Mark 6:3, the brothers were James, Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon. Initially, they did not put faith in Jesus. (John 7:3-5) After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to James, one of these brothers. (1 Corinthians 15:7) It may well be that the post-resurrection appearance eliminated all the former doubts of James and moved him to believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah and God’s beloved Son. His testimony may then have been instrumental in aiding his brothers likewise to put faith in Jesus. (1:14; see the Notes section.)
During the course of the days when the apostles and other disciples (a group numbering about 120) were together, Peter stood up in the “midst of the brothers” (or fellow believers) and began to speak to them. (1:15)
He is quoted as addressing them as “men, brothers” and calling to their attention that “the scripture,” which the holy spirit foretold through the mouth of David,” had to be fulfilled. Under the guidance of the holy spirit, David composed the words of Psalm 41:9 (40:10), which according to the quotation in John 13:18, read, “The one eating my bread has lifted up his heel against me.” The “lifting up” of the heel (as when a foot is raised in preparation for kicking) denoted the committing of an act of treachery. Peter personally heard Jesus say that these words of scripture would be fulfilled. Therefore, in view of the way in which everything occurred in connection with Jesus’ betrayal, Peter could say that the action of Judas in becoming a “guide for those who arrested Jesus” fulfilled “the scripture.” Judas led the armed mob to Jesus and, with a kiss, identified him for them. This took place at night, which would have made it difficult for persons not well acquainted with Jesus to recognize him among his disciples. (1:16)
Psalm 55 (54, LXX), another composition attributed to David, also refers to the treachery of a close companion. So it is likely that “scripture” does not mean just one specific text but is a general designation for everything regarding betrayal that David expressed when guided by God’s spirit. (1:16)
Judas had been numbered among the apostles (“us,” as Peter said) and had received a share in the “service” or “ministry” entrusted to them. Along with the other apostles, Jesus had sent him out to proclaim “the kingdom of God and to heal.” (Luke 9:2) Like all the other apostles, he had been empowered to free afflicted ones from demon possession and to cure their diseases. (Luke 9:1) Through his treachery, Judas had lost everything. (1:17)
With the “wages of unrighteousness,” Judas obtained a field. His act of betrayal was an unjust or evil deed. For it, he received “wages,” 30 pieces of silver as the gain from his unrighteousness. (Matthew 26:14, 15) After coming to learn that his betrayal resulted in the condemnation of Jesus, Judas felt remorse and sought to return the silver pieces to the chief priests. They responded dismissively to him and his acknowledgment that he had sinned when betraying “righteous blood.” Somewhere in the temple precincts, Judas threw down the silver pieces. The chief priests scrupled about what they should do with the money. It being blood money, they felt legally obligated not to put it into the temple treasury. After conferring, they decided to purchase the potter’s field for use as a place to bury foreigners. (Matthew 27:3-7) What Judas had done when betraying Jesus and later tossing the silver pieces down in the temple precincts occasioned the buying of this field. Viewed from this standpoint, the purchase of this field could be attributed to Judas and as having been made with the “wages of unrighteousness.” (1:18)
After leaving the temple area, Judas hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5) According to an Old Latin translation of Acts that is quoted in Augustine’s contra Felicem Manichaeum (i.4), Judas had “bound his neck and, cast on [his] face, burst in [his] midst” (collum sibi alligavit et deiectus in faciem, disruptus est medius). This reading allows for the possibility that, after suspending himself by the neck, Judas fell face down when the rope or tree limb broke. He may have burst in his midst from his fall on jagged rocks below, causing his entrails to spill out. (1:18)
The residents of Jerusalem came to know about the field and its association with the death of Judas Iscariot. In their language, they called it Hakeldamách (Akeldama), meaning “Field of Blood.” (1:19; see the Notes section.)
In view of what had happened in connection with Judas, Peter recognized a need for Judas to be replaced as an apostle. He appealed to the Scriptures for the proposal he was about to make, “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his residence become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it’ [69:25 (68:26)], and ‘let another take his overseership [episkopé; 109:8 (108:8)].’” Since the place of Judas had been permanently vacated, the time had come for someone else to take his position. The Greek word episkopé means “overseership,” “guardianship,” or “visitation” and here designates the apostleship and the service or work and responsibility associated therewith. (1:20; see the Notes section.)
Peter indicated that the disciple who would be qualified to replace Judas needed to be a close associate, a disciple who met with the apostles while the Lord Jesus “went in and out” among them. (1:21; see the Notes section.) The period for this association had to be from the time John baptized Jesus until the day Jesus ascended from the Mount of Olives (“was taken up from us”). This disciple, along with the eleven apostles, would then be a “witness” to Jesus’ resurrection. The resurrection definitively confirmed that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, the Son of God. Therefore, as witnesses to his resurrection, the apostles presented their testimony concerning him. (1:22)
In the group of about 120 disciples, Joseph called Barsabbas, surnamed Justus, and Matthias met the required qualifications. (1:23; see the Notes section.) As only one of the equally qualified men could be chosen, the group could not decide which one of the two they should select. They prayed to the “Lord,” the one who knows the hearts of all (or who is able to discern what all persons are in their inmost selves) to reveal which one he had chosen to “take the place of this service and apostleship, from which Judas departed to go to his own place.” (1:24, 25)
The designation “Lord” can apply either to God or to the Lord Jesus Christ. Elsewhere in the Scriptures, God (YHWH) is identified as the one who knows, tests, and searches the hearts. (Deuteronomy 8:2; 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalm 44:21[22]; Jeremiah 11:20; 17:10) Moreover, in Acts (2:39; 3:22; 5:9) and Luke (1:16, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 19:38; 20:37), numerous references to the “Lord” unmistakably mean the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. So there is good reason for concluding that the prayer was addressed to the Father. (1:24)
When Judas turned aside from following Christ, choosing to betray him to his enemies, he forfeited his apostleship and the service it involved. His “own place” proved to be the place destined for him as the “son of destruction.” Judas made himself the “son of destruction” when he chose a treacherous course that led to his ruin. (1:25; John 17:12)
After praying, the disciples cast lots. They doubtless did so on the basis of Proverbs 16:33, where the outcome from casting the lot is identified as being YHWH’s decision. The lot singled out Matthias. He was then considered as God’s choice for replacing Judas and came to be counted with the eleven apostles. (1:26)
Notes:
In verse 4, the word synalizómenos, found in many Greek manuscripts, is defined as “to assemble” or “to collect.” The reading “staying with them” (NRSV) is based on the view that synalizómenos is a variant spelling of synaulizómenos, meaning “to stay with,” “be with,” or “to spend the night with.”
Fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) contains an expanded reading in verse 4, “heard spoken through my mouth” (instead of “heard from me”).
After “days” (in verse 5), fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds, “until Pentecost.”
What God has established by “his own authority” (verse 7) is outside the domain of any human, and claims by individuals or adherents of movements to know the concealed things of God are the height of presumptuousness and dishonor him. Past history reveals that, when expectations about Christ’s return that were linked to certain dates did not materialize, many who had been taught to anticipate the event experienced spiritual ruin, not infrequently losing all faith in God and Christ. The damage that has been caused undeniably establishes that any calculations or predictions involving “times and seasons” in relation to Christ’s return are of men and not of God.
In verse 8, there is uncertainty about whether the “in” preceding “all of Judea” is original. It is omitted in numerous manuscripts.
In verse 11, one cannot be certain whether the original reading is blépontes (“look at”) or the intensified form of this verb (emblépontes). Fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) and a number of other manuscripts omit “into heaven.”
Numerous manuscripts (in verse 14) add “and supplication” after “in prayer.” Fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) reads “with women and children,” which could be understood to mean “with their wives and children.”
In verse 15, fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) says “disciples” instead of “brothers.” A copyist may have made this change in order to clarify that the reference is, not to the Lord’s brothers specifically, but to the apostles and other disciples, including the brothers of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In verse 19, manuscripts vary in their spellings for “Akeldama.”
The extant Septuagint text (68:26) differs somewhat from the quotation in Acts 1:20 of Psalm 69:25(26). Like the extant Hebrew text, the Septuagint does not use the third person singular terms but reads, “Let their residence become desolate, and in their tents let there be no dweller.” For their camp to become a desolation and no dweller to be in their tents would denote complete annihilation. There would be no offspring to take up residence in their former habitation. The scene is that of a completely abandoned nomadic encampment. The words of the psalmist were expressed regarding those who had become his enemies and reproached him as a devoted servant of YHWH. Through his act of betrayal, Judas had sided with those who opposed Jesus Christ, the one who was consumed with zeal for YHWH’s house, and so made himself a part of their camp. (Psalm 69:9[10]; John 2:17)
With the exception of a different form of the verb for “take” or “seize” (lambáno), the Septuagint text of Psalm 108:8 (109:8) reads the same as the quotation in Acts 1:20.
After “Jesus” (in verse 21), a number of manuscripts add “Christ.”
In verse 23, instead of the plural éstesan (literally, “they made to stand”), a number of manuscripts say éstesen (literally, “he made to stand”). Possibly the change to the singular reflects a copyist’s intent to assign primacy to Peter.
In verse 25, many manuscripts read kléron (“lot”) instead of tópon (“place”).
“Pentecost” is an English transliteration of the Greek name pentekosté, meaning “fiftieth.” The Greek name designated the “festival of weeks” (Exodus 34:22) and focused on the time for the observance of this festival. According to verses 15 and 16 of Leviticus 23, the Israelites, when determining the time for the festival of weeks, were to count seven “sevens” or seven weeks after the sheaf of the firstfruits of the barley harvest had been presented as a wave offering to YHWH. This means that the festival was observed on the 50th day from the 16th of Nisan (mid-March to mid-April) or on the 6th day of Sivan (mid-May to mid-June). The unique offering that accompanied other sacrifices consisted of two leavened wheat loaves, the flour being from newly harvested wheat. (Leviticus 23:17-21) On the festival day, Jesus’ disciples had assembled. (2:1)
In the introductory phrase that mentions Pentecost, the Greek text contains the infinitive form of sympleróo, meaning “fill,” “fulfill,” or “complete.” In the context, many have understood the term to mean “come” or “arrive,” and this is reflected in the renderings of numerous translations (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NCV, NIV, NKJV, NJB, NRSV, REB). Others, however, have retained the basic meaning “fulfilled” (“the time for Pentecost was fulfilled” [NAB]; “the fulfilling of the day of Pentecost” [Green]; “the day of Pentecost was in process of being fulfilled” [Wuest]; “the day of pentecost was filling up the number of days” [Rotherham]; “the day of the Pentecost being fulfilled” [Young]). The meaning could be that the time for the festival observance had been fulfilled, for the required seven weeks subsequent to the wave offering of the firstfruits barley sheaf had passed. (2:1)
A number of later manuscripts limit “all” to the apostles. On the basis of verse 15 of the previous chapter, however, “all” could refer to the larger number of about 120 disciples. The Greek text does not contain a word for “place” but ends with a phrase that literally reads, “on the same.” This could mean that all were in one place or that all were in the same place as on the previous occasion when Matthias was chosen as the twelfth apostle. Another possibility is that the idiomatic phrase signifies that all of them were united in purpose. (2:1; see the Notes section.)
While the entire group was together, they heard a “noise” (échos) comparable to the blowing of a fierce tempest and perceived it as coming “from heaven” or from above. They must have felt this wind, for “it filled the whole house where they were sitting.” (2:2)
Then tongues like fire became visible, being distributed on each one of the disciples who were there. What looked like tongue-shaped flames (not actual fire) must have appeared over the head of each one of them. (2:3)
In this manner the operation of God’s spirit was manifested audibly and visibly. Filled with holy spirit, all began to express themselves in different “tongues” or languages in keeping with the capacity for such speaking that the spirit had granted them. (2:4)
At the time, Jews in addition to the city’s inhabitants were then dwelling in Jerusalem. The Jews who had come to observe the festival of weeks are referred to as “devout men from every nation of those under heaven.” It may be that Luke’s purpose in calling them “devout” or “reverential” served to indicate that those who later put faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ were God-fearing persons. They were not merely Jews in name. The expression “from every nation under heaven” signifies that those who had come to Jerusalem for the observance of the “festival of weeks” came from all parts of the then-known world and, therefore, from regions where different languages were spoken. (2:5; see the Notes section.)
When, however, they heard “this sound” (phoné), a “crowd came together and was perplexed,” for each one of them heard the disciples speaking to them in their “own language.” (2:6; see the Notes section.) They were dumbfounded and wondered, “Look! Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how [can it be that] we are hearing, each one of us, our own language in which we were born?” (2:7, 8)
The “sound” could be the noise caused by what appeared to be a strong tempest. Although the Greek word for “noise” (échos) is different, it may be a synonym for “sound” (phoné). Another possibility is that phoné refers to the sound that resulted when the disciples spoke in various languages, for the bewilderment of the multitude is attributed to their hearing their own language being spoken by Galileans. Either the sound of what seemed to be a fierce wind or the sound of the speaking in different languages prompted a crowd to form. If the reference is to the sound of the strong wind, the people, upon hearing it, may have been moved to investigate its source, leading them to locate the house where the disciples were. (2:6)
In case the sound involved the speaking in tongues, the disciples may have gone to the temple after receiving the holy spirit and then begun to speak. (2:6) Some support for this conclusion is found in Acts 4. After the chief priests and elders of the nation tried to intimidate Peter and John with threats so that they would stop speaking about Jesus and then released them, the two apostles related to fellow believers what had happened. When all those who were then assembled came to be filled with holy spirit, they “spoke the word of God with boldness,” fearlessness, or confidence. To speak with one another, they did not need boldness or fearlessness, but the kind of intimidating threats the leaders of the nation had expressed to Peter and John did require them to have courage to continue proclaiming God’s word or message, with its specific focus on Jesus Christ as the one through whom reconciliation with God had been made possible. (4:31) So, at that particular time, the disciples, after being filled with holy spirit, evidently went forth among the people and courageously made known the truth about Jesus Christ.
The aspect that “astounded” (exístemi) the multitude is that each of them heard the message being spoken in their own language even though all those doing so were Galileans. In the crowd, certain Judeans would have been the most likely ones to have been able to identify the disciples as being from Galilee. (2:6, 7; compare Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59; see the Notes section regarding verse 7.) What proved to be particularly amazing was that the languages the individuals heard were those in which they were born. This suggests that the languages or dialects were spoken without any accent. Whereas both the Judeans and Galileans spoke the same language, there were recognizable pronunciation differences, and so it may be that the gift of tongues also made it possible for the Galilean disciples to speak just like the Judeans. This may explain why “Judea” (if original as indicated by the preponderance of manuscript evidence) is mentioned as one of the areas from which Jews were in Jerusalem. (2:8, 9)
Among those who had come to the festival were Parthians, Medes, Elamites, residents of Mespotamia, (Judea [not included in the original text of Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis)]), Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphyllia, Egypt, and districts of Libya near Cyrene (literally, “against Cyrene”), and visitors from Rome, Cretans, and Arabians. Included among them were both natural Jews and proselytes or persons who had become Jews through conversion. (2:9-11)
The various regions that are mentioned do not include all areas where Jews resided but appear to be representative of locations from which Jews and proselytes came. In being portrayed as spoken by the multitude, the words about the different areas may be understood as reflecting the expressions and thoughts of the multitude. Thousands of people obviously would not all be referring to the same locations and speaking about these places in the same order. (2:9-11)
Parthia lay southeast of the Caspian Sea and extended to the Euphrates River. Ancient Media was situated west and south of the Caspian Sea and, in the first century CE, Medes lived in Parthia. The Elamites likewise had become part of the Parthian Empire, and their ancient territory lay north of the Persian Gulf in what is today southwest Iran. Mesopotamia is primarily the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Judea lay south of Samaria and north of Idumea. Cappadocia, Pontus, the Roman province of Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia were all located in Asia Minor. Egypt was the major African country that supplied grain to Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire. Many thousands of Jews lived in Alexandria, Egypt. West of Egypt, on the northern coast of Africa, lay ancient Libya. With the island of Crete to the north, Libya became part of the Roman province of Cyrenaica, with Cyrene as the capital. Arabians would have come from the Arabian Peninsula and the Syrian Desert. (2:9-11)
From all the widely scattered locations, Jews and proselytes heard the Galilean disciples speak in their own regional languages. The listeners perceived that the disciples were talking about the “great things of God.” This suggests that, at this point, the multitude had not heard about the significant role of Jesus Christ in God’s purpose. Many of the people, however, did recognize that the disciples were speaking about the magnificent things God had accomplished. (2:11) Nevertheless, the miraculous speaking in tongues prompted great astonishment and bewilderment, with many wondering just what it all might mean. (2:12; see the Notes section.)
Certain ones in the crowd began to scoff at the disciples, claiming that they were “full of new wine [gleúkos].” In this expression of mockery, the word gleúkos would not necessarily have to mean wine from newly harvested grapes. The scoffers would merely have been saying that the disciples were drunk, behaving like persons who had overindulged in drink when the new wine became available. (2:13; see the Notes section.)
The words of mockery must have been spoken loud enough or possibly even shouted so that the apostles became aware of what was being said. Then “Peter stood up with the eleven,” positioning himself so as to speak to the multitude. He “raised his voice” and began to address the people, “Men of Judea and all you who are dwelling in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and listen to my words. For these [people] are not drunk as you assume, for it is the third hour of the day.” (2:14, 15)
The ones dwelling in Jerusalem at the time included all those from other lands who had come to the city for the festival of weeks. Peter’s words were thus directed to the residents of Judea and all who lived elsewhere. He wanted them to know the actual reason for the speaking in tongues they had witnessed and to pay attention to his explanation. The assumption that the men were drunk had no basis. It was only the third hour of the day or about 9:00 a.m., and it was wholly unreasonable for anyone to think that an entire group would be drunk at that early hour of the morning. (2:14, 15)
What the multitude had witnessed, as Peter continued, was the fulfillment of the words “spoken through the prophet Joel.” He then quoted the prophecy, “‘And it will be in the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out from [that is, a portion of] my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your elders will dream dreams, and indeed, in those days, I will pour out from my spirit on my male and my female servants, and they will prophesy. And I will give portents in heaven above and signs on earth below — blood and fire and smoky vapor [literally, ‘vapor of smoke’]. The sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and notable day of the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text]. And it will be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text] will be saved.’” (2:16-21; Joel 2:28-32 [3:1-5, LXX]; see the Notes section.)
Based on the reading of many manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, the reference to “the last days” appears to be original. This indicates that a new era was dawning and that another one was about to end. In fulfillment of prophecy, the promised Messiah had arrived and so the “last days” had begun. For the Israelites to whom the prophetic words of Joel were directed, the arrangement for worship as they had known it would come to an end, and a time of great distress would bring this about. (2:17)
God is in full possession and control of his spirit, and so it is “from” the spirit, or from a portion thereof, that humans become recipients. “All flesh” includes sons and daughters, young and old men, and God’s male and female servants. The promised outpouring of the spirit would become evident through prophesying. With the prominent feature of prophesying being the proclaiming of God’s message (though not excluding foretelling of future events), the speaking in tongues did, in this case, involve prophesying, for those who listened perceived the words to be about the “great things of God.” (2:11, 17, 18; see the Notes section.)
Based on what is contained in other passages in Acts (9:10-16; 10:9-17; 16:9, 10), the dreams young men would have and the visions elders would behold could include direction about carrying out their service to God and his Son, as well as revelations of God’s will and what is acceptable to him. (2:17)
Women were not excluded from having God’s spirit imparted to them and being empowered to prophesy. Both male and female servants of God would receive his spirit. Among women who prophesied later in the first century CE were the evangelist Philip’s four virgin daughters. (2:18; 21:8, 9; see the Notes section.)
On this particular day of Pentecost, a fierce tempest proved to be a portent “from heaven above.” The tongues of fire, or tongue-like flames, might also be regarded as a portent “from heaven above,” and the subsequent speaking in tongues would have been a sign “on earth below.” These portents and signs revealed significant divine activity. (2:19)
Blood is suggestive of slaughter (as in war), and the fire and smoky vapor would likewise be associated with military campaigns. Armies would set houses and other structures on fire, creating haze and smoke. Blood, fire, and smoky vapor are closely associated with the arrival of the “day of the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text].” (2:19; see the Notes section.)
Seemingly, with reference to what would develop in the future, the people would experience a time of darkness or gloom, a time of severe judgment. The situation would then be as if all light, any bright prospects, or hope had been blotted out just as when a dark shadow passes over the sun during a solar eclipse or when the moon turns red (the color of blood) during a lunar eclipse. Such a “day” did come upon Jerusalem when the Roman armies surrounded the city and cut off all avenue of escape, finally to capture it (in 70 CE), setting dwellings on fire, and consigning the magnificent temple to the flames. (2:20; see the Notes section.)
Before the coming of that fear-inspiring day, there was one way to assure being among those to experience deliverance. According to the extant Greek text, this would be by calling “upon the name of the Lord.” Peter later stressed the role of Jesus Christ as the one whom God had made both Lord and Christ and through whom forgiveness of sin is possible. (2:36, 38) In the application of Joel’s prophecy, therefore, the calling on the name of the “Lord” could either mean turning to God through Jesus (acknowledging him as both Lord and Christ) or calling on the “name” or person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the one through whom an approved standing with God is possible, which means being saved from the consequences of divinely unforgiven sin. In relation to the coming day of judgment that befell Jerusalem, those who put faith in Jesus Christ heeded his words to get out of the city at the opportune time and thus were saved or delivered. (2:21; Matthew 24:15-19; Luke 21:20-24)
“Men, Israelites, listen to these words,” Peter is quoted as continuing. After this request for attention, he proceeded with the primary message. “Jesus the Nazarene” was revealed to be a “man from God,” the evidence being the works of power, portents, and signs which God did through him in the midst of the people. Many who listened to Peter must have known about the works of power such as freeing individuals from demon possession, and the portents and signs, including the miraculous healing of various diseases, restoring sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, making the lame whole, and raising the dead. The reference to Jesus as the Nazarene indicates that it must have been common knowledge among the people that he had come from Nazareth in Galilee. (2:22)
In keeping with God’s predetermined “counsel,” purpose, or will and his “foreknowledge” (his knowing in advance what would take place), Jesus was “delivered up.” This could either refer to his being seized by the armed mob in the garden of Gethsemane at the time Judas betrayed him or to the action of the leaders of the nation when handing him over to the Roman governor Pilate as a lawbreaker deserving of death. It was “through the hands of lawless men” (Romans who were without the guidance of the law that had been given to the Israelites) that the people, as sharers in the action of their leaders, “fastened” Jesus to the “wood” and “did away” with him. (2:23)
God “raised” or resurrected Jesus, loosing “the pangs of death.” The expression “pangs of death” or “bonds of death” is descriptive of the lifeless state to which death reduces an individual. As it were, death ties one down with restrictive bonds that make all movement impossible, and so such figurative bonds could also be designated as the pangs or pains for which death is responsible. Jesus was raised to life “because it was not possible for him to be held by it [death].” It was not God’s purpose for Jesus to remain dead and so the hold death had on him needed to be broken. (2:24)
To establish that Jesus could not continue to be held in death’s power, Peter quoted words from a psalm attributed to David, “I saw the Lord before me always, for he is at my right hand in order that I may not be shaken. Therefore, my heart rejoiced, and my tongue exulted. Furthermore, my flesh will dwell in hope because you will not abandon my soul in Hades, nor will you permit your holy one to see corruption. You have made known to me ways of life. With your face, you will fill me with joy.” (2:25-28; see the Notes section.)
The psalmist’s words about his joy and confidence are expressed in terms that found their full meaning in the experiences of the one greater than David (Jesus the promised Messiah or Christ). By reason of a direct divine revelation through the prophet Nathan regarding the continuance of the royal line (2 Samuel 7:16, 17) and with God’s spirit operating upon him, David, as a prophet, used words that came to apply to Christ (the son or descendant of David), the permanent royal heir.
At all times, the psalmist had the “Lord” (YHWH, Hebrew text) before him. He saw his God as a loyal friend at his right hand, always willing to aid and guide him. This assured him that he would not totter, be shaken, or come to experience a ruinous fall. Just as the psalmist trusted God, Jesus Christ revealed his full confidence in his Father, loyally submitting to his will and persevering in prayer throughout his ministry. As God’s unique Son, Jesus was always aware of his Father’s presence as if he were standing at his right hand, continually ready to answer his prayers. (2:25; Psalm 16:8 [15:8, LXX])
David’s confidence in YHWH provided the basis for the joy of his heart, his deep inner self. Jesus Christ also had joy of heart, for he delighted to do his Father’s will. Never did he waver in completely trusting his God and Father. (2:26; Psalm 16:9 [15:9, LXX]; compare John 4:34; Hebrews 10:5-7.)
In the Masoretic Text, the expression “my tongue” is “my glory” (kavóhd, denoting something that is weighty and so functioning as a term to describe someone in possession of “glory,” “honor,” or “distinction”). For David’s “glory” to rejoice would signify that, by reason of the divinely granted dignity he possessed, he himself experienced joy. The reading of the Septuagint and the wording in Acts point to the exultation the tongue would express. Both the psalmist and Jesus Christ exulted or rejoiced when praising God. (2:26; Psalm 16:9 [15:9, LXX])
According to the Masoretic Text, the psalmist’s “flesh” resided in “security.” Confident in God’s aid, guidance, and protection, he himself as a physical organism felt secure. The Greek text of the Septuagint and Acts refers to the residing or dwelling in “hope.” Whereas the Greek verb kataskenóo can mean to “dwell” or “reside,” it incorporates the word “tent,” and the entire Greek phrase could literally be rendered, “my flesh will tent on hope,” indicating that life or life as a physical being rested on hope and possibly implying that all future life prospects had their foundation in hope. (2:26; Psalm 16:9 [15:9, LXX])
In its application to the psalmist, the words about not having his soul abandoned in or to Sheol or Hades could mean that he was confident that God would not allow him to enter the realm of the dead prematurely. According to the Hebrew text, he, as God’s faithful one (holy one, LXX), would not see the “pit.” The Hebrew noun sháchath is used to designate a “pit,” and the verb shacháth means “ruin,” “spoil,” “corrupt,” or “annihilate.” Evidently the Septuagint translator regarded the noun as being linked to the verb meaning “corrupt” and therefore used the Greek noun diaphthorá (corruption, destruction). Similarly, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, the very fragmentary Hebrew text has been reconstructed and translated to read, “Because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your holy one see decay.” The wording of the Hebrew and Greek text can denote that the abandoning to or in Sheol or Hades would not be permanent, but that there would be a release. This is the thought in the application of the words to Jesus Christ. (2:27; Psalm 16:10 [15:10, LXX])
The psalmist was confident that YHWH would make known to him or teach him the “path of life” (Hebrew text) or “paths” or “ways of life” (LXX). This likely means that he looked to God to show him the course that he should follow in order to enjoy living as his devoted servant. With God’s face directed toward him, being in his presence, or having his favorable attention, the psalmist would experience complete joy. Jesus Christ knew the “ways of life,” for he had been fully grounded in his Father’s teaching. (John 7:16, 17) He always delighted to do his Father’s will, and his Father’s face or favorable attention did not turn away from him. His prayers were always heard. (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 11:41, 42) Therefore, with God’s face directed toward him (or an ever-present awareness of his Father’s being with him and pleased with him), Jesus Christ was filled with joy. (2:28; Psalm 16:11 [15:11, LXX])
When applying the words of the psalmist to Jesus, Peter first focused the attention of the multitude (“men, brothers”) on the patriarch or ancestral head David, indicating that he could allowably speak in an open manner, or with boldness or confidence, concerning him. David died, was buried, and his tomb was known as still being with them to that day or in that time (2:29) According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, VII, xv, 3), Herod opened one of the rooms of David’s tomb in Jerusalem.
To show that the words from the psalm he had quoted could refer to Jesus, Peter spoke of David as a prophet who “knew that God had sworn an oath to him [that] he would seat one from the fruit of his loins upon his throne.” Josephus (Antiquities, VI, viii, 2) also referred to David as a prophet, saying that he began to prophesy after the divine spirit came upon him. Therefore, those who listened to Peter would have agreed with him about David’s role as a prophet. The revelation about God’s oath that one who would be of “the fruit of his loins” (one of his descendants) would sit upon his throne (or come to have the royal authority) became known to David through the prophet Nathan. (2:30; 2 Samuel 7:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 17:13-15; Psalm 132:11, 12; see the Notes section.)
In view of what he knew beforehand as a prophet about a future descendant, David “spoke about the resurrection of Christ, that neither was he abandoned in Hades nor did his flesh see corruption.” Jesus Christ did not remain in Hades (the realm of the dead) and so was not abandoned to or in Hades. In the short time (less than three full days) in which his body of flesh lay in the tomb, it could not have decayed beyond recognition and so it did not “see” or experience corruption. (2:31)
Peter went on to explain that God resurrected Jesus. Because the risen Christ had appeared to them, Peter could identify himself and the other disciples as witnesses. (2:32) He then spoke of Jesus as having been exalted to God’s right hand. The multitude had been provided with unmistakable evidence regarding this. There had been the sound of a fierce wind from heaven, and the people heard the disciples speak in the various native languages or dialects that were represented among those who had come to Jerusalem for the festival of weeks (Pentecost). Many among them recognized that the disciples spoke about God’s impressive deeds. As Peter pointed out to them, what they had seen and heard proved that Jesus had been exalted to God’s right hand. Upon his exaltation, Jesus had received from the Father the “promise of the holy spirit.” Therefore, because his Father exalted him and granted him the authority to impart or pour out the spirit, Jesus could proceed to act. If Jesus had not ascended to heaven and been exalted, he could not have poured out the “promise of the holy spirit.” Centuries earlier, through his prophets, the Father had given the promise about this future outpouring of the spirit, and Jesus Christ had assured his disciples that they would receive the promised spirit after his departure. (2:33; Isaiah 32:15; Ezekiel 36:26, 27; Joel 2:28, 29 [3:1, 2]; John 14:15-18, 25, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-11)
Peter’s mention of Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand may well have brought to the minds of many listeners the words of Psalm 110, where YHWH is represented as saying to the one whom David called “my lord,” “Sit at my right hand.” The apostle reminded them about the expression of the psalmist, telling them that David had not “ascended to the heavens” but that he spoke the words, “The Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text] said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.’” (2:34, 35; Psalm 110:1 [109:1, LXX])
Being at God’s right hand would mean being in a highly exalted, favored, and honorable position as his intimate one. God would not tolerate any opposition to the lord or king at his right hand, but would see to it that all enemies would be subdued, coming to be like a mere footstool for his appointed lord. Peter applied these words to Jesus who, unlike David, had ascended to heaven. With the evidence of the outpouring of the spirit having been provided and the consequent confirmation that Jesus had ascended to heaven, the whole “house of Israel” could know with certainty that God had made Jesus, whom they had crucified, both “Lord and Christ.” (2:36)
Responsive ones among those who heard Peter’s words were “cut to the heart,” coming to have within themselves a distressing awareness of their grave sin. They appear to have recognized their communal responsibility in having shared in the guilt of the representative leaders of the nation of Israel when they handed Jesus (the promised Messiah or Christ) over to Pilate for the purpose of having him crucified. With the burden of this guilt having been forcefully impressed on them, they asked Peter and the “rest” (loipoús, omitted in a number of manuscripts) of the apostles, “Men, brothers, what should we do?” A few manuscripts add, “Show us.” As fellow Jews or Israelites (descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the questioners acknowledged Peter and the other apostles as brothers. (2:37; see the Notes section.)
“Repent,” Peter continued in response, “and be baptized each one of you in [‘on,’ according to other manuscripts] the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins.” Repentance called for them to regret their sins, including having shared in the communal responsibility for Jesus’ death, and to accept him as the promised Messiah or Christ and their Lord. Baptism in his name signified baptism in recognition of him as the Christ, the unique Son of God, and Lord. Immersion in water constituted the outward symbol of the repentance for sins and the accompanying faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, by reason of their repentance and baptism, they would be forgiven of their sins. They would then receive “the gift of the holy spirit,” just as Peter and the other disciples had. (2:38)
All repentant ones could be sure that they would receive God’s spirit. “For,” as Peter said to them, “the promise is [given] to you and and to your children and to all those [who are] far away, as many as the Lord our God may call.” Through his prophets Isaiah (32:15) Joel (2:28, 29 [3:1, 2), and Ezekiel (36:26, 27), God had promised to impart the holy spirit to his repentant people. Those who heard Peter’s words had seen and heard the evidence that the holy spirit had been given to him and the other disciples. So, from then onward, not only those listening to Peter but also their children could be recipients of the fulfillment of God’s promise. The original hearers would likely have thought of those being far away as fellow Jews and proselytes scattered throughout the world they knew and in the most distant areas thereof. In the context of the entire book of Acts, the language could embrace the non-Jewish peoples. Eventually, the message about Christ and how through him reconciliation to God is possible did reach distant lands. Through the proclamation of this message, God called or invited people everywhere to become part of his family of beloved children as persons forgiven of their sins and guided by his spirit. (2:39)
In connection with his witness or testimony concerning Jesus Christ, Peter said much more that is not recorded. He urged those who listened to him to “get saved from this twisted generation.” By reason of their rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ, the then-existing generation of Jews or Israelites had proved to be “twisted,” “corrupt,” or “crooked.” To be saved from that generation would have meant not to be divinely counted as belonging to it and meriting condemnation for its faithless conduct. This called for responding in faith to Jesus Christ, accepting him as God’s Son and Lord. (2:40)
Those who accepted Peter’s “word” or the message he proclaimed were baptized. On that day of Pentecost, the community of believers increased by about 3,000 “souls,” both men and women (2:41; compare 5:14.)
The new believers devoted themselves “to the teaching of the apostles,” doing so when they taught publicly in the temple area or privately in homes. It would be in the homes that the apostles and other disciples “broke bread.” Their breaking of bread may mean sharing meals together. It could have included partaking of the bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus (as he had commanded his disciples to do). A number of translations interpretively render the expression about breaking bread to mean celebrating the “Lord’s Supper.” Among believers, prayer played a prominent role. (2:42; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
The “fear” that came to be felt by “every soul” may refer to the feeling of great awe and wonderment experienced by those who witnessed the “many portents and signs” that occurred through the agency of the apostles. These portents and signs included miraculous healing of the sick and liberating afflicted ones from demon possession. (2:43; 5:14-16)
A significant number of those who became believers were not native to Jerusalem or Judea but had come from various lands to be present for the festival of weeks (Pentecost). Therefore, believers pooled their resources, making it possible for those who had come from elsewhere to stay longer than they may originally have planned. All the believers arranged to share “all things in common.” (2:44) In expression of their love for one another, they sold possessions and goods or properties and would then distribute the proceeds to fellow believers who were in need. (2:45)
As the apostles customarily taught in the temple area, believers would be found assembled there on a regular basis (“day after day”). (See http://holylandphotos.org for a model of the temple [type “second temple model” in the search box]. Also see http://bibleplaces.com/templemount.htm for pictures of the Temple Mount and accompanying comments.) Then, in homes, they would “break bread,” and their partaking of food together would be joyful occasions. Since the breaking of bread and the partaking of food may not here be represented as synonymous, the breaking of bread could relate to the observance of the “Lord’s Supper,” and the partaking of food to sharing common meals. Another possibility is that the reference is to the “Lord’s Supper” being observed as part of the common meal. Besides partaking of food with a “joyful heart,” or with great inner joy, believers did so with “simplicity of heart.” “Simplicity of heart” could denote an inner sense of contentment and appreciation. Believers would have experienced a deep, genuine joy. A number of translations interpretively represent those who shared food with other believers to have done so with joy and sincere generosity. “They broke bread together in different homes and shared their food happily and freely.” (CEV) “They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity.” (2:46, NLT)
With prayer and thanksgiving, believers would have praised God. Probably because of observing the love and generous spirit of believers and witnessing the impressive miraculous cures that were taking place, the people generally (“all the people”) regarded the apostles and other disciples favorably. Day by day, “the Lord added those being saved.” In view of the earlier mention of praising God, “the Lord” may be understood to be the “Lord Jesus Christ,” for he is the head of the congregation. Through Christ, the spirit had been imparted, and the operation of the spirit on believers is what resulted in increase. The apostles and others were the instruments for proclaiming the message and performing the miracles, and so the adding of believers could rightly be attributed to the Lord. (2:47)
Those who were then added are referred to as persons being saved, for they would not be among those who would experience the condemnatory judgment to come. They had been forgiven of their sins and become reconciled to God as his beloved children. The concluding phrase “on the same” (epí tó autó) may mean that the adding of others was to the same fellowship as believes. A number of manuscripts indicate that those being saved were added to the congregation. (2:47)
Notes:
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) contains an expanded reading in verse 1, “And it happened in those days of the fulfillment of the day of Pentecost, they all were together on the same, and see! It happened” (kaí egéneto en taís hemérais ekeínais tou synpleroústhai tén heméran tés pentecostés hónton autón pánton epí tó autó, kaí eidoú egéneto). Instead of indicating that all were “together” [homoú], other manuscripts say that all were in “agreement” (homothymadón).
In verse 5, fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus does not include the proper noun “Jews,” but its inclusion has extensive manuscript support.
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), in verse 6, indicates that the “speaking” was in the tongues or languages of the multitude.
The Greek word exístemi (in verse 7) can mean “amaze,” “astound,” and “confuse.” This term can denote one’s coming to be in a state where one simply cannot make sense of what is happening. According to a number of manuscripts, “all” were astounded, but the superior manuscript evidence suggests that “all” is not original. Also in this verse, a number of manuscripts (with reference to the speaking) add, “to one another” (prós allélous).
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) expands the text of verse 12, indicating that the astonishment and bewilderment was “about what had occurred” (epí tó gegonóti).
The reference in verse 13 to “new wine,” “must,” “sweet wine,” or “sweet new wine” (gleúkos) has puzzled some, for it was then too early for the grape harvest to begin. Among the scrolls discovered in the Dead Sea area, “The Temple Scroll” is regarded by some as providing a possible explanation. Besides the “festival of weeks” in the third month (Sivan; mid-May to mid-June), this scroll indicates that there were two other “pentecosts,” the “festival of new wine” in the fifth month (Ab, mid-July to mid-August), and the “festival of new oil” in the latter part of the six month (Elul, mid-August to mid-September). Based on “The Temple Scroll,” some have concluded that Luke mistakenly worded the question according to the later “pentecost.” Nothing in the biblical record, however, provides any corroborating evidence about this, and there really is no reason for suggesting an error in a quotation that is merely an expression of mockery.
The quotation in verses 17 through 21 basically corresponds to the reading of the Septuagint, which closely follows the preserved Hebrew text. The text of fourth-century Codex Vaticanus is nearly identical to the wording of the Septuagint, but there are more differences in the reading of fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis). Like the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus (in verse 17) says “after these things” (not “in the last days”). Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) reads “Lord” instead of “God,” and says “their sons and their daughters” (not “your sons and your daughters”). In connection with the “young men” and the “elders,” Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) omits the pronoun “your.” Unlike the quotation in Acts, the Hebrew text and the Septuagint first mention the elders and then the young men.
In verse 18, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) omits the words “in those days” and also “and will prophesy.” Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint say “in those days,” but not “and will prophesy.”
Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint reading of Joel do not include the words “above” and “below.” Additionally, there is no mention of “signs” in connection with the earth. Portents applies to both heaven and earth.
In verse 19, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) omits “blood and fire and smoky vapor,” which omission appears to be a scribal error.
In verse 20, the omission of “and notable” (kaí epiphané) in fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) is commonly attributed to scribal error. The words are found in the Septuagint and one of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts of Acts (P74) and numerous others.
Many of the readings in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) seem to be deliberate scribal changes, making the application to the pouring out of the spirit apply in a general sense (instead of as the words were originally written to the Israelites).
In verse 25, a number of manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), read “my Lord.”
The text of Acts 2:25-28 and the words of the Septuagint (Psalm 15:8-11 [16:8-11] are the same, the exception being one minor spelling difference that involves only one letter.
In verse 30, a number of manuscripts contain an expanded text indicating that God would raise Christ to sit on David’s throne.
The entire multitude could, of course, not have spoken to the apostles, but the question that is found in verse 37 reflects the concern of those who responded to Peter’s words. Later copyists appear to have introduced changes in the text that are more explicit. Instead of referring to those who “heard” or “listened,” the expanded text of Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) mentions all who had assembled and listened. The original text of this codex is then specific in indicating that some among the assembled listeners (certain ones from them [tines ex autón]) raised the question.
The ninth hour, about 3:00 in the afternoon, was the designated time for communal prayer. Peter and John were then walking up to the elevated temple site. (3:1; see the Notes section and http://holylandphotos.org for a model of the temple [type “second temple model” in the search box]. Also see http://bibleplaces.com/templemount.htm for pictures of the Temple Mount and accompanying comments.)
Also at this time, certain ones carried a “man lame from his mother’s womb” to the temple precincts. Each day they would lay him at the temple gate known as the “Beautiful Gate,” where he could ask for alms from those who would be entering. Nothing definitive is known about this gate that led into the temple area. (3:2; see the Notes section.)
Seeing Peter and John, the disabled man begged for alms, as he did customarily from others who passed through the gate to go into the temple area. (3:3; see the Notes section.) In response, Peter, as did John, looked intently at the man and said, “Look at us.” (3:4) He focused his full attention on them, “expecting to receive something from them.” (3:5)
“Silver and gold I do not have,” said Peter, “but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, rise and walk.” Upon hearing that Peter could not give him what he expected to receive, the man may well have experienced a feeling of disappointment. But that initial feeling would have vanished quickly. (3:6; see the Notes section.)
As the one who had lived and worked as a carpenter in Nazareth of Galilee, Jesus was the Nazarene. He is, however, more than the man from Nazareth. Peter clearly identified him as the promised Messiah or Christ. So it was in the name of Jesus Christ, meaning on the basis of the authority and power associated with this name (or the person of Jesus as the Christ, the Anointed One of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords), that Peter asked the lame man to stand up and to walk. Ailments and afflictions are subject to Christ’s authority and power, which made it possible for the cure to take place in his name or in recognition of him as the one whom the Father had vested with such authority and power. (3:6)
Peter took hold of the lame man’s right hand and pulled him up. Instantly the man’s feet and ankles came to have normal strength. He jumped up, stood, and walked. With Peter and John, he entered the temple area through the Beautiful Gate, leaping, walking, and praising God. His expressions of praise doubtless included thanksgiving for being liberated from his affliction. The reference to the man’s being able to leap indicates that he had been completely cured, with absolutely no sign of his previous lameness. (3:7, 8; see the Notes section.)
In the area of the temple precincts that Peter, John, and the cured lame man entered, “all the people saw him walking and praising God.” (3:9) On catching sight of him, they recognized that he was “the man who used to sit at the Beautiful Gate of the temple,” begging for alms. This realization filled them with “astonishment [thámbos] and amazement [ékstasis] at what had happened to him.” The Greek word thámbos can convey the astonishment resulting from witnessing a suddenly occurring extraordinary development, and the term ékstasis can be descriptive of the intense amazement of persons who are beside themselves on account of what they see or experience. (3:10)
Continuing to attach himself to Peter and John, the cured man accompanied them when they entered the section of the temple precincts known as the “Portico [Colonnade] of Solomon.” According to Josephus, Solomon had a portico built on the east side of the temple. (War, V, v, 1) The Babylonians destroyed this portico, but the one Herod the Great rebuilt centuries later continued to be designated as the Portico of Solomon. While the man held fast to Peter and John in the Portico of Solomon, “all the people” in the vicinity “ran together toward them, astonished” to the point of being beside themselves. The man’s holding on to Peter and John could be understood to mean that he literally clutched them. Another possibility is that he made sure to remain at their side. In either case, he wanted to be in their company, doubtless in appreciation for the cure that had been effected through them in the name of Jesus. (3:11)
Seeing what had taken place, Peter addressed the people. “Men, Israelites, why are you marveling at this, or why are you staring at us, as [if] by our own power or piety we have made him walk?” By means of this question, Peter shifted attention away from himself and John, focusing instead on the one who had made the astonishing miracle possible, the one who had God’s approval. (3:12)
Peter continued, “The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers [ancestors], glorified his servant Jesus.” His reference to God as the God of their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob may have been intended to remind them of the promise about the “seed” to come, laying the basis for pointing to Jesus as this one, as the servant whom God had glorified. In view of Peter’s later words about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his future role in restoring all things, the glorification appears to relate to his exaltation at his Father’s right hand as the one entrusted with all authority in heaven and on earth. (3:13; see the Notes section.)
Through the representative leaders of the nation, the Israelites whom Peter addressed had handed Jesus over to the Roman governor Pilate. Finding nothing in him that merited death, Pilate wanted to release him, but they “disowned him before Pilate’s face.” When given the choice of having either Jesus (to whom Pilate referred as their Messiah and king) or Barabbas (a seditionist who had committed murder) released, they chose Barabbas and demanded that Jesus be crucified, disowning him with the words, “We have no king but Caesar.” (3:13; Matthew 27:1, 2, 15-26; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:1-24; John 18:38-40; 19:14-16)
Repeating what had happened in the case of Jesus, Peter continued, “You, however, disowned the holy and righteous one and asked that a man, a murderer, be granted to you.” The contrast between the one whom they rejected and the one whom they chose to be released could not have been greater. In all respects, Jesus lived a life of holiness or purity and conducted himself uprightly, doing positive good and bringing relief to many who were suffering. Barabbas, on the other hand, proved to be a man of violence and committed murder. He defiled himself with blood and acted unjustly when resorting to violence. (3:14)
They chose the one who took life, and rejected the one through whom they could gain life. By pressuring Pilate to have Jesus crucified, they killed the “chief leader [archegós] of life.” The Greek expression archegós may here be understood to identify Jesus as the one who leads people to life or the one through whom the real life of an enduring relationship with him and his Father is made possible. Peter added, “God raised Jesus from the dead.” He and John were witnesses to the reality of the resurrection, for they had on repeated occasions seen and conversed with Jesus after his having been raised from the dead. (3:15)
On the basis of “faith” in the “name” of Jesus, the lame man (whom the people knew from having seen him begging at the Beautiful Gate and whom they then saw as able to leap and walk about) had been “made strong.” There is nothing in the account to suggest that the man knew that Peter and John were disciples of Jesus Christ. He expected to receive money from them and not to be cured of his affliction. So it is reasonable to conclude that Peter meant that he and John had faith in the name or person of Jesus. They believed that, on account of the authority Jesus had and which he had granted to them, the lame man could be freed from his disability and come to enjoy full bodily strength. So, as Peter explained, the faith that is “through” Christ made the man whole before all of them. In being referred to as “through” Christ, this faith appears to be identified as the faith for which Jesus provided the basis by his words and deeds. (3:16)
Reassuringly, Peter acknowledged those listening as his “brothers,” fellow Israelites or God’s people and did not condemn them as deliberate sinners. He spoke of them as having acted out of “ignorance,” just as also their leaders had. Their ignorance involved not recognizing Jesus’ true identity. This suggests that Peter believed that the opportunity to repent and to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ and as the Son of God remained open to all of them. (3:17)
Their rejection of Jesus served God’s purpose to fulfill what he had made known beforehand “through the mouth of all the prophets.” A prominent feature of the prophecies about the promised Messiah or Christ was that he would “suffer.” (3:18; Isaiah 28:16; 50:6; 53:4-12; Micah 5:1)
Peter urged his listeners to repent, which would have included repenting of the sin against Christ that they had committed in ignorance, and to “turn” from the wrong course to God by accepting his Son. Repentance and turning away from their former course would result in having their sins wiped away. (3:19)
With their sins forgiven, they would come to experience “times of refreshment from the face of the Lord.” The expression “face of the Lord” signifies God himself, the person or presence of YHWH, the God of his people. Refreshment would come to them from being restored to God’s favor and continuing to have his aid and guidance. They would be liberated from the burden of sin and the accompanying loss of peace or of a sense of calmness and well-being that only a good relationship with God can produce. (3:20)
Speaking of what would occur in the future respecting the Messiah or Christ whose coming they had been awaiting, Peter said that God would send to them the Christ, the one “appointed” for them, Jesus. His being appointed for them appears to relate to his future coming in glory “with the clouds of heaven” to begin exercising kingly authority over all peoples and nations. (3:20; Daniel 7:11-14; Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; see the Notes section.)
His coming as the highly exalted one with all authority in heaven and on earth, however, would not occur until the divinely appointed time. It was necessary for him to be retained in heaven until the “times of restoration of all things,” concerning which God long ago “spoke through the mouth of the holy prophets.” The restoration included the reviving of the royal house of David in the person of the promised Messiah and the renewal of all things through his just rule. Among the holy prophets who, in various ways, pointed forward to a restoration for God’s people were Isaiah (11:1-9; 65:17-25; 66:22, 23) Ezekiel (37:24-27), Daniel (7:9-14; 12:12), Hosea (14:4-6), Joel (3:17-21 [4:17-21]), Amos (9:11, 12), Obadiah (verse 21), Micah (5:2-5), Zephaniah (3:14-20), Haggai (2:21-23), Zechariah (14:6-21), and Malachi (4:1-3). (3:21)
As far as the coming Messiah was concerned, Peter pointed to words he attributed to Moses, “A prophet like me the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text] God will raise up for you from your brothers. To him you must listen in everything that he may speak to you. It will be, however, that every soul that does not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed from the people.” (3:22, 23)
The words basically paraphrase what is recorded in Deuteronomy 18:15-20 and reflect what one familiar with the passage might say when relating the thoughts from memory. By referring to the words of Moses, Peter indicated that Jesus, the promised Messiah or Christ, was the prophet like Moses, the direct representative of God vested with full divine authority. Moreover, to refuse to listen to Jesus Christ as the prophet God would raise up from among the people of Israel would have serious consequences — destruction. Therefore, by implication, Israelites who refused to recognize Jesus as the one who had come from God and deliberately chose to pay no attention to his words would no longer be counted as being among God’s people. (3:22, 23)
Not just Moses, but “all the prophets,” starting with Samuel, “announced these days.” After Moses, Samuel was the first prophet of YHWH to be recognized as such in Israel as a whole. (1 Samuel 3:19, 20) No specific prophecy of Samuel about the coming Messiah is contained in the existing biblical record. But when Samuel, in his capacity as YHWH’s prophet, anointed David as king, the royal line that terminated in Jesus had its beginning. From this standpoint, it could be said that, in word and deed, Samuel provided a foregleam respecting the coming Messiah, Anointed One, or Christ. Other prophets likewise provided glimpses of “these days,” that is, the time associated with the coming of the promised Messiah and the future restoration of all things. (3:24; see the references in the comments on verses 18 and 21.)
Peter addressed those who were listening as “sons of the prophets and of the covenant” that God concluded with their ancestors, “saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed.’” They were “sons of the prophets” because of having a relationship with them, for the prophets had been raised up from among the Israelites and were primarily sent to them. Just as children should be obedient to their fathers, the Israelites should have heeded the words of the prophets. Since the prophets spoke of the coming Messiah and Jesus proved to be this one, those who heard Peter’s words would demonstrate themselves to be devoted “sons of the prophets” by acting in harmony with their words. The people were also “sons of the covenant,” for the covenant promises were made to their forefathers. Accordingly, they were under obligation to act in agreement with the covenant, which required that they conduct themselves as God’s devoted servants. Peter’s use of the words to Abraham (which words paraphrase what is found in Genesis 22:18 and 26:4) served to focus on Christ as the “seed” through whom “all the families of the earth” would be blessed. (3:25)
In view of the special relationship of the Israelites to the prophets and the covenant originally concluded with Abraham and repeated to their ancestors Isaac and Jacob, they were the first of the families of the earth to be extended the opportunity for the blessings that would come through Christ, the “seed” of Abraham. So, “after raising up his servant [Jesus], God sent him first to bless [the Israelites].” They, in turn, could become recipients of the blessing upon individually “turning away from [their] evil deeds.” The “raising up,” as in the reference to the words of Moses (3:22), could refer to what God did in raising up Jesus among the Israelites as his special representative or prophet. During the course of his ministry, Jesus concentrated his activity on the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) Another possibility is that the “raising up” applies to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In that case also, God sent him forth to bless his people. The apostles, starting on the day of Pentecost after Jesus resurrection, urged fellow Israelites to repent and to become reconciled to God by putting faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ. If they followed through, they would come to enjoy all the blessings that were made possible through God’s servant, his unique Son, the one whom he first had sent to them. (3:26)
Notes:
In verse 1, fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) includes an expanded introduction, “But in those days Peter.” After hierón (“temple”), this codex adds, “toward evening” (tó deilinón).
In verses 1, 2, 3, and 7, the reference to the “temple” is to the temple precincts or the temple area. It does not mean the temple building itself, for only the priests were allowed to enter the temple to perform their specific sacred duties.
After the introductory kaí (“and”) in verse 2, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) has the word idoú, meaning “see” or “look.
In verse 6, the words “rise and” are missing in a number of manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
In verse 13, many manuscripts omit the words “the God” before Isaac and Jacob.
To Moses, at the burning bush, God likewise revealed himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Exodus 3:6) So, in the case of the miracle, Peter’s use of the expression (verse 13) made it clear that what his fellow Israelites had witnessed revealed the working of the God whom they worshiped and whom their ancestors had worshiped.
According to the Vulgate and a number of late Greek manuscripts, verse 20 says “preached to you before” (not “appointed for you”).
Peter and John were speaking to the people when “the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them.” According to fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, the priests were “chief priests,” which would include the high priest and prominent priests in his family. The captain of the temple was the official responsible for guarding and maintaining order in the temple precincts, doing so with the assistance of guards from the tribe of Levi. In authority, he ranked next to the high priest. The Sadducees in the group must have been leaders in the Jewish community. In his Antiquities (XVIII, I, 4), Josephus indicates that, though the Sadducees were few in number, they included persons “of the greatest dignity.” Unlike the Pharisees who had popular support, the Sadducees were “able to persuade none but the rich.” (Antiquities, XIII, x, 6) A report about the activity of Peter and John must have reached the highest temple authorities, prompting them to take action. (4:1)
Peter and John, when teaching the people, made known that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and this greatly disturbed the priests, the temple captain, and the Sadducees who arrived on the scene. It was then already evening and so not the time for them to conduct an investigation and take judicial action. Therefore, they arrested Peter, John, and the cured lame man, putting them in custody until the next day. (4:2, 3)
Many of those who heard the message about Jesus Christ became believers. The number of men who put faith in Jesus came to be about 5,000. This may be understood to mean that the community of believers had increased to some 5,000 men, which would have numbered approximately 3,000 before this time. (2:41; 4:4; see the Notes section.)
On the next day, the judicial body (the Sanhedrin) assembled. This was the same Jewish high court composed of Jewish leaders, elders, scribes, and the high priest and prominent members of his family that had decided on the death penalty for Jesus and used their influence to have the Roman governor Pilate authorize death by crucifixion. (4:5, 6)
Among the priests were the chief priest Annas, Caiaphas, John (possibly Jonathan [the name appearing in Codex Bezae] the son of Annas who succeeded Caiapas as high priest), Alexander, and others belonging to the priestly family. At the time, Annas (Ananus) did not function as the high priest. But he had occupied this position formerly and continued to wield great authority in the Jewish community. His son-in-law Caiaphas was then high priest. According to Josephus, five of the sons of Annas (Ananus) became high priests. One of these sons was also named Annas (Ananus), and Josephus identified him as having been “of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders.” (Antiquities, XX, ix, 1) Especially since the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the dead, they would have been highly annoyed by the teaching of Peter and John about Jesus’ resurrection. (4:6)
Standing before the members of the Jewish high court with the cured lame man, Peter and John were questioned, “By what power or by whose name did you do this?” The objective in raising this question may have been to get them to say something that could identify them as being allied with the powers of darkness (just as Jesus had been falsely accused of being in league with the ruler of the demons). (4:7; Matthew 12:24)
Filled with holy spirit and so courageously and without fear, Peter respectfully addressed the members of the court as “rulers of the people and elders [‘of Israel,’ according to numerous manuscripts].” (4:8) “If today,” Peter continued, “we [he and John] are being interrogated about a good deed for an afflicted man and by whom this [man] has been made whole, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that, in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified [but] whom God raised from the dead, this [man] stands [completely] well before you. This [Jesus] is the stone you builders disdainfully rejected, which [stone] has become the head of the corner. And salvation is in no one else; neither is there another name under heaven given to men by which we are to be saved.” (4:8-12)
Peter and John had performed a “good deed,” freeing a lame man from his affliction. They fearlessly and unhesitatingly identified the one by means of whom the man had been made whole. (4:9)
To all members of the court and to “all the people of Israel [all others of the nation],” the apostles acknowledged having acted “in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene,” or by the power and authority that he had granted to them. Jesus from the city of Nazareth in Galilee was the very one whom they had crucified through the agency of Pontius Pilate, but God had resurrected him from the dead. Right in front of them, the members of the court had the proof that God had raised Jesus from the dead, for the lame man stood before them as one who had been fully made whole in Jesus’ name. (4:10)
When the members of the court refused to put faith in Jesus Christ and plotted to have him killed, they (as expressed in Psalm 118:22 [117:22, LXX]) proved themselves to be the “builders” who rejected him as a “stone” they regarded as unsuitable for their purposes. God, however, raised him from the dead and highly exalted him, making him the “head of the corner” or the most important stone (either the cornerstone or the head stone). (4:11)
Salvation, or deliverance from sin and the consequences to which sin leads, is only possible through Jesus Christ. In the earthly realm under heaven, no other name exists whereby one would be able to attain to salvation or freedom from sin and condemnation. His is the only name, for God’s means for saving humans from sin and its consequences is exclusively bound up with what he accomplished when voluntarily surrendering his life sacrificially. (4:12)
The boldness of Peter and John took the members of the court by surprise, for the apostles were not learned (as they were), but common, men. Their being designated as “unlettered” may simply mean that they were not regarded as being among the educated who had received rabbinical instruction and not as being illiterate (which aspect could not have been discerned on the basis of their speaking). The members of the court, however, recognized that the apostles had been with Jesus. (4:13) Seeing the cured man standing with Peter and John, they were left with nothing to say in response to their fearlessly spoken words. (4:14)
They commanded that the men be ushered out of the area where the court convened so that the members could confer among themselves. (4:15) Forced to acknowledge that a noteworthy sign had taken place through Peter and John, they were in a quandary about what they should do. Among the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the miracle had become public knowledge, and the court simply could not deny it. (4:16) To prevent the spread of what had taken place in the name of Jesus, they decided to threaten the apostles to stop speaking to any man in Jesus’ name. This would have required the apostles to cease proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ whom God had raised from the dead and who had empowered them to perform miracles. (4:17)
Upon being brought back before the court and ordered not to speak nor to teach in Jesus’ name, Peter and John responded fearlessly, “Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves. We, however, cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” The answer made it unmistakably clear that, in obedience to God, they would continue to proclaim the message about Jesus Christ. (4:18-20; see the Notes section on verse 18.)
Again they threatened them but allowed them to leave, for they had no grounds to punish them and they also found it advisable to take the view of the people into consideration. All who had come to know about the miracle “glorified God for what he had done.” Even though the members of the Sanhedrin wanted to stop the apostles from speaking about Jesus, they apparently feared that there would be a serious unfavorable reaction if they punished Peter and John for a miracle that the people considered to be the work of God. The man had been lame from birth and was over forty years of age at the time he was cured. (4:21, 22)
After having been released, Peter and John went to the place where many believers had met. Likely upon learning about the arrest, they had assembled for mutual encouragement and prayer. When they arrived, the two apostles related what the chief priests and elders had said to them. (4:23; compare 1:13, 14; 4:31; 12:12.)
After hearing about the experience of Peter and John, all present united in prayer and, “with one accord, raised their voice to God,” saying, “O Lord [despótes], you who made heaven and earth and the sea and everything in them.” These words from Psalm 146:6 [145:6] would have been familiar to all of the assembled believers, and so it would not have been unusual for them to unitedly pray as with one voice to God, the Creator of everything. The Greek designation despótes applies to one who has authority over others and so can mean “lord,” “master,” “owner,” or “sovereign.” (4:24; see the Notes section.)
The prayerful expression of the group referred to God’s words expressed through David’s mouth by reason of the operation of his holy spirit. They are quoted as speaking of David as “father,” apparently meaning that he, as the king over all Israel, had a relationship to all of them like that of an ancestor or forefather. Although David had his failings, he remained devoted to God and so is fittingly called his “servant.” (4:25)
All the believers would have been familiar with the words of Psalm 2 as one of the psalms they likely had often sung. “Why did nations rage [phryásso], and peoples meditate [on] vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers assembled together [epí tó autó] against the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text] and against his Christ.” (4:25, 26)
The introductory “why?” [hinatí] suggests surprise, astonishment, or amazement, for the effort of the people and the kings or rulers was doomed to fail. They could not possibly hope to succeed when plotting against God and his “anointed one” or “Christ.” (4:25)
The Greek term phryásso can signify to rage, act tumultuously, or to be insolent. In their opposition to God and his “anointed one,” the nations could be spoken of as acting in anger or rage or in an insolent manner. What they meditated on, contemplated, or plotted was vain or empty, certain to fail. (4:25) In relation to the assembling of rulers against YHWH and his anointed one, the Greek phrase epí tó autó (“on the same”) can mean “together” (“with one another”) or “at the same place.” (4:26)
The words of the psalmist found their fulfillment in the action taken against God’s “holy servant [or ‘child’] Jesus,” whom he had anointed. This anointing was an anointing, not with oil, but with holy spirit, and occurred at the time of Jesus’ baptism. (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18-21; Acts 10:38) The rulers were Herod Antipas and Pilate. When Jesus refused to perform a sign for him, Herod, with his soldiers, made light of him. (Luke 23:8-11) Pilate authorized that Jesus be scourged and crucified. The people of the nations were the Roman soldiers who abused and made fun of Jesus and carried out the scourging and crucifixion, and the people of Israel were the ones who spat upon and slapped Jesus and were involved in handing him over to Pontius Pilate and demanding that he be crucified. (Matthew 26:67, 68; 27:1, 2, 22-31; Mark 14:65; 15:1, 12-20; John 19:1-7, 16) In having been directed against God’s unique Son, the action of Herod Antipas, Pilate and non-Israelites and Israelites constituted a stand against God. (4:27)
Nevertheless, their action proved to be what God’s “hand” and “counsel” had determined beforehand to occur. In this case, God’s “hand” is not representative of his direct activity but of that which he permitted to occur in connection with his Son, and the “counsel” applied to his purpose or will respecting him. Through the death of his Son, he made the arrangement for repentant peoples everywhere to be forgiven of their sins and reconciled to him as his children. (4:28; see the Notes section.)
In view of the threats the Jewish high court expressed to Peter and John in an effort to stop the proclamation of the message about Jesus Christ, the believers prayed that they, as God’s slaves or servants, would be given boldness or courage to speak his “word.” This “word” is the message about his Son. It is his “word,” for it is the message God wanted to be made known. (4:29)
While they would be speaking the “word,” Jesus’ apostles and disciples petitioned God to “stretch out [his] hand for healing” and that “signs and portents” would occur “through the name of [his] holy servant [or ‘child’] Jesus.” God’s “hand” or power would be revealed through the healing of the afflicted, which would confirm that the disciples who were proclaiming the “word” about his Son represented him and had his approval. With the name or person of Jesus Christ being associated with the miracles that served as “signs and portents,” resulting in wonderment or amazement among those who witnessed them, the truth of the message about Jesus would be corroborated. (4:30; see the Notes section.)
After they had completed their supplication, the place where they had assembled was shaken and all of them came to be “filled with holy spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.” The shaking of the location proved to be a tangible evidence of the answer to their prayer and the working of God’s spirit. Whereas the holy spirit had been poured out on the apostles and other disciples on the day of Pentecost, they then experienced a special imparting of the spirit that engendered courage or boldness, enabling them fearlessly to proclaim God’s word or message about Christ. They did not need boldness to speak freely to one another, but their speaking with boldness refers to their going forth among the people to do so, not fearing the threats the members of the Jewish high court had made. (4:31; see the Notes section.)
A marvelous unity existed in the community of believers, with all being of “one heart and soul.” They were of “one heart,” having the same desire or purpose in making known the message about Jesus Christ and being concerned about one another as fellow children of God, and they functioned as “one soul” or one united body. As a family of brothers and sisters, they shared all things in common, not considering their possessions as being exclusively for their own use. (4:32; see the Notes section.)
“With great power, the apostles gave testimony about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.” This could suggest that their witnessing was accompanied by powerful works of healing and other astonishing miracles. It is also possible that “with great power” denotes that they proclaimed the message fearlessly, courageously, or boldly. Perhaps because of all their good deeds among the people, liberating many from their afflictions, “great favor [from fellow Israelites] was upon all of them.” Another significance could be that they enjoyed God’s favor. Both meanings are found in modern translations. (4:33) “They were all accorded great respect.” (NJB) “All were held in high esteem.” (REB) “God greatly blessed his followers.” (CEV) “God blessed all the believers very much.” (NCV)
On account of the love and unity that existed among the disciples, no one among them lacked the necessities for life. Those who owned fields or houses sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles. As Peter’s later words to Ananias reveal (5:4), this was strictly voluntary giving. No one was under obligation to sell any of their property nor to give the proceeds of the sale for distribution to the needy. (4:34)
Those who gave deposited the money at the feet of the apostles, committing to them full control of the funds for giving to those in need of material aid. Based on what they knew to be the individual needs, the apostles would distribute the money they had received. (4:35)
One of the disciples who sold a field was Joseph. The apostles gave him the name “Barnabas,” which is defined as meaning “Son of Comfort,” suggestive of his having been a source of kindly aid and consolation to fellow believers. Joseph was of the tribe of Levi and had come originally from the island of Cyprus. After selling the field, he brought the proceeds to the apostles, placing the money at their feet. Barnabas is the only one among the believers who is mentioned by name as having done so. Probably the reason for this is because of his later activity in Antioch and his service with the apostle Paul as his first travel companion. (4:36, 37; see the Notes section on verse 36.)
Notes:
In verse 4, numerous manuscripts do not include the qualifying “about” in connection with the 5,000. There is also a possibility (as some have concluded) that this number is to be regarded as an addition to the 3,000 who became believers on the day of Pentecost.
In verse 18, a number of manuscripts contain an expanded text that refers to all having agreed to the decision, that is, the decision to threaten them not to speak in the name of Jesus.
After “having heard” (akoúsantes [in verse 24]), fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds, “and recognizing the working of God.” After “you,” numerous manuscripts include “God” preceded by the definite article, and this may be translated “you [are] God.”
In the prayer that begins in verse 24, one of apostles or one of the other disciples may have represented all of the believers present, and there is a possibility that, when the familiar words from certain psalms were used, the entire group joined in.
According to a number of manuscripts, the words “in this city” (in verse 27) are not included after the reference to those who were gathered together.
In verse 28, manuscripts read either “counsel” or “your counsel.”
In verse 30, manuscripts variously read “hand” or “your hand.”
At the end of verse 31, fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) and a number of other manuscripts add, “to all wanting to believe.”
According to an expanded text of verse 32 contained in a number of manuscripts, “no quarreling at all existed among them,” or “no division existed among them.”
Instead of Joseph (in verse 36), other manuscripts read “Joses.”
Possibly to receive the laudable response from others that Barnabas did, “Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, sold [some] property.” (5:1) Although they were under no obligation to part with their property and to contribute the entire sum for distribution to needy fellow believers, Ananias and Sapphira decided to keep part of the proceeds but to represent themselves as giving the entire amount. Ananias then brought the amount he and his wife had agreed upon and “laid it at the feet of the apostles.” (5:2)
With God’s spirit operating upon him, Peter discerned that Ananias was acting out a lie and asked him, “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the holy spirit and withhold part of the price of the field?” In his “heart,” meaning either in his thinking or his inmost self, Ananias revealed himself to be corrupt, pretending to be a generous giver to fellow believers. The source of that corruption stood in opposition to God and Christ. It stemmed from Satan, with whom lying had its start. (John 8:44) Therefore, Peter could rightly refer to Satan as the one who had “filled” the “heart” (either the mind or the inner self) of Ananias, emboldening him to lie. The question directed to Ananias related to how he could voluntarily have allowed Satan thus to fill his mind or inner being. God’s spirit was operating upon all believers. Accordingly, lying to the community of believers constituted lying to the holy spirit. (5:3)
By means of questions, Peter reminded Ananias that the unsold property was his own possession, indicating that he could do with it whatever he might decide. After it was sold, he still retained “authority” or control of the proceeds. Then Peter continued, “Why did you purpose in your heart [to do] this deed? You have lied, not to men, but to God.” The planning of the deed in the “heart” may either be regarded as having taken place in the mind or as the product of the inner self. While the lie was meant to impress men, it was really a lie expressed to God. Believers were his children and so lying to them was an affront to him. (5:4)
When Ananias heard these words, he dropped dead. The report about him and how he came to breathe his last prompted great fear among all who heard it, evidently impressing upon everyone the seriousness of this kind of lying within the community of believers. (5:5)
Probably at the request of Peter, young men wrapped the body of Ananias and then carried it away for burial. (5:6) After about three hours from the time that Ananias died, Sapphira came to the same location. She was unaware of what had happened to her husband. (5:7) When Peter asked her about the sum for which the field had been sold, she acknowledged that it was the amount he said. Like her husband who had acted out the lie, Sapphira chose to repeat it. (5:8)
Peter responded, “Why did you agree together to test the Lord’s spirit [or, according to a number of manuscripts, ‘the holy spirit’]? Look! At the door are the feet of those who buried your husband, and they will carry you out.” The young men were then just arriving. It must have been through the operation of God’s spirit upon him that Peter knew what would happen. Both Ananias and Sapphira had tested God’s spirit, for they had acted in a manner that revealed they did not really believe that divine power was at work in the community of believers and that, therefore, their lie would not be discovered. (5:9)
“Immediately she fell down at [Peter’s] feet and expired.” Thus Sapphira experienced the same judgment as befell her husband for the sin in which she shared with him. When the young men who had returned from burying Ananias entered and found her dead, “they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.” (5:10; see the Notes section.)
As a consequence of what happened to Ananias and Sapphira, “the whole congregation” and “all who heard about these things” came to have great fear. In the congregation, or the community of believers, all would have been moved by a wholesome fear, recognizing the grave nature of the sin Ananias and Sapphira had committed. Besides believers, others would have come to know what had happened, and they also would have come to have a fear of the consequences that could result from playing false in matters pertaining to God and his spirit. (5:11)
“And through the hands of the apostles, many signs and portents occurred among the people.” The expression “through the hands” points to the apostles as the agencies through whom miraculous works (including healing the sick, liberating individuals from demon possession, and restoring soundness of body to the lame) took place. These miraculous works were “signs and portents,” proving that the apostles had divine backing and that their testimony concerning Jesus Christ was trustworthy. In the temple area, the Portico (or Colonnade) of Solomon was the customary location where the apostles taught and where believers assembled with them. The Greek adverb homothymadón pertaining to all believers could indicate that they were all “together” in the Portico of Solomon or that they assembled there “unitedly” or “by common consent.” (5:12; see the Notes section.)
“But none of the rest dared to join them.” This could mean that, in view of what had happened to Ananias and Sapphira, mere pretenders were afraid to identify themselves with the apostles. Nevertheless, the people generally, evidently on account of the miracles they witnessed, highly esteemed the apostles and other disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. (5:13) The number of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, “both men and women,” continued to increase. (5:14)
As news about the miracles that were taking place through the apostles spread, many people would bring the sick into the wide streets or large public areas, where the afflicted would then lie on “beds and couches,” probably meaning mats and litters. They thought that if the shadow of Peter passed over the sick, they would be cured. (5:15; see the Notes section.)
As the news of what was taking place through Peter and the other apostles reached towns around Jerusalem, many people came from these places, bringing the sick and those whom they considered to be plagued by “unclean spirits.” All these afflicted ones were cured. (5:16)
The attention being given to the apostles greatly disturbed the “high priest and all those with him.” Those with the high priest could denote those who were on his side or his associates. It appears that the high priest was part of the sect of the Sadducees, as were his main supporters. Their “jealousy” or “envy” seemingly would have taken the form of ill-will, resentment, indignation or fury, the kind of intense emotions associated with jealousy or envy. (5:17)
They “laid hands on the apostles,” apparently ordering temple guards to arrest and imprison them. It may well have been to intimidate the multitude from listening to the apostles that the arrest was carried out openly in the temple area and that they were confined to the “public” or “common” prison. (5:18)
During that night, “the messenger [or angel] of the Lord” effected the release of the apostles, opening the prison doors and leading them out. (5:19) The angel told them to go to the temple and there to speak to the people “all the words of this life.” These “words” related to the new life as persons forgiven of their sins and reconciled to God on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death. (5:20)
The account does not reveal as to when in the night the apostles were set free. Likely they were able to get some rest. Then, in obedience to the direction they had been given, the apostles headed to the temple early in the morning, positioned themselves in the temple precincts, and started to teach the people. (5:21; see the Notes section.)
Later that morning the high priest and those with him, either his associates or supporters, summoned the Sanhedrin, the members of the Jewish high court, “even” the whole “body of the elders of the sons of Israel,” to convene to deal with the apostles. In this case, the Greek conjunction for “and” (kaí) probably is to be understood to mean “even” and so identifies the Sanhedrin as being composed of a body of the nation’s elders. To bring the apostles before them, officers (likely attendants of the high priest) were sent to the prison. (5:21) Not finding the apostles there, the officers returned and related what they saw. (5:22; see the Notes section.) The prison was securely shut or locked, with the guards standing at the doors. “But,” the officers reported that, after opening the doors, “we found no one inside.” (5:23)
On hearing this, the “captain of the temple [the official in charge of the temple guards] and the chief priests” became perplexed about the apostles (“them,” in the Greek text), especially since the essential security measures had been put in place to keep them confined. Another possible meaning is that they became perplexed on account of these developments. They wondered as to “what would become of this.” (5:24)
Translators vary considerably when making the significance of the Greek text of verse 24 explicit. “They were perplexed about them, wondering what might be going on.” (NRSV) “The controller of the temple and the chief priests were at a loss to know what could have become of them.” (REB) “They were completely mystified at the apostles’ disappearance and wondered what further developments there would be.” (J. B. Phillips) “They were perplexed, wondering where it would all end.” (NLT) “They were much troubled as to what might happen.” (NLB) “They were utterly at a loss with regard to it, wondering what would happen next.” (Weymouth)
Then someone arrived with the news that the apostles were in the “temple” (that is, the temple area) and teaching the people. (Acts 5:25) At that, the “captain” (the official in charge of the temple guard) and a number of subordinates left to bring the apostles before the Sanhedrin. They apprehended them “without violence,” probably only talking to them respectfully and not laying a hand on them. The words “without violence” also indicate that the apostles did not resist but willingly left with the captain and his men. He and his subordinates must have endeavored to be careful in the way they conducted themselves toward the apostles, for they feared that any mishandling could enrage the people and cause them to hurl stones at them. They did not want to risk death by stirring up mob violence. (5:26)
Once the apostles stood before the members of the Sanhedrin, the high priest questioned them. (5:27) He reminded them that they had been commanded not to teach “on the [basis of] this name,” that is, on the basis of Jesus’ name and, therefore, as his representatives when speaking about him. Yet they had disregarded the order they had been given. The high priest continued, “Look! You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you want to bring the blood of this man upon us.” The high priest’s comments reveal that the testimony of the apostles had become widely known throughout the city of Jerusalem. He, however, misjudged the purpose of the testimony, concluding that it was to hold the Sanhedrin responsible for the death of Jesus and to stir up the masses against them for what they had done. He may have felt considerable discomfort, especially since, in response to Pilate’s seeking to free himself from blame, all who wanted Jesus to be crucified cried out, “His blood [be] upon us and upon our children.” (Matthew 27:25) Apparently to show his disdain for Jesus, the high priest did not use the name but referred to him as “this man.” (5:28)
Peter, evidently representing all of the other apostles, boldly responded, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers [their ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob] raised Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a timber. This one God exalted to his right hand as chief leader and savior, to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things, and [so is] the holy spirit that God gave to those obeying him.” (5:29-32; see the Notes section regarding verse 29.)
These words made it clear that the apostles’ loyalty to God came first, and that they would not obey the command of human authority to stop testifying about Jesus. They were witnesses to the reality that God had resurrected Jesus from the dead. (5:29, 30)
Members of the Jewish high court had handed Jesus over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and demanded the penalty of crucifixion. While they did not personally suspend Jesus from the timber, they were responsible for what was done. (5:30)
The very one whom they rejected God highly exalted to his right hand, signifying the most favored and intimate position. With confidence, the apostles could say this, for they had received and been empowered by the holy spirit that Jesus had imparted to them upon his again being in his Father’s presence. (2:33) In his role as chief leader, Jesus led believers to the real life of an enduring relationship with him and his Father. Through him, deliverance from sin and the condemnation to which sin leads had been effected, making him the God-appointed savior. To Israel, the opportunity had been opened for all within the nation to repent of their sins and to be granted forgiveness. (5:31)
The apostles were not the only witnesses. The miraculous works accomplished through the operation of the holy spirit on the apostles verified that the message they proclaimed came from God, providing confirmatory testimony. (5:32)
Upon hearing the response, many of the members of the court became enraged and wanted to kill the apostles. (5:33) Apparently desiring to defuse the tense situation, the Pharisee Gamaliel stood up and called for the apostles to be taken from their presence for a little while. As a teacher of the law (the Torah), he was highly regarded among “all the people.” Therefore, his words would have carried considerable weight with the members of the Sanhedrin. (5:34; see the Notes section.)
It is commonly thought that Gamaliel is “Gamaliel the Elder,” regarding whom the Mishnah (Sotah, 9:15) says that, when he died, “the glory of the Law ceased and purity and abstinence died.” He is identified with the title “Rabban,” which designation was even more honorable than “Rabbi.” Among the legalistic rulings attributed to him are ones that reflect a more humane viewpoint than evident in that of other ancient teachers of the Torah. (5:34; see the Notes section for one example of Rabban Gamaliel’s reasoning.)
Addressing them as “men, Israelites,” Gamaliel urged them to beware respecting what they intended to do and reminded them of past developments. A certain Theudas had claimed to be a somebody and gained a following of about 400 men. He was killed, his followers were scattered, and nothing came of the movement. (5:35, 36; see the Notes section.) “After him, Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the registration” and gained numerous followers. He also perished, and all those who had listened to him were scattered. (5:37)
Many have concluded that the account is in error in mentioning the situation involving Theudas as occurring before the time of Judas the Galilean. This is because Josephus (Antiquities, XX, v, 1) mentioned a certain Theudas who represented himself to be a prophet, persuaded many people to follow him to the Jordan River, and claimed that, at his command, the river would divide and make it possible for all who were with him to cross. The Roman governor Fadus, however, put a stop to this wild attempt. The horsemen he sent out after them killed many of their number and beheaded Theudas. The incident involving this Theudas occurred about five decades after the uprising of Judas the Galilean.
Josephus (Antiquities, XVII, x, 4) mentioned that there were 10,000 “disorders in Judea,” and so Theudas could have been a leader involved in one of these uprisings. Although Josephus (War, VI, v, 2) wrote that there were “a great number of false prophets” among the people before Jerusalem was completely destroyed by the Romans, he does not name them. His not mentioning a Theudas from an earlier period, therefore, does not in itself prove that he never existed.
The case involving Judas the Galilean can definitely be linked to a much earlier time than the comments of Gamaliel. According to Josephus (War, II, viii, 1), “A certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans, and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords.” This occurred about 6 BCE, at the time Coponius was the Roman governor of Judea. Josephus, however, does not report just how Judas died and what became of his immediate followers then. The fact that the Zealots continued as a faction among the Jews would not preclude that Judas himself and those who were personally involved with him met a disastrous end.
Focusing on the situation involving the apostles, Gamaliel advised that they stand clear of them and leave them alone. “Because,” as he continued, “if this plan or this work is from men, it will be destroyed. But if it is from God, you will not be able to destroy them [‘it,’ according to other manuscripts].” Should that be the case, he warned the members of the court that they could be found “fighters against God.” (5:38, 39)
Depending on which manuscript reading is followed, either the “plan” or “work” of the apostles or they themselves could not be stopped if what they were doing had God’s backing. As Gamaliel’s reasoning implied, attempted severe action against the apostles meant risking the possibility of being found as persons fighting against God. Certain manuscripts contain an expanded reading of Gamaliel’s words. He told the members of the court to let the apostles go, “without polluting [their] hands,” and that they would not be able to destroy them, “neither you nor kings nor tyrants. Therefore, stay away from these men.” (5:38, 39)
Gamaliel succeeded in persuading them from putting a violent end to the work of the apostles. Nevertheless, after having them brought back before them, they ordered them to be beaten, probably with rods, and commanded them to cease speaking “on [the basis] of the name of Jesus,” or as his representatives and as acting under his authority. The apostles were then released. (5:40)
As they left the presence of the Sanhedrin, the apostles rejoiced that they had been deemed worthy to be dishonored for Jesus’ name or for being identified as belonging to him. They regarded it an honor to suffer for the sake of their Lord who had died for them. The beating to which they had been submitted was dishonorable treatment, but it was honorable for them to suffer for Jesus and for the right reason. Therefore, they were able to regard themselves as having been found worthy to be dishonored for his name. (5:41)
The beating and threats of the Jewish high court did not stop the apostles. Unceasingly, they taught and declared the good news about Jesus, identifying him as the Messiah or Christ. As the book of Acts reveals, the good news included the teaching that deliverance from sin and the condemnation to which sin leads was possible only through him and what he accomplished when dying sacrificially. Every day the apostles could be found in the temple precincts or in private homes, teaching and proclaiming the glad tidings about Jesus. (5:42)
Notes:
In verse 10, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds that the young men wrapped up Sapphira.
After “all” (hápantes), in verse 12, a number of manuscripts say, “in the temple.”
Fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) concludes verse 15 with the words, “for they were released from every sickness as each of them had” (apellássonto gár apó páses astheneías hos eichen hékastos autón).
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) concludes verse 18 with the additional words, “and each one went to [his] own [home]” (kaí eporeúthe eis hékastos eis tá ídia).
After mentioning that the high priest came and those with him (verse 21), Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) says that they had “risen early.” Then, in verse 22, it adds the detail that the officers “opened the prison.”
According to superior manuscript support, verse 29 begins with the words, “But in reply, Peter and the apostles said.” Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), however, reads, “But Peter said to them.”
According to verse 34, the apostles were not present when Gamaliel urged the members of the court to leave them alone. This incident occurred very early in the history of the community of believers, and Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus may still have been members of the court. Furthermore, Pharisees did become believers. (15:5) Accordingly, information about the discussion of the Sanhedrin could have become known to believers from various sources.
One of a number of examples of the manner in which Rabban Gamaliel reasoned is found in the Tosefta (Shabbat, 13:14). He and a number of Israelite elders were on a boat, and the time for disembarking had exceeded the Sabbath limit. They asked him whether they could disembark. He commented that they were within the Sabbath limit before dark but that the boat had often gone off course. His reasoning appears to suggest that the circumstances would allow them to disembark. While he was still speaking, “a Gentile made a gangplank” for disembarking. Again the elders asked whether they could disembark. Gamaliel indicated that they could do so, for the arrangement for disembarking had not been made in their presence, implying that the Gentile had not acted specifically for them. It would appear that a more legalistically minded Pharisee would have insisted that they not disembark.
In verse 35, many manuscripts introduce Gamaliel’s comments with the words, “And he said to them.” Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) contains an expanded reading that identifies those being addressed as “rulers and members of the Sanhedrin.”
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), in verse 36, says that Theudas “was destroyed by himself,” indicating that he committed suicide. If this preserves the record of what actually happened to him, it would indicate that there was indeed another Theudas, for the one whom Josephus mentioned was beheaded.
As a loving family of God’s children, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ were concerned about one another. Among them were needy widows, and these women received aid from the community of believers. As the number of believers increased, a problem arose regarding the assistance being rendered to widows. The “Hellenists,” or the Greek-speaking disciples, began to complain against the “Hebrews,” or the Hebrew-speaking disciples, because the Greek-speaking “widows were being overlooked in the daily service.” (6:1)
The initial efforts to assist those who had come from widely scattered areas to remain in Jerusalem may, in time, not have been needed. Eventually, those who continued to stay in the city would doubtless have established themselves, working to support themselves and their families. Widows, however, would have continued to be among the needy. The account does not reveal just why the Greek-speaking widows were neglected. Possibly because of their not being native to Jerusalem, Judea, or Galilee, they were not known as well among the Hebrew-speaking disciples. (6:1)
The “daily service” could have been a daily distribution of food. Many translations make this significance explicit in their renderings. “They complained that the Greek-speaking widows were not given their share when the food supplies were handed out each day.” (CEV) “The Greek-speaking widows were not getting their share of the food that was given out every day.” (NCV) “The Greeks complained that in the daily distribution of food the Hebrew widows were being given preferential treatment.” (J. B. Phillips) It is possible, however, that the “daily service” involved the distribution of contributed funds to those in need. (6:1; compare 4:35; see the Notes section.)
Upon becoming aware of the problem, the twelve apostles convened the body of disciples and informed them that it would not be “appropriate” (arestós, “pleasing,” “desirable,” or “satisfactory”) for them to forsake the “word of God” (that is, their service of proclaiming and teaching the message concerning Jesus Christ that God wanted them to fulfill) “to serve tables” instead. Their serving tables could either mean distributing food or funds to needy widows. (6:2)
Jesus Christ had commissioned the apostles to be his witnesses, and he had personally been in closer association with them than with other early disciples. Therefore, the apostles were in the best position to function as teachers and proclaimers of God’s word about his Son. Nevertheless, the apostles recognized that caring for widows in their midst should not be neglected, but that other qualified men could handle this responsibility. So they requested that their “brothers,” or fellow disciples, “search out” or select from their number seven men “being borne witness to.” The Greek expression for “being borne witness to” (a form of martyréo) apparently here means having favorable testimony from others or a good reputation. (6:3; see the Notes section.)
The selected men were to be disciples “full of spirit and wisdom.” This would denote that the men would be persons who were led by God’s spirit as would be evident from their disposition, words, and actions. Being “wise” men, they would have sound judgment and be able to handle their responsibility in an equitable and caring manner. Once the body of disciples had found the men in their midst who met the needed qualifications, the apostles would appoint them to handle the essential daily service. (6:3)
As for the apostles, they determined to devote themselves to “prayer and the service of the word.” Concerned about having God’s approval and guidance in all that they did and taught, the apostles would continue to persevere in prayer. The “service of the word” would refer to their work of proclaiming and teaching the glad tidings about Jesus Christ and how through him repentant persons could be forgiven of their sins and reconciled to God as his beloved children. (6:4)
The “word,” or what the apostles said, pleased the “multitude” of disciples. “They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and holy spirit, and Phillip and Prochorus and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.” In being described as “full of faith and holy spirit,” Stephen is identified as a disciple with a solid faith or trust in Jesus Christ and as one whose life revealed that God’s spirit was fully at work within him. Of the seven disciples, only Nicolaus is identified as a proselyte. A non-Jew from Antioch, probably the Antioch in Syria, he had previously chosen to become a Jew and later became a disciple of Jesus Christ. All seven men had Greek names. In itself, however, this does not necessarily mean that all were exclusively representative of the Greek-speaking disciples. It was not uncommon for Jews to have Greek names. One of the apostles, for example, was also named Phillip. (6:5; see the Notes section.)
The body of believers set the seven disciples before the apostles who then prayed and laid their hands on the men. This prayer may well have included a petition that the seven disciples be granted the needed wisdom to care for their duty. The act of laying their hands on the men signified that the apostles had appointed them and may also have been a public expression of a bestowal of their blessing on them. (6:6)
With the problem about the daily distribution having been cared for, the community of believers apparently came to enjoy unity and continued to experience God’s blessing. “The word of God” continued to grow, which may be understood to mean that many came to believe and act on the message about Jesus Christ which God purposed to have proclaimed. In Jerusalem, the number of believers increased greatly, and even many priests came to be “obedient to the faith.” Unlike the chief priests who continued unabated in their opposition to the disciples, other priests became believers and thus were obedient to the faith or trust that had Jesus Christ as its object. (6:7; see the Notes section.)
Stephen and the other disciples must have carried out their service for needy widows in a commendable manner. As disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, they would also have used their opportunities to make known the message about him. “Among the people,” Stephen “performed great portents and signs.” These “portents and signs” probably included healing the sick and liberating those who were perceived to be suffering from demonic possession. Stephen’s being described as “full of grace and power” may indicate that he enjoyed God’s abundant favor or blessing and had been empowered to perform miraculous works that brought relief to many afflicted persons. (6:8; see the Notes section.)
In the course of his declaring the message about Jesus Christ, Stephen encountered those who resisted his words. Certain ones from the synagogue that was said to be of “freedmen” (genitive plural form of libertínos) “and [kaí] of Cyrenians and of Alexandrians, and of [those] from Cilicia and Asia” disputed with him. The designation libertínos is the grecized form of the Latin term libertinus and applies to a “freedman,” a liberated slave or the descendant of a freed slave. As Jews and proselytes belonging to the “synagogue,” “congregation,” or “assembly” of the “freedmen,” those who disputed with Stephen would have been former slaves or the offspring of former slaves. (6:9; see the Notes section.)
All the proper nouns “Cyrenians” (individuals from Cyrene on the northern coast of Africa), “Alexandrians (persons from Alexandria, Egypt), Cilicia (a region in southeastern Asia Minor in which the apostle Paul’s home city Tarsus was located), and Asia (the Roman province of Asia occupying the western part of Asia Minor) are in the genitive case. So it is possible that, instead of just being Jews and proselytes from those locations, they were all part of the “assembly of freedmen.” This is so because the Greek word kaí that follows “freedmen” may here mean “even,” not “and.” (6:9) A number of translations make this basic sense explicit in their renderings. “Some members of the synagogue called the Synagogue of Freedmen, comprising Cyrenians and Alexandrians and people from Cilicia and Asia, came forward and argued with Stephen.” (REB) “But some Jewish people were against him. They belonged to the synagogue of Free Men (as it was called), which included Jewish people from Cyrene, Aexandria, Cilicia, and Asia.” (NCV) “But one day some men from the Synagogue of Freed Slaves, as it was called, started to debate with him. They were Jews from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and the province of Asia.” (NLT)
Other translators represent the disputants from Cilicia and Asia as a different group. “But some men from Cyrene and Alexandria were members of a group who called themselves ‘Free Men.’ They started arguing with Stephen. Some others from Cilicia and Asia also argued with him.” (CEV) Another view that is made explicit in the rendering of translations takes the words of verse 9 to mean three different synagogues or assemblies. “However, members of a Jewish synagogue known as the Libertines, together with some from the synagogues of Cyrene and Alexandria, as well as some men from Cilicia and Asia, tried debating with Stephen.” (J. B. Phillips) When, however, the Greek word kaí that precedes “Cyrenians” is understood to mean “and,” those mentioned after “freedmen” may be persons other than those from the “synagogue” or “assembly of freedmen.” “But some members of the so-called ‘Synagogue of the Freed-men,’ together with some Cyrenaeans, Alexandrians, Cilicians and men from Roman Asia, were roused to encounter Stephen in debate.” (Weymouth)
Those who argued with Stephen could not disprove what he said and did not succeed in establishing their position to be sound when faced with the “wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke.” His “wisdom” was doubtless evident from the way in which he presented passages from the Scriptures to show that Jesus is indeed the Christ. The “spirit with which he spoke” may have been as a disciple guided by God’s spirit. It is also possible that the reference is to Stephen’s own spirit, one of sincerity and reasonableness. (6:10)
Frustrated and angry, those who disputed with Stephen launched an attack against him. Secretly they got certain men to accuse him falsely, saying that they heard him express blasphemous words against Moses and God. As the context indicates, the blasphemous sayings against Moses related to their false claim that Stephen had said that Jesus the Nazarene would change the customs that had been handed down from Moses. The blasphemous words against God pertained to the false accusation that Jesus would throw down God’s holy temple. (6:11)
With their false accusations, these men incited the people, the elders of the nation, and the scribes to anger. As a group, they suddenly came upon Stephen, seized him, and led him to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court. (6:12) False witnesses came forward, claiming that he did “not cease speaking [‘blasphemous,’ according to numerous manuscripts] words against this holy place [the temple] and against the law.” (6:13) They continued, “For we heard him say that this Jesus the Nazarene will tear down this place [the temple] and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us.” Thus they implied that Stephen was a radical who had no regard for God’s holy temple and disrespected the sacred customs that God’s prophet Moses had committed to the Israelites centuries earlier. (6:14)
Apparently after the false witnesses spoke, the eyes of all members of the Sanhedrin focused on Stephen. When they did so, they saw that his face was like that of an angel. Numerous translations represent this as meaning that Stephen’s countenance appeared miraculously illuminated with the brightness of an angel’s face. “His face became as bright as an angel’s.” (NLT) “His face glowed like the face of an angel.” (Sein Gesicht leuchtete wie das Gesicht eines Engels. [German, Neue Genfer Übersetzung]) The reference to his face appearing like that of an angel, however, may simply indicate that his face reflected the purity, innocence, and tranquility that would have been associated with an angel. There was nothing about Stephen’s countenance to suggest that the accusations made against him had even the slightest validity. (6:15; see the Notes section.)
Notes:
At the end of verse 1, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds, “in the service of the Hebrews.”
The opening words of Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) for verse 3 are, “What then is [it], brothers” (tí oun estin, adelphoí). In this verse, a number of manuscipts read “holy spirit” and not just “spirit.”
In verse 5, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) is specific in identifying the “multitude” as being a “multitude of disciples” (pléthos tón mathetón)
In verse 7, the reading “word of God” has the superior manuscript support. Other manuscripts read, “word of the Lord.” Instead of “priests,” a few manuscripts read “Jews.”
In verse 8, many manuscripts read “faith” instead of “grace.” One sixth-century manuscript says “grace and faith.” A number of manuscripts, including Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), add “through the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” in connection with the great portents and signs Stephen did among the people.
In verse 9, the absence of “and Asia” in a number of manuscripts appears to be a copyist’s error.
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) concludes verse 15 with the words “like the face of an angel standing in their midst.”
After false witnesses presented their testimony, the high priest asked Stephen whether these things were so. (7:1; see the Notes section.) In response, Stephen addressed the members of the court as “men, brothers, and fathers.” After inviting them to “listen” to his words, he, when making his defense, drew on familiar history. By referring to them as “brothers,” he identified himself as a fellow Israelite. A significant number of the court would have been older men and, therefore, Stephen respectfully called them “fathers.” (7:2)
He started his defense by first focusing on their common ancestor Abraham. The “God of glory,” or the great and magnificent God whom they worshiped (Psalm 29:3), appeared to their forefather Abraham while he resided in Mesopotamia and before he took up residence in Haran. The Genesis account makes no mention of any revelation that Abraham received while living in the Mesopotamian city of Ur. Genesis 15:7 and Nehemiah 9:7, however, do indicate that YHWH brought Abram (Abraham) out of Ur of the Chaldeans. (7:2)
Stephen, in addition to the biblical record, possibly drew on a traditional account that may have been widely known. Philo, the first-century Jewish philosopher from Alexandria, Egypt (in On Abraham, XIV, 62, 67) linked Abraham’s leaving Chaldea (or Mesopotamia) to an “oracle” (or a divine revelation) he had received. Philo thereafter wrote, “Therefore giving no consideration to anything whatever, neither to the men of his tribe, nor to those of his borough, nor to his fellow disciples, nor to his companions, nor those of his blood as sprung from the same father or the same mother, nor to his country, nor to his ancient habits, nor to the customs in which he had been brought up, nor to his mode of life and his mates, every one of which things has a seductive and almost irresistible attraction and power, he departed as speedily as possible, yielding to a free and unrestrained impulse, and first of all he [left] the land of the Chaldaeans, a prosperous district, and one which was greatly flourishing at that period, and went into the land of Charran [Haran], and from that, after no very distant interval, he departed to another place [Canaan], which we will speak of hereafter.” Stephen may also have wanted to indicate that God dealt with Abraham outside the Promised Land and in locations where no temple served as a place for acceptably worshiping him. (7:2)
God’s directive to Abraham to leave the land of his residence and his relatives and then to go to a land that he would show him is worded much like the extant Septuagint reading of Genesis 12:1. Although the words recorded in Genesis relate to what God is represented as saying to Abram (Abraham) while he was residing in Haran, they may have been part of an earlier divine revelation to him in the city of Ur. (7:3)
Some support for this conclusion may be in the quotation itself. According to the Hebrew text and the extant Septuagint reading of Genesis 12:1, it was in Haran that Abram (Abraham) was also told to go out from the “house of [his] father.” When he left Ur of the Chaldeans, his father Terah and other members of the immediate family departed with him. Not until he left Haran did Abram (Abraham) leave behind his father’s house, for his brother Nahor did not accompany him. (7:3)
When referring to God’s words to Abraham prior to the move to Haran, Stephen did not mention the part about Abram’s (Abraham’s) going out from his father’s house. Accordingly, the wording of Stephen’s quotation of what God said to Abraham in Mesopotamia does reflect the circumstances relating to the departure from Ur in Chaldea. (7:3)
The Genesis account attributes the departure from Ur to Terah. As the patriarchal head responsible for major decisions, Terah (not his son Abraham) may, according to the ancient mode of expression, be represented as initiating the move. (Genesis 11:31, 32)
Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, is very definite in crediting Terah with the decision to leave Ur. In Antiquities (I, vi, 5), he wrote that Terah, “hating Chaldea on account of his mourning for Haran” (his son who died in Ur) moved with his surviving sons Abram (Abraham) and Nahor to Haran. At the time of the move, Abraham was married to Sarai (Sarah), and Nahor was married to Milcah. Josephus seems to have based his comments primarily on Genesis 11:27-32 and added his interpretation about the reason for Terah’s leaving Ur with his family.
In response to the divine directive, Abram (Abraham) departed from the “land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran.” After his father Terah died, he left for the land that God had promised to show him. He departed with his wife Sarai (Sarah) and his nephew Lot, whose father Haran had died in Ur. As Stephen told the members of the Sanhedrin, God had Abram (Abraham) change his residence to “this land in which you are now living.” (7:4; see the Notes section.)
Nevertheless, God did not give him the direct ownership of any part of the land as a place of residence, not even as much as a “footbreadth.” While Abram (Abraham) did not as yet have a child, God promised to give the land to him and, after him, to his “seed” or offspring. The fulfillment of the divine promise was so sure that the land could be spoken of as being given to Abram (Abraham) and to his “seed” even though he and his immediate descendants did not come to possess any part of it as their own residential property. (7:5)
God revealed to Abram (Abraham) that none of his immediate descendants would come to possess the land. His “seed” or descendants would first come to be resident aliens in another land or country, where they would be enslaved. The people would be mistreated for 400 years. This revelation came to Abram (Abraham) at the time God concluded a covenant with him, assuring him that he would come to possess the land through his descendants who, after having lived as resident aliens in another country, would return to it “in the fourth generation.” (7:6; Genesis 15:7-16; see the Notes section.)
The affliction or mistreatment the “seed” or descendants of Abraham would experience for 400 years apparently is not to be regarded as meaning in the land of Egypt itself or as applying to a period of 400 years of unceasing oppression. After Jacob’s family settled in Egypt, Joseph continued to live for about 70 years, and it was not until sometime after his death and a change in Egyptian rulership that the Israelites suffered oppression. (7:6; Genesis 41:46, 47, 53, 54; 45:6; 50:22; Exodus 1:8-11)
According to Galatians 3:17, 430 years passed from the time God confirmed the covenant promise to Abraham upon his entering the land of Canaan and the giving of the law covenant at Mount Sinai. This period of 430 years includes 215 years of residence in the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:4-6; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9) and 215 years of living in Egypt. In their reading of Exodus 12:40, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch indicate that the 430 years were spent in Egypt and in Canaan. The Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, II, xv, 2) likewise referred to the Israelites as having left Egypt 430 years after Abraham came to Canaan and 215 years after Jacob settled in Egypt. Since the period of 400 years of affliction does not apply to an unbroken time of oppression, the mistreatment may be regarded as having had its start when Ishmael (Abraham’s son by Sarah’s Egyptian slave Hagar) mocked Isaac at the time of his being weaned. (7:6; Genesis 21:5-9; Galatians 4:28-30)
Drawing on the words in Genesis 15:14, Stephen continued, “‘And I will judge the nation to which they will be enslaved,’ God said, ‘and after these things they will depart and serve [form of latreúo] me in this place.’” According to the biblical record, the divine judgment included ten devastating plagues that came upon the Egyptians and the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea. (Exodus 7:14-14:31) The Greek term latreúo denotes sacred service or worship, and the “place” may be understood to refer to the land that was promised to Abraham and his descendants. (7:7; see the Notes section.)
God gave the covenant of circumcision to Abraham. As a circumcised man, he became the father to Isaac and, in obedience to the covenant, circumcised him on the eighth day. Isaac became the father to Jacob, and Jacob became father to the “twelve patriarchs” or family heads from whom all the Israelites descended. Jacob’s twin brother Esau is not mentioned, for he did not figure as part of the “seed” of Abraham that came to inherit the Promised Land. (7:8; Genesis 17:9-24; 21:5; 25:26; 46:8-25)
The “patriarchs,” Joseph’s ten half brothers (the sons of Leah and of the two concubines Zilpah and Bilhah) “became jealous of Joseph.” They came to resent the special favor Jacob showed to this son by his favorite wife Rachel, and developed an even greater hatred toward him when he related dreams pointing to his attaining a prominent position over them. When, at his father’s request, Joseph went to look for his brothers to see how they and the flock of their father were faring, they saw their opportunity to rid themselves of the brother whom they hated. On the recommendation of Judah and in the absence of Reuben, they sold their brother to a passing caravan of traders. The traders took him to Egypt, and so, as Stephen said, the patriarchs “sold him into Egypt.” Still, although no longer in the land that had been divinely promised to Abraham, “God was with [Joseph].” While his brothers had rejected him, his God had not but continued to look after him. (7:9; Genesis 37:2-33)
In Egypt, God rescued Joseph “from all his afflictions.” As a slave in the household of Potiphar, the chief of Pharaoh’s guard, he proved himself to be diligent and trustworthy and, in time, was put in charge of the entire household. According to the account in Genesis, Joseph succeeded because YHWH was with him. Potiphar prospered due to Joseph and personally came to recognize that this was on account of Joseph’s God. Potiphar’s wife, however, became infatuated with Joseph and repeatedly tried to seduce him. When he refused her immoral advances and fled from her grasp, she falsely accused him of wanting to have sexual relations with her. Her accusations angered Potiphar, and he had Joseph jailed where Pharaoh’s prisoners were confined. According to Psalm 105:18, Joseph appears to have been submitted to harsh treatment, having his “feet” or ankles “hurt” or restrained with fetters and his “soul” (possibly here designating his neck) confined with iron bonds, which may refer to an iron collar. Even here God was with Joseph, leading to his gaining the favor of the chief jailer and being entrusted with responsibilities. Later, Pharaoh’s cupbearer and chief baker were put in custody, and the chief jailer charged Joseph with attending to them. On a later occasion, Joseph correctly interpreted the dreams both men had, and this circumstance led to Joseph’s being brought to the attention of Pharaoh after the cupbearer had been restored to his position (just as Joseph’s interpretation of his dream had indicated). Later, Pharaoh had dream that no one could interpret for him. The cupbearer, who acknowledged his guilt in having forgotten all about Joseph, related to Pharaoh how he had correctly interpreted his dream and that of the chief baker. (7:10; Genesis 39:1-41:13)
Brought before Pharaoh, Joseph interpreted the dream as pointing to seven years of abundance followed by seven years of severe famine. Additionally, he made recommendations about how to deal with the future food shortage. By enabling Joseph to interpret the dream and to make wise recommendations, God “gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” Apparently recognizing that the interpretation of the dream made good sense, Pharaoh looked upon Joseph favorably and, on the basis of his recommendations, recognized him as the possessor of extraordinary wisdom. He then appointed him to the second highest position as a ruler in Egypt and over his “whole house” or household. (7:10; Genesis 41:14-44)
The famine affected all of Egypt and Canaan. Everyone whom the famine impacted experienced great distress. This included the patriarchs (Jacob and his sons), for they were unable to obtain essential foodstuffs. (7:11) After hearing that grain was available in Egypt, Jacob sent his sons (“our fathers” or ancestors) “first,” meaning the “first time,” “on their first trip,” or “on their first visit” to Egypt. Although Joseph recognized his brothers, they did not recognize him and he represented himself as a harsh man in a position of authority. To make sure that they would return and have his brother Benjamin accompany them, he had his half brother Simeon confined in prison. Possibly Joseph chose to imprison Simeon because of his having previously been the foremost one in his desire to kill him. (7:12; Genesis 37:18-20; 42:1-24)
The “second” time or on the second visit, Joseph, after having tested his brothers, made himself known to them and arranged for the entire household of his father to move to Egypt. (Genesis 43:16-45:15) Upon their arrival, Joseph’s family became known to Pharaoh. (7:13; Genesis 45:16)
At the request of Joseph, his father Jacob and all his relatives then in Canaan came to Egypt. Stephen is quoted as saying that the number of “souls” or persons was 75. (7:14; see the Notes section.) According to the Masoretic Text, the number was 70, which did not include the wives of Jacob’s sons. Of this number, 33 are identified as Leah’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. There being only 32 names listed (besides the two sons of Judah [Er and Onan] who died in Canaan) possibly an unnamed daughter is included in the number 33. (Genesis 46:8-15) Zilpah, the maidservant of Leah and a concubine of Jacob, is listed as having had a total of 16 children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. (Genesis 46:16-18) The offspring of Rachel’s son Joseph included Manasseh and Ephraim who were born in Egypt. Her much younger son Benjamin’s offspring numbered ten. According to the extant Septuagint text (unlike the Masoretic Text that lists the ten as “sons”), the ten are grouped as three sons, six grandsons, and one great-grandson. It would have been impossible for so many generations to have been born in Canaan to the youngest of Jacob’s sons. They are, however, represented as coming to Egypt because Benjamin arrived with all the other members of Jacob’s household. (46:19-22) Rachel’s maidservant Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine, is listed as having had a total of seven children and grandchildren. (Genesis 46:23-25)
The mention of a total of 66 in Genesis 46:26 appears to include only those who are actually named previously (32 [not including Onan and Er who died in Canaan and the one unnamed person] + 16 + 11 [Benjamin and his 10 offspring] + 7) but excludes Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh. With the inclusion of Jacob (or possibly an unnamed daughter), Joseph, and Joseph’s two sons, the household of Jacob would number 70. The figure 75 in the Septuagint may be based on the addition of others from Joseph’s family to the 66 members of Jacob’s household or the 70 members. The extant Septuagint text of Genesis 46:27, says that “nine souls” (not “two” as in the Hebrew text) were born to Joseph in Egypt. Adding these “nine souls” to 66 would make 75 members of the household. On the other hand, the extant Septuagint text of Genesis 46:20 includes the names of Machir, the son of Manasseh; Machir’s son Galaad (Gilead); Ephraim’s sons Southalaam and Taam, and Southalaam’s son Edem. When these three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph are added to the 70, the number comes to 75 members for the household of Jacob.
After his move to Egypt, Jacob did not return to Canaan but died there, as did his sons (“our fathers” or forefathers). (7:15) Regarding their burial, Stephen is quoted as saying, “And they were removed to Shechem and were laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.” The biblical record indicates that Joseph was buried at Shechem in the field that his father Jacob had bought from the “sons of Hamor.” (Joshua 24:32) It is possible that Stephen attributed the purchase to Abraham from the standpoint of his doing so through his grandson Jacob. There is, however, no reference to the burial of any of Joseph’s brothers at Shechem. Jacob was buried in the vicinity of Hebron in the cave in the field of Machpelah. Abraham had bought this field from Ephron as a burial place for Sarah, and it was there that Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, and Leah were buried. According to Josephus (Antiquities, II, viii, 2), Joseph’s brothers were also taken to Hebron for burial. (7:16)
The preserved wording of Stephen’s defense has commonly been regarded as being in error. It is possible, however, that he spoke in an elliptical manner, which would not be uncommon when expressions are made from memory. The completed thought then would be that the transferal to Shechem applied to Joseph and that Jacob and his sons were laid in a tomb that “Abraham had bought for a sum of silver” and that Joseph was buried in the field that had been obtained “from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.” (7:16)
The promise God made to Abraham was that, in the fourth generation, his descendants would return to the land of Canaan subsequent to their enslavement in a foreign land. (Genesis 15:13-16) As the time for the fulfillment of this promise drew near, the descendants of Abraham through his grandson Jacob had “increased and multiplied in Egypt,” the foreign land. (7:17) This proved to be so under favorable conditions until the time that a king who “did not know Joseph” ruled over Egypt. This ruler gave no thought to how the Egyptians had benefited during the time Joseph administered affairs and so had no regard for the people who were related to Joseph. (7:18; Exodus 1:8; see the Notes section.)
The new king initiated a campaign of genocide. He “dealt craftily” (katasophízomai) with the Israelites (“our race”) and forced them (“our fathers” or “our ancestors”) to “expose” their infants so that they would die. A form of the Greek word katasophízomai also appears in the Septuagint text of Exodus 1:10, which refers to the same development. This word may be understood to mean “to take advantage of” or “to resort to crafty exploitation.” The verb sophízo, the principal part of the compound katasophízomai can signify “to make wise” or “to devise in a clever or crafty manner.” According to Exodus 1:11, the crafty plan was to subject the Israelites to forced labor. Then, when the king’s order for the midwives to kill the Israelite male babies was not acted on, he ordered the Egyptians to cast the baby boys into the Nile, where they would drown. (Exodus 1:15-22) In this way, the Israelites were forced to expose their male babies to certain death. (7:19)
During the time this genocidal program existed, Moses was born. This baby “was beautiful to God,” which could mean that the exceptional attractiveness of the infant pointed forward to God’s future use of him as the instrument for delivering his people. For three months, his mother Jochebed nursed him in the home of his father Amram, keeping him concealed. (7:20; Exodus 2:2; 6:20) When he could no longer be hidden and had to be exposed, Jochebed, according to the Exodus account, waterproofed a papyrus basket, laid her baby boy in it, placed the basket among the reeds growing on the bank of the Nile, and apparently arranged for her daughter to observe from a distance what would happen to the baby. It was then that Pharaoh’s daughter, who had come down to the Nile to bathe, saw the basket and had one of her maids bring it to her. (Exodus 2:2-6) The words “the daughter of Pharaoh took him up” could refer to this. Other possible meanings are that she adopted him or that she saved him. His sister’s approaching Pharaoh’s daughter with the idea of getting a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby for her made it possible for him to be nursed by his own mother. (Exodus 2:7-9) At what age he was turned over to Pharaoh’s daughter is not revealed in the biblical record. Stephen is quoted as saying that Pharaoh’s daughter “reared him as her son,” which would not have been until after he had been weaned. She called him Moses, which name, based on the etymology recorded in Exodus 2:10, recalled that she had drawn him out of the water. (7:21) As the adopted son of the daughter of Pharaoh, Moses came to be educated in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” His being described as “powerful in his words and works” may indicate that what he said reflected real insight and that his accomplishments in Egypt were impressive. (7:22)
The comments of the Jewish philosopher Philo provide some insight regarding what was believed in the first century CE regarding the kind of instruction Moses received. “His mother, who was also his nurse, came to bring him back to the princess who had given him to her, inasmuch as he no longer required to be fed on milk, and as he was now a fine and noble child to look upon. And when the king’s daughter saw that he was more perfect than could have been expected at his age, and when from his appearance she conceived greater good will than ever towards him, she adopted him as her son … The child being now thought worthy of a royal education and a royal attendance, was not, like a mere child, long delighted with toys and objects of laughter and amusement, even though those who had undertaken the care of him allowed him holidays and times for relaxation, and never behaved in any stern or morose way to him; but he himself exhibited a modest and dignified deportment in all his words and gestures, attending diligently to every lesson of every kind which could tend to the improvement of his mind. And immediately he had all kinds of masters, one after another, some coming of their own accord from the neighboring countries and the different districts of Egypt, and some being even procured from Greece by the temptation of large presents. But in a short time he surpassed all their knowledge, anticipating all their lessons by the excellent natural endowments of his own genius; so that everything in his case appeared to be a recollecting rather than a learning, while he himself also, without any teacher, comprehended by his instinctive genius many difficult subjects; for great abilities cut out for themselves many new roads to knowledge. And just as vigorous and healthy bodies which are active and quick in motion in all their parts, release their trainers from much care, giving them little or no trouble and anxiety, and as trees which are of a good sort, and which have a natural good growth, give no trouble to their cultivators, but grow finely and improve of themselves, so in the same manner the well-disposed soul, going forward to meet the lessons which are imparted to it, is improved in reality by itself rather than by its teachers, and taking hold of some beginning or principle of knowledge, bounds, as the proverb has it, like a horse over the plain. Accordingly he speedily learned arithmetic, and geometry, and the whole science of rhythm and harmony and meter, and the whole of music, by means of the use of musical instruments, and by lectures on the different arts, and by explanations of each topic; and lessons on these subjects were given him by Egyptian philosophers, who also taught him the philosophy which is contained in symbols, which they exhibit in those sacred characters of hieroglyphics, as they are called, and also that philosophy which is conversant about that respect which they pay to animals which they invest with the honors due to God. And all the other branches of the encyclical education he learned from Greeks; and the philosophers from the adjacent countries taught him Assyrian literature and the knowledge of the heavenly bodies so much studied by the Chaldaeans. And this knowledge he derived also from the Egyptians, who study mathematics above all things, and he learned with great accuracy the state of that art among both the Chaldaeans and Egyptians, making himself acquainted with the points in which they agree with and differ from each other — making himself master of all their disputes without encouraging any disputatious disposition in himself — but seeking the plain truth, since his mind was unable to admit any falsehood, as those are accustomed to do who contend violently for one particular side of a question; and who advocate any doctrine which is set before them, whatever it may be, not inquiring whether it deserves to be supported, but acting in the same manner as those lawyers who defend a cause for pay, and are wholly indifferent to the justice of their cause.” (On the Life of Moses, I, v, 18-24)
When 40 years had passed (“were fulfilled”) since his birth, Moses determined “in his heart” (mentally or by inward reflection) to see what was happening among “his brothers, the sons of Israel.” Although he had been primarily reared in the royal surroundings of Egypt, he did not forget his ties to his fellow Israelites. (7:23) At the time of this visit, he witnessed an Egyptian taskmaster submitting an Israelite to violent abuse, and came to the defense of the victim. According to Exodus 2:12, Moses, after looking around to see that no one was in sight, killed the Egyptian who had been beating the Israelite and then hid the dead body in the sand. (7:24)
In view of his having taken action for his people, Moses thought that they would “understand that, through his hand, God was granting them deliverance, but they did not understand [this].” (7:25) The next day their failure to recognize a divinely chosen deliverer became apparent. When he saw two Israelites fighting with each other, he tried to effect a reconciliation so that they would be at peace. “Men, you are brothers,” he said. “Why do you wrong each other?” (7:26)
The man responsible for wronging “his neighbor” (his fellow Israelite brother) responded dismissively, “Who made you ruler and judge over us? Do you want to kill me like you killed the Egyptian yesterday?” The wording of the angry response is the same as that in the Septuagint at Exodus 2:14. (7:27, 28)
Upon hearing this retort, Moses perceived that his killing of the Egyptian had become known. It was this development that led him to flee from Egypt. Exodus 2:15 provides the additional detail that the report about the slaying of the Egyptian reached Pharaoh, who then determined to kill Moses, prompting him to make his escape. (7:29; see the Notes section.)
Stephen is quoted as summing up what happened in the life of Moses during the subsequent years. “And he came to be a resident alien in the land of Midian, where he fathered two sons.” (7:29) Midian appears to have been located east of the Gulf of ’Aqaba in the northwestern part of Arabia. Here Moses began to live in the household of Jethro (Reuel), “the priest of Midian,” whose flock he tended for about 40 years. During this time, he married Jethro’s daughter Zipporah and had two sons by her, Gershom and Eliezer. (Exodus 2:15-22; 3:1; 18:1-6)
After some 40 years since his flight from Egypt had passed (“had been fulfilled”), Moses received a divine revelation. An “angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai” (Horeb), while he was shepherding Jethro’s flock. The angelic manifestation was “in a flame of fire of a bush.” (7:30) Although continuing to burn, the bush was not consumed. (Exodus 3:2)
Seeing this phenomenon, Moses was struck with amazement at the sight and approached the burning bush to take a closer look. Then he heard the “voice of the Lord.” In the Hebrew text of Exodus 3:2, the angel is identified as the “angel of YHWH,” his special messenger, or his personal representative. As one who spoke in God’s name, the angel is thereafter referred to as “YHWH” (“Lord,” LXX). (7:31)
Moses heard a voice that identified the source of the extraordinary phenomenon. “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” (7:32, Exodus 3:6) The reference to the “fathers,” forefathers, or ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would have served to remind Moses of God’s promise to give them the land of Canaan.
Moses started to tremble and did not dare to look more. According to Exodus 3:6 in the Septuagint, he “turned his face away,” for his reverential regard did not permit him “to look down before God.” (7:32)
The “Lord” (YHWH), speaking through his representative angel, told him to take off his sandals, for the place where he stood was “holy ground.” It was not a shrine or a temple that had sanctified the ground, but it was the manifestation of the divine at the burning bush that had made the location holy. (7:33; Exodus 3:5)
Moses heard the words, “Looking, I saw the mistreatment of my people in Egypt, and I heard their groaning, and I have come down to rescue them. And come now, I will send you to Egypt.” The angel did the speaking, and God had not literally come down from heaven, but he did so by turning his attention to his people and responding to the abuse they were enduring and their cries for relief. To effect their rescue from suffering, he chose Moses as his instrument to deliver them from bondage in Egypt. (7:34)
A fellow Israelite (and, hence, the Israelites in a representative way) had disowned Moses with the words, “Who made you ruler and judge?” It was this very Moses whom God, through the angel (“by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush”), sent back to Egypt as “both ruler and deliverer.” The judges God later raised up for the Israelites during periods of oppression in the land of Canaan functioned as saviors or deliverers. (Judges 2:16) Moses did function among the Israelites as the divinely appointed ruler and judge or deliverer, serving in the very positions that the Israelite’s retort denied that he would be granted. (7:35) By stressing the significant role of Moses, Stephen established that he had been falsely charged with speaking “blasphemous words against Moses.” (6:11)
After performing “portents and signs” in Egypt, Moses led the Israelites out of the land. Before his return to Egypt, Moses had been divinely empowered to perform a number of signs to prove to the Israelites that YHWH had indeed sent him. Upon being thrown down, his rod would become a snake and, when picked up by the tail, would become a rod again. After putting his hand in the upper fold of his garment and then taking it out, it would appear like that of a leper, white like snow. When again placing his hand in the upper fold of his garment and taking it out, it would be returned to its normal state. The third sign involved taking water from the Nile and pouring it on the ground, at which time it would become blood. (Exodus 4:2-9, 29-31; 7:8-12) The ten plagues that came upon the land of Egypt also were “portents and signs” that occurred through the agency of Moses, for they were announced beforehand through him in response to Pharaoh’s refusal to release the Israelites. (Exodus 7:14-11:10) At the Red Sea, the “portents and signs” that the Israelites witnessed involved their deliverance and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian host. With the rod in his hand, Moses reached out over the sea and it parted, making it possible for the Israelites to cross and thus to escape from the pursuing Egyptian host. Then, when all the Israelites were safe on the other side and the Egyptians had entered the miraculously opened passage, Moses, evidently while grasping his rod, stretched out his hand over sea. The sea flowed back into the breach, drowning all the Egyptians. (Exodus 14:16, 21-29) During the some 40 years of their wandering in the wilderness, the Israelites saw other “portents and signs” taking place through the agency of Moses. For example, they twice received a miraculous supply of abundant water from a rock. (7:36; Exodus 17:5-7; Numbers 20:5-12)
“This is the Moses,” Stephen continued, “who said to the sons of Israel, ‘A prophet like me God will raise up for you from among your brothers.’” The words about a prophet like Moses are found in Deuteronomy 18:15. While the word order in the Septuagint differs, the thought is the same. The prophet whom God would raise up would be one of Israelite descent and, therefore, one of their own “brothers.” He would be like Moses, having a unique relationship with God and making known God’s message to the people. (7:37)
Stephen made it explicitly clear that he recognized Moses’ divinely granted position and had not spoken blasphemously against him. “This is the one [Moses] who was in the congregation [of Israel] in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers [ancestors].” From the angel, Moses received “living words” to give to the Israelites. As part of the congregation or community of Israel, Moses was with the ancestors of those whom Stephen addressed, but only Moses was with the angel. Whereas the Israelites did hear the voice at Mount Sinai, Moses alone is the one who received the totality of the commands from YHWH through his representative angel. These “words,” declarations, ordinances, or pronouncements, Moses then conveyed to the people. In being designated as “living words,” they may be understood to be divine pronouncements that, when obeyed, would lead to life or contribute to a lengthening of life. (7:38)
It was not Stephen who had disregarded Moses. It was the “fathers” or ancestors of those before whom Stephen made his defense. Their ancestors did not want to obey Moses, “but they pushed him aside and, in their hearts, turned back to Egypt.” (7:39) They repeatedly complained against him, expressing that they were worse off than they had been before they departed from there. (Exodus 16:3; 17:3; Numbers 11:4-6, 10) Upon hearing terrifying reports from ten of the spies that had been sent into the land of Canaan, they even considered choosing a leader to take them back to Egypt. (Numbers 13:27-14:4)
The example Stephen mentioned as indicating that the Israelites had pushed Moses aside and turned back in their “hearts” or inner selves to Egypt involved their relationship to YHWH. It was not just a matter of recalling the food they were able to eat in Egypt and yearning for what they then considered to have been a more comfortable life than the one of wandering in a barren wilderness. When Moses was away for a prolonged period, receiving the divine commands that he would impart to them, they approached Aaron with the request that he make “gods” for them to go ahead of them. Their reasoning was that they did not know what had happened to Moses who had led them out of the land of Egypt. So his not being in their midst at the time made them want to adopt an Egyptian practice. They asked Aaron to make a representation of “gods” as a replacement for Moses (the visible representative of YHWH) who had ascended Mount Sinai to communicate with the only true God (YHWH) through his representative angel. (7:40; see the Notes section.)
The Exodus account indicates that Aaron yielded to the pressure they exerted on him to comply with their request. (Exodus 32:21-24) Although the fashioning of the golden calf is attributed to Aaron in Exodus 32:2-4, it occurred at the instigation of the people. So, as Stephen expressed matters, “they made a calf in those days,” sacrificed to it, and found enjoyment in the “works of their hands” (the idol). Their enjoyment consisted of eating, drinking, and reveling before the image. (7:41; Exodus 32:6)
The words “God turned” could mean that he turned away from the Israelites. His “handing them over to serve the army of heaven” signifies his abandoning them to their self-chosen course of idolatry, rendering worship to the visible stars and other celestial bodies. In making this point, Stephen referred to what was written in the “book of the prophets.” The passage he quoted was from the words of Amos, one of the twelve prophets that had come to be regarded as constituting one book. The quotation from Amos 5:25-27 is nearly identical to that of the reading of the Septuagint. “Not to me did you present victims and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel, [did you?] But you took up the tent of Moloch and the star of the [‘your,’ according to another manuscript reading] god Raiphan [Remphan, Romphan, Rompha, or Repha, according to other manuscripts], representations [literally, ‘types’] that you made to do obeisance to them. And I will exile you beyond Babylon.” (7:42, 43; see the Notes section.)
The Hebrew text of Amos 5:26 is commonly rendered “Sakkuth, your king.” In the Septuagint and the quotation in Acts, the corresponding words are, “tent of Moloch.” One can readily account for the difference. The Hebrew word for “tent” or “booth” is sukkáh, and the Septuagint translator appears to have understood this to be the significance of the Hebrew word in the text that served as the basis for the translation. In Hebrew, the consonants of the name “Moloch” are those for the word “king,” but one cannot be certain to which deity this designation was applied. When the rendering is “tent of Moloch,” this may be understood to refer to a portable tent or shrine in which an image of “Moloch” had been placed. As a proper name, “Sakkuth” would designate a deity that was regarded as a king. (7:43)
In Amos 5:26 of the Hebrew text, the name “Kaiwan” appears to be the designation for the Akkadian kaimanu (or kaiwanu), the planet Saturn that was venerated as a deity. The Egyptian (Coptic) designation for the planet Saturn as a deity is Repa, also called Seb. So it may be that the different Greek designations Raiphan, Remphan, Romphan, Rompha, and Repha may be transliterated variants of Repa (Saturn). (7:43)
The words of the prophet Amos indicated that the Israelites were not devoted to YHWH during the time they wandered in the wilderness. In their inward disposition, they continued to be idolaters, and their involvement with calf worship shortly after their deliverance from Egyptian enslavement proved this. In the subsequent centuries, idolatry proved to be a snare to the Israelites, and their failure to be exclusively devoted to YHWH culminated in their being taken into exile. Their deportation is attributed to God, for he allowed it to happen in expression of his judgment against the unfaithful people. According to the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, the deportation is referred to as being “beyond Damascus.” In the case of the ten-tribe kingdom, the Assyrians did take the inhabitants as exiles beyond that city. Nevertheless, Stephen’s mention of Babylon did fit developments in connection with the Babylonian campaign against Judah and Jerusalem. Many were then taken into Babylonian exile. (7:43; see the Notes section.)
In the wilderness, the “fathers” or ancestors of the Israelites had “the tent of the testimony.” The ark of the covenant, located in the Most Holy of this “tent” or tabernacle, was also called the “ark of the testimony.” (Exodus 25:22) This ark represented God’s presence, and so the reference to the tabernacle as the “tent of testimony” could mean that it served as a testimony or witness that God was present in the midst of the Israelites. Another possible significance for the designation “tent of the testimony” would be that it was there that the “testimony” (the two tablets of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments) was kept. The tablets served as a testimony respecting the commands the Israelites were obligated to observe, and this testimony would be a witness against them if they failed to live up to these commands. (Exodus 25:21; 31:18; 40:20) Their “fathers” or ancestors had this tent in the wilderness, it having been made according to the pattern (literally, “type”) that Moses saw while on Mount Sinai. (7:44; Exodus 25:8, 9, 40)
When, under the leadership of Joshua, the Israelites (the “fathers” or ancestors of those to whom Stephen directed his defense) entered the land of Canaan, they brought the tent with them. The land was then in possession of the nations whom God enabled the people (literally, “our fathers”) to drive out. (Joshua 3:10) As for the tent, no major change occurred until the time of David. This thought is expressed somewhat elliptically in the concluding phrase, “until the days of David.” (7:45)
Stephen did not include any reference to the time the ark of the covenant ceased to be in the tabernacle, focusing only on the “tent” as God’s representative place of dwelling from the time the Israelites entered Canaan until David’s reign. When David brought the ark of the covenant to Zion, where it was then placed in a different tent, this came to be the place where God was representatively present with his people. (2 Samuel 6:17; 7:1, 2)
“David found favor before God,” for he remained devoted to him. In view of his residence in a palace, David did not consider it fitting for the ark to be kept in a tent but expressed the desire to build a more permanent structure. By telling the prophet Nathan about his desire, he appears to have wanted to know God’s view respecting it. Seemingly from the standpoint of an implied inquiry, Stephen represented David as asking about finding a “dwelling place for the house of Jacob” or, according to another manuscript reading, a “dwelling place for the God of Jacob.” If “for the house of Jacob” is the original reading, the thought could be that the temple would be a place for the people, “the house of Jacob,” to worship God. (Acts 7:46; 2 Samuel 7:1-13) On account of having shed much blood in warfare, David was not permitted to build a temple, but he did undertake preparations for the work. His son Solomon, whose reign was not characterized by repeated wars with surrounding nations, did build the temple. (7:47; 1 Chronicles 28:2, 3; see the Notes section.)
Unlike the tabernacle that was divinely commanded to be constructed, the plan for building a temple originated with David. (1 Chronicles 17:4-6) Stephen may have wanted to imply that the tabernacle, though built at divine direction according to the model Moses was shown, did not function permanently as God’s representative place of dwelling and so also the then-existing temple could not be expected to remain as a permanent fixture in the arrangement for worshiping God.
With a quotation from verses 1 and 2 of Isaiah 66 (LXX), Stephen made it clear that a hand-made edifice, or a temple of human construction, was not the divine habitation, indicting thereby that worshiping God acceptably did not depend on the existence of a temple. “‘Heaven [is] my throne, but the [‘and the,’ according to another manuscript reading] earth [is] a stool for my feet. What [kind] of house will you build for me?’ says the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text]. ‘Or what [is] the place for my rest? Has not my hand made all these things?’” (Acts 7:48, 49) As the Creator of everything, God did not need a temple, and no temple of human construction could possibly serve as a residence for him. His dwelling place is in heaven. (Acts 7:49, 50)
Up to this point, Stephen had established from the history of the ancestors of the Israelites that they had repeatedly rejected the very ones whom God had chosen for his purpose (Joseph and Moses). He dealt with Abraham, Joseph, and Moses without there being any temple dedicated to him, and he himself does not reside in any edifice of human construction. Those who heard the defense were familiar with the facts that Stephen presented, but he used them in a manner that forced them to look at themselves in the light of Israelite history. In disposition, they were no different than their ancestors.
In the book of Exodus (33:3, 5, LXX), YHWH is represented as identifying the Israelites as a “stiff-necked” people. Moses is quoted in Exodus (34:9) and Deuteronomy (9:6, 13) as using the same expression. Another description of the Israelites relates to their having an “uncircumcised heart” or being “uncircumcised in heart.” (Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 9:26) When making his application from past history, Stephen is quoted as using the same expressions, “Stiff-necked [men] and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, you repeatedly resist the holy spirit, just like your fathers [ancestors] you [act].” They had proved themselves to be “stiff-necked” or stubborn, refusing to accept the unmistakable evidence that Jesus had been sent forth by God. As persons who remained inwardly unresponsive to Jesus Christ and refused to act on his words, they were like persons who were uncircumcised in hearts and ears, having an obstruction that did not allow them to respond appropriately. God’s spirit had operated on the ancient prophets, and the miracles Jesus performed demonstrated that the same spirit operated on him. The Israelite ancestors and those whom Stephen addressed opposed the spirit, refusing to respond in faith and obedience. (7:51)
Stephen continued, “Which of the prophets did your fathers [ancestors] not persecute? And they killed those who foretold about the coming of the righteous one, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become.” (7:52) “You received the law by the directives [plural form of diatagé] of angels but have not observed [it].” (7:53)
Among the prophets who are specifically spoken of as having suffered intense persecution were Elijah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. (1 Kings 19:10, 14; Jeremiah 15:15-18; 2 Chronicles 24:20-21) Summing up what the prophets faced, 2 Chronicles 36:16 indicates that they were the objects of mockery and scoffing and that God’s words conveyed through them were despised. According to Nehemiah 9:26, the Israelites killed the prophets who exposed their wrongs and who admonished them to repent and return to God. Isaiah was prominent among the prophets who foretold the coming of the “righteous one,” the promised Messiah. (Isaiah 11:1-5; 52:13-53:12) An apocryphal work, thought to date from the second century CE (“Ascension of Isaiah,” 1:9; 5:2, 14), says that King Manasseh had Isaiah sawn asunder with a wooden saw. (7:52)
Those who heard Stephen’s words had not kept the law, for the law commanded them to heed the prophet who would be like Moses. Jesus Christ proved to be this prophet, but they had refused to listen to him. With reference to their having received the law, the Greek phrase eis diatagás angélon is used. The word diatagé has been defined as meaning “disposition,” “command,” “direction,” “directive,” “order,” “ordinance,” and “decree.” In this context, the Greek phrase may mean “by God’s directives to angels.” (7:53) The thought has been variously translated. “In spite of being given the Law through angels, you have not kept it.” (NJB) “You are the men who have received the Law of God miraculously, by the hand of angels.” (J. B. Phillips) “You received the law of Moses, which God gave through his angels.” (NCV)
Upon hearing Stephen’s pointed comments that identified them as being like their ancestors, they felt as though they had been stabbed in their inmost selves (literally, “sawn through to their hearts”) and, hence, stirred up to intense rage. In their fury, they gnashed or ground their teeth at him. (7:54)
He, “full of holy spirit,” looked up to heaven and appears to have been granted a vision of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand. (7:55) This prompted him to describe what he saw, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” In being at God’s right hand, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, is identified as in a position of honor and of the greatest intimacy with and favor from God. Possibly “standing,” instead of “sitting,” at God’s right hand, may indicate that Jesus is prepared to act for those who are devoted to him. (7:56; see the Notes section.)
The identification of Jesus as God’s highly honored and favored one so infuriated those who heard it that they screamed at the top of their voice and covered their ears to block out the loud noise. Apparently perceiving Stephen’s words as blasphemous, they, as a group, rushed at him and then dragged him outside the city, where they began hurling stones at him. (7:57, 58)
The action was that of an enraged mob. Among those who seized Stephen likely were the false witnesses and also others who had argued with him. To what extent individual members of the Sanhedrin got directly involved in the violent action is not revealed in the account. It does not seem likely that every member of the Sanhedrin would have reacted with blind rage. (7:58)
The witnesses who cast stones at Stephen had laid their outer garments at the feet of a young man named Saul (a man who would later become the apostle to the nations and would suffer much in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ). (7:58)
In vision, Stephen had seen his Lord, the one whom he knew to be the “resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25) Therefore, as stones continued to be cast at him and he realized that he would die, he made his petition, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” It was a petition rooted in faith, for the Lord Jesus Christ would be the one who would raise him from the dead, restoring his spirit to him. (7:59)
Jesus Christ considers what is done to his followers as being done to him. (Matthew 25:40, 45) So Stephen, in a spirit of love and forgiveness, cried out to him with a loud voice, “Lord, do not set this sin against them.” Before making this request, he had fallen to his knees, apparently in an attitude of prayer. His appeal having been made for those who were stoning him not to have the sin of murder held against them, Stephen “fell asleep” in death. (7:60)
Notes:
In verse 1, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) and a number of other manuscripts, add “to Stephen” after the words, “But the high priest said.”
It is probable that Saul (Paul) who, at the time, sided with those who opposed the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ heard Stephen’s defense. (7:58-60) His personal familiarity with Israelite history would have made it comparatively easy for him to recall the points that Stephen made, especially since they were presented chronologically. There is no valid basis for the conjecture that the writer of Acts constructed the defense. The presence of Saul on the occasion of Stephen’s death and his later close association with Luke provide strong circumstantial evidence for an underlying firsthand source, one that is representative of the originally spoken words.
According to verse 4, Abram’s (Abraham’s) leaving Haran occurred after his father Terah died. This raises a question in connection with the particulars in the Genesis account. Terah died at the age of 205, and Abram entered Canaan at the age of 75. (Genesis 11:32; 12:4) Genesis 11:26 says that Terah lived 70 years and fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Abram’s being mentioned first could suggest that he was the firstborn son. In that case, Terah would still have been alive decades after Abram took up residence in Canaan. This is evidently how the first-century Jewish historian Josephus understood the reference in Genesis, for he wrote that Terah fathered Abram “in his seventieth year.” (Antiquities, I, vi, 5) It may be noted, however, that the Genesis account provides no specifics about when the three sons of Terah were born. Of Terah’s sons, Abram was the most prominent. This could explain why he, although being born when his father was much older, is mentioned first. Considering that Haran had died before Abram was 75 years old, he may have been the oldest son.
Verse 6 is not a direct quotation from Genesis 15:13 but paraphrases the recorded divine revelation to Abram (Abraham).
Verse 7 basically corresponds to the Septuagint reading of Genesis 15:14, but the words about serving God in “this place” are not included there. This allows for the possibility that “this place” could designate either Jerusalem or the temple site.
The number 75 (in verse 14) has the support of the extant Septuagint text. The difference in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint appear to be based on a different way of counting the members of Jacob’s household. One cannot determine the exact size of the household that actually came into Egypt at the invitation of Joseph. None of the wives of Jacob’s sons are included. Only one daughter of Jacob (Dinah) is named (Genesis 46:15), and it is inconceivable that the only daughter among all of Jacob’s sons was Serah (Genesis 46:17), who is listed as the sister of Asher’s sons. Moreover, not all of those mentioned among the seventy were born in Canaan, as especially evident in the case of Benjamin’s offspring. Therefore, the different count (70 or 75) is immaterial. Neither figure represents the actual number of individuals who accompanied Jacob in the move to Egypt.
The wording of verse 18 is nearly identical to the reading of the Septuagint in Exodus 1:8.
Verse 29 focuses on the development that caused Moses to flee from Egypt. In this condensed presentation of history with which the audience was familiar, the additional factor about Pharaoh’s reaction did not have to be included.
The quotation concerning what the Israelites said to Aaron (verse 40) basically is the same as the Septuagint rendering of Exodus 32:1 and 32:23.
In verse 42, the twelve prophets making up the “book of the prophets” are Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. From early times, all these books were included in one scroll.
Verse 43, in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), says “into parts of Babylon” (not “beyond Babylon”).
If verse 46 refers to the “house of Jacob,” then verse 47 may be understood to mean that Solomon built a house “for it,” that is, for the “house” or the people of Israel. The reading “dwelling place of the God of Jacob” would mean that Solomon built a house “for him,” that is, for YHWH.
In verse 56, a few manuscripts say “Son of God” (not “Son of Man,” with the Messianic identification that is found in Daniel 7:13, 14).
Saul approved the action of those who hurled stones at Stephen to kill him. “In that day,” or at that time, the community of believers in Jerusalem began to experience severe persecution. Whereas “all” the believers were scattered from Jerusalem throughout the region of Judea and Samaria, the apostles remained in the city. This suggests that the Hellenists, or the Greek-speaking Jewish believers, came to be the prime target, and the reference to “all” is evidently to be understood in a relative sense. (8:1; see the Notes section.)
Godly men, probably believers or men who were favorably disposed toward Stephen, carried his body away for burial and “made a loud lamentation over him.” (8:2) As for Saul who had approved of putting Stephen to death, he began to ravage the community of believers, forcing himself into their houses and dragging out both men and women. He would then hand them over to be imprisoned. (8:3)
The scattering of the believers contributed to the spreading of the message about Jesus Christ. Wherever the scattered disciples went, they declared the evangel or good news, making known that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah or Christ and that, by faith in him, individuals could be forgiven of their sins and come into an approved relationship with God as his beloved children. (8:4; see the Notes section.)
Among the believers who had been scattered was Philip, one of the seven men whom the apostles had appointed to care for the “daily service” designed to aid needy widows. He headed north of Jerusalem to “the city of Samaria,” where he then began to proclaim Christ to the people. Since the Samaritans looked forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses, Philip likely proclaimed Jesus as this very prophet. Because Jerusalem lies at a high elevation, the account says that Philip “went down to the city of Samaria.” (8:5)
According to another manuscript reading, the word “city” is not preceded by the definite article and so could mean one of the cities or towns in the region of Samaria. If the reading “the city” is original, this could refer to Sebaste. According to Josephus (Antiquities, XV, viii, 5), Herod the Great determined to make “Samaria a fortress for himself,” and he called the reconstructed city Sebaste. Another possibility is that “the city of Samaria” designates Shechem. Josephus (Antiquities, XI, viii, 6) referred to the Samaritans as having “Shechem for their metropolis” in the time of Alexander the Great. Late in the second century BCE, John I Hyrcanus, during a military campaign in Samaria, took Shechem. After the war of 70 CE, the city was refounded and named Flavia Neapolis. (8:5)
A significant number of the Samaritans gave heed to what Philip said. His words were validated as being from God, for he performed numerous miracles. Therefore, “with one accord” or as with one mind, a multitude of Samaritans paid attention because of what they heard from Philip and what they saw him doing. (8:6)
With God’s spirit operating upon him, Philip brought relief to many who were perceived to be suffering from demon possession. It appears that as they were being freed from their distress, the people would cry out in an intense manner, and this is attributed to “unclean spirits.” These “spirits” are designated as “unclean,” impure, or evil on the basis of the observable hurtful effect on the afflicted. Also many paralyzed and lame Samaritans were cured. (8:7) On account of the marvelous cures that were taking place and the good news about Jesus Christ that Philip proclaimed, great joy came to prevail in the city where these things occurred. (8:8)
In the same city, a certain man named Simon had practiced sorcery and claimed to be someone “great.” He had amazed the Samaritans (literally, “the nation of Samaria”) with his magical arts. (8:9) All of the people, from the “least” or the most insignificant to the “great” or the prominent ones paid attention to him, referring to him as the “power of God that is called Great.” (8:10) For a long time, Simon had amazed them with his sorceries, prompting the Samaritans to pay attention to him. (8:11)
This changed when they believed Philip’s proclamation about the kingdom of God and “the name of Jesus Christ.” Philip doubtless revealed the nature of the “kingom of God,” that it was heavenly (not earthly). It is the realm where God is recognized as Sovereign and as having committed all authority in heaven and on earth to his Son. Believers enter this realm when they are forgiven of their sins and become reconciled to God. Philip’s speaking about the “name [or the person the name represented] of Jesus Christ” may have included identifying him as the prophet like Moses, the unique Son of God who had been raised from the dead and ascended to heaven, and the Messiah or Christ who would return in glory as king and judge. In response to the message Philip proclaimed, many became believers, both men and women, and were baptized. (8:12)
Even Simon became a believer. After his baptism, he joined himself to Philip. Simon continued to be astonished on seeing the “signs and powers” (or the amazing miracles) that occurred through the agency of Philip. (8:13)
News reached the apostles in Jerusalem that the Samaritans had accepted the “word of God,” that is, the message about his Son which he purposed to be made known. For this reason, they decided to “send Peter and John to them.” (8:14) The two apostles departed from the elevated city of Jerusalem and went down to the lower region of Samaria to the north. Upon arriving where Philip engaged in declaring the glad tidings about Christ, they prayed for the believing Samaritans to receive holy spirit. The spirit had not been imparted to any the new believers in Samaria, which may mean that none of them had received the tangible evidence of God’s spirit working through them to perform miracles. (8:15)
Apparently because the holy spirit had not fallen upon the believing Samaritans as would have become evident from their coming into possession of miraculous gifts, the account says that “they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” and not also in the name of the holy spirit. The expression “in the name of” can signify “in recognition of” or “by reason of being.” In the case of one acting in the name of someone else, it points to an existing relationship. Believers, upon being baptized, enter a new relationship. Those who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ came to have him as their Lord who died for them and as their “brother” in the family of his Father’s beloved children. (8:16)
When Peter and John laid their hands on the believing Samaritans, they received the holy spirit. Whereas Philip did work miracles on account of his personally having God’s spirit, he could not impart this gift to others. This indicates that, at this time, only through the apostles, could the believing Samaritans have received the spirit, empowering them to perform miracles. The imparting of the spirit in this manner established that the Samaritans had the same standing before God as did their fellow Jewish believers. All Samaritans who thereafter would put faith in Jesus had the assurance that they also were God’s beloved children in the same congregation. At one with Jesus Christ as their head, believing Samaritans and believing Jews were members of his body. (8:17; see the Notes section.)
Upon observing that believing Samaritans received God’s spirit when Peter and John laid their hands on them, Simon offered the apostles money, asking them to give him the power likewise to impart holy spirit with the imposition of his hands. (8:18, 19; see the Notes section.) Peter responded with a severe rebuke, “May your silver be destroyed with you, for you imagined to gain God’s gift with money. You have no part or share in this matter [lògos], for your heart is not straight before God.” (8:20, 21)
Simon’s proposed purchase of God’s gift provided the basis for the later coining of the expression “simony,” the buying or selling of ecclesiastical offices or favors. Peter, in effect, told Simon, “To Gehenna with you and your money.” God’s gifts are generously granted without the payment of money or any other price, and what is freely obtained is also to be freely given. Simon’s reasoning was contrary to the example and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, being rooted in the thinking of those who are alienated from God and who endeavor to attain their selfish aims with money. (8:20)
The Greek term lógos commonly means “word.” A number of translations have retained the meaning “word” (Wort, Schlachter’s German translation), rendered the term as “ministry” (NIV, TNIV), “work” (NCV, NLB), or “holy work” (NIRV), or have interpretively rendered Peter’s words to mean no share in the word of God and so no part in the community of believers. “You no longer belong with us, for you there is no place in the congregation.” (Du gehörst nicht mehr zu uns, für dich ist kein Platz in der Gemeinde. [German Gute Nachricht Bibel]) It appears preferable, however, to translate lógos as “matter,” which is a meaning the Greek term can have, fits the context, and is less interpretive than other renderings. When it comes to what God gives, this is not a matter involving human initiative (as when one seeks to purchase an item). In view of his seeking to buy God’s gift with money, Simon revealed that his “heart,” or he in his inner self, was not straight or right with God. Though he believed the message Philip proclaimed and had been baptized, he did not as yet have the mind of Christ. (8:21)
Peter urged him to “repent of this badness” (trying with worldly means to obtain what is from God) and to “supplicate the Lord” that, if possible, the intent of his “heart” (either his mind or inner self) might be forgiven him. What Simon wanted and the means by which he sought to attain it were rooted in the sinful flesh. He had not freed himself from the desire to be recognized as “great” but sought to gain the power that would make him superior to those not possessing it. (8:22)
Simon needed to recognize his evil intent, to repent, and to supplicate the “Lord” for forgiveness.” In view of the previous reference to Simon’s heart not being “straight” or right “before God,” evidently the Father is the Lord to whom he needed to make his supplication. Only through repentance and sincere prayer would divine forgiveness be possible in his case. (8:22)
Peter recognized the seriousness of Simon’s condition, telling him, “I see you are in a gall of bitterness and a bond of unrighteousness.” In the Septuagint, the expression “a root springing up with gall and bitterness” is used regarding an Israelite who would become an idolater and so would become a pernicious influence among the people. (Deuteronomy 29:17[18]) In Isaiah 58:6 (LXX), “bond of unrighteousness” or injustice refers to unjust enslavement, captivity, or confinement. The reference to Simon’s being “in a gall of bitterness” could mean that he had been poisoned by a pernicious element. His being in a “bond of unrighteousness” could signify that he found himself as a bound captive of unrighteousness, iniquity, or godlessness. (8:23)
In response, Simon asked Peter and John to pray to the “Lord” (“God,” according to a number of other manuscripts) for him that none of the things he had been told would befall him. While the Acts account is silent about the course Simon thereafter pursued, later tradition represents him as the first heretic. It is generally acknowledged, however, that second-century writings about him are mainly legendary. Possibly in view of the strong rebuke, Simon did not feel worthy to approach God in prayer and, therefore, asked Peter and John to pray for him. The original text of fifth-century Codex Bezae adds that Simon did not cease to weep a great deal. (8:24)
After Peter and John had finished giving their testimony and speaking the “word of the Lord” in the Samaritan city, they returned to Jerusalem. Their testimony could have included teaching they had personally heard from Jesus, and the “word of the Lord” may have included how, through the Lord Jesus Christ, an approved standing with him and his Father would be possible. In being designated as “of the Lord,” the message could either have been about the Lord Jesus Christ or the message regarding him that his Father wanted the apostles to declare. On their way through Samaria, they proclaimed the evangel or good news about Jesus Christ in many Samaritan villages. (8:25)
Philip also did not continue to stay in the Samaritan city. An angel of the Lord (either a heavenly messenger in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ or one of his Father’s angels) spoke to Philip, either directly or in a vision. The angel told him to head southward to the road that led down from Jerusalem to Gaza, a city situated about 50 miles (c. 80 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem and near the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. As no location in Samaria was mentioned, Philip may have returned to Jerusalem and there received the angel’s message. The words “this is desert” could apply to the old Gaza that had been abandoned. Another possibility is that the reference is to a less traveled route than the usual road from Jerusalem to Gaza. (8:26)
Philip did as he had been directed. At the time, an Ethiopian eunuch who had gone to Jerusalem to worship was on his return trip on the same road. If a proselyte, he would not have been a eunuch in a literal sense but a court official. In his capacity as an official, he was in charge of all the treasure of “Candace queen of the Ethiopians.” The designation “Candace” is not the queen’s name but a royal title. In his Natural History (VI, xxxv, 186), Pliny the Elder referred to Candace as a “name having been passed from queen to queen for many years.” The Greek term dynástes (literally, powerful one) is applied to the Ethiopian eunuch and indicates that he was an official in the royal court. (8:27)
While riding in his “chariot” on his return journey to Ethiopia, a land to the south of Egypt, the Ethiopian official read aloud from the prophecy of Isaiah. This may have been either from the Hebrew text or the widely used Greek translation. The “chariot” would not have been like the two-wheeled chariots used in warfare but a wagon suitable for long-distance travel. In view of his position in the royal court, the official may have been accompanied by servants and likely traveled as part of a company to and from Ethiopia. (8:28)
Through the operation of God’s spirit, Philip was directed to approach and join himself to the “chariot” where the official was seated. (8:29) As Philip ran alongside the chariot, he heard him reading aloud from Isaiah the prophet. He then asked the man, “Do you really understand what you are reading?” (8:30)
The official replied, “Really, how could I without someone guiding me?” He then invited Philip to sit alongside him. (8:31) The words from the prophecy of Isaiah he had been reading aloud at the time were, “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearer [is] silent, so he does not open his mouth. [Isaiah 53:7, LXX] In [‘his,’ according to numerous manuscripts] humiliation, his judgment was taken away. Who will relate his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” (Isaiah 53:8, LXX) These quoted words in the Acts account are the same as the corresponding words in the extant Septuagint text. (8:32, 33; see the Notes section.) The court official asked Philip, “About whom does the prophet say this? About himself or about someone else?” (8:34)
The things that befell Jesus matched the words the Ethiopian eunuch had read. Jesus did not resist arrest and, when before Pilate, remained silent before his accusers, proving himself to be like a sheep led to the slaughter and like a silent lamb before the one shearing it. He was humiliated, being mocked, spat upon, slapped, and scourged. Judgment was taken away from him, for he was denied justice when before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court. Both his trial and his execution were acts of flagrant injustice. From a human standpoint, he died childless and so there was nothing to relate regarding his generation or offspring. (8:32, 33; see the Notes section.)
The Ethiopian eunuch was puzzled about the identity of the one to whom the prophet Isaiah referred. Based on what he personally knew, the official had no way to determine whether the prophet spoke about himself or about someone else. He looked to Philip for an answer. (8:34)
Details about Philip’s explanation are not provided in the account. He did, however, use the read passage as the starting point for making known the evangel or good news regarding Jesus, the one who fulfilled the words of Isaiah’s prophetic words. (8:35)
On the way, the Ethiopian eunuch saw water, prompting him to say to Philip, “Look! Water. What prevents me from being baptized?” After directing the driver to halt the chariot, he and Philip “went down into the water,” where Philip then baptized him. The manner in which Philip did the baptizing is not described, but his having entered the water with the Ethiopian eunuch suggests that it involved immersion, not sprinkling. (8:36, 38; see the Notes section regarding verse 37.)
When Philip and the eunuch came up out of the water, the “spirit of the Lord snatched [form of harpázo] Philip away.” As for the eunuch, he did not see Philip anymore but continued on his way to Ethiopia, rejoicing (or being filled with joy because of having come to know about Jesus Christ and starting a new life as his devoted disciple). The Greek word harpázo means to “seize,” “plunder,” or “snatch away.” This suggests that Philip was miraculously taken away to continue proclaiming the good news about Jesus Christ elsewhere. According to a corrected reading in fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and that of a number of other manuscripts, “holy spirit fell upon the eunuch, but an angel of the Lord snatched Philip away.” The reference to “holy spirit” would favor identifying the “spirit of the Lord” as being the “spirit of God” rather than the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ. (8:39)
Philip was next “found in Azotus,” the ancient Philistine city of Ashdod that was situated near the Mediterranean coast at approximately the midway point between Gaza and Joppa. Whether Philip was miraculously empowered by the spirit to reach that location quickly, much like Elijah was able to keep ahead of Ahab’s chariot all the way from Mount Carmel to Jezreel (a comparable distance), cannot be determined from the account. (1 Kings 18:46) From Azotus, Philip headed northward, proclaiming the good news “in all the cities” along his route until he came to the seaport city of Caesarea, approximately 55 miles (c. 90 kilometers) from Azotus. Caesarea may have been Philip’s original home, for years later he lived there with his family, which included four daughters who prophesied. (8:40; 21:8, 9; see http://bibleplaces.com/caesarea.htm for pictures of and comments about Caesarea.
Notes:
In verse 1, the Greek text, after referring to the scattering of “all” believers, says “except the apostles.” A few manuscripts add the point that the apostles “remained in Jerusalem.” Besides mentioning “great persecution,” Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) says, “and tribulation.”
In verse 4, the majority of manuscripts refer to “proclaiming the evangel of the word.” One sixth-century manuscript adds “of God” after “word.”
No mention is made in verse 17 about any miraculous manifestation of God’s spirit after the apostles laid their hands on the believing Samaritans. It appears, however, that there must have been some observable evidence for Simon to have wanted to purchase the authority to impart the spirit to others through the laying on of his hands.
In verse 18, a number of manuscripts say “spirit,” whereas many others read “holy spirit.”
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) intensifies the request of Simon (in verse 19) with the addition of the words parakalón kaí (“entreating and”) before légon (“saying”).
The Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:8 differs from the reading of the Septuagint and of Acts 8:33. A literal rendering of the Hebrew text of the quoted part in the book of Acts would be, “By restraint and judgment he was taken away. And as for his generation, who considered? For he was cut off from the land of the living.” His being taken away by restraint, oppression, or compulsion and judgment could refer to his being seized, having judgment pronounced against him, and then being led off for execution or being taken away from the land of the living by being put to death. The generation could refer to his contemporaries who gave no consideration to what had happened to him.
Translations vary in their interpretive renderings of Isaiah 53:8, with some regarding the generation as descendants or offspring. “By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living.” (NIV) “Men took him away roughly and unfairly. He died without children to continue his family.” (NCV) “Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny?” (NAB) “He was condemned to death without a fair trial. Who could have imagined what would happen to him?” (CEV) “By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested?” (TNIV) “He was arrested and sentenced to death. Then he was taken away. He was cut off from this life. He was punished for the sin of my people. Who among those who were living at that time could have understood those things?” (NIRV) “He was arrested, sentenced to death and cruelly executed. No one believed that he would still have a future.” (Er wurde verhaftet, zum Tode verurteilt und grausam hingerichtet. Niemand glaubte, dass er noch eine Zukunft haben würde. [German, Hoffnung für alle]) “Forcibly, after sentence, he was taken. Which of his contemporaries was concerned at his having been cut off from the land of the living, at his having been struck dead for his people’s rebellion?” (NJB) “By oppressive judgment he was taken away. Who could describe his abode? For he was cut off from the land of the living.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition])
The words of verse 37 are missing in the oldest extant Greek manuscripts and are commonly omitted in modern translations. Their absence suggests that they were added later probably because of the belief that Philip would have required that the Ethiopian eunuch make an expression of faith prior to being baptized. According to the added words Philip stated the condition for baptism to be allowable, “If you believe from your whole heart.” The eunuch is then quoted as saying, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” There are, however, differences in the reading of manuscripts that include the words.
Saul, who had approved of killing Stephen, persisted in his violent opposition to the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. His “still breathing threat and murder” idiomatically expresses his unrelenting threat to put believers to death. (9:1)
Believing Jews and proselytes continued to assemble with fellow Jews and proselytes at the temple in Jerusalem and in the synagogues located in many other cities. Also their faithful adherence to the requirements of the Mosaic law had not changed. (10:14; 18:24-26; 21:20-24) It appears that when Saul came to know about disciples of Jesus Christ among the Jews in Damascus, he took the initiative to go to the high priest (who still may have been Caiaphas) to get letters from him, authorizing action against believers. These letters gave Saul the authority to bring any believers he might find, both men and women, bound to Jerusalem for punishment. The fact that Saul planned to carry out his campaign of persecution in Damascus (135 miles or 217 kilometers northeast of Jerusalem) indicates that he did not want to limit his efforts against believers just to Jerusalem and surrounding areas. The reference to believers as being “of the way” may be understood to denote the way of life based on faith in Jesus Christ and adherence to his example and teaching. (9:1, 2)
When Saul and those traveling with him neared Damascus, a “light [brilliant like the sun (26:13)] from heaven suddenly flashed around him.” (9:3) He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (9:4) Saul replied, “Who are you, lord?” The one speaking then identified himself, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” (9:5)
At the time Saul used the designation “lord” he was, according to his own words to Timothy, a persecutor, a blasphemer, and an arrogant man acting in blind ignorance. (1 Timothy 1:13, 14) Therefore, his use of the title “lord” would simply have been as an expression of respectful address. (9:5)
Believers are members of Christ’s body and his “brothers” (children in his Father’s beloved family). He regards what is done to his disciples as being done to him. (Matthew 25:40, 45; 1 Corinthians 12:27) Therefore, when Saul persecuted them, he persecuted Jesus Christ. (9:5)
Jesus instructed Saul to rise and to enter the city of Damascus, where he would be told what he should do. (9:6) The men who had traveled with Saul must have realized that something completely out of the ordinary had occurred, for they stood there speechless. “They heard the voice but did not see anyone.” In a later reference to the same incident, these men are said to have seen the light but not to have heard the voice of the one speaking to Saul. (22:9) So their not hearing the voice may mean that they only heard the sound but did not understand the words being spoken. (9:7; see the Notes section.)
Upon getting up from the ground and opening his eyes, Saul could not see anything. The haughty man who had taken the lead as a persecutor ended up having to be led into Damascus by the hand of those with him. (9:8) He continued to be blind for three days, and during this time he neither ate nor drank anything. (9:9)
A disciple named Ananias resided in Damascus. Upon hearing the Lord Jesus Christ calling out to him in a vision, “Ananias,” he responded, “Look! [Here am] I, Lord.” (9:10)
Jesus directed him to go to the street known as “Straight,” and to look for Saul, a man from the city of Tarsus, who was staying there at the home of Judas. Although Saul had come from Jerusalem, his home city was Tarsus in Cilicia. (9:11; see http://bibleplaces.com/tarsus.htm for pictures of and comments about Tarsus.)
Jesus related to Ananias that Saul had been praying and then, in a vision, had seen a man named Ananias enter the house and “lay his hands on him so that he might see again.” (9:11, 12) Seemingly, Ananias found it hard to understand how it could be that he was being sent to Saul. His response took the form of a mild protest. “I have heard from many about the many hurtful things this man did to your holy ones in Jerusalem [9:13], and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all those who call upon your name.” (9:14)
Saul’s role as a persecutor of Christ’s “holy ones” was known extensively, and Ananias had personally heard the report of many. The disciples belonged to Christ, for he had purchased them with his precious blood. They were “holy ones,” for they had been sanctified or made holy when putting faith in Jesus, being forgiven of their sins, and becoming part of the family of God’s approved children. (9:13)
News about Saul’s priestly authorization either had reached the Jews in Damascus prior to his arrival or had been disclosed to them by those who had accompanied him to the city. Verse 21 indicates that Saul’s purpose in coming to Damascus was common knowledge among the Jews there. Understandably, therefore, Ananias, as part of the Jewish community, also knew about Saul’s intent. (9:14)
Believers called upon the name of Jesus or upon Jesus himself, the person represented by the name. They did so when acknowledging him as their Lord or their rightful Owner who had purchased them with his blood, sacrificing his life for them. (9:14)
Jesus Christ again directed Ananias to go, revealing Saul to be a “chosen vessel” who would bear his name “before nations [Gentiles] and kings and sons of Israel.” Saul would become an instrument in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ, proclaiming the message about him to non-Jewish peoples, rulers, and Israelites. As one specially commissioned and sent forth, Saul would bear the “name” of Christ, being identified as belonging to him. (9:15)
“I,” Jesus continued, “will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” Much suffering would befall Saul on account of his being in Christ’s service. The former persecutor would come to be the persecuted one when carrying out the commission entrusted to him. It would be for Christ’s name, or for the sake of Christ himself, that Saul would undergo much suffering. (9:16)
Ananias does not appear to have raised any additional objections but left to look for Saul. Having located the home of Judas, he entered the house, laid his hands on Saul, and addressed him, not as an enemy, but as a fellow member of God’s people, saying, “Saul, brother, the Lord, [‘Jesus,’ omitted in in numerous manuscripts] who appeared to you on the way you came, sent me so that you might see again and receive holy spirit.” Evidently not everything that Jesus revealed to Ananias about Saul had been mentioned earlier, for Ananias would otherwise not have known that the Lord Jesus Christ had appeared to Saul on his way to Damascus. (9:17)
Immediately after Ananias had finished speaking, what appeared like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and his vision was restored. “He rose and got baptized,” evidently with Ananias doing the baptizing at a location where water was available. (9:18) As he had not eaten anything for three days (9:9), Saul then partook of food, strengthening himself with nourishment. (9:19)
For some time (literally, “some days” and, according to third-century P45, “many days”), Saul associated with the disciples in Damascus and “immediately” and publicly identified himself as a fellow disciple, proclaiming in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. (9:19, 20)
In his letter to the Galatians (1:17), Saul (Paul) mentions his going to Arabia from Damascus and then returning to the city. In this case, Arabia probably means the Syrian Desert to the east of Damascus. Since the stay in Arabia is not mentioned in the book of Acts, one cannot determine just how “immediately” is to be understood in connection with the start of Saul’s preaching about Jesus in the synagogues. If he went to Arabia subsequent to his baptism to meditate on what his taking up the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ would mean for him, he would have “immediately” started to make known the message about Jesus upon his return to the city. The other possibility is that he “immediately” made public expression of his faith in the synagogues of Damascus and then, for an undisclosed reason, headed to Arabia. This possibility, however, seems less likely, as there does not appear to have been any reason for Saul to have interrupted his stay in Damascus. The initial purpose of his undertaking had been to return to Jerusalem with bound disciples of Jesus Christ, with no hint of any plan to go elsewhere. Still another way to view the time spent in Arabia is to understand Paul to mean that, in his early days as a believer, Arabia was the only place to which he went outside of Damascus. (9:19, 20)
Saul’s preaching astonished those who heard him in the synagogues of Damascus. They recalled that he was the man who, in Jerusalem, had persecuted (literally “ravaged”) those who called on the name of Jesus (or were identified as Jesus’ followers) and that he had come to Damascus to seize believers in Jesus and “lead them bound to the chief priests.” Saul’s “ravaging” refers to his forcing himself into homes, seizing both male and female believers, handing them over to be imprisoned, and casting his vote to have them executed. (9:21; 22:4; 26:9-11)
As time passed, Saul proved to be more “empowered,” probably meaning that he gained greater influence among the Jews and effectiveness in declaring the message about Jesus. He succeeded in “confounding the Jews who were living in Damascus” when he presented the proof to them that Jesus is the promised Messiah or Christ. (9:22; see the Notes section.)
After considerable time had passed (literally, “many days were fulfilled”), the unbelieving Jews consulted together, scheming to kill Saul. He, however, came to know about their plot, either from a fellow believer or someone who was favorably disposed toward him. (9:23)
To assure that Saul could not escape, watch was being kept both day and night at the city gates. Based on Paul’s own mention of the incident (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33), the hostile unbelieving Jews appear to have gained the support of a high official (an ethnarch) who was subject to King Aretas. This high official then seems to have arranged for guarding the city gates so that Paul could not get away (9:24), but “his disciples” (possibly meaning persons who had become believers through his making known the message about the Lord Jesus Christ) helped him to escape. Under the cover of darkness at night, they lowered him in a large basket through an opening in the wall. (9:25; see the Notes section.)
Upon his return to Jerusalem, Saul tried to associate with the community of believers. They, however, were afraid of him, because they just could not believe that he had become a disciple. (9:26) One who accepted him as a fellow believer was Barnabas. He then introduced him to the apostles, telling them that Saul had seen the Lord, that the Lord had spoken to him, and how Saul had boldly spoken “in the name of Jesus” while in Damascus. Saul’s speaking “in” Jesus’ name would have been as a disciple who recognized Jesus as his Lord, the one to whom he belonged. (9:27)
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul wrote that he stayed with Peter for 15 days but that he did not see any of the other apostles. He, however, did mention having seen the Lord’s brother James. (Galatians 1:18, 19) Although not one of the “twelve apostles,” James would have been considered to be an apostle of the Jerusalem congregation. This may explain why the Acts account referred to Barnabas as leading Saul to the “apostles,” which could then have been Peter and the Lord’s brother James. (9:27)
According to Paul’s words to the Galatians (1:22), he remained unknown to the various congregations in Judea, and so disciples in Jerusalem appear to have been the only ones who had the opportunity to meet him. On account of the kindly intervention of Barnabas, Saul was able to be “with them,” probably meaning in association with Peter, James, and other disciples. (9:28)
In relation to “them,” Saul’s going in and out has been variously understood. It could mean that he went in and out among the apostles or the believers in Jerusalem. Another possible significance is that, while he was “with them,” he freely went about in and out at Jerusalem, making known the message about Jesus Christ. (9:28) Various meanings are found in the renderings of modern translations. “He moved about freely with them in Jerusalem, and spoke out boldly in the name of the Lord.” (NAB) “Saul now started to go round with them in Jerusalem, preaching fearlessly in the name of the Lord.” (NJB) “After that Saul joined with them in all their activities in Jerusalem.” (J. B. Phillips) “Saul now stayed with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem.” (REB) “Saul stayed with the followers, going everywhere in Jerusalem.” (NCV) “Then the apostles accepted Saul, and after that he was constantly with them in Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.” (NLV) “Henceforth Saul was one of them, going in and out of the city.” (Weymouth)
During the time he was in Jerusalem, Saul spoke boldly “in the name of the Lord,” identifying himself as one who had faith in Jesus and presenting evidence that he was indeed the promised Messiah or Christ and the Son of God. (9:28) The Hellenists (Greek-speaking Jews) with whom he spoke and disputed began to oppose him violently and attempted to kill him. (9:29) When the “brothers” (fellow believers) came to know about the danger he faced, they conducted him down to the seaport city of Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. Likely Saul traveled to his home city Tarsus by sea, although it is possible that he took an overland route. (9:30; see http://bibleplaces.com/caesarea.htm for pictures of and comments about Caesarea and http://bibleplaces.com/tarsus.htm for pictures of and comments about Tarsus.)
Saul had become the object of murderous hostility, and his violent death could have given rise to an outbreak of persecution such as had occurred subsequent to the stoning of Stephen. With Saul no longer in Jerusalem, the congregation or community of believers in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria came to have peace, a time free from disturbance and vicious attacks from opposers. As a community, believers were built up, flourishing spiritually and growing in number. They “walked in the fear of the Lord,” suggesting that they conducted themselves in a manner that manifested reverential regard for the Lord Jesus Christ and so reflected favorably on him. Additionally, believers benefited from the “comfort” (parakaléo) of the holy spirit, with resultant increase in the number of believers. The Greek word parakaléo is a compound word that literally signifies “to call to one’s side” and can convey a variety of meanings (“request,” “admonish,” “encourage,” “comfort,” “invite,” “strengthen,” and “call for or request aid”). In this context, parakaléo could refer to the help God’s spirit provides in the form of strengthening aid and in enhancing the ability of believers to express and defend their faith courageously, including when faced with interrogating authorities. With the aid made available to them through the holy spirit, the community of believers increased in number. (9:31)
Evidently from Jerusalem, Peter is said to have traveled “through all,” apparently meaning the entire area. Translators have variously rendered the words “through all.” “Peter visited one place after another.” (NJB) “Peter, in the course of traveling about among them all, came down to God’s people living at Lydda.” (J. B. Phillips) “Peter was traveling through all the area.” (NCV) Finally, he came to Lydda (Lod), situated about 22 miles [38 kilometers] northwest of Jerusalem. A group of “holy ones,” fellow believers, lived there. They are called “holy ones,” having been made pure or clean from God’s standpoint because of being forgiven of their sins on the basis of their faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death for them. (9:32)
In Lydda, Peter encountered a man named Aeneas. This paralyzed man had been lying on his cot or mat for eight years. (9:33) Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Rise and make your bed” (or roll up your mat). His being able personally to take care of the cot or mat on which he had been lying and carrying it away would demonstrate that he had been completely cured. In response to Peter’s words, Aeneas did get up immediately. (9:34) A significant number of the inhabitants of Lydda and the maritime Plain of Sharon (literally, “all those inhabiting Lydda and Sharon”) saw Aeneas after he had been restored to soundness of body. The Plain of Sharon extended approximately 40 miles (over 60 kilometers) south of Mount Carmel to the area around Joppa. The cure of Aeneas moved persons to turn to the Lord, putting faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. (9:35)
About 11 miles (c. 18 kilometers) northeast of Lydda lay Joppa, another city where believers lived. One of these disciples was Tabitha (Dorcas, when the Aramaic name Tabitha is translated into Greek), meaning “gazelle.” Tabitha may have been known by both the Aramaic and the Greek name. Another possibility is that Luke chose to translate the name Tabitha for the benefit of the Greek-speaking Theophilus. (1:1) Tabitha proved to be exemplary in generously doing “good deeds” and in rendering compassionate aid to those in need. (9:36; see http://bibleplaces.com/joppa.htm for pictures of and comments about Joppa.)
“In those days,” while Peter happened to be in Lydda, Tabitha died from a serious illness. In preparation for burial, she was bathed and laid in the upper room of the dwelling where she doubtless had lived. (9:37)
In view of the close proximity of Joppa to Lydda, the disciples in Joppa heard that Peter happened to be in Lydda. They sent two men to entreat him to come to Joppa. (9:38) He rose and accompanied them back to the city. The account does not reveal whether the disciples wanted Peter to come to comfort them in view of Tabitha’s death or whether they believed that he might be able to resurrect her from the dead. (9:39)
The two men must have told Peter about her and then led him to the upper room where she was lying. Upon entering the room, many weeping widows came up to him, showing him tunics (inner garments) and robes (outer garments) she had made for them. It is unlikely that they would have brought extra garments along when they came to grieve over the loss of their compassionate friend. These garments would have been tunics and robes they were then wearing. (9:39)
Peter had everyone (the widows and all others who were present) leave the room. He knelt down, prayed, and then, turning to the body, said, “Tabitha, rise!” At that, “she opened her eyes and, seeing Peter, sat up.” (9:40) He extended his hand to her and raised her up, apparently helping her to stand. Peter then called in “the holy ones and the widows,” presenting the living Tabitha to them. The mention of both “holy ones,” or fellow believers, and “widows” may indicate that Tabitha’s kind acts included giving aid to needy persons who were not believers. (9:41)
The resurrection of Tabitha “became known throughout Joppa,” and as a result many put faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. (9:42) For a considerable time thereafter, Peter stayed in Joppa, being accommodated by a certain Simon who worked as a tanner. When handling carcasses, tanners would have contracted ceremonial defilement, and a strong stench accompanied the process of converting animal skins to leather. On account of the unpleasant odors, Simon’s house must have been located by the sea at some distance from other dwellings. (9:43; 10:6; see the Notes section regarding the views of ancient rabbis regarding tanners.)
Notes:
In verse 7, the men who had accompanied Saul are said to have been standing. According to the narration of the same event in verse 14 of chapter 26, all of them fell to the ground. It may be that they had already stood up before Jesus Christ told Saul to do so. Understandably, he would have remained on the ground as he continued being addressed.
After the Greek word (in verse 22) that means “was being empowered” (enedynamoúto), a number of manuscripts add that this was “in word.”
In verse 25, the oldest extant manuscripts read “his disciples.” Some have questioned whether this reading is original, as believers are Christ’s disciples. According to other manuscripts, “the disciples” took “him” by night.
Though considering the occupation of a tanner to be essential, the ancient rabbis viewed it as one to be despised. One reason for this was that tanners interacted with women, making leather garments and shoes for them. No tanner could become a king or a high priest. If a woman found that she simply could not tolerate being married to a tanner, she was granted the right to divorce him. A woman could also refuse to enter levirate marriage with a tanner even if her deceased husband had been such.
At this time, Caesarea, situated about 30 miles (roughly 50 kilometers) north of Joppa, served as the official residence for the Roman procurators. Here lived Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Band or Cohort. A cohort commonly consisted of 600 men, and so it may be that Cornelius was on duty in Caesarea, although the cohort itself served elsewhere. (10:1; see http://bibleplaces.com/caesarea.htm for pictures of and comments about Caesarea.)
Another possibility is that Cornelius may have been retired at the time. Thus he would be identified as formerly having served as a centurion in this particular cohort. A footnote in the German Neue Genfer Übersetzung conveys this significance in an alternate rendering, “In Caesarea lived a former Roman officer named Cornelius, a captain who had belonged to the so-called Italian Regiment.” (In Cäsarea lebte ein ´ehemaliger römischer` Offizier namens Kornelius, ein Hauptmann, der zum so genannten Italischen Regiment gehört hatte.) His being retired from active duty and an established resident in Caesarea appears to fit the narrative. Besides his own household that included servants, Cornelius had close friends and relatives in the city. (10:1)
Although not a proselyte, Cornelius did not engage in idolatrous practices. Not only was he a devout or godly man, but he and his entire household had a wholesome fear of or reverential regard for God. Cornelius rendered compassionate aid to many Jews who were in need and he prayed to God on a regular basis (literally, “through all,” which could signify “daily” and at those times when the Jews observed their hours of prayer). (10:2; see the Notes section.)
“About the ninth hour of the day” (about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, a Jewish hour of prayer), Cornelius prayed. Then, in a vision, he clearly saw an “angel of God come in to him” and address him by name, “Cornelius.” (10:3, 30) As he continued looking at the angel, he became fearful and asked, “What is it, lord?” His referring to the personage he saw in vision as “lord” was a respectful manner of address. (10:4)
The angel reassured Cornelius that his prayers and compassionate help to the needy had “ascended as a memorial before God.” These words revealed to him that God had given favorable attention to his prayers and looked approvingly upon what he had done to relieve the distress of needy Jewish people. (10:4)
The angel directed him to send men to Joppa and to have a “certain Simon who is called Peter” accompany them back to Caesarea. (10:5; see the Notes section and see http://bibleplaces.com/joppa.htm for pictures of and comments about Joppa.) They would find Peter as the guest in the home of a certain Simon, a tanner, whose house was situated by the sea (on the Mediterranean coast). (10:6; see the last paragraph in the Notes section on chapter 9.)
As soon as the angel disappeared from sight, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was continually at his service (proskarteréo). The Greek term proskarteréo can refer to being in continual attendance upon or to doing something constantly or without letup. If Cornelius was retired, this could mean that the devout soldier was one who had previously served under his command and was someone whom he trusted fully. (10:7) After relating everything he had seen and heard to his two servants and the godly soldier, Cornelius sent them to Joppa. (10:8)
About the sixth hour (or noon) the next day, the men neared their destination. Probably seeking privacy, Peter had gone up to the flat roof of the house to pray. (10:9; see the Notes section.) It was then about the time for eating the midday meal, and he became hungry and wanted to eat. “While [food] was being prepared, he fell into a trance.” (10:10) A “trance” is a state of intense absorption or a sleep-like state during which the mind would have been very susceptible to audible and visual impressions. While in a trace, Peter saw the sky above him open up and an object that looked like a large sheet descending earthward as it was being lowered by its four corners. (10:11) On this sheet-like object, he saw all kinds of quadrupeds, reptiles, and birds. Based on the objection that Peter afterward raised, none of these creatures appear to have been acceptable food according to the terms of the Mosaic law. (10:12; see the Notes section.)
He heard a voice, telling him, “Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat.” (10:13; see the Notes section.) Peter protested, “By no means, lord, I have never eaten anything common [‘profane’ or ‘defiled’] or unclean.” At this point in the vision, he would not have been able to identify the source of the voice and so his use of the designation “lord” seems to have been as the usual respectful manner of address. The Greek word for “common” koinós here would apply to meat non-Jews might commonly eat but which would be ceremonially unclean according to the terms of the Mosaic law. (10:14)
Peter heard the voice again, telling him, “Do not [call] common [‘profane’ or ‘defiled’] what God has cleansed.” (10:15) After this happened three times, the sheet-like object “was suddenly [euthýs] taken up into heaven.” The fact that this occurred three times served to emphasize the importance of what had been revealed to Peter. (10:16; see the Notes section.)
Within himself, he came to be in a state of great puzzlement, trying to understand what the vision might signify. Just then the men whom Cornelius had sent made inquiries about Simon’s house and were standing at the gate. (10:17) They called out, asking whether Simon, surnamed Peter, lodged there. (10:18) While he still thought about the significance of the vision, the holy spirit revealed to him what God wanted him to do. He was directed to meet the three men who were looking for him. (10:19; see the Notes section.) “Rise, descend, and go with them, not doubting, because I have sent them.” (10:20) In response to divine direction, “Peter went down to the men,” telling them, “Look! I am the one you are seeking. What is the reason for your being here?” (10:21)
They explained that the centurion Cornelius, an upright man who feared God and had a good reputation among the “whole nation of the Jews,” had received instruction from a holy angel. The fact that he had extensive favorable testimony from the Jews who had observed him indicates that he conducted himself in a manner that did not offend their sensibilities. (10:22)
Cornelius had been directed to send for Peter, asking him to come to his house so that he could hear what Peter had to say. (10:22) Peter then invited the men into the home, welcoming them as guests. This proved to be the initial response to the vision, for the men would have been given food and lodging for the night. Considering the way in which those who pursued the occupation of tanners were viewed among the Jews, the household of Simon the tanner would have been less likely than other Jews to have had serious reservations about entertaining non-Jews. The next day, Peter and six “brothers” (fellow believers) from Joppa left with the men whom Cornelius had sent. (10:23; 11:12)
The next day the entire group that had left Joppa arrived in Caesarea. A usual day’s journey amounted to about 20 miles or over 30 kilometers. The men would have spent the greater part of the daylight hours of the first day in traveling, taken time to eat, slept at night, and then covered the remainder of the distance on the next day. Cornelius likely would have known the amount of time it would take to travel from Caesarea to Joppa and so was expecting them. He had called his relatives and close friends to be on hand for Peter’s arrival. According to the expanded text of fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), one of the servants ran ahead of the group to inform Cornelius of Peter’s arrival. It was then that Cornelius jumped up to meet Peter. (10:24)
On meeting Peter, Cornelius apparently dropped to his knees before Peter’s feet and prostrated himself before him. (10:25) Peter responded to this act of obeisance with the words, “Rise, I also am [just] a man.” (10:26) As they conversed, Peter walked with Cornelius into the house and found that many had assembled to hear what he had to say. (10:27)
With his first words to them, Peter revealed that he had understood the import of the vision he had seen. “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to join himself with or approach [someone] of another people, but God has shown me that I should not call [any] man profane or unclean. Therefore, having been sent for, I also came without objection.” It was common knowledge among non-Jews that Jews did not freely associate with them. Although the vision he had seen related to food, Peter discerned that he had been taught thereby not to view non-Jews as he had formerly. They were not defiled or unclean from God’s standpoint and so could gain his acceptance. Continuing, Peter asked why he had been requested to come. (10:28, 29)
Cornelius answered the question that Peter had directed to those assembled, saying, “Four days ago at this hour, the ninth [the Jewish hour of prayer at about three o’clock in the afternoon], I was praying in my house. And, see, a man in bright [lamprós] attire stood before me.” The brightness of the heavenly messenger’s or angel’s clothing, doubtless a brilliant white robe, made a strong impression on Cornelius. He is quoted as describing the angel’s attire as being lamprós, meaning “glowing,” “radiant,” or “bright.” (10:30; see the Notes section.)
Cornelius continued, quoting the angel’s words to him, “Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your compassionate acts of giving [to the needy] have been remembered before God.” In being “remembered before God,” his generous and compassionate giving had been divinely favored and so would not be forgotten but would result in blessing for him. (10:31)
As Cornelius went on to say, the angel directed him to send to Joppa and to summon Simon, surnamed Peter, who was then staying with a tanner named Simon and whose home was located by the sea (the Mediterranean). Once Peter arrived from Joppa, he would then speak to Cornelius. (10:32)
In keeping with the angel’s words, Cornelius immediately sent for Peter. Directing his words to Peter, Cornelius continued, “You have done well in coming.” These words constituted an expression of appreciation for Peter’s visit and signified that it was good or kind on his part to come. “Now, therefore,” Cornelius continued, “all of us are present before God to hear everything you have been commanded by the Lord [‘God,’ according to many other manuscripts].” All those who were then in the house had assembled to hear what God wanted Peter to say, and so it proved to be a gathering of sincere listeners in the presence of God. (10:33)
Peter then began to speak (literally, “opened [his] mouth”). “In truth, I recognize that God is not partial [10:34], but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is upright is acceptable to him.” (10:35)
Thus Peter acknowledged that he truly (“in truth”) had come to understand that God was not showing favoritism to any specific people. The Greek word that denotes being partial is prosopolémptes and literally identifies one who “accepts faces,” one who judges by outward appearances or on the basis of an individual’s specific standing. (10:34)
Through the vision he had seen while in a trance, Peter came to understand fully that God’s favorable attention and acceptance were not exclusively reserved for the Israelites. What determined God’s acceptance of individuals did not depend on being the member of a particular nation or people. Anyone who had a wholesome fear of or reverential regard for God and lived uprightly would be acceptable to him. (10:35)
Initially, God “sent the word to the sons of Israel,” having the evangel or good news of “peace through Jesus Christ” declared to them. This “word” or message revealed how, through Jesus Christ, individuals could come to be at peace with God, being reconciled to him by having their sins forgiven. As his approved children, they would enjoy a state of security and well-being, continuing to be recipients of his aid, care, and love. Emphasizing the greatness of Jesus Christ and his significant role in effecting peace with his Father, Peter added, “This one is Lord of all.” Jesus Christ has been granted all authority in heaven and on earth, making him the Lord of all the living, the dead, and angels. (10:36; Matthew 28:18)
Peter spoke with confidence that those gathered in the home of Cornelius knew what (rhéma, the “word” or “thing” that) had taken place in connection with Jesus Christ throughout the “whole of Judea, starting from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed.” For the most part, Jesus’ activity centered in Galilee after John baptized him. He also taught and performed miracles in Judea, especially at the time of the festivals in Jerusalem when large crowds from Judea, Galilee, and distant places gathered at the temple. As a result, talk about him spread extensively throughout Judea and elsewhere. (10:37; see the Notes section.)
Peter then specifically linked the baptism of John to Jesus from the city of Nazareth in Galilee. It was at Jesus’ baptism that “God anointed him with holy spirit and power.” His having been granted “holy spirit and power” became evident in his going from place to place, “doing good and healing all” whom the devil had oppressed. Jesus Christ freed people from the powers of darkness, liberating those perceived to be afflicted by evil spirits. The cures that were effected through Jesus Christ brought relief from the burden of sin to those who had suffered, and thus broke the devil’s power of oppression. What Jesus Christ did for the sick and infirm had been made possible “because God was with him.” (10:38)
Although referring to himself but apparently speaking for all who had accompanied Jesus Christ, Peter continued, “And we are witnesses of all that he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem,” but they killed him, “hanging him on the timber [xýlon, ‘wood’ or ‘tree’].” Whereas the Roman soldiers carried out the actual crucifixion, this occurred at the instigation of the Jewish high court that handed Jesus over to Pilate as a condemned criminal, providing the basis for attributing his death to the Jews. (10:39)
God, however, resurrected Jesus on the third day. The first evidence of the resurrection was the discovery of the empty tomb on the first day of the week, which would have been the third day since Jesus’ death. During the course of 40 days, Jesus Christ, in numerous ways, proved to his disciples that he had been resurrected. (1:3) His doing so would have been in keeping with his Father’s will. Accordingly, Peter is quoted as saying that God “granted [Jesus] to become manifest.” (10:40)
As God had purposed, however, his Son did not appear to “all the people” after his resurrection. Only those whom God had previously appointed or chosen as witnesses saw him. Peter included himself as one of these witnesses, saying that Jesus Christ became manifest “to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” (10:41; see the Notes section.) After his resurrection, Jesus reclined at a meal with Cleopas and another disciple. (Luke 24:18, 30) In the presence of the apostles and other disciples, Jesus ate a piece of broiled fish. (Luke 24:42, 43) On another occasion, he prepared a breakfast of bread and fish for Peter and six other apostles. (John 21:2, 9)
Whereas Jesus Christ had commissioned his disciples to impart to others everything that he had taught them (Matthew 28:18-20), he did so in keeping with his Father’s will. Accordingly, their proclaiming of the message about Jesus Christ signified obedience to God. (5:27-29) As Peter acknowledged on this occasion, God commanded those to whom his resurrected Son appeared “to preach to the people” (initially to the Israelites or Jews). They were to “testify” that Jesus Christ is the one whom God appointed to be the “judge of the living and the dead.” As the highly exalted one since his resurrection and ascension to heaven, Jesus Christ is in possession of “all authority in heaven and on earth.” To judge the dead, he will first restore them to life. The outcome of his judgment can either be favorable or unfavorable. This judgment will be completely just, for Jesus Christ will not be influenced by outward appearances when rendering his decisions respecting the attitudes, words, and deeds of each individual. (10:42; Isaiah 11:3, 4; Matthew 12:36, 37; John 5:21-24; Romans 2:5-16; 2 Corinthians 5:10)
“All the prophets” bore witness to Jesus Christ that, “through his name,” all who believe or put faith in him would receive “forgiveness of sins.” The Hebrew prophets proclaimed what God required from his people. Their meeting the requirements the prophets called to their attention would prepare them to heed the words of the coming prophet like Moses, the promised Messiah or Christ, and become recipients of the blessings that would come through him. A number of prophets spoke specifically about him, and how through him forgiveness of sins would be possible “through his name,” that is, through him (the person represented by the name). Isaiah, for example, foretold Christ’s suffering and that his “soul” or life would prove to be an offering for sin. (10:43; Isaiah 53:3-12; see also Ezekiel 34:23-31; Zechariah 12:10-13:1; Malachi 3:1-4; 4:4-6 [3:22-24].)
While Peter continued to speak, “the holy spirit fell upon all those who heard the word” or message he proclaimed. (10:44) The “circumcised believers who had come with Peter” were amazed, “for even upon the nations [non-Jews] the gift of the holy spirit had been poured out.” (10:45) The six Jewish brothers (fellow believers) who had accompanied Peter from Joppa (11:12) witnessed the tangible evidence that the non-Jews had received the spirit. As had occurred on the day of Pentecost subsequent to Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, those who received the spirit began to speak in tongues, glorifying or praising God. Observing this, Peter raised the question whether anyone could rightly withhold the water needed for them to be baptized, considering that they had received the holy spirit just as the Jewish believers had. (10:46, 47)
“He then ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” Upon being immersed in his name or in recognition of him, they entered into a relationship with him as their Lord who died for them and as their “brother” in the family of his Father’s beloved children. After their baptism, they asked that Peter remain with them “some days” or a while longer. Doubtless they wanted to learn more. The account does not say specifically whether Peter accepted their invitation, but the later reference to his having entered the house of non-Jews and eaten with them definitely suggests that he did. (10:48; 11:3)
Notes:
Individuals like Cornelius who were referred to as fearing God (verse 2) went to the synagogue to listen to the reading and exposition of the holy writings, believed in the one true God (YHWH), observed the customary Jewish hours for prayer, and lived exemplary lives. Men who were God-fearers differed from proselytes in that they remained uncircumcised and appear not to have considered themselves bound to the commands pertaining to ritual or ceremonial purity, which would have included dietary restrictions. (13:16; 17:1-4, 18:4, 7)
In verse 5, the reading a “certain Simon” (Símoná tina) has good manuscript support and agrees with the fact that Cornelius would not have known Simon (Peter). Many other manuscripts do not include the Greek word that is rendered “certain” (tina).
In verse 9, the reading “ninth hour” (instead of “sixth hour”) has very limited manuscript support.
Numerous manuscripts (in verse 12) also include “beasts” (thería) among the creatures listed.
In verse 13, a third-century papyrus manuscript (P45) omits the proper name “Peter.”
The Greek word euthýs, meaning “immediately” or “suddenly,” is missing in verse 16 from a number of manuscripts, including third-century P45.
Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus says “two men” (in verse 19). If the number “two” is original, this could mean that the two servants were the messengers, whereas the soldier functioned as their guard on the trip. The reading “three,” however, has far greater manuscript support.
In verse 30, numerous manuscripts contain an expanded text which is rendered as follows in the New King James Version, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house.” According to what appears to be the best-attested Greek text, a literal rendering of the words would be, “From the fourth day until this hour, I was [at] the ninth [hour] praying in my house.” The words “from the fourth day” are not to be understood as applying to four 24-hour days, but the reckoning includes the day on which Cornelius met Peter, two 24-hour days, and the day Cornelius prayed at the ninth hour. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) says, “the third day” (not “the fourth day”).
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) omits the word rhéma (“word” or “thing”) in verse 37.
A number of manuscripts expand the text of verse 41, mentioning that, besides eating and drinking with Jesus, the witnesses “accompanied” him and that this occurred “for 40 days.”
News reached Jerusalem about developments in Caesarea. The apostles and other “brothers” (fellow believers) in Judea heard that non-Jews (literally, “the nations”) had accepted “the word of God.” This “word” or message related to Jesus Christ and is the good news that God wanted his Son’s disciples to make known. (11:1)
When Peter arrived in Jerusalem, certain circumcised believers confronted him with the objection that he had entered the house of uncircumcised men and eaten with them. (11:2, 3; see the Notes section.) He then began to relate the specifics. (11:4) His words basically repeat what had earlier been described as his experience. (10:9-21) He had been in Joppa and praying at the time. While in a trance, he saw, in vision, a “large sheet being lowered from heaven by its four corners,” and it reached him. (11:5; see the Notes section and also see http://bibleplaces.com/joppa.htm for pictures of and comments about Joppa.) On taking a closer look, he saw on this sheet-like object “quadrupeds of the earth and beasts and reptiles and birds of heaven.” (11:6)
Peter heard a voice that told him, “Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat.” (11:7) He, however, objected, “By no means, lord, because nothing common [‘profane’ or ‘defiled’] or unclean has ever entered my mouth.” As in verse 14 of chapter 10, “lord” appears to be a respectful manner of address, as Peter would not then have been able to identify the source of the voice. The animals seemingly were all unclean according to the terms of the Mosaic law, but they would have provided meat for non-Jews who were not under the dietary requirements of the law. For non-Jews, the meat from these creatures would have been “common” (koinós), but for Jews, it would have been ceremonially unclean or defiled and, therefore, prohibited as food. (11:8)
For a second time, the voice from heaven responded with the words, “The things God has cleansed, you should not call common [‘profane’ or ‘defiled’].” (11:9) This occurred a third time, “and everything was drawn up again into heaven.” (11:10) At this time, three men who had been sent from Caesarea stood at the house where Peter was staying. (11:11; see http://bibleplaces.com/caesarea.htm for pictures of and comments about Caesarea.) Through the operation of God’s spirit, he then received the message that he should go with these men, without “discriminating” or giving way to doubt. At this point, Peter is quoted as adding a detail that had not been previously mentioned. Six “brothers” (fellow Jewish believers) accompanied him from Joppa, and all of them “entered into the house of the man” (Cornelius). (11:12)
Peter then related the words of Cornelius about having been instructed by an angel to send men to Joppa and to have Simon (surnamed Peter) summoned to have him explain what he and his whole household needed to know to get “saved.” Being “saved” signified having one’s sins forgiven and thus being delivered from the condemnation to which sin leads. As forgiven persons, individuals become part of the family of God’s approved children, with a relationship with him and his Son that continues for all eternity. (11:13, 14)
Peter’s quoted words that the holy spirit fell upon those gathered to hear his words when he “began to speak” may mean that this occurred when he had just begun to share the message about Jesus Christ. It could suggest that there was much more that he had in mind telling them. All those assembled received the holy spirit just as had the apostles and fellow Jewish disciples “at the beginning,” which would have been on the day of Pentecost following Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven. (11:15)
Upon witnessing the outpouring of God’s spirit on non-Jewish believers, Peter recalled the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, “John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with holy spirit.” (11:16) “If, then, God gave the same gift to them as to us [Jews] who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to have been able to hinder God?” It was the Jewish apostles and other fellow Jewish disciples who had received God’s spirit as persons who had put faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ and the Son of God. The outpouring of God’s spirit on non-Jews established that they were acceptable to him on the same basis of faith and did not first need to become Jewish proselytes and live according the commands involving ritual purity. (11:17; see the Notes section.)
On hearing Peter’s explanation, those who had confronted him became silent, not raising any objection. They recognized God’s will in the matter and “glorified” or praised him, acknowledging, “Then also to the nations [non-Jews] God has granted [the opportunity of] repentance for life.” By repenting of their sins and putting faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death for them, they would cease to be under the condemnation that results in death. Accordingly, their repentance would be a repentance that would lead to life. (11:18)
Before this outpouring of holy spirit on non-Jewish believers, the disciples who had been scattered subsequent to the persecution that arose after Stephen was stoned to death focused their attention on fellow Jews and proselytes. Scattered disciples headed as far north as Phoenicia, sailed to the island of Cyprus, and traveled to Antioch in Syria. Although there were many non-Jews living in the areas where they went, the disciples proclaimed the “word” or message about Christ exclusively to fellow Jews and proselytes. (11:19; see http://bibleplaces.com/antiochorontes.htm for pictures of and comments about Antioch.)
There were, however, “some men, Cyprians and Cyrenians,” who, after arriving in Syrian Antioch, began speaking also “to the Hellenists,” making known to them the good news about the Lord Jesus. These “Hellenists,” as the subsequent context reveals, were non-Jewish Greek-speaking people. The account does not reveal why these believers who were originally from the island of Cyprus and from Cyrene on the northern coast of Africa decided to share the message about Christ with non-Jews. It cannot be established whether they did so on their own initiative or whether they were moved to do so after hearing about what had happened in the case of Cornelius, his household, relatives, and close friends. (11:20)
Their efforts in reaching out to non-Jews in Antioch were blessed. “The hand of the Lord was with them.” This could refer to their having had either God’s aid or that of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since the Father and the Son are united in purpose, to whom the designation “Lord” here specifically applies is really immaterial. The mention of the Lord Jesus in the previous verse may provide a basis for identifying him as the intended Lord. On the other hand, verse 23 mentions that the “favor of God” was evident to Barnabas, and so the measure of ambiguity about the designation Lord cannot be definitively resolved. Divine backing, aid, and blessing became manifest by the increase in the number of believers. The message that the disciples proclaimed focused on the Lord Jesus Christ, and so the mention of individuals as “turning to the Lord” could signify turning to him by accepting him as Lord. Because non-Jews were involved, however, the reference could also be to their turning to God, becoming his devoted worshipers as persons who believed in his Son. (11:21; 26:20)
“Word” or news about developments in Antioch reached the “ears” of the congregation in Jerusalem, and this community of believers then sent Barnabas to Antioch. The nature of his commission, however, is not disclosed in the account, but the context does reveal that he proved to be a source of spiritual benefit to the believers in the city. (11:22)
Upon his arrival in Antioch, Barnabas “saw the favor of God.” Divine favor would have been evident from the good effect the faith of Jews and non-Jews had on the way they lived their lives and the blessings they enjoyed as fellow children of God. What he witnessed among the believers in Antioch filled him with joy and “he encouraged all [to have as their] purpose of heart to remain in the Lord.” His objective was to help them to become strong in faith, being resolved in their “heart” or inmost selves to remain steadfast as loyal disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ who are “in” or at one with him. (11:23; see the Notes section.)
Barnabas is described as being a “good man and full of holy spirit and faith.” On account of his praiseworthy attributes, he made a valuable contribution to the community of believers in Antioch. As a “good man,” he was exemplary in his compassion and deep concern for the needs of others. His life would have demonstrated that he was guided by God’s spirit in disposition, word, and action. The purity of his conduct and the zeal with which he made known the message about Jesus Christ must have revealed to observers that he was filled or thoroughly imbued with the holy spirit. For Barnabas to have been full of faith suggests that his faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ was strong and steadfast. He did not waver in his trust in them and their aid and guidance. It appears that the efforts of Barnabas, backed by his laudable example, bore fruit. A sizable crowd “was added to the Lord,” indicating that many became disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. (11:24)
Barnabas apparently came to see that he needed help to serve the community of believers as it continued to grow in numbers. Therefore, he left for Tarsus to search for Saul, whom he had earlier introduced to the “apostles” and who had been forced to leave Jerusalem and to return to his home city Tarsus on account of a serious threat to his life from hostile unbelieving Jews. (10:25; 9:27-30; see the Notes section.) After succeeding in finding Saul, Barnabas invited him to go with him to Antioch. For a “whole year” the two men assembled with the congregation there, and during this time they taught a sizable crowd. It was in Antioch that, for the first time, the disciples came to be called (chrematízo) Christians. The account does not reveal who was responsible for originating the name that came to distinguish believers in Jesus Christ from Jews. (11:26; see the Notes section and also see http://bibleplaces.com/tarsus.htm for pictures of and comments about Tarsus.)
During the time Barnabas and Saul continued to serve there, prophets “came down” from the elevated location of Jerusalem to Antioch. One of these prophets, Agabus, through the operation of God’s spirit upon him, foretold that a great famine “was about to come upon the whole inhabited land [oikouméne].” The Greek word oikouméne has been defined as meaning “inhabited earth” or “world” and, in certain contexts, can denote the Roman Empire or a much smaller inhabited territory. This famine did take place during the reign of Claudius, the Roman emperor who ruled from 41 CE to 54 CE. Ancient historians (Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Josephus) mention famine in the time of Claudius, but it is not possible to definitively link their statements to the reference in the book of Acts. (11:28; see the Notes section for details regarding the foretold famine.)
Based on the prophetic word, the disciples in Antioch decided to help their fellow believers in Judea who would be affected by the famine. They contributed funds to the extent of their personal ability and entrusted Barnabas and Saul with the contribution to be delivered to the elders in Jerusalem. (11:29, 30; 12:25)
Notes:
According to the expanded text of verse 2 in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), Peter wanted to go to Jerusalem for a considerable time. After calling the brothers to come to him and strengthening them, he left. On his way to Jerusalem, he spoke and taught. Then, when he went to meet the brothers in Jerusalem, he reported to them the “favor of God, but the brothers of the circumcision disputed with him.”
The repetition (starting in verse 5) of the experiences that involved Peter and Cornelius is purposeful. Their respective visions were complementary, including specifics that could only have had their source in divine revelation. The six brothers who had accompanied Peter heard Cornelius relate the content of his vision, and they witnessed the speaking in tongues that followed when God’s spirit descended upon Cornelius and the other non-Jews who had assembled in his home to listen to Peter. The repetition of what was seen and heard reveals unmistakably that eyewitnesses could testify to the fact that everything took place at God’s direction and that he, by imparting his spirit to believing non-Jews, had accepted them as his people.
In verse 17, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), in connection with “gift,” omits the words ho theós (“the God”). This codex, however, expands the text about hindering God to refer to hindering him from giving holy spirit to those who “had believed in him,” that is, believed in Jesus Christ.
Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and a number of other manuscripts (in verse 23) include the preposition “in” (en [“in the Lord”]), but this word is missing in many other manuscripts.
According to the reading of verses 25 and 26 in Codex Bezae, Barnabas “heard that Saul was in Tarsus” and “entreated him to come to Antioch.”
In verse 26, the form of the Greek verb chrematízo can relate to something of divine origin. In itself, however, the word has a more general sense and can signify “give instruction,” “command,” “reveal,” “treat,” “commission,” or “be called.” Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn from the verb about who initiated the use of the designation “Christian.” It could have been Paul and Barnabas, the community of believers in Antioch, or even the people of the city because believers talked about Jesus Christ.
The following are quotations from ancient histories regarding the famine in the time of Claudius (verse 28):
“When there was a scarcity of grain because of long-continued droughts, he was once stopped in the middle of the forum by a mob and so pelted with abuse and at the same time with pieces of bread, that he was barely able to make his escape to the palace by a back door; and after this experience he resorted to every possible means to bring grain to Rome, even in the winter season.” (Suetonius, Life of Claudius, 18:2)
“Scanty crops too, and consequent famine were regarded as a token of calamity. Nor were there merely whispered complaints; while Claudius was administering justice, the populace crowded round him with a boisterous clamor and drove him to a corner of the forum, where they violently pressed on him till he broke through the furious mob with a body of soldiers. It was ascertained that Rome had provisions for no more than fifteen days, and it was through the signal bounty of heaven and the mildness of the winter that its desperate plight was relieved. And yet in past days Italy used to send supplies for the legions into distant provinces, and even now it is not a barren soil which causes distress. But we prefer to cultivate Africa and Egypt, and trust the life of the Roman people to ships and all their risks.” (Tacitus, Annals, 12:43)
“On the occasion of a severe famine he considered the problem of providing an abundant food supply, not only for that particular crisis but for all future time. For practically all the grain used by the Romans was imported, and yet the region near the mouth of the Tiber had no safe landing places or suitable harbors, so that their mastery of the sea was rendered useless to them. Except for the cargoes brought in during the summer season and stored in warehouses, they had no supplies for the winter; for if anyone ever risked a voyage at that season, he was sure to meet with disaster. In view of this situation, Claudius undertook to construct a harbor, and would not be deterred even when the architects, upon his inquiring how great the cost would be, answered, ‘You don’t want to do it!’ so confident were they that the huge expenditures necessary would shake him from his purpose, if he should learn the cost beforehand. He, however, conceived an undertaking worthy of the dignity and greatness of Rome, and he brought it to accomplishment.” (Dio Cassius, History, 60:11)
The Jewish historian Josephus mentioned a severe famine in Judea at the time Queen Helena of Adiabene came to Jerusalem to worship at the temple. This famine was so severe that many died. When Helena witnessed the plight of the people, she sent some of her servants to Alexandria, Egypt, to purchase grain. Other servants she sent to Cyprus to obtain dried figs. When the cargo arrived, she arranged to have the food distributed to those in need. (Antiquities, XX, ii, 5)
Josephus again referred to this famine, saying that it took place when Fadus and Tiberius Alexander were procurators in Judea. (Antiquities, XX, v, 2) Fadus became procurator in 44 CE after the death of Herod Agrippa I, and Tiberius Alexander succeeded Fadus in 46 CE. This may mean that famine conditions existed in the time of Fadus and then also when Tiberius Alexander was the procurator of Judea. The Acts account relates that Barnabas and Saul brought contributed funds to help believers in Judea, and their return to Antioch from Jerusalem is mentioned after the death of Herod Agrippa I. (11:30; 12:20-25) This would fit the general period of the famine that Josephus mentioned.
The references in the extant writings of Josephus, however, are not without dating problems. Antiquities, Book III, chapter xv, paragraph 3, mentions a great famine that began a little before the war with the Romans at the time “Claudius was emperor” and “Ismael [Ishmael] was our high priest.” Ishmael, though, functioned as high priest in the time of Nero, which would have been not long before the start of the war.
Around “that time” seemingly relates to the time when Barnabas and Saul left Syrian Antioch to bring contributed funds to aid believers in Judea during the period of the foretold famine. It was then that Herod Agrippa I “laid hands” on some members of the congregation. (12:1; see http://bibleplaces.com/antiochorontes.htm for pictures of and comments about Antioch.)
His laying hands on believers to mistreat them could refer to his arresting them and then acting against them with violence. Another significance could be that the laying of hands on the believers involved cruel mistreatment. Both meanings are reflected in the renderings of modern translations. “About this time, King Herod arrested some people who belonged to the church. He planned to make them suffer greatly.” (NIRV) “Now, about that time, King Herod arrested certain members of the Church, in order to ill-treat them.” (Weymouth) “About that time King Herod cruelly attacked some who belonged to the church.” (HCSB) “At that time King Herod caused terrible suffering for some members of the church.” (CEV) “It was about this time that King Herod launched an attack on certain members of the church.” (REB) Herod Agrippa I had James, the brother of John, executed with the sword, probably meaning that the apostle James was beheaded. (12:1, 2)
On seeing that the execution of James had pleased the unbelieving Jews, Herod Agrippa I had Peter arrested. This occurred during the time the Jews observed the festival of unleavened bread (Passover and the festival that followed) in the month of Nisan (mid-March to mid-April). (12:3; see the Notes section.)
After having Peter arrested, Agrippa had him imprisoned, keeping him securely guarded by four squads of soldiers. Each squad consisted of four men. At night, each squad appears to have served on a rotational basis for each of the four night watches that lasted three hours, starting at about six o’clock in the evening and ending at about six o’clock the next morning. Agrippa planned to “bring [Peter] to the people” after the Festival of Unleavened Bread had ended. This could mean that his purpose was to hold a public trial, which would have led to Peter’s condemnation and execution. A number of translations make this significance explicit in their renderings. “Herod planned to put him on trial in public after the festival.” (CEV) “Herod planned to bring Peter before the people for trial after the Passover Feast.” (NCV) While Peter was being closely guarded in prison, the community of believers prayed intensely to God for him. According to fifth century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), “much prayer” was being directed “in earnestness” to God for Peter. (12:4, 5)
Matters, however, did not work out as Herod Agrippa I had purposed when he was about to make a public spectacle with Peter. Agrippa’s plan was thwarted during the very night before the day he had intended to carry it out. Peter slept between two soldiers, with each of his wrists chained to one of the soldiers. At the door of the prison, two other soldiers stood guard. (12:6) Suddenly, an “angel of the Lord,” either one whom the Lord Jesus Christ had sent or one of his Father’s angels, stood in the prison cell, and a bright light illuminated it. “Striking” or tapping (“nudging” [form of nýsso], according to Codex Bezae) Peter on the side, the angel woke him up, telling him, “Rise quickly!” Then the confining chains fell from his wrists. (12:7; see the Notes section.)
The angel instructed him to gird himself and to put on his sandals. Peter would have been sleeping in his tunic or inner garment, and so would only have needed to tie his girdle and then to put on his sandals. As the angel wanted Peter to leave with him, he told him to put on his outer garment and then to follow him. (12:8)
Although he exited the prison cell and followed the angel, Peter did not then realize that the angel had freed him. He imagined that “he was seeing a vision.” (12:9)
After passing the first and the second guard, Peter and the angel came to the “iron gate leading into the city.” Of itself, the gate opened to them. After they passed through the opened gate, they continued walking down one street. (12:10; see the Notes section.) Suddenly, the angel departed from Peter, and he became aware of what had happened to him, saying to himself, “Now I truly know that the Lord sent his angel and delivered me from the hand of Herod and from everything the Jewish people expected [to happen].” Peter’s words suggest that certain Jews were expecting that he would be condemned. The Lord to whom Peter attributed the sending of his angel to deliver him from death at the instigation of Herod Agrippa I could either be the Father or the Son (the King of kings and Lord of lords by his Father’s appointment). (12:10, 11; Revelation 19:16)
Realizing what had actually occurred, Peter headed for the home of Mary, the mother of John (also known as Mark). The young man Mark was the cousin of Barnabas. (Colossians 4:10) From very early times, he has been regarded as the writer of the Gospel that bears the name Mark, with Peter being considered the primary source for its content. Besides his association with Peter, Mark also labored in the service of Christ with his cousin Barnabas and with Saul (Paul). (12:25; 13:13; 15:36-39; 2 Timothy 4:11) Quite a number of believers had gathered at Mary’s home and were praying for Peter. (12:5, 12)
Arriving at the house, Peter knocked at the gate. This would have been the gate leading from the street into the courtyard of the home. A servant girl named Rhoda then left to respond to the knock. (12:13)
She became so overjoyed and apparently so overcome by great excitement upon recognizing Peter’s voice that she forgot to open the gate and ran back into the house, telling everyone that Peter was standing in front of the gate. The fact that Rhoda recognized his voice without even seeing him may indicate that he had often been at the home of Mary. His Galilean accent would have been particularly noticeable to those who lived in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea (Matthew 26:73), and so Rhoda’s having heard him speak at various times likely would have been sufficient for her to have recognized his voice. (12:14)
Although the believers had been praying for Peter, they just could not believe that he had actually arrived on the scene. The thought of a miraculous deliverance in answer to their prayers did not even suggest itself to them. They concluded that Rhoda had lost her senses or was seriously mistaken. She, however, continued to insist that he was there, and so they reasoned that it must be his angel standing before the gate. Possibly they thought that the personage was Peter’s guardian angel. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) quotes them as saying to Rhoda, “Perhaps it is his angel.” According to ancient rabbinical views, an angel could appear in the form of the person who was under his protective care. (12:15)
Peter continued to knock, and so they went to the gate and opened it. Seeing him, they were astonished, doubtless puzzled as to how he had been able to get out of prison. (12:16)
He motioned with his hand for them to be silent, doubtless not wanting to have any expressions of excitement overheard at nearby homes, which could have jeopardized his safety and also put them at risk if Herod Agrippa I had come to know about it. Peter did tell them how the Lord (either the Lord Jesus Christ or his Father) had brought him out of prison and asked them to inform James (the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ), the one to whom the first-century Jewish historian Josephus refers as James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” (Antiquities, XX, ix, 1) Additionally, Peter requested that the “brothers,” or other fellow believers who were not there in the home, also be told about his deliverance. To secure his own safety, Peter then left for another place. The account does not give any indication as to where this might have been. (12:17; see the Notes section.)
With the arrival of day, the soldiers who had been on guard duty came to be in a state of great turmoil about the disappearance of Peter. They knew that for a prisoner to escape during their watch would be punishable by death. (12:18)
After having a search made for Peter and not finding him, Herod Agrippa I had the guards examined, likely under torture, and then they were “led off.” According to Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), he ordered that the guards “be put to death.” After this, Herod Aggripa I traveled from Judea to the city of Caesarea, staying there for some time. (12:19; see http://bibleplaces.com/caesarea.htm for pictures of and comments about Caesarea.)
For an undisclosed reason, Agrippa was furious with the people of the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon. Therefore, they were at risk of being deprived of food imports from the territory under his rule and so of the food (doubtless mainly grain) on which they depended. In order to be able to present their case before Agrippa, they, as a group that likely consisted of prominent representatives from Tyre and Sidon, first approached his chamberlain Blastus. Probably with a significant bribe, they won him over to intervene for them. As chamberlain, Blastus was in charge of Agrippa’s private quarters. By reason of being in close contact with Agrippa, he would have been in a good position to influence him. The representatives from Tyre and Sidon apparently succeeded in having Blastus gain a hearing for them with Agrippa, making it possible for them to ask for “peace” or reconciliation. (12:20)
On an appointed day, Herod Agrippa I, dressed in royal apparel, seated himself on the raised platform that served as the place for rendering judgments or for speaking publicly to an assembly. From the seat on the platform, he addressed the people. (12:21) They began to shout, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” (12:22)
In the case of the community of believers, what next happened to Agrippa was regarded as a divine judgment for failing to give “glory” or praise to God. The account says that the “angel of the Lord” (either an angel of the Lord Jesus Christ or of his Father) struck him at once. For believers, Agrippa’s failure to give glory to God may have included his ordering the execution of the apostle James and arresting Peter with the intent of also having him killed. Herod breathed his last (literally, “gave up [his] soul”) as one “eaten by worms.” His death occurred in the year 44 CE. (12:23; see the Notes section.)
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus comments in greater detail about this event. Although mentioning that Herod Agrippa I died in Caesarea shortly after being addressed as a “god,” Josephus does not include any reference to his being “eaten by worms.” To an extent, the account in Acts and that in Josephus may be regarded as complementary. Herod Agrippa I came to the city of Caesarea after having reigned “three years over all Judea.” In honor of Caesar, he arranged for shows in the theater. On the second day of the shows, Agrippa wore a garment made from silver. When he entered the theater early in the morning, the silver garment, being illuminated by the sun, shone in such a spectacular manner that it had a fear-inspiring effect on those who gazed upon him. From various locations, flatterers cried out that he was a god, adding, “Be merciful to us; for although we have formerly reverenced you only as a man, yet we shall henceforth consider you as superior to mortal nature.” He did not “rebuke them nor reject their impious flattery.” Then, when Agrippa looked up, “he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him.” He “fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner.” Realizing that he would soon die, he said to his friends, “I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life.” After he had spoken to his friends, his pain became violent, and he was carried into the palace. Worn out by the intense pain in his belly for five days, he died in the fifty-fourth year of his life. (Antiquities, XIX, viii, 2)
As far as the community of believers was concerned, “the word of God [‘the Lord,’ according to fourth-century Codex Vaticanus] kept on growing and multiplying.” This may mean that God’s message, with its specific focus on the Lord Jesus Christ and what his Father has accomplished through him, continued to be spread extensively and resulted in many responding in faith. (12:24) The Greek text has been variously rendered. “But the word of God continued to advance and gain adherents.” (NRSV) “God’s message continued to spread and reach people.” (NCV) “But the Word of the Lord continued to gain ground and increase its influence.” (J. B. Phillips) “The word of God continued to spread and to gain followers.” (NJB)
It appears that, during the general period that the narrated events occurred, Barnabas and Saul had come to Jerusalem from Antioch with contributed funds for believers who would be in need on account of the famine Agabus had foretold. After completing their relief ministry, they returned to Antioch, and John (also called Mark), the son of Mary and the cousin of Barnabas, accompanied them. (12:25; see the Notes section.)
Notes:
The text for verse 3 is longer in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis). It says that Herod saw that his “attack on believers” pleased the Jews.
In verse 7, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) indicates that the light shone forth from the angel instead of saying that the light shone in the prison cell.
In verse 10, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) says that Peter and the angel “descended seven steps” when leaving the prison.
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), in verse 17, indicates that Peter did not continue standing at the gate but, after motioning with his hand for fellow believers to be silent, entered and then explained to them what had happened to him.
In verse 23, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) indicates that Herod did not die on the spot but came down from the “platform” (béma) and that, while “still alive,” was eaten by worms.
In verse 25, fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus read “into Jerusalem,” which would indicate that Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem. This, though, was not the case, as they left the city with Mark. One way “into Jerusalem” has been understood is to take it as meaning that Barnabas and Saul returned after they had fulfilled their service in Jerusalem. “Barnabas and Saul completed their task at Jerusalem and came back, bringing John Mark with them.” (NJB) “After Barnabas and Saul finished their task in Jerusalem, they returned to Antioch.” (NCV) Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and a number of other manuscripts read “out of” (ex) Jerusalem, whereas fifth-century Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) and numerous other manuscripts say “from” (apó) Jerusalem. Still other manuscripts read that Barnabas and Saul returned “to [literally, ‘into’] Antioch.”
Prophets and teachers were associated with the congregation or community of believers in Syrian Antioch. While prophets did at times foretell future events that particularly concerned the followers of Jesus Christ, their role was chiefly one of making known God’s will, providing admonition, encouragement, and comfort to strengthen fellow believers. (15:32; 1 Corinthians 14:3) Prophets commonly also functioned as teachers, assisting others to be strong in faith and to understand God’s will for them and how to conduct themselves as devoted disciples of his Son. (1 Timothy 2:7) The five prophets and teachers in the Antioch congregation that are identified by name were Barnabas, Symeon (called “Niger”), Lucius the Cyrenian, Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (13:1; see the Notes section and see http://bibleplaces.com/antiochorontes.htm for pictures of and comments about Antioch.)
Barnabas, a disciple from the tribe of Levi and a native of Cyprus, had originally been sent to Antioch by the community of believers in Jerusalem after news reached them that non-Jews there had become followers of Jesus Christ. The name “Barnabas” (which is translated as meaning “Son of Comfort”) was given to him by the apostles, evidently because he proved himself to be a compassionate man who deeply cared about the needs of fellow believers. (13:1; 4:36; 11:20-22)
The Acts account provides no other specifics about Symeon. In Latin, the word niger means “black” or “dark.” Possibly he was dark complexioned, and the surname “Niger” may have served to distinguish him from others who were named “Symeon” or “Simon.” Among the Jews, “Symeon” or “Simon” was a common name. The grecized “Symeon” may be an abbreviated form of the Hebrew name that means either “God has heard” or “YHWH has heard.” (13:1)
Like Symeon (Simon), Lucius (from the Latin luceo, meaning “to shine” or “to be light”) is not mentioned again in the Acts account. His original home was Cyrene on the northern coast of Africa. He may well have been the Cyrenian who was among the first disciples to share the message about Jesus Christ with the non-Jews (Hellenists) in Antioch. (13:1; 11:20)
In the Septuagint, the grecized form of the Hebrew “Menahem,” meaning “consoler” or “comforter,” is “Manaem.” This was the name of the Israelite king who gained the throne by killing Shallum, who had assassinated King Zechariah (the last ruler in the line of King Jehu). (2 Kings 15:10-17) “Manaen” is yet another form of the Hebrew name “Menahem.” Manaen’s link to Herod the tetrarch (Herod Antipas, the ruler who had John the Baptist beheaded and who later mocked Jesus) is expressed by the Greek word sýntrophos. This term designates someone who grew up with, was reared with, or was educated with another person. According to Josephus, Antipas and his brother Archelaus “were brought up with a certain private man at Rome.” (Antiquities, XVII, i, 3) This may provide a basis for concluding that there, in his youth, Manaen may have been closely associated with the two sons of Herod the Great by his Samaritan wife Malthace. (13:1)
Barnabas had introduced Saul (the former persecutor to whom the risen Lord Jesus Christ had revealed himself on the way to Damascus) to the “apostles” in Jerusalem. (9:27) Later, after Saul had returned to Tarsus, Barnabas searched for him, wanting him to join him in Antioch. (11:25, 26) After the opening verses of this chapter, the Benjamite Saul is no longer identified by his Hebrew name. This name (meaning “asked for” or “asked of” that is, asked of God) was the name of Israel’s first king (also from the tribe of Benjamin). (13:1)
All five prophets and teachers engaged in “ministering to the Lord and fasting.” In the Greek text, the kind of ministering or serving is called leitourgéo, which can designate the performance of duties related to worship and so would be sacred service. In this context, it would be the service rendered to God as prophets and teachers. Fasting for spiritual reasons was common among Jews and disciples of Jesus Christ. Particularly in the case of believers, fasting prepared them mentally to be more receptive to the leading of God’s spirit during times of adversity or need. While the group was ministering and fasting, apparently one of their number expressed what God’s spirit impelled him to say, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the activity to which I have called them.” (13:2)
After they had fasted and prayed, Symeon, Lucius, and Manaen probably were the ones who placed their hands on Barnabas and Saul, thus acknowledging them as having been designated by the holy spirit for special service and also making tangible expression of their blessing on the ministry the two men had been commissioned to perform. They then “sent them off” to carry out the work for which they had been set apart. (13:3)
Sent off as the holy spirit directed, Barnabas and Saul, with John (Mark, the cousin of Barnabas) as their assistant, headed down to the nearby seaport of Seleucia. (See http://bibleplaces.com/seleucia.htm for pictures of and comments about Seleucia.) From there they sailed to Cyprus, the island where Barnabas had originally lived. They disembarked at Salamis on the eastern coast of Cyprus. In the Jewish synagogues, Barnabas and Saul “proclaimed the word of God,” or the message about his Son that he wanted them to make known. Nothing about the response of those who heard the message is related in the account. (13:4, 5; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamis,_Cyprus for pictures of and information about Salamis.)
Barnabas, Saul, and Mark traveled westward through the entire island, finally arriving at the seaport of Paphos on the southwestern coast of Cyprus. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paphos for pictures of and information about Paphos.) In Paphos, they encountered a Jewish man named Bar-Jesus (Son of Jesus or Joshua). This man appears to have engaged in the practice of occult arts as a mágos, “magician,” or “sorcerer”. Possibly he also made predictions, and this may explain why he is called a “false prophet.” His words and actions, unlike those of true prophets, would not have helped others to turn to God. (13:6)
In what sense Bar-Jesus was “with” Sergius Paulus cannot be determined from the account. Perhaps he functioned as an adviser much like astrologers who, in more recent times, have often been consulted by persons in high governmental station before they made important decisions. The Greek term for the administrative position of Sergius Paulus is anthýpatos, which designated the chief office bearer (the proconsul) in a Roman senatorial province. In 22 BCE, Caesar Augustus changed the status of Cyprus from an imperial province to a senatorial province, placing the island under the control of the Senate, which could review actions the proconsul might take in the province. (13:7)
Sergius Paul is described as an “intelligent [synetós] man,” a person possessing good judgment or discernment. Apparently news about the activity of Barnabas and Saul had reached him. Wanting to “hear the word of God” (or the message about Jesus Christ that Barnabas and Saul had been divinely commissioned to proclaim), Sergius Paulus summoned them, likely through someone in his service. (13:7)
Bar-Jesus was present when Barnabas and Saul spoke to Sergius Paulus. The account indicates that Bar-Jesus was also known as “Elymas,” which name is interpreted as meaning mágos (“magician” or “sorcerer”). He set himself in opposition to Barnabas and Saul, seeking “to turn the proconsul away from the faith.” In this context, “the faith” denotes the content of the faith that centered in the Son of God. (13:8; see the Notes section.)
Saul is identified as also having the name “Paul” (Latin, Paulus, meaning “little”). In the Greco-Roman world, it was not uncommon for Jews to have both a Hebrew and a Roman or Greek name. As the apostle to the nations, Saul, from this point onward, is referred to by his Roman name “Paul.” Countering the opposition of Elymas, Paul, filled with holy spirit, focused his attention on him and said, “O [you], full of all deceit and all chicanery, son of the devil, enemy of all uprightness, will you not cease from making the straight ways of the Lord crooked?” With these severe words, Paul identified Elymas as an unscrupulous fraud in the service of the devil and an enemy to everything that is right. By his opposition to the message Paul and Barnabas proclaimed, the very message that God had commissioned them to make known, Elymas identified himself as one who represented the ways of the Lord as being, not straight, but “crooked” and to be rejected as undeserving of attention. In this case, the “ways of the Lord” could refer to what is required of one to be a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. In view of the earlier reference to the “word of God,” however, it appears more likely that the reference is to the Father and, therefore, to God’s ways or requirements for his approval, which included putting faith in his Son. (13:9, 10)
Paul then backed up his words with a pronouncement of judgment, telling Elymas that the “hand of the Lord” (God’s hand) would be directed against him. He would become temporarily blind, not being able to “see the sun for a time.” Just as Elymas had chosen to remain in spiritual darkness, he would experience literal darkness, unable to perceive any light from the sun. At once, “mist and darkness” (that is, a dark mist) came upon him, requiring him to seek persons who could lead him by the hand where he needed to go. (13:11)
Witnessing what had happened, a development that confirmed that Paul and Barnabas truly proclaimed God’s word, Sergius Paulus became a believer. He was astonished by “the teaching of the Lord.” Whereas the miracle provided corroborating evidence that Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the truth, it was the “teaching of the Lord” (the message itself) that led Sergius Paulus to believe. The reference to the “teaching of the Lord” could mean the teaching that had Lord Jesus Christ as its focus. Another possibility is that Sergius Paulus was amazed at what the Lord Jesus Christ or his Father was teaching him through Paul and Barnabas. (13:12)
Paul, with Barnabas and Mark (literally “the ones about Paul”), sailed from Paphos to the southern coast of Asia Minor. Their intended destination must have been Perga in Pamphylia, a small Roman province bordered by Lycia on the west and Galatia on the north. The city itself was not a seaport on the coast. Therefore, they must first have arrived at the nearby seaport of Attalia. According to Strabo (Geography, 14.4.2), it was possible to sail up the Cestrus (Aksu) River to Perga (Perge), but whether the vessel on which Paul and his companions were sailing was of a size that could navigate the river cannot be determined from the account. John (Mark) did not continue traveling with Paul and Barnabas, but returned to Jerusalem, doubtless to the home of his mother Mary. When he withdrew from them, he probably boarded a ship at Attalia and possibly sailed to Caesarea, making his way back to Jerusalem from there. The reason for Mark’s departure is not mentioned in the account, but the later argument between Paul and Barnabas about again having Mark accompany them suggests that Paul did not regard his leaving to have been justified. (13:13; see http://www.visualbiblealive.com/religiouspictures/Perga+%28Turkey%29.html for pictures of and comments about Perga. Also see the Notes section.)
“They,” that is, Paul and Barnabas continued traveling northward. The journey would have taken them up steep slopes in rugged mountainous terrain, over narrow, rocky paths, and through forests, until finally arriving at Antioch of Pisidia, which at its highest point lies well over 1,200 meters (over 4,000 feet) above sea level. The actual distance they traveled would have been considerably more than the some 100 miles (over 160 kilometers) between Perga and Antioch. Located on the border of Phrygia and Pisidia, Antioch anciently was also identified with Phrygia. This may explain why Strabo, in his Geography (12.8.14), referred to Antioch (Antiocheia) as being “toward Pisidia.” (13:14; see http://bibleplaces.com/pantioch.htm for pictures of and comments about Antioch.
“On the sabbath day,” Paul and Barnabas went to the synagogue, seating themselves among those who had assembled to hear the reading of the holy writings. (13:14) Both men would have been clearly identifiable as fellow Jews (and not as possibly being visiting “God-fearers”). They would have continued to adhere to the requirements of the law regarding dress and grooming. (Leviticus 19:27; 21:5; Numbers 15:38-41; Deuteronomy 22:12) Men serving in official capacity at the synagogue noticed Paul and Barnabas as visitors. So, “after the reading of the law and the prophets” had been completed, these officials invited them as “brothers” (fellow Jews) to speak if they had a “word” or message of “encouragement,” “exhortation,” or “comfort” for the assembled people. (13:15)
Paul responded to the invitation. After standing up, he motioned with his hand, evidently thus gesturing for silence and attention, and then began to speak, “Men, Israelites, and you who fear God, listen.” The God-fearing non-Jews would have been recognizable, for they would not have been groomed and attired as were the Jews. Although Paul directed his words to both groups, his presentation consisted of a historical development similar to Stephen’s defense and focused on the people of Israel. (13:16)
“The God of this people Israel chose our fathers.” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” were the “fathers” or forefathers with whom God dealt in a special way and through whose line of descent the Messiah or Christ was destined to come, with resultant blessings for people of all nations who responded in faith to him. God called Abram (Abraham) from Ur of the Chaldeans, chose Isaac instead of Ishmael (Abraham’s son by Hagar), and Jacocb instead of his twin brother Esau. During the time they resided as resident aliens in the land of Egypt, “he exalted the people,” making it possible for them to increase in numbers to such an extent that the Egyptian monarch came to view them as a potential threat. (Exodus 1:7-10) “With a high arm,” God led the Israelites out of Egypt. The “high arm” represents the great power that is revealed when the arm is raised high in order to strike. Ten devastating plagues made God’s power manifest, forcing the release of the Israelites from Egyptian enslavement. (13:17; Exodus 6:6; Deuteronomy 4:34; 5:15; 9:26, 29)
During their some 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, the Israelites often complained and disregarded God’s ways. Therefore, Paul referred to God as putting up with their wayward conduct for about 40 years. Despite their serious failings, he continued to show mercy, grant forgiveness, provide food and water for them, and to make it possible for their clothing not to wear out. (13:18; Deuteronomy 1:19-44; 2:7; 8:2-4; 9:8-29; see the Notes section.)
YHWH promised to give the land of Canaan to the Israelites and enabled them to take possession of it by conquering the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Paul represented God (evidently by reason of the assistance granted to the Israelites) as the one who overthrew these “seven nations” and then who gave the land as an inheritance to his people. (13:19; Deuteronomy 7:1)
The position in which the reference to the period of “about 450 years” appears in the Greek text affects the meaning of the verse. According to the oldest extant manuscripts, about 450 years preceded the time the “judges” figured prominently in the affairs of the Israelites. This manuscript reading could be understood to include the 400 years of affliction that started when the half Egyptian Ishmael mocked Isaac at the time of his being weaned and ended with the liberation from Egyptian enslavement), the some 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, and about 10 years occupied by the conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. (7:6; see the comments on this verse regarding the 400 years.) Other possibilities are to start the count of the 450 years from the time God directed his call to Abram (Abraham), or from the time God chose Isaac instead of Ishmael. (13:20)
Certain manuscripts indicate that the some 450 years followed the conquest of Canaan. This is the reading of the New King James Version, “After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.” (13:20; see the Notes section.)
In the time of Samuel, the Israelites “asked for a king,” and God gave them “Saul, son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, [for] 40 years.” Because of having been divinely designated as the one whom the prophet Samuel was to anoint as king, Saul could rightly be identified as the monarch whom God “gave” to the people. (13:21; 1 Samuel 9:15-17)
The length of Saul’s reign is given as “40 years.” In the extant Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 13:1, there is a reference to his ruling “two years over Israel.” This text, however, appears to be poorly preserved, as the age at which he began to rule is missing. There is no corresponding verse in the best extant manuscripts of the Septuagint. Josephus, in Antiquities (X, viii, 4), indicates that Saul ruled 20 years. In an earlier part of his Antiquities (VI, xiv, 9), however, he says that Saul reigned for 18 years during the lifetime of Samuel and an additional 22 years (“two and twenty” [dýo kaí eíkosi]) after Samuel’s death. The Latin text of Josephus, though mentioning 18 years, only assigns two more years to Saul’s reign. (13:21)
God rejected Saul for his unfaithfulness, his failure to be obedient. Ultimately, he was removed as king when divine rejection reached its culmination point at the time of his death. (13:22; 1 Chronicles 10:13, 14)
After removing Saul, God “raised up David” to be king over the Israelites, testifying regarding him, “I have found David the son of Jesse, a man according to my heart, who will carry out all my will.” When the prophet Samuel announced the divine judgment against Saul for disobedience, he declared that YHWH would seek out a “man according to his heart.” (1 Samuel [1 Kings] 13:14, LXX) In being “according to,” or after God's own heart, he would be one devoted to him and, unlike Saul, not disobedient. The divine testimony preserved in the Scriptures regarding David is that, despite personal failings, he remained devoted to YHWH and kept his commands. (1 Kings 11:33, 38; 14:8; 15:5) In the Greek text, the word rendered “will” (thélema) is plural, indicating that all of the divine requirements would be involved. (13:22)
From the “seed,” or the posterity, of David, God promised to raise up a savior for Israel. Paul identified Jesus as this promised savior. In this capacity, Jesus is the one through whom forgiveness of sins is made possible. All who put faith in him and what his sacrificial death accomplished for them are saved or delivered from the condemnation to which sin leads. (13:23)
Before Jesus made his entrance on the scene as the promised Messiah, John had started to proclaim a “baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.” Immersion in water was the outward expression of their having repented of their sins, which act served to prepare them for the arrival of Jesus as the Messiah or Christ who was to come. (13:24)
“As John was fulfilling his course” in preparation for the coming of the promised one, he would ask the people as to who they thought he was. He would then tell them, “I am not [the one],” adding that he would not even be worthy to untie the sandals on the feet of the coming one. This indicated that the one for whom John was preparing the way, the Messiah or Christ, possessed such greatness that he would not even deserve to perform the lowliest task, one which slaves commonly rendered. (13:25)
Focusing the attention of those assembled on what had personally been made available to them, Paul continued, “Men, brothers, sons of the line of Abraham, and the God-fearers among you, the word of this salvation has been sent forth to us [‘you,’ according to other manuscripts].” Both his Jewish brothers, the “sons” or descendants of Abraham, and the God-fearing non-Jews could avail themselves of the salvation or the deliverance from the condemnation to which sin leads. The “word” or message that was being proclaimed to them would show them how they could attain this salvation through Jesus Christ. (13:26)
“The inhabitants of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize him.” They failed to recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ. Every Sabbath, the words of the prophets were read, and their words provided indications regarding the coming of the Messiah and his activity. Based on the words of the prophets, the leaders of the nation and other inhabitants of Jerusalem should have been able to identify Jesus as the one who was destined to come, but, as Paul continued, they condemned him, fulfilling the things the prophets spoke. It had been foretold that the Messiah would serve as a sin bearer, and this meant that he would suffer and be put to death. Therefore, when abusing and condemning Jesus, the members of the Jewish high court fulfilled the prophetic words. (13:27; Isaiah 11:1-3; 52:13-53:12; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 12:10-13:1)
When Jesus appeared before the members of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish high court), witnesses presented false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree. (Matthew 26:59-63; Mark 14:55-61) So, as Paul said, “they” (inhabitants of Jerusalem, particularly the elders, scribes, and chief priests, or the members of the Sanhedrin) found no legitimate cause for condemning him to death, for they did not have the required witnesses for doing so. Nevertheless, they requested Pilate to have Jesus executed. (13:28)
After everything the prophets had written about the Messiah (that he would be mistreated, condemned, and killed) had been carried out, he was taken down from the “timber” (xýlon, “wood” or “tree”) to which he had been nailed and laid in a tomb, “but God raised him from the dead.” Whereas humans brought about his death, God restored him to life, thus revealing that he fully approved of him. (13:29, 30; see the Notes section regarding verse 29.)
After his resurrection from the dead, Jesus appeared to those who had accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem. These were his apostles and other disciples, and all the faithful followers of Jesus served as “his witnesses to the people,” making known to the people of Israel and the people of other nations that Jesus is the Christ whom his Father raised from the dead. (13:31)
Using the editorial “we,” or including Barnabas, Paul continued, “And we are declaring the good news to you that the promise to our fathers [ancestors] has been actualized, that God has fulfilled this [promise] for us, [their] children, [when] resurrecting Jesus, as it also has been written in the second psalm, ‘You are my son; I, this day, have begotten you.’” (13:32, 33)
The promise to the Israelite forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though including reference to inheriting the land of Canaan, focused on the “seed” or the descendant to come, with resultant blessing to people of all nations. (Genesis 17:15-21; 22:15-18; 26:3-5; 35:9-12; 46:3, 4) In view of the earlier mention of David, he also may be regarded as one of the forefathers. To him the divine promise was given through the prophet Nathan that his line of descent would continue, and other prophets pointed to a future anointed one (Messiah or Christ), speaking of him as “David.” (Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 37:24, 25; Hosea 3:5) The promise respecting the “seed” had become a reality, for Jesus proved to be this “seed” in the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. For blessing to come through Jesus as the promised “seed,” he needed to be alive and active. Accordingly, when his Father raised him from the dead, he fulfilled the promise to those whom he acknowledged as his children (persons who became reconciled to him on the basis of their faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death for them). (13:32, 33)
To support his point about the resurrection of Jesus, Paul quoted from the second psalm (verse 7). His quotation is the same as the wording of Psalm 2:7 in the Septuagint. Jesus’ resurrection undeniably established his identity as the unique Son of God, with his Father having been his life-giver, “begetting” or “fathering” him by restoring him to life. Through his resurrection, Jesus was restored to full sonship with all the rights and privileges associated therewith. This included his being granted all authority in heaven and on earth as the King of kings and Lord of lords. (13:33; see the Notes section.)
With quotations from the sacred writings, Paul made the point that the resurrected Son would not “return to corruption,” never again being mortal as he had been as a human on earth. “I [YHWH] will give you the trustworthy holy things of David.” This quotation includes words found at Isaiah 55:3 in the Septuagint, and “the holy things” seemingly relate to the covenant promises to David respecting the continuance of his royal line of descent and the benefits that would result therefrom. These “holy things” are designated as “trustworthy” (pistós) or dependable and thus of an enduring nature. With the sacred things being bound up with the royal descendant of David, this one (the Messiah or Christ) would not return to corruption or to the mortal state of all his predecessors who ruled as kings. For the “holy things” to be assured and to be “given” to members of the human family would mean that these benefits from the rule of the future David, the Messiah or Christ (David’s permanent heir) cannot end and that he must continue to live, requiring that he be incorruptible and immortal. (13:34)
The quotation from the prophet Isaiah is followed up with one from Psalm 16:10 (15:10, LXX), “You will not permit [literally, ‘give’] your holy one to see corruption.” (13:35) “David,” Paul explained, “served God’s purpose in his own generation,” or functioned among his contemporaries as the divinely appointed king, died (literally, “fell asleep”), “was added to his fathers” (joined his forefathers in the realm of the dead or was buried with them) and “saw corruption,” for he did not rise from the dead but his body decayed after being placed in a tomb. (13:36) Jesus, “the one whom God raised” from the dead, however, did not remain in the tomb and undergo the process of decay. (13:37)
Addressing those assembled as “men, brothers,” Paul acknowledged them, both Jews and God-fearers, as being in a brotherly relationship with him by reason of their common belief in the one true God. He wanted them to “know” or recognize that the one whom God raised from the dead, Jesus, is the one through whom forgiveness of sins has been made possible. This message about forgiveness of sins through the risen Jesus Christ is what Paul was then proclaiming. (13:38) “From everything the law of Moses could not justify” them, or make them right or acceptable before God, “everyone who believes in [Jesus] is justified.” The law set forth requirements, and a failure to live up to these requirements resulted in condemnation. Faith in Jesus as the one through whom forgiveness of sins is possible, however, results in delivering the individual from the condemnation to which transgression of the law leads. (13:39)
Admonishing the listeners to guard against a failure to believe, Paul urged them to watch out lest what the prophets said might befall them. (13:40) He then quoted the basic thought from Habakkuk 1:5 (LXX), “Look, O scoffers, and wonder and perish, for I am working a work in your days, a work that you would not believe if someone would tell [about it] to you.” The Greek word rendered “perish” (aphanízo) literally signifies “to make invisible” and as a passive verb “to vanish” or “to disappear.” Scoffing at the prophetic word instead of heeding it would result in great loss. One would vanish or perish. Therefore, refusing to believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, would mean to remain under the condemnation to which sin leads, ultimately resulting in vanishing or perishing. (13:41; see the Notes section.)
Now when Paul and Barnabas were leaving, they were entreated to return on the following Sabbath to speak further about the subject. (13:42) Many of those who had assembled, both Jews and devout proselytes (converts from among non-Jews) followed Paul and Barnabas, who then continued to speak to them, urging them to remain in God’s favor. The favorable response of these Jews and proselytes meant that they had availed themselves of the favor of God as it related to his Son and the forgiveness of sins made possible through him. This is the divine favor in which they were to continue, not departing from the course upon which they had embarked. (13:43)
The Jews, proselytes, and God-fearers who had responded favorably to the words of Paul and wanted to hear more must have shared what they learned with others. So many came to the synagogue the next Sabbath that it appeared as though the whole city had assembled “to hear the word of the Lord [‘of God,’ according to other manuscripts].” This was the “word” or message about Jesus Christ that God wanted to have proclaimed. (13:44)
“When the [unbelieving] Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy.” Their purpose had been to gain converts from among the non-Jews, and they appear to have perceived that the message Paul proclaimed did not further their objective. As a result, they started to contradict his words and blasphemed or spoke abusively about the things he said. (13:45)
Faced with opposition from the Jews who did not believe, Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, telling them that the “word of God” (the message about his Son that God purposed to have made known) first had to be spoken to them. As God’s covenant people, they were extended the favor of being the first ones to hear the message. (13:46)
They, however, rejected the message, and so Paul and Barnabas told them that they had judged themselves as not being worthy of eternal life, the real life of an enduring relationship with God as his approved children. Although expressed in ironic terms, the words of Paul and Barnabas reflected the truth in a forceful manner. The Jews who rejected the opportunity for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God through his resurrected Son looked upon it as something they could not accept and treated it with disdain. When individuals do not consider themselves as deserving, they often rationalize that they did not really want what they could not have. In attitude, the unbelieving Jews did the same thing and so demonstrated themselves to be persons who had judged themselves as individuals not deserving of eternal life. In view of their rejection, Paul and Barnabas said that they would be turning their attention to the “nations,” the non-Jews. (13:46)
They quoted from Isaiah 49:6 (LXX) to indicate that they acted in harmony with what the Lord had commanded them, “I have set you as a light to the nations to be for salvation to the end of the earth.” Paul and Barnabas had been divinely commissioned to proclaim the message about God’s Son. They functioned as a light that God had appointed for bringing enlightenment to non-Jews. These non-Jews or people of the nations had been in darkness because of having no knowledge about God and his promises, and he purposed that illumination would reach the most distant part of the earth. Through human agencies (as were Paul and Barnabas), the message of salvation would be made known. They would be ones who would proclaim how deliverance from sin and the condemnation to which it leads could be attained through the risen Lord Jesus Christ. In this way, Paul and Barnabas served as God’s light for salvation. (13:47)
When the non-Jews (literally, “nations”) heard this, “they rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord [‘of God,’ according to the reading of other manuscripts].” Their glorifying the “word of the Lord” or the “word of God” may be understood to mean that they praised, or voiced their deep appreciation for, the message that revealed to them how they could come to be divinely approved by faith in Jesus Christ and the surrender of his life for them. The non-Jews who had “been designated for eternal life believed.” Their being “designated,” appointed, or destined for the real life of an enduring relationship with God through Christ may be understood to mean that God had purposed for them to be extended the opportunity to be reconciled to him. As such divinely designated ones for whom eternal life or the real life was in prospect, they believed. (13:48; see the Notes section.)
From then onward, “the word of the Lord” (“of God,” according to the reading of other manuscripts) spread beyond Antioch throughout the whole surrounding region of Asia Minor. This “word” or message was the good news about Jesus Christ and what his Father had done through him. (13:49)
The unbelieving Jews succeeded in inciting prominent devout women and influential men [literally, “the first”] against Paul and Barnabas, leading to an outbreak of persecution and their forced expulsion from the district of Antioch. The prominent women likely were non-Jews who had come to be believers in the one true God and who regularly assembled with the Jews on the Sabbath. Their husbands doubtless were the influential men whom they persuaded to take action against Paul and Barnabas. (13:50; see the Notes section.)
After their ouster from the city, Paul and Barnabas shook the dust of their feet against the hostile inhabitants of Antioch and headed for Iconium, located about 75 miles (c. 120 kilometers) to the east. Shaking the dust off their feet served as a testimony against the unresponsive ones. On the future day of judgment, the dust would testify against them as having been persons who rejected the message that had been proclaimed to them, refused to repent, and turned their backs on the opportunity to come into possession of eternal life. (13:51; Matthew 10:14, 15; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5)
According to ancient Jewish sources, dust from outside the land of Israel defiled by one’s carrying or touching it. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas shook the dust off their feet, they could also have been indicating that the rejection of the message revealed that the people had chosen to remain impure and did not want a relationship with God. Paul and Barnabas were leaving the hostile inhabitants behind as persons with whom they would have no further contact, taking nothing of theirs with them, not even the dust on their sandals. (13:51)
The “disciples” who were filled with “joy and holy” spirit” could either be Paul and Barnabas or the believers in Antioch. Despite having been expelled from the city, Paul and Barnabas would still have been able to rejoice because of their having shared in the advancement of the good news about the Lord Jesus Christ, and God’s spirit would have continued to operate fully on and through them. All who had become believers would have been able to rejoice in the blessings they had come to have as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ and the aid and guidance made available to them through God’s spirit. (13:52)
Notes:
In verse 1, numerous manuscripts include the word tines (“some” or “certain ones”), suggesting that the five men who are named were not the only prophets and teachers in the Antioch congregation.
As an explanation for the efforts of Elymas to turn Sergius Paulus away from paying attention to Paul and Barnabas, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds (in verse 8) that Sergius Paulus “listened to them gladly” or with great pleasure.
The opening verb in the Greek text of verse 13 is a form of anágo, which literally means “to bring up” or “to lead up.” As a nautical expression, the term may be understood to signify “to begin going by boat” or “to set out to sea.”
In verse 18, a number of manuscripts say that God “cared for them” (not “put up with them”).
It appears that understanding the some 450 years (verse 20) to apply to the period of the judges can be supported with the chronological references Josephus provided. In Antiquities (VIII, iii, 1), he wrote that Solomon built the temple in the fourth year of his reign and 592 years after the exodus from Egypt. With about 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, 40 years for Saul’s reign (13:21), about 40 years for David’s rule (2 Samuel 5:5), and not quite four full years for Solomon’s reign being subtracted from the 592 years, this would leave approximately 468 years or about 450 years (when excluding the number of years occupied in the conquest of Canaan under the command of Joshua) for the period of the judges until Samuel anointed Saul as king. While the Masoretic Text (in 1 Kings 6:1) says that Solomon began building the temple in the 480th year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, the passage in the Septuagint says that it was in the 440th year. So neither the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 6:1 nor the corresponding Greek text in 3 Kings 6:1 would support a period of about 450 years for the time of the judges.
In verse 29, the third person plural verbs (their taking him down and laying him in a tomb) are used in a generic sense. Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, and he and Nicodemus shared in preparing it for burial and laying it in a tomb. (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-41)
In verse 33, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) includes the words of verse 8 of Psalm 2 as part of the quotation, which verse invites the “son” to ask of God and that, in response to his request, he would be given the nations as his inheritance and the “ends of the earth” as his possession.
The quotation in verse 41 differs slightly from the reading of Habakkuk 1:5 in the Septuagint. “Look, O scoffers, and see, and be astounded [about] astounding things, and perish, for I am working a work in your days that you would not believe if someone should tell [about it].” The Hebrew text does not mention scoffers and includes no comment about “perishing” or, literally, “vanishing.” It appears that the Septuagint translator considered the Hebrew letter beth (B) to be part of the word for “scoffers” (not as a preposition meaning “among”) and read the waw (W) as daleth (D), accounting for the rendering “scoffers.” The Hebrew text says, “Look among the nations and see, and be astounded, [yes,] be astounded, for a work [is] working in your days [that] you would not believe should [someone] tell [about it].”
In verse 48, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) says, “received the word” (not “glorified the word”). Other manuscripts omit “the word,” only mentioning that they “glorifed God.” Another reading found in a number of manuscripts is that they “glorified God and believed the word of the Lord.”
According to the expanded text of Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) of verse 50, they stirred up “great distress and persecution.”
In Iconium, Paul and Barnabas entered the Jewish synagogue and spoke both to Jews and Greeks (Hellenists), and many of them became believers. (14:1) The Jews who refused to believe stirred up and exerted a baneful influence on the non-Jews (literally “souls of the nations”), inciting them “against the brothers.” In this case, the “brothers” (if not including all of the disciples in the city) would be Paul and Barnabas, who were “brothers” to all believers in Iconium who had become fellow children in God’s family. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) is specific in identifying the synagogue leaders and rulers as responsible for the “persecution against the righteous,” and adds, “but the Lord [either the Lord Jesus Christ or his Father] quickly gave them peace.” This suggests that the initial efforts of the hostile leaders of the Jewish community had limited success, providing opportunity for Paul and Barnabas to continue their proclamation of the message about Jesus Christ without interference. (14:2)
Despite those who opposed them, Paul and Barnabas remained in Iconium for quite some time, “boldly speaking about [epí] the Lord.” Because the context is not specific enough to limit the meaning of the Greek preposition epí, translations vary in their renderings (“speaking boldly in reliance upon the Lord” [Wuest]; “speaking boldly for the Lord” [NRSV]; “having faith in the Lord and bravely speaking his message” [CEV]; “preaching fearlessly in the Lord” [NJB]; “speaking boldly about the Lord” [GNT]). To retain the basic meaning of epí (“on” or “upon”), words such as “in reliance” or “in dependence” have to be supplied. (14:3)
The Lord Jesus Christ backed the fearless proclamation of Paul and Barnabas by performing “signs and wonders through their hands.” These “signs and wonders” could have included restoring sight to the blind, making the lame whole, and curing all kinds of diseases. In this way, the Lord Jesus Christ “bore witness to the word of his favor” through them as his agents, confirming the trustworthiness of the “word.” This “word” or message is what Paul and Barnabas proclaimed, making known to others how divine favor had been made possible through the Lord Jesus Christ and how they could become recipients of this favor (forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God) by putting faith in him and accepting his sacrificial death for them. (14:3)
The agitation of the unbelieving Jews caused the multitude in Iconium to become divided, with some siding with the Jews and others siding with the “apostles,” Paul and Barnabas. While Paul had been specifically chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ to be an apostle (“sent forth one”) to the nations, Barnabas was an apostle from the standpoint of his having been sent out first by the community of believers in Jerusalem and then, with Paul, by the congregation in Syrian Antioch. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds that those who stuck with the apostles did so “because of the word of God.” (14:4)
It appears that a second attempt was made to incite opposition against Paul and Barnabas. Certain Jews and non-Jews, “with the leaders” or “rulers” in the city, determined to take hostile action, intending to treat Paul and Barnabas outrageously and to stone them. (14:5)
Upon coming to know about this development, they fled to Lystra and Derbe, “cities of Lycaonia,” and to the surrounding country. (14:6; see http://bibleplaces.com/derbelystra.htm for pictures of and information about Lystra and Derbe. Also see the Notes section.) Wherever they went, Paul and Barnabas continued to make known the good news about the Lord Jesus Christ. (14:7; see the Notes section.)
This part of the narrative (verses 6 and 7) is a summary statement about the cities and the area where Paul and Barnabas proclaimed the good news after they fled from Iconium. In the course of its history, Lycaonia did not always have the same boundaries. It was a region in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia in Asia Minor, with Cappadocia on the east, Pisidia and Phrygia on the west, and Cilicia on the south. Lystra, the first city to which Paul and Barnabas fled, lay about 20 miles (over 30 kilometers) southwest of Iconium (Konya). (14:6, 7)
Among those hearing the words of Paul in the city of Lystra was a man who did not have the use of his feet. He had been lame from birth and so had never walked. Just exactly where this man was sitting is not mentioned in the account. It is likely that he had been carried to a location where there would be considerable traffic, providing him with opportunities to beg for aid. Based on verse 13, the location could have been near the city gates. (14:8)
The lame man listened to the message, and his attentiveness and reaction appear to have revealed to Paul that he had “faith to be saved.” This would have been the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that he could be made whole physically. (14:9) Therefore, with a loud voice, Paul said to him, “Stand up straight on your feet!” The man “jumped up and started to walk about.” (14:10)
Upon witnessing the astonishing miraculous cure, the people imagined that Paul and Barnabas were gods. In the Lycaonian language, they cried out loudly, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” In the first century, mythological accounts existed about gods appearing in human form. For example, the Roman poet Ovid (born in 43 BCE), in Book VIII of The Metamorphoses, relates a myth regarding Jupiter (Zeus) and Mercury (Hermes) disguising themselves as mortals and not being received hospitably by anyone other than a poor couple (Philemon and Baucis) living in a humble cottage. In view of the existence of such myths, it is not surprising that the people of Lystra considered Paul and Barnabas to be gods. (14:11)
They called Barnabas Zeus, the principal god in the Greek pantheon, and they identified Paul as Hermes, the messenger of the gods. This is because Paul was the one who did most of the speaking. Inscriptions that were discovered in the neighborhood of Lystra make mention of both Zeus and Hermes. (14:12)
News about the miraculous cure must have spread quickly. The priest of Zeus appears to have served at a temple outside the city, and he brought “bulls and garlands to the gates,” either those of Lystra or those of the temple precincts. With the crowds that accompanied him, he intended to offer the bulls as sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas. The garlands or wreaths would have been used for decoration around the necks of the animals. (14:13)
Upon hearing about this development, “the apostles Barnabas and Paul” were horrified. In tangible expression of their intense feelings about what to them amounted to blasphemy, “they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd,” shouting (14:14; see the Notes section), “Men, why are you doing this? We [‘also,’ not in all manuscripts] are men like you, and we are declaring the good news to you that you should turn away from these futile things to the living God.” (14:15)
The reference to the only true God as “the living God” served to emphasize the utter futility or emptiness of venerating lifeless images of deities. Paul and Barnabas were not gods but mere humans, mortals, just like the people of Lystra were. The “living God” was the Creator, “the one who made the heaven [the celestial vault] and the earth and the sea, and all the things in them.” With this expression, which incorporates the words found in Exodus 20:11 and Psalm 146(145):6 (LXX), Paul focused the attention on the “living God” to whom the people of Lystra should have turned, for he was the source of everything. (14:15)
A new phase in God’s dealings with humans had begun. In the case of former generations, God “had allowed all the nations to go in their [own] ways.” These ways included the veneration of numerous deities through a variety of rituals. (14:16) Although God permitted the people of the nations to create their own gods and develop rites and ceremonies to honor these deities, he did not leave himself without any testimony that pointed to him. He did not withhold from them what they needed for the continuance and enjoyment of life. Instead, he did good, or continued to allow them to experience good things, granting them “rains from heaven and fruitful seasons.” They benefited from the rains that were essential for the growth of crops, and thus they were able to enjoy bountiful harvests. Their “hearts” came to be filled with “food and gladness.” The word “hearts” may here be used as meaning the individuals. They had been able to eat to satisfaction and this had contributed to their gladness or had cheered them. The good things that had been granted to them should have caused them to consider that the source could not possibly be some deity represented by a lifeless image. (14:17)
Despite having made it unmistakably clear that they were not gods who had appeared in human form, Paul and Barnabas barely succeeded in preventing “the crowds from sacrificing to them.” (14:18) The attitude of the people toward Paul and Barnabas, however, changed quickly when unbelieving Jews arrived from Antioch and Iconium. They had apparently heard about where Paul and Barnabas had gone and decided to put a stop to their activity. Once in Lystra, these hostile Jews succeeded in winning over the crowds. The mob then “stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city.” They appear to have knocked him unconscious but thought that they had killed him. (14:19)
The Greek text can be understood to mean that the hostile Jews who had come from Antioch and Iconium were the ones who stoned Paul. A number of translations can be understood to convey this significance. (14:19) “Then some Jews arrived from Antioch and Iconium and after turning the minds of the people against Paul they stoned him.” (J. B. Phillips) “Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and when they had won over the crowds and stoned Paul, they dragged him out of the city.” (HCSB) “But now a party of Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and, having won over the crowd, they stoned Paul.” (Weymouth) Others have rendered the Greek text to indicate that the hostile Jews incited the people of Lystra to stone Paul. “They turned the minds of the people against Paul and Barnabas and told them to throw stones at Paul.” (NLB)
“When, however, the disciples” (fellow believers) surrounded him, Paul must have become aware of their presence, probably upon hearing their voices. “He stood up and entered the city.” A number of ancient translations indicate that Paul entered the city in the evening under the cover of darkness. The next day he and Barnabas left Lystra and headed for Derbe, well over 50 miles (less than 90 kilometers) to the southeast. (14:20)
In Derbe, their proclaiming the message about Jesus Christ met with good response, and quite a number of persons became disciples. It may have been at this time that Gaius became a believer. (20:4) After a successful stay at Derbe, Paul and Barnabas returned to the cities of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. (14:21; see the Notes section.) They “strengthened the souls of the disciples,” likely doing so with consoling and comforting assurances respecting divine love and care that infused the “souls of the disciples” or the disciples themselves with confidence and hope. Paul and Barnabas encouraged the disciples in these cities to “remain in the faith,” that is, to continue steadfast in their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his devoted followers. When encouraging them, they stressed that it would not be an easy course. Entering “the kingdom of God” would involve experiencing much suffering. The kingdom of God is the realm where he is recognized as Sovereign and rules by means of his Son whom he has constituted King of kings and Lord of lords. Final entrance into this realm takes place when believers are glorified, coming into possession of the sinless state as God’ approved children. While living in a world that is alienated from him, however, they were to expect “many tribulations” or much distress. (14:22)
Paul and Barnabas also appointed elders in the congregations or communities of believers in the three cities. These elders would have been exemplary men who were entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the welfare of fellow believers and providing wholesome teaching to assist all to grow as disciples of Jesus Christ. At the time, Paul and Barnabas prayed and fasted (probably with the objective of being fully receptive to the leading of God’s spirit), and then entrusted the newly appointed elders to the Lord Jesus Christ, the one in whom they had come to believe. They thus committed them to his care and aid. (14:23)
At this point, Paul and Barnabas started their return trip to Syrian Antioch. They traveled southward from Pisidian Antioch through the regions of Pisidia and Pamphylia, doubtless taking the same land route by which they had come when first arriving in Asia Minor from the island of Cyprus. (14:24) In the city of Perga, they made known “the word” (either “the word of the Lord” or “the word of God,” according to other manuscripts). The account does not comment about what resulted from their speaking the “word,” or the message about Jesus Christ. From Perga, Paul and Barnabas went down to the seaport of Attalia. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds that they also proclaimed the good news in that city. (14:25)
From Attalia, Paul and Barnabas set sail for Syrian Antioch, from where they had originally been sent forth after their being set apart for service by God’s spirit. At the time of their commissioning, they had been “commended to the favor of God for the work.” This work they had then completed. The “favor of God” they experienced during the course of their ministry included his aid and guidance. As Seleucia had been the city of departure when they originally sailed to Cyprus, Paul and Barnabas must first have come to this seaport and then headed to Syrian Antioch. (14:26)
Having fulfilled their commission, they assembled the community of believers in Antioch and related to them all that God had done with them, which included his opening to the “nations” [non-Jews] the door of faith.” This “door” may be understood to mean the opportunity for non-Jews to gain entrance into God’s kingdom (the realm where he rules by means of his Son) through faith. The object of this faith is the risen Lord Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with his Father that the surrender of his life made possible. (14:27) For a considerable time thereafter, Paul and Barnabas remained with the disciples in Antioch, continuing to associate with them as fellow believers and members of God’s family of approved children. (14:28)
Notes:
Verse 6 identifies Lystra and Derbe as a cities of Lycaonia, which would indicate that Iconium was not part of Lycaonia. Strabo and Cicero, however, referred to Iconium as a city in that region, and Xenophon mentioned Iconium as a city of Phrygia. These differences appear to reflect the shifting borders of Lycaonia.
In verse 7, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds, “and the whole multitude was moved by the teaching; and Paul and Barnabas stayed in Lystra.”
In verse 14, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) omits “the apostles.”
Among the early disciples in Lystra doubtless were Timothy, his mother Eunice, and his grandmother Lois. (14:21; 16:1, 2; 2 Timothy 1:5; 3:10, 11)
The peace that existed in the congregation of Syrian Antioch, with Jewish and non-Jewish believers associating harmoniously as a family of fellow children of God came to be disrupted when certain Jewish believers “came down from Judea.” They began to teach the “brothers,” fellow believers, that, unless non-Jewish believers got circumcised “according to the custom of Moses,” they could not be “saved.” According to their view, an approved standing with God depended on living as God-fearing Jews and, therefore, faith in Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins made possible through his sacrificial death were not enough to be divinely acceptable. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) expands the text to indicate that they thought non-Jewish believers must be “circumcised and walk according to the custom of Moses.” Certain manuscripts identify the individuals who had come from Judea as Pharisees at the time they became believers. (15:1; see the Notes section.)
Paul and Barnabas fully understood that the contention of these men from Judea was wrong and endeavored to counter the erroneous teaching. This resulted in much debating and disputing. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) represents Paul as the one who disputed with them, saying that he insisted that non-Jewish disciples remain as they were (uncircumcised) at the time they became believers. Despite the debating and disputing, the individuals from Judea apparently did not change their view. Therefore, the decision was reached for Paul, Barnabas, and a number of others to go to Jerusalem, where the matter could then be considered with the apostles and the elders there. (15:2; see the Notes section.)
The community of believers “sent” (propémpo) Paul, Barnabas, and the others on their way, doubtless with what they needed for the trip and also with their prayers and blessing. Propémpo, a form of this Greek word that appears in the text, can mean to escort individuals or to send them on their way, which could include arranging for travel companions and giving them money, food, or other supplies for the journey. Whether the ones who had come from Jerusalem also departed at this time is not apparent from the account. On the way to Jerusalem, especially Paul and Barnabas would have shared the news about the conversion of non-Jews as they traveled through Phoenicia and then Samaria. By taking the coastal route through Phoenicia, they would have bypassed Galilee. Paul and the others must have stayed overnight with believers along the way, and their report about what had happened among non-Jews “brought great joy to all the brothers” (fellow believers). (15:3)
When the group from Antioch arrived in Jerusalem, the apostles, elders, and other members of the congregation welcomed them, and “they,” particularly Paul and Barnabas, related all that “God had done with them.” Thus they attributed to God everything that was accomplished in advancing the good news about Jesus Christ and represented themselves as his instruments. (15:4)
At the time certain ones associated with the Jerusalem congregation became believers, they were Pharisees. These believers stood up to speak and insisted that non-Jews should be circumcised and be commanded “to observe the law of Moses.” (15:5)
During the meeting with the apostles and elders to look into the matter (15:6), much debating occurred. Thereafter Peter stood up and began to speak, “Men, brothers, you know that considerable time ago [literally, ‘from original days’] God chose [me from] among you [to have] the nations [non-Jews] hear the word of the good news through my mouth and to believe. [15:7] And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving [‘them,’ not included in the most ancient extant manuscripts] the holy spirit as [he] also [did] to us. [15:8; see the Notes section.] And he did not distinguish between us and them, [also] purifying their hearts by faith. [15:9] Now, then, why are you testing God, [wanting] to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? [15:10] Rather, through the favor of the Lord Jesus, we believe to be saved, which [is the] manner [in which] they [the non-Jews] also [are to be saved].” (15:11)
Peter, upon being prepared by means of a vision that God dealt impartially with Jews and non-Jews, was chosen from among other believers to declare the good news about Jesus Christ to the Gentile Cornelius, his household, relatives, and close friends, providing them with the opportunity to become believers. (10:9-34; 15:7; see the Notes section.) All those who then listened to Peter received the holy spirit. This became evident when they began speaking in tongues. In granting his spirit to non-Jews just as he had to Jews, God, who knows the “heart” (the inner self), testified that these non-Jews were acceptable to him as they were in their uncircumcised state. (10:44-47; 15:8)
By reason of their faith in Jesus Christ and the surrender of his life for them, God cleansed their “hearts.” This indicated that they were fully purified, with their inner selves and consciences having been cleansed. What God did in their case revealed that he had made no distinction between Jews and non-Jews, for he had purified both peoples on the same basis. (15:9)
Therefore, the imposition of the requirements of the Mosaic law on non-Jews did not accord with the revealed will of God. It would have constituted a “testing” of God, implying that he did not know what he was doing when imparting his spirit to men who were uncircumcised. Furthermore, the Jews themselves, including their “fathers” or ancestors, had been unable to “bear” the yoke of the law, for they had been unable to measure up to its lofty requirements. Accordingly, salvation or deliverance from the consequences to which sin leads is only possible through the “favor of the Lord Jesus.” It is not something that can be attained on the basis of personal merit, for all humans are sinners and incapable of reflecting God’s image in a flawless manner. Both Jews and non-Jews are saved by the “favor” or “kindness” of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins is not earned but bestowed on all who trustingly accept him and his sacrifice for them. During their life on earth, the ultimate salvation or deliverance of believers is future, coming into their possession upon being glorified as sinless children of God. (15:10, 11)
When Peter completed giving his testimony, the assembled multitude became silent. They then listened to Barnabas and Paul tell about the many “signs and portents God did through them among the nations.” Barnabas and Paul did not require non-Jews to be circumcised, and what they related about the miracles that occurred through them among the non-Jews would have revealed to the listeners that they had divine backing and approval for the way in which they carried out their ministry. (15:12; see the Notes section.)
After Paul and Barnabas finished speaking (literally, “became silent”), James added his response to the testimony that had been presented. “Men, brothers, listen to me.” With these opening words he acknowledged fellow believers as his brothers, members of the family of God’s devoted children. James (as in 12:17) was not one of the twelve apostles but the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ. (15:13; Galatians 1:19; 2:9)
Referring to Peter by his original name “Symeon” (Simon), James continued, “Symeon related how God initially concerned himself with taking a people for his name from the nations.” The “name” represents God himself, and so a people for his name would mean a people belonging to God. Cornelius, his household, relatives, and close friends who listened to Symeon’s message about Jesus Christ came to be the first non-Jews who thus came to be God’s own people, just like the Jewish believers were. (15:14)
James recognized that the testimony of Peter agreed with “the words of the prophets.” In this case, “prophets” may be a collective designation applying to the prophetic writings as a whole. (15:15)
James then followed up with a quotation primarily drawn from the book of Amos, “After these things, I will return and rebuild the tent of David, which has collapsed, and the [parts] of it that have been torn down I will rebuild, and I will re-erect it [15:16], that the remnant of the men may seek out the Lord, and [kaí] all the nations upon whom my name has been called [may do so] [15:17], says the Lord who is doing these things known from of old.” (15:18) To a large extent, this quotation follows the wording of Amos 9:11 and 12 in the Septuagint.
After the Babylonian exile, the kingdom in the house of David was not restored, and the royal line sank into obscurity. The royal house or “tent” then proved to be in a state of collapse, and what remained of that house came to be in a low state, comparable to a structure that had been reduced to ruins. The prophetic words, however, gave assurance that the time would come when the royal house of David would again be restored. This occurred when Jesus Christ came to the earth, completed his ministry, and rose from the dead as the King of kings and Lord of lords with full authority over everything in heaven and on earth. (15:16; Matthew 28:18; Revelation 19:16)
“The remnant of the men” could refer to the believing remnant among the Israelites. A footnote in the German Neue Genfer Übersetzung presents this as an alternate meaning of the text by adding “from my people” (aus meinem Volk) after the “remaining humans” (übriggebliebenen Menschen). Along with people of “all the nations” (non-Jews), they would seek the Lord to come into possession of an approved relationship with him. By faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death for them, they would come to be reconciled to God as beloved children. All of this is God’s doing, for he initiated sending his Son to the earth and opening up the means for people everywhere to be forgiven of their sins. (15:17; see the Notes section.) The developments pertaining to Jesus, the coming Messiah or Christ, had centuries previously been revealed through the Hebrew prophets and so were “known from of old.” (15:18)
Based on the testimony that had been presented and the prophetic writings, James expressed his decision that “the nations” (non-Jews) who were turning to God when putting faith in Jesus Christ should not be troubled by requiring circumcision and adherence to the entire law of Moses. (15:19) James, however, proposed writing a letter to non-Jewish believers, telling them to keep away from the defilements of idols, fornication (porneía), meat from animals that had been strangled (pniktós), and from blood. (15:20)
Possibly to indicate the reason for these particular prohibitions, he continued, “For, from generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him in city after city [literally, ‘according to city’], being read aloud in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” This may indicate that, from well-known Mosaic law provisions that applied to resident aliens in Israel, James selected the specific practices that non-Jewish believers needed to avoid. (15:21)
Noninvolvement with “defilements of idols” would mean shunning idolatry, which featured prominently in the life of the non-Jewish populace. Animals were slaughtered at temples and meat from the animals presented as offerings before the images of deities. Thereafter, in the temple precincts, individuals, often family groups and friends, would eat meat from the animals that had been offered as sacrifices. Some of the meat also would be sold and then eaten in homes. In the case of non-Jewish believers, past involvement with the veneration of nonexistent deities could have had the potential of stirring up worshipful feelings when partaking of such meat, which would have been a “pollution” associated with an idol. Such common idolatrous feasting at temples or elsewhere would have been highly offensive to Jews. According to Leviticus 17:7-9, the requirement to shun idolatry in relation to sacrifices applied both to the Israelites and the resident aliens in their midst. (15:20; compare Ezekiel 14:7, 8.)
The Greek term porneía includes all forms of sexual immorality. With the practice of ceremonial prostitution (both male and female) being closely associated with idolatry, porneía was very much a part of the customary routine of life among non-Jews. According to the law, resident aliens in Israel were under strict command to keep free from all sexual sins. (Leviticus 18:6-20, 22-27) A third-century manuscript (P45) does not include the word porneía. Whether this is representative of the original text or an inadvertent or deliberate omission cannot be established, especially since other parts of Acts (15:29 and 21:25) that include it are not preserved in this particular manuscript. (15:20)
Although missing in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), the inclusion of pniktós has weighty manuscript support. This term applies to animals that were killed without having their blood drained. These animals were strangled, suffocated, or choked to death. The law stipulated that resident aliens were not to eat animals that died of themselves or had been killed by predators, which would have been animals from which the blood had not been properly drained. (Leviticus 17:15) Resident aliens were also commanded to drain the blood from any animal that was killed for food. (Leviticus 17:13) Another practice common among non-Jews was to cut flesh from living animals and to eat it raw. This would have been abhorrent to Jews. (15:20)
The command not to consume blood preceded the giving of the law to the Israelites. (Genesis 9:3, 4) That command (represented as having universal application to all nations descended from Noah through Shem, Ham, and Japheth) is also linked to the prohibition against shedding blood or murder. (Genesis 9:5, 6) Among non-Jews in the first century, consuming blood was common. The law given to the Israelites required that they and resident aliens in their midst not eat blood. (15:20; Leviticus 17:10-12)
The apostles and elders, along with the community of believers, agreed with James and decided to select from among them Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas to send with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. (15:22) “Through their hand,” probably meaning that, “by them,” the letter was sent. Some have understood the words “through their hand” to mean that Judas and Silas served as secretaries. That two men would be involved in doing the writing of a short letter, however, appears unlikely. The letter itself is represented as coming from the apostles and elders of the congregation in Jerusalem. (15:23)
The quoted letter reads, “The apostles and elders, brothers, to those in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, to the brothers from the nations. Greetings! [15:23] Since we have heard that some [‘having gone out,’ not in all manuscripts] from among us, to whom we gave no instructions, troubled you with words, upsetting your souls [15:24], it seemed [fitting] to us, having come to be of one mind, to have chosen to send men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul [15:25], men who have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [15:26] Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, and they will relate the same things by word. [15:27] For it seemed [fitting] to the holy spirit and to us not to place a greater burden on you than these essentials: [15:28] to abstain from things offered to idols and from blood and things strangled and fornication [porneía]. If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well. Be well [érrosthe, a form of the verb rhónnymi].” (15:29)
Antioch, situated on the Orontes River, was the capital of the Roman province of Syria. (See http://bibleplaces.com/antiochorontes.htm for pictures of and comments about Antioch.) Cilicia, a district on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor, was situated north and east of the island of Cyprus and north and west of the city of Syrian Antioch. The apostles and elders associated with the congregation in Jerusalem directed their letter to the “brothers” from the nations, or to the non-Jewish disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. (15:23; see the Notes section.)
The Greek term rendered “greetings” (chaírein, a form of chaíro) often appears at the beginning of other ancient letters. This expression, a form of the verb meaning “rejoice” (chaíro), is a greeting that wishes one well. (15:23)
The letter acknowledged that the persons who had gone to Antioch from Jerusalem had been responsible for causing confusion among the non-Jewish believers, unsettling them by insisting that they needed to get circumcised and start observing all the requirements of the Mosaic law to be divinely approved. Yet these individuals had not received any authorization from the apostles and elders for promoting such teaching. (15:24; see the Notes section.)
In the Greek text, the first word of verse 25 is a form of the verb dokéo, which can mean to “suppose,” “think” “believe,” and “seem.” In this context, the meaning could be to “decide” or “resolve” (instead of “seem”). When referring to Barnabas and Paul as “our beloved,” the apostles and elders expressed their deep appreciation for them as devoted servants of the Lord Jesus Christ and dear fellow members of God’s family of children. (15:25)
The “name of our Lord Jesus Christ” means the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the “name” represents the person. Barnabas and Paul had “delivered up” (paradídomi) their “souls” for the Lord Jesus Christ. This could mean that they expended themselves fully for Jesus Christ or in his service, or that they risked their very lives for him. In Iconium, both Paul and Barnabas faced the threat of being killed by having stones hurled at them and escaped by fleeing from the city. In Lystra, Paul was subjected to stoning, dragged outside the city, and left for dead. (14:5, 6, 19; 15:26)
The reason the apostles and elders sent Judas and Silas with Barnabas and Paul was so that they would be able to speak about the very things set forth in the letter. This would have involved more than just repeating the written words. As they must have been present during the deliberation, they could have answered questions and provided specifics about the decision the apostles and elders had reached. They could also have corroborated the report Barnabas and Paul would have made to the Antioch congregation. (15:27)
Emphasizing that the decision about the “burden” or obligation imposed on non-Jewish believers involved more than just an accommodation to Jewish sensibilities, the letter referred to the role of the “holy spirit,” indicating that the apostles and elders had been guided by God’s spirit when considering the matter. God’s spirit was involved in the decision not to require non-Jewish believers to get circumcised and to submit to all the requirements of the Mosaic law. (15:28)
In the quoted letter (15:29), the listing of things from which non-Jewish believers were to abstain is in a different order than in the quoted words of James. (15:20) Instead of “defilements of idols,” the plural form of the Greek term (eidolóthytos) in verse 29 designates something that is presented as an offering to an idol. If the non-Jewish believers kept free from engaging in idolatrous practices, consuming blood and meat from animals that had been strangled (pniktós,), and fornication (porneía,) or from all sexual sins (which were also a prominent feature of idolatrous worship), they would flourish spiritually. (15:29; see the Notes section.)
In the Greco-Roman world, letters often ended with érrosthe, a term that has been translated “farewell” and “goodbye.” Érrosthe may be understood to express a wish of well-being directed to the letter writer’s intended recipients. (15:29)
Upon having been sent on their way and arriving in Antioch, Barnabas, Paul, Judas and Silas had the community of believers (the “multitude”) assemble and “delivered the letter.” Subsequent to the reading of the letter, the recipients “rejoiced over the exhortation” (paráklesis). In this case, the Greek word paráklesis can denote “exhortation” or “encouragement.” The non-Jewish believers would have been delighted to have confirmed to them that they had an approved standing with God in the family of his children and that their salvation, or their deliverance from sin and the condemnation to which it leads, did not depend upon submitting to circumcision and all the requirements of the Mosaic law. (15:30)
Additionally, Judas and Silas, in their role as prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the “brothers” (fellow believers). After identifying Judas and Silas as also having been prophets, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds that they were “filled with holy spirit.” The words of the two prophets doubtless included encouragement to remain devoted to the Lord Jesus Christ and expressions about the certain fulfillment of the hope believers shared. Whatever might have been said that contributed to a greater appreciation for existing and future blessings would have strengthened everyone to continue in conducting themselves uprightly as Jesus Christ’s disciples. (15:32)
After Judas and Silas had spent some time in Antioch, the “brothers” (fellow believers) there sent them away (literally, “released them”) “in peace to those who had sent them” or, according to the reading of certain other manuscripts, “to the apostles.” Their being sent on their way “in peace” may mean with the well wishes and blessing of fellow believers, their “brothers” in the family of God’s beloved children. (15:33)
According to a number of manuscripts, only Judas returned to Jerusalem and Silas decided to remain in Antioch. This is included as verse 34 in the New King James Version. “However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.” Modern translations generally omit the verse, for superior manuscript evidence does not support their inclusion. (15:34)
Paul and Barnabas continued to stay in Antioch. In association with many others, they taught and proclaimed the good news of the “word of the Lord,” the message that focused on the Lord Jesus Christ. This “word” or message would have included the good news about forgiveness of sins on the basis of Christ’s sacrificial death and reconciliation with his Father as his beloved children. The expression “word of the Lord” could either mean the message of the Lord Jesus Christ or that of his Father, which he wanted to have proclaimed about his Son. (15:35)
After the passage of some time (literally, “some days”), Paul suggested to Barnabas that they visit the “brothers” (fellow believers) in the cities where they had previously proclaimed the “word of the Lord” and see how they were faring. The “Lord” is either the Lord Jesus Christ or his Father. While on the island of Cyprus and in Asia Minor at Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Perga, the message Paul and Barnabas had proclaimed was the good news about the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ and that forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with his Father was possible by putting faith in him and accepting the benefits of his sacrificial death for them. (15:36)
Barnabas, like Paul, appears to have desired to visit fellow believers but wanted to have his cousin John (Mark) accompany them. (15:37) Paul, however, felt strongly that Mark should not do so, for he had deserted them when they arrived in Pamphylia (a region on the southern coast of Asia Minor) and “had not gone with them to the work.” This was the “work” of making known the good news about the Lord Jesus Christ. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) identifies it as the “work for which they had been sent.” (15:38)
The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas proved to be intense, resulting in their separating from one another. Barnabas did choose Mark as his companion. The account does not indicate whether Mark had earlier come to Antioch or whether Barnabas sent for him or personally returned to Jerusalem to invite him to accompany him. If the two of them left Antioch together, they would have gone to the seaport of Seleucia, sailing from there to Cyprus. (15:39)
Paul chose Silas as his companion and left Antioch after having “been commended by the brothers to the favor of the Lord” (“God,” according to other manuscripts). Accordingly, Paul would have departed with the prayers and blessing of fellow believers as he set out in promoting the interests of the Lord Jesus Christ. The “favor of the Lord” or “of God” would have included Paul’s being the recipient of divine aid and guidance when carrying out his ministry. (15:40; see the Notes section.)
With Silas, Paul proceeded through Syria, the Roman province of which Antioch was the capital, and then through the region of Cilicia, stopping in the cities where there were congregations and “strengthening” fellow believers there. His objective would have been to build up their faith and to encourage them to remain devoted to the Lord Jesus Christ despite any trials and distress they may have been enduring and would continue to face in the future. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds that he passed on to them “the commands of the elders,” that is, the commands that had been decided upon in Jerusalem. A number of Latin Vulgate manuscripts read, “the commands of the apostles and elders.” (15:41)
Notes:
The reference to “coming down” (verse 1) is to be understood as meaning going down from the area of higher elevation, whereas “going up” (verse 2) denotes traveling to Jerusalem, which city is situated at a much higher elevation.
With seeming reference to the same incident, Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, indicated that he went to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus in response to a revelation. The implication is that, through a divine revelation conveyed to him, the apostle came to know it was right for him to go to Jerusalem, although he did not need the confirmatory response of the apostles and elders there. (Galatians 2:1-9) This puts in doubt the reliability of the added text in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), which (in verse 2) refers to those who came from Judea as ordering Paul, Barnabas, and some others to go up to Jerusalem so as to be judged by the apostles and elders there.
In verse 7, a number of manuscripts indicate that Peter spoke while guided by God’s spirit (“in spirit,” or “in holy spirit”).
In verse 12, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) makes the role of Peter more prominent when adding that the “elders assented” to what he had said.
In verse 17, the Greek word kaí, (“and”) can also mean “even.” So the “remnant of the men” could designate non-Jews, people of the nations. This significance is made explicit in a number of translations (“that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, all the Gentiles whom I have claimed for my own” [REB]; “so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked” [NAB]).
The quoted words of verse 17 read differently in the extant Hebrew text of Amos 9:12. Instead of “the remnant of the men” and “all the nations” upon whom God’s name is called doing the seeking, the Hebrew text refers to the Israelites as coming to possess “the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by [God’s] name.”
It may be that the Hebrew text of Amos from which the Septuagint translator worked did have the spelling of the Hebrew word for “man,” as the term “Edom” and “man” are drawn from the same Hebrew root. Elsewhere in the book of Amos (1:9, 11; 2:1), the Septuagint uses “Idumaea” for “Edom.”
The Greek word ekzetéo basically means to “search out” or “to seek after.” It can, however, also signify to look for something with the objective of obtaining it. An example would be 1 Maccabees 7:12, where the reference is to “seeking rights” (ekzetésai díkaia). Possibly the translator of the Hebrew text had a copy of the book of Amos that read yidreshú (“they may seek”) instead of yiyreshú (“they may possess”), as does the Masoretic Text. The difference in the consonants of both words involves only one letter, which is yod (Y) in the Masoretic Text (the second letter of the consonantal text that is transliterated “y” in yiyreshú). In yidreshú, the second letter of the consonantal text is daleth (D). The letters yod and daleth resemble one another much more in ancient Hebrew script (for example, as contained in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah) than do the modern Hebrew letters and, if not written carefully, could be misread.
The translated Greek text does not depart from the preserved Hebrew text in a way that significantly differs from the basic message. Both the Hebrew and the Greek text of Amos indicate that the Davidic dynasty would be restored. For the Israelites to gain possession of the remnant of Edom and of people of other nations who would be called by God’s name would mean that all these non-Jews would become part of Israel and, therefore, come to be part of God’s people. This would take place after the “tent” of David ceased to be in a state of collapse and ruin.
The initial reference to “brothers” in verse 23 could refer to the “apostles and elders” as “brothers.” “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin.” (NAB) “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” (NRSV) Other manuscripts read, “and the brothers,” which would mean believers in the Jerusalem congregation other than the apostles and elders.
In verse 24, a number of manuscripts add that those who came to Antioch upset believers there by telling them “to be circumcised and to observe the law.”
In verse 29, either the singular form or the plural form of pniktós appears in many manuscripts, but this word is not contained in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis)
For many centuries, Christians regarded the requirements set forth in the letter as binding obligations for non-Jewish believers. They did not consider the commands about not eating blood and meat from strangled animals as temporary regulations to placate Jewish believers. Tertullian, in his Apology (IX, 13, 14) wrote, “Blush for your vile ways before the Christians, who have not even the blood of animals at their meals of simple and natural food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death, for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera. To clench the matter with a single example, you tempt Christians with sausages of blood, just because you are perfectly aware that the thing by which you thus try to get them to transgress they hold unlawful. And how unreasonable it is to believe that those, of whom you are convinced that they regard with horror the idea of tasting the blood of oxen, are eager after blood of men.” Minucius Felix, in his Octavius (XXX, 6) said, “To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.” Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (V, i, 26), wrote about a woman named Biblis who had initially denied Christ but, when again subjected to torture, came to her senses and declared that Christians “are not even allowed to eat the blood of irrational animals.”
The prohibition regarding blood is set forth explicitly in ancient canons. “If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone else on the sacerdotal list at all, eat meat in the blood of its soul, or that has been killed by a wild beast, or that has died a natural death, let him be deposed. For the Law has forbidden this. But if any layman do the same, let him be excommunicated.” (Canon LXIII of the Apostles) “The divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Those therefore who on account of a dainty stomach prepare by any art for food the blood of any animal, and so eat it, we punish suitably. If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off.” (Canon LXVII from the Quinisext Council)
The additional words that constitute verse 34 indicate that Silas was still in Antioch when Paul chose him as his companion after the dispute with Barnabas. (15:40) Without verse 34, the text could mean that Paul sent for Silas, inviting him to join him. The letter to the Galatians contains no indication that Paul returned to Jerusalem in order to invite Silas.
After a stopover at Derbe, Paul and Silas traveled to Lystra. One of the disciples in the community of believers there was Timothy, a young man with a believing Jewish mother but a Greek father. (16:1)
Among the “brothers” (fellow believers) in Lystra and Iconium (the closest city to Lystra with a community of believers), Timothy enjoyed a good reputation. (16:2) Paul wanted Timothy to go with him, apparently to assist him and Silas in the work of making known the message about the Lord Jesus Christ and aiding others to become and remain his devoted disciples. It appears that at this time Paul and the elders from the congregation at Lystra laid their hands on Timothy, designating him for this special service. (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6) Aware that it was commonly known among the Jews in the general area that Timothy had a Jewish mother but a Greek father, Paul circumcised him. By thus upholding the law in the case of someone who had a Jewish heritage on his mother’s side, Paul avoided needless problems with fellow Jews who would have objected to Timothy’s remaining uncircumcised and who would have been less inclined to listen to the good news about Jesus Christ. (16:3)
As they traveled through the various cities in Asia Minor, Paul, with Silas and Timothy as his companions, would deliver the decrees that the apostles and elders in Jerusalem had decided upon. These decrees pertained to the obligation of non-Jewish believers to abstain from what had been offered to idols, from fornication, from meat of animals that had been strangled or not properly bled, and from blood. (15:23-29; 16:4; see the Notes section.) The visit of Paul, Silas and Timothy served to strengthen believers in the faith and also contributed, from day to day, to an increase in the number disciples. (16:5)
The three men passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia in central Asia Minor. West of Galatia lay the Roman province of Asia, but the holy spirit did not permit them to proclaim the “word” or message about Jesus Christ in this province. Through the operation of God’s spirit, Paul likely was the one who received a revelation to this effect. (16:6; see the Notes section.)
Paul, Silas and Timothy took a northern route and came to the border of Mysia in northwest Asia Minor. From there, they considered going eastward to the province of Bithynia, but “the spirit of Jesus” prevented them from doing so. It may be that the “holy spirit” is here called “the spirit of Jesus” because he had received the spirit from his Father to impart to his disciples. (2:33) Again Paul, through the operation of the spirit upon him, may have received a revelation, directing that he and his companions not go to Bithynia. (16:7)
Paul, Silas and Timothy headed west to the seaport of Troas, a city in Mysia. The Greek verb indicating what they did in relation to Mysia is a form of parérchomai, which basically means to “pass by.” In other ancient writings, however, this verb sometimes appears in contexts that indicate the meaning to be “pass through.” The rendering “passing by Mysia” would have to be interpreted to mean that, although going through Mysia to reach Troas, Paul, Silas and Timothy bypassed the region from the standpoint of not declaring the message about Christ there. (16:8)
At night, while in Troas, Paul had a vision, apparently in a dream. He saw a Macedonian man, standing and entreating him with the words, “Come over to Macedonia to help us.” (16:9)
At this point, the narrative changes from “they” to “we,” suggesting that the writer of Acts (Luke) joined Paul, Silas and Timothy. The context, however, provides no indication just how Luke first became associated with the others. Based on the vision, Paul and his companions concluded that God had called them to proclaim the good news to the Macedonians. With what they considered to be clear divine direction, they decided to go to Macedonia, primarily a mountainous region in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula. On the south, Macedonia bordered Achaia (the southern part of modern Greece). (16:10; see the Notes section.)
From Troas, Paul and his companions sailed in a straight course to Samothrace, a mountainous island northwest of Troas. On the following day, they arrived at Neapolis (Nea Polis, meaning “New City”), a seaport in Macedonia that served the city of Philippi. (16:11; see http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/samothr.html and http://bibleplaces.com/nicopolis.htm for pictures of and comments about Samothrace and Nicopolis.)
From Neapolis, Paul and his companions headed to Philippi, a Roman colony located less than ten miles (about 15 kilometers) to the northwest. They would have walked along the Roman road known as Via Egnatia (Egnatian Way). According to what appears to be the best manuscript evidence, Luke referred to Philippi as the “first of the part of Macedonia,” which may identify Philippi as a major city of Macedonia. The Greek text has been variously translated (“a leading city of the district of Macedonia” [NRSV]; “the leading city in that part of Macedonia” [NCV]; “the principal city of that district of Macedonia” [NJB]). After the defeat of the armies of Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus (the conspirators in the assassination of Julius Caesar), Philippi became a Roman colony. Many retired Roman soldiers lived there and, as a Roman colony, Philippi was exempt from paying taxes. (16:12; see http://bibleplaces.com/philippi.htm for pictures of and comments about Philippi.)
Apparently no synagogue existed in Philippi and so Paul and his companions concluded that Jews and proselytes or God-fearing non-Jews might have a customary place for prayer by the river. Therefore, on the Sabbath, they, after having been in Philippi for a short time, left through the city gate and walked to the river, where they found a group of women assembled. They sat down and began to speak to the women, sharing with them the message about the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 16:13)
Lydia, a woman from Thyatira, proved to be especially attentive to Paul’s words. She was a dealer in purple, either the dye or garments and fabrics dyed purple or scarlet. It is likely that the dye originating from Thyatira was derived from the madder root and not a marine mollusk, for the city was located over 40 miles (less than 70 kilometers) from the coast. Lydia appears to have been a businesswoman of some means, having a house large enough to accommodate a number of persons in addition to her own household. (16:14; see http://holylandphotos.org for pictures of and comments about Thyatira.)
As a woman who venerated or worshiped God, she could have been a proselyte, but more likely was a non-Jewish God-fearer. The reason for her attentiveness is attributed to the Lord’s opening her “heart.” In her “heart” or her inmost self, she proved to be receptive to the message Paul proclaimed and responded in faith. The Lord is either the Lord Jesus Christ or his Father. Through the proclamation of the message about him and what he accomplished by surrendering his life, Jesus Christ invites individuals to become his disciples, and God, through his Son, draws persons to himself as members of his beloved family of children. (16:14)
Lydia and her entire household got baptized. As no mention is made of a husband, she must have been either single or a widow, and the household probably included servants. After being baptized, she extended an invitation for Paul and all the others to be her guests, telling them that, if they judged her as being “faithful to the Lord,” they would enter her house and stay. The way in which she expressed her invitation made it impossible for it to be refused. Failing to accept the invitation would have meant that Paul and the others did not accept her as a beloved fellow believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Luke added, “She constrained us.” Her sincere welcome into her home simply had to be accepted. (16:15)
Apparently on another Sabbath, Paul and his companions set out for the “place of prayer” and encountered a slave girl who had a “spirit of Python.” According to Greek mythology, Python (a huge serpent or dragon) guarded the oracle at Delphi, the ancient Greek city on the south slope of Mount Parnassus. Mythology portrays the god Apollo as slaying Python. A person described as having a “spirit of Python” could be one with perceived predictive powers or a ventriloquist. The slave girl’s masters profited much from her divining. (16:16; see the Notes section.)
She followed Paul and the others, shouting, “These men are slaves of God, the Most High, who are declaring to you [‘us,’ according to other manuscripts] the way of salvation.” Non-Jews who heard her would most likely not have taken her words to apply to YHWH but may have thought they referred to Zeus, the supreme deity in the Greek pantheon. The message that Paul and the others proclaimed was the “way of salvation” (that is, deliverance from sin and the condemnation to which sin leads), but the non-Jewish populace who heard the shouts of the slave girl may have thought in terms of deliverance from the wrath of the gods. (16:17; see the Notes section.)
For considerable time (“many days”), she continued to shout out when following Paul and the others. After he could not bear this any longer, Paul turned around and directed his words to the “spirit” (the source of the paranormal manifestation), saying, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out from her.” That “very hour” (or immediately), the spirit left her as became evident from the loss of her predictive ability. Paul’s expressing the order “in the name of Jesus Christ” would have been as one who represented the Lord Jesus Christ and the authority vested in him. (16:18)
Seeing that they could no longer hope to profit from her, the masters of the slave girl were furious. They seized Paul and Silas, forcibly taking them to the authorities in the marketplace (agorá). The agorá functioned as the commercial center and the primary gathering place in a city, and officials handled legal matters there. (16:19) After the slave girl’s masters had dragged Paul and Silas before the magistrates (plural form of strategós), they accused them of being Jews who were stirring up trouble in the city and promoting customs that were unlawful for Romans to adopt and practice. (16:20, 21)
The designation strategós often applied to a military commander or officer. In the Roman colony of Philippi, however, the highest official position was that of a strategós, a “praetor” or “chief magistrate.” The magistrates had the responsibility of maintaining order, handling finances, conducting legal proceedings, and punishing violators of the law. They did not have the authority to execute or to flog Roman citizens. Non-Jews in Philippi would have recognized Paul and Silas as Jews, for they would have been groomed and attired as prescribed in the law of Moses. The manner in which the masters of the slave girl accusingly referred to Paul and Silas as Jews suggests that the non-Jewish populace had significant prejudice and suspicion toward Jews. (16:20)
The accusers proudly distinguished themselves from the Jewish Paul and Silas, identifying themselves as “Romans.” Their claim that it was illegal for Romans to adopt and practice the customs that Paul and Silas promoted doubtless was based on Roman law. In his De legibus (II, viii, 19), Cicero (106-43 BCE) expressed the view that, besides officially recognized gods, no one was to have “new or foreign gods”; privately, they were to worship the gods they had “received from their ancestors.” (16:21)
The accusation of the slave girl’s masters stirred up the crowd in the marketplace against Paul and Silas. Faced with an angry mob, the magistrates had Paul and Silas stripped of their outer garments and subjected to a severe beating with rods. (16:22)
After having thus beaten them many times, they handed Paul and Silas over for imprisonment, charging the jailer to guard them securely. (16:23) He carried out the official order by confining them in the inner part (the most secure location) in the prison and securing their feet to “wood” (xýlon). The Greek term xýlon could refer to stocks or a stake. (16:24) Translations vary in their renderings. “When he received these instructions, he put them in the innermost cell and secured their feet to a stake.” (NAB) “In view of these orders, he put them into the inner prison and secured their feet in the stocks.” (REB) “When he heard this order, he put them far inside the jail and pinned their feet down between large blocks of wood.” (NCV) “He put them deep inside the jail and chained their feet to heavy blocks of wood.” (CEV)
“About midnight,” while Paul and Silas were “praying and singing hymns to God” loud enough for fellow prisoners to hear, a strong earthquake suddenly shook the foundations of the prison, forced all the doors open, and loosed the bonds of the prisoners (probably confining chains that came loose from the prison walls to which they had been attached). (16:25, 26)
The earthquake awoke the jailer. Seeing that the jail was open, he thought the prisoners had escaped and, therefore, was about to kill himself with his sword. To him, death at his own hand would have been preferable to the torture and execution he would face for having allowed the prisoners in his charge to escape. (16:27; see the Notes section.)
From the dark interior, Paul could see the shadowy figure of the jailer near the entrance of the prison and called out to him loudly (literally, with a “great” or “strong voice”), “Do not harm yourself, for all of us are here.” (16:28) The jailer requested “lights” (a torch) and rushed into the prison. Trembling, evidently on account of being overcome with fear, he fell to his knees before Paul and Silas. (16:29)
The jailer then led Paul and Silas out of the prison. According to Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), he secured the other prisoners. To Paul and Silas, he directed the question, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” It is likely the jailer knew something about what Paul and Silas had been proclaiming. He probably regarded the earthquake and what it caused as an expression of divine anger. Because he had personally been responsible for adding to the suffering of Paul and Silas by confining them in the manner that he did, he may have felt that he also had become the object of their God’s wrath. So he may have been asking them how he could be saved from the serious consequences for his actions. (16:30)
The account itself does not reveal the specifics about the reason for the jailer’s question. Nevertheless, what had taken place in the middle of the night must have created an awareness in him that he needed to be delivered from the unfavorable state in which he found himself. (16:30)
In response to his question, they said to him, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (16:31) This, though, was not the extent of the answer, for “they spoke the word of the Lord [‘of God,’ according to other manuscripts] to him” and to “all those in his house.” Paul and Silas would have explained the good news about the Lord Jesus Christ to them. They would have clarified how, through him, persons from all nations could be forgiven of their sins and saved or delivered from the condemnation to which sin leads, coming to be approved children of God. Moreover, they would have discussed repentance and the significance of baptism with them. (16:32)
In that “hour of the night,” the jailer attended to the injuries Paul and Silas had endured from the severe beating, washing the affected areas and likely also applying soothing olive oil. Immediately after he had cared for them, he and all who were part of his household got baptized, possibly in a shallow pool in the courtyard of the house. (16:33)
The jailer had Paul and Silas come into the home and set a table before them. He and his entire household were filled with joy because of their new-found belief in God. Doubtless the jailer would also have been grateful that Paul’s quick intervention had prevented him from committing suicide. (16:34)
After the night had passed, the magistrates sent “constables” (rhabdoúchoi) to tell the jailer, “Release those men.” Most manuscripts do not explain why the magistrates made the decision to release Paul and Silas from prison. The magistrates may have considered the earthquake as an omen that they had acted unjustly, for they were fully aware that they had no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Paul and Silas. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) does have an expanded reading that would support this conclusion. When it became day, the magistrates “assembled in the marketplace. And recalling the earthquake that had occurred, they were afraid.” The Greek designation for the men whom the magistrates sent apparently refers to Roman lictors, officials who served under the direction of the magistrates and who functioned much like policemen. As a symbol of their authority, lictors carried the fasces (an ax surrounded by a bundle of wooden rods, with the ax blade projecting from the side of the tied bundle). Apparently because of their carrying the fasces, these officials were called rhabdoúchoi, meaning “rod bearers.” (16:35)
The jailer reported the words of the constables to Paul, telling him that the magistrates had sent the message that he and Silas be released. Paul and Silas had returned to the prison before the arrival of the constables, as the jailer told them to “come out,” going on their way “in peace.” Their being able to leave “in peace” may mean their departing with the jailer’s good wishes for their well-being. At the time the jailer conveyed the message of the constables to Paul, they had not departed, making it possible for Paul to speak to them directly. He told them, “They flogged us in public, uncondemned [‘innocent,’ according to Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis)], men who are Romans. They cast us into prison, and now they are secretly casting us out? No, indeed! But let them come [personally] and conduct us out.” The magistrates had failed to investigate the accusations against Paul and Silas, acting against them without proper legal proceedings and unlawfully against Roman citizens. Instead of upholding the law, they had yielded to the crowd that had been instigated against Paul and Silas by the complaints of the slave girl’s masters. (16:37)
The constables informed the magistrates about what they had been told. On hearing that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, the magistrates became alarmed. They realized that they could face serious consequences for having trampled on the rights of Roman citizens. (16:38)
As Paul had insisted upon, the magistrates personally came to the prison and “entreated” him and Silas, evidently desiring to placate them to avoid having to face adverse consequences for their illegal actions. They then brought Paul and Silas out of prison and asked them to leave the city. Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds that the magistrates arrived at the prison “with many friends,” acknowledging Paul and Silas to be “upright men” concerning whom they had been ignorant. As to why the magistrates requested them to leave, Codex Bezae indicates that the magistrates wanted to avoid trouble, “lest they [the crowd] assemble against us [the magistrates], crying out against you [Paul and Silas].” (16:39)
Subsequent to their release from prison, Paul and Silas went to the home of Lydia. Other believers besides members of her household appear to have assembled there, likely for mutual encouragement and to pray for Paul and Silas. It must have been a joyous reunion when the two men arrived. Paul and Silas then encouraged the “brothers” (all the fellow believers in Lydia’s home). Likely they talked about why believers could expect persecution and the resultant blessings from faithfully enduring while being sustained with divine help. (16:40; compare 14:21, 22.)
Timothy accompanied Paul and Silas when they departed from Philippi. (16:40; 17:15) Luke, however, seems to have remained there and did not again rejoin Paul (as suggested by the start of the later “we” passages) until the apostle returned to Philippi. Luke then set sail with him to Troas, where Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus were waiting for them. (20:4-6)
Notes:
In verse 4, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds that they proclaimed “the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness.”
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) identifies the “word” (in verse 6) as being the “word of God.”
In verse 10, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) adds the detail that Paul related the vision to the others after he got up in the morning.
The comments about divination (the noun mantiké and the verb form of manteúomai in verse 16) found in Cicero's De legibus (II, xiii, 33) reveal how highly regarded it was for predicting future events. “I think that an art of divination called mantiké by the Greeks, really exists, and that a branch of it is that particular art which deals with the observation of birds and other signs — this branch belonging to our Roman science of augury. For if we admit that gods exist, and that the universe is ruled by their will, that they are mindful of the human race, and that they have the power to give us indications of future events, then I do not see any reason for denying the existence of divination. But these premises are in fact true, so that the conclusion which I desire to draw from them follows as a necessary consequence. Furthermore, the records of our Republic, as well as those of all kingdoms, nations, and races, are full of a multitude of instances of the marvellous confirmation of the predictions of augurs by subsequent events. For Polyidus and Melampus and Mopsus and Amphiaraus and Calchas and Helenus could never have attained such fame, nor could so many nations, such as the Phrygians, Lycaonians, Cilicians and, most of all, the Pisidians have retained their reputation in this art up to the present day [first century BCE], had not antiquity demonstrated its trustworthiness.” (Translated by C. W. Keyes)
The expression “Most High God” (in verse 17) would not have been foreign to polytheists. For example, Cicero (a polytheist) referred to the “supreme god” (supremo deo in De legibus, I, vii, 23).
A few manuscripts (in verse 27) identify the jailer as “the faithful Stephanas.”
From Philippi, Paul, Silas and Timothy traveled southward, passing through the cities of Amphipolis and Apollonia. Amphipolis was situated on a hill by the river Strymon and about 30 miles (c. 50 kilometers) southwest of Philippi. Roughly about the same distance to the southwest of Amphipolis lay Apollonia. Paul and his companions do not appear to have done any preaching in these two cities. They traveled over 35 miles (less than 60 kilometers) to the west, arriving at Thessalonica, in which city the Jews had a synagogue. (17:1; see http://bibleplaces.com/amphipolis.htm and http://bibleplaces.com/thessalonica.htm for pictures of and comments about Amphipolis and Thessalonica.)
As was Paul’s usual custom on the Sabbath, he entered the synagogue. For three Sabbaths he discussed the Scriptures with those who had assembled, “explaining and establishing that Christ had to suffer and to rise from the dead.” Based on the quotations that are found elsewhere in the book of Acts (2:25-28, 34, 35; 8:32-35; 13:33-37), he likely referred to the words of Psalm 2:7; 16:8-11 [15:8-11, LXX]; 110:1 [109:1, LXX], and Isaiah 53:2-12. Based on the holy writings, Paul then identified Jesus as the foretold Messiah or Christ concerning whom he had been speaking to them. (17:2, 3)
Some of the Jews who had listened to Paul were convinced on the basis of the evidence he presented from their holy writings, and they cast in their lot with him and Silas. Many of the Greeks (Hellenists) or non-Jewish God-fearers who assembled with the Jews in the synagogue also became believers. Additionally, “not a few of the prominent women” accepted the good news about Jesus Christ. (17:4; see the Notes section.)
The Jews who refused to believe became “jealous.” Apparently this was because they saw many non-Jews accepting the message that Paul proclaimed. Therefore, contrary to what these Jews would have wanted, the believing non-Jews did not choose to become Jewish proselytes. The jealous Jews became hostile and got some ruffians from among the idlers who were standing or sitting around in the marketplace or public square to join them in stirring up the populace to take mob action against Paul and Silas. Thinking that Paul and Silas would be there, the mob headed for Jason’s house. The intent of the mob was to seize Paul and Silas and to bring them out “to the people,” probably meaning an assembly of citizens for handling public affairs. They forced themselves into Jason’s house. (17:5) Not finding Paul and Silas, “they dragged Jason and some brothers” (believers) out of the house and took them to the city officials (politarchs). An inscription from the second century CE that was found at Thessalonica (Salonika), along with other officials, mentions six “politarchs.” The politarchs functioned as an administrative council in the city. (17:6)
Before the city officials, the mob shouted, “The [men who] have upset the world are now here, whom Jason has taken in. And all of them act in opposition to the decrees of Caesar, claiming someone else, Jesus, to be king.” With this lying fabrication, the mob represented Paul and Silas and other believers as extreme troublemakers who had no regard for law and order and were guilty of sedition by advocating Jesus Christ as a rival king. (17:6, 7) When the crowd and the city officials heard the baseless accusations, they were incited against the believers. To be released, Jason and the other believers had to provide “sufficient security” or post the required bond or bail. It may be that the city officials required Paul and Silas to leave Thessalonica, and that security was taken to assure this condition would be met. (17:8, 9)
Recognizing the danger, the “brothers” (believers) acted without delay. “Immediately by night” and so under the cover of darkness, they sent Paul and Silas to Beroea, a city situated about 40 miles (c. 65 kilometers) southwest of Thessalonica. As apparent from verse 14, Timothy left Thessalonica with Paul and Silas. (17:10)
Evidently on the first Sabbath upon arriving at Beroea, Paul, Silas and Timothy went to the synagogue. (17:10) In disposition, the Jews of Beroea proved to be of a nobler or more favorable disposition than those in Thessalonica. They responded with great readiness to the message about the Lord Jesus Christ. Daily, they checked the sacred writings to see “whether these things were so,” that is, the things being told to them about Jesus. (17:11)
Based on what they heard and their personal examination of the holy writings, many of the Jews became believers. Also among those who embraced the good news about Jesus Christ were “not a few of the prominent [euschemosýne] Greek women and also men. The Greek designation euschemosýne describes a person who enjoys a high standing or a good reputation or who is prominent or noble. According to Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), among the numerous Greeks who became believers were prominent men and women. (17:12)
When hostile Jews in Thessalonica came to know that Paul was proclaiming “the word of God” (the message that focused on the Lord Jesus Christ) also in Beroea, they decided to go there. Upon their arrival, they incited the “crowds,” stirring up the populace of Beroea against Paul. (17:13) The “brothers” (fellow believers) sent Paul off, escorting him as far as the sea, but Silas and Timothy stayed in Beroea. (17:14) The fellow believers who had accompanied Paul from Beroea continued with him all the way to Athens and then returned to Beroea after receiving instructions from Paul to tell Silas and Timothy to join him as quickly as possible. (17:15; see the Notes section.)
This condensed version of developments is somewhat obscure, and it is difficult to determine the exact sequence of events here and in relation to Paul’s letters. Possibly Athens was the intended destination, but Paul and the believers who accompanied him (likely out of concern for his safety) may not have known whether at that particular time they would be able to obtain passage on a ship to Athens. Transportation by sea would have been preferable, for an overland route from Beroea to Athens would have required walking more than 200 miles (well over 300 kilometers). Whether the journey was made by sea or overland, however, cannot be ascertained from the way the account reads in the majority of manuscripts. After the believers who escorted Paul returned to Beroea, Silas and Timothy may then have left for Athens to join Paul. Concerned about what fellow believers in Thessalonica were facing on account of the hostile Jews who had stirred up trouble there and in Beroea, he may then have decided to send Timothy to Thessalonica and Silas to another city in Macedonia. (1 Thessalonians 3:1-3) Then, after Paul left Athens and had begun to proclaim the good news about Jesus Christ in Corinth, Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia. (17:14, 15; 18:5)
While waiting for Timothy and Silas to join him, Paul noticed the many images in the city. The beautifully fashioned representations of the various deities did not arouse in him feelings of admiration for the exceptional artistic skill of the artisans. Recognizing the idols as representations of non-existent gods and goddesses, Paul experienced a disturbing upheaval within himself. “In his spirit” or disposition, he became deeply troubled or irritated. (17:16; see http://bibleplaces.com/athens.htm and http://bibleplaces.com/athensacropolis.htm for information about and pictures of Athens. )
In the synagogue on the Sabbath, he spoke to Jews and God-fearers there, sharing with them the message about the Lord Jesus Christ. At other times, from day to day, he conversed with individuals whom he found in the marketplace. (17:17)
It was there that some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers started to debate with him. Certain ones mocked him, saying, “What is this scrapmonger [spermológos] trying to say?” The Greek expression spermológos literally means “seed picker,” and so these ridiculers were describing Paul as someone who picked up scraps of information from various places and then repeated them in an unsophisticated manner. (17:18; see the Notes section.)
Others expressed the thought that he seemed to be the proclaimer of foreign “divinities” (daimónion). They drew this erroneous conclusion because Paul declared the good news about “Jesus and the resurrection [anástasis].” They appear to have assumed that Jesus was a divinity and Anástasis a female divinity. The Greek word daimónion can designate a “demon” or evil spirit but is not limited to this meaning. In many contexts, the term applies to a divinity or a semi-divine being between humans and gods and goddesses. (17:18)
Paul was taken to the Areopagus. If the Greek preposition epí here has the significance of “on,” then the reference would be to the rocky hill known as the Areopagus (Ares’ [Mars’] Hill) to the northwest of the Athenian Acropolis, where the impressive temples were located. Originally, on the Areopagus, the governing council of the independent city state of Athens had its seat, and the council also came to be known as the Areopagus. Under Roman rule, the governing authority of the council came to be limited, and it is commonly believed that the council met in a building located in the marketplace of the city. Religious matters came under the authority of this council. Since the context does not restrict the meaning of the preposition epí to “on,” one cannot determine whether Paul was led before the council or to the hill. Whatever may have been the case, he was given the opportunity to explain what the Athenian philosophers perceived as “new teaching,” meaning “strange” or “foreign” teaching. (17:19; see the Notes section.) In their view, some of the things he said sounded strange to them, and they wanted to know what his teaching was all about. The manner in which they expressed themselves suggests that they had serious reservations about the message Paul was proclaiming. (17:20)
Nevertheless, they were curious, and curiosity was a typical Athenian trait. Athenians and foreign residents in the city would customarily spend time in relating or listening to something new. (17:21) Centuries earlier, the people of Athens were already known for their undue interest in things novel. The Greek historian Thucydides (fifth century BCE), in his History of the Peloponnesian War (III, xxxviii, 5), quoted Cleon as saying that the Athenians were easily victimized by “newfangled arguments” (“novelty of speech”). In the fourth century BCE, the Athenian orator and statesman Demosthenes censured his fellow Athenians for their idle curiosity. “There is nothing, men of Athens, more vexing at the present time than the way in which you detach your thoughts from affairs, and display an interest only so long as you sit here listening, or when some fresh item of news arrives; after that, each man goes home, and not only pays no attention to public business, but does not even recall it to mind.” (Fourth Philippic, section 1) On another occasion, he referred to “rumor-mongers” or “fabricators of tales” (logopoioúntes) in Athens as the worst of “all fools.” (First Philippic, section 49)
Standing in the “midst of the Areopagus,” Paul is quoted as using a form of the expression deisidaímon when telling the “men of Athens” what he had observed “in all things” (“in every respect” [NAB]; “in every way” [NRSV]; “in everything” [REB]) about them. As a comparative compound word, deisidaímon literally can signify “more demon revering,” but with the designation “demon” having the meaning of “deity” or “divinity.” In a bad sense, the term could mean “superstitious.” In this context, however, Paul seemingly described the Athenians as having notable reverence for deities. Similarly, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Against Apion, II, 12) referred to the Athenians as the “most pious” or devout (eusebés) of the Greeks. (17:22)
Paul backed up his conclusion about the people of Athens by calling attention to his having found among their objects of veneration an altar on which the words agnósto theó (“to an unknown God”) had been inscribed. The Greek expression consisting of just two words may not necessarily have been the entire inscription. Ancient Greek writers confirm the existence of altars in Athens that are associated with the words “unknown” and “gods” or “divinities.” Philostratus, in Life of Apollonius of Tyana (VI, 3), wrote, “It is a much greater proof of wisdom and sobriety to speak well of the gods, especially at Athens, where altars are set up in honor even of unknown gods.” In the Description of Greece (I, i, 4), Pausanias stated, “The Athenians have also another harbor, at Munychia, with a temple of Artemis of Munychia, and yet another at Phalerum, as I have already stated, and near it is a sanctuary of Demeter. Here there is also a temple of Athena Sciras, and one of Zeus some distance away, and altars of the gods named Unknown.” (17:23)
The expression “unknown god” implied that a god other than those known in Athens did exist. On this basis, Paul introduced this “unknown god” whom the Athenians unknowingly were venerating as the God whom he was announcing to them. (17:23)
The apostle identified God as the one who “made the world and everything in it.” As the Creator of everything, he is the “Lord of heaven and earth” and “does not dwell in handmade sanctuaries.” (17:24; see the Notes section.) As the Lord or Owner of everything, he does not need anyone to attend to him or to give him anything, but he is the one who gives “to all life and breath and everything.” In this way, Paul revealed the true God to be the source and sustainer of all life. (17:25)
“Out of one,” that is, one man, one stock or, according to another manuscript reading, “one blood,” God made “every nation of men.” By implication, therefore, Paul indicated that all humans share a common link to the Creator. Moreover, God purposed for humans to reside on “all the face of the earth” or on the vast areas of land. He determined beforehand “the times and the limits of the dwelling” of the human race. The “times” could refer to the seasons, with the respective cycles of growth and harvest, summer and winter, heat and cold. (Genesis 1:14; 8:22; Psalm 74:17) Geographical features, including mountains, oceans, seas, lakes, streams and rivers, determine where humans are able to live, and these natural boundaries may be the divinely set limits. A number of translations represent the words to mean that God fixed the “times” or epochs of nations and the boundaries of the land area they would occupy. “He made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live.” (NRSV) “He determined their eras in history and the limits of their territory.” (REB) It appears more likely, however, that the Athenians would have understood the reference to “times” and “boundaries” as applying to seasons (as in 14:17) and to the natural boundaries that govern human habitation. (17:26)
Because God is the Creator who sustains life and who has fixed the seasons and provided land areas suitable for human habitation, he is the one whom people everywhere should seek, wanting an approved relationship with him. The act of “groping for him” suggests that, although humans may not know God, they have an internal sense that he exists. The “groping” is an attempt to find him, with the possibility of actually doing so. To indicate that God can be found, Paul added that he is “indeed not far away from any one of us.” (17:27)
This is the case, as Paul went on to explain, because “in him [God], we live and move and exist, as also some of your poets have said, ‘For we also are his offspring.’” This appears to be a quotation from the Stoic poet Aratus (third century BCE) with reference to Zeus (toú gár kaí génos eimén). With the exception of a different form of the verb for “we are” (eimén in Phaenomena 5 but esmén in Acts), the wording is identical. (17:28)
On the basis that humans are God’s offspring, Paul reasoned that those whom he addressed should not think that God is like a representation of gold, silver or stone that an artisan might fashion. (17:29) Such a view of God reflects “times of ignorance” that he formerly overlooked, but he is now telling “men” or people everywhere to repent. The time had come for people to turn from their idolatrous practices to the true God, repenting of their former ways of worship and making a complete break from the past. (17:30)
Stressing the need for positive action, Paul called attention to a future time of judgment. God set a day for judging earth’s inhabitants “in righteousness” or according to a flawless standard of justice. To do the judging, God has appointed a “man.” Regarding this divinely appointed one, Paul is quoted as using the words pístin paraschón, literally meaning “faith having furnished.” The expression “faith having furnished” apparently signifies “having provided a basis for faith.” It was by raising the designated “man” from the dead that God assured that there would be a coming judgment. The resurrection of the “man” who would function as judge guaranteed that humans would likewise be raised from the dead and so, as resurrected persons, could then be judged. (17:31; see the Notes section.)
When hearing about the resurrection, certain ones scoffed. Among them doubtless were the Epicurean philosophers. Others appear to have been open to hearing more about the subject, saying, “We will hear you again concerning this.” (17:32; see the Notes section.)
Paul departed from the midst of Athenians whom he had addressed. Whether he had actually been able to complete his remarks or whether the outbreak of mockery did not permit him to finish cannot be determined from the account. Some men did join Paul, having become believers. Among them was “Dionysius the Areopagite,” a member of the Athenian council. Besides other believers, there was a woman named Damaris, doubtless a prominent woman and not necessarily a native Athenian. One Greek manuscript describes her as tímia, which could signify “respected,” “highly regarded,” “esteemed,” or “honored.” (17:33, 34)
Notes:
In verse 4, a number of manuscripts add kaí (“and”) before “Greeks,” which would indicate that besides God-fearing non-Jews, Greeks who previously had not worshiped the true God became believers.
According to the expanded text of verse 15 in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), Paul and the believers who escorted him seem to be represented as taking an overland route. This manuscript says that “he passed by Thessaly” (the region to the south of Macedonia) on account of not having been permitted to proclaim the “word” to them.
Based on writings from the first century BCE, one can get some idea of the kind of reasoning Paul encountered when speaking to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. (Verse 18) It is likely that the Epicurean philosophers were the ones who ridiculed him. This appears to be evident from an example of the argumentation of an Epicurean found in Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods (Book I, ix, x). “What reason, again, was there why god should be desirous of decking the world, like an ædile, with figures and lights? If he did so in order that he himself might be better lodged, it is clear that for an infinite amount of time previously he had been living in all the darkness of a hovel. And do we regard him as afterwards deriving pleasure from the diversity with which we see heaven and earth adorned? What delight can that be to god? And if it were a delight, he would not have been able to go without it for so long. Or was this universe, as your school is accustomed to assert, established by god for the sake of men? Does that mean for the sake of wise men? In that case it was on behalf of but a small number that so vast a work was constructed. Or was it for the sake of the foolish? In the first place there was no reason why god should do a kindness to the bad, and in the second place what did he effect, seeing that the lot of all the foolish is undoubtedly a most miserable one? The chief reason for this is the fact that they are foolish, for what can we name as being more miserable than folly? and the second is the fact that there are so many ills in life that, while the wise alleviate them by a balance of good, the foolish can neither avoid their approach nor endure their presence.
“As for those who declared that the world itself was animate and wise, they were far from understanding to what kind of figure it is possible for the quality of rational intelligence to belong, a point on which I will myself speak a little later. For the present I will not go farther than to express my astonishment at the dulness of those who represent an animate being, that is immortal and also blessed, as round, because Plato says that there is no shape more beautiful than that. Yet I find more beauty in the shape either of a cylinder, a square, a cone, or a pyramid. And what kind of life is assigned to this round divinity? Why, a kind which consists in his being whirled along at a rate of speed, the like of which cannot even be conceived, and in which I do not see where a foothold can be found for a steadfast mind and blessed life. Why, again, should not that be considered painful in the case of god, which would be painful if it were evidenced to the slightest extent in our own bodies? For the earth, since it is a part of the world, is also of course a part of god. But we see vast tracts of the earth uninhabitable and uncultivated, some through being parched by the beating of the sun’s rays, and others through being bound with snow and frost owing to the distance to which the sun withdraws from them; and these, if the world is god, must, since they are parts of the world, be respectively described as glowing and frozen members of god!” (Translated by Francis Brooks)
The Stoic philosophers likely would not have been the ones who ridiculed Paul. The following is an example of how the Stoics reasoned. (Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods [Book II, xxx, xxxi]): “I assert, then, that the universe, with all its parts, was originally constituted, and has, without any cessation, been ever governed by the providence of the gods. This argument we Stoics commonly divide into three parts; the first of which is, that the existence of the gods being once known, it must follow that the world is governed by their wisdom; the second, that as everything is under the direction of an intelligent nature, which has produced that beautiful order in the world, it is evident that it is formed from animating principles; the third is deduced from those glorious works which we behold in the heavens and the earth.
“First, then, we must either deny the existence of the gods (as Democritus and Epicurus by their doctrine of images in some sort do), or, if we acknowledge that there are gods, we must believe they are employed, and that, too, in something excellent. Now, nothing is so excellent as the administration of the universe. The universe, therefore, is governed by the wisdom of the gods. Otherwise, we must imagine that there is some cause superior to the deity, whether it be a nature inanimate, or a necessity agitated by a mighty force, that produces those beautiful works which we behold. The nature of the gods would then be neither supreme nor excellent, if you subject it to that necessity or to that nature, by which you would make the heaven, the earth, and the seas to be governed. But there is nothing superior to the deity; the world, therefore, must be governed by him: consequently, the deity is under no obedience or subjection to nature, but does himself rule over all nature. In effect, if we allow the gods have understanding, we allow also their providence, which regards the most important things; for, can they be ignorant of those important things, and how they are to be conducted and preserved, or do they want power to sustain and direct them? Ignorance is inconsistent with the nature of the gods, and imbecility is repugnant to their majesty. From whence it follows, as we assert, that the world is governed by the providence of the gods.
“But supposing, which is incontestable, that there are gods, they must be animated, and not only animated, but endowed with reason — united, as we may say, in a civil agreement and society, and governing together one universe, as a republic or city. Thus the same reason, the same verity, the same law, which ordains good and prohibits evil, exists in the gods as it does in men. From them, consequently, we have prudence and understanding, for which reason our ancestors erected temples to the Mind, Faith, Virtue, and Concord. Shall we not then allow the gods to have these perfections, since we worship the sacred and august images of them? But if understanding, faith, virtue, and concord reside in humankind, how could they come on earth, unless from heaven? And if we are possessed of wisdom, reason, and prudence, the gods must have the same qualities in a greater degree; and not only have them, but employ them in the best and greatest works. The universe is the best and greatest work; therefore it must be governed by the wisdom and providence of the gods.
“Lastly, as we have sufficiently shown that those glorious and luminous bodies which we behold are deities — I mean the sun, the moon, the fixed and wandering stars, the firmament, and the world itself, and those other things also which have any singular virtue, and are of any great utility to humankind — it follows that all things are governed by providence and a divine mind.” (Translated by C. D. Yonge)
In verse 19, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) indicates that they took hold of him “after some days” and refers to them as “inquiring and saying” upon bringing him to the Areopagus.
While Epicurean philosophers would not have agreed with Paul’s reference to God as the Creator (in verse 24), other Athenians would not have objected. In On the Nature of the Gods (II, xxxvii), Cicero represents one of the debaters as arguing against the Epicurean view that life came into existence by chance. “He who believes this, may as well believe, that if a great quantity of the twenty-one letters, composed either of gold, or any other material, were [repeatedly] thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether chance could make a single verse of them.”
Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) identifies the “man” (in verse 31) as Jesus.
The Epicureans had no belief in a future life and would have dismissed the possibility of resurrection; others among those who heard Paul believed in the immortality of the soul. (Verse 31) The writings of Cicero and Pliny the Elder reveal the contrasting views about the possibility of future life.“The things that are told of the immortality of the soul and of the heavens [are not] the fictions of dreaming philosophers, or such incredible tales as the Epicureans mock at, but the conjectures of sensible men.” (Cicero’s The Republic, VI, iii) A fragment of Book V of Cicero’s The Laws, however, does not express the belief in the immorality of the soul as certain. “Let us deem ourselves happy that death will grant us either a better existence than our life on earth, or at least a condition that is no worse. For a life in which the mind is free from the body and yet retains its own powers is god-like; on the other hand, if we have no consciousness, at any rate no evil can befall us.” (Translated by C. W. Keyes)
Among those who heard Paul’s words and resorted to ridicule (verse 32) must have men who regarded the possibility of future life after death much as did Pliny the Elder. In his Natural History (VII, 56[55]), he wrote, “All men, after their last day, return to what they were before the first; and after death there is no more sensation left in the body or in the soul than there was before birth. But this same vanity of ours extends even to the future, and lyingly fashions to itself an existence even in the very moments which belong to death itself: at one time it has conferred upon us the immortality of the soul; at another transmigration; and at another it has given sensation to the shades below, and paid divine honours to the departed spirit, thus making a kind of deity of him who has but just ceased to be a man. As if, indeed, the mode of breathing with man was in any way different from that of other animals, and as if there were not many other animals to be found whose life is longer than that of man, and yet for whom no one ever presaged anything of a like immortality. For what is the actual substance of the soul, when taken by itself? Of what material does it consist? Where is the seat of its thoughts? How is it to see, or hear, or how to touch? And then, of what use is it, or what can it avail, if it has not these faculties? Where, too, is its residence, and what vast multitudes of these souls and spirits must there be after the lapse of so many ages? But all these are the mere figments of childish ravings, and of that mortality which is so anxious never to cease to exist. It is a similar piece of vanity, too, to preserve the dead bodies of men; just like the promise that he shall come to life again, which was made by Democritus; who, however, never has come to life again himself. Out upon it! What downright madness is it to suppose that life is to recommence after death! or indeed, what repose are we ever to enjoy when we have been once born, if the soul is to retain its consciousness in heaven, and the shades of the dead in the infernal regions? This pleasing delusion, and this credulity, quite cancel that chief good of human nature, death, and, as it were, double the misery of him who is about to die, by anxiety as to what is to happen to him after it. And, indeed, if life really is a good, to whom can it be so to have once lived?
“How much more easy, then, and how much more devoid of all doubts, is it for each of us to put his trust in himself, and guided by our knowledge of what our state has been before birth, to assume that that after death will be the same.” (English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley)
Paul departed from Athens and traveled to Corinth either by sea or overland. Corinth is located about 50 miles (c. 80 kilometers) southwest of Athens. (18:1; see http://bibleplaces.com/corinth.htm for pictures of and comments about Corinth.)
The apostle customarily went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and it may have been there that he met Aquila, a fellow Jew, and his wife Priscilla. This married couple had recently arrived in Corinth from Italy because Emperor Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome, the capital of the empire. Regarding Claudius, Suetonius, in The Lives of the Caesars (Life of Claudius, XXV, 4), wrote, “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” Based on this comment, some have concluded that the disturbances involved conflicts Jews had with fellow Jews who believed that Jesus was the Christ (“Chrestus” or “Christus”). (18:2)
Paul went to their home and, since they shared the same trade, stayed and worked with them. The Greek designation for the occupation is skenopoiós, which is a compound word meaning “tentmaker.” Some have questioned whether this could have been the actual trade, as nomadic tent dwellers would not have relied on professionals in cities to make tents for them. One of the major users of tents, however, was the Roman military. Therefore, some have concluded that Paul’s family in Tarsus had a profitable tentmaking business, supplying tents for the Roman legions stationed in Syria. Tents for the Roman military were commonly made from goat skins, but calf skins were also used. Although there is no extant evidence to indicate that the Roman legions used tents consisting of cloth made from goat’s hair, this cloth known as “cilicium” (which is named after “Cilicia,” where Tarsus was located) would most likely have been the material Paul’s father used. Whereas Paul received rabbinical training at Jerusalem, he, as was customary among the Jews, doubtless learned the trade from his father. Besides tents, there would have been a market for booths, awnings, and canopies, as these would be used by vendors in the marketplace. In the absence of details in the account, one cannot determine the exact nature of the work Paul, Aquila and Priscilla did and who their customers would have been. (18:2, 3)
Every Sabbath, Paul went to the synagogue, where he endeavored to convince “Jews and Greeks” that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah or Christ. The Greeks apparently were God-fearers, not Jewish proselytes. (18:4)
When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul continued his activity among the Jews. With reference to his ministry in connection with the “word,” a form of the Greek word synécho appears in the text. Based on the context, synécho may here be understood to mean “devoted to,” “be occupied with,” or “be absorbed in,” suggesting that Paul was able to intensify his efforts to make known the “word” or to present testimony to the Jews that identified Jesus to be the Christ. Subsequent to the arrival of Silas and Timothy, Paul may have been able to reduce the time devoted to his trade and to increase his efforts to declare the message about Jesus Christ. Besides the refreshing encouragement they would have been able to provide, Silas and Timothy may have brought with them contributed funds from fellow believers in Macedonia specifically for the purpose of helping Paul. (2 Corinthians 11:8, 9; Philippians 4:15) Possibly with all three men working at a trade, they would have been able to pool their resources, freeing Paul to share more extensively in spreading the good news about Jesus Christ. (18:5)
The Jews who refused to believe began to oppose Paul and to “blaspheme,” probably meaning that they began to speak abusively of him. As a gesture of his not sharing any responsibility for the serious consequences of their unbelief and opposition, he shook out his garments and said, “Your blood [be] upon your head. I [am] clean. From now on I will go to the [non-Jewish] nations.” Paul had done everything possible to present the trustworthy testimony concerning Jesus Christ and was not guilty of withholding the truth from the Jews living in Corinth. Therefore, they personally were to blame for the consequences of their defiant unbelief. Because they had rejected the message and had taken a hostile stand, Paul rightly turned his full attention to the non-Jews. (18:6)
“And from there he left” and went into the house of Titius Justus. This has commonly been understood to mean that he transferred his teaching activity from the Jewish synagogue to the home of Titius Justus, a non-Jewish God-fearer (a man who revered the true God). A number of translations make this significance explicit in their renderings. “He left the synagogue and, from now on, spoke in the house of Titius Justus.” (Er verließ die Synagoge und sprach von nun an im Haus von Titius Justus. [German, Gute Nachricht Bibel]) “Then he left the synagogue and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God.” (NRSV) This man’s home was adjacent to the synagogue. (18:7; see the Notes section.)
Among the Jews who became believers in the Lord was Crispus, the synagogue official (archisynágogos), and his entire household. In his position as archisynágogos, Crispus would have been primarily responsible for the maintenance and the physical arrangements associated with the meeting place for worship. Additionally, many Corinthians who heard the message Paul proclaimed became believers and were baptized. With the exception of Crispus and a few others, Paul did not personally baptize the new believers. (18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:14-17)
Based on his former experiences when Jewish opposition forced him to leave new believers behind, Paul may have feared that this would also occur in Corinth. In a vision during one night, the Lord Jesus Christ assured him that this would not happen, telling him to have no fear but to continue to speak and not to be silent. This was “because,” as the Lord added, “I am with you, and no one will beset you nor harm you, for many people in this city are mine.” With the backing of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul could be confident that he would not be harmed, and many more would become disciples of the Lord through his ministry. (18:9, 10) The apostle remained in Corinth for a “year and six months,” devoting himself to teaching “the word of God,” the message that focused on Jesus Christ and what the surrender of his life made possible. (18:11; 1 Corinthians 2:1, 2)
Apparently toward the end of Paul’s time in Corinth, the unbelieving Jews tried to put a stop to his activity. Gallio was then proconsul of Achaia, and the hostile Jews rose up as a body against Paul and took him before Gallio for judgment at the béma (the raised platform that served as the place for rendering judgments or for speaking publicly to an assembly). In conjunction with other historical evidence, a fragmentary inscription discovered at Delphi indicates that Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia (where Corinth was located) at the time Claudius Caesar had received his 26th imperial proclamation. This would place Gallio’s one-year proconsulship either in 51-52 CE or 52-53 CE. (18:12)
The Jewish opposers accused Paul of trying to persuade “men” (people generally, both Jews and non-Jews) to revere God in a way that violated the law. Their intent appears to have been to represent him as introducing a novel form of worship that was disruptive to the existing social order and so needed to be officially stopped. (18:13)
When Paul was about to defend himself (literally, “open his mouth”), Gallio refused to consider the matter. If the Jews had presented evidence that a serious wrong or crime had been committed, he would have “put up” with or been tolerant of them respecting their accusation. But with reference to disputes about words (literally, “word”) and “names and the law according to you,” that is, their own Jewish law, he did not want to render a judgment. This was something he wanted the Jews to handle themselves, telling them, “You must see to it.” (18:14, 15)
When accusing Paul, the Jews likely said more than what is preserved in the Acts account. It is likely that they mentioned that Paul was proclaiming Jesus as being the Messiah or Christ. The controversy over words could pertain to a different way of revering God, and the dispute involving names could relate to what Paul said about the identity of Jesus as the Christ. Gallio drove the Jewish accusers from his presence, which he may have done by commanding the constables to have them removed from before the béma. (18:15, 16)
The oldest extant Greek manuscripts do not specify who turned against Sosthenes, the synagogue official (archisynágogos). Either because of the way things had turned out, his fellow Jews began to beat him for having influenced them to bring an accusation against Paul before Gallio or non-Jewish bystanders seized the opportunity to vent their strong prejudicial feelings against them. Gallio, however, did not concern himself with this development. Sosthenes appears to have been a replacement for Crispus who had become a baptized believer. The name “Sosthenes” is not very common and so he may be the same person that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:1. If this is the case, the incident before Gallio may have brought an end to his blind opposition and caused him to think seriously about what Paul had proclaimed, resulting in his becoming a believer. (18:17; see the Notes section.)
The time designated by the expression heméras hikanás (“enough days” or considerable time) in relation to Paul’s remaining in Corinth cannot be determined from the account. After saying his farewell to the “brothers” (fellow believers), he departed. His destination was the Roman province of Syria, with Syrian Antioch being the location to which he would eventually return and where he would stay until undertaking another major evangelizing journey. Priscilla and Aquila accompanied Paul at the time he set sail from Cenchreae, the nearby harbor of Corinth from which ships sailed to eastern ports. Before boarding the ship at Cenchreae, Paul had his hair cut. This was because he “had a vow.” Cutting the hair is associated with the conclusion of a Nazarite vow, but this (according to Numbers 6:18) was to be done at the sanctuary. In the absence of specifics, there is no way to establish the nature of Paul’s vow or when and why he may have made it. (18:18; see the Notes section.)
From Cenchreae, Paul first sailed to Ephesus, where he left Priscilla and Aquila. During the short time he was in Ephesus, Paul went to the synagogue and spoke about Jesus Christ to those assembled. (18:19) Although he declined their request for him to stay longer, he assured them that, God willing, he would return. According to numerous manuscripts, Paul was in a hurry to leave Ephesus because he wanted to be in Jerusalem for the festival, presumably Passover. A number of translations include the expanded text in their renderings or in footnotes. “I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” (18:20, 21 [NKJV; NRSV, footnote]; see http://bibleplaces.com/ephesus.htm for comments about and pictures of Ephesus.)
From Ephesus, he set sail for Caesarea, from where “he went up” and thereafter “greeted the congregation.” The going up appears to indicate that he left the lower elevation of the coastal city of Caesarea and headed to Jerusalem, situated at a much higher elevation. To the congregation or community of believers there he extended his greetings, after which he “went down to [Syrian] Antioch,” where he had earlier departed with Silas on his second evangelizing journey. (15:40; 18:21, 22)
After having been in Antioch for a while, Paul appears to have started a northerly overland route that took him through Galatia and Phrygia (a region that was part of of the Roman province of Galatia) in central Asia Minor and, finally, to Ephesus. Along the way, he visited fellow disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ and strengthened them in the faith with his words of encouragement. (18:23)
An unspecified time before Paul returned to Ephesus, a Jew named Apollos and a native of Alexandria (the main seaport of Egypt) arrived. Apollos is described as lógios, indicating that he was “cultured,” “learned,” or “eloquent.” He was thoroughly grounded in the holy writings, being “powerful” or “well versed” in them. His being “boiling in spirit” may be descriptive of his intense zeal or enthusiasm. While in Ephesus, he went to the synagogue where he spoke about Jesus. Apollos had been taught “the way of the Lord” (the way distinguished by being at one with Jesus Christ through faithful imitation of his example and adherence to his teaching). According to Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), he was taught “in his own country.” Jews and proselytes from Egypt did attend the festivals in Jerusalem and heard Peter’s explanation about the outpouring of the holy spirit. In view of the sizable Jewish population in Alexandria, it reasonably follows that some of the Jews from there may have been among those who had responded to the preaching of John the Baptist and could have taught Apollos. Being only acquainted with the baptism of John, however, he lacked in knowledge but correctly presented the things he had learned. (18:24, 25; see http://bibleplaces.com/alexandria.htm for comments about and pictures of Alexandria.)
In the synagogue, Apollos spoke boldly about Jesus. Among those who heard him were Priscilla and Aquila. They apparently invited him to their home and explained to him “the way of God more accurately.” The genitive form of the Greek word for “God” is missing in Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis), and a number of manuscripts read “way of the Lord.” What Priscilla and Aquila did was to impart to Apollos a fuller understanding about “the way,” which would have included aspects in which he was lacking regarding the beliefs and the way of life associated with being a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. (18:26; see the Notes section.)
When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia (specifically to Corinth in Achaia [19:1]), the “brothers” (believers) in Ephesus wrote a letter of introduction to the disciples there, encouraging them to welcome him. In Achaia, Apollos provided much help to those who had become believers “through favor,” that is, through God’s favor that finds its full expression in his matchless love. The result from divine “favor” could either refer to the aid Apollos was able to give or to the way in which those in Achaia had become believers. Divine favor enhanced the gifts of Apollos, equipping him to be a source of encouragement to believers and making it possible for him to contribute to their spiritual growth. God’s favor, especially as it related to his Son and having him lay down his life for sinful humans, is what enabled individuals to become believers. (18:27) Publicly, Apollos strongly refuted the Jews, using their holy writings when proving Jesus to be the Messiah or Christ. (18:28)
Notes:
According to very limited manuscript evidence, Paul transferred his residence from the home of Aquila to that of Titius Justus. A number of translations interpretively render verse 7 to indicate that Paul changed his place of residence. “So he left them and went to live in the house of a Gentile named Titius Justus.” (GNT) “After that he stayed with Titius Justus, a Gentile who worshiped God.” (NLT) It seems unusual, however, that Paul would depart from the home of fellow Jewish believers to take up residence in the home of a non-Jewish believer on account of opposition from unbelieving Jews. If this is the correct significance, one possible reason could have been that the home of Titius Justus proved to be a better location for Paul to concentrate on proclaiming the message to non-Jews.
In verse 17, certain manuscripts identify the ones who beat Sosthenes as “Greeks,” whereas other manuscripts say that it was the “Jews.”
In verses 18 and 26 (according to the superior manuscript evidence), Priscilla is mentioned first. Some have thought that this is because her social standing was higher than that of her husband. It seems more likely, however, that she is mentioned first because of excelling her husband in being able to convey the message about Christ to others and in taking the initiative to aid fellow believers. Her role in assisting Apollos to gain a better understanding of “the way” would appear to confirm this.
While Apollos happened to be in Corinth, Paul traveled through “the inland” or “the upper parts” (tá anoteriká mére) of Asia Minor on his way to Ephesus. The expression tá anoteriká mére could refer to the “inland regions” (NRSV) or to the highlands (“the hill country,” CEV) of upper Galatia and Phrygia. On his arrival in Ephesus, Paul met about a dozen disciples. (19:1, 7) When he inquired whether they had received the holy spirit upon becoming believers, they replied that they had not even heard of the holy spirit. (19:2) Asked about the nature of their baptism, they responded that it had been “in John’s baptism.” (19:3)
Paul then explained that John’s baptism was a “baptism of repentance” accompanied by his admonishing the people to believe in the one to come after him. The apostle’s identifying this coming one as Jesus could suggest that these disciples were unacquainted with the role of Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ. They apparently learned what they did from persons who had become John’s disciples but had never associated with Jesus’ disciples after the outpouring of holy spirit on the day of Pentecost following Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven. Paul’s words made it clear to them that the “baptism of repentance” had been preparatory, readying individuals to receive the promised Messiah or Christ as persons who had repented of their sins. (19:4) After hearing the explanation, these disciples “were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” or in recognition of Jesus as Lord, the promised Messiah and the unique Son of God. (19:5) Subsequent to their baptism, Paul laid his hands on them, and they received the holy spirit. This became evident when they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. Their prophesying likely involved expressions that focused on what God had done through Jesus Christ. (19:6) Instead of remaining as disciples of John and separate from the congregation of Jesus’ followers, the group of “about twelve men” thus came to be part of the one congregation or community of believers that has Jesus Christ as its head. (19:7)
For three months, Paul spoke boldly in the synagogue of Ephesus, with reasoning and persuasion conveying the message about “the kingdom of God.” He must have used the holy writings to make clear Jesus’ role as king by his Father’s appointment and how individuals could become part of the realm where the Father is recognized as sovereign. (19:8)
When some became obstinate and refused to believe, speaking abusively about “the way” (the way of belief and conduct based on Jesus’ example and teaching) “before the multitude,” Paul did not continue going to the synagogue. He withdrew, taking with him those who had become disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul then discoursed daily in the “school” or the lecture hall of Tyrannus. According to Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) and a number of other manuscripts, the apostle spoke from the “fifth hour to the tenth” (from about 11:00 a.m. to about 4:00 p.m.) If accurately reflecting the then-existing circumstances, this would mean that Paul utilized the location during the warmest part of the day when usually no activity would have taken place there. (19:9)
For two years, he continued to discourse in Ephesus, with the result that the “word of the Lord” (the message about the Lord Jesus Christ) came to be known extensively in the Roman province of Asia, both among the Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants (“Jews and Greeks”). (19:10) “Through the hands of Paul,” or by means of him, God did extraordinary miracles. (19:11) On account of witnessing the miracles, people appear to have taken the aprons Paul used when working at his trade and the cloths with which he wiped away his perspiration to the sick and afflicted, and they would be healed and freed from the distress perceived to have originated from demon possession. (19:12)
Observing Paul’s success in expelling evil spirits, certain itinerant Jews who engaged in the practice of exorcism decided to use the name of Jesus as part of their magical formula, saying, “I charge [‘we charge,’ according to another manuscript reading] you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” (19:13) “Seven sons” of a man named Sceva, “a Jewish chief priest [archiereús] did this.” (19:14) When making an attempt to expel the evil spirit from a man, the sons of Sceva were met with the response, “I recognize Jesus and know Paul. But who are you? (19:15) The man then jumped them, gained the mastery “of both” (amphotéron), and beat them up. Stripped of their garments and wounded, they fled out of the house. (19:16)
Besides referring to a chief priest, the word archiereús can designate the “high priest” who would have lived in Jerusalem. No Jewish high priest, however, is known to have been named Sceva. A number of manuscripts refer to him simply as a “priest” (hiereús). Nothing in the Acts account indicates where Sceva had his residence. Therefore, whether he was a “chief priest” or a “priest” is immaterial. That seven of his sons engaged in exorcism at Ephesus does seem out of the ordinary but (based on first-century evidence) is not improbable. The words of Jesus (Matthew 12:27) reveal that the practice of exorcism existed among the Jews, and the first-century Jewish historian Josephus also refers to it. (19:14)
In his Antiquities (VIII, ii, 5), Josephus attributed to Solomon the procedure for expelling demons. “And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return, and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man.”
A Dead Sea scroll (11QAprocryphal Psalms) dated from before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE contains four psalms used for exorcism, one of which is Psalm 91. The other three are not found in the book of Psalms. Of these three, one is ascribed to Solomon and indicates that YHWH would send a powerful angel against the demons and that they would be sent into the great abyss or the deepest Sheol.
The attempt of the sons of Sceva to use the name of Jesus to exorcise a wicked spirit failed, as they were not his authorized representatives. This is revealed in the response, “Who are you?” (What authority do you have to expel me?) What the evil spirit is quoted as expressing indicated that Paul did have the authority to act in Jesus’ name and that a command given in Jesus’ name by one thus authorized had to be obeyed. (19:15)
Instead of the word amphotéron (“of both” [genitive case]), other manuscripts contain the third person plural pronoun in the genitive case autón (“of them”). If “both” is the original reading and the intended meaning, this could indicate that only two of the sons of Sceva were involved in the incident. At various other times, the “seven” (provided this is the original reading [which has been questioned]) may have used the name of Jesus when attempting to exorcise demons. (19:16)
The disastrous outcome for the sons of Sceva became common knowledge (“known to all”) in Ephesus, both to the Jewish and non-Jewish residents. (“Jews and Greeks”). “Fear fell upon all” who came to know about the incident, suggesting that they experienced a feeling of great awe and astonishment. As a consequence, “the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.” People in Ephesus came to recognize the great power that was associated with the “name” or person of Jesus and those who were his representatives. (19:17)
Many became believers, and numerous persons among them would confess and report the practices they were abandoning. In view of the context, these were magical or occult practices. (19:18)
A considerable number who had practiced “curious things” or things of a magical nature brought “their books and burned them before everyone.” These books likely were scrolls that contained incantations and instructions regarding the exercise of magical or occult arts. (19:19) Some have linked these “books” to the “Ephesian letters,” but the “Ephesian letters” were only six words used in magical formulas. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, V, viii) wrote concerning these “letters,” “Androcydes the Pythagorean says that the so-called Ephesian letters (well-known among many) were of the order of symbols. And he said that askion [shadowless] is darkness, for this has no shadow; and kataskion [shaded] is light, since it casts a shadow with its rays; and lix is the earth, according to an ancient name; and tetrax is the year, according to the seasons; and damnameneus is the sun, the one that overpowers; and ta aisia is the true sound. And then the symbol signifies that divine things have been set in order: darkness to light, the sun to the year, and the earth to every kind of genesis of nature.”
The estimated cost of all the “books” that were burned came to 50,000 (“five myriads”) silver pieces. Considering that the daily wage of a common laborer was one denarius (a Roman silver coin), a huge amount of money had been spent on these “books.” For the new believers, they ceased to have any value and were, in fact, harmful. (19:19)
The meaning of verse 20 depends on which manuscript reading is followed. (See the Notes section.) When the word “might” (krátos) is followed by “of the Lord” (toú kyríou), the verse could be rendered, “Thus, with the might of the Lord, the word grew and prevailed” or “gained strength.” This may mean that, on account of the powerful backing of the Lord Jesus Christ as evident from the miracles that he enabled Paul to perform, the “word” or message continued to spread to a greater extent and had a powerful effect on those who heard it, prompting many to become believers. Other manuscripts, however, do not read “might of the Lord,” but indicate that it was with might that “the word of the Lord [the message about the Lord Jesus Christ] grew and prevailed” or “gained strength.” Numerous translations reflect this significance. “In this powerful way the word of the Lord kept spreading and growing stronger.” (GNT) “So the Lord’s message spread and became even more powerful.” (CEV) “In such ways the word of the Lord showed its power, spreading more and more widely and effectively.” (REB) “In this powerful way the word of the Lord spread more and more widely and successfully.” (NJB)
The introductory phrase (“now after these things were fulfilled”) probably refers to everything which had occurred up to that point in Ephesus. It was then that Paul made up his mind (literally, “in the spirit”) to go through Macedonia and Achaia and then travel to Jerusalem. His desire thereafter to go to Rome is expressed in strong terms, “After I arrive there [at Jerusalem], I must also see Rome.” (19:21) A number of translations represent Paul as making his decision on account of the guidance of God’s spirit. “Paul resolved in the Spirit to go through Macedonia and Achaia, and then to go on to Jerusalem.” (NRSV) “Paul was led by the Holy Spirit to visit Macedonia and Achaia on his way to Jerusalem.” (CEV, footnote)
A major reason for his visiting communities of believers in Macedonia and Achaia was to accept contributions for needy Jewish believers, which he would then take to Jerusalem. (24:17; Romans 15:25, 26; 2 Corinthians 8:1-7, 10-20; 9:1-5) In his letter to the Romans, Paul explained why he wanted to go to Rome. His desire was to impart a spiritual gift to the believers there, a gift that would serve to strengthen their faith. At the same time, he looked forward to the mutual encouragement or comfort that would result from their interaction with one another on the basis of his faith and theirs. Moreover, the apostle wanted some “fruit” among them as he had among the Gentiles in other regions, where he felt that he had completed his labors. This “fruit” would be persons who responded or would yet respond in faith to the message about the Son of God. (Romans 1:11-13; 15:23, 24)
Based on what Paul wrote in his letters, a prime purpose in sending Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia apparently related to getting the contribution ready for the poor believers in Jerusalem. Timothy and Erastus are referred to as “serving” or “ministering to” Paul, that is, they assisted him in advancing the cause of the Lord Jesus Christ. (19:22) It is uncertain whether Erastus is the same person referred to in Acts 19:22, Romans 16:23, 2 Timothy 4:20, and on a Latin inscription discovered at Corinth in 1929. In Romans 16:23, the Greek expression oikonómos tés póleos identifies him as an official or former official of Corinth. The Greek designation has been understood to mean either the “treasurer of the city” or the “steward of the city.” (See http://bibleplaces.com/corinth.htm for a picture of the fragmentary Latin inscription.)
After sending Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, Paul remained a while longer in the Roman province of Asia. (19:22) About this time a considerable disturbance occurred respecting “the way” (the way of life focused on faith in Jesus Christ and following his example and teaching). (19:23)
The disturbance resulted from the inflammatory words of Demetrius, a silversmith. In the business of fashioning silver shrines of the goddess Artemis, he provided artisans with “no little profit.” (19:24) The Artemis of Ephesus, however, differed considerably from the virgin huntress, the Greek goddess of classical mythology. Representations of the Ephesian Artemis reveal her to be a fertility goddess. The shrines may have resembled the temple with the deity seen on ancient coins.
Demetrius addressed the assembled artisans, “Men, you know that we [owe] our prosperity to this work. [19:25] And you see and hear that, not only in Ephesus but in nearly all of Asia [the Roman province of Asia in the western part of Asia Minor], this Paul persuaded and turned a considerable crowd [to another view], saying that the [representations] fashioned by hands are not gods. [19:26] Not only then does the danger exist that our [trade] will come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be accounted as nothing, and she is about to be stripped of her majesty, which the whole of Asia and the world adores.” (19:27) The perceived threat to their livelihood and the thought that both the temple of Artemis and the goddess herself would be scorned made the artisans furious. They began to shout, “Great [is] Artemis of the Ephesians!” (19:28)
It appears that Demetrius stirred up the artisans in a public area, causing the populous of the city to be thrown into a state of riotous confusion. As a mob, they rushed to the theater, seizing the Macedonian Gaius and Aristarchus (Paul’s travel companions) and taking them with them. This theater consisted of 66 rows for spectator seating and formed a half circle that was located within the hollow of Mount Pion. The marble seats could accommodate about 25,000 people. (19:29; see http://bibleplaces.com/ephesus.htm for a picture of what still exists of the ancient theater.)
Paul was willing to enter the theater, probably with the intent of addressing the people, “but the disciples [fellow believers] did not permit him” to do so. (19:30)
A number of officials (Asiarchs) who were favorably inclined toward Paul (literally, “his friends”) conveyed a message to him, entreating him not enter the theater. There is uncertainty about the identity of the Asiarchs. They may have been influential wealthy individuals who supported the Roman imperial cult or provincial dignitaries or authorities. (19:31)
Inside the theater, some people shouted out one thing and others something else. The whole assembly was in a state of confusion, with the majority not even “knowing why they had come together.” (19:32)
In connection with the initial action toward Alexander, manuscripts read differently. Numerous manuscripts contain a form of the word probibázo (“cause to come forward”). This would mean that Alexander was made to come out from the crowd. There is limited manuscript support for the reading katabibázo, which could refer to Alexander's being brought down from among the crowd to the lower stage level. The oldest extant manuscripts have a form of the verb symbibázo, which, in certain contexts, can mean “advise.” This significance is reflected in the renderings of modern translations. “Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, as the Jews pushed him forward.” (NAB) “Some of the crowd gave instructions to Alexander, whom the Jews had pushed forward.” (NRSV) “Some of the crowd explained the trouble to Alexander, whom the Jews had pushed to the front.” (REB) “Several of the Jewish leaders pushed a man named Alexander to the front of the crowd and started telling him what to say.” (CEV) As the Jews are represented as pushing Alexander forward, they must also have been the ones from the crowd who spoke to him. Possibly instead of telling him what to say, they simply tried to persuade him to be their spokesman. The objective of the Jews appears to have been to make it clear that Paul was not representing them. (19:33)
Probably from the stage where he faced the crowd, Alexander motioned with his hand, indicating that he wanted to speak. He, however, was unable to give his explanation. (19:33)
Apparently from his grooming and attire that complied with the provisions of the Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:27; Numbers 15:38, 39; Deuteronomy 22:12), the crowd would have recognized Alexander as a Jew. Once they perceived this and probably also because they knew that Jews did not worship their goddess, they began to shout for about two hours, “Great [is] Artemis of the Ephesians!” (19:34)
The responsible city official (grammateús, “secretary” or “town clerk”) finally succeeded in quieting the crowd and then addressed the people, “Men of Ephesus, who of the people does not know that the city of Ephesus is the temple keeper of the great Artemis and of the [image] that fell from heaven [literally, ‘fallen from’ or ‘sent by Zeus’]? [19:35] Therefore, because these things are indisputable, you should stay calm and not act rashly. [19:36] For you have brought these men [here] who are neither temple robbers nor blasphemers of our goddess. [19:37; see the Notes section.] If indeed then Demetrius and his fellow artisans have a case against anyone, [there are] court [sessions] and proconsuls [for handling such matters]. Let them present accusations against one another. [19:38] If, however, you are seeking anything beyond [this], it must be decided in the statutory assembly.” [19:39] The official then stressed the precarious situation in which the people had placed themselves. They risked being charged with sedition or having started a riot. They could not even present one reason to justify the uprising. (19:40) After he had said this, the town clerk disbanded the assembly. (19:41)
The acoustics of the ancient theater (based on what still remains) are outstanding. Words spoken where the stage was located can readily be heard even by persons sitting on the topmost row. So, once the commotion had ended, the crowd would have been able to hear the words of the town clerk. With his rhetorical question, he indicated that the cult of the goddess Artemis was known throughout the Greco-Roman world. As a “temple keeper,” Ephesus had official recognition for the temple of the goddess. Perhaps a meteoric stone resembled the shape of Artemis. Another possibility is that an ancient image had been roughly fashioned from such a stone. Likely because the stone had fallen to the earth, it was regarded as having come from Zeus. (19:35)
There was no basis for any controversy about the temple of Artemis, the role of Ephesus in the official cult, and the ancient image of Artemis. For this reason, as the official pointed out, the people of Ephesus had no reason to get riled up and rashly form a screaming mob. (19:36)
The town clerk apparently had come to know that the accusation was directed against Paul and his associates (“these men”), but he acknowledged that no valid charges existed against them. They were not guilty of robbing temples, which was a serious crime in the Greco-Roman world, and they had not reviled the goddess Artemis. (19:37)
If Demetrius and his fellow artisans truly had a legitimate case, they should use the existing legal means to settle the matter. Thus the town clerk censured them for having acted contrary to Roman law. (19:38)
Matters that required more than the existing court arrangement and the decisions of proconsuls needed to be handled in accordance with Roman law by a statutory assembly and not by a disorderly gathering. (19:39, 40)
Apparently the words of the town clerk were heeded, and the people left the theater. The uproar Demetrius and his fellow artisans had initiated ended without adversely affecting Paul’s ministry. (19:41; see the Notes section.)
Notes:
A number of manuscripts (instead of “word of the Lord” in verse 20) read “word of God.” Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) contains an expanded text (“and the faith of God grew and gained strength”).
In verse 37, manuscripts vary in identifying Artemis either as “our goddess” or “your goddess.”
A number of translations combine verses 40 and 41, ending chapter 19 with verse 40.
After the uproar for which Demetrius and his fellow artisans were responsible had ceased, Paul arranged to meet with the disciples to encourage them. Doubtless his intent was to strengthen them in their resolve to remain devoted to the Lord Jesus Christ even though they might face opposition. Subsequent to his saying farewell to fellow believers, he departed for Macedonia. If, as appears likely, Paul started his overland route through Macedonia from the north, he may first have gone to Troas and from there set sail to Neapolis, the seaport for Philippi. (20:1; compare 16:11.)
On his way through Macedonia (literally, “those parts”), he “encouraged them” (fellow believers) with “many a word.” Based on his former activity in Macedonia, Paul would have gone to Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, and Beroea before arriving in Greece. His letters reveal that his many words of encouragement to believers would have included admonition to conduct themselves as approved disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to remain loyal to him when encountering persecution, and to look forward to his return in glory and what this would mean for them. (20:2; Romans 12:1-13:14; 1 Thessalonians 1:2-10; 3:1-5; 4:13-18; 5:12-22)
Paul stayed in Greece for three months. (20:3) According to Romans 16:23, Gaius was his host, which indicates that Paul spent a significant part of the time in Corinth, Greece. (Compare 1 Corinthians 1:14; 16:5-8.)
Accordingly, it must have been from Cenchreae, the eastern port for Corinth, that Paul intended to sail to Syria and then travel to Jerusalem, but he was forced to change his plans. He came to know about the scheming of hostile Jews. These Jews may also have had Jerusalem as their final destination, planning to be present for Passover (20:6), and so could have ended up being fellow passengers. Perhaps, during the course of the voyage, they had intended to cast Paul overboard. On account of the plot, he decided to return to Macedonia, taking a less direct route on his way to Jerusalem. (20:3)
Paul did not travel alone. Accompanying him were Sopater from Beroea; Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica; Gaius from Derbe; Timothy; and from the Roman province of Asia (the western part of Asia Minor), Tychicus and Trophimus. The oldest extant manuscripts identify Sopater as being “of Pyrrhus,” that is, the “son of Pyrrhus,” but numerous other manuscripts do not include this. Aristarchus from the Macedonian city of Thessalonica apparently is the Macedonian whom the mob dragged into the theater of Ephesus at the time of the uproar that Demetrius and his fellow artisans started. (19:29) If Gaius of Derbe was also the fellow Macedonian whom the crowd seized at that time, this could indicate that Gaius had moved to Derbe from Macedonia. Secundus is not mentioned elsewhere in the Acts account nor in any of Paul’s letters. Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus continued to be the apostle’s close associates to the end of his life. (2 Timothy 4:9, 12, 13, 20, 21) Trophimus accompanied Paul to Jerusalem and apparently so did Aristarchus. (21:29; 27:2) It may be that they and the other five were representatives of their respective congregations, entrusted with the responsibility to take the contributed funds to the needy believers in Jerusalem. (20:4; compare 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 9:4, 5; see the Notes section.)
Just when the seven men parted from Paul, preceding him to the city of Troas in the Roman province of Asia, cannot be determined from the account. In its rendering of verses 4 and 5, The New Jerusalem Bible makes it explicit that all seven men were waiting for Paul in Troas. “He was accompanied by Sopater, son of Pyrrhus, who came from Beroea; Aristarchus and Secundus who came from Thessalonica; Gaius from Derbe, and Timothy, as well as Tychicus and Trophimus who were from Asia. They all went on to Troas where they waited for us.” (See the Notes section.)
The use of the first person plural (“waiting for us”) suggests that Luke had joined Paul as a travel companion, and was with the apostle when he left Philippi for Troas. They would have sailed from the nearby harbor (Neapolis). The time for the observance of the Jewish Festival of Unleavened Bread had passed when they started the journey. After meeting the disciples who were waiting for them in Troas, Paul and his travel companions stayed there for seven days. (20:5, 6)
In the Greek text, “first day of the week” literally is, “first of the sabbaths” (sabbáton, a tranliterated plural [in the genitive case] of the Hebrew word shabbáth). The expression (“first of the sabbaths”) means the first day of the period that ended with a sabbath, that is, the first day of a seven-day week. In Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1, this expression is used regarding the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. Women disciples were the first witnesses to his resurrection in the early morning after the Jewish Sabbath had ended on the previous evening. So it seems reasonable to conclude that in Acts 20:7 the meaning of the words “first of the sabbaths” would be the same. Accordingly, Paul met with fellow believers in Troas on Saturday evening when (based on Jewish reckoning) the first day of the week began. At that time, they had assembled to “break bread,” which probably means to share a meal and observe the “Lord’s Supper.” Because he was planning to leave the next day and likely also on account of knowing that he would not see this community of fellow believers again (20:25), Paul appears to have wanted to say as much as he could to them. When midnight came, he was still speaking. (20:7)
Besides all the disciples gathered in the upper chamber, the many oil lamps that were burning for illumination would have made the room warmer and reduced air quality. This circumstance, coupled with the lateness of the hour, would have contributed to inducing drowsiness. (20:8)
While Paul was talking, a young man named Eutychus dozed off and began to sleep soundly. He then fell to his death out of the third-story window where he had been seated. (20:9)
Coming to know what had happened, Paul went downstairs to the place where Eutychus had fallen, “threw himself” on the young man (probably meaning that he dropped to his knees and then lay bent over Eutychus, possibly as did Elisha on the dead son of the hospitable woman of Shunem [2 Kings 4:34]), and put his arms around him. To those there, the apostle then said, “Do not be troubled, for his soul [life] is in him.” Paul’s quoted words suggest that he came to realize that Eutychus had miraculously been restored to life and so could say what he did to the greatly distressed disciples. (20:10)
After he returned to the upper chamber, Paul “broke bread,” ate, kept on talking until dawn, and then departed. This second mention of breaking bread suggests that those assembled must have eaten in a leisurely manner and that Paul had done some eating during the time he had been speaking. (20:11) The fact that the night had not ended in tragedy but that Eutychus could be led away alive greatly comforted the believers. (20:12)
Paul’s travel companions, including Luke (as indicated by the first person plural “we”), sailed from Troas to Assos (Behramkale) on the northern coast of the Gulf of Adramyttium. The sea route required navigating around Cape Baba, the westernmost point of Asia Minor. Although Paul had been up all night, he decided to walk the shorter overland route, a distance of about 20 miles (over 30 kilometers). He then intended to meet his companions (as he had previously arranged with them) when the ship would be anchored at Assos (Behramkale). By choosing to walk, Paul would have had time for undistracted thought and prayer. (20:13; see http://bibleplaces.com/assos.htm for pictures of and comments about Assos.)
He boarded the ship at Assos and sailed with his companions to Mitylene on the island of Lesbos. There the ship remained anchored during the night. (20:14) The ship on which they were traveling stopped at various harbors along the way. On the day following their departure from Mitylene, they reached a point “opposite Chios,” which may mean the city of Chios on the Aegean island with the same name. The next day they arrived at Samos, another island in the Aegean Sea. (See http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Samos-Potami-Bucht.JPG&filetimestamp=20080104145924 for a picture of a beach on the island of Samos.) On the following day, the ship anchored at Miletus, a city on the western coast of Asia Minor and about 30 miles (c. 50 kilometers) south of the city of Ephesus. (20:15; see http://bibleplaces.com/miletus.htm for pictures of and comments about Miletus.)
Paul’s decision to sail past Ephesus may be understood to mean that he chose to travel on a ship that bypassed Ephesus and sailed to Miletus instead. Desiring to be in Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost on the sixth day of Sivan (the month corresponding to mid-May to mid-June), he did not want to spend any more time in the Roman province of Asia. (20:16) Nevertheless, concerned about fellow believers in Ephesus, he sent a message to the elders of the congregation, requesting that they come to Miletus to see him. It would have taken a messenger (or messengers) all day to reach Ephesus. After staying there overnight, the messenger or messengers, accompanied by the elders, probably left Ephesus early in the morning and arrived at Miletus in the evening. (20:17)
The Acts account narrates Paul’s farewell words to the elders from the community of believers in Ephesus. “From the first day,” or his initial major activity in the Roman province of Asia, Paul had primarily (“all the time”) been in Ephesus. During his stay in the city, the elders whom he addressed had come to know him as an unassuming servant, one who “slaved for the Lord” Jesus Christ with a disposition of great lowliness or humility. They knew about the plots that hostile Jews directed against him and the trials he had faced, and so there was no need for the apostle to make mention of the details. The attitude of his fellow countrymen when persisting in unbelief caused him to shed tears of grief, pain, and anxiety for them. (Compare 19:9; Romans 9:1, 2; 2 Corinthians 2:4; Philippians 3:18.) That Paul faced severe trials is evident from his having mentioned to the Corinthians that he fought “wild beasts” at Ephesus. (1 Corinthians 15:32) This could suggest that he faced wild animals in an arena but escaped death. When recounting his trials in another letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:23-27), he did not list this among the hardships he had experienced. So it may well be that he did not literally fight wild beasts but that he had to contend with intensely hostile opposers who, like fierce predators, were determined to harm him. (20:18, 19)
Paul had faithfully discharged his responsibility in imparting to believers everything they needed to know. He did not lessen the full force of what it meant to be devoted disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, not holding back from telling believers what would be for their benefit or their own good. He taught them publicly, which would have included his teaching the disciples or fellow believers in the school or lecture hall of Tyrannus (19:9). He also imparted instruction privately in their homes (literally, “according to houses”). His visits were not mere social calls as he went from one house to another. When in the homes, he taught the believers who were there. (20:20)
His ministry, though, was not confined to fellow believers. Both to Jews and Greeks (or non-Jews) he presented the testimony about the need for individuals to repent of their sins and to turn to God and to put faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting him as the unique Son of God whom his Father had raised from the dead and also his sacrificial death as the means by which they could be forgiven of their sins. (20:21; compare 13:32-39; 14:15-17; 16:31, 32; 17:29-31; 19:10; 26:20-23)
“Bound to the spirit,” Paul was on his way to Jerusalem. This could mean that his own spirit or mind prompted him to make the trip. It is more likely, however, that the reference is to the compelling power of God’s spirit (much as the spirit moved Jesus Christ to go into the wilderness after John baptized him). Guided by the holy spirit, Paul would have been acting in harmony with God’s will, which included his having to testify concerning Jesus Christ before “kings” or rulers. (9:15) The journey to Jerusalem resulted in creating the circumstances that enabled Paul to fulfill this part of his commission. At the time he spoke to the elders of the Ephesus congregation, however, he did not know just what would happen to him in Jerusalem. (20:22)
Up to this point in his journey to Jerusalem, Paul had come to know that bonds and hardships would befall him in the city. This was revealed to him through the operation of the holy spirit on him or on the prophets in the various congregations he visited as he had traveled from city to city. (20:23; compare 21:10, 11.)
Nevertheless, he was willing to suffer and die for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ. He did not consider his “soul” or life as being of such value that he would be impelled to preserve it at all costs. Paul’s concern was to complete his course and the “service” or ministry that he had received from the Lord Jesus, which ministry called for him to “testify to the evangel of God’s favor.” This “evangel” was the good news that God’s favor would be bestowed on all who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted his sacrificial death for them. Recipients of the “favor” or unmerited kindness of God would be forgiven of their sins and become reconciled to him as his beloved children who would continue to benefit from his care and guidance. (20:24)
In view of what awaited him, Paul knew that those among whom he had proclaimed “the kingdom” (or, according to other manuscripts, “the kingdom of Jesus,” “the kingdom of God,” or the “evangel of God”) would not see his “face” again. The message about the kingdom related to how individuals could become part of the realm where God is recognized as Sovereign and where he rules by means of his Son. Believers cease to be part of the world that is under the control of the powers of darkness (Satan and his demons), alienated from God and under the condemnation of death. They have been transferred to another realm (another kingdom) as persons forgiven of their sins and who will come to enjoy an enduring life as totally sinless persons when God’s kingdom will be the only realm and all competing rulerships will have been reduced to nothingness. (20:25; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; Colossians 1:13, 14; 2:13)
Having faithfully discharged his ministry, Paul solemnly declared to the elders of the Ephesus congregation, “I am clean from the blood of all.” If any one among them became disloyal to God and Christ, this could not be charged to Paul’s account. (20:26) He had not withheld anything they needed to know but had related to them “all the counsel of God,” not leaving out any essentials relating to the doing of God’s will. (20:27)
The elders needed to watch themselves, making sure that they conducted themselves in an exemplary manner and faithfully adhered to Jesus’ teaching. They were also obligated to watch out for fellow believers, the “flock” under their care. Paul attributed their appointment as “overseers” to the holy spirit, which may be understood to mean that, through the operation of God’s spirit, they had been equipped to serve fellow believers. The source of their thus being qualified to serve could also indicate that they were under obligation to follow the spirit’s direction when discharging their duties. As “overseers” or “guardians,” they were to look out for the welfare of the flock of fellow believers, laboring for them as loving and caring shepherds. The flock was not theirs but belonged to God. It was God’s congregation that he had purchased with “the blood of his own one,” his dearly beloved Son. (20:28; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; see the Notes section.)
Paul alerted the elders to the grave danger they would be facing. The flock of fellow believers would come under attack. After his going away (either his departure as one who had cared for them personally or his departure in death), men, comparable to savage wolves, would come into the flock and not spare it from harm. These “wolves” would introduce pernicious error and, with corrupt teaching, exploit and injure everyone whom they succeeded in deluding. (20:29)
The welfare of the flock would also be threatened from within. Paul warned that, from their very midst, men would rise up and distort the truth. These men would not follow the leading of God’s spirit and adhere faithfully to the good news about Jesus Christ. They would endeavor to lead disciples away from Christ and have them be their followers. (20:30)
In view of the future threats from outside and inside the community of believers, Paul urged the elders to remain awake and to consider the example he had set while laboring among them. “For three years, night and day,” he had not stopped warning each one of them “with tears.” Based on the specifics in the book of Acts, the “three years” are to be understood as a round number. Paul’s words about admonishing or warning them “day and night” signify that he did so repeatedly, without letup, and at every opportunity. His tears revealed the great concern and tender feeling he had for them, appealing to them compassionately when they strayed from the right course. (20:31)
Because they would no longer have him personally present, Paul entrusted the elders to God or, according to the reading of other manuscripts, to the Lord. As persons committed to God (or to the Lord Jesus Christ), they would come under his care and guidance. Additionally, Paul commended them to the “word of favor” or “grace.” This would be the message about Jesus Christ that revealed God’s favor or kindness to the fullest extent. That “word” provided them with everything they needed for being built up or strengthened in faith and for knowing how to remain divinely approved so as to be given an “inheritance among all who have been sanctified” (set apart as holy, clean, or pure for God). That inheritance includes all the privileges and blessings to be enjoyed by all who, as their ultimate destiny, will come to be sinless children of God. (20:32)
Paul had labored unselfishly in the interests of the Lord Jesus Christ, not seeking personal gain or coveting the possessions of others — gold, silver, or garments. At a time when many had only one robe or outer garment and one tunic or inner garment, additional clothing was regarded as something highly desirable. This is illustrated by the fact that the four Roman soldiers divided Jesus’ outer garment into four parts and cast lots to determine who would get the seamless tunic or inner garment. (20:33; John 19:23, 24)
To support himself and his associates and not to be a burden on others, Paul labored with his own hands at his trade. (20:34) For the elders, he set the example as a loving shepherd who was deeply concerned about the flock of God and who expended himself fully in ministering to fellow believers. He did not neglect the lowly, the insignificant or the “weak,” and he admonished the elders to support the weak. The “weak” could have been believers with a fragile faith who were facing hardships and so needed caring support and consolation so that they would not become disheartened but would grow stronger in faith. Through selfless service to fellow believers, members of the beloved family of God’s beloved children, the elders would experience the fulfillment of Jesus’ words (which are uniquely preserved in the Acts account), “More happiness there is in giving than in receiving.” These are the words that Paul admonished the elders to remember, never forgetting that the superior joy would come from giving of themselves fully to others. (20:35)
After he had finished speaking, the apostle “knelt down with all of them and prayed.” (20:36) Especially grieved about the prospect of not seeing Paul again, the elders gave way to considerable weeping, embraced him (literally, “fell upon the neck of Paul”), and kissed him. Thereafter they accompanied him to the ship on which he and his travel companions would set sail for the first part of the journey to Jerusalem. (20:37, 38)
Notes:
In verse 4, Codex Bezae (Cantabrigiensis) refers to Eutychus (Tychicus) and Trophimus as being Ephesians.
In view of the way in which the Greek text of verses 4 and 5 is worded, there is a possibility that only Tychicus and Trophimus traveled ahead to Troas, whereas the others accompanied Paul through Macedonia and then to Troas from Philippi. The German Gute Nachricht Bibel specifically identifies only the two (Tychicus and Trophimus) as waiting in Troas for the arrival of Paul and the others. “On this trip seven representatives of the congregations accompanied him: from Beroea, Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus; from Thessalonica, Aristarchus and Secundus; from Derbe, Gaius; additionally Timothy and, finally, from the province of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. Both of these traveled ahead to Troas and expected us there.” (Auf dieser Reise begleiteten ihn sieben Vertreter der Gemeinden: aus Beröa Sopater, der Sohn von Pyrrhus, aus Thessalonich Aristarch und Sekundus, aus Derbe Gaius, weiter Timotheus und schließlich aus der Provinz Asien Tychikus und Trophimus. Diese beiden fuhren nach Troas voraus und erwarteten uns dort.)
Certain manuscripts (in verse 15) include a stay at “Trogyllium” on the coast of Asia Minor and opposite the island of Samos. “The following day we arrived at Samos and stayed at Trogyllium.” (NKJV)
In verse 28, numerous manuscripts read, “congregation of the Lord.” Understood as a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, the purchase of the congregation had been made with his “own blood.”
After speaking to the elders from the Ephesus congregation who had come to Miletus at his request, Paul, accompanied by his companions, set sail on the first part of the journey to Jerusalem. The same day as they had parted from the elders, they arrived at Cos (Kos), a small island near the coast of southwestern Asia Minor. The principal city at the northeastern part of the island was also named Cos. Likely the ship remained anchored off the coast of the island and then set sail the next day for the island of Rhodes and from Rhodes to Patara, a seaport on the southern coast of Asia Minor. (21:1; see Cos for pictures of archaeological sites and island for pictures of the island of Cos; for pictures of Rhodes, see Rhodes, and Patara for pictures of the site. Also see the Notes section.) According to seemingly the best manuscript evidence, Paul and his companions boarded another ship at Patara and sailed to the Phoenician coast (in the Roman province of Syria). On the way, the vessel passed to the south of the island of Cyprus and then sailed to Tyre, where the cargo was unloaded. (21:2, 3; see Cyprus and Tyre for information and pictures.)
At Tyre, the ship remained anchored for seven days to unload the cargo and to complete any other essential tasks. Upon their arrival, Paul and his companions disembarked and endeavored to locate disciples in Tyre and then stayed in the city during the entire time the vessel remained anchored. Through the operation of God’s spirit upon them, disciples in Tyre came to know that Paul would come into perilous circumstances in Jerusalem and, therefore, told him not to go to the city. (21:4)
When the time came for Paul and his companions to leave Tyre, the disciples in the city, including the wives and children, accompanied them to the beach. There they knelt down and prayed and said farewell to one another. Paul and his companions then boarded the ship, and the disciples from Tyre returned to their homes. (21:5, 6)
The ship sailed to Ptolemais, over 20 miles (more than 30 kilometers) south of Tyre. In the city, Paul and his associates located the “brothers” or fellow believers and “stayed with them for one day.” In connection with the trip from Tyre, the Greek text contains a form of the word dianýo, which term basically means “complete” (“having completed the voyage from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais”). There is a strong possibility, however, that (in this context) the Greek term dianýo denotes “continue” (“having continued the voyage from Tyre”). (21:7; see http://www.bibleplaces.com/acco.htm for comments about and pictures of Ptolemais.)
The next day Paul and his companions departed and came to Caesarea. If dianýo means that the sea voyage from Tyre had been completed at Ptolemais, this would indicate that Paul and his associates traveled overland to Caesarea. “The end of our voyage from Tyre came when we landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed one day with them. The next day we left and came to Caesarea.” (NJB) “The next morning we continued on foot and reached Caesarea.” (Am anderen Morgen gingen wir zu Fuß weiter und erreichten Cäsarea. [German Gute Nachricht Bibel]) With a break for sleep during the night and times for stopping to eat, the trip to Caesarea would have taken two days. Without any specific indication in the account about the nature of the journey to Caesarea, Paul and his associates may well have continued on their way by ship. (21:7, 8; see the Notes section.)
At Caesarea, Paul and his associates stayed in the home of “Philip the evangelist,” a disciple who actively shared in making known the evangel or good news about Jesus Christ to others. Philip is further identified as “one of the seven,” that is, one of the seven disciples who had been appointed to look after the needs of widows after a complaint had been made to the apostles that the Greek-speaking widows had been overlooked in the “daily service.” (21:8; 6:1-6; see http://bibleplaces.com/caesarea.htm for pictures of and comments about Caesarea.)
Philip was a family man with four virgin daughters who had the prophetic gift. The home must have been one of the larger ones in Caesarea to have accommodated Philip’s family and at least nine guests (Paul, Luke, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus [20:4]). (21:8, 9)
During the several days Paul and the others were staying in Philip’s home, Agabus, a prophet from Judea, arrived. (21:10) With Paul’s belt, Agabus bound his own hands and feet and then declared what had been revealed to him by the holy spirit, “The man whose belt this is the Jews in Jerusalem will bind in this way and deliver him into the hands of the nations [non-Jews].” (21:11; see the Notes section.)
After hearing these words, Paul’s travel companions, including Luke, and all the other fellow believers who were present urged him with tears not to go up to Jerusalem. “What are you doing,” Paul responded, “weeping and breaking my heart?” Aware that he was heading for Jerusalem under the impelling power of the holy spirit, the apostle’s question implied that it was making it more difficult for him to follow through on the spirit’s direction when it brought such sadness to those whom he deeply loved. It distressed him emotionally, breaking his heart. He then expressed his resolve that he was willing not only to be bound in Jerusalem but also to die there for the “name,” or the person and all the associated authority, of the Lord Jesus. (21:12, 13)
Recognizing that Paul could not be persuaded from his spirit-directed resolve, they remained silent or said nothing else in an effort to dissuade him. They acquiesced with the words, “The will of the Lord be done.” Whereas the “Lord” could either be the Lord Jesus Christ or his Father, likely the Father is meant, as believers recognized God’s will in whatever might befall them by his permission. (21:14)
“After these days,” that is, at the conclusion of the stay in Caesarea, Paul and his travel companions got ready for the journey to Jerusalem and then departed. (21:15) Some disciples from Caesarea accompanied them and conducted them to the home of Mnason, an early disciple who originally came from the island of Cyprus. With this fellow believer, Paul and the group of travelers were to stay. The house of Mnason must have been located somewhere along the route, possibly somewhere near the halfway point (more than 30 miles [c. 50 kilometers]) between Caesarea and Jerusalem. As a native of Cyprus, he would not have had the kind of reservations about accommodating non-Jews that many believing Jews in Judea seemingly continued to have. (21:16, 20, 21; see the Notes section regarding verse 16.)
The Greek word asménos describes the manner in which the “brothers” (fellow believers) in Jerusalem received or welcomed Paul and his travel companions. This Greek adverb means “gladly,” indicating that they were joyfully accepted as beloved members of the family of God’s children. (21:17; see the Notes section.)
The day after arriving in Jerusalem, Paul and his travel companions went to see James, the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ. At the time, he was not alone, but all the elders of the community of believers were present. (21:18)
Paul greeted James and the others and then proceeded to tell about the results from his service “among the nations” or the non-Jewish peoples. He apparently minimized his own role, for the account points to what “God did among the nations through his service.” (21:19)
After having heard Paul’s report, James and the elders with him “glorified God,” praising him for what he had done through the faithful labors of Paul in making known the good news about Jesus Christ among the non-Jews. Addressed as “brother,” both a fellow Jew and a fellow believer, Paul’s attention was then drawn to “how many thousands” (literally, “myriads”) of believers there were among the Jews, with all of them being “zealous for the law.” Although believers, they continued to live according to Jewish customs, observing the festivals and presenting their offerings at the temple. (21:20)
These believing Jews had heard disturbing reports about Paul, probably from Jews who came to Jerusalem from the regions where he had proclaimed the message about Jesus Christ. The talk that had circulated about Paul misrepresented him, portraying him as a renegade Jew who was teaching “an apostasy from Moses” and telling Jews not to circumcise their children nor to follow the Jewish way of life. (21:21)
“What then is [to be done]?” This question served to introduce what James (literally, “we,” but probably meaning James as the one representing all the elders present) was about to recommend to squelch the rumors that had circulated among the believers who would hear that Paul had arrived. (21:22, 23)
Among the believers, “four men” were then under a vow. Although the kind of vow is not named, the context indicates that it was a Nazarite vow, which required them to abstain from alcoholic beverages and any product of the grapevine, not to cut their hair, and to avoid touching any dead body, even that of a close relative who might die. (21:23; Numbers 6:1-7)
The basis for the recommendation that Paul purify himself ceremonially with the four men may have been because he had come from Gentile regions. According to traditional Jewish sources (Tosefta, Ahilot, 18:1, 5), the land of the Gentiles, even its virgin soil, was considered to be unclean and made a Jew who entered it by carriage, wagon, boat, or raft unclean. The Mishnah indicates that soil from a foreign country conveyed uncleanness (Oholoth, 2.3) and that a person would become unclean when going through the land of Gentiles in hilly or rocky regions (Oholoth, 18.6). So Paul’s undertaking the ceremonial cleansing could have been in recognition of the uncleanness resulting from having been in the land of the Gentiles. Another possibility is that he purified himself on account of sharing in the Nazarite vow of the four men when agreeing to pay for the associated expenses. (21:24)
The expenses would have been considerable. Upon the completion of the Nazarite vow, an individual was required to present a year-old male lamb as a burnt offering, a year-old ewe lamb as a sin offering, a ram as an offering of well-being (“deliverance,” LXX), a basket of unleavened baked items, and the accompanying grain offering and libations. (Numbers 6:13-17) Ancient Jewish sources indicate that others could share in paying the expenses. The Tosefta (Nezirut, 2:4, 7) refers to volunteering to present specific offerings or half of the offerings. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, XIX, vi, 1) mentioned that Herod Agrippa I “ordained that many of the Nazarites should have their heads shorn,” which appears to have involved his paying for the required sacrifices. (21:24)
When the period of the vow ended, the Nazarite would shave his hair at the sanctuary and present it as an offering to be consumed in the fire under the sacrifice of well-being. (Numbers 6:18) By personally undergoing ritual purification and showing himself supportive of the regulations applying to the Nazarite vow, Paul would have demonstrated that he did not teach Jews an apostasy from Moses. So the recommendation that had been made to him would have served to demonstrate that the rumors about him were false and that he conducted himself in harmony with the law. (21:24)
Adherence to the law, however, did not apply to non-Jewish believers, and this is the apparent reason for mentioning the decision about the things from which they were to abstain. Paul had been present when this decision was reached and had shared it with non-Jewish believers. To disciples from the nations, the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem congregation had written that they should avoid things sacrificed to idols, blood, meat from strangled animals or those not properly bled, and sexual immorality. (21:25; see the Notes section and http://wernerbiblecommentary.org/?q=node/592 for details.)
The next day Paul acted on the recommendation, doing so in harmony with what he had earlier written to believers in Corinth, “To the Jews, I became as a Jew.” (1 Corinthians 9:20) He took the four men along, cleansed himself ceremonially with them, and entered the temple precincts to give notice when the “days of purification” would be fulfilled and the required sacrifices would be presented for each one of the men. (21:26)
The Mosaic law does not mention a purification period prior to the termination of a Nazarite vow. A Nazarite who defiled himself when inadvertently coming in contact with a dead body did have to shave his hair on the seventh day and then offer specific sacrifices on the eighth day. (Numbers 6:9-12)
Moreover, the law does not stipulate that persons under a Nazarite vow had to inform a priest beforehand when the period of the Nazarite vow would end and the required sacrifices would be presented. This is what some have understood the Acts account to indicate to have been the practice then. “The next day he fulfilled the purification requirements and, together with the men, went to the temple. There he gave notice to the priest that they had fulfilled their vow. After the prescribed time of seven days, an offering was to be brought for each one of them.” (Am nächsten Tag erfüllte er die Reinigungsvorschriften und ging dann zusammen mit den Männern in den Tempel. Dort meldeten sie dem Priester, dass sie ihr Gelübde erfüllt hatten. Nach der vorgeschriebenen Zeit von sieben Tagen sollte dann für jeden von ihnen ein Opfer dargebracht werden. [German, Hoffnung für alle]) To establish a more direct link to the regulations in the book of Numbers, others have concluded that the four men had inadvertently defiled themselves. Even in this case, though, the book of Numbers does not say anything about reporting this to a priest seven days before the hair was to be cut. (21:26)
Before the seven-day period ended, certain Jews from the Roman province of Asia who doubtless had come to Jerusalem to observe Pentecost saw Paul. They laid hands on him, and stirred up the crowd in the temple precincts, shouting, “Men, Israelites, help! This is the man who everywhere teaches everyone against [our] people, the law, and this place, and he has even brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” These hostile Jews from the province of Asia recognized Paul, for he had proclaimed the message about Jesus Christ in their synagogues. They misrepresented his teaching that, on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death, both Jews and non-Jews could be forgiven of their sins and have God’s approval. In their estimation, he was speaking against his own people, putting them on the same level as the unclean Gentiles. His teaching was regarded as being against the law, probably because they thought that what he said conflicted with the commands that directed Jews to remain clean from the defilements of people of the nations. They also perceived his message as being against the temple. Likely this was because he did not teach that non-Jews would have to come under the law, a prominent feature of which involved the temple services at Jerusalem. The Jews from the province of Asia falsely claimed that Paul had brought Greeks into the temple. (21:27, 28)
They had seen Paul in Jerusalem with the Ephesian Trophimus, one of his non-Jewish travel companions. It may well be that among the Jews from the Roman province of Asia were individuals from the city of Ephesus, and they may even have recognized Trophimus as a resident of their city. Based on having seen him with Paul, they wrongly assumed that Paul had taken him into the area that non-Jews were not allowed to enter, thereby defiling the sacred precincts. (21:29)
In view of the large number of people in the temple precincts, it would have appeared that the “whole city” was in turmoil on account of the shouting against Paul. People came running to the location where the commotion had started. Certain ones seized Paul and dragged him outside the sacred precincts. The presence of the crowd would have slowed the progress in dragging him outside. In their rage against him, some of the Jews likely started beating him along the way, further delaying the effort to take him out of the sacred temple precincts. To prevent any additional uproar in the sacred area, likely the captain of the temple or, at his direction, a guard or guards shut the doors once Paul had been taken outside. (21:30)
Roman soldiers were stationed at the Tower of Antonia, a fortress that Herod the Great had built to the northwest of the temple complex. According to Josephus, this fortress had all the conveniences of a palace and “resembled a tower,” with “four other distinct towers at its four corners.” From the tower situated in the southeast corner, the temple area could be seen. This particular tower was connected to the “two cloisters of the temple” and had passages down to both of them. A Roman legion was always stationed in this tower, and soldiers, especially when many Jews and proselytes were present for the festivals, would make their rounds over the top of the cloisters to watch for any unusual developments among the people. (War, V, v, 8) Therefore, once the commotion involving Paul started, a member of the guard would quickly have been able to communicate this to Claudia Lysias, the commander (chiliarch), telling him that the “whole of Jerusalem” was in uproar. With soldiers and centurions under his command, Claudius Lysias immediately ran down from the tower to quell the disturbance. The time it took for the hostile Jews to get Paul outside the sacred temple precincts would have given Claudius Lysias sufficient time to arrive on the scene while certain Jews were seeking to kill Paul. As soon as these Jews saw the commander and the accompanying Roman soldiers, they stopped beating him. Apparently they did not want to become involved in a confrontation with the well-armed Roman military. (21:31, 32; 23:26; see Tower of Antonia for comments about and a picture of a reconstruction of the fortress. Also see http://holylandphotos.org for a model of the temple [type “second temple model” in the search box] and Temple Mount].)
The number of Roman soldiers may well have been around two hundred or more. Likely the centurions (of which there were at least two) were accompanied by all the men under their command. The commander approached, arrested Paul, and ordered that he “be bound with two chains.” Likely Paul was chained to a soldier on his right and his left. The commander then inquired of the Jews about the identity of Paul and what he had done. (21:33)
Some in the crowd shouted one thing but others something else. On account of the noisy confusion, the commander could not find out anything and ordered Paul to be taken to the quarters inside the Tower of Antonia. (21:34)
When the Roman military headed back to the Tower of Antonia, a crowd of Jews followed and began to direct their violence against Paul. Arriving at the steps leading from the outer temple court to the quarters where the soldiers were stationed, the crowd became so violent that the soldiers, to prevent an incident, appear to have lifted Paul over their heads and then carried him. (21:35) The crowd continued to shout, “Away with him!” (21:36)
Apparently once he was out of the reach of any of the people and no longer being carried but about to be led into the quarters of the soldiers, Paul, speaking Greek, asked the commander, “Is it permissible to say something to you?” (21:37)
The fact that Paul spoke to him in Greek seems to have surprised the commander, prompting him to ask, “You know Greek?” (21:37) It seems that the violent reaction to Paul had led the commander to conclude that he might have been the Egyptian who had earlier incited revolt and “led 4,000 Sicarii [sikárioi] into the wilderness.” The fact that Paul spoke Greek appears not to have fit this identity. (21:37, 38)
The Greek term sikarioi is derived from the Latin sicarii, which designation incorporates the word sica, meaning “dagger.” According to Josephus, they were named after the sickle-like dagger they carried hidden under their garments. At the Jewish festivals, they mingled in the crowd and, thus without being detected, assassinated those whom they had previously targeted. (Antiquities, XX, viii, 5, 10) To divert attention away from themselves, they joined the crowd in expressing anger about the killings. (War, II, xiii, 3)
The incident involving the Egyptian had occurred not long before Paul’s arrest. It took place during the time Felix was procurator of Judea, and Paul was arrested about two years before Festus replaced Felix as procurator. (23:26, 37; 24:27) In his writings, Josephus mentioned the Egyptian. A man claiming to be a prophet came to Jerusalem from Egypt, and he deluded a considerable crowd to follow him, taking them into the wilderness, the barren region of rounded hills not far to the east of Jerusalem and which extended to the Dead Sea and then along its west coast. The Egyptian deceiver wanted his followers to accompany him to the Mount of Olives, from where he claimed he would show them “how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.” They would then be able to enter the city through the breach (Antiquities, XX, viii, 6), proceed to vanquish the Roman garrison, and establish his control over the city. (War, II, xiii, 5) When the procurator Felix learned about this, he ordered a military force to attack the Egyptian and those with him. “Four hundred” of those whom the Egyptian had deluded were slain and “two hundred” were captured alive, but he escaped. According to the extant text of Josephus, the Egyptian had a following of 30,000 men, but the more reasonable number of 4,000 in the Acts account is to be preferred. (Antiquities, XX, viii, 6; War, II, xiii, 5) The Greek letter symbol for 30,000 (the capital letter lamda [L] preceded by a left keraia) and the one for 4,000 (the capital letter delta [D] preceded by a left keraia) are very similar. (21:38)
In response to the commander, Paul identified himself as a Jew from Tarsus (not an insignificant city) in Cilicia and asked for permission to speak to the people. (21:39)
The commander granted the request. Standing on the steps, Paul gestured with his hand, indicating that he wanted to address the people. Once the crowd had quieted down, he began to speak in Hebrew (the language of the Jewish natives of Judea and Galilee). (21:40)
Notes:
In verse 1, a number of manuscripts add “and Myra” after “Patara,” but what appears to be the superior manuscript evidence does not support this addition.
In verse 8, the words “the ones around Paul” (meaning his travel companions) do not have the support of the oldest manuscripts but are found in a number of translations. “On the next day we who were Paul’s companions departed and came to Caesarea.” (NKJV)
The prophecy of Agabus (verse 11) illustrates that the message (not specific details) is the principal aspect that commonly figures in the fulfillment of prophecies. It was not the Jews who literally bound Paul, but their actions toward him resulted in his being bound and coming into the hands, or the authority, of the Romans. Therefore, with reference to biblical prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled, one needs to exercise care not to draw conclusions that reflect a strict literalism and an understanding of these prophecies as if they were detailed future histories that were recorded in advance centuries ago. At the same time, the prophecy of Agabus reveals that it represents his words, for a prophecy written after the fact would reasonably have matched the actual specifics more precisely. This example clearly does not support the claim of those who maintain that biblical prophecies reflect what happened after the fact.
According to an expanded manuscript reading of verse 16, the disciples from Caesarea brought Paul and his associates to the place where they would lodge for the night. At a certain village, they then stayed with Mnason.
Verse 17, where the reference is to the welcome Paul and his associates received from fellow believers in Jerusalem, serves as an introduction to the discussion that follows. Their hearty welcome provides a strong contrast to the later reaction of hostile Jews from Asia Minor.
In verse 25, an expanded manuscript reading says, “But concerning the believing [people of the] nations, they [Jewish believers] have nothing to say to you [Paul],” the reason being that the written decision had been provided. The reference to “things strangled,” however, is not included.
When inviting the men to listen to the defense he was about to make, Paul addressed them as “brothers and fathers.” As his “brothers,” they were fellow Israelites, and he respectfully acknowledged the older ones among them as “fathers” or elders among the people. (22:1)
Hearing themselves addressed in “Hebrew” (the language of native Jewish residents in Judea and Galilee) after the din from the uproar regarding Paul had ceased, the people became even quieter. As a bilingual people, they may have expected Paul to speak to them in Greek, resulting in a greater hush among them when they heard him addressing them in their native language. (22:2)
He stressed his Jewish upbringing, speaking of himself as a Jewish man born in Tarsus of Cilicia and taught in Jerusalem “at the feet of Gamaliel.” Seated in a lower position than the rabbi who taught them, disciples or pupils were seated at his feet. Gamaliel usually has been identified as “Gamaliel the Elder,” concerning whom the Mishnah (Sota 9:15) says that, when he died, “the glory of the Law ceased and purity and abstinence died.” Among the legalistic rulings attributed to him are ones that reflect a more humane viewpoint than may be seen in that of other ancient teachers of the Torah. Gamaliel was called “Rabban,” which title was even more honorable than “Rabbi.” (22:3)
The teaching Paul received proved to be “according to the exactness of the ancestral law.” This suggests that what he learned conformed fully to the Torah as it had been transmitted from ancient times. Paul was zealous for God in his adherence to the written law and the oral Torah teaching he received as a pupil of Gamaliel, and he acknowledged that “all” of those before whom he was making his defense had such zeal to that very day. (22:3)
Paul had persecuted “this way to the death.” The “way” was the way of life as persons with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which included conduct in keeping with his example and teaching. Believing “this way” to be apostasy from the teaching of Moses and the cherished Jewish traditions, Paul had previously set out on a campaign of fierce persecution, approving of the death of believers. He had seized both men and women and handed them over bound for imprisonment. (22:4)
Both the high priest and the assembly of elders (the members of the Sanhedrin or the Jewish high court) could testify to the fact that he had been a persecutor. From “them” (literally, “of whom” [plural]), he obtained letters to the “brothers,” fellow Jews in Damascus, authorizing him to arrest believers in Jesus Christ and to bring them “bound to Jerusalem” for punishment. (22:5)
According to verses 1 and 2 of Acts 9, Paul asked the high priest for the letters. Therefore, the reference in verse 5 of chapter 22 about his having received letters from “them” may be understood as having been expressed in a generic sense. It is also possible that, besides the high priest, the Sanhedrin was involved in granting written authority to Paul. (22:5)
Although approximately twenty years had passed since he had received the letters and another high priest (possibly Caiaphas) was then in office, Paul did not doubt that high priest Ananias (23:2) and the Sanhedrin knew about his role, probably because of its having been of a prominent public nature. (22:5)
With the authorizing letters, Paul (Saul) had headed for Damascus, intent on arresting all believers in Jesus Christ and bringing them bound to Jerusalem for punishment. (22:5) About noon, when he was nearing Damascus, a bright light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard the question (in Hebrew [26:14]), “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (22:6, 7)
Saul replied, “Who are you, lord?” At the time, he did not know the one whom he called “lord” and so used the expression as a respectful manner of address. The one whom he had persecuted by acting against his disciples then identified himself, “I am Jesus the Nazarene whom you are persecuting.” (22:8)
The men who had accompanied Paul saw the bright light, but they did not hear the actual words that Jesus spoke (literally, “they did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me”). They appear to have heard the sound of a voice (9:7), but not in a manner that made it possible for them to understand anything. (22:9; see the Notes section.)
Apparently continuing to use “lord” in a respectful manner of address, Saul asked Jesus, “What shall I do, lord?” The Lord instructed him to stand up (as he had fallen to the ground) and to continue on his way to Damascus, where he would be told everything that had been assigned for him to do. (22:10; see the Notes section.)
The “glory” or the extraordinary brightness of the light that had flashed around Paul blinded him. Therefore, those with him had to lead him “by the hand” into Damascus. (22:11)
It was there in Damascus that Ananias came to see him. Paul described Ananias as a “devout man according to the law” and as having a good reputation among all his fellow Jews living in Damascus. This description of an exemplary Jewish man who lived according to the law would have been viewed favorably among those who were listening to Paul. (22:12)
When Ananias came to see Paul, he stood beside him and said, “Saul, brother, regain sight.” That “very hour,” or at that time, Paul’s vision was restored and he saw Ananias. (22:13)
At this point in his narration of events, Paul related what Ananias said to him, “The God of our fathers [ancestors] has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear the voice from his mouth [22:14], for you are to be his witness to all men regarding what you have seen and heard. [22:15] And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and wash your sins away by calling on his name.” (22:16)
The designation “God of our fathers” or ancestors identified YHWH as the God who had dealt directly with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The promise he originally made to Abraham pointed to the coming of a “seed” in their line of descent through whom people of “all the nations of the earth” would be blessed. This “seed” proved to be Jesus, the foretold Messiah or Christ. (22:14; Genesis 22:18)
God’s choosing Paul included his being commissioned as an apostle to the non-Jews. In the context of his being chosen, his coming to know God’s will would have included how, on the basis of faith in his Son and the surrender of his life for the human family, both Jews and non-Jews could be forgiven of their sins and gain an approved standing as part of God’s family of children. The “Righteous One” is the Lord Jesus Christ whose righteousness or uprightness is completely free from any flaw or taint. In keeping with his Father’s will, the resurrected Son of God revealed himself to Paul on his way to Damascus and spoke to him directly. (22:14)
The reason he came to see and hear Jesus was so that he could serve as a witness for him to people everywhere about what he had personally seen and heard. Accordingly, Paul, when proclaiming the good news about Jesus Christ, could do so on the basis of firsthand knowledge. He had seen him and received from him the message that should be made known to people everywhere. (22:15)
In view of what Paul had experienced on his way to Damascus, no reason existed for him to delay in getting baptized as a disciple of Jesus Christ. By “calling on his name,” acknowledging him as his Lord and the one who died for him so that he might be forgiven of his sins, Paul had the assurance that his sins would be washed away. As a man cleansed from his sins, he would be able to serve God and Christ acceptably. (22:16)
According to his letter to the Galatians (1:15-18), Paul did not immediately return to Jerusalem from Damascus. When he did return, he, like other devout Jews, prayed at the temple. While in prayer there, he came to be in “ecstasy” or in a trance (22:17) and again saw Jesus, who told him, “Hurry and quickly leave Jerusalem, for they will not accept your testimony about me.” (22:18) Feeling that the Jews in the city would respond because of the remarkable change that had taken place in his life, Paul protested, “Lord, they know that, [from] every synagogue, I imprisoned and flogged those who believed in you. And when the blood of your witness Stephen was being spilled, I myself stood by and approved [while] guarding the garments of those who killed him.” Paul felt that, based on the persecutor he had been, the Jews in Jerusalem would be able to recognize that only overwhelming evidence could have moved him to become a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. (22:19, 20)
From a human perspective, Paul’s reasoning appeared to be sound, but Jesus Christ knew that logic would not convince Jews with a strong emotional attachment to their beliefs and that Paul’s testimony would make them hostile and more resistant to change. Jesus urged him to be on his way, adding, “because I will send you far away to the nations” (the non-Jews). (22:21)
When the Jews heard about a commission to the “nations” or non-Jews, they became furious. They believed in making proselytes among non-Jews, but the message that Paul proclaimed indicated that non-Jews could become acceptable to God through faith in Jesus Christ without having to live according to the law like Jews. The Jews from the Roman province of Asia knew that this is what Paul taught, and so his mention of the “nations” was enough to remind them of the reason for their opposition to him. Enraged, they stopped listening and began to shout, “Away with such a man from the land, for he is not fit to live!” (22:22) Besides screaming, they took off their outer garments and probably shook them violently. They also tossed dirt into the air. (22:23)
Observing that the situation had gotten out of control, the commander ordered that Paul be led into the quarters inside the Tower of Antonia and there to be submitted to scourging in order to determine why the Jews screamed against him. Apparently the commander believed that torture would force Paul to divulge the reason for their hostility. (22:24)
Scourging involved more than just a beating. The wounds that were inflicted could prove to be lethal. When soldiers had tied him in preparation for whipping, Paul asked the centurion (apparently the officer in charge) who stood there whether it was lawful to scourge a Roman citizen who had not been “condemned” or found guilty of any crime. (22:25)
At once, the centurion went to the commander, for he had given the order that Paul be scourged, and said to him, “What are you about to do? This man is a Roman [citizen].” (22:26)
The commander then went to ask Paul personally whether he was a Roman citizen. In response to Paul’s affirmative answer, he said that it had cost him a large sum of money to obtain Roman citizenship. The commander’s words may be taken to mean that he found it hard to believe that Paul would have had the needed funds to purchase Roman citizenship. Paul, however, had not bought his citizenship. Just how he came to be a Roman citizen from birth is not explained in the account. Paul’s word was accepted, for it was a capital offense for anyone falsely to claim Roman citizenship. (22:28; see the Notes section about Roman citizenship.) According to Suetonius in Lives of the Caesars, the Roman emperor Claudius “executed in the Esquiline field” men “who usurped the privileges of Roman citizenship.” (Life of Claudius, XXV, 3)
Once the commander had confirmed the status of Roman citizenship from Paul himself, the soldiers who would have carried out the scourging withdrew. Moreover, the commander became fearful, as he had violated the rights of a Roman citizen by having him bound. (22:29)
The next day the commander, wanting to know specifically what accusation the Jews had against Paul, ordered the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin to assemble. As a Roman citizen, Paul stood before the members of the Jewish high court, not as a bound prisoner, but as a man who had not been condemned of any crime. If the court had found him to be innocent, the commander would have set Paul free. If, on the other hand, the court had established that Paul had been guilty of a serious crime, the commander would have concurred with the imposition of the appropriate penalty. (22:30)
Notes:
According to another manuscript reading of verse 9, those with Paul also became afraid. “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid.” (NKJV)
In his letter to the Galatians (1:11, 12), Paul stressed that he received the message he proclaimed directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. What he was to be told in Damascus (verse 10) did not involve his commissioning as an apostle to the nations nor instruction about the message concerning the Lord Jesus Christ that he would be proclaiming. The disciple Ananias merely served as the agency the Son of God used to convey his directive to Paul and to restore his sight.
Dio Cassius, in his History (LX, xvii, 3-6), wrote that Claudius “reduced the Lycians to servitude because they had revolted and slain some Romans, and he incorporated them in the prefecture of Pamphylia. During the investigation of this affair, which was conducted in the senate, he put a question in Latin to one of the envoys who had originally been a Lycian, but had been made a Roman citizen; and when the man failed to understand what was said, he took away his citizenship, saying that it was not proper for a man to be a Roman who had no knowledge of the Romans’ language. A great many other persons unworthy of citizenship were also deprived of it, whereas he granted citizenship to others quite indiscriminately, sometimes to individuals and sometimes to whole groups. For inasmuch as Romans had the advantage over foreigners in practically all respects, many sought the franchise by personal application to the emperor, and many bought it from Messalina and the imperial freedmen. For this reason, though the privilege was at first sold only for large sums, it later became so cheapened by the facility with which it could be obtained that it came to be a common saying, that a man could become a citizen by giving the right person some bits of broken glass.”
Paul focused intently on the members of the Sanhedrin and said, “Men, brothers, I have acted with a completely good conscience before God down to this [very] day.” As fellow Jews, the members of the high court were his brothers. Paul’s manner of life as a Jew had been and continued to be upright. While engaged in a campaign of persecution against the followers of Jesus Christ, he believed that he was doing what was right, upholding the law and defending the cherished traditions. In retrospect, however, Paul came to see himself as a blasphemer and an insolent man, but this is not how he would have been regarded by members of the court in his role as a persecutor. (1 Timothy 1:13) They would have looked at him differently since his coming to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, and the objectionable part of Paul’s words would have been his insistence that he continued to have an undefiled conscience. (23:1)
He must have spoken in a firm and bold manner as a man without the slightest doubt of his innocence. His words, the manner in which he expressed himself, and his bearing as a guiltless man must have enraged the high priest Ananias. In no way did Paul appear to be intimidated in the presence of the highest Jewish authority. Ananias gave the command for those standing near Paul (probably the high priest’s attendants) to “strike him on the mouth,” which would have constituted an insulting rejection of his words as falsehood. Thus, contrary to the law, Ananias expressed a judgment before giving Paul the opportunity to complete his defense. (23:2; see the Notes section regarding Ananias.)
Paul responded indignantly with an expression of condemnation and rebuke, “God is about to strike you, you whitewashed wall. Are you sitting [there as one] judging me according to the law and, contrary to the law, commanding me to be struck?” The retort indicated that Paul regarded the one giving the command as merely having the appearance of being an upholder of justice (as a member of the Sanhedrin) but being a violator of justice. The outward appearance was comparable to the whitewash that concealed the defects of a wall. Thus Paul identified this member of the court as a hypocrite. (23:3)
The reason Paul did not know who had given the command to strike him on the mouth is not revealed in the account. At the time, while viewing the various members of the court as he addressed them, Paul may not have been looking in the direction where the high priest was seated. Those standing nearby spoke up, saying to him, “Are you insulting God’s high priest?” (23:4)
Unlike the sinless Son of God who had been slapped when before the Sanhedrin but who responded without an expression of condemnation (John 18:20-23), Paul had not been able to restrain his tongue when being treated unjustly and insultingly. He responded to those who objected to his having reviled that he did not know that the high priest had given the command, and then quoted from Exodus 22:27, “You must not speak evil of a ruler of your people.” Paul’s reference to the law constituted an acknowledgment that he had sinned with his tongue. (23:5)
Even if another member of the Sanhedrin had given the command to strike him, Paul’s words would have been contrary to the law and what he had personally written to believers in Rome, “Bless those who persecute.” (Romans 12:14) “Return evil for evil to no one.” (Romans 12:17)
Doubtless Paul recognized that the members of the court would not declare him innocent and that his having to make an apology for his words had weakened his defense. Moreover, he was fully aware of the opposing views to which the Pharisees and Sadducees adhered. So it appears that he deliberately chose to set the members of the court against one another while, at the same time, defending the truth that he had been proclaiming about the Lord Jesus Christ. As he looked at the members of the Sanhedrin, he could see that they were Pharisees and Sadducees. Apparently Pharisees could easily have been recognized, for they wore distinctively large phylacteries and garments with longer fringes than did Jews generally. (Matthew 23:5) So, with specific reference to a belief to which he faithfully adhered and which he shared in common with the Pharisees, he called out to the members of the court, “Men, brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Concerning the hope [of Israel (28:20)] and the resurrection of the dead I am being judged.” (23:6)
The “hope” related to the coming of the Messiah and the blessings that would result. That hope is inseparably associated with the resurrection, for it was Jesus’ being raised from the dead that undeniably confirmed his identity as the promised Messiah or Christ and the unique Son of God. Moreover, the realization of this hope in the case of the many who had died depended on their being resurrected. In connection with the “hope” and the “resurrection of the dead,” Paul shared the same basic belief as did other Pharisees, including his parents. (23:6)
His having made belief in the resurrection the issue caused division among the members of the Sanhedrin, with the Pharisees and Sadducees being at odds. (23:7) The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection nor in the existence of “angel” or “spirit.” They denied that the law (the Torah) supported belief in a resurrection. The Sadducees may have regarded belief in angels and archangels as well as good and evil spirits as a later development, and not as originating from the time of Moses. The Pharisees, however, believed in the resurrection and the existence of angels and spirits. In the Greek text, the word used respecting what the Pharisees confess or acknowledge is a form of amphóteroi, which can mean “both.” If “both” is the meaning, then “resurrection” is one, and “angel and spirit” are represented as the other. It is also possible that amphóteroi signifies “all,” that is, “all three.” (23:8; see the Notes section.)
The atmosphere among the members of the Sanhedrin became emotionally charged, leading to loud screaming. Some of the Pharisees stood up, insisting that they found nothing wrong with Paul and then continued, “If a spirit or angel spoke to him.” This being an incomplete thought may suggest that the rest of the words could not be heard on account of the shouting or that the one or the ones speaking had been interrupted and not allowed to finish. (23:9)
Observing that the dissension between the Sadducees and Pharisees had become violent and fearing that they might pull Paul to pieces, the commander ordered soldiers to snatch him away from the disputants and to bring him to the quarters in the Tower of Antonia. (23:10)
The following night, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Paul in a vision and told him, “Take courage.” Jesus’ words suggest that Paul had said more during his defense before the Sanhedrin than is narrated in the account. Jesus referred to the apostle’s defense in Jerusalem as testifying to the things about him and that he would likewise be testifying in Rome. The preserved account does not include any specific testimony about Jesus Christ, suggesting that the narration of events is highly condensed. (23:11)
In the morning following the night on which Jesus had appeared to Paul, a group of Jews plotted to kill him. More than 40 men bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor to drink until they had accomplished their objective. (23:12, 13) According to the Mishnah (Nedarim, 3:3), a vow that became impossible to fulfill would be considered as a vow “under duress” and, therefore, invalid. So when it subsequently became impossible for these men to carry out their plot, they would not have been forced to die by never again eating or drinking.
The conspirators informed the chief priests and the elders of the people (likely members of the Sanhedrin whom they may well have known as being the most hostile toward Paul) about having bound themselves by a curse not to eat anything until they had killed Paul. (23:14) To attain their objective, they wanted the chief priests and the other members of the Sanhedrin to have the commander bring Paul to them for further consideration of his case. The conspirators would then be prepared to kill him while he was being conducted to the meeting place of the Sanhedrin. So determined were these men to kill him that they were willing to risk their own lives by having to fight armed Roman soldiers who would be accompanying Paul. (23:15)
Upon coming to know about the plot, Paul’s nephew, his sister’s son, went to the Tower of Antonia (to the quarters where his uncle was confined) to inform him. (23:16) Paul called one of the centurions, requesting that the “young man” (his nephew) be taken to the commander (Claudius Lysias [23:26]), for he had something to disclose to him. (23:17) The centurion conducted Paul’s nephew to Claudius Lysias and informed him that he had brought the young man to him at Paul’s request because he had something to tell him. (23:18)
Although a prisoner, Paul was treated as a Roman citizen who had not been found guilty of any crime. He was permitted to have visitors and had the right even to request centurions to render service for him.
Recognizing that the young man’s report must have been of a serious nature, Claudius Lysias “took him by the hand” to a location where they could speak privately. He then asked Paul’s nephew what he had to report. (23:19)
The young man informed him that he would be asked to bring Paul to the Sanhedrin the next day for a further investigation of the case, but that he should not allow the Jews to persuade him. More than 40 men would be lying in ambush along the way. These men had bound themselves by an oath neither to eat nor to drink until they had killed Paul. All that the men were waiting for was the commander’s consent to the request, and they were prepared to carry out their assassination plot. (23:20, 21)
Claudius Lysias must have known that the conspiracy also posed a real threat to Roman soldiers who would be conducting Paul, and he took the report seriously. Before having Paul’s nephew leave, he charged him not to let anyone know that he had disclosed the plot to him. (23:22)
Claudius Lysias acted quickly to secure Paul’s safety. He summoned two centurions, ordering them to get ready to leave by the “third hour of the night” (about 9:00 p.m.) to head northwest toward Caesarea with two hundred soldiers. Besides the 200 soldiers, the centurions were to arrange for 70 horsemen and two hundred “spearmen” (dexiolábos) to accompany them. The commander thus made sure that the force was large enough to deal with any possible threat. There is a measure of uncertainty about the significance of the term dexiolábos. While “spearman” is often suggested as a possible meaning, the term may refer to some other light-armed soldier (possibly a bowman or a slinger). (23:23; see http://bibleplaces.com/caesarea.htm for pictures of and comments about Caesarea.)
In view of the great distance involved via a route in excess of 70 miles (over 110 kilometers), the commander also directed that mounts be made available for taking Paul safely to Felix, the procurator of the Roman province of Judea. (23:24; see the Notes section regarding Felix.)
As Roman law required, the commander provided a letter he had written to Felix, explaining the case about Paul. The letter bears the unmistakable earmarks of authenticity, for the commander portrayed himself in the best light possible, with no hint of his having trampled on the rights of a Roman citizen by having him bound before any guilt had been legally proved. (23:25; see the Notes section.)
The commander identified himself as Claudius Lysias and addressed Governor Felix as krátistos, which has commonly been rendered as “his Excellency” (NAB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB). “Lysias” is a Greek name, which may mean that its bearer was Greek from birth. At the time he purchased his Roman citizenship (22:28), he may have adopted the name “Claudius” (the name of the emperor at that time). The expression krátistos is a respectful term of address and can denote “most noble” or “most excellent.” A form of the Greek word chaíro (chaírein) is often found at the beginning of other ancient letters and is commonly translated “greetings.” The verb chaíro means “rejoice” and so chaírein is a greeting that wishes one well. (23:26)
Claudius Lysias factually related that the Jews had seized “this man” (Paul) and were about to kill him, but he then represented himself as having gone to his rescue with a troop of soldiers because of having learned that he was a Roman citizen. While he did rescue Paul, he had made no inquiry about his citizenship and had bound him and later commanded that he be scourged, thereby unknowingly disregarding the rights of a Roman citizen. (23:27)
The commander explained that he brought Paul before the Sanhedrin because of wanting to know the charges the Jews had against him. (23:28) The accusations involved their law but nothing that would have merited death or bonds (apparently on the basis of Roman law). (23:29) “But,” Claudius Lysias continued, “a future plot against the man has been disclosed to me. [So] I am immediately sending him to you, having also ordered the accusers to speak against him before you.” It appears that Claudius Lysias planned to inform the accusers that Paul had been transferred to Caesarea and referred to it as having been accomplished. Doubtless by the time Paul arrived in Caesarea, the leading men of the Jewish community would have been duly informed. (23:30)
In keeping with the orders Claudius Lysias had given, the soldiers took Paul to Antipatris (about midway between Jerusalem and Caesarea) during the night. Herod the Great had rebuilt Antipatris on what is thought to have been the site of ancient Aphek in the Plain of Sharon. (23:31; see Antipatris for pictures of and comments about the site.)
The next day all except the 70 horsemen returned to their quarters in the Tower of Antonia at Jerusalem, whereas the horsemen took Paul to Caesarea. (23:32) Arriving at Caesarea, the horsemen delivered the letter Claudius Lysias had written to Felix and “also presented Paul to him.” (23:33) Felix read the letter and asked Paul from which province he originated. After Paul answered that he was from Cilicia, Felix assured him that he would give him a hearing when his accusers arrived. Felix then commanded that Paul be guarded in the “praetorium of Herod.” In Caesarea, the praetorium was Herod’s palace, which served as the official residence of the Roman procurator. (23:34, 35)
Notes:
Herod the king of Chalcis (the brother of Herod Agrippa I) appointed Ananias (verse 2) the son of Nedebaeus (Nebedeus) as high priest. (Josephus, Antiquities, XX, v, 2) Later, along with other prominent Jews and eminent Samaritans, Quadratus (legate of Syria) sent Ananias in bonds to Rome to give an account about his role in violent conflicts between Jews and Samaritans. Claudius ruled in favor of the Jews, and Ananias was acquitted. This was primarily because Herod Agrippa I, who was then in Rome, succeeded in his entreaty for Agrippina, the wife of Claudius, to persuade her husband to listen to the cause of the Jews. (Antiquities, XX, vi, 2, 3; War, II, xii, 5, 6) When Paul appeared before him and the rest of the Sanhedrin, he was firmly established in his office. Josephus referred to him as having been a “great hoarder up of money.” (Antiquities, XX, ix, 2) After others functioned as high priests, Ananias continued to wield great power. In 66 CE, while hiding in an aqueduct from those who had revolted against the authority of Rome, he was discovered and then assassinated. (War, II, xvii, 6, 9)
Evidence of how strongly Pharisees would have opposed those who denied belief in the resurrection (verse 8) is found in the Talmud. Sanhedrin 90a indicates that anyone who said that there is “no resurrection of the dead,” claiming that the Torah does not teach it, would have no share in the “world to come.”
Felix (verse 24) and his brother Pallas had once been slaves, but the Roman emperor Claudius had granted them freedom. The Roman historian Tacitus referred to Felix as a man who “practiced every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of king with all the instincts of a slave.” (Histories, V, ix)
It is likely that the “letter” (verse 25) would have been part of the documentation of Paul’s case that accompanied him to Rome. So there is the possibility that Luke came to see it then and included its contents in the Acts account.
Five days after Paul’s arrival in Caesarea, the high priest Ananias and a number of elders came to present their case against Paul to Felix, the Roman procurator. As their representative, a certain Tertullus accompanied them. The name “Tertullus” is a diminutive form of the Latin “Tertius.” His function is identified by the Greek word rhétor, which basically means “orator” or “public speaker.” In this context, however, it designates an advocate. The role of Tertullus was comparable to that of a prosecuting attorney. His Latin name would not preclude his having been a Jew, and it would appear likely that prominent Jewish elders would have wanted a fellow Jew to represent them. The skill Tertullus had in expressing himself, presumably in Greek (as that is also the language in which Paul evidently would have spoken on this occasion [21:37]), suggests that he may have been a Hellenist. (24:1)
Upon being called to present the case against Paul, Tertullus started with expressions of flattery that had little basis in reality. He lauded Felix for the great “peace” the people had come to enjoy and the reforms that had been put in place for the Jewish nation on account of his foresight. (24:2; see the Notes section.)
This flattering praise contrasts sharply with the evaluation of the Roman historian Tacitus who described Felix as a man who “practiced every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of king with all the instincts of a slave.” (Histories, V, ix) “Felix, who had for some time been governor of Judaea,” wrote Tacitus in Book XII of his Annals, “thought that he could do any evil act with impunity.” The Jewish historian Josephus related how Felix responded to exhortation to improve in the way he governed, revealing that he neither promoted peace nor instituted desirable reforms. The high priest Jonathan often admonished him to govern “the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest he should himself have complaints made against him by the multitude.” On account of this, Felix determined to rid himself of Jonathan, “for,” as Josephus observed, “such continual admonitions are grievous to those who are disposed to act unjustly.” By promising Doras (one of Jonathan’s closest friends) a large sum of money, Felix gained his cooperation to carry out an assassination plot. Doras arranged for certain ruffians, with daggers concealed under their garments, to go to Jerusalem, “as if they were going to worship God.” Then, while in the midst of the multitude, they killed Jonathan. (Antiquities, XX, viii, 5)
Tertullus claimed that always and everywhere the Jews had received the benefits from “his Excellency Felix with all gratitude” or “with the utmost thankfulness.” (24:3) While heaping such inordinate praise on Felix, Tertullus courteously assured him that he would be brief in stating the case against Paul, saying, “But in order not to hinder you more [possibly with the implication of detaining him from carrying out his important administrative duties], I entreat you to hear us briefly with your [customary] indulgence.” (24:4) He maintained that the Jews had found Paul to be a “pest” (loimós), a man who “incited seditions among all the Jews throughout the world,” a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” and a man who even “tried to profane the temple.” (24:5, 6)
The Greek word loimós describes someone who is regarded as being extremely troublesome, a menace, or a public enemy. In representing Paul as an agitator or seditionist, Tertullus apparently aimed to make the apostle appear as a danger to Rome, for the Jews in the whole Greco-Roman world were being affected by his activity. The nature of his sedition is linked to his being a prominent leader of the sect of the Nazarenes, which “sect” would have been known by Felix as identifying Jews who believed Jesus from Nazareth to be the Messiah. So the intent of Tertullus seemingly would have been to get Felix to associate Paul with the political Messianic movements that had often been troublesome to the authority of Rome. The accusation about Paul’s trying to defile the temple made him out to be one who revolted against an established arrangement of worship that had the recognition and, therefore, protection of Roman authority. (24:5, 6, 22; regarding “sect,” see the Notes section.)
Tertullus concluded the accusation with the words, “and whom we seized,” implying that Paul had been rightly arrested when, in reality, certain Jews from Asia Minor had incited mob action against him. (24:6) Although missing in the oldest extant manuscripts, an expanded text in numerous manuscripts represents Claudius Lysias as having interfered with a proper Jewish judicial proceeding. “We seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law. But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come to you.” (24:6-8, NKJV; see the Notes section.)
Tertullus maintained that, by questioning Paul personally, Felix would be able to find out everything about the accusations. The implication was that Felix would recognize that the Jews had a valid case against the apostle. (24:8) The Jewish delegation joined in the attack against Paul, asserting that everything Tertullus had said was true. (24:9)
Felix nodded to Paul, giving him the opportunity to speak. The apostle acknowledged that Felix had been serving as judge to the Jewish nation for “many years” and, therefore, he gladly spoke in his own defense before him. According to Tacitus (Annals, Book XII), Felix first functioned jointly as procurator with Cumanus and later held this position alone. In a general sense, therefore, Felix could be regarded as having served the nation as judge for “many years.” (24:10)
When saying that he was pleased to make his defense before him, Paul indicated that he was innocent and trusted that Felix would concur. “Not more than twelve days” earlier, as Felix would have been able to verify, Paul had gone up to worship at the temple in Jerusalem. (24:10, 11) The Jews did not find him wrangling with anyone in the temple precincts nor stirring up a crowd, neither in the synagogues nor in the city. (24:12) His accusers could not prove any of the charges they had made against him. (24:13)
While categorically denying the false charge about being a public enemy who stirred up the people, Paul did acknowledge his adherence to “the way” (the way of life that centered on Jesus Christ and his teaching and example), which his accusers called a “sect.” According to this “way,” Paul worshiped the God to whom the Jewish forefathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) were devoted, and he believed everything contained in the “law” (the Torah) and the writings of the prophets. (24:14)
Paul shared the same hope in God, specifically that of the Jewish elders who were Pharisees, that the dead, both the righteous and the unrighteous, would be resurrected. As a firm believer in the resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous, he was concerned about having God’s approval as an upright person and thus would not have been a man who caused trouble among those who had the same faith. (24:15; see the Notes section.) Paul always applied himself to be in possession of a clear conscience before God and men. (24:16)
His reason for coming to Jerusalem after quite a number of years was to bring alms to the Jewish people and to present offerings. The prime purpose had been to bring a contribution for poor fellow Jewish believers, and so Paul could say that he came “to bring alms to [his] nation.” (Romans 15:25-28) His coming to present offerings does not appear to have been part of his original plan. On the advice of James and elders from the community of Christ’s disciples in Jerusalem, however, he did choose to follow through in caring for the expense of the offerings to be made by four men who had been under a Nazarite vow. From that standpoint, Paul could speak of having come to present offerings. (21:23-26; 24:17)
While Paul was in the temple precincts attending to matters involving the offerings for the four men who had taken a Nazarite vow (21:23, 24, 26-28), he had cleansed himself ceremonially and was not with a crowd. He did not create any kind of disturbance. What certain Jews from the Roman province of Asia then did is not included in the quoted words of Paul. They were the ones who had created the uproar. (21:27, 28; 24:18)
These Jews, as Paul continued, should have been the ones to appear before Felix and make whatever accusations they had against him. (24:19) As far as the Jewish accusers then present, they should state what evidence of wrongdoing they found when he appeared before the Sanhedrin. Though not framed as a question, Paul made the point about whether his crime could have been his crying out in their midst, “Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you today!” (24:20, 21; see the Notes section.)
Felix was well-informed about “the way,” which doubtless included his knowing that Jews who believed Jesus to be the promised Messiah and followed his teaching often were the object of hostility. They were an unpopular and hated minority. Therefore, Felix did not want to make a decision to set Paul free. He told the high priest and the delegation of Jewish elders, “When Lysias the chiliarch comes down, I will evaluate [diaginósko] the matters relating to you.” The Greek verb diaginósko refers to a careful consideration of the facts or of a matter in order to render judgment or to make a decision. It may be that Felix wanted to give the impression that he needed to hear what Lysias had to say before he could render his verdict. The concluding three words of the Greek text are tá kath’ hymás, which can literally be rendered “the matters relating to you” and have commonly been translated “your case” (NAB, NCV, NJB, NRSV, REB). In the Greek text, the word “you” is plural, applying specifically to the accusers who, through Tertullus, had presented their case against Paul. (24:22)
Felix ordered the centurion to keep Paul in custody but apparently free from certain kinds of restrictions associated with tight security. The centurion was not to hinder him from having his “own,” which would have included friends and relatives, visit him and attend to any of his needs. (24:23)
The account does not relate from where, “after some days,” Felix arrived with his wife Drusilla, a Jewess. At that time, he sent for Paul and listened to him speak about the “faith in Christ Jesus” or the message concerning him. (24:24)
Drusilla, the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I (the ruler who had the apostle James executed and the apostle Peter imprisoned [12:2, 3]) was promised in marriage to Epiphanes, prince of Commagena, before she was six years old (her age at her father’s death). (Josephus, Antiquities, XIX, ix, 1; XX, vii, 1) The marriage did not take place, for Epiphanes, although he had promised Herod Agrippa I that he would get circumcised, refused to do so. Herod Agrippa II then gave his teenage sister in marriage to Azizus, king of Emesa, who did agree to get circumcised. The marriage did not last long. Struck by her beauty, Felix fell in love with her and sent a Jew named Simon to her with the proposal that she leave her husband and marry him, promising that, “if she would not refuse him, he would make her a happy woman.” Regarding Drusilla’s reason for accepting the proposal of Felix, Josephus continued, “Accordingly she acted ill, and because she was desirous to avoid her sister Bernice’s envy, for she was very ill treated by her on account of her beauty, was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and to marry Felix.” (Antiquities, XX, vii, 1, 2) According to Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, Life of Claudius, XXVIII), Drusilla would have been Felix’s third wife.
When sharing the message about Jesus Christ, Paul included matters involving personal accountability. He spoke about righteousness, uprightness, or justice, self-control, and future judgment. This frightened Felix who had made himself guilty of many injustices and had failed to live uprightly. His life had been unbridled, and the way in which he had maneuvered Drusilla to be his wife was dishonorable. Therefore, the message about a coming judgment would have been very disturbing to him. He then dismissed Paul, telling him that he would send for him when he had the opportunity. (24:25)
Thereafter Felix often called Paul and conversed with him, doing so for an ulterior motive. He hoped that Paul would give him money, bribing him to be released. (24:26; see the Notes section.)
After about two years, Porcius Festus succeeded Felix as procurator. Wanting to have the favor of the Jews, Felix did not free Paul. (24:27) His leaving Paul bound or in confinement, however, did not change the unfavorable view the Jews had of Felix. The principal ones of the Jewish community in Caesarea traveled to Rome to accuse him of wrongdoing. If it had not been for the intervention of his brother Pallas, whom the Roman emperor Nero highly favored, Felix would have been severely punished. (Antiquities, XX, viii, 9)
Notes:
In verse 2, the New King James Version reads, “Seeing that through you we enjoy great peace, and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight.” The rendering “prosperity” (instead of “reforms”) is based on the reading of manuscripts that contain a form of katórthoma instead of a form of diórthoma. Neither desirable reforms nor prosperity, however, marked the period during which Felix governed.
In itself, the Greek word haíresis, translated “sect” (in verse 5), does not have the negative sense that is commonly associated with the English word. The Greek expression basically designated a group that adhered to certain distinctive beliefs (for example, the “sect of the Pharisees” [15:5] or the “sect of the Sadducees” ([5:17]). Tertullus, however, appears to have used the term to represent Paul as being a leader of a heretical Jewish sect, as is also suggested by the apostle’s words in verse 14.
Modern translations commonly omit verse 7 completely and the expanded text of verses 6 and 8. This is because the absence of the words in the oldest extant manuscripts is difficult to explain if they were indeed original.
In verse 15, Paul spoke of them in a general way as believing in the resurrection. Any Sadducees among them would not have shared this faith, but the Pharisees and other Jews usually did.
In verse 20, numerous manuscripts add “in me” after “found,” but these words are missing in the oldest extant manuscripts.
The point about the resurrection (in verse 21) is not expressed in the identical words found in verse 6 of chapter 23. This should be expected, for it is common when individuals refer to something they said in the past to convey the basic thought rather than to repeat the exact words.
In verse 26, the words “that he might release him” (NKJV) are not found in the oldest extant manuscripts.
Three days after the start of his official duties as procurator, Festus went to Jerusalem from Caesarea. Whereas Caesarea served as the official residence of the procurator, Jerusalem was the seat of the supreme Jewish authority, the Sanhedrin (the highest judicial body). Therefore, as procurator of Judea, Festus quickly made a trip to the city to meet with the Jewish leaders there. (25:1; see the Notes section about Festus.)
When Festus first met with the “chief priests” (“high priest,” according to other manuscripts) and other leaders of the Jews (doubtless members of the Sanhedrin), they informed him about the accusations against Paul. They were not satisfied that Paul continued to be in custody at Caesarea; they wanted him dead. As a “favor,” they requested that Festus transfer him to Jerusalem. They had no intention of conducting a legal proceeding but wanted an ambush to kill him on the way from Caesarea. Possibly the group of more than 40 men who had vowed to kill Paul earlier were the same ones who intended to ambush him. (23:12-15; 25:2, 3)
As an upholder of Roman law, Festus refused to grant this “favor.” He insisted that Paul would remain in Caesarea and that he himself would be going there shortly. Festus told them that men in authority from among them should come down with him to Caesarea and there present any accusations against the man. (25:4, 5)
After spending “not more than eight or ten days” in Jerusalem, Festus returned to Caesarea. Possibly eight days means eight full days, whereas ten days could refer to eight days and parts of two more days. During his stay in Jerusalem, Festus also undoubtedly would have spent time with the Roman military stationed there, getting acquainted with the commander (the chiliarch) and the centurions serving under him and discussing with them Jewish affairs in Jerusalem and Judea. He probably stayed in the palace that had been built by Herod the Great. (25:6)
The day following his return to Caesarea, he arranged to have Paul brought before him to hear the case the Jews had against him. (25:6) When Paul arrived, the Jews who had come with Festus from Jerusalem surrounded the apostle and made serious charges against him. They must have been the same charges that Tertullus had made, claiming that Paul was a menace and a threat to the existing social order. Yet they were unable to say anything to substantiate their charges. (24:5, 6; 25:7) In his own defense, Paul declared that he was guiltless of any sin against the law of the Jews, the temple, and Caesar. (25:8)
Aware of what the Jews wanted and desirous of gaining their favor in his capacity as procurator of Judea, Festus asked Paul whether he wished to be judged about these matters before him in Jerusalem. By presenting Paul with this choice, he did not need to make a decision that would have antagonized the Jews (as would have been the case if he had declared Paul guiltless and released him from custody). If Paul had agreed to go to Jerusalem, he would have been killed by the ambush, which would have pleased the Jews who were hostile to him. Although apparently not aware of their intent to have Paul ambushed on the way to Jerusalem, Festus would not have been ignorant about the reason Claudius Lysias had commanded that he be taken to Caesarea about two years earlier. (25:9)
Paul knew that the Jews had already made their decision against him and any judicial hearing before the entire Sanhedrin in the presence of Festus would not effect any change in their determination to have him condemned. Moreover, he would not have forgotten about the plot to kill him that had necessitated his transfer from Jerusalem to Caesarea. (23:1, 2, 16-24; 24:27) As Festus apparently did not want to make a decision, Paul availed himself of his right as a Roman citizen. He appealed to be able to stand before Caesar to be judged, for he had not wronged the Jews. Paul confidently declared that Festus had been able to recognize this based on what he had heard. (25:10; compare the acknowledgment to this effect that Festus made to Herod Agrippa II [verse 25].)
If he had indeed been guilty of any crime meriting the death penalty, Paul did not ask to escape being executed. In case there was no truth in the accusations the Jews had made, no man had the right to hand him (a Roman citizen) over to them as a favor. Then Paul solemnly declared, “I appeal to Caesar.” Unwittingly, the Jewish accusers had indicated that judging Paul was beyond their authority, for they had accused him of actions that would have been contrary to the interests of Caesar. (25:11)
In certain cases, an appeal to Caesar could be denied. Examples would be where individuals were actually caught in the act of robbery, piracy, or sedition. So, before responding to Paul’s appeal to be judged before Caesar, Festus first conferred with the “council” (symboúlion). The symboúlion appears to have functioned as a body of advisers to the procurator. These advisers doubtless belonged to a procurator’s court and among them must have been men who had more knowledge about the province and other matters than did Festus. After this consultation that revealed nothing for blocking the appeal, he made the final decision and said to Paul, “You have appealed to Caesar; you will go to Caesar.” (25:12, 21)
When some days had passed, Herod Agrippa II and his sister Bernice arrived in Caesarea on a courtesy visit to the recently appointed procurator Festus. (25:13; see the Notes section about Herod Agrippa II and Bernice.) They stayed in Caesarea for a number of days, and Festus used the opportunity to tell Agrippa about the case involving Paul. (25:14)
After informing him that Felix had left Paul “bound” or imprisoned, he related that the chief priests and elders of the Jews in Jerusalem had requested that he be condemned. (25:14, 15) Festus continued, “I replied that it is not the custom of the Romans to hand any man over as a favor before the accused faces his accusers to defend himself.” Thus Festus had made it clear that, as procurator, he would be upholding Roman law. (25:16)
When the accusers (the chief priests and Jewish elders from Jerusalem) came to Caesarea, Festus, as he went on to explain, did not delay in handling the case. The next day he sat down to render judgment and had Paul brought in. (25:17)
Festus had expected to hear serious charges, but the accusers did not present any evidence of crimes. (25:18) “They,” according to the perception of Festus, “just had disagreements about devotion to their deity and a certain Jesus who was dead but whom Paul asserted to be alive.” (25:19)
This unexpected dispute about Jewish religious views left Festus perplexed. He then referred to his own confusion about the matter as the reason for asking Paul whether he would want to go to Jerusalem and be judged there. (25:20)
Paul, however, appealed to “His Majesty” (sebastós), and so Festus had him remain in confinement at Caesarea until he would be sent to Caesar. The designation sebastós describes one who is worthy of reverence, an “august one,” and here designates “His Majesty the Emperor.” (25:21)
When Agrippa expressed his desire to hear what Paul had to say, Festus was decisive about arranging for this without delay. “Tomorrow,” he said, “you will hear him.” (25:22) The contrast between the two realms — the splendor of worldly kingdoms and the complete absence of such in the case of the one who represented the “King of kings and Lord of lords” — could not have been greater. The next day Agrippa and Bernice entered with much pomp, doubtless dressed in the finest robes and with stunning ornamentation of gold and jewels. Accompanying them into the audience hall were commanders (chiliarchs) and prominent men of Caesarea. Then, at the order of Festus, Paul was brought in as a prisoner, a state of dishonor from the standpoint of those who enjoyed imperial splendor but as a man entrusted with the greatest honor possible as an approved representative of God and of his Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords in possession of all authority in heaven and on earth. (25:23)
Addressing King Agrippa and all those assembled, Festus introduced Paul as the man against whom the Jews had shouted, in Jerusalem and then in Caesarea, that he should not continue to live. (25:24) Festus acknowledged that he had not been presented with any evidence to indicate that Paul merited death. He added, “So when he appealed to His Majesty [sebastós], I decided to send [him].” (25:25)
Without any evidence of a crime in Paul’s case, Festus faced a dilemma. “I,” he said, “have nothing definite to write to [my] lord [the emperor]. Therefore, I have brought him before you, and particularly before you, King Agrippa, that, after this hearing [anákrisis], I may have something specific to write.” The Greek term anákrisis can refer to a judicial hearing, an investigation, or a preliminary hearing. This “hearing” was not one for rendering judgment. Festus had already determined on the basis of Roman law that Paul was not guilty of any crime and had accepted his appeal to Caesar, which had transferred Paul’s case out of his own jurisdiction as procurator. Festus, however, needed to formulate a letter to set forth the accusations against Paul, and he hoped that the hearing would provide him with the needed information. “For,” as Festus concluded, “it seems unreasonable to me to send a prisoner without also stating the charges against him.” (25:26, 27)
Notes:
Festus
Little is known about Festus, and there is uncertainty about the year in which he began serving as procurator of Judea. The more commonly accepted year is 58 CE. Festus faced a very difficult situation upon replacing the corrupt procurator Felix, and what is narrated in the Acts account and related by the Jewish historian Josephus indicates that he endeavored to uphold Roman law and promoted security in the region.
Josephus mentioned that, when Festus assumed his position as procurator, Judea was plagued by ruffians who carried sickle-like daggers under their garments and carried out assassinations while mingling with the crowds in the temple precincts. These assassins would then divert attention away from themselves by joining others in decrying the murders. Armed with their weapons, they would often go to the villages of their enemies, plundering them and setting them on fire. To deal with the deplorable situation, “Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those who had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly those forces that were sent destroyed both him who had deluded them” and his followers. (Antiquities, XX, viii, 10)
In his royal palace at Jerusalem, King Agrippa II had arranged for the construction of a large dining room with an excellent view of the sacred temple area. Considering this development to have been contrary to the law that did not allow for others to observe the sacrificial arrangements at leisure, the Jews erected a wall to block his view. Although this displeased Agrippa, Festus especially was displeased and ordered that the wall be pulled down, for it prevented Roman soldiers on guard duty from seeing whether they needed to attend to any disturbances in the temple precincts at festival times. Nevertheless, he allowed the Jews to send an embassy to emperor Nero about the matter when they petitioned him for permission to do so. His consenting to their request suggests that, in administering affairs, Festus did not act in an arbitrary manner. Nero’s decision did not support Festus. To please his wife Poppea, who had intervened for the Jews, Nero decreed that the wall should not be torn down. (Antiquities, XX, viii, 11)
Herod Agrippa II
Besides Bernice, Herod Agrippa II had two other sisters, Mariamne III and Drusilla. Their father was Herod Agrippa I (the ruler who had the apostle James executed and the apostle Peter imprisoned [12:1-3]), and their mother was Cypros. (Antiquities, XVIII, v, 4) When his father died, Herod Agrippa II was living as part of the imperial household in Rome. Emperor Claudius considered making him his father’s successor but the freemen and friends of his who exercised the greatest influence on his decisions persuaded him not to do so, as Agrippa was then deemed to be too young to be entrusted with the administration of such a large kingdom. (Antiquities, XIX, ix, 2) Upon the death of his uncle Herod, the king of Chalcis, Herod Agrippa II received his uncle’s dominions from emperor Claudius. (Antiquities, XX, v, 2)
Later, Claudius granted him “the tetrarchy of Philip, and Batanea, and added thereto Trachonitis, with Abila [the capital of Abilene, a district in the area of the Anti-Lebanon mountains and here used as applying to the former tetrarchy of Lysanias].” (Antiquities, XX, vii, 1) Claudius, however, took Chalcis away from Herod Agrippa II after he had ruled over that region for four years. (Antiquities, XX, vii, 1) The successor of Claudius, emperor Nero, enlarged Agrippa’s realm, giving him Julias in Peraea (with fourteen neighboring villages), Taricheae, and Tiberias of Galilee. (Antiquities, XX, viii, 4; War, II, xiii, 2)
Agrippa unsuccessfully tried to get the Jews to avoid getting into a war with Rome. (War, II, xvi, 4) During the conflict that erupted, he sided with the Romans. At the siege of Gamala, he tried to urge the Jewish fighting men on the walls of the city to surrender, but one of the slingers hit him with a stone on his right elbow. (War, IV, i, 3)
Bernice
As a young virgin, Bernice was first married to Marcus, the son of Alexander Lysimachus. After Marcus died soon thereafter, her father Herod Agrippa I gave her in marriage to his brother Herod. Herod Agrippa I also petitioned emperor Claudius to give the kingdom of Chalcis to his brother. (Antiquities, XIX, v, 1) At the time of her father’s death, Bernice, though already married, was only sixteen years old. (Antiquities, XIX, ix, 1) For a long time after the death of Herod (king of Chalcis), Bernice lived as a widow, but rumors circulated that she had an incestuous relationship with her brother Herod Agrippa II. In an effort to end the gossip, she persuaded Polemo (Polemon) the king of Cilicia to get circumcised and to marry her. Primarily because Bernice was very wealthy, Polemo agreed to do so. The marriage soon ended. “As was said,” Josephus wrote, Bernice left Polemo “with impure intentions.” Those rumored “impure intentions” were to resume an incestuous relationship with her brother. (Antiquities, XX, vii, 3)
In later years, Bernice became the mistress to Titus, who carried out the successful campaign against Jerusalem and became Roman emperor. According to Dio Cassius (LXV, 15), Bernice lived in the palace with Titus as his mistress. She expected to marry him and conducted herself “in every respect as if she were his wife.” When, however, Titus perceived that this situation displeased the Romans, he sent Bernice away.
While her personal life proved to be scandalous, Bernice, in the spring of 66 CE, at great personal risk to herself, pleaded with the Roman procurator Florus to stop the massacre of the Jews. She did not succeed in her efforts. (War, II, xv, 1) Then, with the tide turning against her and the Jews burning her palace in Jerusalem, she, like her brother, sided with Romans.
After receiving permission to speak from Herod Agrippa I, Paul stretched out his chained hand to indicate that he was about to make his defense. (26:1, 29) At the start, Paul mentioned that he considered himself fortunate to be able to defend himself before King Agrippa against all the accusations the Jews had made. (26:2) This was because of the king’s thorough knowledge of Jewish customs and controversies. (26:3)
On the maternal side of his ancestry, Herod Agrippa II was the great-grandson of Mariamne I of the royal Jewish priestly family (the Hasmonaean dynasty). His great-grandfather, Herod the Great, was an Edomite. The Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, XIV, xv, 2) referred to Herod the Great as a “half Jew.” The father of Herod Agrippa II (Herod Agrippa I) was a staunch defender of the Jews and a persecutor of the followers of Jesus Christ. (Acts 12:1-3) From the way he conducted himself and the policies he followed, Herod Agrippa II, like his father, was a nominal Jew and so had firsthand knowledge about Jewish customs and controversies. Paul beseeched Agrippa to listen to him patiently. (26:3)
From the beginning of his life among his own people, which would have been in Tarsus of Cilicia, and then in the city of Jerusalem, Paul lived as a devout Pharisee. In their adherence to the Torah and the ancient Jewish traditions, the Pharisees, as Paul identified them, constituted the “strictest sect of our [Jewish] way of revering [God].” All the Jews who had previously known Paul, if they had been willing to do so, would have been able to confirm his words. (26:4, 5)
“And now,” Paul continued, “I stand on trial for the hope of the promise God made to our fathers [the forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob].” This promise related to the “seed” (or descendant of Abraham) by whom peoples of all nations would obtain blessing for themselves. (Genesis 22:18) The hope of the descendants of the patriarchs, the Israelites, was bound up with the fulfillment of this promise. All who trusted God’s promise looked forward to the coming of this “seed” (the Messiah or Christ). As the “seed” had arrived in the person of Jesus, the unique Son of God, whom he proclaimed, Paul could rightly say that he was on trial for the “hope” based on the promise God had made to the Israelite forefathers. This “hope” was then a fulfilled hope. (26:6)
The “twelve tribes” of Israel, the descendants of the patriarchs, hoped to attain the promise or to experience the fulfillment of the promise, with resultant blessing for themselves. In the first century CE, the Jewish people continued to be identified as being members of various tribes. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin. (Philippians 3:5) Barnabas was a Levite. (Acts 4:36) The aged widow Anna was of Asher’s tribe. (Luke 2:36) The people from the various tribes of Israel demonstrated that they hoped to attain the promise by earnestly sharing in the divinely appointed arrangement for worship “day and night.” Daily, both in the morning and in the evening, the prescribed sacrifices were presented on the altar (Exodus 29:38-42), and the fire on the altar was kept burning continually. (Leviticus 6:8-13) Thus, at the temple, worship continued each day, both day and night. (26:7)
Without a direct link to the promise of God and the hope of seeing it fulfilled, this worship, as Paul’s words implied, would have been purposeless. The hope that was bound up with the daily worship of the Jewish people was the very hope for which they accused Paul as meriting condemnation. This was so because he made known the promised Messiah, the one for whose coming they had hoped. To establish Jesus’ identity as the promised Messiah or Christ, Paul proclaimed that Jesus, in fulfillment of the holy writings, had been raised from the dead. (26:7) With the resurrection of Jesus having been prominent in the message Paul proclaimed and, by implication, the rejection of Jesus’ resurrection being the basis for refusal to accept him as the promised Messiah, Paul rightly asked why those whom he addressed would consider it unbelievable that God raises the dead. (26:8)
Paul, in his own case, had at one time not believed that God had resurrected Jesus. In his state of unbelief, he felt compelled to oppose the “name of Jesus the Nazarene.” The “name” designates the person, and Jesus is thus identified as the “Nazarene” or the man from the city of Nazareth. As a persecutor of the followers of Jesus, Paul acted against the “name” or the person of Jesus. His mistreatment of Jesus’ disciples constituted the “many” things Paul did against the “name of Jesus.” (26:9)
He carried out his campaign of persecution in Jerusalem. With the authorization of the chief priests, Paul had many of the “holy ones” (followers of Jesus Christ) locked up in prison. To have them executed, he would cast his vote against them. (26:10) In “all the synagogues,” he submitted the disciples of Jesus Christ to punishment (probably beatings), trying to force them to “blaspheme.” This would have been a blaspheming of the name of Jesus and, therefore, would have signified disowning him. His aim to have them renounce Jesus, however, apparently did not succeed, for Paul only mentioned his efforts to force them to blaspheme. (26:11)
His furious raging against the followers of Jesus was so intense that he did not limit his persecution to the city of Jerusalem. He persecuted them in “outside cities,” that is, in foreign cities. An example of this was his setting out on a journey to Damascus. (26:11, 12; see the Notes section.)
With the authority and a commission from the chief priests, Paul headed to Damascus (135 miles [217 kilometers] north of Jerusalem) to persecute the followers of Jesus. (26:12) Addressing Agrippa directly, Paul continued, “[While] on the way, O king, I saw at midday a light brighter than the sun flash around me and those who traveled with me.” This particular description of the light is more specific than in the two earlier references to it. (9:3; 22:6; 26:13)
Paul and the others fell to the ground. The brilliant light at midday must have had a frightening effect on them. Possibly to shield themselves from its brightness, all of them dropped to their knees and then bent down, with their forehead touching the ground. In the earlier references to this development, no mention is made of the others as having fallen to the ground. The omission of this detail is immaterial, as all three versions of the event are in full agreement that Paul fell to the ground. (9:4; 22:7; 26:14)
While in a prostrate position on the ground, Paul heard words spoken to him in the Hebrew language, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? [It is] hard for you to kick against the goads.” A goad commonly consisted of a long pole to which a metal point or prick was attached. It was used to drive or guide draft animals. When resisting the pricking of the goad and kicking against it, an animal would be hurting itself. So, when fighting against the disciples of Jesus Christ, Paul had been making it hard for himself. His course only resulted in injury to himself, for it could never succeed in stopping the spread of the message about God’s Son. (26:14; see the Notes section.)
As Paul did not know who was speaking to him, he apparently used the term “lord” as a respectful manner of address when he asked, “Who are you, lord?” The speaker identified himself, saying, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” (26:15)
He directed Paul to rise and to “stand on [his] feet,” suggestive of assuming a position of alertness so as to listen and to be ready for action. Jesus explained that he had appeared to Paul so as to appoint him to function as a servant and as a witness to the things he had seen and would come to see. What he had seen and would see in the future pertained to Jesus Christ. At this time, Paul had had a glimpse of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ and of his glory (the brilliant light). In the future, Paul would receive other revelations from him. In the capacity of a “servant” or a subordinate, Paul would be advancing the interests of the Lord Jesus Christ. As one who had seen the resurrected Son of God, he would be able to provide firsthand testimony about his resurrection and the magnificence of his highly exalted state. In the future, Paul would become the recipient of revelations that he could make known to others and thus bear witness. (26:16)
Jesus indicated to Paul that he would face opposition, for he gave him the assurance that he would deliver him from the Jewish people and from the people of the other nations to whom he would be sending him. As Paul explained to believers in the Roman province of Galatia, his being an apostle (one sent forth with a commission) had not come about by the appointment or through the agency of any man. He was chosen as an apostle by the risen Lord Jesus Christ, who is at complete oneness with his Father. Therefore, on his way to Damascus, Paul received his commission as an apostle “through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” (26:17; Galatians 1:1)
Jesus Christ also revealed what Paul would be doing in carrying out the commission that had been entrusted to him. He would be Christ’s instrument for opening the eyes of those to whom he was being sent. This opening of the eyes would refer to the presentation of the message about Jesus Christ in a manner that would allow it to be perceived in all its clarity. (26:18; 2 Corinthians 4:1-6)
When in a state of alienation from God, individuals find themselves subject to the powers of darkness as part of the world that is under satanic control. Paul’s ministry would have as its purpose to turn people “from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God.” Darkness is associated with ignorance, gloom, evil, and hatred, whereas light is linked to enlightenment, joy, goodness, and love. When heeded, the message Paul would be proclaiming would rescue people from being in a state of darkness respecting God and his will and transfer them into a realm of light, where God is known and love finds its full expression. Those who are in the “light” cease to be part of the world alienated from God but come to be children fully reconciled to him. As his obedient children, they demonstrate that they are no longer subject to the power of Satan. (26:18)
Paul would be making known that forgiveness of sins and participation in the inheritance of those who are “sanctified,” made holy, or set apart for sacred service is made possible by faith in Jesus Christ. The inheritance would include all the privileges and blessings that God’s approved children come to enjoy. Faith is the complete trust in Jesus as Lord, the unique Son of God, and his sacrificial death as the means by which one can be forgiven of sins. This faith is more than a mere belief or acknowledgment. It finds its full expression in a life that harmonizes with Jesus’ example and teaching. (26:18)
Addressing Agrippa directly, Paul said, “I did not become disobedient to the celestial sight.” The apostle promptly acted in harmony with it, recognizing that he could not possibly reject the commission that had been given to him. (26:19)
First to people in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and “all the country of Judea,” and to the non-Jewish people of other nations, Paul proclaimed that they should repent and turn to God, “performing deeds that befitted repentance.” The message he made known revealed that repenting of one’s sins and turning to God involved more than just acknowledging one’s sinful condition and regretting it. It required a changed way of life, which, in disposition, words, and actions, revealed that the past sinful course had been rejected. (26:20; see the Notes section.) It is because he had obeyed what had been revealed to him in a heavenly manifestation, proclaiming the message about repentance and doing deeds befitting repentance to Jews and non-Jews, that the Jews in the temple precincts seized him and tried to kill him. (21:28, 30, 31; 26:21)
Paul credited God with giving him the needed aid to have made it possible for him to proclaim this message or to give his testimony to both “small” (insignificant or lowly persons) and “great” (prominent ones, high officials, or rulers) until that very day or time. As to what he proclaimed, Paul added that he said nothing other than what the “prophets and Moses” had indicated about what would occur, “that the Christ would suffer, would be the first to rise from the dead,” and would “announce light to the [Jewish] people and to the nations [the non-Jews].” (26:22, 23)
The prophecy of Isaiah pointed to the suffering of the Messiah, speaking of him as being like “a lamb that is led to the slaughter” and as suffering and dying for the sins of many. On account of his pouring out “his soul” to death, God would grant him his portion among the great. To be rewarded for the surrender of his life would require his being raised from the dead. (Isaiah 53:7-12) The prophet Daniel was given the assurance that he would rise from the dead “at the end of the days.” (Daniel 12:13) As the reward of the one who was foretold to suffer for the sins of the people is not linked to the end of the days, Paul could rightly speak of the prophets as indicating that the Messiah or Christ would be the first to rise from the dead. (26:23)
The prophecy of Isaiah pointed to a time when those who had walked in darkness would see a bright light (Isaiah 9:1[2]). This proved to be so when Jesus brought comfort and hope to those who were oppressed and disadvantaged. He refreshed them spiritually, opening up to all who accepted him the dignity of being God’s children and benefiting from his guidance and loving care. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the light continued to shine through the activity of his disciples. To Jews and non-Jews, they proclaimed how individuals could cease to be in darkness and enjoy God’s favor as persons forgiven of their sins and fully reconciled to him through faith in his Son. (26:23)
In the sacred writings which the Jews attributed to Moses, mention is made of a coming ruler from the tribe of Judah to whom the peoples would be obedient (Genesis 49:10) and of a prophet like Moses whom God would raise up from among the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19). That future ruler, anointed one, Messiah, or Christ, proved to be Jesus, and he also was the prophet like Moses who spoke to the people the words of God, his Father. (26:22, 23)
To the Roman procurator Festus, Paul’s words, especially about the resurrection of Christ, must have sounded very strange. He interrupted, shouting, “You are insane, Paul; much learning [the plural of grámma] has driven you insane!” The plural form of the Greek word grámma means “writings” or “letters” and can refer to the study of writings and, hence, learning. (26:24)
Paul assured Festus, “I am not insane, Your Excellency [krátistos] Festus, but I am uttering words of truth and sensibleness [sophrosýne].” Paul addressed Festus in keeping with the position of procurator that he occupied. The expression krátistos is a respectful term of address and can denote “most noble” or “most excellent.” Paul’s words were not the product of a deranged mind but were true, in full harmony with reality. The Greek word sophrosýne signifies “rational” or “reasonable.” There was nothing irrational or senseless about what Paul had said, for he had adhered to verifiable facts. (26:25)
As Paul then pointed out, Agrippa, the king whom he had addressed “boldly” or “frankly,” was aware of the matters that he had mentioned. “This,” that is, events relating to Jesus, did not take place “in a corner.” Jesus’ ministry, his death, and the proclamation of his resurrection were all public, not events that occurred hidden away from view in some isolated location. (26:26)
“Do you, King Agrippa,” Paul continued, “believe the prophets? I know you believe.” Among the Jews generally, belief in the writings of the prophets was the rule, not the exception. So, as a Jew or “half Jew,” Agrippa could reasonably have been expected to believe in the prophets. Genuine belief, however, would have required his accepting the evidence in the writings of the prophets that pointed to Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ. (26:27)
Manuscripts vary in the way they represent Agrippa’s response, and this, in part, explains the reason for numerous renderings. “With a little more of your persuasion you will make a Christian of me.” (REB) “A little more, and your arguments would make a Christian of me.” (NJB) “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” (NKJV) “You will soon persuade me to play the Christian.” (NAB) “With but [such] little persuasion you are attempting to make me a Christian.” (Wuest) “Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?” (NRSV) “In such a short time do you think you can talk me into being a Christian?” (CEV) Paul’s response includes the words “in little or in great,” which could mean “in a short time or in a long time”; or “with little more or much more persuasion.” (26:28, 29)
Whether relating to time or persuasion, however, is not the main aspect of Paul’s reply. He hoped to God that not only Agrippa but all who were then listening to him would come to be as he then was (a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ), with the exception of their being without the bonds or chains that he had as a prisoner. (26:29)
Agrippa stood up and so did Festus, Bernice, and those who had been seated with them. (26:30) As they were leaving the audience hall, they commented to one another that the accused man had done nothing meriting death or confinement. (26:31) To Festus, Agrippa said, “This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.” With Paul’s appeal to the emperor, the case no longer remained under their judicial authority, and their evaluation of the testimony indicated that the Jewish authorities had no basis for claiming that Paul deserved to be executed. (26:32)
Notes:
Verses 10 and 11 merely summarize what Paul did. Neither in the Acts account nor in any of his letters is mention made of any foreign cities where he carried out a campaign of persecution. His journey to Damascus had as its objective to persecute disciples of Jesus Christ, and there is a possibility that the reference to persecuting Jesus’ disciples “in outside cities” may be understood of Paul’s intent to take his campaign of persecution far beyond Jerusalem.
In verse 14, a number of manuscripts add that, “because of fear,” all fell down.
Elsewhere the Acts account (9:19-22, 26-29) makes reference to Paul’s activity in Damascus and Jerusalem. Neither in the book of Acts nor in any of Paul’s letters, however, does one find another comment about his preaching to people from “all the country of Judea.” (26:20) As in the case of the apostles in Jerusalem, it would have been in the temple precincts that Paul proclaimed the message about Jesus Christ and the need for repentance. This would have made it possible for him to preach to Jews from all over Judea, as they came to the temple for worship. Accordingly, his sharing the message with people from all over Judea would not have required his personally traveling to all parts of the land.
In view of the acceptance of his appeal to Caesar, Paul had to sail to Italy. Likely Festus designated the centurion Julius to be in charge of Paul and certain other prisoners. Julius is identified as being speíres Sebastés, variously translated “of the Augustan Cohort” (NJB, NRSV, REB), “of the Cohort Augusta” (NAB), “who belonged to the Imperial Regiment” (NIV), “who served in the emperor’s army” (NCV), and “from the Emperor’s special troops.” (CEV) A cohort consisted of one tenth of a legion (between 400 and 600 men making up a cohort), but there is considerable uncertainty about the nature and size of the military division to which Julius belonged. (27:1)
It appears that no ship then anchored at Caesarea was directly en route to Italy. The vessel Paul and the others boarded was from Adramyttium, a port on the northwestern coast of Asia Minor. On its apparent return voyage from Caesarea, this boat was to stop at various ports. At one of the harbors, all persons traveling to Italy were to board another ship that would take them there. (27:2)
The reference to “us” in verse 1 indicates that Luke accompanied Paul, as did Aristarchus, the Macedonian from Thessalonica who had traveled with the apostle to Jerusalem. Possibly Luke and Aristarchus had been able to arrange to join Paul as a prisoner by representing themselves as his servants, which they were from the standpoint that they had labored in advancing Christ’s cause as the apostle’s assistants. (27:2)
The next day the ship arrived at Sidon, about 80 miles (c. 130 kilometers) north of Caesarea. Whether the ship then anchored at Sidon to load or unload cargo is not stated in the account. Julius revealed his kindly disposition toward Paul, granting him the liberty to go to his friends (fellow believers) in the city and to enjoy their hospitality. The Greek term for what Paul would be receiving from his friends is epiméleia, meaning “care” or “attention,” and could include their supplying him with whatever he may have needed. (27:3)
The Greek word hypopléo denotes to “sail under the lee of” an island. With the contrary winds doubtless blowing from the west, the ship captain would have chosen a course north of the island of Cyprus. When heading to eastern locations (in the opposite direction), ships would have sailed to the south of the island. (27:4; compare 21:3 and see the Notes section.)
Coming from the east, the ship sailed across the sea south of the region of Cilicia and the neighboring Roman province of Pamphylia in Asia Minor and then (“fifteen days” later, according to a number of manuscripts) arrived at Myra in Lycia. The city of Myra was situated inland. Strabo, in his Geography (XIV, iii, 7) wrote, “Then one comes to Myra, at a distance of twenty stadia above the sea, on a lofty hill.” The nearby harbor (Andriace) appears to have served as a major port for transshiping grain to Rome and other regions of the Roman Empire. Much of the grain came from Egypt. (27:5; see Myra for pictures of and comments about Myra and Andriace.)
In the harbor, the centurion Julius found an “Alexandrian ship” on which Paul and the others could sail to Italy, and he had them go on board. The later reference to lightening the ship by casting the wheat into the sea (verse 38) indicates that this vessel must have been a grain ship. Alexandria, Egypt, lay directly south of Myra. On account of the westerly winds, grain ships from Egypt may have sailed northward first and then navigated westward, taking advantage of the more favorable route along the coast of Asia Minor. The “Alexandrian ship” may have been anchored at the port of Myra on its usual course from Alexandria. Another possibility is that the ship had not been able to continue the voyage to Rome because of unfavorable weather conditions. (27:6; See ships for pictures of ancient Roman vessels.)
The progress of the ship from the harbor of Myra proved to be very slow because of contrary winds. With good sailing conditions, the ship could have reached Cnidus (Knidos) in one day, but a considerable number of days passed before the ship approached the southwest corner of Asia Minor, where Cnidus is situated on the Datça Peninsula. Probably a northwest wind made it impossible to continue navigating westward and so the vessel sailed southward toward the eastern extremity of the island of Crete. Salmone is commonly thought to be Cape Sidero. (27:7; see Crete for pictures of and comments about the island.)
The words “with difficulty sailing along it” (mólis te paralegómenoi autén) could relate to sailing around the cape (Salmone) or along the southern coast of the island. A number of translations are explicit in rendering the Greek text to mean the coast. (27:8) “Then, as the wind continued against us, off Salmone we began to sail under the lee of Crete, and, hugging the coast, struggled on to a place called Fair Havens.” (REB) “We sailed under the lee of Crete off Cape Salmone and struggled along the coast until we came to a place called Fair Havens.” (NJB) “With yet more difficulty we sailed along the coast.” (HCSB) “We went slowly along the coast.” (CEV)
The ship finally came to Fair Havens, “near the city of Lasea.” Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (Book IV, chapter 20), mentions “Lasos” (probably Lasea) as one of “the more remarkable cities of Crete.” The ancient city is thought to have been at a site not far to the east of Fair Havens, a bay situated about 5 miles (c. 8 kilometers) from the southernmost location of Crete known as Cape Matala. The modern Greek name for this bay is Kaloi Limniones (Fair Havens [the same designation as the ancient Greek name]). (27:8; see Kaloi Limines for pictures of Fair Havens.)
Contrary winds had slowed progress considerably, and the ship appears to have remained anchored at Fair Havens for some time. Possibly the time spent at Fair Havens was on account of waiting for more favorable sailing conditions. It was then, however, not a good time for an attempt to sail to another location. The “Fast” (the Day of Atonement [on Tishri (mid-September to mid-October)] 10, the observance of which included fasting) had already passed. Weather conditions made navigation hazardous. Therefore, when consideration was being given to sail to a better harbor on the island for wintering, Paul advised against it. Although he was a prisoner, he may have been regarded with respect on account of being a Roman citizen, and this may, in part, explain why he could freely offer his recommendation. (27:9, 10)
Paul had experienced dangers at sea, including shipwrecks. (2 Corinthians 11:25, 26) Apparently speaking from firsthand knowledge, he recommended remaining at Fair Havens, for setting sail would prove to be hazardous, with resultant loss of the cargo, the ship, and the lives of those on board. (27:10; see the Notes section.) The centurion Julias, however, decided to take the advice of the shipmaster (kybernétes) and the shipowner (naúkleros). The Greek designation kybernétes applies to the shipmaster who chose the crew, whereas the naúkleros selected the shipmaster. (27:11)
This particular vessel appears to have been in the service of the Roman state, which is indicated by the role of the centurion making the decision not to act on Paul’s recommendation. Therefore, the naúkleros likely was a contractor responsible for transporting grain in the service of Rome. As the man with the highest rank on a ship in the service of Rome, the centurion would have been the one whose word was final. (27:11)
The majority did not consider Fair Havens to be a good winter harbor, probably because it did not seem well enough protected from wind. They favored leaving what appeared to them as an unsuitable location and hoped to reach Phoenix, remaining anchored there for the winter. Phoenix is described as a “harbor of Crete” that looked “toward the southwest and toward the northwest.” If Phoenix is correctly identified as being Loutro (Lutro), the Greek text could be understood to mean that the harbor faces the direction in which the southwest and the northwest winds blow. This is so because the harbor at Loutro faces eastward, not westward. (27:12; see Loutro for pictures.)
When a south wind began to blow moderately, the majority thought that they would be successful in reaching Phoenix. The voyage commenced, with the ship sailing close to the Cretan coast. (27:13)
Soon, however, conditions changed. Apparently after the vessel passed the southernmost point of Crete (Cape Matala) and was much farther away from land, a “fierce” (typhonikós) northeasterly wind known as “Euroaquilo” began to batter the ship, forcing it off course. This wind likely would have been a gregale, which can blow continuously from one or two days up to as many as five days and is accompanied by showers. This strong wind can attain hurricane force. The Greek adjective typhonikós does, in fact, describe a wind that is a typhoon or a hurricane. The designation “Euraquilo” (euroakýlon, which is the reading with the superior manuscript support) identifies the wind as from the “east” (Latin, eurus) and “north” (Latin, aquilo). (27:14)
The crew could not sail the storm-tossed ship in the desired direction, but had to allow the gale to drive it south toward the island of Cauda (Gavdos). When the ship came under the shelter of the island’s southern coast (apparently approaching from the east), the crew took advantage of the reduced force of the wind. To a line at the stern of the ship, a skiff had been attached. This small boat was used to reach the shore whenever the ship remained anchored near the coast. It may have been filled with a considerable quantity of water and had to be hauled out of the water to prevent it from becoming completely swamped or wrecked. With considerable difficulty, the crew (possibly also with the assistance of others, including Luke [“we hardly were able to take control”]) succeeded in getting control of the skiff. (27:15, 16) After the skiff had been hauled up, the crew undergirded the ship to better withstand the force of wind and waves. From one side of the hull to the other, they would have passed ropes or chains under the hull and then fastened them to the deck. Fearing that the gale would drive the ship aground on the Syrtis, they “lowered the gear.” In this case, the “Syrtis” probably is to be understood as meaning the treacherous sandbanks of the Gulf of Sidra (Sirte) on the northern coast of Africa. (27:17)
The context is not specific enough to determine what was involved in lowering the “gear” (skeúos). The Greek word skeúos, depending on the context, can designate equipment, a vessel, a container, a utensil, an instrument, a weapon, an item, an object, or a thing. Perhaps the reference is to the lowering of everything possible that projected from the deck and which the wind could strike. James Smith, in The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, includes a quotation relating to a parallel situation, “Such exertions were made that, before morning, every stick that could possibly be struck was down upon the deck.” Commenting on the last two Greek words in verse 17, he concluded, “When we are told that ‘they were thus borne along,’ hoútos ephéronto, that it was not only with the ship undergirded and made snug, but that she had storm sails set, and was on the starboard tack, which was the only course by which she could avoid falling into the Syrtis.” (27:17)
The next day brought no relief from the gale, and the ship continued to be tossed about violently. Therefore, to increase the vessel’s buoyancy, the crew (possibly with the assistance of passengers) began to cast items overboard to lighten the ship. (27:18)
There is uncertainty about what was tossed overboard on the third day. As in verse 17, the Greek word is skeúos. The expression autócheir describes action undertaken “with one’s own hand.” In the context, this suggests that the cooperative effort required many hands. Therefore, James Smith reasoned that, in this case, the skeúos could have designated the main yard, “an immense spar, probably as long as the ship, which would require the united efforts of passengers and crew to launch overboard.” (27:19)
Weather conditions did not improve. For many days, neither the sun nor the stars could be seen, and the ship continued to be at the mercy of unfavorable wind. With no indication of relief from the dire circumstances, the passengers and crew gave up all hope of being saved. (27:20)
The crew and passengers must have been exhausted, seasick, and sleep deprived. No one would have felt like eating. After numerous days had gone by without anyone’s partaking of nourishment, Paul stood up in their midst to provide encouragement. Probably to stress that what he was about to tell them should be taken seriously, he reminded them that they should have heeded his advice not to set out from Crete and thus to have avoided damage and loss. (27:21)
He recommended that they cheer up, ceasing to be discouraged and downcast, for not “one soul” among them would perish. Only the ship would be lost. (27:22) Paul then explained the reason for his confidence. That night an angel of the God to whom he belonged and whom he served had stood by him. (27:23) This angel said to him, “Fear not, Paul, for you must stand before Caesar, and, see, God has given you all those sailing with you.” In view of God’s purpose for Paul to bear witness concerning his Son before the highest human authority in the then-known world, the lives of all were to be saved. God would give them to Paul from the standpoint that they would live on his account. (27:24; compare Genesis 18:23-32.)
God’s message conveyed through the angel was the basis for the apostle’s exhortation for all to cheer up or to be of good courage. With unshakable confidence in the certain fulfillment of the words the angel had spoken to him, Paul continued, “I trust in God that it will occur just as I have been told.” (27:25) All of the crew and passengers were to expect to be cast ashore on an island. (27:26)
On the fourteenth night of drifting on a storm-tossed sea, the sailors, at midnight, suspected that they were approaching land. The sea of “Adria” appears to have included what is presently known as the Adriatic Sea, the Ionian Sea, and the waters of the Mediterranean Sea between Sicily and Crete. Possibly the sailors perceived the sound of breakers dashing against the rocky coast, making them aware that land was near.(27:27)
The crew then took soundings (probably using a specially designed lead weight of about 11 pounds [c. 5 kilograms] and with a sturdy lug to which a rope had been attached) and found the depth to be 20 fathoms (c. 120 feet [c. 36 meters]). (See sounding weight for a picture.) Basing his conclusions on a ship coming from the east and the location being what has been called St. Paul’s Bay under the then-existing conditions, James Smith estimated that, about a half hour later, the sailors found the depth to be 15 fathoms (c. 90 feet [c. 27 meters]). (27:28; See St. Paul’s Bay for pictures of the bay at Malta.)
Fearing that the ship might be dashed against a rocky shore, the sailors dropped four anchors from the stern, and anxiously waited for daylight to come. (27:29) “The proximate cause of anchoring,” James Smith observed, “was no doubt that assigned by St. Luke, namely the fear of falling on the rocks to leeward; but they had also an ulterior object in view, which was to run the ship ashore as soon as daylight enabled them to select a spot where it could be done with a prospect of safety; for this purpose the very best position in which an ancient ship could be, was to be anchored by the stern.”
While the sailors did everything possible at that time of the night to prevent a total disaster, this did not assure their personal safety. Paul appears to have remained vigilant, carefully observing what the sailors did. They began lowering the skiff, pretending to let down anchors from the bow (which act would not have afforded any possible advantage). Their real objective was to escape in the skiff when the circumstances made it possible. (27:30)
Paul spoke up quickly, telling the centurion Julius and the soldiers under his command, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.” The nautical skills of the sailors were absolutely essential for getting the vessel to the shore. (27:31) To prevent the sailors from escaping, the soldiers cut the ropes to which the skiff was attached, setting the small boat adrift. (27:32)
Close to daybreak, Paul urged everyone to partake of food. It was then the fourteenth day since they had not eaten. During this time they had been anxiously waiting, worried about their fate. In their state of suspense, they had continued to abstain from food. (27:33) So it was in their best interests to eat. This would be for their “deliverance,” as the nourishment would give them the needed strength to safely make their way from the ship. Paul then reassured them, “No one of you will lose the hair from [your] head.” This idiomatic expression indicated that every single one of them would survive. (27:34)
He then set the example. Taking bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of everyone, broke off a piece of bread, and began to eat. (27:35) His confidently expressed words and example appear to have breathed new life into everyone. They were cheered or felt encouraged and started to partake of food. (27:36)
According to what appears to be the superior manuscript evidence, the number of “souls” or persons on board was 276. Other manuscripts, including those of ancient translations, read “about 76,” “176,” “270,” “275,” “522,” and “876.” (27:37)
After everyone had eaten sufficiently, the portion of wheat that had not been jettisoned earlier to lighten the ship was then cast overboard. The reduced weight would have served to facilitate beaching the ship. (27:38)
When morning came, the sailors did not recognize the land, but did see a bay with a beach. On this beach, they, if possible, wanted to run the ship aground. (27:39)
They released the ship from the four anchors that they had dropped from the stern during the night, leaving them in the sea. The crew “loosed the lashings of the rudders.” Regarding the rudders, James Smith commented in a footnote, “Ancient ships were steered by two large paddles, one on each quarter. When anchored by the stern in a gale, it would be necessary to lift them out of the water and secure them by lashings or rudder-bands.” With the ship no longer anchored but prepared for beaching, the lashings needed to be loosened. (27:29, 40)
With the cables attached to the anchors having been cut, the rudder lashings loosed, and the “foresail” (the probable meaning of artémon) hoisted to the wind, the crew made for the beach. (27:40) According to a literal reading of the Greek text, the ship then “fell into a place of two seas.” (27:41) James Smith drew the following conclusion regarding this development: “From the entrance of the bay, where the ship must have been anchored, [the crew] could not possibly have suspected that at the bottom of it there should be a communication with the sea outside; this unexpected circumstance naturally attracted the attention of the author [Luke], and served to mark the spot where the ship was wrecked. Selmoon Island [Selmonetta], which separated the bay from the sea on the outside, is formed by a long rocky ridge, separated from the mainland by a channel of not more than a hundred yards [c. 100 meters] in breadth.” He reasoned that it must have been near this channel that the sailors ran the ship aground.
The bow of the ship got immovably stuck, and the powerful waves began to dash the stern to pieces. (27:41) The conditions at St. Paul’s Bay fit this development. “The rocks of Malta,” James Smith wrote, “disintegrate into extremely minute particles of sand and clay, which, when acted upon by the currents or by surface agitation, form a deposit of tenacious clay.” In view of where the ship would have encountered the clay, it is understandable why the bow became stuck. James Smith continued, “In Admiral Smyth’s chart of the bay, the nearest soundings to the mud indicate a depth of about three fathoms [c. 18 feet (c. 5.4 meters)], which is about what a large ship will draw. A ship, therefore, impelled by the force of a gale into a creek with a bottom such as that laid down in the chart, would strike a bottom of mud graduating into tenacious clay, into which the fore part would fix itself and be held fast, whilst the stern was exposed to the force of the waves.”
The soldiers feared that the prisoners might swim away and escape, leading to their being held accountable and liable for severe punishment. Therefore, they planned to kill them. (27:42)
The centurion Julius, however, wanted to preserve Paul’s life and stopped them from carrying out their plan. He commanded all who could swim to jump overboard and be the first to make their way to land. (27:43) He ordered the rest to use boards and other pieces from the ship to help them get ashore. So in this manner and by swimming, all made it safely to land. (27:44)
Notes
James Smith, in The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, quoted the words of a French navigator who similarly encountered contrary winds (verse 4) in the vicinity of Cyprus. “The winds from the west, and consequently contrary, which prevail in these places during the summer, forced us to run to the north. We made for the coast of Caramania (Cilicia) in order to meet the northerly winds, which we found accordingly.”
Comments that provide background material relating to the voyage from Caesarea to Rome are primarily drawn from St. Paul’s Voyage and Shipwreck by James Smith (first published in 1848, [with the last published edition (the fourth) appearing in 1880]. This work is that of an accomplished yachtsman who was well acquainted with the Mediterranean and the hazards a sailing ship would encounter. In view of its enduring value, the book has been reprinted repeatedly.
Based on the observations of his friend and relative George Brown and late surveys, James Smith commented on Paul’s advice (verse 10), “Fair Havens is so well protected by islands, that though not equal to Lutro [considered to have been Phoenix], it must be a very fair winter harbour; and that considering the suddenness, the frequency, and the violence with which gales of northerly wind spring up, and the certainty that, if such a gale sprang up in the passage from Fair Havens to Lutro, the ship must be driven off to sea, the prudence of the advice given by the master and owner was extremely questionable, and that the advice given by St. Paul may probably be supported even on nautical grounds.”
The information about the sounding weight is based on finds from ancient shipwrecks.
According to the Greek text, the vessel was shipwrecked on the island of “Melite,” commonly considered to be Malta (an island of about 120 square miles [over 300 square kilometers] and situated less than 60 miles [over 90 kilometers] south of Sicily.) After the entire crew and all the passengers had made it safely to land, they came to know the name of the island. (28:1)
It may well have been that at least some of the inhabitants of the island perceived that a shipwreck was inevitable, informed others, and started preparing for the arrival of survivors. The islanders proved to be exemplary in their love for fellow humans in need. From having been in the water, the survivors would have been cold and wet, and the cold, rainy weather would have added to their discomfort. The people welcomed the survivors and had them warm themselves alongside a bonfire. The Greek word relating to the starting of the fire is a participial form of anápto in the aorist tense, which tense commonly relates to a past event. So it is likely that the bonfire had been started before the first survivors arrived. (28:2; see the Notes section.)
The Greek term that describes the inhabitants of the island is bárbaroi (literally, “barbarians”). In this context, it refers to people who did not speak Greek and does not have the derogatory sense commonly associated with the term “barbarian.” The islanders may have spoken Punic, an extinct Semitic language. As ships from various parts of the Mediterranean region might anchor there when sailing proved to be hazardous (28:11), it is likely that at least some of the people on the island would have been able to speak Greek (which continued to be the major language in the Greco-Roman world), and so there would have been no problem with communication. (28:2)
Paul busied himself in doing his part in keeping the fire burning, gathering sticks to add to the fire. While he was in the process of placing a bundle of sticks on the fire, a viper emerged from the bundle on account of the heat and bit his hand. (28:3; see the Notes section.) When the islanders saw the snake (literally, “the beast”) hanging from Paul’s hand, they superstitiously concluded that he must have been a murderer who made it to safety from the sea but whom “justice” (díke) did not allow to continue living. In Greek mythology, Dike (Dice) was the goddess of justice, but whether the inhabitants of Malta would have believed in this deity is questionable. (28:4)
Paul shook the creature (“the beast”) into the fire and did not experience the swelling that the islanders expected. As they waited, thinking that he would suffer and die, and no harm came to him, they concluded that he must be a “god.” (28:5, 6)
Of the islanders, Publius is called the “first [one],” which could simply mean that he was the most prominent man or that he had the foremost official position, but the Greek term does not provide a basis for any definitive identification. He appears to have been a nearby landowner with considerable means. The account says, “He, in a friendly manner, received us for three days.” This suggests that he accommodated the entire group from the shipwrecked vessel. (28:7; see the Notes section.)
At the time, the father of Publius was confined to bed with a fever and dysentery. Paul went to see him, laid his hands on him, and prayed over him. The sick man was then cured. (28:8) News of this miracle apparently spread quickly around the island, and afflicted inhabitants came to Paul to be healed. (28:9)
The reference to bestowing many “honors” (literally, “honored us with many honors”) may mean that the islanders did everything possible to make the survivors comfortable and generously cared for their needs. When the time came for the group to set sail on a vessel that had been anchored there during the winter, the people provided them with essential supplies. This was three months after the shipwreck. (28:10, 11)
Alexandria, Egypt, was the point of origin of the ship that had been anchored at the island. The vessel had the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux) as its figurehead. The twin deities Castor and Pollux were considered to be protectors of mariners. Possibly a representation of Castor was on one side of the bow, whereas that of Pollux was on the other side. (28:11)
Syracuse (Siracusa) on the southeastern coast of Sicily was the first place where the ship anchored. The reason for remaining there for three days is not mentioned in the account. (28:12) From Syracuse, the ship headed northward, reaching Rhegium (Reggio) in southern Italy. On the next day, a favorable southern wind made it possible to reach Puetoli (Pozzuoli), over 178 nautical miles (over 330 kilometers) to the north, “on the second day.” (28:13) At the harbor of Puetoli, the sea voyage ended. Perhaps because Paul had been instrumental in saving all on the shipwrecked vessel, the centurion Julius allowed him considerable freedom. In Puetoli, Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus located fellow believers who asked them to stay with them for seven days before continuing on their way toward Rome on foot. (28:14)
The account does not reveal how the “brothers” (fellow believers) to the north of Puteoli received news about Paul. Perhaps the community of believers at Puetoli sent a messenger northward soon after he and the others arrived, informing them that Paul would be on his way to Rome. At Appii Forum, a post station on the Roman highway known as the Appian Way (Via Appia) about 43 miles (nearly 70 kilometers) south of Rome, believers were on hand to greet Paul. Another group of believers met him at Three Taverns (“Three Inns,” CEV), about nine and a half miles (c. 15 kilometers) to the north of Appii Forum. When Paul saw the fellow believers who had traveled to meet him, it gave him courage, apparently regarding what lay ahead for him, and he thanked God. (28:15; see the Notes section. Also see Appian Way for pictures.)
After he arrived in Rome, Paul, with a soldier guarding him, was allowed to live by himself in rented quarters. (28:16) A longer text than the one contained in the earliest extant manuscripts adds other details. “Now when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard; but Paul was permitted to dwell by himself with the soldier who guarded him.” (28:16, NKJV)
Three days after his arrival in Rome, Paul invited the leading men of the Jewish community in the city to meet with him. When they had gathered, he addressed them as “brothers” (fellow Jews) and informed them that, although he had not done anything against his own people nor the customs of their ancestors, he, in Jerusalem, had been handed over as a prisoner to the Romans. In this non-accusatory manner, without mentioning the violence the Jews had directed against him, he explained how he came to be in the hands of the Romans. (28:17)
Regarding the outcome of the investigation undertaken by the Roman authorities, Paul said that they wanted to release him as they did not find him guilty of any crime meriting death. (28:18) The Jews, however, did not agree, making it necessary for him to appeal to Caesar. Paul added that he did not do so because of having an accusation against his own people. (28:19)
It was because he had no case against his fellow countrymen that Paul had asked to see the leaders of the Jewish community in Rome and to speak to them. He wanted them to know that his being a prisoner in chains was on account of “the hope of Israel.” This hope related to the Messiah or Christ and all the privileges and blessings that the people of Israel could come to enjoy through him. (28:20)
In view of their response, Paul must have said more about the Messiah, identifying him as Jesus and the one in whom he personally believed. He may also have mentioned the possibility of their having received some communication from Jerusalem concerning him. The Jewish leaders told him that they had received no letters from Judea about him nor had any of the “brothers” (fellow Jews) who had come from there made a bad report about him or spoken evil against him. (28:21)
Nevertheless, they considered it right to hear his thoughts because they knew the “sect” (haíresis) of believers in Jesus was spoken against everywhere. In itself, the Greek word haíresis, does not have the negative sense that is commonly associated with the English word “sect.” The Greek expression basically designated a group that adhered to certain distinctive beliefs (for example, the “sect of the Pharisees” [15:5] or the “sect of the Sadducees” ([5:17]). In view of what the prominent Jews said about the “sect,” they appear to have believed that it was generally regarded as a heretical Jewish sect. (28:22)
The leading representatives from the Jewish community arranged for another day to meet with Paul. At the preappointed time, a larger number of Jews came to his quarters, and he presented his testimony about the “kingdom of God,” using the law of Moses and the prophets to point to Jesus. Paul continued speaking from morning until evening. In his comments about the “kingdom of God,” Paul must have identified Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ, the King through whom God ruled as Sovereign. He doubtless explained how individuals would come to be part of that realm by being forgiven of their sins on the basis of Jesus’ sacrificial death and then fully reconciled to God. (28:23)
Some of the Jews were persuaded to believe what Paul explained to them, but others were not. (28:24) Not being able to come to an agreement among themselves, those who had come to see him began to leave. Before they departed, Paul directed his words primarily to those who remained unconvinced by what he had called to their attention from the holy writings. “Rightly the holy spirit spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers [ancestors] [28:25)], saying, ‘Go to this people and say, “Hearing, you will hear and by no means understand; and looking, you will look and by no means see [28:26],” for the heart of this people has become thick, and with the ears they have heard heavily, and they have closed their eyes, lest they should see with the eyes, and hear with the ears, and understand with the heart, and turn, and I [YHWH] should heal them.’” (28:27)
The words Paul quoted were first directed to Isaiah at the time he received his commission to be YHWH’s prophet. Through the operation of God’s spirit upon him, Isaiah had this revealed to him in a vision. Accordingly, the quoted words from Isaiah 6:9 and 10 are appropriately attributed to the speaking of the holy spirit. Even though the message Isaiah was to proclaim to the people was not his own but the “word of YHWH,” they would not pay any attention to it. They would not repent and return to YHWH, abandoning conduct that he disapproved. (Isaiah 1:10-20) They would deliberately shut their eyes and stop up their ears, with their “heart” (either meaning their minds or their inmost selves) remaining unresponsive to the message Isaiah would be proclaiming to them. Because of refusing to turn back from the error of their ways and repentantly to return to YHWH, he would not heal them or restore them to a good relationship with him. (28:25-27)
Paul recognized that the disposition among the Jews who refused to believe proved to be the same as that among the people in the time of Isaiah. They heard the evidence Paul presented, which evidence identified Jesus as the foretold Messiah or Christ, but they closed their ears to the proof. From their own holy writings, which he called to their attention, they should have been able to see that Jesus was the prophet like Moses and the permanent heir of King David of the tribe of Judah, the anointed one who (like David) was born in Bethlehem. (Genesis 49:9, 10; Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Micah 5:2) The holy writings indicated that the Messiah would be anointed with God’s spirit, perform miracles, suffer, die for the sins of the people, be resurrected from the dead, come to be exalted at the right hand of God, and rule over all the nations in the capacity of king and priest. (Psalm 110:1, 2, 4; Isaiah 53:2-12; 61:1) The Jews who did not respond in faith did not hear and see because their “heart” had become thick. Mentally, they did not allow themselves to perceive the evidence that identified Jesus as the Christ. In their inmost self, they remained impervious to the message about him. They heard heavily, for the message just did not get through to them, and their eyes remained shut so that they did not see, not getting the sense of what their own sacred writings said about the Messiah. Therefore, the unbelieving Jews missed out on the healing available to them. They could have been completely forgiven of their sins by putting faith in Jesus and what his death for them had made possible, and thus they could have been restored to an approved standing before God as his beloved children. (28:26, 27)
Whereas the Jews who chose not to believe lost out on the “salvation of God” (the way in which they, through the Lord Jesus Christ, could have been delivered from sin and the condemnation to which sin leads), Paul let them know that the message about this salvation had been sent out to the non-Jewish nations, and the non-Jews would listen to it. (28:28; see the Notes section regarding verse 29.)
For two whole years, Paul stayed in his own rented quarters. Although continuing to be guarded by a soldier (with the individual soldiers apparently doing so in shifts), he was at liberty to receive guests. (28:16, 30)
Paul welcomed all who came to him and used the opportunity to speak about the “kingdom of God” and to teach “things regarding the Lord Jesus Christ,” doing so with “boldness” or firm conviction and “without hindrance.” When it came to speaking about the realm where God is recognized as Sovereign and rules by means of his Son and other truths about the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul enjoyed complete freedom. No obstacle was placed in the way of his being able to express himself freely about Jesus Christ. (28:30, 31; see the Notes section.)
Notes:
Rain can douse a fire, but it is still possible to start and keep a fire going when it is raining. There is no reason for believing that the islanders did not know a good location for starting a fire (verse 2) and keeping it going while it was raining, especially since they were far more dependent on fire for their needs than we are today.
In recent centuries, vipers (verse 3) have not been indigenous to the island of Malta. This should not be surprising, for human activity is often responsible for the extinction of reptiles and other animals.
In verse 7, translators have often been explicit in identifying Publius as having occupied an official position. “In that neighbourhood there were lands belonging to the chief magistrate of the island, whose name was Publius.” (REB) “The governor of the island was named Publius, and he owned some of the land around there.” (CEV) “There was an estate nearby that belonged to Publius, the chief official of the island.” (NIV) Other translators have been less specific in their reference to Publius. “There were some fields around there owned by Publius, an important man on the island.” (NCV) “Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the leading man of the island, named Publius.” (NRSV) “In that neighbourhood there were estates belonging to the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius.” (NJB)
The Roman poet Horace (in Satire I, v) described Appii Forum (verse 15) as “crowded with sailors and nasty innkeepers.” He also complained about the water, which he considered to be of the worst quality.
The quotation in verses 26 and 27 is basically the same as the Septuagint text of Isaiah 6:9, 10.
The oldest extant manuscripts do not contain the words of verse 29, and modern translations generally do not include them. “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves.” (NKJV)
The manner in which the account ends (verses 30 and 31) provides strong circumstantial evidence that it is a contemporary history. If it had been known at the time just how matters turned out for Paul in connection with his appeal to Caesar, this would reasonably have been included. The fact that the account ends without such information suggests that it was written before the apostle made his defense before Caesar.